www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation

I read and heard that Patriarch Gregory the III of the Melkite church is doing a good job of eccuminism with the Orthodox Coptic Church. He said that the Melkites are in full communion with Rome but now he wants full communion with the Orthodox Coptic Church as well. The Copts are listening to what he has to say with a lot of interest. Let's wait a bit and see what happens.
Maybe this will be the first example of inter-communion between the two churches and the rest may follow the example afterwards.
Lauro

This is not entirely correct. The Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage allows for marriage to be dissolved with the death of a spouse. (Then there is the Catholic practice of annulments.) Orthodoxy allows for an ecclesiastical divorce, which infers that the sacramental character of the marriage has been lost.

So you cannot really say "once married always married".

Dear Bisantino,

Yes, but a priest can be defrocked, become an apostate or an atheist . . .

Marriage, it is true, can be dissolved where priesthood cannot. "Get thee to a nunnery" actually refers to a way of dissolving a marriage - by the taking of nun's vows.

In this case, all things being equal, a marriage, in the Byzantine sense, not only lasts for life - after the death of the spouse, we believe that the bonds continue - even though remarriage is not forbidden.

Alex

Alex,

I'm sorry I'm not clear on your last point, but are you implying that the Orthodox believe the marital bond remains even after ecclesiastical divorce?

All things being equal the sacramental character of the Mystery of Orders is not lost eventhough the bishop, presbyter, or deacon apostasizes, is defrocked or becomes an atheist, nor can the Mystery be repeated. Orders cannot be dissolved. ("You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek"). Marriage is another matter...

Since this thread deals with Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation, how would the Catholic Church reconcile with the Orthodox practice of ecclesiatical divorce? And do the Orthodox have a problem with the practice of annulments?

John

Annulments (more properly termed Decrees of Nullity) aren't the divore of a truly Christian marriage. As I have understood it from the Catholic point of view (maybe I'm wrong) TRUE Christian and sacramental marriages where both parties fully understand "what they are getting into" are irreverseable. But I'm probably wrong, so someone englighten me.

ChristTeen287

Remie,

It is not so much ROCOR anymore as those groups that split off from them that have really gone to the deep end and see themselves as "Last Remnents" (groups like HOCNA and now, ROCIE) Metropolitan Fileret of Blessed Memory not to mention St John Maximovich of San Francisco (all ROCOR Hierarchs), would be aghast at these groups and how they present the Orthodox Faith.

Peace,
Brian

Lauro,

do you mean the Antiochian Orthodox Church? The Melkite Church had floated a proposal a few years ago to "reunite" with the AOC while maintaining communion with Rome. Although Rome's response was not positive, you have to give the Melkites credit for taking the initiative to restore communion. This Church tends to be at the forefront of reconciliation.

John

Probably the difference between the Orthodox practice of divorce and the Catholic anullments is that Latin Catholicism has a very developped system of laws and focuses a lot on the propper forms (they're very legalistic in some aspects).
The Orthodox Church accept re-marriage because of our human weakness and not in all cases. The anullments are given only in some cases too and for the same reason (human weakness, but in a complex system of laws, cases, situations, details). I don't think there's a problem with this.

This thread has some interesting pastoral questions (that it would be nice to see more of for the benefit of the Believers). Actually, the divorce situation is probably one of the ones that show the difference in the concept of the Sacramental Theology of the Church from Rome and Constantinople.

The Byzantine concept of marriage is tied to the Eucharist. Thus, when a Catholic married couple is Chrismated into Orthodoxy (the norm now, although some still receive Catholics and others rebaptize them), the marriage is recognized by the Orthodox Church by the joint reception of the Eucharist. I have heard of priests wanting to remarry the couple, (but I dare say that this is not the norm, at least I hope not).

The first marriage of a man and woman is the Sacramental one, and subsequent marriages are not performed with the joyous ceremony of a first. A second marriage also requires permission for service in Holy Orders (although parts of the Early Church treated widowers different than divorced men on this issue).

Basically speaking, marriages beyond the first for both people are treated by Orthodoxy as a kind of tolerated adultery (most particularly of divorcees). The Catholic concept of annulment is not there, the Church approves a divorcee's honor to approach the Cup of Salvation. The second marriage of divorced people is simply that, the second marriage of divorced people. There is no attempt to declare null the Sacramental first Union. In the West, a Wedding may be done before a Deacon (because of the idea that the couple takes each other, thus the marriage). In the East, Deacons do not do Weddings.

