Funny, just this morning I got a call from someone involved in the dialog between Orthodoxy and Rome asking if I had seen this article, or one like it. Apparently this is causing all sorts of trouble, especially in Constantinople and Moscow. As of about 2 hours ago the sentiment seemed to be to call off any further discussions with Rome until this apparent expansion of Rome’s Uniate solution can be examined. More troubling is the G2 that Rome was warned that there could be trouble from the embrace of this disobedient hierarch if Rome went forward. Looks like Rome doesn’t care what at least some major Orthodox hierarchs think. I told my caller I wasn’t surprised.
Is it your impression that the Orthodox have EVER cared what Rome thinks?
Is Alexy II anyone’s idea of a “gracious partner” in ecumenical dialogue?
How about the Greek hierachs demanding that John Paul II “do penance” before he’d be given permission to visit Greece? Ever read the thoughts of the Athos monks or the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia regarding us?
I’m sorry, but it seems to me that when it comes to ecumenism between our Churches, it’s almost always a one-way street, and not Rome’s way, by the way.
Let’s be honest, EVERYTHING that happens is a cause - or rather, an excuse - for the Orthodox side to call off dialogue.
And when it comes to the “Uniate Solution,” you’d have to go a long way to match Moscow’s complicity with Joseph Stalin’s “Uniate Solution.”
You mean to tell me that Rome should refuse to accept into communion any Orthodox bishops when they approach on their own initiative. And what authority do either Constantinople or Moscow have over a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East in the first place?
Is the sentiment you referr to the sentiment of some layman who doesn’t like the fact that the Bishop and the 3,000 Assyrians chose communion with Rome.
Lets look at some historical context, the Assyrian Church has not been in communion with the Undivided West and East since about 410 AD, which was befor the Council of Ephesus. They were under the Antiochene Primacy, which was stated in Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, but broke communion from Antioch and established their own Assyrian Patriarch.
So the issue is why would the Orthdox Churches get upset about a Church that has in fact, never been under an Orthodox Patriarch, or if they were, it would be the Antiochene Patriarch, of which there is both a Melkite-Catholic one and and an Orthodox one, and relations between those two Churches are great.
Regardless, the Assyrian Church of the East has never been under the Patriarch of Constantinopile, which was not recognized as a Primatial See until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and most certainly, Patriarch Alexy has no dawg in this fight as Moscow can in no way claim that the Assyrian Church should come under its Jurisdiction.
I will take this one step further, the Patriarch of the Armenian Church, which has not been in Full communion with Rome or the East since 451 AD (Chalcedon) just spent 3 days with Rome in dialogue. If the Armenian Church chooses to enter Full Communion with the Bishop of Rome, why would the Orthodox Church get upset given the Armenians have their own autonomous Church, which has not been in Communion with Rome or Constantinopile for over 1,500 years.
Regards
You wrote:
“...this apparent expansion of Rome’s Uniate solution can be examined.”
Whoa! Expansion of Rome’s Uniate solution? Oh, please, come on! This man and his priests and faithful wanted in. Was he supposed to be received by the Roman Church rather than the Chaldean Church?
And what about Orthodoxy’s own “uniate” solution? Didn’t know you had one? Sure, they’re called “Western Orthodox” parishes.