www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Oriental Orthodoxy & union

Dear Forum Members,
Praised be Jesus Christ!

In a conversation with an old monk who is a friend of mine, the Oriental Orthodox came up. I told him of the meetings that have been held between them & the Catholics/Eastern Orthodox, and how we both now realize we have the same beliefs, relations with them are much better, etc...
He also has studied the matter and basically responded to me that if everything is so "orthodoxy-hunky-dory" with the non-Chalcedonians, why don't we have union? What's still to do, or say-or mabey something is being left unsaid? Since we have signed these agreements, and believe the same thing, why can't they accept Chalcedon? If we accept their teaching, why can't they accept ours?

What do you think?

To a significant extent, what keeps the Oriental Orthodox from a full, formal recognition of Chalcedon is the weight of history and in some important instances the lack of availability of sufficient theological education. It's not so much a matter of theological differences as it is of fear of betrayal of their historical leadership. This can indeed be very painful as well as frightening. Such factors are often much more important to the Eastern Churches than we may realize.

Fr. Serge

.

Latin Catholics have not been known to be immune to this syndrome.

With deepest respect I want to ask why people feel that the Oriental Churches must come cap-in-hand to the (formerly) Imperial Churches and submit to their every demand? If this is the price of unity I really don't think it is ever going to happen. Not to mention the many Syriac Christians who were martyred after the Fourth Council, among others. Why doesn't the other side agree that the Faith articulated by the first three councils is sufficient to establish the orthodoxy of the Church?

I agree completely!

Nobody has asked the Oriental Churches to subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon. The Joint Christological Statements assert that they and the Chalcedonians share the same substantive understanding of the divine and human in Jesus Christ. There are, to my knowledge, no demands being made on the side of the Chalcedonians, so I have no idea what Thymiato means. I have, on more than one occasion, heard prominent Eastern Orthodox bishops refer to Orientals as "my fellow Orthodox", which is certainly more than I have heard them say about Greek Catholics.

@StuartK: I was referring to the "full, formal recognition of Chalcedon" mentioned above. Also the first post mentions that the Oriental Churches somehow do not accept the faith of the Chalcedonian side, when according to the agreed statements they do.

However, I have heard more than one Orthodox Bishop greet Greek Catholics as 'my dearest brothers and sisters' which may be more from the heart and the soul than a cold 'my fellow Orthodox.'

the first TWO!

Part of the problem here is that the bishops cannot simply declare reunion without the buy-in of the faithful. Otherwise, you end up with the infamous situation in which the stalwarts from each side reject the union, denounce the "uniates" and re-establish the "true" church--more intransigent than ever. We may hope that the idea of reunion has been promoted among the faithful, but I'd really be surprised it that's the case.

The situation is further complicated by the ongoing division between the OOC and the ACoE, as well as the ongoing division between Rome and Constantinople. Specifically, the OOC currently has offers of reunion from both Rome and Constantinople, but can't accept one without implicitly rejecting the other.

Then there's also the difficult political situation, which if anything, will tend to favor the status quo.

In other words, it's not as simple as it looks.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Actually, there are plenty of precedents for "mediated communion" (A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but C is not in communion with A, therefore A and C are in "mediated communion" through B).

The most significant example is the role played by the Church of Antioch in the schism of 1054: though Rome broke communion with Constantinople, and Constantinople reciprocated, both maintained communion with Patriarch Peter III of Antioch, who attempted to mediate the dispute (obviously, without success). As long as there were more than two Great Churches, such mediation was possible, and occurred with some regularity through the various disputes of the first millennium. However, by the first century of the second millennium, Rome and Constantinople were the only two "peer" Churches (in regard to wealth, power and influence).

Of the other Patriarchal Churches, only Antioch was truly independent and out from under Muslim domination. Of the other (Chalcedonian) Churches, most were mere rumps, minorities dominated by the non-Chalcedonian majorities in their territories, oppressed by the Muslims (who favored the non-Chalcedonians) and utterly dependent on Constantinople for financial and spiritual support). So, when Rome and Constantinople got into a spat, there were few independent Churches capable of making either see reason.

why we always speak of "union"? the target among EO CC OO ACoE shall be "intercommunion", not "union", the difference is not little.

However he stalwarts never change mind. We shall wait for a generation change, beginning from now to educate the new generations..

Actually, just "communion".

Agreed, communion is the goal.

In my experience, "intercommunion" is a rather odious term employed by Lutherans who want to receive Holy Commununion in the Catholic Church without accepting Catholic teaching about Christ, the Church or the Eucharist.

True, but here it was a case of maintaining the status quo, rather than attempting to forge a new one ...