My understanding is that the reason there is no
intercommunion between Roman Byzantine Catholics and
Orthodox Catholics is because of major differences in
beliefs. Is this correct? What are these differences?

Dear Father:

As some one educated by both Churches, I will try to address this complex question as simply yet succintly as posible (may He who Lovest Mankind help me).

There are four areas that need ot be addressed (great threads, all four) and they are theology, ecclesiology, praxis and ethos. Giving the Greek functional English meaning, it's belief, worship, practice and way of thinking (or being). The Catholic Church's Affirmative Theology differentiates (or can when needed) among the four. Orthodoxy's Apophatic (or Negative) Theology does not.

At Vatican II, the Catholic Church's documents on Ecumenism and Eastern Catholic Churches state that regarding the Orthodox, communicatio in sacris (or intercommunion outside of full)is allowable dueto the "real sacraments" (from Roman Catholicism's perspective) of the Orthodox Church. Thus, there is a real (yet incomplete existing Communion). Indeed, the pew Missals of the Novus Ordo allow for Orthodox to receive the Sacraments (with repect to their traditions).

Orthodox Eucharistic and Apophatic Theology deals with the Local Church (Eucharistically united around its Bishop) as the Church its totality. Thus, it is actually a Communion of Local Churches. The very uncanonical North American situation notwithstanding, every Orthodox Christian in a particular Diocese belongs to that Church (the Church of Corinth, par Agios Paulos), regardless of ethnicity or ritual practice. An example of this is that the Patriarachate of Antioch allows for Western Rite parishes as full members of Local Dioceses, other Patriarchates do not have Parishes with Western Liturgical Practices. Yet all are in Communion with each other, yet defer to the Local Church when there. No Greek or Bulgarian priest has an axios in Antioch unless greated to him by the Local Bishop, and vice-versa. If you cn find in a Catholic bookstore and old copy of the Documents of Vatican II (you'll see that Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote the Orthodox response to "Eastern Catholic Churches by stating with much friendship that it was a Western Document about Eastern Churches. I hope that the future editions of the Documents will restore the Commentaries).

Orthodoxy doesn't speculate on issues not of its immediate concern (thus only Seven Ecumenical Councils). Nonetheless, there are North American pastoral issues which should be addressed. Family members cannot communicate in each others parishes, and 90% of Greek Archdiocese marriages are to non-Orthodox spouses. Thus I feel, that pastoral issues should be addressed. The question is, how can this be done without lapsing into the doctrinal indifference and relativeism of the Protestant Incommunion Agreements which have Anglicans with Lutherans with Presbyterians with Disciples of Christ, etc.

I hope that some of the other fine posting individuals will address the four points of difference between Affirmative and Apophatic Theology (I feel most issues fall within the four or from Orthodoxy one)with clarity yet pastoral concern. Nothing less that than our Personal Daily Theosis is at stake. That's All!

In Christ's Service,

Three Cents

I think what it all boils down to is: are Catholicism and Orthodoxy really different religions or simply different, estranged parts of the same Church? Are we a different, adversarial faith or are we a form of Catholicism? Or, is Catholicism a different and sometimes antithetical faith or is it really Orthodox? No one has agreed on an answer yet, certainly not officially, so the Schism continues. At least everybody realizes we aren't Protestant.

http://oldworldus.com

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

First of all, there is no such thing as "Roman" Byzantine Catholics. The Byzantine Catholic aren't Roman Catholics. We are Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Catholics...well it's an old term that Orthodox Christians used back in the old days (as it shows in their old missals)...but they're not in communion with Rome or Byzantine Catholic Church...but Serge is right...with his question: Are we the same Church...that's enstranged from each other? Or are they two different religion?.

We all know the answer to the question.

Now as far as intercommunion goes, out in the mother lands of the East (Syria, Turkey, Greece, etc.), there are tons of Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians who intercommune with each other's Churches since we are so close. I guess it seems like it's only in America that divisions are shown more clearly.

spdundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear Mephodie,

In addition to these insightful and scholarly comments that we have been blessed with here, I simply wanted to add that there is no communion between those two Churches since they are "out of communion."

The point is that even if both sides believed in EXACTLY the same things, perspectives and all, they would still not be in communion with one another until such time their bishops entered into full communion.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have been separated for about 1,800 years on a disagreement over the Person of Christ.

Even with the theological agreements of today, the liturgical act of restoration of full communion has yet to be accomplished.

Alex

"Now as far as intercommunion goes, out in the mother lands of the East (Syria, Turkey, Greece, etc.), there are tons of Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians who intercommune with each other's Churches since we are so close."


spdundas

Deaf Byzantine[/QB][/QUOTE]

spdundas,

I wish I could agree with you that in Turkey and Greece intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox is common, but I am afraid it is not.

There are very few Orthodox left in Turkey and intercommunion there would be impossible. I doubt if the secular Turkish authorities would approve of it since they have always tried to pit Christian groups against one another: divide and conquer.

In Greece proper, intercommunion would be impossible for canonical reasons, and a whole host of other reasons that militate against it.


You are probably quite correct, however, in the case of Syrian Christians.

Thanx for a lot of good responses! I understood Three Cents to state that Orthodox Catholic family members cannot communicate in each others parishes. That is not correct. An OCA parish member, for example, can attend a Greek or Antiochian parish in the same town or elsewhere and communicate on the same basis as members of that parish being visited. Concelebration by clergy, however, is a different matter and requires hierarchial approval which is normally granted.

