www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

Catholicism teaches you may ask the Orthodox for the sacraments only in certain dire situations � if there is no Catholic church around or if the local Catholic church has fallen into rank heresy (if the priest says �This is the symbol of My Body� at the consecration, for example). Still, nine times out of 10 the Orthodox will say no. Stuart is right that there is that possible one out of 10. (Kallistos Ware agrees.) But nobody officially is encouraging Orthodox priests to disobey their Churches� rules. Appearing to do so in the US (I acknowledge the claim that in the Mideast intercommunion happens all the time) would set back the cause of ending the Schism because it breeds further distrust on the Orthodox side.

http://oldworldrus.com

>>>Catholicism teaches you may ask the Orthodox for the sacraments only in certain dire situations � if
there is no Catholic church around or if the local Catholic church has fallen into rank heresy (if the
priest says �This is the symbol of My Body� at the consecration, for example).<<<

No, Jack, you are not correct. The canons of the Eastern Churches are very broad. What they say is that, if there is a physical or moral impediment, or if spiritual development suggests it, and there is no danger of indifferentism, then members of the Oriental Churches in communion with Rome may receive the sacraments from a priest of an Oriental Church outside of communion with Rome. The definition of physical or moral impediment is left largely to the discretion of the individual Catholic believer. There are no rules that say, "5 miles away is OK, but 4.75 miles and it's not OK". Similarly, there is no definition provided regarding "moral impossibility"--that's up to your conscience. In my case, were I in that situation, I would for the benefit of my soul, and the souls of my families, make every effort to integrate us into an Orthodox parish, working with the priests and bishops on both sides to facilitate our communion without rendering scandal to either. The situation is actually rather common--in both directions--in areas where Eastern Churches of any type are thin on the ground.

To you all,
I have heard some of you say that intercommunion is common in the Middle East. On whose scale and by what percentage? Where do you get your sources from? Intercommunion may happen but it is rather very small. How many Christians are in the Middle East to justify the misguided belief that intercommunion happens all the time? Go ask the Latin parish in my Middle Eastern village if they will give communion to an Orthodox and vice verse. Intercommunion between an Orthodox and a non-Orthodox Church is essentially wrong. Intercommunion between various Orthodox jurisdictions happens ALL the time and is justifiable. Those Orthodox who intercommunion with non-Othodox Churches are simply non-educated and need restoration. What is to stop them from communing with the Protestants(i.e. Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed)? I guess what it boils down to is the Roman Catholic Church Orthodox? My answer is no. Therefore, communion with her and her rites is not permitted. Assuming an Orthodox priest gives communion to an non-Orthodox: does the priest know what he is permitting? Again, does this happen on a large scale? Why would a non-Orthodox want to take communion in an Orthodox Church? It may be that they have acknowledged the Church is true. I challenge anyone to prove to me that intercommunion in the Middle East is the norm and occcurs on a large scale within the Orthodox Church. Everyone here seems to know more what happens there than they really know.

Dragani, its Comehome!

You pretty much hit the nail on the head in the first part of your letter. I am a cradle Catholic that is deeply in love with God and seeking His Pure Truth. I was not always this way. I do listen to these people you mention and read these books also. (and they are good)

But I am more open minded and more ecumenical than you think. If what you said about the curia is true then you are right that it is wrong. It is made up of sinners just like us. The Popes don't always act the right way or do the right things either.

I am studying Eastern thought and theology and it is different and beautiful. The "rites" of the church are like different cultures and we can see how different cultures get along in this world. It can be really sad.

It is never the answer to break unity with Rome though. Schism is a sin. Suffering by not accepting Schism is very vurtuous. I applaud the Eastern Catholics. It is definetly ingnorance on the East AND West sides that keep us in Schism.

Forced Latinization is bad for unity because it shows the Orthodox that if unity is achieved they would be treated the same way and it is a turn off. But natural sharing of customs can be a good thing. There are many "eastern" things that can really enhance our liturgy.