In Christ:

Three Cents

Dear John,
That's right. The Antiochian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Gregory has been to Ukraine recently and he made a speech. Unfortunately the speech is in Ukrainian so there's no use in me posting it here. From what I've read he says that "all Greek Catholics (Byzantines) need to unite". He also urges us to use the words "in communion with Rome" and not other terminologies.
From what I figure, I believe that he wants Greek Catholics to unite and support each other so that we could make the Vatican understand better the communion that we are seeking, that is, communion not only with the Roman Church but with the Orthodox Churches as well. I know that Patriarch Husar was invited to go to a synod in the Middle-east in the year 2003. Other Greek Catholic Bishops will probably be invited as well I assume.
He also urges the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to maintain closer ties with the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and to start working on this issue as well. In my opinion this is really great, but the Melkites have an easier job than we do. In Ukraine which Orthodox jurisdiction do we start with?
Lauro

Just adding to my earlier post. I think that in Ukraine and in the diaspora the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to unite with the recognition of Constantinople. I respect both of the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine (the Kyivan Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocepholus Orthodox Church). Unfortunately I do not have any positive views of the MP church, but than again I think that the Russian Orthodox Church has a right to exist in Ukraine, it's a free country. If there are any Ukrainians who want to be under the Moscow Patriarchate whose seat is in Russia, They should join the Russian Orthodox Church, and use the Russian language in their liturgy and publish their books and magazines in the language that they feel fit, but they have to remember that they are in Ukraine and the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv and not Moscow.
Lauro

Dear Bisantino,

Yes, I just wanted to add that the Orthodox Church does annul marriages and allow for remarriage due to human weakness, although the ideal is not to break the marriage bond.

The Latin Church's form of annulment has become quite the farce, at least in North America.

Bishops tend to rely on psychological assessments in determining whether to grant an annulment or not. Then an "annulment" is granted that states that the marriage bond never existed in the first place? Is this not only nonsensical but against the spirit of the Gospel and of historic Catholic moral theology?

I think the Orthodox Church, as well as many Catholics, definitely would have a problem with this.

The bond between a spouse that has reposed and a living spouse is a spiritual one, and outside the earthly, sacramental marriage bond, of course.

Meyendorff mentions this in his book on marriage, I believe.

Alex

Alex and others who have expressed interest: There are several Churches in the USA and Canada that call themselves Old Roman Catholic, the one I was a member of was the Old Roman Catholic Church English Rite, headquartered in the Chicago area under Archbishop Floyd Kortenhof and formerly under Archbishop Robert W. Lane, now deceased. I served under both bishops, and I firmly believe both were very holy men and devoted to the service of Christ. Archbishop Kortenhof continues to be a close friend. Archbishop Lane died about 3 years ago and I pray the he is in a place of light, rest and peace. As for the history of the Old Roman Catholic Church. Historically, that was the title of the Dutch Old Catholic Church, the "Mother" church of the Old Catholic movement in Europe. The American and Canadian Old Roman Cathlics originally had their start as an outgrowth of and English Church from the beginning of the 1900's. A former Roman Catholic priest, Matthew Arnold Harris, who had left the priesthood and married began to gather a group of disgruntled Catholics into an independent parish. He came in contact with another ex-priest who had done the same and one of these other priests convinced Father Harris that is he would be able to receive episcopal consecration some place that there were hundreds of other laity and other priests who would come over to form a new jurisdiction. After much negotiation, Fr. Harris was able to convince the Dutch Old Catholic bishops to give him episcopal orders and was also received into their synod of bishops. Fr. Harris also have the distinction of being the first married bishop consecrated in the Eurpean Old Catholic Churches! After his consecration, Bishop Harris discovered that the information given him by this other priest concerning a mass exodus from the RC Church was in fact a falsehood. He immediately wrote the Dutch bishops and offered his resignation, but they told him to continue on with his work and do the best he could. He ministered to a small congregation and ordained new priests to do missionary work. He continued to be in close contact with the Dutch Church, but as the Dutch Old Catholics strengthened their ties with the Anglican Church, they began to distance themselves from Bishop Harris, who the Anglicans disliked heartily. At the same time Bishop Harris began to imagine he saw a Protestant "taint" growing in the European Old Cathlics and published a public criticism of the perceived abuses. The final break, however, came when Bishop, by this time styling himself Archbishop, Harris consecrated a couple of bishops to preserve Apostolic Succession for his newly born Church. Upon his consecration and reception into the Dutch Old Catholic Church, he had agreed not to consecrate any bishops unless approved by the European Old Catholic hierarchy. Upon being censored by the Continental Old Catholic bishops, he countered with what was basically a declaration of independence and went his own way. ---to be continued, the story gets better too! --- Don

Bless me a sinner, Father Don!

I believe Matthew Arnold's "creed" is at the back of the Sarum prayerbook of the Milan Synod.

But I won't steal the wind out of your sails here . . .

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Well the if the Ecumenical Patriarch tries to "solve" the problem of the uncanonical Churches in Ukraine, Moscow would not be very happy. The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't have a jurisdictional primacy, and the problem is that it's not clear if Ukraine is part of Moscow's jurisdiction, or not.
It's all the same problem, the problem Moscow-Rome is caused by the same reasons: territory.

I have a question about the Antiochian-Melkite Dialogue. Why did it fail? Who oppose to the intercommunion? I don't think it was Rome.

The problem of double communion is that if the AOC accepts intercommunion with the Melkites, it implies that they would also be in communion with the Latins (?). Some Orthodox Churches got scandalized when they heard that, I think that's why they realized that intercommunion is still impossible without the participation of the other Churches.
Recently the Serbian Bishops sent a letter to Constantinople, asking the EP to break all contacts with the Macedonian "schismatics" and one of the things they said is that "the Macedonian Bishops have concelebrated the liturgy with latin and uniate clergy".

Is the AOC-Melkite dialogue possible and an intercommunion? does it imply double communion (with Rome and the Orthodox)?