Dear brethren,

While I am a Latin Catholic (and somewhat proud of that heritage), I also feel a deep calling to the East; in fact I very nearly became Orthodox.

However a Melkite Greek priest aided me in showing me why I need to be Catholic and not Orthodox (he himself formerly an Orthodox priest). Even still, he has always stressed to me that Byzantine Catholics are truly "Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome." Because of the fatherly influence this priest has had in my life, I have taken up that belief and I have found support of it in the words of the Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch.

However, I am not quite sure that I truly understand what that aphorism actually means. From my own serious consideration of Orthodoxy, I found many beliefs which I still believe are not compatible with Catholic teachings.

I am going to ask my mentor-priest tommorow what he means when he says that he is an "Orthodox in communion with Rome." However until then I wanted to ask the Byzantine Catholics (or any Oriental Catholics) why they believe, if they do, that they are Orthodox in communion with Rome; and what this affirmation means.


Thanks!

"Orthodox in communion with the Rome" affirms that the Eastern Catholic Church is autonomous and it's liturgical, spiritual, and theological practice are Orthodox according to Holy Tradition of the Byzantine Church. However, they also remain loyal and in communion with the Bishop of Rome - The Pope.

I like to think that Eastern Catholics reflect what Eastern Christians were prior to the unfortunate schism.


Mike

Слава Ісусу Христу!

One (indivisible) Holy (mystical) Catholic (universal) and Apostolic (Christ-given) Church (authority or validity) of the Orthodox (true) Faith (belief or expression) in (sharing) Communion (fellowship) with (mutually agreed) Rome (final determination in disputes).

Enough of this already! Nobody who is "Orthodox" is in communion with Rome. Period. The words Catholic and Orthodox have been tossed around by both sides, but the fact remains that the term "Orthodox" as it's properly used applies to those Christians who follow the Byzantine rite who are in full communion with their Patriarchs or Metropolitans who are not in communion with Rome. The word "Catholic" as it's properly used applies to any Christian, Latin rite or Byzantine rite who is in communion with Rome.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but this is how it is. Byzantine Catholics have no business using the term Orthodox, (those that do use it in their liturgies are probably causing confusion among their faithful) as they are Catholics, Period.

Until the day that full communion is restored, these two terms mean two different things. Let's all pray for that day, but let's be realistic in the meantime.

What you say is factually incorrect. Oriental Orthodox do not follow the Byzantine Rite and are fully Orthodox. And what of Western Orthodox in communion with You - Are they not Orthodox? If Byzantine Catholics "have no business using the term 'Orthodox'", will you from today onwards profess belief in the "One, Holy, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church"? As you professed the Creed last week, were you "confused" by the word "Catholic"?

Ditto.

Ryan

Amen.

It would be far better for each Church to affirm the others Orthodoxy and Catholicity and then work towards full communion.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Michael and Ryan, although Etnik may be wrong on who he assigns the term Orthodox to (there are other eastern and western Churches who use the term in addition to Byzantine based churches), many members of the EOC that I know would make the argument that Orthodox/orthodox means the same thing and should only be used in relation to those churches that are in union with Constantinople or her sister churches. These same folks would say there is a difference between the word Catholic and the word catholic. The former refers to the RCC, whereas the latter simply means universal and is used in the Nicaean Creed. You may not like this set of definitions and may think it self-serving, but it is one school of thought and many members of the EOC buy it. Call it bias if you want.

Shlomo Michael Thoma,

Remember all Byzantine Christians are Westerners to us.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Слава Ісусу Христу!
What is being proposed, the term Catholic is in reference to the Church and is inclusive while Orthodox is not in reference to the Faith or expression but affiliation and is exclusive? Besides affiliation what makes “Greco Catholics” Westerners and not Easterners; resisting Slavophil chauvinism? Specifics please rather than general accusations.

Often enough - in fact, far too often - I have been faced with, well, I don't want to say "bigots" or "historically ignorant", so let's just say "people who do not wish to understand" who are Eastern Orthodox and who insist that "Papists" are not Catholics at all. I have also been faced with Catholics who insist that "Oriental schismatics" or "Greek dissidents" are not Orthodox at all. But it is more than time that we got beyond this nonsense.


Catholic is a term which has been in use among the Eastern Orthodox since long before the schism, and remains so.

Similarly, Orthodox is a term which has been in use among the Catholics for many centuries, and remains in use.

That is how it is - please do not blame me; I did not invent either of these words, nor did I make some sort of wicked scheme to trick anyone into using either word.

Is it really so difficult to accept the simple idea that these words unite us rather than dividing us? We are, for example, "Evangelicals" - we share, read, and believe in the Gospels. And so on.

There are issues which are more interesting and more substantial then worrying about such words (neither of which comes from Scripture, incidentally).

Maybe we could all argue endlessly about life on Mars.

Fr. Serge

I want to make it clear I am nor arguing with any one. I used the term bias when I described the definitions under discussion. Father Serge notes, "Catholic is a term which has been in use among the Eastern Orthodox since long before the schism, and remains so.

Similarly, Orthodox is a term which has been in use among the Catholics for many centuries, and remains in use"

His comments are on the mark.

It's interesting to me that the most ancient anaphora used in the Latin Church--the Roman Canon--mentions in the Latin "all orthodox and Catholic . . ." I've seen it rendered in an old tranalation "all those of the orthodox and Catholic and Apostolic Faith" in drawing together all those for whom the sacrifice is being offered.

In this context, it seems to me that the fact that we exclude each other, we deal harshly with each other, we angrily deny each other as brothers in a common Lord even as we pray for each other must be an odious offense to Christ Himself Whom we make present.

As I have come to know and love so many Orthodox Christians and have myself come out of the narrow, rigid, parochial mindset that I was raised in, as I have studied and prayed the vision that the Vatican Council has called me and my brethren in this age, this ancient rendering fills me with sorrow since it shows an age when we still were willing to work and reason together to maintain the Lord's own prayer: ut unum sint--that (they) all may be one.

In Christ,

BOB

Brother Bob,

Your sentiment and thought is something which I've shared for some time. If we are really "Orthodox in union with Rome" should we not be remembering in the Holy Liturgy Patriarch Bartholomew along with the Holy Father in Rome. Not to remember our Patriarch in the East is not to be truly orthodox, is it? I believe we should verbally remember and pray for all the Churches, Patriarchs, Religious, and Laity, even for those from whom we are sadly separated (hopefully only for a time). Jesus commanded us to pray for our enemies - I certainly do not consider Patriarch Bartholomew or the other Patriarchs to be enemies. But even if someone might consider one or other to be an enemy of sorts - then the Lord certainly commands us to pray for him. And our brothers and sisters in the Christian churches, be they "orthodox," "catholic" or "protestant" - should we not pray for them? Or do we only pray for those "who love us...." The Gospel seems clear to me on this....

Peace be to all. May the Lord bless all patriarchs, religious, ministers, workers in the vineyard, laity, and all people in the world be they Christian or not.

-Pustinik
-----------------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov

I tend to use these words as commonly understood except I use Catholic much the way Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans with Catholic beliefs) do, which may not be consistent so shoot me.

When I use it it mean everybody, except for ACs themselves (!), whose orders Rome recognises (groups Rome calls churches; criteria: very basic credal orthodoxy, so much so the Oriental communion and Assyrian churches have always passed muster, an unbroken claim to apostolic succession and uninterrupted formally orthodox teaching about the Eucharist). (Rome doesn't recognise Anglican orders; to Rome the Russian Orthodox are a church but the Anglicans are an ecclesial community, Romespeak for a Protestant non-church, just a collection of individual Christians.) Some people use apostolic that way.

When I mean commonly understood Catholic I usually say Roman Catholic (sorry, Eastern Catholics) or RC; if I’m talking about Eastern Catholics I say Eastern Catholics instead, or Byzantine Catholics (or European: Greek Catholics) for all those churches, or the specific name like Ukrainian Catholics. As Fr Serge once remarked to me Maronites and Melkites don't even need the C word in this context (like Ukrainian Catholic versus Ukrainian Orthodox) as they are all under Rome.

Anyway Orthodoxy in communion with Rome (OicwR) seems a school of Greek Catholic churchmanship (just like Anglo-Catholicism is in Anglicanism) popular online and among Greek Catholics by choice (converts if you will): unlatinised in church practice, just like Rome calls for, and minimising the differences with the Orthodox churches, which sometimes shades into going against Rome, like 'We don't believe in the Immaculate Conception' or even 'We don't believe the second-millennium papal claims' (and you're under Rome because?).

