www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Two views of Byzantine Catholics

I have been thinking about this for awhile now, since the Admin's post of 02-06-2003. Some recent events have made me post this for discussion.

In the Admin's post, "A Word to Roman Catholic Forum members" the Admin made some comments to those Roman Catholic Forum members "who have come here to use Latin doctrinal expressions as a measurement of our Catholicism are not welcome. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics."

I agree with this 100% and applaud the Admin for this post, but I think he missed a bit. He should not have just singled out the Roman Catholic members who do this. I think he should add the Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, and Orthodox members who use Orthodoxy (as it is today) as a measurement also. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics, nor are we members of the, one of many, Orthodox Churches.

There does seem to be many who wish to view Byzantine Catholics though a Roman Catholic lens, then cry foul when we fall short, but there are also members (Orthodox as well as Byzantine/Roman Catholics who are more orthodox than most orthodox) who view us though an Orthodox lens and cry foul when we fall short there.

Again I say it, we are not Roman Catholics nor are we Orthodox, we are Byzantine Catholics!

David

Dear David,

I noticed that you are the only poster to frequently use the red frowning face icon. A lot seems to make you upset--but we're just expressing ideas here!

As to your point, I think you are 98% wrong. We are not Roman Catholics BUT we most certainly are the same thing as Orthodox. We can't ignore Orthodox, because we came from them. We share the Byzantine Rite with them. We share the same spirituality and theology with them. We are both Eastern Christians.

We are NOT some third way. That idea was discounted by the Vatican and by many Eastern Catholic hierarchs such as the Melkite hierarchy (you go to a Melkite Church, right?) We cannot be some third group because then we are not being WHO WE ARE, which is a Byzantine Church. A Byzantine Church follows certain characteristics or else it is not Byzantine.

We look to the Orthodox as a yardstick because they have preserved the traditions that we have lost and are trying to regain; also the Vatican has told us to BE MORE LIKE THEM. So I will stick with the official Catholic position on this one, and say "let's become identical to Orthodox, except for being in communion with Rome!"

anastasios

PS I say 98% disagree because I do believe certain liturgical practices unique to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church should be kept, such as a different Slavonic translation of the Cherubic hymn, censing at the start of liturgy, certain variations in the cutting of the lamb, etc., but on the grounds that that is due to our status of a particular Church with no really organic, liturgical equivalent in the Orthodox world.

Dear Anastasios,

your wording of the Cherubic hymn is simply that of the Old Russian rite. Like the wording of the vesper hymn 'Svieti tikhi' it preserves the older Slavonic wording as those of us following the Old Rite do, also.

Some Ruthenian traditions remind us that the Ruthenian Church was separated from the Russian Church at the time of the Nikonian reforms and as result preserved older practices.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark,monk and sinner.

We as Greek Catholics are Orthodox, but in communion with Rome. That's the view people should have of the Byzantine Catholics and the view Byzantine Catholics should have of themselves.

While it is true that there are some relict usages in the Ruthenian liturgy from the Old Rite (such as the translation of Izhe Cheruvimy as mentioned), there are numerous more recent revisions to the Ordo and Liturgikon as well since the time of the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod.

Brother Anastasios,

You have hit the nail on the head for me, being from the Roman Rite I felt something was missing and found it at the Eastern Church. I don't feel that empty spot anymore and learn more daily.

My eyes to my mind are now open.

In Christ,
james

As an Orthodox and an Old Ritualist I still have to admit to struggle with this idea of 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'. The holy fathers teach me that I share in the errors of those with whom I am in communion... that is, if they have any errors!

From an Orthodox perspective, and from that of a bridge-builder I hope, I fail to see how Byzantine Catholics can be in communion with those proclaiming dogmas anathematised by the Orthodox Church and still style themslves 'Orthodox'. Perhaps the only conclusion is that they are the only Orthodox and that the rest of Pravoslaviya is in error.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

I've heard the Pope of Rome say the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed without the 'Filioqiue' on more than one occasion - and in 1965 Paul VI and Athenogoras mutually rescinded the excommunications of 1054.

I think I can handle communion with Rome now...

