OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 02:11:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are all EO churches in full communion (transitively)  (Read 852 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
john_morcos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 68


« on: May 05, 2012, 09:42:55 AM »

Xristos Anesti

Dear all, I heard something surprising from a catholic friend, and would like to get the correct answer from you:

He said that EO churches are not transitively in full communion....i.e., some churches reject others, he also said that, as far as he remembers, the Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, probably for political reasons...

So is this the case? Are there any EO churches that reject other EO churches?

Thank you a lot,
John
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,223



« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2012, 11:01:36 AM »

Xristos Anesti

Dear all, I heard something surprising from a catholic friend, and would like to get the correct answer from you:

He said that EO churches are not transitively in full communion....i.e., some churches reject others, he also said that, as far as he remembers, the Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, probably for political reasons...
This is partially true. The Ukrainian situation is a little weird, with three major claimants to the title of "Ukrainian Orthodox Church." The ROC is in communion with one of them, which is canonically autonomous under the Moscow Patriarchate.

A second Ukrainian Orthodox Church that is not in communion with the wider Orthodox world exists in Kyiv. Folks around here have varying opinions about its validity. I have no opinion.

The third one I don't know much about.

Quote
So is this the case? Are there any EO churches that reject other EO churches?
Occasionally (but not often), a particular Orthodox church will cease communion with another Orthodox church, though those periods of non-communion are usually fairly brief.

Now, if you're talking about rejecting schismatic or pretender groups, yes -- that's true. Rome does so as well. I don't know enough about the OO communion to speak about them.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 11:02:49 AM by Agabus » Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,562


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »

Depends on what you mean by being in communion. In my opinion a Church-in-communion is any Church that is recognized by one of the main Patriarchates.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2012, 02:02:19 PM »

Xristos Anesti

Dear all, I heard something surprising from a catholic friend, and would like to get the correct answer from you:

He said that EO churches are not transitively in full communion....i.e., some churches reject others, he also said that, as far as he remembers, the Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, probably for political reasons...

So is this the case? Are there any EO churches that reject other EO churches?

Thank you a lot,
John
Is the Vatican in communion with the communion of Canterbury? with the communion of Utrecht?  actually, in the last case, like the SSPX, it is, because it has changed its communion standards.  The Vatican presumes to say that we can commune with, and its flock can receive from our chalice.

Russia, for instance, struck Constantinople from the diptychs in 1994 IIRC.  All the other Churches refused to strike either from their diptychs, so communion was maintained, and soon the rift between Moscow and the Phanar was patched up (though not healed).

The majority of Urkainian Orthodox are in communion with Moscow and the rest of the Orthodox Churches.
This goes to the point of Orthodox unity:
I posted this on a site that gave Fr. Ambros and myself the boot:

Quote
If you go to any mass at a church under the Vatican, at mass they will commemorate the pope of Rome, and then the local bishop. This is also a change, an important one, that the Vatican has instituted in a practice called the diptychs, and the Orthodox practice is still as it was in the first millenium: when I go to Divine Liturgy, the priest has a cloth, called the antimens, with means (in Latin!, the term came about when both Old and New Rome used Latin officially) "instead of the table" i.e. the bishop's altar. It is signed by the bishop, given us permission to celebrate Divine Liturgy on it, because the bishop is the oridinary minister. As St. Ignatius writes:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,

Now at Divine Liturgy the priest commemorates our bishop (Mark, a former Pentacostal, btw) and our primate (Phillip) of the Autonomous Archdiocese of North America, to show our communion with our bishop and the head of the synod to which he belongs. Where Bishop Mark celebrates, he has no antimens (as bishop, he needs no permission) but he commemorates all the bishops of the archdiocese and and the synods head, Metropolitan Philip, to show their communion. When Metropolitan Philip celebrates DL, he commemorates the heads of all the heads of all the Archdioceses/synods of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Patriarch, Ignatius IV (the 163rd successor of St. Peter in his first See, Antioch). Patriarch Ignatius at DL commemorates all the other patriarchs of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church. This practice of diptychs is meant to show the unity of the Church throughout the world, and as a sign of who is Orthodox. When someone is struck from the diptychs, it means that bishop, and all who commemorte him, are not in communion. This happened recently with the patriarch of Jerusalem, who had been mismananging Church property amongst other problems. The synod of Jerusalem, met, struck him from the diptychs, the other patriarchs, investigating the situation in a synod of their own in Constantinople supported the synod and struck him from the diptychs, and he was deposed. It also happened in Moscow, where the argument with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople reached a point that the PoM struck the EP from the diptychs. The other patriarchs, however, told both of them that they, the remaining patriarchs, were striking neither from their diptychs. So they were going to keep them in one Church so they had better come up with a solution, which they did.