The Greek Catholic churches with the most OicwR are the tiny Russian Greek Catholic Church and the bigger Melkite Church. They're thin on the ground among Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholics.

A parallel: just like Anglo-Catholics don't intend to lie or to slight Roman Catholics by using the C word including without a qualifier, the OicwR aren't being dishonest (trying to pass themselves off as being in the Orthodox communion) or trying to insult the Orthodox.

Mirror image: when I say Orthodox I mean in the Orthodox communion, under one of the Orthodox patriarchs. Most are Eastern Orthodox (using the Byzantine Rite) just like most common-meaning Catholics are RCs.

As for many/most Greek Catholics, I once had a born Greek Catholic girlfriend who essentially said, 'Please don't call me an Orthodox in communion with Rome'!

I generally call people what they want so OicwR and non alike are Byzantine/Greek Catholics.

IMO can one really be an OicwR? Here goes. No knock on them but no. The papal claims set the two churches apart.

leaving the preposition aside for the moment, we do indeed believe and accept the papal position of the first Millennium.




Dear, dear. That would mean that the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Poland, the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, the Russian Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church, and the "Orthodox Church in America" do not fit the qualification to be considered Orthodox. I might be so rude as to suggest that this "mirror image" is an attempt to devise a Catholic-style definition which is not going to fit the wonderful world of the Eastern Churches.

But don't start shopping for a bullet-proof vest; I have no desire to shoot you!

Fr. Serge

Father, bless. By mirror image I meant most Orthodox are Byzantine Rite just like most Catholics under Rome are Roman Rite.

As for the autonomous churches, changing under to in communion with 'one of the Orthodox patriarchs' fixes the problem with the language. (Greece is sort of under Constantinople but autonomous and those who don't recognise OCA autocephaly says it's still the American metropolia of the Russian Church.) The point is they're in the Orthodox communion. Greek Catholics including high-church восточники (OicwR) are not; no knock on them, just a fact.

Schisms like the Russian Old Ritualist Church and the cluster of Old Calendarist ones fall into an interesting grey area: not in Orthodoxy but obviously related to it and part of the family (not like Western vagantes claiming to be Orthodox). Sedevacantist RCs are a good parallel.

Nationalist schisms like the Kyiv Patriarchate are more like the SSPX: obviously from the same church and not separate in principle but out of communion for being uncanonical.

Likewise as I like to say I don't call things Roman Catholic that aren't really and truly under Rome. (Partial exception for the SSPX: Rome agrees it's an internal disciplinary/canonical matter not a matter of a separate church.) There's been a lot of bad, slanted news coverage of a little protest/spite schism calling itself Roman Catholic Womenpriests. The offending, sensationalistic headlines and opening paragraphs say things like 'Local woman makes history by being ordained a Roman Catholic priest' then four ’graphs down it says 'Not recognised by the Vatican'. (Like 'I'm an NBA player. I'm not listed on their rosters, they don't pay me and I'm not allowed to play in their games but I say I'm an NBA player.')

RISU and other RC-orientated news services tend to report on the various schisms in the Ukraine (KP, UAOC) as though they were Orthodox like the Moscow Patriarchate (the country's canonical Orthodox church) is. I've pointed out this is bad reporting as would be calling the Polish National Catholic Church Roman Catholic.

ISTM a good Greek Catholic as Rome envisages him is somebody who is unlatinised liturgically and holds to everything Rome teaches — 21 ecumenical councils, the post-schism papal claims and definitions of doctrine — but tries to explain/express it in Byzantinese: Rome's vision of OicwR or what it thinks Orthodoxy should be.

Even though the two sides are so close, the Orthodox would say that 'Orthodoxy with the Vatican glued on top' as Brendan Ross once put it wouldn't be Orthodoxy any more.

The Blessing of the Lord!

Sorry - the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Poland, the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia are all autocephalous, not autonomous - and the Orthodox Church in America holds a Tomos from Moscow giving it autocephalous status.

There are, strangely enough, some "Western Orthodox" groups who have no active connection with any Orthodox autocephalous Church but nevertheless insist on being called "Orthodox". A priest of one of them once said to me with an air of disdain that "Orthodoxy means right belief, not right connections"!

Then again, trying to decide precisely who is "in the Orthodox communion" and who is not can be an Excedrin headache, if you'll forgive my slightly archaic terminology.

The Russian Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church would indignantly, and with a serious show of reason, deny that much of anybody has a right to judge their Orthodoxy. They have my sympathy, but that alone does not solve the ecclesiological problem.

The cluster of Greek Old-Calendarist groups (Romania and Bulgaria are a different discussion) seems to re-align with amazing, even dazzling, frequency. Perhaps someone will offer a computer program to enable us to keep track of them. But that might be considered cheating.

So far as I know, the "Society of Saint Pius X" has nothing to do with anyone's nationalism. But I could easily be mistaken. The Kyiv Patriarchate's claim is rather complicated. But they publish good books, which makes it worthwhile to keep track of them.

As to the "Roman Catholic Womenpriests" nonsense; this is not a schism (having no authentic bishops or clergy), it is simply heretical and idiotic. But such things seldom if even have much staying power.

RISU is Catholic-oriented? Can't say I'd noticed. Perhaps I should read them more often.

"The Polish National Roman Catholic Church" Now there's an idea: a church which asserts that it is simultaneously Polish, nationalist, oriented to one Italian city, and universal! [Just in case I might mislead anyone: there is no judicatory calling itself by that name, and you did not suggest it; just for fun I assembled it from a couple of elements you mentioned.]

Byzantinese? Definition, please! Until the mid-20th century it was always a Greek-speaking city (conceding that Greek has changed several times over the millennia) and is now, alas, a Turkish-speaking city (a moment, please, while I weep and rend my garments). Although, to be fair, the Phanar does seem to have its own peculiar dialect of Greek - a form of katharevousa closely approximating koine, with an esoteric result making it difficult for most Greek-speakers to read it.

Orthodoxy with the Vatican glued on top sounds like an architectural abomination and is certainly not what we have in mind when we assert that we are indeed Eastern Orthodox and we are indeed in communion with Rome! However, I could lament for the good old days before the invention of the electric light when they used to "illuminate" Saint Peter's for a big feast or the equivalent by having an amazing number of candles both inside and outside the great dome, placed in such a way that the wind would not blow them out. Light bulbs just aren't the same.

with every blessing, fraternally yours in Christ,

Serge

With people from churches outside the recognised communions that have the C or O word in their names the nicest thing to do is use the full name of the church to clear up confusion, much like the qualifying adjectives in the Episcopal priest for the Revd Mary Smith or the Methodist bishop (no need to get into a theological discussion/argument when being polite): The Revd John Bloggs, a priest of the Anglican Independent Catholic Church; Mar Paul, a bishop of the Ecumenical Inclusive Orthodox Church. (Made-up people and church names for illustration.) Lest Mar Paul anathematise us. (Somewhere Peter Anson is smiling.)

The answer to the fact that RCs have a claim on the o word at least as far back as the church fathers as well as the Roman (Gregorian) Canon as has been mentioned, and Orthodox on the C word (again, church fathers): use a big O for Orthodox and tack an adjective onto the C word. The Greek Catholic priest. Some people use a small c (the catholic churches, etc.) to disambiguate from RCs; that's fine but I usually don't.

The SSPX is like the KP not in being nationalist, which the SSPX is not, but obviously related to its parent church, still part of its family.

Byzantinese: Orthodoxspeak, Byzantine theological lingo, from соборность and theosis to mysterion and phronema. But you knew that.

Etnick,
If you wish to be harsh, only The Church of Rome can rightly claim the title "Orthodox" since it has presereved the faith fully.
So please try to be a little more charitable in the future.
Stephanos I
The two terms are not mutually exclusive nor the terms soley the perogative of either Church.
In the 1st Eucharistic Prayer or the Roman Canon it is used to define the Church orthodox catholic faith.

John Paul II of Rome was fond of exhorting everyone to be Orthodox in faith and Catholic in love.

Then of course there is the term "catholic" as in "catholic taste", which has nothing to do with anyone's religion. In that sense, one could presumably be more catholic than the Pope and not orthodox in the least. Come to think of it, I've probably met such people.

Fr. Serge

How do you come to this conclusion when Rome alone devised "Immaculate Conception", "Filioque", et al.

Stephanus, you forgot to add "in my opinion" to the end of your sentence "If you wish to be harsh, only The Church of Rome can rightly claim the title "Orthodox" since it has presereved the faith fully." If you don't, you could be accused (rightfully so in my opinion)of the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, if you intended to omit the phrase, far be it for me to tell you what to do. I do note that you included the phrase "if you wished to be harsh." It remains unclear to me whether or not I should take your statement seriously; if not, I withdraw my comment.

