Is "dual communion" on the horizon?

[Robb]

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of coexistence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchies, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.

As a Catholic, I agree that the recent uppitiness of Eastern Catholic Churches is a disturbing trend.  It's true that these particular Churches are encouraged by the Vatican to keep their won unique, Eastern liturgical and spiritual traditions, but they do not and never will have permission to deny either the Pope, his supremacy and infallibility, or the post schism ecumenical councils.  These recent trends among EC's are no doubt the result of a misapplication of the Vatican Council II documents on the Eastern Churches and its unsuppressed development came from the laxity of the previous Pontificate in regards to supervising certain Church disciplines.  It is totally impossible to be any type of Catholic in union with the See of Rome unless one accepts the very dogma's and doctrines which make Catholicism unique and exceptional amongst the worlds Christians.

This whole situation could be compared to a group of RC's who became Western rite Orthodox, yet continued to insist on recognizing Papal infallibility and supremacy as well as the post schism councils.  It just can't be done and I predict that Papa Benedict will soon start busting some EC heads unless the practice is soon stopped by them.

[wayseer]

I know I'm only new here but I stuck my oar in so to speak and voted 'other' - for nothing is impossible where God is concerned.

[Irish Hermit]

  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

As far as I know all Orthodox accept out liturgical tradition as unimpeachable and inspired by the Spirit. 

The Church's teaching on prayer for the dead and their release from torments is found in the Kneeling Prayers recited this Sunday on Pentecost

Please see message 27
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36571.msg579296.html#msg579296

Those who wish to say that there is no release from hell have the unenviable task of explaining why they contradict our tradition.

[Peter J]

Duel communion will never take place until Rome accepts the Toll Houses. This is the top priority.

Hey don't make me come over there!

[ialmisry]

The Spirit has descended!

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of coexistence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchies, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.

As a Catholic, I agree that the recent uppitiness of Eastern Catholic Churches is a disturbing trend.  It's true that these particular Churches are encouraged by the Vatican to keep their won unique, Eastern liturgical and spiritual traditions, but they do not and never will have permission to deny either the Pope, his supremacy and infallibility, or the post schism ecumenical councils.  These recent trends among EC's are no doubt the result of a misapplication of the Vatican Council II documents on the Eastern Churches and its unsuppressed development came from the laxity of the previous Pontificate in regards to supervising certain Church disciplines.  It is totally impossible to be any type of Catholic in union with the See of Rome unless one accepts the very dogma's and doctrines which make Catholicism unique and exceptional amongst the worlds Christians.

This whole situation could be compared to a group of RC's who became Western rite Orthodox, yet continued to insist on recognizing Papal infallibility and supremacy as well as the post schism councils.  It just can't be done and I predict that Papa Benedict will soon start busting some EC heads unless the practice is soon stopped by them.

Pope Pius did that at Vatican I (ask any Melkite), but it didn't work.  He just hit the nail on the head

[ialmisry]

The Spirit has descended!

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue

I had been in four autocephalous Churches (including three of the ancient patriarchates) and through eight others and an autonomous Church (Finland) for years before I had even heard of toll houses.



They seem-apart from some extreme enthusiasts (most of whom I've come across share old calendarist views), they seem to form the obsession of apologists for the Vatican who, in desperation, profer toll houses as proof of some need of a supreme pontiff.  No Orthodox Church has adopted them as an article of Faith, though ROCOR has banned discussion of them, because of people trying to make theologoumena into dogma.  Speaking of theologoumena:

and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment.  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

And they can have their opinions, as long as they admit that God, Who alone knows, has revealed very little on the matter (odd how the Vatican's "private revelations" tries to make up for this silence).  As long as that is accepted one can speculate-although speculation is never encouraged in Orthodoxy-as much as one wants. The Holy Synod of ROCOR put it very well:

Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvation

http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.aspx



Speculation on such matters is how the Vatican came up with purgatory and the merit system, which it tried to cram down our thoats at Brest, etc.

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

I was surprised to find out that it is not eternal.  I was one of the few who evidently thought it was, but seeing the majority teaching-and the one which is implimented by those in involved and in charge of such things, i.e. the bishops and priests-I have found such is not so.  So your "some" I'm afraid are the uninformed minority.  I don't know of anyone who views a defrocked priest as a priest, and none where reality rather than theory is involved.

There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

If one thinks of it at all.  Having been accomplished, the Orthodox are less worried about the mechanics of the Cross than actually putting its power into practice.  In that context, "a great variety in how one views atonement" doesn't necessitate mutually ecclusive ideas.  I've not seen it come up as an issue except in the US, with the great number of Protestant, especially Evangelical, converts coming in, some with scars and some with their ideas, coming to their new monastery with their old rule.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much

Given that Orthodoxy is consensus driven-i.e. the Consensus of the Fathers reflected in the Sense of the Faithful-such matters as "tie breakers" rarely if ever come up.  And any primate who overstates his power and authority is quickly corrected.