Now, in the diptychs as modified by the Vatican, the pope of Rome's name is mentioned at every mass in every church all over the world. In the Early Church, we don't see that: no Church in Egypt, for instance, commemorated the Pope of Rome except the Church where the Pope of Alexandria was celebrating Divine Liturgy. The Vatican sends out who is in the diptychs, and he alone decides the list. In the early Church, it was not so, and Popes of Rome on occasion were struck from the diptychs: for instance the date 1054 is really not the correct date for the schism, but has been promoted in the West. For the Orthodox, the split occured when Benedict VIII inserted the filioque (at the emperor Henry II's demand) into the Creed recited at the DL. When the EP received the notice of Benedict's ascension with the filioque in his confession, the pope was struck from the diptychs. (The Universal Ecumenical Councils had forbidden altering the Creed on the pain of deposition). One of the issues of the delegation from Rome in 1054 was to insist that the other Patriarchs put the pope of Rome back into the diptychs.

Another practice that the Vatican has done away with is the metochia/titular Churches. The metochion is an "embassy" Church: each patriarchate has a parish in each of the the other patriarchates. In that Church, the patriarch of the "foreign" patriarch is commemorated, not that of the patriarch. For instance, St. Rafael Hawaaweeny (1st Orthodox bishop ordained in the New World, and Arab ordained by Russians). was attached as deacon in the metochion of Antioch in Moscow. In that Church the Patriarch and Synod of Antioch, not Moscow, were commenorated. The metochian coordiantes relations between the patriarchs and their patriarchates. The way the Vatican has it now, they have instead titular Churches: each cardinal (the college itself being an innovation that doesn't date until after the Greast Schism) gets a titular Church in Rome, although he has no function in it, its just there to justify him as being a member of the curia electing the pope of Rome, although the bishop in question may never otherwise set foot in Rome, except for his mandatory ad limina visit (an innovation of only the last 5 or 6 centuries). The major basilicas are the metochia of the other patriarchates: since they are not in communion with the Vatican, they are defunct. Ironically the Vatican, St. Peter's is technically the metochion of Constantinople.

Now this all may sound unimportant, just symbolic. But it is not symbol over substance, but the substance of the symbol.

As SS Ignatius and Clement show, the Early Church saw the bishop as the font of Catholicism and unity. And when you look into how the Church of the first milleminium wove that into the life fo the Church, you see that the Orthodox continue the same, whereas the Vatican has changed them into "all roads lead to Rome," which was not the practice of the Church
I'll just add that Bishop Mark DOES have an antimens, just because the rules of the Archdiocese requires it (because of the relics in it?).
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 02:05:01 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,584



« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2012, 02:09:58 PM »

Depends on what you mean by being in communion. In my opinion a Church-in-communion is any Church that is recognized by one of the main Patriarchates.

Yet even if all the patriarchates fell, Orthodoxy would remain. As St. Justin said, the Church is found in a bishop and his flock, not on later developments like patriarchates...

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is
Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church..." - St. Justin Popovich, On Summoning of the Great Council Of the Orthodox Church
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 02:10:10 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

I'm not quite sure what to make of the common argument for Christianity that might be rephrased as: "Well, it's better than suicide, right?"
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2012, 02:22:05 PM »

Christ is Risen,

 The majority of the Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another. It appears like your friend is attempting to discredit the Orthodox. I have confronted this same tactic on youtube, along with the disunity issue. But, let us look at the Latin or Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church is not in communion with the Old Catholic Churches, the Traditional Catholic Churches and the Independent Catholic Churches. All of these are not in communion with each other. Within Orthodoxy, there exist only the Eastern and Oriental Churches, who are not in communion with one another.

 At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches. If the Pope has this "universal authority" why doesn't this "sameness' exist?

 Some stuff to contemplate on.
 
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,584



« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2012, 02:48:34 PM »

But, let us look at the Latin or Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church is not in communion with the Old Catholic Churches, the Traditional Catholic Churches and the Independent Catholic Churches. All of these are not in communion with each other. Within Orthodoxy, there exist only the Eastern and Oriental Churches, who are not in communion with one another.

Why do the Catholic traditionalists count against the Catholics, but the Orthodox traditionalists don't count against the Orthodox?

Quote
At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.

It'd be hard for me to tell, since they're in different languages, which I probably don't (and the regular participants might not) understand. I know here in America the services vary somewhat.

Quote
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches.

I suppose you've heard of the western rite Orthodox? Also, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom developed for centuries after it was first written... do you think there was no variation and everyone emailed each other to make sure they agreed before changing it?
Logged

I'm not quite sure what to make of the common argument for Christianity that might be rephrased as: "Well, it's better than suicide, right?"
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2012, 11:04:16 AM »

 The Orthodox Traditionalists make up a very tiny segment within Orthodoxy, and the only real difference is the calendar issue and the involvement in the ecumenical movement.  Other than that, they have the same traditions and services as the other Orthodox. That cannot be said of the Old, Traditional, and Independent Catholics, versus the Latin Church.

 As far as language differences, the services and traditions are the same. Regardless of what "ethnic" church I have attended , I have been able to follow the service.
 Of course the liturgies developed over time. I am discussing the present situation.  Do the Old, Traditional and Independent Catholics have the same traditions and services as the Latin Church? The Eastern Rite services differ from the Latin Rite, and both differ from the Syriac Rite.
 