Ethnick, you noted. "How do you come to this conclusion when Rome alone devised "Immaculate Conception", "Filioque", et al." Your argument is just as weak as Stephanus'(assuming his comment is what he believes)! Both of you assume you have a lock on the truth. Under such circumstances, debate is not possible and you should both retire to your own corner.

Who wants to debate what's not debatable? Roman Catholic dogma is not binding or accepted by the Orthodox. It's a non issue as far as we're concerned.

Ethnick, I am a member of the EOC just like you are. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Stephanus could say, "Who wants to debate what's not debatable? Eastern Orthodox dogma is not accepted by Roman catholics. It's a non issue as far as we're concerned." There is always room to debate and agree to disagree. Only Jesus has a lock on the truth, neither you nor I nor Stephanus do. All we can hope is to come close to his role model.


I must admit, darn it, I feel very uncomfortable defending the RCC against comments made by one of my own Orthodox brethern!

I guess my point is that for someone to say that only Rome has preserved the faith, when at the same time they introduce dogmas that are only binding on that church, and not believed in by another just shows how far apart the two really are.

Despite the recent ecumenical gestures, much work needs to be done.

I have no problem with that statement, Ethnick, because you have a good point and I cannot disagree with you.

P.S.,

It's Etnick, not Ethnick.

Good quotation from JPII, Father.

I recall reading about Greek Catholic car-bumper stickers that said something like 'Orthodox in worship, Catholic in dogma', the C word here meaning 'under Rome'. That of course is what Rome wants from the Greek Catholics.

Etnick, please excuse my error.

Glad you liked my quote from JPII. With my own ears I heard him say this in Rome in 1990; it was not the only time.

Whether this is what "Rome" wants from the Greek-Catholics is open to question.

Who invented the Immaculate Conception? Good question - might I suggest a careful reading of the services of 6-9 December in the Menaion edition published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery?

Who invented the Filioque? Well, I'm not sure who first came up with the idea, but it was first "dogmatized", so to speak, in Spain, not in Rome. Rome in fact resisted the interpolation to the Creed.

Fr. Serge

Oh, yes.

That leaves the real issue, the scope of the Pope: man-made rank of the episcopate like the patriarchate of Moscow or divinely instituted (on top of being a bishop) with universal jurisdiction?

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Father bless…

Is not Papal intervention upon request, when a Church cannot agree with in itself “Peter has spoken”?

On the Immaculate Conception:

who would dare say that Mary had sinned?

Regards,

Orthodox Catholic Evangelical Charismatic Iconodule Chalcedonian Pseudo-Athanasius.

(All words used to describe myself mean only what I mean them to mean, and nothing else.)

Dear P-A,

Are you naive, or trying to bait others? Ancestral/Original Sin obviously has nothing to do with whether or not the Mother of God ever sinned. Orthodox Christians believe the Theotokos to be without personal sin.

The issue is whether or not All-Pure came into existence suffering the effects of all the descendants of our first parents, Adam and Eve. The Orthodox understand these to be mortality, being subject to sickness and suffering, and a bent of the will toward sin. They understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God as implying that she would not be subject to death, sickness, or suffering. They see the doctrine as lessening the significance of her personal sinlessness. If she was born with the same bent toward sin that all of us have and yet overcame it and remained without personal sin her whole life, her spiritual accomplishment is greater than if she had the unfallen human will that Eve had in Eden before the fall.

Try not to set up straw men to knock down with silly and irrelevant statements like "who would dare say that Mary had sinned?"

Fr David Straut

P.S. I like all your self-descriptive words except the very appellation you have chosen for yourself: Pseudo-Athanasius.

Funnily enough, one rather well-known theologian of the past taught that on at least one occasion the Holy Theotokos comitted a sin - his name is Saint John Chrysostom.

However, one teaching by one Father doth not a dogma make. It's significance in this case is, perhaps, that the Church can and does tolerate some theological pluralism.

On the other side of the theological pendulum, it is not impossible to find those among the Holy Fathers who teach that the Holy Theotokos was indeed not subject to death, sickness or suffering (in particular, the pain of childbirth).

It would certainly seem, however, that she was sharing to some degree in the suffering of her Son on the Holy Cross. I suppose that this was noetic and therefore does not count, or something like that.

Fr. Serge

What Fr Serge said.

The simplest explanation (also with the least risk of falling into heresy) is all catholics (a small c to be clear here) believe Mary is sinless; to quote Orthodox Michael Astley the IC answers a question Byzantine theology doesn't ask.

Fr David's take is interesting but: 1) Prevenient grace. Rome doesn't teach that Mary is in herself perfect! Of course she's not; she's a creature. (Which is why the Orthodox celebrate her conception on the 9th/22nd December, not perfectly nine months away from the feast of her birthday.) Only God is. (Which is why only the Annunciation is perfectly nine months away from a nativity feast.) She is redeemed just like everybody else only God can transcend time and space to retroactively redeem in the womb. 2) If our first parents had said no to sin would they not have been heroic? So it is with Mary.

But this thread has drifted as they often do.

There are OicwR (again a species most often found online) who like many Orthodox deny the IC to show how un-Roman they are; OTOH Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) doesn't put the IC beyond the pale of Orthodoxy.

Again what Mr Astley said.

AFAIK Rome as a court of final appeal is acceptable in the Orthodox understanding of the papacy but it falls short of what Rome claims about the papacy. Again, man-made rank (of the divinely instituted episcopate) with limited jurisdiction and sharing only generally in the church's infallibility or divinely instituted rank with universal jurisdiction and a specific application of the church's infallibility?

So there's the stalemate in this ecumenical relationship, partly because the two sides are so alike both claim to be the one true church. On the papacy one or the other side has got to give. And neither will.

Noted OicwR the late Met. Elias (Zoghby) meant well (nicer than the filth thrown by people on both sides) but his position ('we are all schismatics' or the Anglican-style branch theory revisited = 'we're both the one true church' = there is no one true church; 'I'm under Rome but don't hold to what Rome taught in the second millennium') was really relativistic and didn't really represent either side.

Fogey, your comments are interesting. Archbishop Ware's comments are very interesting on some of these issues. Take the RCC concept of the Assumption of the of the BVM. He points out that the EOC does not accept it as dogma, though there are some members of the EOC who accept it. I believes he says the same thing about the IC, although i may be wrong.

I am puzzled by your assertion that "some" members of the Orthodox Church accept the assumption of the Mother of God. This is a universally held Orthodox belief. I think that some Orthodox questioned the appropriateness of elevating that belief to the status of a "dogma." Were I to encounter an Orthodox Christian in my parish who openly denied that the Theotokos was assumed body and soul into heaven, I would probably refuse him Communion until he repented and accepted the Faith of the Church.

Fr David Straut

An excellent book on this for reference for those interested:

On the Dormition of Mary
http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=185&osCsid=30d178db974ef4b032d1fd83b5f1349f

I enjoyed it a lot. The gathering of the apostles, the speeches given about her and Christ, and the events as described are quite beautiful.

Father David,

I have not looked at Timothy Ware's Orthodox Church since 1975. I found the following excerpt on the web and I emphasize the two sentences in Italics; these were the basis of my statement.

Ware notes, "But Orthodoxy, while for the most part denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, firmly believes in her Bodily Assumption (Immediately after the Pope proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma in 1950, a few Orthodox (by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic Church) began to express doubts about the Bodily Assumption and even explicitly to deny it; but they are certainly not representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole). Like the rest of mankind, Our Lady underwent physical death, but in her case the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated: after death her body was taken up or ‘assumed’ into heaven and her tomb was found to be empty. She has passed beyond death and judgment, and lives already in the Age to Come. Yet she is not thereby utterly separated from the rest of humanity, for that same bodily glory which Mary enjoys now, all of us hope one day to share.

Belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the hymns sung by the Church on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep.’ But Orthodoxy, unlike Rome, has never proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma, nor would it ever wish to do so." (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm)


If I could find my hard copy of the book, I would have given the exact page number. Subsequent to your comments, I talked to my spiritual father, a Greek priest in the diocese of Pittsburgh who chrismated me 30 years ago. He said that, because the Assumption of the BVM has no scriptural basis, in his judgment, the Assumption falls into the area of theolegoumena (he admits that the word might be a bit strong) and hence belief in the concept, though very common among most Orthodox, is not required for salvation. My original statement was perhaps too strong, but I was remembering text which I had not looked at in 32 years. I would, if I had to rewrite my original comments, redraft them along the lines of Archbishop Ware's comments. Res ipsa loquitur.

