Church of Antioch Has Broken Communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

The Church of Antioch Has Broken Communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

pravmir.com/church-antioch-broken-communion-patriarchate-jerusalem/#ixzz30sh4hwnZ

sad news

Well, it bears all the greater witness to the truth of the Catholic faith regarding ecclesiology, especially regarding issues such as the Pope. Hopefully, this event may cause some to be converted to Catholicism and return to Rome.

On the human side of me, however, and in sympathy with the many innocent Christians affected, I will offer prayers for them, and I do feel sorry for them.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

We don’t speak of Orthodox Christians “converting” to Catholicism so much as entering into “full communion” or “translating”. It is also offensive from an Eastern Christian perspective to speak of the Orthodox “returning” to Rome, as they were never part of Rome / the Latin Church, but rather “in communion with Rome”. That being said, as a Catholic, I obviously agree that the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches is defective in that communion with the successor of St. Peter in Rome is intrinsic to Christian unity.

This is a sad development.

:rolleyes:

This does not affect the laity at all, affecting only the concelebration of clergy and what names are read in the diptychs at the Patriarchate in Damascus.

Antiochian Orthodox Christians are still, then, free to receive communion or any of the other sacraments in parishes of the Jerusalem Patriarchate? If so, this is not truly “breaking communion”, is it?

You would do well to read up on past conflicts within the Catholic Church before claiming the high ground.

Praying fervently for the reunion of the Church.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.

I agree. Praying fervently for the reunion of the Church.

Well, there are serious differences theologically between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. I would be careful to say, as many Catholics do, that “we’re just basically the same, they just don’t have the Pope”, because the Papacy is so fundamental (from our perspective) to both the Church and the Faith (not that I think you’re saying that, I just know many Catholics seem to think that nothing of importance separate us from the Greek-Orthodox churches, much to the contempt of many in the Orthodox churches!). Perhaps, though, I should have used a better word (one that didn’t come off so harshly). Da venia :o.

It is also offensive from an Eastern Christian perspective to speak of the Orthodox “returning” to Rome, as they were never part of Rome / the Latin Church, but rather “in communion with Rome”.

When I said “return to Rome”, I just meant to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, not become Latin Catholics. Again, my bad on the word choice :banghead:.

That being said, as a Catholic, I obviously agree that the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches is defective in that communion with the successor of St. Peter in Rome is intrinsic to Christian unity.

The bolded was pretty much my point.

This is a sad development.

:sad_yes:

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Well, I think it’s just that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, or someone of similar high rank, would not be received to communion in an Antiochian parish. We receive Greek-Orthodox and other seperated Eastern Churches to communion (provided, of course, that it’s on their own initiative and that they be in the state of grace), but that does not mean that the Catholic Church is in communion with the Greek-Orthodox.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Many Orthodox would not see it the same way as Catholics do, in the sense that becoming Catholic is “translating.”

I thought an Orthodox was permitted to receive communion in the Catholic Church only in cases of emergency like a person dying wishing to receive communion, or a lack of Orthodox churches in the area. I didn’t think the Catholic Church simply allowed any Orthodox in a state of grace to receive it.

If on the part of the Christian in question, an absolute refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff, but yet still presents himself for communion, then he is a schismatic and cannot commune. However, as this is not the case with many in the various Eastern churches, and since by taking communion in the Catholic Church, they acknowledge the legitimacy of, i.e., the Filioque, then they can do so.

The Orthodox churches prohibits the reception of the sacraments from non-Orthodox ministers except in an emergency, and the Catholic Church prohibits Catholics from receiving sacraments from non-Catholic ministers except in the case of an emergency, and so the same rules follow in this regard, so, while a good-willed Orthodox Christian may be communed in the Catholic Church per Catholic canon law, per Orthodox canon law, he cannot. However, it would be a sin against conscience to return to receiving communion in the Orthodox church after doing so in the Catholic Church, since he would again separate himself from the Catholic Church and her faith. Neither Catholic canon law, nor Orthodox canon law permit Catholics to receive communion from Orthodox ministers outside of an emergency.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

It is a breaking of communion in the sense that the Antiochian Patriarchate is now refusing to commemorate His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III in its diptychs (and likely refusing to concelebrate any liturgies with clergy who are within the Jerusalem Patriarchate). It is not, to my knowledge, a breaking of communion in the sense of a full blown schism where the Antiochians would claim that Patriarch Theophilos III and all the clergy under him have through schimatic acts left the Church and hence begin receiving the laymen within the Jerusalem Patriarchate as schismatics who are in need of the mystery of repentance (or according to the older custom, chrismation).

That is different though, because Orthodox Christians who knowingly commune in non-Orthodox Churches are considered to have committed a schismatic act and are therefore in need of the mystery of repentance to be received back into the Church. I highly doubt that the Antiochians on the other hand would treat communing with the Jerusalem Patriarchate as a schismatic act, as if they did, they would have to declare all clergy who remain in communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate to be schismatics (i.e., every other autocephalous church).

People should be careful not to blow this out of proportion. This is, as the Pravmir article phrases it, a suspension of communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which involves striking Patriarch Theophilos III from the diptychs until the Antiochian Patriarchate’s grievances are satisfactorily addressed.

One of the most common questions Catholics on this board ask of Orthodox Christians is, “What do you do if two Churches disagree on something?” The inference being that a Pope is needed to mediate on it.

What you are seeing here is what happens. As has been pointed out, Communion has not been broken - it has been suspended, and it only really has an effect at the clerical level.

This is neither an unprecedented act, nor an overly extreme act, though it is also not an act which should be taken lightly. The Patriarch of Antioch has some major issues with the Patriarch of Jerusalem and wants to make sure they are addressed sooner rather than later.

Arguing that events such as this demonstrate the necessity of the pope has to be one of the silliest arguments and I can’t believe people still use such arguments. At several points in history groups have separated themselves from the Latin Catholic Church, demonstrating that the Pope only works as a unifying figure as long as he is accepted as such.

Forgive me Latinitas, but unless I’m misunderstanding you, there is a contradiction here. If an Orthodox did recognize the authority of the Pope and accepted the Filioque, then he or she would not be an Orthodox, at least in mentality, and that person should join one of the many Eastern rite churches in communion with Rome.

You said that someone who refuses to submit to the authority of the Pope is a schismatic, and therefore, cannot commune.

Someone who is devoutly Orthodox rejects openly the authority of the Pope and the Filioque - these are two reasons why the churches are separate! I don’t understand how it could be considered acceptable then for an Orthodox, save for those emergency conditions we discussed, to receive communion in a Catholic parish.

Does this have to do with Pope Francis’ upcoming
visit?

It is over a dispute in Qatar. The Antiochian Patriarchate claims that it historically has had jurisdiction over Qatar, and that the Jerusalem Patriarchate has violated this historical arrangement by opening a parish in Qatar. The Jerusalem Patriarchate claims to the contrary that Qatar is included in its jurisdiction by virtue of its title.

Pope Francis’ upcoming visit with Patriarch Bartholomew in Jerusalem is, I am sure, grievous to many Orthodox Christians because it likely will involve canonical violations, but nobody has broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch on account of it.

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