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...

LOL.  They are very inconcequential. But if that is all you got, I guess you have to run with it. They are no where near the importance of accepting or rejecting Lourdes and Fatima has in your ecclesiastical community, for example.



Chalcedon and the calendar (not so much in itself, but what it has come to represent) are the only really dividing issues, and yet you didn't mention them.

So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.

Sort of like finding out your fiancee is addicted to drugs, and finding out your wife is addicted to drugs, and how that plays into your decision to stay with her or not. But not exactly, as the things you talk about is on the level of finding out she thinks soup is an essential part of dinner, and you can't stand soup.

[Shlomlokh]

Is dual communion anything like dual lightsabers?

In Christ,
Andrew

[elijahmaria]

I know I'm only new here but I stuck my oar in so to speak and voted 'other' - for nothing is impossible where God is concerned.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[elijahmaria]

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment.  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.

There are two issues which divide the Orthodox today.

1.  Our approach to ecumenism and that includes our attitude to the Roman Catholic Church

2.  The Calendar issue.

Neither is an internal matter of faith.  Both are external issues which do not impinge on the faith.  They are not so urgent that we must loose sleep over them.  In good time God will resolve them as is best.

While it is indeed true that it will be the bishops who hammer out the terms of resumed communion it will be the Church's decision whether to implement them or not.  Bishops, priests and laity will make the decision.

[elijahmaria]

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.

There are two issues which divide the Orthodox today.

1.  Our approach to ecumenism and that includes our attitude to the Roman Catholic Church

2.  The Calendar issue.

Neither is an internal matter of faith.  Both are external issues which do not impinge on the faith.  They are not so urgent that we must loose sleep over them.  In good time God will resolve them as is best.

While it is indeed true that it will be the bishops who hammer out the terms of resumed communion it will be the Church's decision whether to implement them or not.  Bishops, priests and laity will make the decision.

I keep forgetting that some Orthodox think that universal Orthodoxy is a democracy!!...

I would say that confusion over the Catholic Church would be an issue of faith since some Orthodox think we are close and others do not...That seems to me to be based on how they perceive our doctrine or not which also reflects how they see their own.  When they are poles apart that says something about Orthodox beliefs, and how you all are taught.  You can brush it off if you like...however...

[Irish Hermit]

I keep forgetting that some Orthodox think that universal Orthodoxy is a democracy!!...

Hmmmm... that betokens an unexpected gap in your knowledge of Orthodoxy or just a desire to be polemical?

We would not want to diminish the enormous authority with which the Spirit endows the episcopate but we should not forget that our ideas of "Church" vary enormously from the Roman Catholics with their sharp division into the Ecclesia Docens (Pope and Magisterium) vs. the Ecclesia Discens (the great unwashed.)  This is the triumph of the ruling elite over the faithful, the triumph of Magisterialism over the Church and Tradition.

I am sure you are well read in these things and don't need me to explain.

[Peter J]

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

I was surprised to find out that it is not eternal.  I was one of the few who evidently thought it was, but seeing the majority teaching-and the one which is implimented by those in involved and in charge of such things, i.e. the bishops and priests-I have found such is not so.  So your "some" I'm afraid are the uninformed minority.  I don't know of anyone who views a defrocked priest as a priest, and none where reality rather than theory is involved.

That's curious ... I was under the impression that Catholics and Orthodox agreed that holy orders are eternal.

Do you happen to know whether the Vatican regards this as a church-dividing issue?

[stanley123]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

[WetCatechumen]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

Or the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.

Or the Old Calendarists.

[Irish Hermit]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

[stanley123]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

I thought that for a while the Serbian Orthodox Church recognised the Macedonian Orthodox Church?
Also, I thought that the UOC KP, and the MOC were in communion?

[Irish Hermit]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

I thought that for a while the Serbian Orthodox Church recognised the Macedonian Orthodox Church?
Also, I thought that the UOC KP, and the MOC were in communion?

The Serbian Orthodox Church was very friendly in the early years to the Macedonian Church.  During the time of Tito they looked upon them as Tito's effort to cause havoc in the Serbian Church.   The Serbs actually took Macedonians into their seminaries and trained them for the Macedonian Church.  That all ceased in more recent years when the Macedonians turned nasty and had the State imprison the Serbian bishop Jovan.  I think he is back in prison at the moment?

I don't know if the schismatic Macedonian Church is in communion with the Ukrainian Patriarch, defrocked and returned to lay status by the Synod of the Russian Church.