In response to Serge, definitions are important. We can emphasize similarities or differences. The reality, I am afraid, is that we do not have intercommunion because there are now differences thought by many to be significant between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. Spdundas claims Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. I believe that is being disengenious. Do Byzantine Catholics not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and the doctrine of Papal Infalibility when he speaks ex cathedra? If the answer is yes, then, in my humble opinion, they are Roman Catholics to all intents and purposes. I understand the differences in liturgical rites, e.g., the Byzantine Rite, the Roman Rite, etc. Nevertheless, all the various rites which accept the universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome are Roman Catholics. It is also my belief that Spdundas is in error in his allegation that intercommunion between Orthodox Catholics and Byzantine (Roman) Catholics is common in Greece, Syria, Turkey, etc. My understanding is that intercommunion ceased with the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204. Also, in most places in Europe, the Orthodox Catholic Church has better fraternal relations with non-uniate Roman Catholics than with uniate Roman Catholics such as Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics.
In addition to the question of the alleged universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome, do Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics not accept such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Purgutory, Indulgences, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, etc.? What other major doctrinal differences do we have?
I must differ with Alex in his belief that even if Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics had identical beliefs on all major issues our bishops could prevent intercommunion. My understanding of Orthodox Catholism is that actions of councils of bishops can be, and have been (for example, union with Rome and iconoclasm) rejected by the Orthodox Catholic people. There is no doubt in my mind that our estranged churches would be estranged no more if we could agree on all major doctrines.

Somebody get me a beer !!!

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

This is what happens when my "hot button" gets pushed!!!
-------------------------------------------

SINCE: The Universal Catholic Church is "a corporate body of Churches"
(Lumen Gentium);

SINCE: It "is made up of the faithful who are organically united in
the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same
government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by
their hierarchy, and so form particular Churches or Rites" (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum);

SINCE: These "has come about through divine providence that, in the
course of time, different Churches set up in various places by the Apostles
and their successors joined together in a multiplicity of organically united
groups which, wilst safe guarding the unity of faith and unique divine
structure of the universal Church, have their own discipline, enjoy their
own liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony"
(Lumen Gentium);

SINCE: "All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that
they can and ought always preserve their own legitimate liturgical
rites and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to
forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry out all
these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. They are to aim always at a
more perfect knowledge and practices of their rites, and if they have fallen
away due to circumstances of time or persons, they are to strive to return
to their ancestral traditions" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum);

BE IT RESOLVED: That "while recommending ecclesiastical celibacy this
sacred Council (Vatican II) does not by any means aim at changing that
contrary discipline which is lawfully practiced in the Eastern Churches.
Rather the Council affectionately exhorts all those who have received the
priesthood in the married state to persevere in their holy vocation
and continue to devote their lives fully and generously to the flock
entrusted to them" (Prebyterorum Ordinis);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That "where in the West there are no
Eastern priest to look after the faithful of the Eastern Catholic Churches,
Latin Ordinaries and their co-workers should see that those faithful grow in
awareness and knowledge of their own tradition, and they should be invited
to co-operate actively in the growth of the Christian Community by making
their own particular contribution" (Orientale Lumen);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: A "conversion is ...required of the Latin
Church, that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern
Christians, and accept gratefully the spiritual treasures of which the
Eastern Catholic Churches are the Bearers, to the benefit of the entire
Catholic Communion" (Orientale Lumen);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That "the Eastern Churches in communion
with the Apostolic See of Rome have the special duty of fostering the unity
of all Christians, in particular of Eastern Christians, according to the
principles laid down in the decree of this holy Council (Vatican II), 'On
Ecumenism,' by prayer above all, by their example, by their scrupulous
fidelity to each other, by working together, and by a brotherly attitude
towards persons and things" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Eastern Catholic Churches "play a
constructive role in the dialogue of love and in the theological
dialogue at both the local and international levels, and thus contribute to
mutual understanding and the continuing pursuit of full unity" (Ut Unum
Sint).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The Synod Fathers recalled the norms
given by the Second Vatican Council, which recognize that the Eastern
Churches "have the right and the duty to govern themselves according to
their own particular discipline", given the mission they have of bearing witness
to an ancient doctrinal, liturgical and monastic tradition. Moreover, these
Churches have a duty to maintain their own disciplines, since these
"corresponed better to the customs of their faithful and are judged to be
better suited to provide for the good of souls".46 The universal Church
needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so
that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so
in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.47 Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there
from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly. (Ecclisia in America)
----------------------------------------------

Joe Prokopchak
St. Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Joe Prokopchak ]

Lager or Pilsner?

That's a powerful button, Joe! Go!

Steve
JOY!

Another keg is coming from Virginia, Joe!

As quoted above:
"In response to Serge, definitions are important. We can emphasize similarities or differences. The reality, I am afraid, is that we do not have intercommunion because there are now differences thought by many to be significant between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics."

Yes, but the question remains: "differences" thought to be significant by whom? If it's just theolgians, but NOT by the impacted people, of what relevance is it?


Again, as quoted above:
"Spdundas claims Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. I believe that is being disengenious. Do Byzantine Catholics not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and the doctrine of Papal Infalibility when he speaks ex cathedra? If the answer is yes, then, in my humble opinion, they are Roman Catholics to all intents and purposes. I understand the differences in liturgical rites, e.g., the Byzantine Rite, the Roman Rite, etc. Nevertheless, all the various rites which accept the universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome are Roman Catholics."

Spoken by a lawyer or someone immersed in legal terminology. The REAL question is: if someone accepts the Holy Father's authority as "first among the Bishops", does that automatically imply that EVERYTHING the Roman Church does is 'ipso facto' imposed upon the East? If the Pope wears an Organdy hat, bag and shoes for Easter, does the rest of the church have to wear Organdy just to show solidarity? No, we can wear Mary Blue, or camouflage for our Arab brethren, because it is appropriate for our circumstances. Does that mean that we are rejecting his role as "First Bishop"? Of course not. Unity does not mean uniformity.