Zonaras

I rather think that the quote you give from The Orthodox Church (for which I require no page reference because I remember it well) supports exactly what I said. The assumption of the Mother of God is the universally held Orthodox Christian belief. Those few Orthodox who challenged its dogmatic definition in 1950 by the Pope "by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic Church." And further: "Belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the hymns sung by the Church on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep.’ But Orthodoxy, unlike Rome, has never proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma, nor would it ever wish to do so."

I cannot account for what your spiritual father told you. The fact that the Dormition of the Theotokos is not found in Holy Scripture has absolutely no bearing on whether it is the Tradition of the Church or not. Traditions like these are definately not optional, not theologeumena. As a priest who serves the beautiful services on 15 August, he should know that. His position sounds more Protestant than an Orthodox to me.

Fr David

I would agree with your conclusions of the passage backing your view. I was only explaining where and how i had obtained my information. I hope I have not misrepresented my spiritual father's position. I simplified it and his views were obviously more nuanced. I took a phone conversation that ran almost 30 minutes and reduced it to one sentence.

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Discussing perspectives is a vibrant way of keeping the avenues of communication open between East and West, but are these differences heretical? Is the real problem with the filioque the procession or the insertion into the Creed? The problem with the “IC” is not the All Holy’s relationship with the conception of XC but ours with a presumption of predestine sin as St. John Cassian exposed in Augustinian rationalization. We discuss the body of Mary as if we was defending the true presence, question instead if this assumption of dogmatic status is more relevant than Ezekiel’s.

These debates only prove we believe the same thing. One Trinitarian God. Christ’s undefiled incarnation. Souvenirs of either Mother or Son’s bones are not necessary. So what really separate our communing with each other, the vanity of control?

I used to be confused by all this, but with some priestly help I came to understand that we rightly use both terms Catholic (universal) and Orthodox (right practice), but, Byzantine Catholics are Catholic because we recognize the Pope of Rome, and we are under him (I know some folks don't want to hear that, but it's true, especially for Ruthenians.My understanding is that our ties to Rome are stronger than say, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.I'm open to correction if I'm wrong), but our religious practice and theology is the same as that practiced by the Orthodox. Technically, we're Catholic and not Orthodox and as Eastern as my parish is there's a marked difference between our service and an Orthodox service. Can't put my fingers on it, but there's a clear difference in my view.

I've asked before, if the two churches were in communion wouldn't we still be under Rome unless there's an agreement to put us under an Orthodox patriarch?

If this is discourteous, please forgive me. Your posting strikes me as a series of contradictions. Reminds me of Chesterton's expressing his surprise at people who maintain that Christianity and Buddhism are very similar, especially Buddhism!

Reminds me also of an editorial in the Byzantine Catholic World just before the consecration of Bishop Emil Mihalik. The headline of the editorial was "We Are Uniates!" You can readily imagine the reaction of most of the "Ruthenian" clergy.

You are correct in writing that the Pittsburgh Metropolia's ties to Rome are stronger than those of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics [or the Melkites]. The reason is not hard to grasp; the Melkites, the Ukrainians, and most recently the Romanians are governed by their respective Patriarchs and Synods, while the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not relate to any Eastern Synod, but instead directly to Rome. Pity, but there it is.

If your parish is using what is now the "official" Liturgy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, there is certainly a marked difference between that service and an Orthodox service - but I've published a book on the subject, which you are welcome to read.

You ask:

It's a bit difficult to discuss an agreement which has not been made, but I would be amazed if Eastern Orthodoxy would put up with the notion of a substantial Local Church of the Constantinopolitan tradition relating directly to Rome, "over the head", so to speak, of the Ecumenical Patriarch. At most, there might be some provision for a transitional period. Still, life is full of surprises.

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Just found these articles from the Syriac Orthodox perspective:

Theotokos Our Forte

Devotional Thoughts of Soonoyo [Dormition/Assumption] Perunnal - 15th Aug 08

Fr. David,

The Assumption or translation and glorification of the Theotokos in heaven is also reflected in several icons of the Dormition, where, just above the mandorla of Christ holding her immaculate soul surrounded by angelic choirs, she is enthroned (as Queen-Mother) at the top of the icon. I have just such an icon print that I purchased at the Russian center in Rome many years ago.

To my mind, a proper response by the East to the definition would be..."but of course!"

It appears that what precipitated the definition was a groundswell of petitions from the Catholic faithful and clergy all around the world over the course of many years. Pope Pius XII sent out two questions to 1232 bishops, and 1210 responded "yes" to both:

whether (a) the teaching of the Assumption of the Mother of God can be proposed as a dogma and (b) whether the people desired it.

The method of its definition seems to me to be a curious first, and highlights the important role the laity and the "sense of the faithful" can play in the magisterium of the Church. One could certainly argue, however, against defining dogmatically what is obvious liturgically, especially when there was no heretical movement denying such a truth concerning the Theotokos.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

There are heretical movements denying the Assumption every day - nearly all protestant communities, save a few high-church Anglican parishes, deny this Truth.

Yes, but usually one would think a formal definition like that would be reserved to situations where the denial of a certain doctrine is the centerpiece of a movement, such as with Arianism and its views on Christology. "Protestantism" has morphed into a 10,000 headed dragon, as far as the variety of errors and half-truths that are expounded.

Near my home here in the southland there are almost 100 protestant "churches" within a 10 mile radius. Some are even shacks and mobile homes with crosses out front! (I saw one recently that had a sign out front that was written in black magic marker by the same signmaker that worked for teh Little Rascals!) Every one has its own views on a myriad of doctrines and practices - the fruit of private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Next week I plan to visit the "Third-Reorganized Second-Day After Friday Church of the First Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with Miracles and Signs Following". :-)

FDD

I am reminded of the response of an Orthodox priest who became a Melkite over at his own blog a few months back:



I used to fancy the use of the term OicwR and used it to self describe. Frankly, anymore I find it too cumbersome, ideological, and difficult to explain. (Who wants to take 2 minutes to explain what took 2 seconds to utter?) I just don't find the term all that useful inasmuch as it needs too much disambiguation and is not all that clear. I am a Greek Catholic.

Honestly, however, Etnick... Such assertive pronouncements really aren't that helpful.

My word. Does Mykhayl now claim linguistic infallibility? At the risk of appearing dense, I am unaware of any Eastern Orthodox authority that has ever issued a magisterial pronouncement that Greek-Catholics may not use the term "Orthodox" - nor am I aware of any Catholic authority that has ever issued a magisterial pronouncement that Eastern Orthodox may not use the term "Catholic". I am, of course, aware of some specific Orthodox minority groups which deliberately refuse to use the word "Catholic", even in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith (the first time I heard a Serbian Lector proclaim, during the Divine Liturgy, his faith in "one, holy, ecumenical, and apostolic Church" - I managed not to burst out laughing, but I assure you it took considerable effort). And I am aware of some specific Greek-Catholic minority groups who refuse to use the word "Orthodox". But in both cases, this is sheer foolishness.

Greek-Catholic is a favorite expression of mine, but one of its disadvantages is that people ask what that might mean. That is the moment which calls for the explanation.

Alternatively . . . well, never mind (for the moment) what alternative I might have in mind!

Fr. Serge

I can only imagine!

I have always preferred "Orthodox Catholic".

FDD

Shlomo Abun Sarkis,

Again, your wisdom is wide ranging. We Maronites because of the unique nature of our Church we do not need to use Catholic or Orthodox to identify ourselves.

At present we do say Maronite Catholic for those that are not educated in the fact that the whole Maronite Church is in Communion with the Catholic Communion of Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Fr. Serge, I appreciate your reply. Perhaps I should have reordered some of my sentences for more clarity. If you'd be so kind as to point out one or two contradictions it would help me improve my reasoning abilities.

Peace,
Indigo

Dear Indigo,

Even at this ungodly hour of the morning, I'll try to offer you something. How's this?



but



seems to me that if one uses "Catholic" to mean "universal", which is not an uncommon usage, and the Church with which we are, indisputably, in communion, that makes our use of the term "Catholic" is beyond challenge, and, that if one uses "Orthodox" to mean "right practice" and, as you write, "our religious practice and theology is [sic] then our usage of the term "Orthodox" is likewise beyond challenge, and writing that we fulfill the condition you set for Orthodoxy but are nevertheless not Orthodox is, indeed, a contradiction.

Actually, both terms ("Catholic" and "Orthodox") have not been fully or adequately appreciated here; they both have a long history and neither is entirely simple.

Hope that will do for a starter!