[mwoerl]

"I too would say that 'When it comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him' ".

Patriarch Bartholomeo I has called Rome and Constantinople "Sister Churches." I a trusting that assessment more every day ...

[Peter J]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

But what about ROCOR until 5 (I think) years ago?

[Irish Hermit]

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

But what about ROCOR until 5 (I think) years ago?

Potted history............

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was canonically established in 1921 by a Decree of Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Synod of bishops.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was in canonical communion and concelebration with every Orthodox Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad remained in full communion with all Orthodox Churches (except with Moscow which was increasingly Sovietised) for another 50 years.

But in 1969, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America quietly dropped the name of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad from its list of Sister Churches.  This was a result of the complaints of the Primate of ROCA against the ecumenical activities of the crazy 1960s.

One by one the other Orthodox Churches also stopped concelebration with ROCA.

However, two Orthodox Churches remained in full communion with ROCA through all its existence, the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Serbia.


It should be noted that what in fact ceased from 1969 onwards was NOT communion since ROCA people continued to receive communion in the other Orthodox Churches and vice versa.  What in fact ceased was the concelebration of bishops and clergy. 

2007 - the signing in Moscow of the Act of Canonical Communion between the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad.

[James2]

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

[mwoerl]

Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, dual communion...

After Vatican II, Eastern Catholics were given more leeway than thye had prior to that. Nonetheless, Melkites could not "make a decision" to enter into communion with an Orthodox Church, and any such agreement, simply by the nature of the Unia, would include Roman Catholics. Thus, Melkites could not be in "dual communion" with an Orthodox Church-if Rome was in communion witj an Orthodox Church, the Melkites would be also. If Rome was not, the Melkites could not be. Eastern Catholics and Rome are not "in communion" with each other as are Orthodox Churches-Eastern Catholics are under Rome, period. The Roman Catholic Church has no ruling Bishops as do the Orthodox-all Bishops are essentially answerable to the Pope, and are his Vicars. In other words, any Church not under Rome cannot be 'in communion' with 'part' of the Papal holdings ... its all or nothing. Theologically as well ... how could the Infallible Pope accept into 'communion' those who do not believe in his Infallibility? You are 'under' Rome, or you are not. And, there are Eastern Catholics who are interestred in none of this "nonsense" (their view). In the late 1990s I ran across a book by a Ukrainian Eastern Catholics who had been involved in Ukrainian nationalist underground activities against the Soviet Union. He had been in the Gulag for years, etc., and when he was released, wrote a book about his experiences. He denounced the Orthodox Church as totally heretical, and wanted to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. He spoke as if this was a common attitrude among his compatriots ...

The Oriental Orthodox and Rome, in the early 1990s, had made several agrrements, and were preparing several more-I have not followed this since then, but at that time, the Amenians, Copts, Syrians and 'Thomas Christians' in India had agrements ranging from rules that mixed marriages were to be held in the church of the wife, to allowing intercommunion in case of 'necessity,' to agreements for 'sharing formation of priests,' and allowing generally all 'mysteries' to be shared in different circumstances. The pending agreements were for, of course, further interaction of all sorts. If Rome has indeed "permitted the Chaldeans (Eastern Catholics originally in the Assyrian Church) to be 'in communion' with the Assyrian Church, then there is a similar agreement with Rome. Such agreements were being discussed between the Vatican and the Assyrians in the early 1990s also. And, this type of thing between O.O. and Rome probably goes back even further.

so, "dual communion" -Rome and X, Orthodoxy Church of .... and X-will not only NOT be seen in my lifetime, it is impossible the way things stand today. Under Rome, or not. No middle option.

U-word removed - MK

[Irish Hermit]

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?

[Peter J]

Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, dual communion...

After Vatican II, Eastern Catholics were given more leeway than thye had prior to that. Nonetheless, Melkites could not "make a decision" to enter into communion with an Orthodox Church, and any such agreement, simply by the nature of the Unia, would include Roman Catholics. Thus, Melkites could not be in "dual communion" with an Orthodox Church-if Rome was in communion witj an Orthodox Church, the Melkites would be also. If Rome was not, the Melkites could not be.

That would appear to be the Vatican's position, based the response that they issued to the Melkite Proposal.

[stanley123]

...so, "dual communion" -Rome and X, Orthodoxy Church of .... and X-will not only NOT be seen in my lifetime, it is impossible the way things stand today.

Yes, the way things stand today. But tomorrow is a new day and there is always hope for reconciliation.

[Peter J]

Historically, each union (or period of unions) has been different from the previous unions: the Union of Brest in the late 16th century was significantly different from the Council of Florence in the mid 15th century. The union with the Melkites in the early 18th century was significantly different from the Union of Brest in the late 16th century.

