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