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Ah, thanks Fr. Serge, you're mighty kind. I see the contradiction you point out, let me see if i can clear it up.I should have separated those two statements becuase they really are two different issues. According to my understanding Catholic-univeral and Orthodox-right practice are terms that anyone can use and go beyond specific churches. Admittedly, I'm not privy to your clearly deeper understanding of the terms.

In terms of theology and worship practice we use the same ones that Eastern Christians, and most specifically the Orthodox Church uses.Juridiction-wise we are under the Pope, and thus belong to the Catholic church. Because we use Eastern worship practices and theology we are Eastern Catholics and not Roman Catholics.
I'm afraid I've rent more holes in the fabric, but hopefully this is at least slightly less contradictory than the first post.

Thanks for your patience, Fr. Serge.

peace,
Indigo

Слава Ісусу Христу!
Why is the term in the Creed “sobornutu” used and another term used for Catholic?

Dear Indigo,

Kind? Me? My reputation will be ruined!

Your post is certainly less of a verbal contradiction and therefore something of an improvement. But the basic problem remains: the double use of the two terms, as denominational labels and as intrinsic definitions. Let me attempt to repair my reputation and possibly make things a bit clearer:

Again, I am ignoring the secular use of both of these words (to illustrate, one might ask such a question as "Was Joseph Stalin really an orthodox Marxist", or a book reviewer might write that "the Larousse Gastronomique caters to a catholic taste in cuisines").

Even so, I am also paying little or no attention to the use of either of these terms when they are applied beyond the boundaries of our own concerns (as in "the Orthodox Presbyterian Church" - which exists in the USA, incidentally - or "The Liberal Catholic Church" - a denomination which is dwindling rapidly, but continues to exist in quite a few countries).

In our ball park (excuse that expression, please!), "Catholic" sometimes simply means relating to the Pope - what C. S. Lewis used to call "Papist" - but more usually means of or belonging to the great ecclesial tradition of using this word, which probably begins with Saint Ignatius of Antioch, is found in the Seven Councils, in the liturgical texts, in the second half of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and so on. Hence if someone is being peaceful, he may very well say "the various Eastern Orthodox Churches are Catholic, but sadly most of them are not in communion with Rome", and if someone is being stentorian, particularly in Greece, he might say "The Papists call themselves Catholics, but in truth they are not only not Catholic, they are not a Church at all" - Protopresbyter George Metallinos is notorious for this sort of utterance.

Like "Catholic","Orthodox" also relates to what might be called a large and somewhat unruly "family" of Churches. Used in this way, it originally referred to Churches - and people - who accepted and received the Council of Chalcedon and who did not accept Monothelitism (or Eutychianism, or Nestorianism, or Docetism, or Donatism, or . . . Since the Catholic Church obviously receives the Council of Chalcedon and does not accept any of those heresies - or any other heresies - she accepted and continues to accept the term "Orthodox", in her liturgical texts, her doctrinal texts, and her general self-description. Patriarch Joseph (Cardinal Slipyj) wrote a well-known brief essay on this use of the term.

Used in that way, "Orthodox" is common to the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics, and the relatively small "Western-Rite Orthodox". It has become such a "family name" and is therefore properly used by those who belong to this family. Similarly, the Anglican Communion is not a unitary body, but one can note some features which make it possible to say that one set of Christians is Anglican and another is not.

Or one can (as Patriarch Joseph does) compare the use of such terms as "Orthodox" to ethnic/national designations. One can be Irish; at the same time an Irish person might be a Roman Catholic, a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Unitarian, a Mormon, an atheist, a secularist, or whatever else by way of religion or irreligion. In terms of politics, he might be a monarchist, a traditional Irish Republican, a Unionist (heaven forbid!), a Communist (not many of them about these days, but they still run a bookstore in Dublin), and so on.

The use of the denominational-family sense of "Orthodox" has broadened a bit since it first entered the vocabulary; most of the, er, "pre-Chalcedonian" (we're not supposed to say "Monophysite"!) Churches call themselves "Orthodox" and their persistence in so doing seems to have brought about a fairly general acceptance of that usage - thus the expression "the Coptic Orthodox Church" no longer causes eyebrows to shoot into the air.

The Greek-Catholics never repudiated the term "Orthodox", nor did we or our predecessors act in a way which would justify attempts to deprive us of this term. We use it, and it suits us. We certainly do not deny any doctrine taught by the Eastern Orthodox teaching authority, although we do not think that theology suddenly stopped dead in its tracks in 1054, or 1470, and so on.

"Orthodoxy", to Father Archimandrite Robert Taft's annoyance, has also taken on the meaning of "right glory", and with this broadened meaning has also come to signify those who worship God "in the Orthodox manner". We are certainly supposed to do that - we sometimes fail, but so does everyone else.

Hence, in the words of Patriarch Joseph, thus "Orthodox we are, and Orthodox we shall remain".

Those of our Orthodox brothers who are, sadly, not in full communion with Rome continue to call themselves "Catholic", and we do not make trouble over it. The same courtesy should be reciprocated.

Now it is for me to thank you for your patience in reading this overlong posting, and to hope that I have managed to make the position clearer rather than add to the confusion!

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,
That was as clear as a bell,interesting (Irish Communists,huh. Someone needs to tell them what year it is.) and I appreciate your patience and time,thank you. I'm afraid that reputation of yours is irreperably damaged after this,absolutely hopeless,FatherSerge.

Peace,
Indigo

Father Serge,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for your most excellent post on this topic. I will steal from it shamelessly in an upcoming homily!

Do you have a reference for the article (in English) by Patriarch Joseph, of blessed memory?

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

About 36 years ago I translated that article - I'll see if I can find a copy. Failing that, I could translate it over again - it's not that long.

Fr. Serge

I consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian, and I also happen to be a Ruthenian Catholic.

Now for those who believe that "Orthodox in communion with Rome" only exist online, I can assure you that my primary mode of existence is offline.

Communism was never an overwhelming movement in Ireland; these days there are so few of them left that one might want to cuddle them and reassure them (though I don't know of any sensible way of reassuring them, since it is quite true that the only people who pay them any attention are bibliophiles who go to their bookstore looking for long out-of-print books). I'm not aware of anything that they do besides maintain their bookstore (and if you go in there, wear a dust mask).

Fr. Serge

Hello Father Serge and all the other forum members!

Brendan Behan claimed to be Communist by day and Catholic by night!

James Connolly and Jim Larkin were, if not communists, certainly very far to the political left, and both remained within the Church throughout their lives.

Off topic, I know, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Is mise le meas

Craig

There is much more that unites Catholics (Roman or Eastern) and Orthodox than divides them. Yes, there are many heterodox Roman Catholics but the ancient tradition of the Roman Church is faithful to the Gospel. Do we not believe in one Lord and Savior? Do we not receive the same Body and Blood of the Lord when we go to communion? In my view Catholics and Orthodox need to treat each other as brothers in Christ, with charity at all times, praying for the day when the tragic schism will end and we will be united.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

A Chraig, a chara,

James Connolly once engaged in a - courteous - public discussion with a Dublin priest. It's still worth reading (given a choice between Connolly and Pearse I'll take Pearse).

James Larkin was a Social Democrat - which has never caught on much in Ireland. We're a nation of extremists!

Fr. Serge

Connolly was reconciled to the Catholic Church before his execution. A point I always enjoy reminding lefties of.

Jim Larkin once spoke before a group of Communists in NYC, most of whom who were Jewish, and at one point in his speech, shocked them out of there senses by pulling out a crucifix and telling them of his faith in Jesus Christ.

BUT back to the original topic. Might I ask, how do Orthodox Christians feel about Eastern Catholics calling themselves "Orthodox in Communion"

I think that we have to allow people to describe themselves in what way is meaningful to them. So I am not going to tell other people that they have no right to call themselves Orthodox.

But, when confusion may arise among people, it is necessary to say that although Greek Catholics may call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," they are not in fact in communion with the Orthodox Church.

I personally think that when you choose to call yourself something that everyone else will misunderstand, it can be exhausting. About a decade ago I gave up battling to always give the term 'Catholic' a qualifier when speaking of those in communion with the Pope of Rome (i.e. always insisting on calling them Roman Catholics or Byzantine Catholics) because I viewed the Orthodox Church as The Catholic Church. (I think this might have been a holdover from my Anglican days. ) It is just a reality that people generally think of Catholics as those in Communion with Rome and Orthodox as members of the 'Eastern Orthodox Church.' By using these terms in our everyday speech we do give up our individual claim that the other term does not also apply to our side technically.

Fr David Straut

People can call themselves whatever they want to. I don't see what it really matters. The words "Greek Catholic" are in a bunch of places in Orthodoxy.

