John Paul II and the Assryian Church of the East

[Αριστοκλής]

So Eucharistic unity is the only reason the PNCC is considered to be in error? Sorry if that question sounds simplistic, I am merely trying to get to the core of this.

You got me there, Aaron  . It's not a simplistic question.
I've not made a study of them - only going on what Deacon Lance posted myself. Hence, I can't say if that's the ONLY reason - but it's a biggie. And if it is indeed the old "emergency communion"-thing, well, perhaps it's as simple as they don't want commmunion with us?

Demetri
 
Yep, new thread is fine...

[Arystarcus]

I think a new thread should be started...hmm...but in which forum?

First I was going to say the Orthodox/Catholic* Discussion forum, but then I noticed the "*in communion with Rome", so that's out.

I'd guess "The 'Other' Board"?

In Christ,
Aaron

[Ben]

the Other board sounds good aaron

[Arystarcus]

Yep, new thread is fine...

Demetri,

If I start a new thread, will one of the mods be able to transfer all the posts about the PNCC in this thread and paste them into the new one about the PNCC?

I don't wanna mess anything up!  

In Christ,
Aaron

[Deacon Lance]

Linus,

"I don't think we are willing to make any concessions to either group, not if we are to be true to the Councils and Fathers.

One sometimes gets the wrong impression from comments made on this forum, but I don't see any concessions coming from the Orthodox Church."

It would seem that concessions have already been made.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Schultz]

Oh good Lord, not this again...

[Deacon Lance]

Demetri,

"As to the PNCC, you paint with a too broad brush or do not understand Orthodox standards as you call them.
It would seem by your definition above that the PNCC fails Orthodoxy in the main point of Eucharistic unity- despite all the other 'requirements' you state (I must take your word on them). You well know that intercommunion to us is tantamount to acceptance of all the other church holds - which is why I will never commune in the RCC and the PNCC, despite all the rest, is not Orthodox by virtue of that very intercommunion."

Then according to your reasoning you should  not be willing to commune with the Patriachate of Antioch as they practice  intercommunion with the Syrian Orthodox  (an intercommunion that far exceeds that between the Catholic Church and the PNCC) and even if you did you would still be in communion with a bishop who retains communion with them. Your position is not at all consistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

It would seem that concessions have already been made.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html

Oh my, Peter Farrington's uber-ecumenist website. Wonderful perspective. Since when do 'agreements' constitute concessions in the Deposit of Orthodox faith?
My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Demetri, the bored

[Father Peter]

Thanks for the snide comments Demetri.

Since when have I been an 'uber-ecumenist'. Is this all the EO is good for? Abuse and arrogance. Pride and prelest.

I thank God I'm in an Orthodox Church that is willing to try and reach out to others. If you are a true representative of what Eastern Orthodoxy stands for then I don't want to be united with you. You don't have a very nice attitude at all.

Peter

[Father Peter]

Eucharistic Unity, Aaron.
If I commune at a non-Orthodox chalice I excommunicate myself by my virtual (actual) acceptance of all that that non-Orthodox church holds. No matter how many "requirements" Deacon Lance says the PNCC fulfills to be Orthodox, they nullify all of it via their intercommunion with a non-Orthodox church.

Which just goes to show that when EO bishops consent to their faithful recieving from the chalice in an OO church it is exactly because they do not consider the OO to be non-Orthodox. And that is the same reason that OO are allowed to commune in most EO churches when there is need.

It happens all over the place. It shows what EO bishops really think, and what OO bishops really think.

MP's communing Copts, Copts communing MP's. Serbians and ROCOR communing Copts and Ethiopians. Antiocheans and Syrians communing each other. Alexandrians communing each other. It is happening all over the world. And is a sign that these bishops do not consider each other to be non-Orthodox.

Of course this means, by the EO logic being applied here that the EO is non-Orthodox, since apart from ROAC all EO are implicated in the network of inter-communion that is taking place. Why I even know of an EO bishop who offered communion to an entire OO congregation when they were in dire need one Pascha when their church was suddenly unavailable. That implicates any bishop who is in communion with him and makes them all non-Orthodox, apparently.

But then what do I know, apparently I'm an 'uber-ecumenist' whatever that means. if it means I put up with defects in EOxy that's true, if it means I put up with heresy then it's a damn lie.

I wonder how determined many of the posters are here and yet they haven't been elevated by their churches to the position of bishops. Yet they seem to consider they know better than all their bishops about everything. Yet another interesting difference between what I learn of the EO here and the OO where in fact bishops are universally respected, certainly in my own Church.

Peter

[Anastasios]

Oh my, Peter Farrington's uber-ecumenist website. Wonderful perspective. Since when do 'agreements' constitute concessions in the Deposit of Orthodox faith?
My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Demetri, the bored

Let's try to focus on the issues and not create descriptive appelations for our opponents.

