www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox steps toward full communion with Rome

I would be interested in hearing about efforts within various Orthodox jurisdictions (Moscow, Antioch, etc.) to accomplish full communion with Rome.

Interesting question.
I too wonder if the Ecumenical dialogue for unity that PJP II and HAH EP Bartholomew I talk about goes on as often as we hope.
Will it take a General (Ecumenical) Council to get the ball rolling.
Can they not both make a list of points that they feel needs discussed and sit around a table and "duke" it out ?

Brad

I think what the Holy Father and EP Bartholomew are in agreement when they last met in Rome is for the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" to "resuscitate" this fledgling endeavor, which produced the much-maligned (by certain Orthodox jurisdictions) "Balamand Agreement."

If you will recall, the Joint Commission's last meeting in July 2000 in Baltimore, Maryland was adjourned in rancor without any substantial consideration of pending items in the agenda.

Fortunately, "The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation" has been relatively "busier" and has borne more fruits as shown at:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/dialogues.htm

The International Commission for Catholics and Oriental Orthodox appears to be less contentious; in fact, the first official meetings of this Commission were reportedly very cordial.

Amado

Before any agreements would be put into effect, the major Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs would need to have consulted with one another and come to agreement, no small task in itself. The Ecumenical Patriarch takes the lead in this, one of his unique functions.

The logical progression would be for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to formally reestablish communion prior to Eastern and Western Christians. The differences between the former pair are purely "ecclesial/territorial" and "historical" at this point.

The discussions between RC and EO, while having reached great understanding over the filioque, will inevitably bump up against the other three major stumbling blocks as seen from the Orthodox viewpoint:

Dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos
Dogmatization of the Bodily Assumption of the Theotokos
Dogmatization of Papal infallibility ex cathedra

And some stumbling blocks as seen from the Latin viewpoint:

Rejection of Transubstantiation
Provision for divorce and remarriage.
Lack of strictly-defined prohibition on artificial, but non-abortifacient, conception control.

It will be an effort that will require much patience from both sides and, ultimately, a Latin redefinition of their three dogmata and a more sharply-defined and universal Orthodox position on artificial conception control. Jointly, they may need come to a unified statement on "the dissolution of marriages" that would engage both the issues of divorce and annullment.

I often like to think that this charitable and learned forum is contributing to a better understanding of these divergencies as part of the most important work toward reunion.

In Christ,
Andrew

Here is what I think is the bigger problem. Regardless of what these various consultations and meetings produce, they are meaningless without "grass roots" support. History has shown that union has "happened" on the conciliar level, but was DOA when presented to the people.

The real issue is the desire for union. As long as many Catholics and Orthodox don't care about reunion, it just won't happen.

Personally, I think lay initiatives between Catholics and Orthodox on the lay level will do more to bring about unity than any "official" gatherings. Parish-level activity between Orthodox and Catholics can bear much fruit. Not that the official gatherings should be abandoned, but they should realize how dependent they are on grass roots acceptance.

The acceptance at the grass-roots level is very important. That is why the Catholic-Orthodox dialog often includes as part of its recommendation better education among the laypeople on its decisions. "Decisions" is not ambiguous from the OO perspective, though it might be from the EO perspective, because our representatives to such colloquies normatively are invested with the authority of the participating Churches, whereas the EO representatives must await confirmation from their respective Churches, especially on the lay level.

Regarding unity between the OO and EO, it is true that we are closer to unity than between the OO and CC, and between the EO and CC, but there is still one theological hurdle, not merely ecclesiastical and historical. It is with regards to what certain parties in the OO consider the "deficient" Christology of the Leonine Tome, which was the basis of the decisions of the Chalcedonian Sixth Ecumenical Council. The EO defense of Pope Leo and his Christology is very impressive, and I, for one, agree that the difference in this theological point can be cleared up in the same manner that the other Christological issues have been cleared up between the EO, OO and CC.

I don't see the Marian dogmas as insurmountable, nor the papal dogmas. Much has to do with the language of the texts, but I think if we look deeper - into the theology behind the texts - agreement will come all the more easier.

Personally, I think Rome is dragging its feet somewhat on these issues that can easily be resolved with official explanations. Many theologians have already laid the groundwork, theologians faithful to the Traditions of the Catholic Church, and Rome needs to be more attentive to them. Of course, I do not want to seem like I am laying sole blame on Rome for "dragging her feet." On the issue of the Filioque, for instance, the Orthodox are the ones "dragging our feet."

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that an even great issue has often been neglected in the whole approach to healing the wounds in the Body of Christ.

We seem to focus on the issues of the past--theological, historical, etc. And they are important.

But we seem to miss the fact that we are all under assault from highly motivated people both within and without who are on a mission to make us all marginalized, if not eradicated or forced underground. The problems our brethren have experienced in Europe and elsewhere, posted on other threads, bear witness to this.