What the Church needs is Sanctity. We will not reach unity with two stubern sides trying to conform eachother in the non-esentials. I believe I have the vision of how unity can be. I understand and I think I beleive it how you see it. Although I deffinetly beleive there are 21 ecumenical councils.

You say there are seven councils of the undivided church. I would say that there was never and there will never be a divided church. The True church is always one. For several hundred years certain churches left the One church but the one church never stopped being one. The One church has had 21 ecumenical councils.

Your view does not work. Because in your view there would never be one undevided church. The first seven councils were not part of an undivided church. These councils themselves divided the church and other "apostalic" churches don't follow all of these seven.

I hope the last part of my post doesn't seem too hostil.

The way the West understands the Pope is due to the fact that he is our Patriarch. He has a lot more immediate jurisdiction over us and most Roman Catholics think he should excercise this kind of jurisdiction over the whole church. But I completely understand that the other churches have there own Patriarch!

I will leave it at that!!

God Bless

Comehome

Friends,

I don't wish to ever be in schism from Rome as I had been as a protestant minister. However, sometimes I wonder if some of the ways Rome has expressed its supremacy doesn't cause more problems than it helps. Should we have a thread to examine in detail the positions in Vatican I?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Comehome,

I'm glad that you have finally appeared! You are the one that I really want to dialogue with.

You write:

"I do listen to these people you mention and read these books also. (and they are good)"

I know these individuals very well. I had three graduate theology classes taught by Dr. Scott Hahn, and learned a great deal from him. I have also taken two classes by Dr. Alan Schreck, and one class by Father Ray Ryland. I have also chatted with Marcus Grodi in the past.

It may surprise you to know that I was once an intense Roman Catholic apologist, and have an MA in Theology from Franciscan University.

"I am studying Eastern thought and theology and it is different and beautiful."

Indeed it is! I fell very much in love with it when I was a undergraduate student in Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. I eventually became Byzantine Catholic as a result. I really love it.

"It is never the answer to break unity with Rome though. Schism is a sin. Suffering by not accepting Schism is very vurtuous. I applaud the Eastern Catholics. It is definetly ingnorance on the East AND West sides that keep us in Schism."

I agree entirely. Read my answer to those Orthodox who asked why I remain Eastern Catholic.

"You say there are seven councils of the undivided church. I would say that there was never and there will never be a divided church. The True church is always one."

I used to say that the True church could never be divided. I have had a change of heart in this. From studying the Church Fathers, and even Pope John Paul II, I have come to realize that the Eastern Tradition is an essential part of Christ's Church. And sadly, the Eastern Tradition is not present within the Roman Church alone - and a few heavily Latinized little "uniate rites."

You know how I feel about the Ecumenical Councils. You've already read my thoughts concerning that.

"Your view does not work. Because in your view there would never be one undevided church. The first seven councils were not part of an undivided church. These councils themselves divided the church and other apostalic churches don't follow all of these seven."

You certainly have a good point here.

"The way the West understands the Pope is due to the fact that he is our Patriarch. He has a lot more immediate jurisdiction over us and most Roman Catholics think he should excercise this kind of jurisdiction over the whole church. But I completely understand that the other churches have there own Patriarch!"

This is the key insight. Now you really are beginning to understand our point of view.

I think that you would find much more intensely "pro-Papacy" feelings among Byzantine Catholics, and perhaps even Orthodox, if the Pope were to curb the power of the Roman Curia regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches, and allow us to become truly Eastern again.

God bless,
Anthony

In recent centuries the Roman Catholic Church has moved away from exclusion to inclusion when stating who is a member of the Church. At one time all those who were not Roman Catholic were dammed to hell. Today the Catholic Church more-or-less considers all humans to be members of the Church, although imperfectly. This is a much different and welcome ecclesiology. In this new ecclesiology, Orthodox Christians are considered as members of the Church and, to paraphrase Pope John Paul II, 'they are so close to us that even the word schism is too strong to describe our separation'. If one were to bring this thought to a logical conclusion one would conclude that the Orthodox have always been part of the Church - even if their membership is currently imperfect.