As far as the USA goes, the term "Greek Catholic" stuck to satisfy the leanings of ex Greek Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy. Sort of like we're Orthodox now, but we're also still Greek Catholic. Many cornerstones prove this.

Amen, Amen, Amen! Chosing a moniker that will lead one to constantly have to give the 2 minute explination and 10¢ tour of history is nothing if not exhausting. Frankly, I could only do so for so long before I gave up the ghost, dropped the OicwR, and simply opted to be "Greek Catholic" or - as often as not when talking with non-Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians - simply say "Catholic". My JW neighbor's eyes would glaze over further if I did more than that.



Father David, there is some genteel wisdom in this. Not the least of which is that if we give up the semantics on monikers, that is not an indication that we are indifferent, just practical. The tendancy of some to demand Catholics be qualified as "Roman Catholic" seems to be - at times - almost childish and affected.

I just tell people I'm part of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese, and I assume the average person will understand what that means.

You must be joking.

When I was in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, I told someone that I was Antiochian Orthodox. They asked me, "What's that?" I gave them a couple minute explanation beginning with the reference in Acts that says, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." I explained about the five ancient Patriarchates. I told them where Antioch was today, how the Patriarch had actually resided in Damascus for many hundreds of years, etc., etc. After I finished, the inquirer looked at me blankly and said, "I just want to know what you are 'anti-.' What is an 'Ochian?"

From then on I just told people I was Eastern Orthodox ("You know, like Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox"). Even telling people that I was an Orthodox Christian, which was my preferred appellation, almost invariably lead to misunderstandings ("So your Jewish, right?" "I didn't know Rabbis could wear crosses" ). 'Eastern Orthodox' was usually understood.

I now have an even easier time since I can describe myself as simply 'Russian Orthodox' and everyone seems to know what that is. My only problem now is to find explanations for:

"Your name doesn't sound Russian to me. Was your Mother Russian?" "Well, no..."

"But you are Russian." "Umm, no...."

"But you do speak Russian?" "Only... No, I don't..."

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....

Fr David Straut

But "Straut" is simply a Russian name that was shortened. When your great-grandfather came over from Uzhorod, in the wilds of Holy Russia which was then controlled by Austria-Hungry in 1911 he only knew the Cyrillic alphabet. When he he said "Strastijevich" the Irish immigration officer rolled his eyes and wrote on the form "Straut" since he just finished processing a batch of Germans who came over on the same boat.

And you don't speak Russian since your Baba insisted that your father speak English at home since this is America. And the almost the same thing happened to your mother except she was really from somewhere near Minsk and remembered a little Russian. And what a waste that is.

Very creative! I love it.

I had a friend in Seminary who was a convert to Orthodox Christianity from Judaism. Not only did he change his first name at Baptism, but his surname as well. 'Silver' was transformed into 'Serebrov.' But then again, his ancestors may well have sojourned in Russia at one time.

My surname is actually an anglicized and shortened from of the Dutch name 'Straatmaker,' meaning 'Street-paver,' which I assume was the profession of my ancestor who made the sea trek to New Netherlands in the 1650's and planted my family on these shores. Perhaps there is a Russian form of this word that I could adopt as a surname!

Fr David

Well, if the average person doesn't understand what that means you've only yourself to blame. Next time use the full name:

"the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the Eastern Rite Church of North and South America, Incorporated"

Now that, surely, is unmistakable.

Just to be ecumenical, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is not really incorporated in Canada (or at least it wasn't the last time I looked) - each eparchy is incorporated separately, in whichever province is its main location.

So I suppose the next time that I visit Canada I could claim a connection with the "Unincorporated Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church".

Fr. Serge

'Anti-Ochian' is new to me.

I have icons of Jesus and Mary in my workspace (blessedly un-corporate). But I have a beard, dark hair and brown eyes. That and the word 'Orthodox' mean I've been wished a happy Hanukkah (as if Jews keep pictures of Jesus and Mary around). (Joy Behar jokes about getting that because of her looks and New York accent: 'Ma! I'm not Jewish!') Wearing my Russian winter hat I've been mistaken for a rabbi. I know Russian but yes, like with Fr David explaining can be awkward.

I'm an ex-Anglican who still claims and qualifies the word Catholic, not as a knock on anybody else (the opposite actually). So you're Greek Catholics (European name) or Byzantine Catholics (modern American) or to be specific in some cases Ukrainian etc. Catholics.

If I'm in a hurry and not talking about any other kind of Catholic I'll use the word without a qualifier.

The reason Etnick gave for Slav-American Orthodox retaining Greek Catholic is only one. Another is the words were/are in the legal papers (charters, deeds) of many of their parishes and a way to keep their properties (after a split from Rome) was to keep the words in the name.

Some say that Roman Catholic was invented by the Anglican English. (Nicer than 'the Italian Mission to the Irish'.)

Some Roman Catholics today of the 'faithful to the teachings of the Pope' persuasion wear the term as a badge of honour (their answer to American Catholic which used to be popular with some American liberals).

There is only one Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is His body. All who follow the apostolic tradition receive the Body of the Lord in the sacrament of the eucharist. The separation of the Orthodox and the Catholic churches is therefore a scandal that must come to an end in due time. Each Orthodox and Catholic Christian must pray daily for God's intervention in this sad situation.

Each one of us is a hopeless sinner. Only the Lord's grace saves us from damnation.

I was, I usually just say Orthodox and go in to more explanation if need be.

Dear Father David,

C. S. Lewis insisted on using the expression "Papist", on the claim that by using this term he managed to avoid saying either "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic"! It was of course purely coincidental that he was a Belfast Protestant and that even his friends at Oxford noticed that he was always inclined to think the worst of Catholics. As a direct response to this, people who are discussing Lewis and are themselves, ah, "Christians in communion with Rome" are apt to insist on ruling out the expression "Roman Catholic", even though they may use it themselves in other contexts.

This is by no means just my observation - I suggest Christopher Derrick's excellent book C. S. Lewis and the Church of Rome.

It may not be irrelevant to note that Lewis frequently asserted that his beliefs were to be found in the Book of Common Prayer (presumably the 1662 version, although he objected to prayers for the dead).

Fr. Serge

I only use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" when speaking to apostolic Christians. I do this with the hope of engaging Latins about the Eastern/Oriental Churches, and engaging non-Latins about the Catholic Church. When speaking to Protestants and people of other religions, I call myself "Catholic."

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you encounter a positive reaction from apostolic Christians in the Orthodox Churches such as Greek and Russian when you use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome"?

It would seem to me as red rag to a bull and it is the the sort of offensive terminology which the Vatican would surely prefer to avoid since it is an newly minted term and a quite unnecessary irritant between the Churches in dialogue. It helps to breathe new life into the old antagonism between our Churches, something we are trying to lay to rest. The term damages the "dialogue of love."

Bless Father Hieromonk!

You are more than correct and your words should be taken to heart by us all.

We should be about loving dialogue and anything that detracts from that is wrong.

Alex

I generally describe myself as either “Byzantine Catholic” or “Greek Catholic” and only use the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” when a further explanation seems necessary.

I’ve never had a problem with the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”. Perhaps this is a result of growing up in an area were there were lots of Eastern Christians. Most of the Orthodox Churches in my area officially called themselves “Orthodox Greek Catholic” (and most still do). This was resultant from their starting off as Greek Catholic parishes and then breaking communion with Rome and establishing communion with an Orthodox Church (either Constantinople or Moscow). So to consider that one was Orthodox in communion with Rome was neither surprising nor offensive. Add to this that in many places people floated back and forth between parishes, regardless of whether they were Orthodox or Greek Catholic. Cradles in both Churches often do not see much of a distinction between Catholic and Orthodox. They worship the same, they eat the same, and the only real difference they see is that they pray for different bishops.

When the OCA changed calendars in the early 1980’s (from the Julian to the Revised Julian) then Bishop Herman of Wilkes-Barre and Eastern Pensylvania had an interview on the front page of one of the Scranton newspapers. In the interview he had referenced that Byzantine Catholics had successfully made the change a decade or so earlier. He had defined Byzantine Catholics as “Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction”.

I do precisely the same thing, usually identifying as "Orthodox" our worship, spirituality, and theological roots and practices.