As cited above:
"It is also my belief that Spdundas is in error in his allegation that intercommunion between Orthodox Catholics and Byzantine (Roman) Catholics is common in Greece, Syria, Turkey, etc."
My understanding is that intercommunion ceased with the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204. Also, in most places in Europe, the Orthodox Catholic Church has better fraternal relations with non-uniate Roman Catholics than with uniate Roman Catholics such as Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics."

That may be. But in places where we are under persecution -- everywhere EAST of the Balkans, the folks are happy to see a golden Gospel book and a cross, and they don't give a damn about the jurisdiction of the priest. Look at Fr. Ciszek of blessed memory in the camps of Siberia. Look at the villages of Lebanon. Look at Palestine. Look also at Egypt -- although most evidence is hidden for fear of arrest and imprisonment. It's nice to adjudicate from the safety of one's Euro-American fortress, but for the front line Christians "over there", it's a radically different story.


Further quoted above:

"In addition to the question of the alleged universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome, do Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics not accept such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Purgutory, Indulgences, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, etc.? What other major doctrinal differences do we have?
I must differ with Alex in his belief that even if Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics had identical beliefs on all major issues our bishops could prevent intercommunion. My understanding of Orthodox Catholism is that actions of councils of bishops can be, and have been (for example, union with Rome and iconoclasm) rejected by the Orthodox Catholic people. There is no doubt in my mind that our estranged churches would be estranged no more if we could agree on all major doctrines."

With all due respect, as a "blood" Eastern Christian --with a LONG pedigree--, who cares when your butt and that of your family is on the line? We're talking bullets here, luv', not doctrine.

Blessings!

PS: As snow heads across the country this evening, I'm reminded of the Ukrainian Christians who went off into the woods in two feet of snow in the dark of night to participate in Divine Liturgy, when they knew that the Sov's were looking for them. Did they give a damn about the jurisdiction of the priest who would give them communion? Would the priest ask for some sort of ID before communicating someone? Get real! Us Easterns don't do that kinda crap when our souls -- and our LIVES - are on the line. Give us a break -- and leave us to our own devices. We're weird, queer, strange and an upsetting group of folks-- but we'd rather die than surrender what we know will bring us to God, and we'd rather die than deny that to one of our own, no matter where his baptismal records are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Humble opinions are appreciated. However, if language is to have any utility, invididuals must restrain themselves from applying their opinions as to the definition of every string of letters.

A common and self-accepted use of the term 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' are well known, referring to two (sadly) separate communions. Roman Catholic refers to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

One could pontificate how a Roman Catholic who is a British subject has every right to call himself an "Anglican", and to deny him the term is challenging his legitimacy as a member of English society. But, it is not the cpommon usage of the term. So get over it.

K.

Would that it were that simple! The term Catholic is used by many Orthodox and the term Orthodox is used by many Eastern Catholics (the Melkites in particular--the Ruthenians still have a bias against anything Orthodox).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I will once again offer my example. If your church was burning down and you were on the phone to the Fire Department, what terms would you use?

K.

Dear Friends,

Kurt is quite right and his point is echoed by John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Newman wrote about how the different western churches were calling themselves "Catholic."

Yet, he said, if you asked any one of them for directions to the nearest "Catholic Church," they would all join in pointing you to the one building down the street.

Also, the use of the term "Orthodox" may not only be confusing, but also offensive to the Orthodox themselves.

It is better, for ecumenical relations all around, if we just stuck to calling a "spade a spade" and, you know . . .

Alex

Do you guys have problems with Orthodox who use the term "Catholic" to describe themselves?

I don't. I think fairness (and faithfulness to our tradition) should allow us to continue the usage of "Orthodox" for ourselves.

Or are we criticizing the practice of our Sister Church the Melkites?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Pre-Schism, the Latin Church was called "Catholic' and the Byzantine one (which never was called Byzantine) "Orthodox'.

The forum has gone round and round on nomenclature. "Eastern Catholic' and "Byzantine Catholic' seem the best interim names for now.

Thinking of the cute "well, what if your building was burning and you rang the fire brigade?' argument, an easy out is to report the fire is at St X Church in Y Street, with no denominational adjectives.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Dave,

Certainly I have no problem using the term "Orthodox."

But to use it alone, without qualifiers, would be to admit some confusion.

Of course, the Melkites and others use the term "Orthodox" especially in the liturgy.

But then you get into the problem of whether to use "Orthodox" or "orthodox" and what one means etc.

I think in this we should follow what our Orthodox brothers, like Serge, have suggested.

If we offend them by using this term, without qualifiers (e.g. "Orthodox Catholic" like someone I saw using this term here . . .) to overtly describe ourselves, then we should be careful.

It would be a tragedy if we try to be as Orthodox as possible even to the point of using this term to describe ourselves and wind up offending the very Orthodox we want to restore communion with.

Don'tcha think?

Alex

[Thanx for a lot of good responses! I understood Three Cents to state that Orthodox Catholic family members cannot communicate in each others parishes. That is not correct. An OCA parish member, for example, can attend a Greek or Antiochian parish in the same town or elsewhere and communicate on the same basis as members of that parish being visited. Concelebration by clergy, however, is a different matter and requires hierarchial approval which is normally granted.]