We must forge a common approach to the problem of persecution, both of those who are in small minorities in countries around the world and of us who live in what we still tell ourselves are Christan countries. And we have to take the approach that when one of us is attacked we all are attacked. This second area of being in communion is something that can be done now. And as long as it isn't, we can continue to be divided and marginalized.

In Christ,

BOB

Francis, I think you nailed it on the head. All of the church leadership in the world can put heads together, but there does indeed need to be grass roots. The question I then ask, what is the proper way to get to UNION by utilizing both the hierarchs and the masses?

Cyril, in the West but faces East

I think we have to look to see how the schism occurred to see how reunion can happen. For a period of many centuries the East and West grew apart - they stopped knowing each other. So they didn't even have the first idea on how to discuss theology or other Church issues. We have just begun the process of getting to know one another over the past 50 years. I think honestly that we will have to take the centuries necessary to become aquainted again. Then, and only then, will "official" reunion attempts be successful. I think this forum is one small way that this "getting to know one another" is happening.

Of course, persecution can accelerate this process. If the world continues to increase it's attacks on the Faith, then I think Catholics and Orthodox will be forced into closer relations at every level. I know that the prolife movement in this country did more for ecumenism than any official attempt by any heirarchy or leadership. When marauders are at the door, you quickly stop quarrelling with your brothers to defend the house.

Amen to that- and marauders ARE at the door!

Marya

And the door is hanging precariously from one hinge.

There's enough here for several threads.

Just wondering...how did transubstantiation make this list?

From the Catholic POV there is no real difference in belief on the Eucharist between Catholic and Orthodox. I have never seen this listed as a subject for discussion in the official dialogues.

Dear DTBrown,

I'm not sure if Transubstantiation has ever been included on official discussion agendae, however, it may be eventually included.

As far as I understand neither East nor West has dogmatized their position, thus the difference discussed below may not be considered important enough to preclude union. I would think that if agreement were reached on all other points, that it would not (preclude union).


Transubstantiation teaches that the offered elements of bread and wine change in essence/substance to become the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Only the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. No real bread and wine are consumed by the communicants.

Eastern thought has always held, using an "incarnational perspective," that through the consecration of the gifts, Christ becomes present in the bread and wine. Thus what is consumed is fully both the bread & body of Christ and the wine & blood of Christ. They are together, inseparable but without confusion.

When two things are cast together to make a new reality, we call them, in theological language, a symbol (syn + bolon). Just as the God-Man is a symbol, so is the eucharist.

This is not a symbol in the modern sense of the word, but in its ancient root meaning.

At the Incarnation (the Feast of the Annunciation) God who is divine also becomes man who is created. The uncreated assumes to Himself the created. The unknowable takes on the character of being known.

Thus our God can now be known intimately. The Apostles and disciples knew Him as He wept when he learned that His friend Lazarus died. They knew Him when He raged at the moneychangers in the Temple, taking up a whip and chasing them out. Likewise, we know Him now through the eucharist in which He is fully present. We do it in remembrance of Him, recapitulating all that He has done for us at each eucharistic offering..."the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day...."

He comes, not to cast away the material world (humans, water, bread and wine), but to consecrate it and make it Holy (through His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, His baptism in the Jordan, His presence in the Eucharist).

So we remain in awe that God condescended to become a man and that He joins our humble offerings of bread and wine with His own precious body and blood. That is Love.

Some have called this description "consubstantiation." I just refer to it as the "incarnational perspective."

The reaction from some posters on this site to the Eastern perspective has sometimes been quite volatile, as if the explanation offered above was ginned up in my basement. (It wasn't.)

The difference with the Latin explanation, at a minimum, needs to be recognized if not reconciled, in any move toward union.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, both the Orthodox Confession of St. Peter Moghila and the Confession of Dositheus/proceedings of the Synod of Jerusalem take a definite transubstantive approach to describing the Eucharist.

To my knowledge neither the forumlas of Moghila nor Dositheus/Jerusalem has denounced nor significantly altered by any Orthodox local councils.

Andrew,

Have you been reading Cyril Lukaris?

It would, of course, be a mistake to use the word "transubstantiation" to refer to the Eastern view since it is reflects scholastic theology. However, the essence of that view--that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at Liturgy--is identical in East and West.

Let's go beyond Rome and Constantinople and look at how the Oriental Orthodox understand this great mystery. For example, from a Syrian Orthodox website, this is part of a dialogue between Ann (Syrian Orthodox) and a Protestant pastor:

http://www.stignatious.com/annseries/qurbana.htm

Similar with the Copts, the Assyrians, the Armenians, etc. The Christian East (both Chalcedonian Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox) holds to the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.