While I do believe, as I stated before, that anyone can refer to themselves however they want; I do think that the term is wrong as used. Not because I don't recognize that some of the particular churches in communion with Rome sprang from the Orthodox church, or that their customs and traditions are often very similar to those Orthodoxy; but because I think the term has a fundamental misinterpretation of what Orthodoxy is written in to it. It in my opinion implies that "Orthodoxy" is an Eastern expression of the faith. Joe posted a good summary in a different thread that I think is relevant:



http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/7/5/1.aspx

In other words Orthodoxy is not an expression of the faith, it is the apostolic faith itself; bound not by East or West, and encompassing the patristic heritage of both. Our conciliar/dogmatic tradition is different than that of Rome, and therefore to be in communion with Rome means not to be Orthodox as understood in the Orthodox church itself.

It seems to me that the term OicwR would probably require much more explanation than the other two. Just for starters it raises the question in the enquirer, "If you are Orthodox, why are you out of communion with the Orthodox Church?"

----

Father Ambrose bless!

Like our moderator, I usually describe myself as a Byzantine or Greek Catholic. Of course, many Western Christians usually have no idea that Christianity could be anything but Roman Protestant. At that point I offer the OicwR description. Even when I tell folks that I am Catholic, they still refuse to believe it and ask me if I believe in the Pope of Rome. As if the Holy Father is Santa Claus.

Ahh... "If you are Orthodox, why are you out of communion with the Orthodox Church?" That is the proverbial elephant in the room. I believe that Ruthenians (whether members of the UGCC or BCC) will have two different ecclesiological answers for this key question.

I believe our goal is to approximate as much as we can the reality of the early Church. Was St. Athanasius Orthodox? Was he in communion with the bishop of Rome? Yes on both counts. I want to follow his example.

Was he in communion with the Church of Jerusalem? the Church of Constantinople? Yes, and yes. The OicwR are not.

But the point these days is not with whom the OicwR are in communion but whether the term should be discarded because it damages the "dialogue of love" between our Churches. It is as much an irritant to the Orthodox as "Uniate" is to the Catholics.

Perhaps some Byzantine Greeks Catholic parishes are Orthodox in Communion with Rome (OicwR) and some are not. I believe that if one visited http://www.saintelias.com or http://www.byzantinecatholic.com one might find that the only meaningful difference between the Catholics and the Orthodox is found in the hierarchs commemorated in the litanies.

Orthodoxy is not faithfulness to the Byzantine rubrics, nor is it being "Eastern". Those two parishes may be very much doing both of those things, but they're not Orthodox.

Of course not, AMM. The Liturgy is our Theology and our Theology is our Liturgy. While a quick case could be made that Roman Catholics are ontologically different from the Orthodox, I don't think that it is so cut and dry with the Greek Catholics.

If the equivalence is so precise, wouldn't that qualify the Orthodox for the title of "Catholics in communion with Constantinople"? If not, why not?

John, I would say I have to disagree. Liturgy is an important facet of theology, and probably the principle one we participate in and therefore the most visible; but the liturgy itself is not he complete system of theology of the church. Liturgy flows from the theology of the church (i.e. the faith of the church), not the other way around.

Dear Friends,

It would seem that "Orthodoxy" can legitimately refer to two things simultaneously.

It can refer to the Orthodox Church and if someone asked us if we could point to an "Orthodox parish" none of us would have any difficulty doing this.

But "Orthodoxy" can also mean "orthodoxy" which is why there are other Churches that claim that title formally.

The problem is that "Orthodoxy=orthodoxy" depends on the conviction of a given church or family of churches.

The Catholic Mass, as I've seen Pope John Paul II pray on TV, does indeed use "Orthodox" when it mentions "all who teach the Orthodox Faith." (My mother thought "How ecumenical of him to mention the Orthodox!" )

And certainly the RC Church has no problem accepting "De Fide Orthodoxa" by St John Damascene as what it is, including the title.

Then there are the Miaphysites who call themselves "Oriental Orthodox" and much has been written by the theologians engaged in the Oriental-Eastern Orthodox ecumenical dialogue on this. The Eastern Orthodox theologians seemed not to have a problem with their usage of "Orthodox."

It is very true that to be "Orthodox" means much more than expressing an "Orthodox spiritual culture" alone without a) the fullness of Orthodox faith and b) communion with Orthodoxy.

No matter how irenical Eastern Catholics wish to be, there are reasons of faith (and culture/politics, of course) why our forefathers chose to disrupt the communion they had with the four Eastern Patriarchates in order to enter into communion with the Western papacy.

However our forefathers in the various Unias understood their union with Rome, there can be no doubt that, today, Eastern Catholics affirm that union because they believe that the Catholic Church in union with the Roman pope is in possession of the fullness of the Apostolic faith and tradition. That is why Eastern Catholics understand themselves not only to be "Orthodox" in terms of ritual and spiritual culture, but "Orthodox" in terms of the fullness of faith and tradition, prior to the schism of 1054, especially with respect to maintaining a relationship with Rome (however we choose to define it - hoping, at the same time, that Rome will tolerate our own definitions of it).

If we Eastern Catholics believed otherwise, then our union with Rome is, at best, a theological-ecclesial anomaly. When our esteemed Administrator affirms, as he has, that the Papacy is the "Crown of Orthodoxy" - he and other EC's really do mean that. And that conviction is one that is rooted in "Orthodoxy=orthodoxy." We believe we are "Orthodox" in affirming the Papacy and not "Roman Catholic" because we believe it is possible to be in communion with Rome in a specifically "Eastern" way, much like the way East and West were in communion for the first millennium.

For us, "Orthodoxy" is an unbroken continuum from Apostolic times - as it is for the Orthodox Church - but we are in communion with Rome because to not to is to fall short on what we believe is the measure of Apostolic authenticity that is experienced and contained in the first millennium of the united Church's experience.

At the same time, we "Orthodox Eastern Catholics" believe that we can and should experience communion with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates - and at the same time know that we cannot. We painfully realize and appreciate our separation from what can only be called our "Mother Orthodox Churches."

For us, our union is so close and we love our Mother Orthodox Churches while acknowledging them to be truly full members of the Body of Christ led and inspired by the Most Holy Spirit - which is also why we love to embrace the holy Saints of Orthodoxy and honour them as our own!

Such a position is often understood by Orthodox Christians as being one of indifference to the causes of separation that persist to this day. We hope that it is not so and that we take seriously the matters of doctrine that separate us. But we do see our own Eastern theological traditions - which Rome not only allows us to develop but also expects us to develop and maintain - as giving a different "light" to the issues that have historically divided us.

Eastern Catholics ideally will not recite the Filioque in the Creed and need not hold to it. We need not have indulgences and can live very well without them and without the scholastic understandings of Latin eschatology and prayer for the dead. We need not hold to RC Marian dogmas - they do not add anything to glorifying her as All-Immaculate and having been taken bodily to heaven where she has been crowned as the Queen of heaven and earth.

As for the papacy, we affirm that the Petrine Primacy is one that should be outside of our Churches' ability to govern themselves. The UGCC has struggled long for acknowledgement of her Patriarchate and has decided to act as a Patriarchate with or without Rome's administrative approval. So far, Rome hasn't excommunicated us (no doubt because it knows where we would migrate to if it did!). But the tension between Rome and the UGCC in particular is one that is an off-shoot of the wider ecumenism with Orthodoxy so we guess we can forgive Rome . . . perhaps . . .

There is no easy answer for us EC's - ever. We cling to our "Orthodoxy" because we truly believe ourselves to be that and that the papacy is truly the "Crown of Orthodoxy" to borrow the Administrator's phrase once again.

For us, to be Orthodox is not only an expression of our liturgical or cultural identity. It is truly an expression of our faith identity and the role that the Pope of Rome plays in it.

Alex

Well written Alex. I think you have affirmed that when we use the term "Orthodox" we actually mean something different.

If the Divine Liturgy were just ritual, even of the most sacred form, possibly. Rather, the Divine Liturgy is synonymous with being Church:



John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestwood: St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993), p 21.

From my study of Orthodox sources, I remember the statement that

"The Liturgy is the Faith in action."

It would seem, then, that the bulk of theology--the "speaking about God"--is clearly expressed in the whole of the liturgical tradition and action.

BOB

In response to Deacon Anthony's post...

Then celebration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church represents the full deposit of faith. I would imagine that would be the opinion of Metropolitan John.

One could also I guess reasonably surmise that celebration of the Eucharist in the Anglican Church represents the full deposit of the Catholic faith.

You missed mentioning the Catholic Church. Yes, of course for the Orthodox (and so according to Catholic theology too, full save for what is, the lack of ecclesial communion). The Catholic position on Anglicans is no: valid orders are necessary. Don't know what +Zizioulas would say.

We constitute ourselves as the One Body of Christ - heis, mia, hen; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:5 - in the Eucharist.

Our disunity is our shame.

St. Athanasius was in communion with Rome at that time, because, at that time, Rome was Orthodox. Rome is no longer Orthodox so it is not possible for Orthodox Christians to be in communion with her.

