www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question

I often hear Byzantine Catholics use the pharse �orthodox in communion with Rome.� Orthodox do not see it that way and for the most part Roman Catholics are not sure just how to view Byzantine (& orther Rites). How can one be �orthodox� in communion with Rome? A few differences that I found on the net�

Faith and Reason
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science.

The Development of Doctrine
Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

God
Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist.

Christ
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14). According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."

The Church
In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage. According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

How do you as a Byzantine Catholic of Orthodox historical background feel about the above that I have posted? I have included a link to the source of my info.

In Christ,

Odo

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.htm

Dear Odo,

First of all, the site you have referenced is, (how do I say this?) not very representitive of mainstream Orthodoxy. You can find articles on that site not only denouncing, demeaning and belittling Roman Catholics but also most of the most respected Orthodox writers of the 20th century. I know many Orthodox who do not associate themselves with that site's message at all. In fact, Fr. Thomas Hopko, former dean of St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary, has denounced the "sectarian spirit" so prevalent on that site (among other places), many times in his lectures.

I'm not a Byzantine Catholic (rather an Armenian one) but if you still would like to know my response to such claims they would be as follows:

Some of the claims are woefully over-simplified, some bear false witness, some are uncharitable, some are inaccurate and some are perfectly correct.

Now as for the ones that are correct, you may ask me how can I who claim to be an "Orthodox in communion with Rome" explain my communion with a Church which has such differences? I would say that most of the differences mentioned in your post which are accurate, are legitimate differences. There is more than one way to look at truths of our faith. St. Gregory of Nyssa once said that when it comes to speaking about God, every man is a liar. Not one Church can perfectly express or exhaust God's revelation. Not only this, most of the differences between East and West have been present since the early days of the Church. If our Churches could stay in communion for the better part of the first millenia with these differences present, then it is not impossible to do so now and remain Orthodox. At least this is what I would argue.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

I understand the term "Orthodox in Union with Rome" and use it myself.

I've only one small problem with it:
How then are we to describe believers within the RCC?

How about Latin Catholics? Or Catholics in communion with their Patriarch? We could on and on. The basic point to me when we say "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" speaks more about history than theology (although this is connected with it). Historically some Orthodox Churches reunited with Rome. It is obvious why this description would not fit the Latins. Perhaps some of them could be called "Protestants in communion with Rome."

"Unorthodox in Communion with Lviv?" :p

Not Lviv, but Kyiv

Certainly the idea that there can be no Church without a bishop is fallacious.

The Church starts with Abraham. Was he a bishop?

Of course, the Church organizes around a bishop as the NT Gospel dictates, but to exclude three unordained believers stranded on an island in the South Pacific Ocean as somehow not of the Church would be wrong. They would gather and pray the reader's services, as best as they could remember them. Would we fault them if they picked the senior male, somewhat knowledgeable in the faith, to make an offering on behalf of the community?

Yes, but inquiring minds will always want to know, "but was it the eucharist?"

Why don't we leave that up to the Lord. If He wants to be present in the coconut juice and bread fruit placed lovingly and in true thanks by three wayward souls upon the trunk of a palm tree, I would bet that He could "pull it off."

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

I recall a story about a group of people in Africa, Sudan possibly, who came to believe in Jesus and did not have contact with any Church. The members of the group did just as you suggested the three men on a desert island could do. They developed a rite of Thanksgiving modeled on the Last Supper without benefit of clergy.

If I recall correctly, eventually, they contacted a missionary. It was he who reported the events. I cannot remember whether the story was reported in the secular or religious press.

Does anyone else remember hearing about this group?

If the story is true, I cannot imagine God refusing to accept the Thanksgiving celebrated in the Name of His Son. Nor can I imagine that He would not grace the group with Himself as a result.

As to whether our theologians would confirm that such rites are Eucharistic celebrations or that the group was part of Church, I guess we'll have to wait to hear.

There is an aphorism. As best as I can restate it says, that we as humans are bound to act within parameters ordained by God. The corollary is of course that God is without bounds or parameters. (I think that the short form is something like
we are bound by god's Law; God is not.) This might help to make sense of a situation like this one where God seems to work without the benefit of local clergy to the benefit of His people.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Well, we know for a fact that a group of Koreans went to China and read about the Catholic Church in the records left by the Jesuit missionaries there.

They then proceeded to establish a "Catholic Church" in Korea with bishops, priests, Mass, rosaries etc.

When the Catholic missionaries arrived there, they were shocked to see a "Catholic Church" and thought that there were other missionaries that probably "got to them" earlier.

When they determined how this Church got set up, they simply baptized and ordained and left everything else alone . . .

Believe it or not . . .

Alex

I would love to read the story, can you provide a link or title of the book?

