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

Those of us in communion with Rome do not object when the term "Catholic" is used by various Eastern Churches (both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian).

Why should we have to abandon the term "Orthodox" by which we were called long before our entering union with Rome? It may be the position of some that we lost our Orthodoxy when we entered union with Rome. We don't feel that is the case. Insisting that we drop the term "Orthodox" in reference to ourselves would then indicate that we did cease to be orthodox when we entered union with Rome. That is something we cannot agree to. We understand that others may disagree and we respect their right to disagree with our faith. But, this is our faith.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Axios:

So if I understand correctly, it is specifically the use of the word Orthodox by those in the Catholic communion that you find objectionable. So be it.

As to "certain situations": perhaps I misunderstood you, but it appears that you are questioning the legitimacy of Eastern Catholic churches. That would be most objectionable.

Dear Fr. Mark,

Bless!

The cherubic hymn used in the Ruthenian Church is not exactly the same text as the one in the Erie prayerbook nor in Meyendorff's book "Russia, Ritual and Reform." There is at least one vocabulary difference not to mention spelling differences.

Can you please write out the text of the cherubic hymn that you use in your usage/jurisdiction?

As for the "fos hilaron" I will look at that when I can.

In Christ,

Tony

I like to be called Orthodox. St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom were called Orthodox.

dear djs,

Yes, I think we had a miscommunication. I was not suggesting the delegitimacy of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but was suggesting that to not even allow the Orthodox Church our name, we were being delegitimatized.

For Dave,

It is not "abandoning" or "dropping" the term Orthodox, it is your practice of adopting it.

The point is this is not the term you (Eastern Catholics)have used for yoruself, but it is a term that a minority movement within Eastern Catholicism has recently adopted for itself.

You long use the term "Byzantine" in the United States and "Greek" in much of the rest of the Anglophone world to describe yourself (Greek Catholic/Byzantien Catholic). These are two very fine words to describe the common liturgical, cultural and theoloigcal patrimony of Greek/Eastern/Byzantine Catholics and Greek/Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox.

But why the need to appropriate a new term?

As to objections when the term "Catholic" being used by those not in communion with Rome, by Catholics, I think your view is less than universal. Watch the sour faces when someone says "I'm Catholic too, not just a ROMAN Catholic like you"

And not only sour faces, but again, whatever your personal feelings, your Communion on a few occassions have sent your lawyers out with objections to the use of the term.

Axios

Axios wrote:

The texts that our Church inherited from our forefathers has used the term "orthodox" long before our entering union with Rome...in fact, long before the Schism.

It is no new term for us.

Again, to say that it would be a new term for us would be to acknowledge that we ceased to be "orthodox" when we entered union with Rome.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

It is not a question of having left an "orthodox" faith with a small "O" but the Eastern Catholics did leave communion with the Orthodox Church proper to enter into union with a Church that was not part of the Orthodox Church at the time, the Roman Catholic Church.

Axios:
Sorry for getting your point entirely backwards.

Brian:
I have the idea that, at least in the case of Brest, we did not "leave". After communion with Rome was proclaimed, our bishops and their flocks were excommunicated by the EP. I think that for several days we actually were in communion with both Rome and Constantinople.

So when is pointing out the sad situation of disunity amongst "Orthodox" infantile? Considering the polemic of various factions debating their "Orthodoxy" with one another and continuing to anathemitize one another rather seems silly and infantile to me. "See how they love one another"...Whose yardstick of "Orthodoxy" are you going to use in your determination of who is and isn't Orthodox?

I'll point out that you initiated the opinion of who is or is not worthy of the title "Orthodox", Father Mark. The orthodoxy of the entire Greek Catholic Churches was clearly placed into question by yourself. If I offended you, I ask forgiveness, but I don't think personal attacks really get us anywhere.

I will continue to hold all of the canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as the basis for my faith as do all of my Greek Catholic brethren and take offence of being witheld or exempted from the title Orthodox because of that fact. As Greek Catholics we have far too long allowed others to define our identity for us as happens time and time again from others, even as demonstrated on this forum. We know who we are.