Joe

What you're really saying though is Orthodoxy lacks the fullness of faith, even if in your estimation it's pretty close. Clearly something else is required to attain that fullness, beyond the liturgy or even the Eucharist itself.



Does that belief spring from the liturgy, or does the necessity of valid orders to fulfill the liturgy spring from the faith of the church? I think it's the latter.

That's a difference in perception. Many Orthodox Christians today think that Catholics hold heterodox teachings. I used to be among them. Now, I am an Orthodox Christian who understands that my prior perception of what the Catholic Church teaches was based on my own misunderstanding and prejudice, not on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. So I, like Popes St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, am an Orthodox in communion with Rome.

There are still 60,000,000 Coptic Orthodox holding to your prior misconceptions! You have the courage to be the odd man out.

Like an Athanasius in a "world [that] awoke and groaned to find itself Arian."

Has not the Vatican determined that its own diophysite Christology and the miaphysite Christology of the Orientals are one and the same? I believe there is an official inter-church statement to that effect?

What do the questions have to do with Athanasius and Arius/Arianism?

Well, there's the rub!

Yes, as I said, "full save for what is, the lack of ecclesial communion." (see below)

My take on the quote from +Z is that it is not an either or situation but that the two, liturgy and orders, are coextensive. For +Z the church is a/the Eucharistic community headed by the bishop that gathers around its bishop in the celebration of the Eucharist. All ministries in the church are the ministries of Christ; the orders in the church are conformed to those ministries; all orders in the church flow from the bishop as from Christ. Each such Eucharistic community is a catholic Church. Of necessity, all those catholic churches must be in communion as the One, catholic Church. Unfortunately, the must is presently not realized.

Dear Mardukm,

It is a joy to find a Coptic Catholic posting on the Forum, Perhaps we may be in touch by PM. Meanwhile, God give you all His choicest blessings.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Ambrose:


There are sixty million Coptic Orthodox? I'm happy to hear it, but I wonder where they may be found. I shall inquire of my Coptic Orthodox friends (and yes, I do have some).

Wishing you every joy of the feast of Saint Andrew the First-Called,

Fr. Serge

I thought that there were around 6,000,000 Coptic Christians in Egypt.

I defer to the appraisal that "Rome was Orthodox." The point is that Rome was orthodox then and orthodox now. That is what matters.

These comments are ultimately pointless, because you hold that Rome is orthodox and JSMelkite holds that it is not. It is a matter of opinion, and your opinions differ.

Which, who's comments?

Your comments and his.

As a matter of faith you hold that Rome is orthodox; while JSMelkite, as a matter of faith, holds that Rome is heterdox.

Yes, you've got it right! But that in fact was my point.

It was a response. As a Catholic on this byzcath Forum I think it good to say and hear such occasionally as warranted. Giving witness.

It is good to see someone admit that they cannot prove that Rome is orthodox, but that they accept that it is orthodox by an act of faith.

I didn't see this before. Is that his Orthodox faith, or the Orthodox faith?

Yes, I would say that JSMelkite holds that position as a matter of faith, because Rome teaches things that are contrary to Orthodoxy as it is set forth in his Church, and so it follows that for him (and for his Church) Rome is heterodox as matter of faith.

By analogy, I hold that an Arian Christian's faith is heterodox, and in holding this position I am making an act of dogmatic faith.

Actually, the above can't even be true. After the schism Rome retroactively rejected Constaninople IV which re-affirmed the prohibition on altering the creed and restored St. Photios the Great. I believe Rome regards the council of 869-870, which is seen as a robber council in Orthodoxy, as an ecumenical council. Another reason why one cannot be Orthodox in communion with Rome, at least as the term is understood in the Orthodox Church.



Then no "catholic" church exists at all.

I would also say this understanding of the church arises from something other than what is contained in the liturgy itself. You take it as axiomatic for instance that valid orders are necessary for the liturgy. I agree, but there is something outside the liturgy that tells us this.

Every particular Church during the celebration of the liturgy is the full realization of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Then the Papacy is not a theological imperative as a unique institution.

What! No such statement can be legitimately inferred from what I said. Now say the Creed three times.

Well said. Is this in response to something in a previous post, or are you just giving witness?

It's a comment / response to AMM's post.

Associative thinking, rather the same as linking the quote from Saint Jerome of Stridonium with Saint Athanasius - "Like an Athanasius in a "world [that] awoke and groaned to find itself Arian.""

This one?

--------------------

Any sources, names, etc. for who may have written for/against this view?

Orthodoxwiki places them in Egypt, Ethiopia, and in the Egyptian diaspora.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Alexandria_(Coptic)#Coptic_Christianity_today

Bless, Fathers,

There must be potentially less painful, but equally efficacious, ways of self-mortification than inserting oneself between the two of you, but I feel I must throw in my two cents here - on Father Serge's side this particular time.

I'd remind Father Ambrose of our shared, long-standing, cautionary attitude towards wikis because of how they are created, sourced, and maintained - and that, not infrequently, includes even OrthodoxWiki. In this particular instance, they apply a mix and match terminology, using Coptic and Alexandrian a bit too interchangeably for the reality of the situation.

While it might once have been appropriate to do so, it is no more. The Eritreans may or may not be comfortable with being styled "Copts", but the Ethiopian Tewahado certainly would not be - and they are the largest of the three in population, by some multiples. Is the Coptic Church their parent? Unquestionably. Are they Copts? Not likely that they'd so characterize themselves.

By estimates elsewhere, the Coptic Orthodox (Alexandrian Orthodox of the Church headed by His Holiness Pope Shenouda) would be about 10M in number (a good 5M below the OW figure) - in country. Not sure what the additional numbers elsewhere in the region or the diaspora would add to that, but I doubt it's 5M. I'd agree with their figures as to the Ethiopians (38M) and Eritreans (2M); those are consistent with estimates in several other places.

Many years,

Neil

I can't imagine from this remark what you thought my association was but here it is:

courage to be the odd man out : Athanasius ::
60,000,000 Coptic Orthodox : world

So that I may be better informed for a possible response, can you walk me through your association?

Are you able to handle the mind of an Irishman?

My thanks and blessing to Neil - we'll have you learning Irish yet!

As promised, I checked with a Coptic Orthodox priest in perfectly good standing. This was his response:

"General agreement that out of the Egyptian population of 60 million there are about 6-7 million Copts. The church claims 12 million. There are about .5 million in Africa and about 2 million in what the church calls diaspora (i.e. Europe, Australia, USA). Total: about 10 million."

Just for the record, the Ethiopian Orthodox do not care to be called Copts, so let's not call them that.

Fr. Serge

I can amend the information on Orthodoxwiki in line with the above information. The figure of 60,000,000 is grossly inaccurate.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Alexandria_(Coptic)

Quite right. They are by far the largest of the Oriental Churches.

Since this has gone somewhat off track, I will just re-state what I think some of the essential points are.

Orthodoxy is not synonymous with the Eastern liturgical tradition, and maintaining all the rubrics of the Eastern liturgy is not what makes one Orthodox.

Eastern Catholicism does not represent the pre-schism state of the Orthodox church. As I said



The inability to alter the creed remains a fundamental Orthodox belief. Other councils which anyone in communion with Rome must accept would be equally problematic, including Lyons and Florence. I have trouble believing any Eastern Catholic church liturgically commemorates St. Mark of Ephesus publicly, but his position and letter remains an important part of the tradition of the Orthodox Church.

There are many other issues.

People should feel free to use the term Orthodox, but recognize they mean something different by it.

What Andrew said! I need not add anything else.

Joe

Oh, and I'm know that others have also expressed this sentiment but I want to say with them that any group can call itself anything it wishes. I have no problem at all with EC's calling themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome," just as I have no problem with blacks calling themselves "African Americans," American Indians calling themselves "Native Americans," penteocostals calling themselves "Apostolic" and so forth. I believe that each person and group should have the freedom to name himself/itself. The only time I ever have a problem with naming is when there is deliberate deception going on; for example, many mega-churches and campus ministries who call themselves interdenominational or non-denominational, while they are, in fact, part of the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assemblies of God.

Alex- all beautifully stated. I almost heard Patriarch Josyp's voice again saying many of those things 20+ years ago...as if it were yesterday.

We can certainly debate whether the fathers of the Union of Brest intended or believed a sort of dual communion was possible (as several have posited, even Fr. Borys Gudziak), but nonetheless they certainly intended on retaining the lex ordandi of the Kyivan tradition. As the Union itself states, "...that the divine worship and all prayers and services... shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church".