Using this as a starting point it would be fair to examine whether the later Fourteen General Councils in the West can be considered to be truly ecumenical. Even if one should choose to reject this newer ecclesiology, one can validly look at the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and see that much of the older method of ecclesiology is rooted in the RCC's response to the Reformation.


To respond to Robert Tallick's questions:

<font color="#CC0000">1) Well then, why does he stay? Why is he satisfied to be treated as a second class RC (which you imply) when he can be a first class Orthodox?</font>

We stay in communion with Rome because we believe that communion with Peter is so important that it is worth even suffering the often ill treatment we have received from the Roman Catholics. When I, as a Byzantine Catholic, look at the Orthodox Churches and see the lack of unity I am glad to be an Orthodox Christian in full communion with Rome. Many Orthodox take every chance they get to "shoot a Uniate for Christ" but I know of more than a few who envy us when they consider the very real issues that plague Orthodoxy today. Regarding the idea of being "First Class Orthodox" just consider that the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, which is made up of former Byzantine Catholics, has little respect in the eyes of most Orthodox. For Greeks, one must be Greek in order to be truly Orthodox. The same goes for Russians, Arabs and Ukrainians. What exactly is a "First Class Orthodox" and who qualifies? Orthodoxy has a treasure of theology to share with the world yet it continues to act like a bunch of ethnics who love to fight amongst themselves.

<font color="#CC0000">2) How can they believe that they are not just a 'Rite' within the RCC but a separate (autonomous) church if they are so tied into, and affected, by the Roman Curia?</font>

There is a difference between who we are and how we act. Since we entered full communion with Peter we have acted as a rite and not as the Church we are. We can blame both Rome and ourselves. If we had never entered into this union and were currently part of the Orthodox - Catholic dialogue, I would never advance the uniate model as viable. But since we do exist and we consider our communion with Peter to be important we should start to act according to a model of a full Church in communion (even if that model is not yet workable). We should live as autonomous Byzantine Orthodox Christians in full communion with Peter. A difficult, yet most worthwhile task.

Anthony seems to blame Rome for our continued problems. I blame us. We need to act as Church rather than as 'rite'. If we continue with the "Mother, may I?" approach for each question that we face, we will continue to be treated as children. We don't need Rome's permission to do what's right and she cannot tell us to do what's wrong.

Moving along, I wonder if "comehome" really understands? In the same paragraph he talks about both how we should not be stubborn and yet again insists there are twenty-one Ecumenical Councils. Where is there respect for the Byzantine Catholic view on this issue? Is it not stubborn to insist on twenty-one Ecumenical Councils? Or are we acceptable only when we conform to Roman Catholic theology and stubborn when we witness our own equally Catholic Byzantine theology?

I like Dan Lauffer's idea. But rather than starting with Vatican I and the functional role of the successor of Peter perhaps we should start by examining "Who belongs to the Church"?

Moose,
If St. Peter means Roman monopoly then the Orthodox are not interested. The language you use is tainted to support communion with Rome when it is in reality Rome who has left communion. St. Peter was and is the Apostle of the Orthodox Church in communion with the other Apostles. Sola Petros may not be an official doctrine written in stone but in reality it is practiced by you and Roman Catholics volunarily and unvoluntarily. I don't know what you really are glad about being in communion with ROme when Rome needs restoration. Ethnic issues are as old as the Church on Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church is not immune anymore than the Orthodox Church from the problems that stem from ethnicity. Catholicism has also a rich history of ethnic conflicts. However, ethnicity is not all that bad. The real issue mainly deals with the unity and administration of ecclesialogy. Before you dare blame the Orthodox for the jurisdictional problems solve the one your in mainly uniatism. I don't mean offense but this is a serious issue.

Robert,

<font color="#990000">>>If St. Peter means Roman monopoly then the Orthodox are not interested.<< </font>

While that may be the current reality, I never suggested that the current model is either acceptable to us today or in the future. I merely acknowledged that it is the reality and the starting point from which we have to work.

I do believe that the Church needs a strong, central figure and that figure needs to be the pope. He is the logical choice for the Church to delegate the role of calling a council (the Orthodox have not had an agreed upon vehicle for calling a council since 1453). Both Schmemman and Meyendorff come to mind as individual Orthodox theologians of our era who believed that Orthodoxy needs this strong central figure with the authority to get things done. Their questions remained as to the model and extent of such authority. They clearly also rejected the current model.

<font color="#990000">>>The Roman Catholic Church is not immune anymore than the Orthodox Church from the problems that stem from ethnicity. <<</font>

As a Byzantine Catholic I can go into any parishes of the 21 different Catholic Churches and partake in the Eucharistic Banquet. This cannot be said of Orthodoxy. The ethnic issues faced in the Roman Catholic Church have not caused the jurisdictional issues currently evident in the Orthodox Churches in the Americas or in the attitude among some that closely hinges salvation with ethnicity (i.e.: Greek = Orthodox = Greek). My comments were not meant to be offensive but merely to state the reality.

<font color="#990000">>>Before you dare blame the Orthodox for the jurisdictional problems solve the one your in mainly uniatism. I don't mean offense but this is a serious issue. <<</font>

A fair statement. I will point out that we Byzantine Catholics do have structures in which to work with - even if they are at times "stacked against us". What is the vehicle within Orthodoxy to resolve the issues it faces? The lack of an agreed position by the Orthodox participants in last week's Orthodox - Catholic Dialogue in Emmitsburg was very telling. Orthodoxy needs to retreat and find a method to work together as individual Churches before any dialogue should be continued. While some Orthodox may reject the idea of ecumenism entirely, this same lack of a unified voice is very telling since it severely damages the social and ethical voice of Orthodoxy in a world that needs it. It does not contribute to the building up of the Church.

It should also be noted that we Byzantine Catholics are not so much under the thumb of Rome as we are still testing the waters. Rome has asked us repeatedly to educate our Church to more authentically witness Orthodoxy. Too often we blame Rome for what we have failed to do for ourselves.

Moose,
Everything you stated is fine except for one thing. There are many Orthodox who do commune in various Orthodox Churches myself being one of them. You know of our Fundamentalists but they are only a minority that refuse communion with us "worldly Orthodox". As an Orthodox I have taken communion within the Antiochian, Jerusalem, and Greek Patriarchate in North America as well as in the OCA. I see also many others do the same. This is not the basis to take issue with me as to where one may or may not celebrate the Eucharist and in which Church. You do have the Polish Nationalsproblems that refuse communion with Rome. Try taking communion with them sometime and see your reaction. I am disappointed with those misguided folks who believe to be Orthodox one must be Greek, Russian, etc. They suffer from tunnel vision and promote what I call the "bad news". In order to have a strong central figure it does not necessarily have to be the Pope of Rome. We have seen enough of this centrality to the point of unchecked power and abuse. You most likely have seen and experienced it more than any non-Roman Catholic Church. However, you stubornly don't make a strong stance to check the power struggle that stems from Rome. How long do you remain a uniate depends on how long the two churches remain separated. What is the current role of the Uniates since uniatism is rejected in the current dialogues?

"We stay in communion with Rome because we believe that communion with Peter is so important that it is worth even suffering the often ill treatment we have received from the Roman Catholics."

But to pretend that the administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church is set up like the Orthodox is ludicrous. If you want to be in communion with Peter then why not Antioch? How about being in communion with Christ and the remainder of the original apostles (excluding Judas)? Why does it have to be Rome? When, as an Orthodox, I read some of the posts here I can't help but wonder where the logic is. As I already stated, you pretend that you are an independent Church that just happens to be 'in communion with' rather than 'under the authority of' Rome. Yet in the next series of posts I read complaints about edicts sent from the Roman Curia or notification of changes being sent to the Roman Curia for approval. If you're so independent the question is WHY? And why give a damn what the Roman Curia says or does?
The Orthodox consist of various autocephalous or automous church which are 'in communion' with each other. Yet when an administrative issue comes up the Patriarch of Antioch does not have to submit a notification to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Moscow, Alexandria, etc. for approval. Why did your Bishop Judson feel the necessity to notify the Roman Curia on the celibacy issue? Why didn't he just implement on his own if you are an independent Church that just happens to be 'in communion with Rome'? It's a guaranteed right stated in the 'Union of Brest/Litovsk'.
You state to me that communion with Peter (which I assume means Rome to you) is important enough for you to take the abuse from Rome. Yet every one of you gets highly insulted when we remind you that you are part of the Roman Catholic Church or refer to you using any title that indicates you are part of that Church. No logic.

"When I, as a Byzantine Catholic, look at the Orthodox Churches and see the lack of unity I am glad to be an Orthodox Christian in full communion with Rome."

Reminds me of the old saying...'You can't see the forest because of the tree's'. If there is such unity within the 'Eastern Rites' of the Roman Catholic Church, then by all means answer the following....Why isn't the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melikte Church, the Croation, Hungarian, Romanian Greek Catholic Church, etc "one" uniate Church? Why do they all have their separate jurisdictions here in the U.S.? Where is your unity?
As far as your claim to be Orthodox, you relinquished it in 1596 when you turned your back on the faith of your ancestors, and became part of the Roman Church.

"Regarding the idea of being "First Class Orthodox" just consider that the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, which is made up of former Byzantine Catholics, has little respect in the eyes of most Orthodox."

I would have to disagree with you here. What most Orthodox I know (including myself) object to are the 'latinizations' they brought back with them and either won't or can't seem to discard.
I can still remember my shock when I went into one of their churches and heard one of them refer to their priest as Monsignor!

"For Greeks, one must be Greek in order to be truly Orthodox. The same goes for Russians, Arabs and Ukrainians. "

Isn't there a thread currently going on in this very Forum regarding people within your church who think that your own jurisdiction should be for 'eastern europeans' and/or Carpatho-Russians only?

"What exactly is a "First Class Orthodox" and who qualifies?"

A first class Orthodox is a member in good standing of a canonical Orthodox Church. A person who practices his or her faith according to it's teachings and/or to the best of their ability.

"Orthodoxy has a treasure of theology to share with the world yet it continues to act like a bunch of ethnics who love to fight amongst themselves."

And you don't? You should read some of the other religious discussion groups. In this forum alone, you can't seem to agree on whether there were seven or twenty one Ecumenical councils. You should read the Orthodox/Catholic Dialogue board on AOL. There has been more than one cat & dog fight between Roman and various 'eastern rites' on what they believe and what the church teaches. You ain't no different than us real Orthodox my friend!

"There is a difference between who we are and how we act. Since we entered full communion with Peter we have acted as a rite and not as the Church we are."

Baloney! You have acted the way you have been instructed to act by those in Rome who have authority over you. Every time you have attempted to act otherwise, you have been shot down and put in your place and reminded of the superioty of Rome.

For the Orthodox people out there that are wondering why communion with Rome is important and not communion with Antioch or some other See I have to ask "have you read the church Fathers"? It is very, very, very clear that Peter's successors reside at the Roman See. It has always been understood that way. The scriptures are clear that Peter and his successors are the visible heads of the pilgram church on earth.