You are correct about Communion but not concelebration. I am a member of the OCA and have received Communion in MP, Ukrainian Orthodox, Antiochian, and Greek Orthodox parishes.
In my area there is an 'Eastern Clergy Brotherhood Association' that is composed of most of the priests from the various jurisdictions. It even includes one Byzantine Catholic and one Ukrainian Catholic priest. There are services held in the various jurisdictional parishes where all the Orthodox priests serve together regardless of jurisdiction. The only Orthodox priest that doesn't serve is the local ROCOR priest who is in attendance. Usually the two ER Catholic priests will be in attendance.
I have never been refused Communion in any other Orthodox jurisdiction. Usually I will call the priest so he knows before hand that I will be recieving and that I have filled my obligation of Confession and Absolution.

[Newman wrote about how the different western churches were calling themselves "Catholic."
Yet, he said, if you asked any one of them for directions to the nearest "Catholic Church,"
they would all join in pointing you to the one building down the street.]

Since when is theolgical truths determined by the average man or woman on the street? Ask those very same people if Mormons are Christians and they will answer yes. Does that make it so?

We never left that 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Nicean Creed. In fact we still follow the canons and recite it in it's original form. Which Rome does not.

Regarding the addition of the Fillioque:

EPHESUS A.D. 431

Canon VII: Any Bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be alien from the church: if a layman do so let him be cast out.

The Decree of the same holy Synod, pronounced after the Exposition [of the faith] by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers in the city of Nice -

When these things had been read, the holy Synod, decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgement of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be desposed, IF THEY BE BISHOPS OR CLERGYMEN; BISHOPS FROM THE EPISCOPATE AND CLERGYMAN FROM THE CLERGY; AND IF THEY BE LAYMEN THEY SHALL BE ANATHEMATIZED.

I CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 381

Canons of the one hundred and fifty Fathers who assembled at Constantinople during the consulate of the illustrious men, Flavius Eucherius and Flavius Evagrius on the VII of the ides of July.

Ancient Epitome of Canon I:

Let the Nicene faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy.

Canon I: The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Blithynia Shall not be set aside, BUT SHALL REMAIN FIRM. And every heresy shall be anathematized

Let me put it another way. If one wishes to write a theological paper on the meaning of catholicity, orthodoxy, episcopalism, evangelicalism, etc, go ahead, but give us the whole paper.

However, each of these words as Proper Nouns, have commonly understood meanings and inserting them into conversation while using other meanings is simply juvenile. One can use the common understanding of these words without theologically compromising oneself.

It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated, "It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized" (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea).

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

As far as Catholics are concerned, at the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) it was changed, and the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Latin Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Easter Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus' prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated, "Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit" (Definition of Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence, from a Catholic standpoint, could add "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Please note that I am currently Orthodox, but think that bringing up Ephesus's "condemnation" of new creeds is a weak and lame argument against the Latin addition of the filioque.

There is absolutely no reason the filioque need be a matter of dispute between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Properly understood, the teaching is prefectly consistent with what the Orthodox Fathers taught on the Holy Trinity.

Now, one may claim that Rome should not have taken the liberty to add the phrase, even if it is not heretical; the Eastern Churches should have been consulted.

Why?!?!?!?! What for?!?!?!

After the Second Council of Nicea, the Eastern Churches held a synod (can't remember the name) that modified the Eastern Church's practice of venerating images, as expounded by Nicea II. This regional synod declared that statues were not to be venerated, but only icons.

If the Eastern Church could make such an "addition", without the consent of the West, then why not the West with the filioque? Sadly, I find that many of my Orthodox brethren tend to impose a double-standard on Catholics and I think that, especially in this day and age, its pretty pitiful.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Orthodox Convert? ]

I think that I had better correct some misconceptions caused by the use of Greek in my previous thread posting. If Drs. Alex and John are laughing, I deserve it! When I spoke about the "axios", I am referring to the public acceptance of a newly ordained CLERGYMAN (by the LOCAL People of God united with their Bishop, who just did the ordaining). It has nothing with OCA members communicating in an Antiochian parish. When it does mean, is that if either and OCA or Antiochian Archdiocese clergyman goes to Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraina, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Moldova, Belarus, Kyprios, Georgia, or anywhere else), they are not free to begin serving Liturgy without the express acceptance of the LOCAL CHURCH. The "axios" (or He is Worthy), came from the an American Diocese, not a a Greek one. It all pertains to Orthodoxy's Eucharistic Theology of the LOCAL CHURCH being the Church in its absolute fullness. Now if the People of God in the LOCAL CHURCH after the ordination start yelling "ANAXIOS", there is a very big problem (and the Bishop will Head for the Hills, LOL).

And God Made Laughter,

Three Cents

[As far as Catholics are concerned, at the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) it was changed, and the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been validly added to the Creed].

The council of Florence was never accepted as an ecumenical council. Only two of the five ancient patriarchal sees were represented. It was a council between Rome and Constantinople. And, as such, did not represent the whole of Christianity to be called 'ecumenical'. It must be noted that during the Patrirch's lifetime, three of the Vicars of the three remaining Patriarchal sees did not agree to the union, only two of the five gave their vote in its favour.

[The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.]

As stated above, only the Patriarch of Constantinople temporarily accepted the union. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the authority to make decisions for the whole of Orthodoxy without the consent and approval of the ohter Orthodox Patriachal sees. This in itself, invalidates your claim that it was an 'ecumenical council'.

[After the Second Council of Nicea, the Eastern Churches held a synod (can't remember the name) that modified the Eastern Church's practice of venerating images, as expounded by Nicea II. This regional synod declared that statues were not to be venerated, but only icons.]

What does this have to do with the Creed? You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. The creed is the profession of faith. It contains the elements of what consist of the tenets of your Christian faith. The veneration of statues vs Icons is practice in your worship. It has nothing to do with your beliefs. Nor does it change them in anyway. That's why those canons were put there in the first place.