On the other hand, one never hears any of us Greek Catholics on this forum taking any umbrage whatsoever for "Orthodox" use of the term "Catholic". Please pray for us poor Greek Catholic sinners who seem to be so mistaken about ourselves.

I'll not question anyone else's Orthodoxy here but let the Pantocrator handle that, He's a lot more qualified than anyone I know.

Amen!!! Father Mark,

I think you have hit the nail on the head!!!!

Yes! We are more Orthodox than the Orthodox, because we hold the unity of the Christian faith so highly, that we are willing to put up with Rome.

And because we are Byzantine, seeking links to Orthodoxy and sharing the liturgy and history of the East, we are more Catholic than the "Roman Catholics". That is, those who think the Latin way is the only way. We are those who make them Catholic, and not just Roman!

I never call myself Orthodox, out of courtesy to those who use that name. However, I have long felt that as a Ukrainian Catholic, I lived with the best of both sides of this "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

Thanks, Father, for clarifying what I have felt for a long time.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Brian wrote:

"A tragic wound" (our separation from our Mother Church) according to John Paul in Orientale Lumen:

Personally, I don't worry about whether it should be a little "o," a large "O" or a middle-sized "0" when we use the term "oO0rthodox." Capitalization of words is relatively late anyway (only since the Middle Ages)

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear anastasios,

I don't know if I understand "censing at the start of liturgy" in your post above. Can you please elaborate?

Tony

I appreciate John's practice.

Dave, the issue is not words that have been used to describe your church (The Roman Church uses the term orthodox to describe itself), but the NAME of the Church.

The truth is that it is not true this is the name your church has used traditionally. The legal documents incorporating your churches do not use it and (Orthodox being a word of the English language), it has never been consistently used by Anglophone Eastern Catholics.

Let me put it another way. Do those of my church who have wills that read "I leave 'X' to the Orthodox Church", have something to fear from Catholics like you and your lawyers?

Axios

I think there's no need to feel offended by any comment. Byzantine Catholics, Orthodox and Roman Catholics have just expressed their feelings. Something positive is that this discussion gives me a hope that unity is still possible, it seems that we're all so similar and share so many things that the titles and names are confusing.

I think that what Father Mark and Brian have tried to say, is that the Eastern Catholic Churches, in spite of the fact that many are very loyal to the Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition and spiritual life, are not fully part of Orthodoxy. And this is not because of their union with the Pope of Rome, which was a reality for all the East until the schism, but because the terms of this union imply the acceptance of all the doctrines that appeared as an obstacle to unity (even if they are not held explicitly), and the abandonement of the synodal tradition).

However, in the other case, Catholics would be right if they say that Orthodoxy isn't fully Catholic, as it lacks communion with the Pope and the "rest of the Church" and appears to be a disunited body with schisms and divisions.

Dear Diak,

I am still trying to understand your reasoning.

You are really insisting on making an issue out of this.

I have simply given my understanding of the whole situation as an Orthodox Christian. What sort of response do you expect from the Orthodox world? What do you expect the Orthodox to say?

What I consider infantile is not your worthy and accurate observation, but the way it is thrown in with all sorts of other baggage that draws us from the point of this discussion.

This did not start as a discussion about the very real mess that the Orthodox Church is in, but one of the nature of Byzantine Catholicism. If you wish to discuss that, fine, start a new thread and we can all be honest about the awful state of Orthodoxy. But with regard to THIS thread, we should look back at the initial email.

I am simply seeking to discuss the issues raised, from an Orthodox perspective, expecting some Byzantine Catholics to disagree with my opinions. I accept this graciously. However, I do think a negative tone is entering this discussion.

I do not take any offence at anything said, but f
I am not mud slinging and getting worked up about an issue that is bound to arise in a discussion of this subject. We don't have to get angry and bantering when someone disagrees with us.

I wholeheartedly admire the strength of your faith and the courage of your convictions. I disagree with you on some points, but I'm not going to get an ulcer about it.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.