The unions of the late 20th and early 21th centuries have been different from all of those in a number of ways, not least of which is that they have mainly been unions with Anglicans, not with Orthodox. I don't think the significance of that has yet been fully appreciated by very many people.

[ialmisry]

The Spirit is descended!

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?

I've only heard of it happening with Melkites in submission to the Vatican (at least nominally) in Syria, not even in Lebanon.  And I've never heard of it extended to Maronites, in fact I've heard the contrary asserted.

[Orest]

I thought the Antiochian Orthodox Church officially made a public statement in the USA that Melkites could not receive communion in their Orthodox Church.

[James2]

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about this to answer your questions.

[Samn!]

Isa,

    In my experience in Lebanon, at least in the Archdiocese of Beirut, there's an ask-no-questions policy about communion. It's pretty universal there for Philipino and Sri Lankan domestic servants (presumably Latin Catholics) to be communed, not to mention the Ethiopians. I can also think of a lot of cases of Maronites communing, or even being regular parishioners of an Orthodox parish without formally converting. This of course isn't part of any formal agreement, it's just the pastoral reality on the ground.

[Orest]

I thought the Antiochian Orthodox Church officially made a public statement in the USA that Melkites could not receive communion in their Orthodox Church.

This is the information I was looking for:

http://www.byzcath.org/faith/documents/melkite_initiative_2.htm

In October, 1996 the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

"In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.

"And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."

 In a letter to the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Metropolitan Philip also said:

 "Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs."

And it is important to note that the Roman Catholic Church also rejected this attempt at “dual communion”:

Current status of the plan
So far, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox East has accepted the Zoghby initiative. Speaking for the Catholic Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commented that "premature, unilateral initiatives are to be avoided, where the eventual results may not have been sufficiently considered."[13] The Antiochian Orthodox Church was circumspect toward his initiative, declaring in October 1996 that "our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."[14]

[ialmisry]

the Spirit is descended!

Isa,

    In my experience in Lebanon, at least in the Archdiocese of Beirut, there's an ask-no-questions policy about communion. It's pretty universal there for Philipino and Sri Lankan domestic servants (presumably Latin Catholics) to be communed, not to mention the Ethiopians. I can also think of a lot of cases of Maronites communing, or even being regular parishioners of an Orthodox parish without formally converting. This of course isn't part of any formal agreement, it's just the pastoral reality on the ground.

unfortunately, never made it to Lebanon yet, so can't comment on it, but I have spoken with the Metropolitan of Beirut who specifically noted that the Maronites say it is "la meme chose" but it is not.

With all those churches I presume under the Vatican in Lebanon, rather odd that the Fillipinos and Sri Lankans would go to an Orthodox Church. Btw, the Malankara founded a WRO Church with its primate originally based in Ceylon/Sri Lanka.

As for the Ethiopians, who I presume are OO, it would be the same as the Syriac OO: not a problem, at least as far as Antioch is concerned.

[Samn!]

Sri Lankans and Philipinos go to their employer's church, usually. If they're employed by a Muslim, they go to the nearest church, which in Beirut is often enough Orthodox. The one Latin parish in West Beirut has an English mass that gets a lot of Philipinos, but I assume it all depends on how much freedom they're given on their Sunday off.

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.

[Peter J]

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.

I recall, 8 or 9 years ago, I got in the habit of visiting a nearby Episcopal church. The people were generally friendly, except that they seemed to give me dirty looks when they noticed I wasn't going up for communion. Although I guess that could have been my imagination. (This was in the US, so it's not directly relevant to your Lebanon discussion.)

[Shlomlokh]

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

In Christ,
Andrew

[Peter J]

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

In Christ,
Andrew

No, not until you brought it up. But maybe that's because I usually call them "double-bladed lightsabers".

[Shlomlokh]

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

In Christ,
Andrew

No, not until you brought it up. But maybe that's because I usually call them "double-bladed lightsabers".

Ah, that would explain it! 

In Christ,
Andrew

[Peter J]

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.

[stanley123]

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.

That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?

[Peter J]

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.

That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?

I don't have time to post anything very substantial right now, but you can probably guess the Orthodox response, if you're familiar with their feelings toward "unions" in general.

I don't recall whether there was a Vatican response or not.

[Irish Hermit]

I don't have time to post anything very substantial right now, but you can probably guess the Orthodox response, if you're familiar with their feelings toward "unions" in general.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren,
whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"

~Alexis Khomiakov

[bogdan]

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"

~Alexis Khomiakov

That's a beautiful quote.

[stanley123]

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

[Irish Hermit]

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 

~Alexis Khomiakov

Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Is "dual communion" on the horizon?