www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Steps to Reunion

well, many that are often referred to here are pews, forced celibacy of clergy, removal of iconostasis, Saturday night liturgy.

A fundamental difference, though--Rome has repented of her error and is trying to make amends by prodding the Eastern Catholics to restore the fullness of their patrimony. That this has met with mixed results is more our fault than Rome's--like any addict, we first have to admit to ourselves that we have a problem, and as is perfectly clear from many of the responses, we aren't able to do that yet.

On the other hand, as so many Orthodox responses indicate, a lot of individual Orthodox (though not necessarily any or all particular Orthodox Churches, cannot conceive of how anything not Byzantine could be either Orthodox or orthodox. And the Orthodox hierarchs, with few exceptions, really do little to redress the issue.

.

No, we did that to ourselves. We shot ourselves in the foot (or maybe a bit higher than that). For more than a century, Rome has been telling the Eastern Catholics to restore the fullness of their Traditions, but the Eastern Catholics refuse to do so, for reasons outlined by Father Taft,

I don't consider myself Byzantine, and I don't subscribe to the ideas that there are "western" or "eastern" expressions of the faith in terms of theology that are either compatible or incompatible.

The only one of those that was ever imposed by Rome is the forced celibacy. That only applied to areas outside of the Patriarchal territories (whatever that means) and, to my knowledge, has since been rescinded. I believe it also only applied to the Ruthenians. Regardless, the Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians have all pretty much ignored that issue and ordained married men in the U.S. anyhow. That being said, many Byzantine bishops, here in the U.S. at least, are still hesitant to ordain married men to the priesthood. There is a married man in my parish, however, who is on his way to ordination. Presumably it will be a few years before he is ordained because I guess he has to be married for a minimum of 10 years.

The other issues you mention were never forced by Rome. Many Eastern Catholics living in the border countries of Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, etc. adopted them to "prove" their Catholicity and in order to distinguish themselves from Orthodoxy. This is the "uniate" mentality that has been consistently condemned by Rome. For a good read on the issue check out Cyril Korolevsky's "Uniatism" essay. It's a little dated and suffers somewhat from the uniate mentality, but it was revolutionary in its day.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever!


Mike, I know very well Orthodoxy is a conciliar Church, as I feel the Catholic Church is. I was Chrismated into Orthodoxy and for various reasons entered into Catholic Communion. But the question I raised is still valid. Who does speak for the Orthodox Church on the issue of ecumenism, and other important questions? It would seem to me that it is the Ecumenical Patriarch but I think the Patriarch of Moscow would object to that. How about Orthodoxy here in America? Is it SCOBA? Is it the OCA? The GOA? I think this is important and an issue that Orthodoxy needs to address. Perhaps through a Council but alas it does need to be addressed since there is a disagreement between different Orthodox Churches on important issues- like ecumenism.

This is why a universal primacy (not of jurisdiction but of love) is important in the Church, IMHO. And is the primary reason I entered into Communion with the Pope of Rome. Is that primacy perfect? No but at least the Roman Pontiffs are willing to discuss it and find a way that the Primacy of the Pope of Rome can serve the Church, east and west, as others have pointed out.

Just my thoughts

No one can "speak" for the church, because the church is an assembled entity and not an individual. When the church has spoken on matters of doctrine, it has done so as an assembly.

But it doesn't seem to me that Eastern's were bending over backwards to adopt latin customs while the Roman Church was trying to get them to stop at every turn.
There may have been cooperation from the Eastern Churches, but they certainly seem to have been encouraged from the west.

But as Fr. John Behr pointed out in his address at Orientale Lumen XIV, the Church cannot speak as an assembly unless someone calls the assembly. So who in Orthodoxy has the authority to call an assembly? The seven Ecumenical Councils were all called by the Emperor. Does this mean that an Ecumenical Council is no longer possible for Orthodoxy today because no Patriarch in Orthodoxy has the authority to call a general Council?