Dear Three Cents,

No problem.

I have never assumed that you have an "axios" to grind . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

The earlier comment about John Newman and the man in the streets was not about determining doctrine, but a reflection of usage in identifying Churches.

"Catholic Church" in common parlance means just that and no one would point one toward an "Orthodox Church" if one asked for directions to a "Catholic Church."

Both Churches use the word "Catholic" in their formal titles.

Another point is that if Eastern Catholics shouldn't use "Orthodox" to described themselves, perhaps Orthodox shouldn't use "Catholic" either?

Also, Orthodox Convert, you provide a most refreshing perspective to bear on the dogmatic disputes between East and West.

Would that all Orthodox and Catholics shared in your pragmatic, common sense and very Christian approach!

Alex

Dear Orthoman,

Actually, since the veneration of statues is forbidden by canon law, one cannot disobey it without incurring ecclesiastical censure. It is therefore part of the "Faith" that all Orthodox Christians hold.

True, it is not nearly of the same weight as the Creed.

However, there are two issues to this question, that has really been done to death.

One is the theology of the Filioque. If the Roman Catholic Church believes that there are two Principles or Sources in the Trinity, then it is clearly heretical, by its own theological standards especially.

But the RC Church has ALWAYS taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Son passively, not actively as from the Father which is another way of saying "Proceeds from the Father through the Son" as the Orthodox Fathers Sts. Maximos the Confessor and John Damaskinos affirmed.

Blessed Seraphim Rose of Platina went to some lengths to clarify that there is an Orthodox version of the Filioque when used to describe the Economic Trinity e.g. the Spirit being sent in the world by the "Father and the Son."

Secondly, the real issue here is the placement of the Filioque into the universal Creed.

Orthodoxy has NEVER denied that the West would have the right to affirm the Filioque as a theologoumenon or a theological opinion (see Meyendorff and Kallistos Ware).

But the placement of this term in the universal creed gave it the status of a universal doctrine which it is not.

The formal removal of the term from the Creed would, as both sides now readily admit, is necessary with a return to its ancient form.

I am an Eastern Catholic, but I do not use the Filioque when I recite the Creed and believe it should be dropped by the Catholic Church.

Alex

I said that it was from the Catholic perspective. From the Catholic perspective, it was ecumenical.



Likewise, the recitation of the filioque in not a doctrine, but a practice. The filioque, properly understood, is not heretical not foreign to the Orthodox faith, as ORTHODOX CATHOLIC has pointed out.



True indeed! I was in Russia briefly (for a few days) and, if I'm not mistaken, Saint Basil's Cathedral has statues of religous personages on the outside of the church building. The pressence did not strike me as odd until about a couple of months ago, when I saw a brief shot of the cathedral on Television.



The Catholic Catechism says this as well.



My understanding is that, as far as Catholicism is concerned, the filioque statement was never placed in the universal creed. I read a few days ago a Vatican document on the internet, and this document said that the official and universal form of the Catholic Creed is that without the filioque. I'll try to find it again and post it.

I attended an Eastern Catholic liturgy once, and noticed that the filioque was not recited in the Creed. This, to me, indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes the fact that the universal creed does not contain the filioque, and so don't see why this should even be an issue.

I also don't see why it should be removed from the Latin Creed. I try to see this from a Catholic standpoint: For a couple centuries, the Nicene Creed did not contain the filioque. For some 1400 years it has been recited in the West. Why SHOULD Western Christians be forced to give up a special aspect of their liturgical worship? Just because some cranky old Orthodox farts find a problem with it's placement?

I agree that the addition, even if just for the West, was imprudent, and should have been done with more care, and with *some* consultation with the rest of the Eastern Churches. But all that's in the past. I think its time to move on to what REALLY divides us.

And besides, if we Orthodox are so insistent that all bishops and autnomous Churches are equal, then why need the Pope of Rome get consent from the Eastern Churches to add a word to the Latin Creed?

It is my opinion that some Orthodox try to separate themsleves from Catholics as much as possible with these stupid semantic details like this because they try to acquire an identity of their own, an not be judged to be "Catholics with out the pope".

I admit, I am often frustrated when I tell Protestants that I'm Orthodox and they give me weird looks and ask if I'm Jewish! After explainin my religion, I often get responses like "Oh, just like the Catholics!" "Oh, Catholics with no pope!" etc. I gt frustrated with it occasionally, but overall am okay with it. I f I never heard of the Orthodox, but of Catholics instead, I, too, would probably make the same comments, or at least think them.

I can see now I'm babbling . . . :rolleyes:

Dear Friends, Even though I believe the filioque makes theological sense from a Western perspective, I believe it should be dropped from the creed of the Catholic Church. Why? 1.It shouldn't have been inserted by one part of the church 2. For many Orthodox it still remains a significant issue.
I think its removal on the part of Rome would be a significant act that would show the deep desire for unity (to the extent that it exists beyond the pope).
My questions are two: 1.What would be the most likely reaction of the Orthodox? 2. How would Western Catholics accept it?
(The Eastern Catholic church which I attend hasn't used the filioque for many years.)

VITO, I respectfully disagree.

Pretend you are a Western Christian: for you and your church community, the addition of the filioque is an older tradition than the recitation without the phrase. Now, because a few Eastern Churches want to come in communion with Rome, YOU have to give up one of your liturgical traditions, while they get to keep all theirs? To put it rather frankly: Is this fair?

If, in the case of a reunion, the Eastern Churches would be allowed to keep all their traditions and liturgical rites, why not the West? Why would we Orthodox expect to keep our own liturgies intact and expect some 1.2 billion others to get rid of theirs?