And as I recall didn't St. Maximos the Confessor have to flee to Rome to preserve his Orthodoxy?

Subdeacon Radoslav, archsinner

Missing out the filioque hardly makes one Orthodox. The Anglican non-jurors dropped the filioque, yet they remained Anglicans. As for Athenagoras, he might be politically correct and lift the anathema of 1054, but he can't wipe away the whole corpus of the canons and Holy Tradition.

No, anyone in communion with Rome as it stands canonically is not and cannot be Orthodox. The Byzantine Catholic tradition is beautiful and valuable, but out is outside Orthodoxy, historically and spiritually. No amount of revisionism can change the fact. Rite does not determine or define of Orthodoxy.

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Father, while I enjoy your posts I thank God it will not be you at the judgement seat.

And also given the fractionated state of Orthodoxy, especially within Old Rite and 'Old Calendarist' Orthodoxy, excuse me if I and other Eastern Christians here won't buy all of the observations or definitions of who is and isn't 'canonical'.

While discerning joining Old Rite communities I myself listened to hours of discussion explaining why this Old Rite group was not like that group or superior to another group, etc.

I'll also stick with the maxim of St. Prosper of Aquitane, 'Lex orandi...lex credendi' to help discern who is or isn't Orthodox by their worship. It is also hard for anyone outside of God to judge an entire host of believers based on who is wearing the bishop's mitre and who this or that bishop is in communion with.

I think our Lord will make room for more than the Bila Krinitsa Old Believers at His table...

You keep coming back, so you must not hate us too much!

Dear Diak,

I think your reasoning here is silly and infantile. NOBODY has made any comments about who the Lord will lead into His kingdom. NOBODY has discussed canonicity in the sense you imply. NOBODY has started going on about Old Rites and Old calendars so I suggest you calm down. You did exactly the same things last week - taking issue with issues THAT HAD NOT ARISEN.

I am simply stating the Orthodox viewpoint of Orthodoxy, nothing more.

I am not denegrating Byzantine Catholic faith.

I am not denegrating the Byzantine Catholic tradition.

I am not denegrating Byzantine Catholic history.

I am saying with love and respect, that Byzantine Catholicism is not Orthodoxy... nothing more, nothing less, whathever you may try to make out of it in your hysteria.

Your tone spoils interesting discussion between brothers and sisters.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

p.s. My tongue's firmly in my cheek!

If I can make my point here, in a way where Catholics could be gracious to us without any offense to their beliefs.

In the old days (and still today), we used to have an expression for 'certain situations' about the need to 'give a child a (sur)name'.

I think that is all we Orthodox are asking. We are making no theological or canonical statement. We only ask that Catholics respect the name our communion is commonly known as and self-described, that being "The Orthodox Church". The courtesy is returned to those of you in "The Catholic Church".

By taking the name Orthodox for the amalgamation of us and you, you deny us a name. That's the point, nothing more. If we don't even have the right to a name, how can we believe any of our rights are respected?

Axios

Axios:

Do you make the same request regarding the use of "Orthodox" by other churches that are not in communion with yours - for example, HOCNA, ROCIE, ROCA, UOKP, UAOC, Oriental Orthodox, etc., ?

Your reference to "certain situations" is, ISTM, a canonical/theological statement, of a most objectionable nature.

Yes, I agree with Father Mark. At least in my own journey, I have found that Orthodoxy is the fulness of Eastern Christianity and the fulfillment of my time in the Byzantine Catholic Church. But I will cherish and always admire the Byzantine Catholic people and all they have suffered and it was they who taught me first of Eastern Christianity.
An Eastern Catholic friend of mine of the Russian tradition refuses to use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" in respect to the Orthodox. I think this is as proper as Orthodox who refuse to use "Uniate" which is just as offensive to Eastern Catholics.

Oriental Orthodox is the long used proper name for those bodies and so long as they use both words, it creates no confusion, so I have no objection. I take no objection when (in the Anglophone world) when they prefer to call us 'Eastern Orthodox' to distingush us.

The other small 20th century groups, I am willing to see if any of them last a full century before expecting a permanent resolution.

How so?

Axios