Also, what does Orthodoxy do with its differing opinions on artificial contraception, ecumenism, etc. Some jurisdiction condemn contraception as gravely sinful, others see no problem with it. Similarly some jurisdictions condemn ecumenism while others embrace it. So what does Orthodoxy actually teach with regards to these issues? What authority can an Orthodox Christian point to in order to say, "This is what the Orthodox Church teaches"?

Rome did oppose the Latinization of the Byzantine Churches every step of the way. As I've said, Rome's official teaching/policy has been consistent with regards to the Byzantine East.

In many ways the Eastern Catholics were bending over backwards to embrace Latin customs. They did this in order to gain acceptance by the (Latin) government officials. You have to remember that in the border countries of Eastern Europe Eastern Catholics were often martyred by the Roman brethren because the more they looked like the Orthodox, the more they were suspected of being "Russophiles". Embracing latinization was seen as the best way to prove one was "Catholic". But this was never the official policy of the Roman Church.

To my knowledge there is no exact definition of what it is that makes a council ecumenical, something that goes back to the time of the councils themselves. A Pan Orthodox synod can be called if need be by the bishop of Constantinople.


The issues you're talking about are dealt with by the local churches, largely as pastoral concerns. Doctrinal questions (i.e. what the church teaches) are found in the tradition of the church in various sources.

I should mention, I'm not playing the apologetics game. I'm not trying to convince anyone of the rightness of these points.

When the particular churches agree to hold an an assemebly then there there will be a council. In fact, there were assemblies occuring over the past few months on the local level called the Episcopal Assembly, This was in response to Chambesy and the particualr churches decision to convene and work out a game plan to clarify jirisdictional issues.


You want an Orthodox authority, Look to Christ, the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Saints.

I would argue that the Orthodox despite differences from local jurisdictions are more united in their teachings than the Catholic Church. Papal Supremeacy and a magisterium mean nothing. Look at the fruit of the Catholic Church with its wide range of opinion. There are as many ways to be Catholic as there are Catholics.


Catholics are free to believe what they want, but please do not expect the Orthodox Church to change in order to seek a false communion that they covet. If Catholics want Communion they know where we stand otherwise let us try to get along and worship in our own ways

A council is ecumenical not because of any extrinsic criteria, but because its teachings have been universally received, and everybody agrees it is ecumenical

I too am not playing the apologetics game. As Manuel will tell you, I'm not a fan of apologetics. I'm simply spouting out questions to which I've not been able to find a definitive answer.

According to Fr. John Behr, if the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to call a pan-Orthodox Synod, the his authority over Orthodoxy is no different than that of the Pope's over Catholicism. Again I encourage you to check out his talk from OL XIV. He's the dean at St. Vlad's, so he's about as Orthodox as they come. For me at least, he presented a "solution" that I think could be applied to the Bishop of Rome in a reunited Church. I'll have to go back and listen to his talk again myself.

You want an Orthodox authority, Look to Christ, the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Saints.

I would argue that the Orthodox despite differences from local jurisdictions are more united in their teachings than the Catholic Church. Papal Supremeacy and a magisterium mean nothing. Look at the fruit of the Catholic Church with its wide range of opinion. There are as many ways to be Catholic as there are Catholics.


Catholics are free to believe what they want, but please do not expect the Orthodox Church to change in order to seek a false communion that they covet. If Catholics want Communion they know where we stand otherwise let us try to get along and worship in our own ways

[/quote]

The Catholic Church equally looks to Christ, the Scripture, Tradition, and the saints. Perhaps your average church-going Catholic doesn't, but I assure you that when the Pope and the Magisterium (which means the bishops in communion with the Pope, not the Roman Curia) teach, they look to Christ, the Scriptures, Tradition, and the saints every bit as much as Orthodoxy does.

The illusion of disunity within Catholicism has nothing to do with Catholic teaching and everything to do with those who dissent from Catholic teaching as it is handed down to us through Scripture, Tradition, the saints, etc. By Catholic teaching I do not mean the various theologoumena of Rome, but that which is truly "catholic" in the Church's teaching.

I would ask that if you're going to make such sweeping statements against the Catholic Church, then please cite something that a Catholic (Roman or otherwise) would consider authoritative. Otherwise you're just adding to polemics that are based in perception, not fact.