What if Rome were to ask the Orthodox to give up on all traditions developed after the Great Schism? Would this be satisfactory?

Let the Latins keep the addition.



The addition of the Filioque to the creed was never binding on the entire Catholic Church. Eastern Catholic Churches have never been required to recite the Filioque in the creed, although a few added it on their own initiative. The Filioque was only added to the creed of the Latin Church. This was done by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 AD.

In 1995 the Vatican released an important document aimed at settling the Filoque dispute once and for all. This document, entitled "The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity," has effectively resolved this thousand year old conflict. Among many interesting points, it lays out the official Catholic position on the normative text for the Nicene Creed:

"The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church."

The recitation of the creed with the Filioque is part of the Latin liturgical tradition, but it is not the normative text of the creed for the entire Catholic Church.

Also, I believe that the Antiochian Orthodox Church's Latin Rite parishes use the filioque; just some food for thought, unless I'm wrong . . .

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Creed is more properly called the Symbol of Faith. It is one item of Orthodox Faith that remains constant in all orthodox services. It is the mystical expression of the body of the Church in union as they proclaim or announce the 'Symbol of Faith' as we say "I believe in one God...". While the addition of the Filioque did indeed respond to specific heresies facing the Western Church, by instituting it as the norm in the Western Church, the symbolic union of faith that tied East to West was broken. The return to the Universal 'Symbol of Faith' would physically announce the mystical union of the church as the body of Christ.

In res[ponse to the comment "Also, I believe that the Antiochian Orthodox Church's Latin Rite parishes use the filioque; just some food for thought, unless I'm wrong . . ." You are wrong. The changes required by St Tikhon and embraced by the Antiochian Orthodox Church for its Western Rite Vicarate requires that the "Creed" be said without the Filogue. In doing so the Western Rite Vicarate enters into communion with the Orthodox Church . To say the filiogue would be a violation of the canons establish for the western rite in the Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Dear Orthodox Convert?, I am in a little bit of an unusual situation: Western Catholic who supports both a Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic parish. Most Sundays I am at the Byzantine church.
I fully understand your argument.
My take is that the Roman Church, might take this step with humility and love towards the goal of unity without betraying its theology.
But maybe I am way off base?
Sincerely, Vito

[True indeed! I was in Russia briefly (for a few days) and, if I'm not mistaken, Saint Basil's Cathedral has statues of religous personages on the outside of the church building. The pressence did not strike me as odd until about a couple of months ago, when I saw a brief shot of the cathedral on Television.]

I've been to Russia too and have never seen any statues outside of St Basil's. Think you may be talking about the new Cathedral called 'Christ the Saviour'. These statues are on the outside walls of the church not on the inside. They are depictions of historical events in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church and do not necessarily reprensent saints with-in the church. The question you should be asking yourself is how many people did you see praying in front of them or venerating them? The answer should be obvious...None.
The Creed on the other hand is a declaration of what defines you as a Christian. Changing it changes the faith. If the RCC really means 'thru the son' when it says 'and the son' then for God sakes either eliminate it or change the 'and' to 'thru' and quit playing the Roman Catholic word game. Say what you mean instead of trying to convince us you say one thing but really mean another. And, by the way, the entire Roman Catholic Church hasn't been reciting the Fillioque for 1400 years. It started in Spain and was not accepted by the entire Roman Catholic Church until the 11th century. Why there was even a Pope that was so against it he had the Creed 'WITHOUT THE FILLIOQUE' written on a silver plaques and put on the walls of St Peters. On this issue, which we have gone over dozens of times already, we are going to have to agree to disagree rather than discuss for the umpteenth time.

OrthoMan

This topic is doctrinal (belief) differences between Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics. From the responses so far there appears to be consensus that there are no significant differences except the refusal of Orthodox Catholics to accept the jurisdiction and infallible authority of the Pope of Rome. Does this mean that Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics reject the traditional Roman Catholic doctrines of purgutory, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, indulgences, insertion of the Filioque into the creed, etc. or just that all such doctrines are relative and inconsquential as long as one accepts Papal authority? Would the Pope of Rome concur?

Again, we are not Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics. We value our union with the Pope of Rome but we are not Roman Catholics.

Our faith can be found in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_. Sometimes the presentation in the Catechism is written from a Western perspective but the essential faith between Eastern and Western Catholics is the same. Many of the questions you asked have been answered by Melkite Catholic Bishop John at:

http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

]Our faith can be found in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_.]

Then I assume you are saying you believe in both Papal Supremacy and Infallibility which are containd in that same catechism. If so, then you are not the sui juris church you claim to be because the ultimate authority does not lie in your chief hierach but in the Pope. Also, you are contradicting what others have stated in here regarding this subject. It seems like when asking about your relationship with the Pope and Rome you get different answers from different people. You all don't seem to be united in just what your relationship is with the Pope.

OrthoMan

Yes, I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. The differences of opinion that exist here are minor to what occurs on many Orthodox boards! Just because someone has a computer and a modem does not guarantee accuracy, does it? At the bottom of every page here it says:

"Note: www.byzcath.org is an UNOFFICIAL site of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic Church. When in doubt, look to your pastor or bishop."

What I did was refer to what the Bishops of the Catholic Church teach (the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ which included the input of Eastern Catholic Bishops) and one Eastern Catholic Bishop specifically (Bishop John of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton).

Your statement about our not being a "sui juris" Church because we hold to the Catholic faith on the role of the St Peter's successor in the Church is based upon your own understanding of the term and not ours. Our understanding is spelled out in our own documents, the _Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches_, for one.

