Catholic and Orthodox reunion

In the event of the Orthodox coming back into communion, which patriarch would step down and which would be considered the true one?

Like in the case of the antiochans, who would be regarded as the legitimate one? The Melkite, Antiochan orthodox, maronite or Syrian Catholic one?

Or in the case of Jerusalem, the Catholic or Orthodox one?

Would a synod be held to determine this?

Any ideas?

In the event of Old Rome and the rest of the Church resuming communion, I would imagine Synods, many pots of coffee, and more than a few blotters of ink.

I think it would be a mistake to presume that the East will just let the Latins take over various Sees because of an inflated sense of it’s Primacy. This is the sort of thing that caused the Schism in the first place.

His question was: “The Melkite, Antiochan orthodox, maronite or Syrian Catholic one?” Which one is the one belonging to the Latins?

And my understanding of brotherly communion was that there would no longer be such thing as Easterners and Latins, but just the elders of the Church. Furthermore in case of reunion all would agree that the Church of Rome presides in charity - to what degree of primacy is something we do not know yet, but probably not as we in the Latin Church understand it.

To Wandile: I don’t think it’s an either/or scenario. Humility will prevail, and a titular bishop will be chosen.

I believe that R_C expressed it well…:thumbsup:

As “misplaced book” indicates…there would likely be many synods.

There are any number of ways that reunification can go. When one considers the number of rites already co-exiting in the Church (plus now the Anglican Ordinariate co-existing within the Latin rite) one can imagine a number of different scenario’s occurring.

The most important component in these things is the willingness and desire of the participants to come to an understanding. It is not so much how the governmental structure might pan out.


I think that both highly impractical and unlikely.

I don’t think they’d be likely to all come back at once. If the branches of Orthodoxy decide to reunite one at a time, this would be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I think they would have options other than having one step down. For example, they could allow both bishops to continue side-by-side and have their decisions apply only to the believers who they previously exercised authority over. Then, when one of them dies or retires, his flock would go over to the jurisdiction of the one still living. That would be one option.

If it came to a point where one of the bishops had to step down, I think the Church would let whichever Orthodox branch it was keep their bishop in charge and ours would step down. Just my hunch.

There are a lot of factors that come into play here. In the highly unlikely event of any such “reunion” I would expect that the SCC would be subsumed into the SOC from which it sprang in the first place. The Maronite Patriarchate, OTOH, has a historical claim to the See of Antioch, plus we have no so-called “Orthodox” counterpart, so unless we are subsumed into the Latin Church, the Maronite Patriarchate should remain intact.

The case of the Melkites and AOC is is, in some ways, more interesting, since (a) the Patriarchate itself was created by Byzantine Imperial intervention (hence the name “Melkites” which derives from the Semitic word for “King”) and (b) the then-majority (the numbers came to reverse themselves) came into union with Rome in the 18th Century, but the minority reverted to Orthodoxy. Interesting, too, that the moniker “Melkite” stayed with the then-majority.

The “Patriarchate of Jerusalem” is essentially nothing more than an honorific.

Unless what it meant by a “Synod” is a local one, I doubt it. Were a “General Synod” (aka “Oecumenical Council”) be called to do this, it would most likely appear as an imposition from without, and that would negate any “reunion” that may have otherwise occurred.

Not to mention that it would be absolutely contrary to historical fact, tradition, and organic development. :wink:

I don’t really think we need to be overly concerned with this matter; as there will never be a complete unification between the East and the West.

I have to agree with this. Not only were there disputes about what type of bread to use for the Eucharist, but also the fact that the Easterners did not want to be under the rule of a/the Pope. They felt there should not be anyone of higher authority than God. I honestly think we have nothing to worry about for this topic, seeing as it will more than likely never happen :shrug:

Well - I hope that you are wrong…:signofcross::byzsoc::gopray::highprayer:


Okay, I don’t want to sound rude here, but I don’t exactly know what you mean. Of course I don’t see it that way! If I did, I most certainly wouldn’t be studying Catholicism, or entering the Catholic Church in 2 years! Also, I do pray that the Orthodox will come back into union with the Catholic Church, because that would mean my parents would come home, too.

I think he said “I hope you’re wrong” because you said you don’t think reunion will ever happen. He hopes that that assessment is wrong. He’s not saying he hopes the Orthodox are wrong in their doctrinal disputes with Catholicism; they’re obviously wrong or he wouldn’t be Catholic.

Does that mean what I think it means? IOW, are you saying the Orthodox are “obviously wrong” or am I missing something?

I do not think they will come back at all -they have had 1100 years to do so-Why would any Orthodox primate have to step down-

like the Melkites perhaps they would be Cardinals-there are over 300 million orthodox I believe

I wasn’t trying to say the Orthodox are obviously wrong in that post, but I’ll say it in this one: in doctrines where the Orthodox disagree with the Catholic Church, they are obviously wrong. Not because the Bible and Tradition and reason always make that obvious and clear for us, but because by disagreeing with the Church, it automatically follows that they are in disagreement with those things, and that can be proved.

Whether in one post or another, apparently that **is **what I read. :shrug:

So what is “disagreeing with the Church” supposed to mean? That the Orthodox don’t accept the ultramontanist position behind Vatican I? :rolleyes: Or is it something else? :confused:

Disagreeing with the Church means that they reject something that the Church teaches, like the doctrine of original sin, or the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, or the doctrine of purgatory, or the doctrine of papal infallibility, or the doctrine that divorce and remarriage is a sin, or the doctrine that the use of contraception is a sin, or the doctrine of the Filioque. On all of those issues the Orthodox teach something that is contrary to what the Bible, and Sacred Tradition, and simple reason teach us. Or anyway there are some who do. On several of those doctrines, e.g. Purgatory and original sin, I hold out hope that our differences are not differences in doctrine, but differences in emphasis.

Oh brother … not again … best I bow out of this.

I’m not saying that I wish this wouldn’t happen. Is what I’m saying is that there are way too many differences in dogmas and disciplines; the emphasis and application thereof, with many years between these differences. And I perceive Francis, bishop of Rome, to be reverting back to the “cafeteria” style way of thinking; believe what you want as long as you’re a good guy and nice person. This in itself wouldn’t hold with the Eastern Orthodox.:slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit