www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Turkish Orthodox Church

????????

ChristTeen287

Dear Remie,

I'm sorry if I've been unclear.

If we start from the point of "Church" (not parish, diocese, or rite, which are all subsets of "Church") then we are discussing two "Churches." This word Church ["ekklisia" in Greek and "kahal" in Hebrew] is used exclusively in scripture. One is either in it or outside of it. We could also say "in communion" or "out of communion." So scripturally, there can't be two "Churches."

Both of the "Churches" that we are discussing officially call themselves "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." The one in the east added the word Orthodox (not to its official title) but as a common way to distinguish herself from the one who began calling herself the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Someone else on this forum can perhaps help us on this, but I understand that the addition of "Roman" is used "unofficially" in the same way as the addition of "Orthodox," to distinguish one "Catholic Church" from the other. Both east and west are claiming to be "the Catholic Church."

This dichotomy is actually good for eventual unity in the sense that if or when they finally come back into communion, neither one will need to accept joining into "the other Church." They would simply be recognizing that they now have become the same Church once again (the same one that they always should have been!).

Each Church has within it various rites or styles/orders of worship. In the RCC they tend to use the term more frequently because they organize along these lines and they have more rites between which to distinguish; Armenian, Coptic, Latin, Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Malankara, Chalcedonian, etc. [I've probably left some out or made some errors in this list.]

So I use a combination such as "Latin Rite Roman Catholic" in a technical sense with the intention of delineating which "Church/communion" and which "rite." They are not the same thing. I made a similar combination for "Byzantine Rite" and found that Alex took offense. So I'll be trying to avoid that.

Alex raised a good point of saying that using the term Roman Catholic also implies full use of their soteriology, mariology, etc. However, we know that "Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome" often differ from traditional RCC statements in these areas. At the same time, I'm also an "Eastern Catholic" (as it should be clear from what I've written above), but I'm "not in communion with Rome." So his term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" works to the point that the Byzantine Rite to a large degree does "worship" (dhoxa) correctly. However, I'm still not 100% comfortable with that title, [Orthodox in communion with Rome" since the "dhoxa" goes beyond "worship" and must include at some level ecclesiology, which, of course, is where we'll part ways.

My understanding has been that this is the structure for the (western Roman) Catholic Church:

Church: Roman Catholic Church
Rite: Latin, Armenian, Byzantine, etc
Archdiocese/Archeparchy: Philadelphia, Boston, New York, etc.
Diocese/Eparchy: Camden, NJ; Paramus, NJ; etc.
Parish: St. AAA

Now in the (eastern Orthodox) Catholic Church, two different rites sometimes fall within the same autocephalous (self-governing) jurisdiction. My structure is thus:

Church: (Orthodox) Catholic Church
Autocephalous Church: Orthodox Church in America (OCA-Washington, DC)
Archdiocese: Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America (Boston)
Rite: Byzantine
Parish: St. John Chrysostom (Philadelphia)

But in 1958, had there been an OCA and had this Albanian Archdiocese been in it, then we could have seen the following:

Church: as above
Autocephalous Church: as above
Archdiocese: as above
Rite: Western
Parish: Christ the King (Albany, NY)

I think that one would have to say that "officially" rite is not an organizational category in the (eastern Orthodox) Catholic Church in the same way that it is in the (western Roman) Catholic Church. If an autocephalous church wants to open "Western" or other rites (as the Antiochians did in France and USA), then, so far, they haven't been challenged by other autocephalous churches. [When the Albanians in USA did so (as we saw above) they were still under a non-canonical bishop and so it is not the best example since he was not responsible to brother bishops in a synod/autocephalous church].

I hope that this has been helpful. It has taken us a long time to get into this mess and it will take some time to get us out (with God's help only!).

In Christ.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Sorry that I have not been posting lately, but the Holy Days, and personal matters have kept me away from this board.

I would like to reply to Mr. Rubis' points. Most of them are correct, but he has made some mistakes that I will correct.

He states in his post that the Catholic Church started to use the term Roman to distinguish itself from the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is incorrect. The term Roman Catholic came about because of the establishment of the Anglican Church in England. This is because the Anglicans believe themselves to be a legitimate branch of the the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore, they use the term Anglo-Catholic for themselves and Roman Catholic for those of use who are united to the See of Peter. You will never find in any offical Catholic document in Latin the term Roman Catholic Church. It is always the Catholic Church.

Secondly, the term which is more appropriate is the Catholic Communion (as used by John Paul II in his letter Orientale Lumen). Also, the Catholic Communion recognizes that each Sui Juris Church has within the fullness of Salvation.

The true difference I believe between the Catholic Communion and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is that the Roman Church has realized that Latinization if a sin, where as the Eastern Orthodox have not recognized that Byzantinization is just as sinful (see the history of the Byzantine Church in the Imperial Age and those Churches that followed the Antiochene-Edessan, and the Alexandrian Liturgical Traditions). That is that the Eastern Orthodox look at the Church as either Eastern or Western, Where as it is more like a pentagon. There are five Liturgical Traditions with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are the Alexandrian, Antiochene-Edessan (which is futher divided between Western and Eastern branches), Armenian, Byzantine and Roman. And the Byzantines have for centuries tried to repress the other Eastern Traditions.

By using the term Rite you are denying that We Eastern Catholics that are in Communion with Rome have legitimate Churches. For example the offical name of my Church is: The Syro-Antiochene Maronite Church. We are not called the Syro-Antiochene Maronite Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The rites of the Roman Church are the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, and Franciscan.

Yes I do agree that you are an "Eastern Catholic" in the broad term, since Eastern Catholicism within the Catholic Communion includes four Liturgical Traditions and not one, you also run into the issue of recognizing the legitimacy of these other Traditions.

A better way of understanding the Structure of the Catholic Communion of Churches is This:

Church: The Catholic Communion of Churches;
Sui Juris Churches: Roman, Maronite, Armenian, etc.;
Diocese/Eparchy: Detroit, New York, Parma OH, etc; (Please note that not all the Catholic Churches use Archdiocese/Archeparchy as part of their organizational structure);
Parish: St. AAA.

So maybe what would helpful for you is that when refering to my Church in general you could use the term the Catholic Communion of Churches (CCC) or the Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome (CCCR.

As a member of a Patriarchal Church, the Father of my Church is the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, not the Pope of Rome. The Pope for me and all Eastern Catholics is the visible sign of the unity of the Church, and the court of last resort for keeping said Unity.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Yuhannon,

Thanks for your clarifying remarks. I missed the Anglican spin entirely. You've assisted the discussion greatly. Why it has shown up under "Turkish Orthodox" is one of those mysteries....

I would lean toward the CCCR title, which I think Alex himself has sometimes used in the form of OCCCR (adding the word "Orthodox" before it.) As I've said, I wouldn't refuse the "O" addition in a sort of dialogue, but I don't think CCNCR (Catholic Church Not in Communion with Rome) would be comfortable officially using it in any statements, documents, etc.

As usual, all of this comes back to terminology. For my communion, if you're in communion, you're in the same Church. Churches can't be in communion, they are the definition of communion. Properly, the various Orthodox Chruches should title themselves as the Church "in Russia" "in Greece" "in Constantinople" "in America" vs. the use of the words "of Russia," "of Romania," etc. as most of them currently do. Ecclesiologically, scripturally, it is the same Church, but present in various lands. Look at the scriptures addressed to the Church "in Ephesus," "in Corinth," "in Rome" and I think that my underlying point comes out a little stronger. One Church.

Thanks again.
In Christ,