As to "papal infallibility" and "papal supremacy" and the standard Orthodox view of such:

A lot of the standard Orthodox apologetic against the papacy is recycled from Protestantism. Most Orthodox apologists are silent about the developing claims of the popes of the third to fifth centuries other than to say they weren't really understood by the East. For an example of the developing understanding of the papacy in this era read the encyclical by John XXIII on Pope St Leo:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_x...rna-dei_en.html

If Rome wasn't fully understood all these years how to understand the ending of the Acacian Schism in the East when the Eastern bishops signed the Formula of Hormisdas?

I have no quibble with the pope. Read the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_. It's a great document. Sure, it's primarily Western in presentation. Nonetheless, it's a lucid and faithful presentation of the Faith:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

If any have doubt as to the special role the pope has in the Church today one only has to listen to the prophetic message given in _Humanae Vitae_ and _Evangelium Vitae_ by Paul VI and John Paul II:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...e-vitae_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...m-vitae_en.html

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

As quoted above:

"It seems like when asking about your relationship with the Pope and Rome you get different answers from different people. You all don't seem to be united in just what your relationship is with the Pope."

My, my!!! Isn't this just TOO Orthodox!!!

About 20 years ago there was a great Canadian comic named Emo Philips. He had one routine in which a man was going to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. A man came by and started talking with him. They both discovered that they were members of the Holy Sanctified Brethren. The passer-by asked: council of 1834 or 1839? Both were 1839. Are you of the Ohio or Indiana community? Both were of Indiana. Are you from the Synodal Pact of 1900? Both were. Are you from the 1928 decree? Both were, yet again. He then asked if the man was part of the 1950 Agreement. The man said "no", and the passer-by pushed him off the bridge screaming: "Heretic!!"

My point is: if we keep pushing for infinitesmal details, each of us will end up becoming a "Church of One", namely "me".

Where do we stop drawing the lines?

For me, it's about 3 minutes after Pentecost. The rest is just nutsiness.

Blessings!

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

This forum topic pertains to differences between Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics. As I read the responses, I see we have gone on a lot of tangents but few differences have been addressed. Are we saying that as long as loyalty is pledged to the Pope of Rome (universal jurisdiction and infallibility), all else is relative and insignificant? Are such traditional Roman doctrines as purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, indulgences, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, etc. rejected by Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics or just held to be relative and unimportant to our Christian Faith?

By the authority of the 2nd Vatican Council, and as affirmed by the Holy Father himself, we Byzantines are MANDATED (under pain of sin!) to be who we are and to both unearth our traditional theology and our liturgical heritage.

Asking questions about infallibility, Assumption, purgatory, etc. does NOT resolve the mandate of Holy Mother Church. It is, rather, a not-so-subtle demand to acquiesce to the Roman/Western framework and mind-set by demanding answers to these specific questions.

As Easterns, we might well ask: why don't the Westerns have spiritual fathers/mothers as mandatory elements in spiritual development; why do you apparently COMPLETELY ignore the madates of the early Councils to fast from meat and dairy products (as the West once did), why has the West completely discarded the liturgical hours for the people (Vespers, Matins, etc.), why has the West completely abandoned the "relationship" established by the koumbara in both baptism and matrimony, why has the West totally abandoned the "synod" as the authority for God's people in a specific area and substituted "bishops' councils" that have no more authority than the Girl Scouts, and why do you allow so-called "parish communities" to develop with thousands of people who can -- in no way -- be in concord with the understanding of what an "ekklesia" (parish) needs to be -- ie loving folks who both know and work with each other, that is: "sacrament factories".

Lots of this is in direct contradiction to the mandates of the Councils of the Church. But, hey, when you're the "big dog", you can do what you want and poop on the mandates of the universal Church.

Sorry to be so "negative", but we aren't Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite. We're part of the "Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) Church" who happen to be in communion with the Holy Father of Rome. We're not the "queers" of the Roman communion who can sing, do costumes, dance and serve as the ecclesiatical buffoons, but rather an independent Church, with full apostolicity and sacramental legitimacy. For us, it seems like we are the victims of Western colonialism.

Don't do that. It hurts us, and it is a serious sin for those who do.

Blessings!

Dear Keith,

The way I see it as an Eastern Catholic is that we have our own, historical theological perspectives which sees and expresses Catholic doctrine in different, but complementary ways.

The Filioque, both West and East agree, does not belong in the universal Symbol of Faith. "The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" is held by the saints of both Churches.

Purgatory is a much later Latin idea to rationalize prayer for the dead in scholastic terms. The East has always prayed for the dead, does so on 12 major occasions and every Saturday. We continue to do so without the idea of purgatory which reflects quite the legalistic mindset. But ultimately we believe the same thing about prayer for the dead.

The Immaculate Conception was Rome's answer to Augustine's view of Original Sin as inherited guilt, rather than inherited weakness, from Adam.

We in the East have always believed in the total holiness of the Mother of God and that she was never touched by any sin of any kind.

For years in the West it was theologically permissable to believe that Mary was born with the "stain of Original Sin" on her soul, before the dogma was proclaimed.

We reject Augustine's view and therefore have always believed in what the West, as a whole, has only started to believe since the 19th century.

As for the Papacy, the East has again always believed in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and in the Petrine Role as the court of final appeal. St John Chrysostom and some others, we know, have always been grateful for that!

So Eastern Christians have a much longer and more Patristic understanding of the Catholic Faith than the West. We are more conservative and closer to the early Church of the Apostles and the Fathers.

The doctrine of the Papacy was actually modelled on that of the Alexandrian Pope, the first Patriarch to call himself "Pope" and to have "immediate jurisdiction" over the territory of Africa.

