www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox in Communion with Rome

I voted no, partly because I think it's confusing, but mostly because I disagree theologically with the idea of calling anyone in communion with Rome "Orthodox". I do not mean this to offend of course, but since the Eastern Orthodox believe that Rome has major problems, you can't simultaneously be in communion with Rome and call yourself "Orthodox". I mean, if a Byzantine Catholic calls himself orthodox I'm not going to start correcting him; but since you asked in a poll-like environment, I figured I'd chime in.

How can being in communion with Rome be the "Crown" of Orthodoxy? (what does that actually mean, anyway?)

I'd say being in communion with Christ and his Church is the Crown of Orthodoxy. Both Catholics and Orthodox meet that criteria equally, in my opinion, so Orthodox do not lack anything by being out of communion with Rome.

In Christ,

anastasios

--Seeker wrote: I do not mean this to offend of course, but since the Eastern Orthodox believe that Rome has major problems, you can't simultaneously be in communion with Rome and call yourself "Orthodox". --

--Anastaios wrote:
How can being in communion with Rome be the "Crown" of Orthodoxy? (what does that actually mean, anyway?) --

While both Catholics and Orthodox certainly have communion with Christ and his Church the Orthodox lack the visible sign of the fullness of Orthodoxy: communion with Peter. All bishops do inherit the authority of all of the apostles but the successor of Peter in Rome inherits this authority in a special way, one recognized as special since the time when Christ was on earth.

The use of the term "Orthodox" by Byzantine Catholics can be confusing to some but we have every right to the term just as many Orthodox in this country use the term "Orthodox Greek Catholic" (signifying "Greek Catholics in communion with Orthodoxy") or "Orthodox Catholic" (signifying that to be Orthodox is to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church").

Dear Friends,

This is a subject that is an enduring topic with us here . . .

It would seem that usage is what dictates the correctness or incorrectness of a title or name, rather than a convention, nomatter how longstanding.

When we say, "Orthodoxy" we, of course, mean, as a first reaction, the Churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially after the first millennium of the united Church of Christ.

But to argue that that is the only usage for that title exclusively for the Eastern Orthodox Church is problematic.

It was coined during the first Council against Arius, was it not, when the Fathers said that "This is the Orthodox Faith!"

And, in fact, the term "Orthodox" has the longest usage as a reference to "faith" rather than to "Church."

"Orthodox Faith" and "Catholic Church" was how the first millennium used these terms.

The Oriental Churches not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox have consistently and continuously used "Orthodox" to denote themselves as well.

Rome, before and after 1054, has consistently used "Orthodox" to denote its Christian faith.

"Catholic" is also a term that is used by the Orthodox Churches and has been from the beginning as well.

Protestants also believe in the "Catholic Church" even though, following Cardinal Newman, if anyone were to ask where the nearest "Catholic Church" was in the neighbourhood, there would be no doubt as to which building everyone would point to!

Only the Russian tradition differentiated the term "Catholic" and used the term "Kafolik" to denote Orthodox Catholics or themselves, while using "Katolik" to denote Roman Catholics.

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" was actually the original name used by those Orthodox bishops and laity that in fact came into communion with Rome at Brest-Litovsk.

The Orthodox Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko, in his works, often stated that this was a "good term" for Eastern Catholics because it reminded them of their Eastern Church identity and spiritual culture. When they (Eastern Catholics) lost that title, rapid Latinization and Polonization occurred among them.

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" is problematic from the Eastern Orthodox point of view since being in communion with Rome with its contemporary papal and other doctrines means, for the Eastern Orthodox Churches, that one is no longer "Orthodox" but, in fact, heterodox, since Rome is formally outside Eastern Orthodoxy, notwithstanding the dropping of the anathemas etc.

But "Orthodox" from my point of view at least and from what I've read and discussed with others over the years seems to mean more than whether or not one holds the Filioque etc.

It refers to a specific Eastern Church spiritual culture and identity - a specific patrimony if you will, that doesn't change even if it is in union with Rome. The history of Latinization and the struggle for maintaining that patrimony is an ongoing chapter in our Churches' development. Whenever we score a victory there, I always here Orthodox applaud us.

In addition, there is the argument of union with Rome being the "Crown of Orthodoxy."

The Administrator takes that from our liturgy and means, by that, that union with Rome is not something that is inorganic to our Orthodox ethos, but is very much organic and integral to it.

Rome was the first See at the Councils of and throughout the undivided Church of Christ for 1,000 years.

Union with Rome was clearly, as Meyendorff shows, the way the Orthodox Church expressed her unity. As he shows as well, the Orthodox, even after the split, never questioned Rome's right to be the first Patriarchate and to hold that primacy, as does Kallistos Ware in "The Orthodox Church" and this based on the scriptural references to Peter.

In the end, it comes to a decision as to who has the fullness of Orthodoxy, the Catholic Churches in union with Rome, or those in union with the other Patriarchates separated from Rome.

Our liturgical tradition, however, has always seen a close, and I will say, necessary connection between Sts. Peter and Paul as the "Chief Apostles" and Rome ("come frome Rome and teach us!" Feast of Sts Peter and Paul). There are many references that can be had. And Meyendorff and others do not dispute these.

The disagreement is not on whether the Primacy of Rome is part of the Orthodox patrimony - Orthodox agree that it is.

The disagreement is on the substance of the nature of how the primacy is exercised and defined.

And that is fair ball. I understand when Orthodox say they cannot accept it in its current state. And we Orthodox in communion with Rome are in a constant struggle for our rights as well.

Orthodox point to that struggle and to those problems and ask us why we continue to bother with Rome.

Struggle for Particular rights is something that is not just common to Orthodox Catholics in union with Rome.

The Ukrainian, Baltic and Georgian Orthodox Churches struggled against the Russification of their patrimonies while in union with Moscow - they still are. The Greek Orthodox Church hellenized the Orthodox peoples to the north of Greece. There are other examples. Yet, no one is suggesting that these Orthodox Churches leave Orthodoxy because of this checkered past in this regard.

Orthodox in communion with Rome see their Orthodox brothers and sisters, Eastern and Oriental, as such, and as fully "Church" by way of Apostolic faith, sacraments, hierarchical government etc.

We believe we are fully Orthodox in terms of our patrimony and faith as well.

Latin doctrines are simply that - greater rapprochement shows that the East-West bickering is "much ado about very little."

Kallistos Ware did say that the Filioque, that great stumbling block of unity of old, is merely a semantic thing and that the more he studies it, the more he sees how it "complements" Orthodox doctrine on Triadology.

Communion with Rome is, for us, both a present reality and an ideal we are ALL working toward.

It is a present reality because we are with Rome. It is an ideal because the past and current practicalities of that union are things that need to be reformed.

And in being true to our patrimony as Orthodox Catholics in communion with Rome, we hold to the Apostolic fullness of "Church" that both Eastern and Western Fathers of the first Millennium, the MIllennium closest to Christ, always envisioned.

As for what our Orthodox brothers and sisters "lack," they perhaps lack that precise original vision of the Church. And their former symbol of unity is gone as they have always known that the way in which the Church of Christ was structured from the beginning is no longer the case with them.

Yes, there are modern attempts at revising Church history in this regard.

And if one regards Rome as heretical, then one will remain outside it.

But the more we study the questions of faith that divide us, and, as Ware has noted, the more we realize we aren't really that far off from one another, the issue of a renewed Petrine Ministry at Rome will come back to us.

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" is a temporary term to denote those Orthodox communities of the East who truly share in the fullness of Orthodox faith and spirituality with their brothers and sisters, but who go a step further and maintain a communion with the Petrine See to which the East always turned in times of theological and disciplinary crisis - and to express the unity of the Church.

Alex

I'd like to throw something out here for discussion. For now, we will assume that Rome is orthodox in her theology.

If the fullness of Orthodoxy is found in communion with Rome, then can it not be said that the fullness of Catholicity be found in communion with the other ancient Patriarchs? The only Patriarchate in the Catholic Church that was there from the beginning is Rome. But the Orthodox have four Patriarchates that were from the beginning. If the Orthodox are not fully Orthodox by not being in communion with Rome (as that's what the Administrator's remarks imply to me), I think the Catholics are not fully Catholics by not being in communion with the East.

Now what if we don't make that assumption I spoke of above? I don't know the precise theological disputes that led to the Schism. Really, only the Filioque sticks out in my mind. Any excesses in papal authority that may have helped the schism along were not really codified like the Filioque was in the Creed as used in the West, and so they presumably could've been reformed.

If we assume that the Filioque was the only real problem (as I have to, since I don't know of any other issues), then we can say that for the most part, Rome was orthodox, even after the split. But can that be said now? After all, in the past two hundred years, three new dogmas have been proclaimed, and even if the Orthodox did not object at all to the IC and the Assumption, what of the papal claims of Vatican I? How are these orthodox?

Furthermore, if you are to believe Roman Catholic sources, the nature of their definition is that if you don't believe it, you cannot be considered a Catholic. So, if Roman and Eastern Catholics do not believe this, they may be more or less orthodox in their theology, but they are certainly not Catholics. But if they do believe these things, they certainly do not hold the Orthodox faith which the East, at least in those respects, because that faith does not include these things as they stand as far as Rome's concerned. So now where are we?

And Alex says

Is it all just union with Rome, though? What place does communion with the other Churches have? Is it not important? Surely Orthodox by not being in communion with Rome miss something of that original unity of the Church, but Rome not being in communion with the Orthodox also misses that original communion which was an integral part of the unity of the Church, no?

I voted yes. I am aware of cases where Melkites commune at Antiochean parishes, and Byzantines commune at OCA parishes. Mutual hierarchical permission in these cases was not asked for, offered, or given. The laity acted on its own. The intercommunion was simply not known by the priest, or he chose to recognize the communicant without question.

Within some non-Roman orthodox communities, the reunification in America of orthodox jurisdictions is thought to be an issue that will be decided from the ground up also, not the top down, by the will of the people. How that can work is another matter. It seems to me that the matter of whether Byzantines are orthodox or not is up to the people to decide as well, and need not have anything to do with whether you are with Rome or not. Allegiance to Rome is a matter of achieving the fullness of the Faith, and each individual ends up making that committment, or not, as a seperate matter. I see no conflict between being orthodox and being with Rome as a result.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Yes, no one said this is an easy question . . .

One of our Ukrainian Catholic theologians, Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk raised the issue exactly the way you have and said that Rome's Catholicity is also harmed by not being in union with the Eastern Patriarchs.

And I agree.

Both East and West lose something by not being in communion with each other.

Currently, the whole thing is reduced to the question of who has the fullness of faith. That is not how I would put it, but the two sides are out of communion with each other because of what each says should be the faith held in common.

Even St Mark of Ephesus at Florence was, at first, of the position that it didn't matter what the Latins believed about the procession of the Holy Spirit, as long as the universal Creed kept out the Filioque. God would heal any heresy after full communion is restored.

In this I see an insight about ecumenicity on the part of this Orthodox saint, so often seen as a banner for "Rome go home" Orthodoxy.

It is the fullness of Communion, even Communion with the ancient See of Rome, that Markos Eugenicos came to Florence, in the midst of the political turbulence of the time, to seek. There is a blessing and fullness of the Spirit in such a Communion, as long as the faith is maintained. Even internal heresy can be healed through just such Communion.

I would venture to say that "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is only one step of the way.

We need to have communion with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

We do already in the person of those Particular Churches, yours included, that are in communion with Rome along with us.

Communion with Rome has brought Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians into an integrally united, yet liturgically diverse family.

And that union is imperfect while the "Uniate" model is one that has been discarded by all sides.

I think it is a question of where do we see the greatest approximation of the unity that Christ wishes for His Church?

And I believe that while it is far from perfect, that kind of unity is today found in the Communion with Rome.

And that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made or that we aren't less for not being in communion with the other Patriarchates who don't share that communion.

But I can worship with Latins, Byzantines, Syriacs, Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Anglicans, Assyrian Chaldeans and others.

For me, that speaks of a universality and of an experience of oikumene that is simply not had outside of communion with Rome.

Rome is a patriarchate, like the others, to be sure.

But, if we accept that it is not heretical, as I think the two of us generally do, papal doctrines aside, then Rome's original role as symbol of unity and arbiter in faith and morals when problems in these departments arise amongst the other Churches remains.

Such is liturgically celebrated in the Byzantine tradition as well.

In addition, Qathuliqa, I think the Oriental Orthodox get a much more open welcome and acceptance by Catholic theologians and people today than by others.

There is just such a greater understanding of Particular theologies and the way in which culture and historical circumstancers condition the way we think that allows us to see former disagreements for what they really were and to come to more insightful conclusions on them today.

Like you, I am committed to my Particular patrimony, cultural perspective etc.

For me, being in communion with Rome is a way I can relate to other Churches and patrimonies that are outside my immediate community and experience, on a more universal, international way.

When the Ecumenical Patriarch was in Toronto, sorry, but it was really a "Greek" affair. He is Greek, to be sure!

But so is the Pope of Rome Polish. And yet, during WYD I saw Christians of many, many backgrounds come out and join together as a truly world-wide community of believers in Christ to worship together, share one another's experiences together and reflect on our relevance to this world together.

I just don't see that in the Orthodox Church, even though I consider myself to be Orthodox Catholic, and my mother, from whom I admit I am estranged, to be the Kyivan Orthodox Church.

And I believe we must be totally "into" our Particular patrimonies, otherwise what do we bring to the discussion table when we talk with other Christians?

The tension is always there and will be, between what is our Particular heritage (which is how we are incorporated into the Body of Christ) and how we relate to other traditions.

Communion with Rome, ideally, brings a better sense of unity within diversity and for that I am truly grateful.

I respect the views of Orthodox with regard to matters of faith.

I would also suggest with respect to papal doctrines on jurisdiction that there isn't that much practical difference between how the Patriarchates of Rome and Moscow are run on a day-to-day basis. Some of my favourite relatives are priests of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Again, the papal doctrines aren't the last word. And frankly I don't personally consider them to be such terrible stumbling blocks. They need work, yes, but I wouldn't consider leaving my communion with Rome over them.

I think I would lose more than I would gain.

Alex

Jim

How awful I hope the Priests cease this before they are defrocked (and if they refuse to stop they probably should be defrocked). Both the Priests and the laity participating are in grave danger

Dear Seeker,

This happens a lot.

In my in-laws' parish, I would say about 30% of the membership in this Eastern Catholic community is Orthodox.

And yet they all attend Communion.

In the Church of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" this is permitted.

And these Orthodox even asked our priest if they have to come into "communion with Rome." And he said, "no."

We have different rules. And then there is what the people will do despite the rules.

Welcome to the real world!

Alex

Seeker,

Metropolitan Nicholas of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown stated in his talk at the Orientale Lumen conference in Washington, DC earlier this year that he has no problem with Eucharistic sharing between our Churches. He specifically stated that he is aware of many Byzantine Catholics who take Eucharist in his parishes and he has no intention of discouraging the practice. It is not uncommon for Orthodox who move to a new area to join a Byzantine Catholic parish when there is no Orthodox parish and vice versa.

Eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox was extremely common right up until the Melkites and Roman Catholics re-established full communion. Even in Europe when an Orthodox family moved to a village with only a Greek Catholic parish they simply joined that parish. In villages where there was one Greek Catholic parish and one Orthodox parish it was common for the priest of one parish to hear the confession of the wife of the other priest, baptize her children, and etc. In southern Italy where there are numerous Italo-Greek Catholic and Orthodox it was very common throughout at least the eighteenth century for both the Orthodox and Catholic priests to join together for festivals, hearing confessions, giving blessings and even celebrating the Divine Liturgy together.

There is a wonderful account by a Serbian Orthodox priest of the relationship between the Greek Catholic and Orthodox parishes in his family village in Serbia during the communist days. In this particular village there was a resident Greek Catholic priest but no resident Orthodox priest. The Orthodox people would gather in their church to sing the praises as best they could without a priest on Sundays and feast days and would rejoice when a visiting Orthodox priest would celebrate for them. Over the many years when they needed a priest for Baptisms, Chrismations, Communion, Confessions, Weddings, Anointings and Funerals, they would turn to the Greek Catholic priest, who was willing to minister to them. Eventually, after almost 50 years they did get their own Orthodox priest and this stopped but the relationship between the parishes stayed very friendly.

Admin

We are a Sui Iuris Church so we can call ourselves what we want.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Administrator,

Your post brings to mind another situation that occurred in Ukraine following the excommunication by Moscow of the Kozak Hetman Ivan Mazeppa for siding with the Lutheran King Charles XII against Peter I.

Ukrainian Orthodox loyal to the Hetman's memory could not have annual memorial services for him since their priests were "in communion with Moscow."

They then got around this by asking Eastern Catholic priests in western Ukraine to serve the panakhidas that turned in an annual event every September 22nd.

This led to all sorts of liturgical sharing and borrowing, including that of the Feast of the Pieta or, as it is known in Ukr. Orth. circles, the "Tenth Friday."

This feast was abolished under the Russian Orthodox Church in Greater Ukraine, but was served in secret by many Orthodox there. They even used "forbidden" Eastern Catholic liturgical books to serve the feast.

Someone here has recently published the "Akathist to the Sorrowful Mother" which is part of the original service used also by the Orthodox and I am pleased to own a copy.

Alex

Dear Friends:

As far as the (Roman) Catholic Church is concerned, the following has been a long-standing practice in the United States (and, I am sure, in other countries as well):

[QUOTE]GUIDELINES FOR THE RECEPTION OF COMMUNION

For Catholics: x x x

For Fellow Christians:

We welcome our fellow Christian to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions that separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one." (John 17:21)

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (CANON 844, sec.4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these churches (CANON 844, sec. 3). (Emphasis mine.)

x x x[QUOTE]

As printed on the inner back page of the "Seasonal Missalette" in current use at all U.S. Catholic parishes.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Thank you for sharing that.

Good for the Catholic Church!

That does it. I'm staying Catholic!

Alex

I voted YES because that is what we are supposed to be -- Orthodox in Communion with Rome.