(St.) Odo trying to be (the Good)

I have a very "Orthodox in Spirit" Eastern Catholic friend of the Russian tradition who refuses to use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" as offensive to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would not want the word "Uniate" used. I think this is about right What is wrong with the term "Eastern" or "Greek" Catholics? If you are "Orthodox in Spirit" , surely that is part of your ascesis and praxis, not a "badge"?

Hi:

Please provide me an example in which the Roman Church builds upon results of philosophy or science. This is simply not true. We use them, of course, to explain, illustrate and apply our Fatih, just as you claim Orthodoxy uses them

Again this is not true. We see our understanding of the Faith as a building. The solid Foundation is Christ, and the teachings He gave us through His Holy Apostles.

The Fathers would be the Ground Floor, and so on. If indeed we view Vatican II as the 100th Floor, it will not stand for a second if you remove the Foundation, or the Ground Floor, or any of the other 99 Floors, for that matter.

Not true. Our Church teaches that our reason can accept that God is and can be in agreement with our Faith. We believe that Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

The teachings you present as "Orthodox" have been elsewhere rejected as heretical also by mainstream Orthodoxy.

The teachings you present as "Catholic" are taken to the extreme only in Protestant denominations.

That the Death of Christ is a Ransom, it is clear. What is not clear is wh was it paid to. That the Death of Christ is a Sacrifice, is also clear. And sacrifices can only be offered to God.

I don't see any contradiction that will force us to reject one of these positions by accepting the other. They are both a true aspect of the Mystery of our Salvation.

Simply not true. The Catholic Church teaches that the fullness of the Universal Church subsists in the Particular Church, headed by the Bishop.

In the Orthodox Church, isn't the Pastor the head of the Parish? Is then the Bishop a "second head" of the Parish? I don't think so. The Pastor has his scope of authority, and the Bishop has the right and the duty to esxercise the very same authority when he judges the Pastor is unable to.

In the same regard, the Pope's authority over the Catholic faithful is Episcopal and Ordinary, that is, is the same authority of the Bishop, not an alternate or second authority. The Pope will only exercise such authority, when he judges the Bishop is unable to. Otherwise, the authority of the Bishop stand on its own right (this is a difference from the Pastors, whose authority doesn't stand on its own right, but rather on the authority of the Bishop).

The authority of the Bishop is real and immediate, because it comes from the Sacrament of Holy Orders, not from their relationship with the Pope. They are true shepherds, not deputies for the Pope.

Speaking of monsters. In the Orthodox Churches, the Parish has a visible head, the Diocese has a visible head, but the Church of Christ as a whole doesn't have a visible head. It would seem that Christ, who can act as head of the Universal Church, cannot do so at the Diocese or Parish levels.

The Catholic Church has no such inconsistency. The Church at all levels has Christ as her head. From the individual believer to the Universal Church. But, also, every level of Church organization also has a visible head. That way the Church looks the same, no matter if you use a microscope or a telescope to watch her.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Odo:

The eventual evangelization of Korea stemmed from the evangelization of China undertaken by the Jesuits in the 1600s, more particularly through the efforts of Fr. Matteo Ricci, S.J.

This link presents a brief history of the Catholic Church in Korea, which recounts the episode Alex referenced in his post:

http://www.stpaulchong.org/board/messages/8.html

It is, indeed, amazing!

AmdG

Dear Memo:

Amen to your post.

And, on the relationship between faith and reason, Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter "Fides et Ratio" issued on September 14 1998 to the Catholic bishops throughout the world should be read for the Catholic position:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...p-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

AmdG

Dear Memo,

Thanks for the clarifications.

If I am not mistaken, the Roman Church teaches that the existence of God can be arrived at from reason alone. This was done in reaction to modernism, I believe. The proofs for the existence of God from Aristotelian/Thomistic were commonly used to show that it could be done. What the teaching does not require us to accept is that it has been done! Not all Catholics agree with the teaching of Aristotle!

Perhaps the notion that we build on philosophy refers to the practice of using a philosophical approach to assist us to reach a richer understanding of what God is telling us through His Revelation. For example, the philosophical principles and approaches of St. Thomas Acquinas were used in this way and gave us Thomistic Theology. Either a "refinement" :rolleyes: or a misuse of that approach, depending on your philosophical bent, led to the scholastic theology that was characteristic of Catholic teaching before Vatican II.

Some of the perceptions of Western belief and practices cited in the posting under discussion contain kernals of truth that have been taken out of context and/or skewed! Perhaps that happened not because of ill will but rather from simple misunderstanding. Sometimes a desire to distinguish between two positions leads to oversimplication.

That could be an explanation of the positions in the posting (or not).

Steve