Thanks

anastasios

[Αριστοκλής]

Demetri,

"As to the PNCC, you paint with a too broad brush or do not understand Orthodox standards as you call them.
It would seem by your definition above that the PNCC fails Orthodoxy in the main point of Eucharistic unity- despite all the other 'requirements' you state (I must take your word on them). You well know that intercommunion to us is tantamount to acceptance of all the other church holds - which is why I will never commune in the RCC and the PNCC, despite all the rest, is not Orthodox by virtue of that very intercommunion."

Then according to your reasoning you should  not be willing to commune with the Patriachate of Antioch as they practice  intercommunion with the Syrian Orthodox  (an intercommunion that far exceeds that between the Catholic Church and the PNCC) and even if you did you would still be in communion with a bishop who retains communion with them. Your position is not at all consistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Whoa, Big Guy.
YOU are the one who constructed this house-'o-cards last night by maligning the Orthodox Church for not 'making concessions' to the Assyrians and PNCC as you allege we have done with the Orientals - not ME. Your argument stated that the only thing the PNCC had against it was 'good relations' with Rome and Rome's 'intercommunion' with BOTH (Assyrians and PNCC). These are as yet unsupported assumptions as to being the 'only' diffferences between the PNCC and the Orthodox, BTW.
Then this morning you post elsewhere here a document that belies intercommunion between the PNCC and Rome. Give me a break; I may be a puppet, but not your puppet or straight-man in this board. It's your argument you've shot down on your own.
As to the Antiochians and my opinion, rest assured both Metropolitans Nicholas and Maximos know my personal opinion - I'll let them do their job with Antioch.

Demetri

[Αριστοκλής]

Sorry you are offended PT. This is not directed at you or your church.

[Deacon Lance]

Demetri,

I fail to understand your arguement.  First of all I don't think pointing out a difference in treatment is maligning the Orthodox Church.  Intercommunion between the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox is a concession and I don't see what else it could be called.

As to the PNCC there are a few differences: They allow priests and bishops to be married and I think they allow this even after ordination, I am unsure on this point.  Also there website states they hold the first 4 Ecumencial Councils as authoratative. I don't know how they feel about 5-7, but they certainly use icons and statues. And to be fair I don't know how actively the PNCC has sought intercommunion with the Orthodox.  But I think it is valid to question why the Orthodox have not actively sought it with the PNCC.

As to the document I posted, how does that belie the intercommunion between the Catholic Church and the PNCC, when it in fact outlines it.  There is limited pastoral intercommunion but concelebration is not allowed.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

Demetri,

I fail to understand your arguement.  First of all I don't think pointing out a difference in treatment is maligning the Orthodox Church.  Intercommunion between the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox is a concession and I don't see what else it could be called.

But a far cry from all of Orthodoxy, deacon. For all I know at this point we are either seeing a de-facto reunion or the final sundering of the See of Antioch - the most schismed see, I think. Perhaps they are departing Eastern Orthodoxy and becoming Oriental - don't know yet.

As to the PNCC there are a few differences: They allow priests and bishops to be married and I think they allow this even after ordination, I am unsure on this point.  Also there website states they hold the first 4 Ecumencial Councils as authoratative. I don't know how they feel about 5-7, but they certainly use icons and statues. And to be fair I don't know how actively the PNCC has sought intercommunion with the Orthodox.  But I think it is valid to question why the Orthodox have not actively sought it with the PNCC.

Thanks for a fuller account and enumeration of some apparently very real differences. I don't see the Orthodox as concerned with seeking out communion as some other churches do. The dismal experiment with the Anglicans early last century and its fallout even into today have, in my opinion, made 'active' pursuit of communion a less tempting goal.

As to the document I posted, how does that belie the intercommunion between the Catholic Church and the PNCC, when it in fact outlines it.  There is limited pastoral intercommunion but concelebration is not allowed.

You continue to confuse me here. You did state 'intercommunion' earlier; now it's 'limited pastoral intercommunion' - there is a difference in how that is germaine to your premise.

Demetri
 

[Deacon Lance]

Demetri,

I should be clearer perhaps.  From the Catholic point of view, intercommunion is always limited pastoral intercommunion, concelebration technically not being allowed until full reunion is achieved, although the Chaldeans and Assyrians do concelebrate I am told. On the other hand the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox do allow concelebration, although full union has not been achieved.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

OK, Deacon Lance. Thanks for the clarification.
On another note dealing with the PNCC (I am aware of the other thread on the other board but don't want to deflect that ongoing conversation there), it would seem from your description that the PNCC should be talking communion more with the Oriental rather than the Eastern Orthodox.