There is not one thing that Roman Catholics have, therefore, that does not come from the East. You are our "younger" brothers and can continue to learn much from the East.

Alex

Right on, Dr. John!

It's all politics. The polemic theologizing came later under the guise of the belief that any one side can best describe God under a petri-dish. The only difference between Catholics and Orthodox is one's communion with the Pope of Rome.

I've never heard about women excommunicating other women.

I would assume that most of the polemicists would be the kind of guys who would have driven burly F350s, do time Bambi-huntin', and chewed Tobacco.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Edwin,

Perhaps it is as you say.

However, the cultural differences between East and West are significant and important.

Having been raised within a particular type of Western religious culture, I was on the brink of losing faith and leaving the Church.

It was the resurrectional optimism of the Eastern Church, its adoration of the glory of the Holy Trinity and the Saints that renewed my faith and gave me a deep commitment to the Church.

The differences are also appreciated by the Pope and the Catholic Church that insists that we form ourselves in our respective spiritualities.

I think a Church where there would only be one spirituality would be rather boring. Christ did tell his Apostles to go and preach to all "nations" and already in the New Testament we see some of the differences arising in conflict between Hellenic and Jewish Christians.

In short, we must stand up for our Rites . . .

Alex

"Our faith can be found in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_. "


DTBrown,

Not so. The CCC was only meant to be a resource for the bishops in making their own catechism.

I guess many have given up quoting the 1913 Catholic "Encyclopedia" or "Trent" as their proof-texts that now they have found the CCC to be a fine replacement.

Why do Eastern Catholics IGNORE the catechisms published by their own bishops? This really kills me to no end. When their bishops DO publish something, they are simply ignored. Period.

Can anyone esplain these mysteries?

Alex,

The Roman Church professes the Resurrection too. Your perception is your own and not a criterion in determining the nature of the Church.

Dear Edwin,

My perception is both my own and that of the spirituality of my Rite that goes back many more years than I have been on earth.

The Roman Church does indeed profess the Resurrection, although, practically, it emphasizes the death of our Lord in its spirituality.

For example, in Kallistos Ware's "Orthodox Church" he talks about the Passion devotions of the West.

The Stations of the Cross ends not with the Resurrection, but with the Tomb of Christ.

That is simply more than my perception, Friend.

But we've gone through this before.

Why are you so intent on downplaying this legitimate diversity in Rites?

What's eating you?

Alex

Alex,

Nothing is eating me. It is the arbitrary way we categorize things and people to make it easier to fit reality in our paradigms that is interesting.

The Eastern Christians actually had the advantage of being able to visit the places of the Passion; the West did not. That's all.

Somewhere in the energy spent in accenting particular traditions in the Gospels (Passion? Resurrection? Teachings?) we failed to appreciate the Gospel message.

What do Eastern Christians have to say about Jesus Christ? Traditions, theologies, rituals and such are all expressions of something. What is that something? What makes up a rite is not bad in itself.

Two issues always pop up on this board: the first is the issue of the role of the Pope and the second is the issue about the legitimacy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Will Eastern Catholicism go beyond these two impasses? Will Eastern Christianity have anything new or different to say once they are finally resolved?

I'm not impressed that grown Christians prefer either silk or lace. Neither preference will make it to the Creed.

Name one thing that separates the belief systems between Catholics and Orthodox outside of the authority of the Pope. Several Orthodox Churches and Catholic Churches are beginning to solve their theological differences with re-instating intercommunion. Hey! The Armenians are no longer heretics! Amen!

We shoot each other over our precious paradigms and speculative polemics.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

I can see Edwin's point, and I am always the first one to be suggesting that we not only visit each others' churches but to get cooperative ventures going that will serve God's people; not only with our Orthodox brethren, but also with the Methodists, the AMEs and even the evangelicals who will talk with us.

However, there is one thing that seems to miss the point:

Two issues always pop up on this board: the first is the issue of the role of the Pope and the second is the issue about the legitimacy of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Will Eastern Catholicism go beyond these two impasses? Will Eastern Christianity have anything NEW OR DIFFERENT TO SAY once they are finally resolved?"

It's not a question of "say", it's a question of living. I'm very fond of using the term "pathway" to describe our Eastern Christian lifestyle. For Easterns, the "faith" is not primarily prayer, liturgy or statements of belief, it's rather a whole mindset that spreads out into everyday life. Like the 'seasonal greetings', it's the abstaining from meat on Fridays, the 'strict fast and abstinence' of Lent, the (mandatory) icons in the main room of the house, feast days/name days, blessings of grapes, of flowers, of medicinal herbs, the parastas at funerals, the psitari/kolyva, the crowns preserved above the marriage bed, and not using a hammer or even push-pins on Good Friday, of lamb at Pascha, giving the bishop keys and salt when he visits, -- there's ALWAYS something that we are doing that relates to reinforcing the many facets of an adult faith. And the older we get, the more we begin to appreciate the value of all these little practices that constitute our "pathway".

Sure, there are some who look at all this and think: "peasants, with their little peccadillos". And who may think that this is just some ecclesiastical show-and-tell. But in reality, it is real-world underpinning -- an 'aide memoire' -- that serve as recurring reminders that we are part of a believing and practicing community that does stuff together.

To be Eastern is, by definition, a prohibition against being a spiritual Lone Ranger. Clannish? You bet. But it is this sense of 'belonging' (customs and liturgies; benefits and responsibilities!!) that have kept us intact for long ages.

When the reunion comes, we won't be redundant. We'll just "keep on keepin' on", working out our salvation as we always have done.

Blessings!