 The Western Rite is a very small jurisdiction within Orthodoxy.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2012, 12:57:28 PM »

The Western Rite is a very small jurisdiction within Orthodoxy.

They are not a jurisdiction. AFAIK the Antiochian parishes belong to normal dioceses while ROCOR's ones are stavropigial.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,223



« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2012, 04:14:20 PM »

The Western Rite is a very small jurisdiction within Orthodoxy.

They are not a jurisdiction. AFAIK the Antiochian parishes belong to normal dioceses while ROCOR's ones are stavropigial.
This is correct, at least re: the Antiochian WRO in North America.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,206


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2012, 11:51:43 PM »

The majority are in communion.

But it does happen for various reasons why certain bishops will separate themselves (I like to call it mini-schisms).  These are often over issues such as ecumenism, beards, the calender, or some various practice within the church that changed.

Often it is a battle between the bishops, who have every right to schism if they don't feel something is right.

Sometimes some bishops would consider themselves in communion with another Orthodox branch, but that Orthodox branch would not be in communion with them.

Often these schisms center around traditionalist types of things.

If there are two bishops who agree and break away from an orthodox "bunch", then they are self sustaining because they can ordain more bishops.

At one time, the Patriarch of Rome (pope) and the rest of EO were in communion, and that schism was "the Great Schism" (1054 A.D.).   That dealt mainly with Papal (Rome) supremacy and the filioque added to the Ancient creed.

There have been many reunification attempts, but the Pope won't eradicate the last 1000 years of RC stuff, remove the filioque, and become and "equal" with the other ecumenical patriarchs.

So sometimes the EO churches go back into communion, and sometimes they never do.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2012, 09:23:24 AM »

Hi vasily.

At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches. If the Pope has this "universal authority" why doesn't this "sameness' exist?

 Some stuff to contemplate on.
 

 Some stuff to contemplate on indeed. Are you conceding that we, not you, are catholic/universal?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2012, 11:30:04 AM »

Hi vasily.

At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches. If the Pope has this "universal authority" why doesn't this "sameness' exist?

 Some stuff to contemplate on.
 

 Some stuff to contemplate on indeed. Are you conceding that we, not you, are catholic/universal?

Small 'c' or large 'c'?

From the Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic

"cath·o·lic  (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church."


I suspect vasily is not willing to concede, say, definition 3 (b) or 3 (d) on their face nor that 3 (c) refers to the present day Church of Rome.

3(a) - that's you folks.   Smiley
Logged
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2012, 11:34:00 AM »

 Christ is Risen!

 I am not conceding to anything. The Orthodox are both fully catholic and apostolic. The Orthodox Church is universal in faith, doctrines, and traditions.

 It was misleading to state, on my part , that the Western Rite are a jurisdiction within the Orthodox Church.

 But all of this is not related to the subject matter of this thread.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2012, 11:35:43 AM »

Hi vasily.

At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches. If the Pope has this "universal authority" why doesn't this "sameness' exist?

 Some stuff to contemplate on.
 

 Some stuff to contemplate on indeed. Are you conceding that we, not you, are catholic/universal?

Small 'c' or large 'c'?

From the Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic

"cath·o·lic  (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church."


I suspect vasily is not willing to concede, say, definition 3 (b) or 3 (d) on their face nor that 3 (c) refers to the present day Church of Rome.

3(a) - that's you folks.   Smiley

I think they are both making specious arguments. Vasily that 'uniformity'=good/'disparity'=bad. And Peter J that 'variety'='catholic'
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2012, 11:57:29 AM »

Hi vasily.

At least within the Orthodox there exists this "sameness". The Churches are the same and the services are the same whether you are in Greece, Russia, North America or the Middle East.
The Roman Church has various rites, such as Eastern, Syriac, and Latin. All of which are different in their services and even their churches. If the Pope has this "universal authority" why doesn't this "sameness' exist?

 Some stuff to contemplate on.
 

 Some stuff to contemplate on indeed. Are you conceding that we, not you, are catholic/universal?

Small 'c' or large 'c'?

From the Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catholic

"cath·o·lic  (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church."


I suspect vasily is not willing to concede, say, definition 3 (b) or 3 (d) on their face nor that 3 (c) refers to the present day Church of Rome.

3(a) - that's you folks.   Smiley

I think they are both making specious arguments. Vasily that 'uniformity'=good/'disparity'=bad. And Peter J that 'variety'='catholic'

No, I just saw a compliment where none was intended.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2012, 04:55:20 PM »

Quote
This is correct, at least re: the Antiochian WRO in North America.
Just a note, from a Western Rite Orthodox. We can not really be called a jurisdiction as we all report to the same bishops, are under the same law, and have the same hierarchy as Eastern Rite. That can not be said of Eastern Catholics, Melkites, etc.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.116 seconds with 44 queries.