From my understanding, many Eastern Catholic academics have argued for dual communion, akin to the situation that currently exists with ROCOR.
Although, ROCOR is working to restore full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, it currently only shares communion with the Church of Serbia and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, yet those churches are also in communion with Moscow.
Prior to the establishment of the Melkite Church in 1729, intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Orthodox was not unheard of. Several 17th century Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy. Bishop Kallistos' works include mention of Orthodox participation in Roman Catholic Corpus Christi processions in the Venetian-held islands during the 17th century.
"Prior to the establishment of the Melkite Church in 1729, intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Orthodox was not unheard of. Several 17th century Patriarchs of Antioch were in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy."
Well, yes and no. After the Great Schism, Rome certainly tried hard, through the French, to get a hold of the whole Patriarchate of Antioch. The measure of its success is the present day Melkite Church which came into formal union with Rome in the 18th century.
"Bishop Kallistos' works include mention of Orthodox participation in Roman Catholic Corpus Christi processions in the Venetian-held islands during the 17th century."
There are a couple of small "Catholic" Greek Islands to this day where there are very close ties between the Orthodox and the Catholics but these ties don't amount to anything like intercommunion. That does go on in Lebanon however.
"From my understanding, many Eastern Catholic academics have argued for dual communion, akin to the situation that currently exists with ROCOR."
I've never heard of this. Looking to become a canonical anomoly like ROCOR has been, but won't be much longer, doesn't seem to me to be such a great idea. What would it accomplish? I suppose for purely nationalistic reasons, which would run right into charges of the heresy of phyletism, the Ukranian Greek Catholics might want to establish such a union in Ukraine, but the reaction in the rest of Orthodoxy would be extremely negative. For that reason alone, I suspect, Rome would also be against it.
Date: 2005-10-10
Cardinal Husar Suggests a Synod for Eastern Churches
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, archbishop major of Lviv of the Ukrainians, proposed that the next Synod of Bishops be dedicated to the Eastern Churches.
The president of the synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church said that this initiative would be important "in order to grow also in Catholic intra-ecclesial communion."
The cardinal today addressed the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist on the theme, "Tradition of the Greek Ukrainian Catholic Church."
"My preface is that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the life and mission of the Church," he said. "But this is also true for the Eastern Churches."
He asked: "If the liturgy is a 'regula fidei,' if the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Eastern Churches in communion with the See of Rome and by the Orthodox or apostolic Churches is identical for both, if there is mutual recognition of the apostolic succession of bishops … then my question is: What more is required for unity?"
* * * * *
I believe Kolokotronis addressed Husar's rhetorical question above but the question of a Synod for Eastern Churches is intriguing, so long as the western church is integrated into the discussions. Your thoughts?