www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What does it mean to be Orthodox in Union with Rome?

I would be very interested if you would list your top 5 reasons of what it means to be Orthodox in union with Rome in the order of importance with no. 1 being the most important.

Thank you.

First, let me say I am a Zoghby guy.

For me, it is important that Eastern Christians possess not only authentically Eastern forms of prayer and liturgy, but also theological expression.

For me as a Byzantine Christian, the following are vital in my view:

Prayer and Liturgy:
1) The Divine Liturgy is celebrated in an Authentic way. We are pretty good in our local church for the most part, but I would like to see us quit kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer (In fact, I would like the pews taken out) ,
2) In my personal life, I practice Byzantine forms of prayer- Horogion (Byzantine liturgy of the Hours), Chotky (Jesus Prayer rope), Akathists hymns, Paraclesis to the Christ and the Theotokos (instead of, for example, Novenas). I do say the Marian Rosary, but I do not contemplate any of the mysteries- because I am trying to be consistent in following the ideal of imageless prayer. And I use the Byzantine forms of the Angelic Salutation, Creed and Doxology, as well as incorporate the Trisagion prayers. I would frankly prefer not that the Marian Rosary said communally in our Byzantine parish (we don't) .

Theological Expression:
For me these are salient issues of theological expression:
1) Mystical, apophatic approach to God
2) Uncreated Grace
3) Palamite distinction between God's essence and his energies
4) Medicinal model of salvation rather than a forensic one, with an emphasis on deification.


Ecclesiology:
1) I view the Eastern churches not as being "under" the Pope, but in union with him. We should have our only Metropolitans and Archbishops, who are not subservient to any Roman prelate.
2) The Pope has not only a primacy of honor, but serves as the center of visible Christian unity, a bulwark for orthodoxy, and a final court of appeal.
3) Eastern disciplines, such as optional celibacy, are authentically Catholic, are respected by all, and held in equal esteem to Western disciplines.

I agree with everything that Lanceg said, except for point number two in the section on ecclesiology. I would reword that point, so that it better expresses the ancient patristic ecclesiology of communion, as follows:

2) The Pope has only a primacy of honor and love, which must not be confused with the secular juridical notions of supremacy and jurisdiction, because these notions are clearly contrary to the Gospel teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, all bishops hold equal authority in the Church, because consecration to the Episcopate confers a single sacramental power that is indivisibly divided within each Episcopal office holder. Thus, no bishop is over any other bishop, but all bishops are ontologically and sacramentally equal [see the "Apostolic Constitutions," canon 34]. Finally, as primate within, but not over, the universal episcopate, the Pope can act as a final court of appeal.

Yet that's not the reality, which is why the title of the thread can't be either.

It is important that the doctrine of primacy within synodality be restored in the Roman Church, so that it once again conforms to the common faith of the first millennium. I remain hopeful that that eventually will happen.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

With respect, your position is Orthodox, but not Catholic. You propose that the Catholic Church do all the movement to the Orthodox position on primacy.

In this case, why would one remain in the Byzantine Catholic Church? Not that I want you to go ( ), but I am puzzled by the position. If the ultimate goal is for Rome to repudiate Vatican I and Lumen Gentium, then the ultimate goal is for the Catholic Church to become Orthodox.

Note: as I reread my post, I think I may have misunderstood your position. Could you explain what would become of declarations such as those on universal jurisdiction from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium?

[i]
Dear Andrew,

It might not be the reality, yet it is what we must all pray and strive for...as Christians. Otherwise, can we call ourselves Christians. [i]

Zenovia[/i][/i]

Sorry...I'm not Todd...nor could I ever be as elequent as Todd...

The underlying of all Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox discussions is that Rome would need to move away from the "changed view/role of the papacy" and return to a more authentic view of the primacy of Honor...I have heard and even seen expressed I believe on this board (although I could be wrong it could be on other boards not here) that the issue of the papacy as it developed, is not something the eastern churches outside communion with Rome will EVER except...so the eastern Orthodox Churches will not move to accepting of Papal Supremecy and the Roman Catholic Church will need to modify its views as such which developed as such...This is why Roman Catholics get very excited about unity discussions...and they always fall flat since Orthodoxy would never accept such later development...please don't get me wrong...discussions between the churches is good, it brings clarity to theological positions and helps people understand that there is not as much difference between the church of the west and the churches of the east, that can only enhance Christianity overall


From my studies...the Roman Catholic Church believes they already operate this way...even though we know that what they believe to be the case doesn't match with the "reality on the ground"

Sorry don't want to hijack the thread...I'll go back into lurking mode...

Chris

Respectfully, the notion of a "primacy of honor" that is devoid of authority assigned to the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the other churches is a bit of a myth. That said, the purpose of authority (the Latin root is augere, "to build up, to cultivate and grow"; applied to Peter's primacy, to "strengthen the bretheren") is to support and strengthen others through the exercise of leadership. The authority of the pope in relationship to his brother bishops is not paternal, but rather fraternal like the primogeniture exercised by the 1st born sons in ancient Israel. Problems have arisen when the popes of Rome have forgotten this and seemed to treat other bishops like their subjects or their offspring, which is ridiculous. Papo-caesarism is an much an abberation as caesaro-papism (attitudinally speaking).

As an Orthodox Christian in union with Rome, I listen first to my bishop, then to the Patriarch and then to the Bishop of Rome when he speaks to all Christians.

Gordo

I think this leads us down a path of what is leadership? That's where it becomes "sticky"...is the Chief Justice of the US supreme court not a leader...he sure is, but he does not have power to over-rule the other members of the court even if he would "never utilize those powers" if given to him. Infalibility and supremacy are things that the Orthodox Churches would NEVER agree to. It's that simple. People can argue but the Orthodox Church has not agreed with a "powerful pope" position for almost 2000 years...although they do agree with a leadership role since the first among equals is the presiding heirarch for ecumenical councils...the bishop of Rome was to take a leadership role but not a role of supremecy...

Chris - Back into lurking mode (I am interested in comments to the original question)

Karl,

This is, indeed, why I became Orthodox. I realized that my view was Orthodox and not Catholic. I personally do not think that there will ever be reunion between the Churches unless the Pope formally repudiates Vatican I and and the Roman Church declares that they have erred in adding abberant teachings to the purity of the ancient faith. I say this in love and I hope it doesn't sound to harsh, but I just think it is honest, like the comments of the Bulgarian bishop. The bottom line is that one Church is wrong. Either the Orthodox Churches are wrong or Rome is wrong. One side must admit that they have been wrong and come over to the other side. That is the only way that reunion will take place. God bless.

Joe

Joe,

Your position is orthodox and catholic...simply not Roman Catholic or catholic in the sence of the churches united to Rome.

Chris

Chris, thank you. I was trying not to offend our brothers in communion with Rome. I should say Roman Catholic, or the position of the Roman Church, since the Orthodox position is the Catholic position.

Joe

Joe,

Just so you know, your views are in no way offensive to me! The views I find most offensive are the ones that try and sugarcoat and ignore what the real issues at hand are, the ones that pretend that some agreement can be reached without one side admitting it's fallacy.

Naturally, as a Catholic (well, in your opinion a Roman Catholic, but in my opinion an Orthodox Catholic), I hold similarly opposing views to yours. Kind of an opposite parallel view I suppose. As long as charity exists, I don't see any kind of un-Christian behavior in stating these views.

Logos - Alexis

Meanwhile ... back to the original theme of the post:

1) Structure
2) Inclusivity
3) Accountability
4) Mystical spirituality
5) Eucharistic focus