Demetri

[Father Peter]

If the PNCC are in communion with the RCC then that would preclude communion with the OO. If the PNCC wanted to talk with the OO and were willing to decide whether they wanted to be Orthodox Catholic in faith and enter communion with the OO as a national Church then I am sure that would proceed positively as far as was possible. A Latin rite (are the PNCC Latin rite or Eastern) is not problematic in OOxy AFAIK. There is already work being done among Spanish speaking converts to OOxy.

But they would have to make a choice at present about being in communion with the RCC.

Have they made any contact with the OO I wonder?

[Αριστοκλής]

But they would have to make a choice at present about being in communion with the RCC.

Have they made any contact with the OO I wonder?

From Deacon Lance's clarification, it would seem that they only have a "limited pastoral intercommunion" with the RCC - similar to the de-facto intercommunion you point out between the EO and OO. Still seems as if they'd be a better match with with your church, PT, than the EO. But then I'm not PNCC, OO, or RCC; so what do I know?

Demetri

[Father Peter]

Why do you think they would be better suited to union with the OO.

If they are not Orthodox then union is precluded, if they are Orthodox then why would the EO be so unwilling to work for reconciliation?

[Αριστοκλής]

Why do you think they would be better suited to union with the OO.

Fewer councils to argue about ...

If they are not Orthodox then union is precluded, if they are Orthodox then why would the EO be so unwilling to work for reconciliation?

Can't answer for the EOs or know that they are not unwilling.

[PieX]

The PolNats agree with all the councils until Vatican I

[Ben]

I think you are wrong Pie, their website says they only believe in 7 Councils- The first 7.

[Mor Ephrem]

My read of these things is pretty much like the signed and largely (or totally) ignored Balamund Agreement - Meaningless in this case unless and until full communion and con-celebration is established with all Orthodox churches.

Is there any basis in church history for this attitude?  That it doesn't matter what one local Church is doing, as long as the other local Churches, while remaining in communion with it, are not following suit?

[Αριστοκλής]

Is there any basis in church history for this attitude?  That it doesn't matter what one local Church is doing, as long as the other local Churches, while remaining in communion with it, are not following suit?  

From an extreme interpretation---
Not if one takes the situation as permanent and perpetually ignored, Mor Phil. The Antiocjhans may end up condemned if re-union fails or applauded for helping bring it about. Too soon to tell. All does not happen instantaneously except when we read things in retrospect (history).
Anyway, your excerpt of my post is out of context when read outside the full post and prior thread.

Demetri

[Mor Ephrem]

From an extreme interpretation---
Not if one takes the situation as permanent and perpetually ignored, Mor Phil. The Antiocjhans may end up condemned if re-union fails or applauded for helping bring it about. Too soon to tell. All does not happen instantaneously except when we read things in retrospect (history).
Anyway, your excerpt of my post is out of context when read outside the full post and prior thread.

Demetri

Perhaps it is out of context, I don't know, but I can't keep up with these discussions as I would like, nor do I have the time and patience to re-read them.  

Anyway, I would think that the matter is really simple.  Is a heresy a heresy because it always was and is contrary to the Christian faith, or is it heresy because at a certain time and place, the Church decides to reject it?  If the latter, then it is altogether appropriate to wait and see what happens with the Greek Patriarchate in Antioch with regard to the rest of EOxy.  If the former, then why the silence in EOxy about the Antiochians and their flirtation with the "heretical" Non-Chalcedonians, a schism over a thousand years old?  The only people who make any noise about this are those who have rejected the greater communion, and elements within it who are looking to "restore" it.

[Αριστοκλής]

Perhaps it is out of context, I don't know, but I can't keep up with these discussions as I would like, nor do I have the time and patience to re-read them.  

Anyway, I would think that the matter is really simple.  Is a heresy a heresy because it always was and is contrary to the Christian faith, or is it heresy because at a certain time and place, the Church decides to reject it?  If the latter, then it is altogether appropriate to wait and see what happens with the Greek Patriarchate in Antioch with regard to the rest of EOxy.  If the former, then why the silence in EOxy about the Antiochians and their flirtation with the "heretical" Non-Chalcedonians, a schism over a thousand years old?  The only people who make any noise about this are those who have rejected the greater communion, and elements within it who are looking to "restore" it.  

OK, now I see 'where you're coming from'.
My comment was addressing working agreements in general and not in Antiochian/Syriac intercommunion per se. Statements and working agreements are not usually at a state of finalization formally. Call them provisional agreements; and here covering something less than full communion I believe.
As to the Antiochian and "silence"- where does one get the impression that they are NOT being criticized in EO circles? Of the six "Greek" churches the Antiochians are the only ones under Arab control (as it should be) and sometimes I think they like to stick a finger in the Greeks' eye  

Demetri

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: John Paul II and the Assryian Church of the East