For those that don't understand why I think there are 21 ecumenical councils, I want to know which parts of the last 14 councils do you not agree with. Do you believe all the doctrines infallibly taught by these councils? Or are there some Roman doctrines that you belive are heresy.

To close I would like to say that I see the different rites(and I don't object so much with this term) of the church as different ways to express our faith and I believe of course that they are all legit and good. I would agree that to have a complete church and full of expression all the "rites" are necessary.

For truth to prevail these expressions are not necessary. Where ever Peter is that is were truth will prevail(hence the later councils). But I do agree that the councils without alot of eastern influence do suffer from lack of expression and eastern thought in them.

The fact of the matter is that schism did happen. The Catholic church through the years has become more western in thought. But the only way for that to change is not further division but reconciliation and unity and sharing of our theologies.


God Bless
Comehome

Robert Sweiss,

You make some good points. I knew that Eucharistic sharing occurred among the different canonical Orthodox Churches, but I also know that there are some problems. Last week, for example, at the Emmitsburg Dialogue, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos objected to the presence of OCA Metropolitan Theodosius since the OCA is considered by the Greeks to be un-canonical.

Regarding the Polish National Catholic Church, a dialogue conducted by the Prime Bishop of the PNCC and the RC Bishop of Scranton in the early 1990's (and still ongoing) has led to permitted Eucharistic sharing. The scars there are healing.

I, too, am disappointed with those misguided folks who believe to be Orthodox one must be Greek, Russian, etc. Whenever I travel to places with no Byzantine Catholic parish I usually visit the local Orthodox parish. I would expect to be greeted with the question "Are you Orthodox?" but most often I am greeted with the question "Are you Greek?" or "Ukrainian?", etc. I know this will change in time, but it still effectively dilutes the Christian of Orthodoxy.

I am curious, since the pope has the status of "First Among Equals" from the time of the undivided early Church, it seems that he is the ideal candidate for the strong central figure. Schmennan, Meyendorff and even Bishop Kallistos agree that it is he who should continue in this role in a reunited Church. Since you don't see him in this role and that it can be assigned to another, whom do you see it assigned to? And what vehicle do you see that will allow Orthodoxy to agree to it?

Regarding the role of the Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic Churches in light of the rejection of Uniatism as a model of communion, Rome has clearly placed the ball in our court. But we have done nothing but examine it. It is time we pick it up and run with it. My read on the whole thing is that the pope (not necessarily some of the Vatican bureaucrats) wants us to pick up the ball and run with it. Pope John Paul II would be delighted if we came to a more authentic expression of Orthodoxy in communion with Rome. I suspect that Rome would keep out of day-to-day affairs but insist on veto power. We have the opportunity to create a new model and test it to see if it will work.

Robert Tallick,

>> Why does it have to be Rome?<<

Because while Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to all the apostles he set Pete apart as the first apostle. Because the Fathers of the Church saw communion with Rome as vital. And again, what is the internal vehicle within Orthodoxy to call a council or decide on major issues? No one seems interested in answering this question.

>> If you're so independent the question is WHY? And why give a damn what the Roman Curia says or does?<<

Because after being treated as second class for so long it takes time (even generations) to learn how to walk again. You are correct in that Metropolitan Judson should have just issued the Particular Law without reference to the Roman Curia. Perhaps in the future he will act more independently.

>> You state to me that communion with Peter (which I assume means Rome to you) is
important enough for you to take the abuse from Rome. Yet every one of you gets highly insulted when we remind you that you are part of the Roman Catholic Church or refer to you using any title that indicates you are part of that Church. No logic.<<

There is a difference between being in communion with a Particular Church and being a member of a Particular Church. Visit your local Greek Orthodox parish and ask a question about their Russian Orthodox theology and watch how fast you are reminded that they are not Russian Orthodox. Since both Churches are Byzantine, the parallel is not exact but I'm sure you'll catch my meaning.

>> Why isn't the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melikte Church, the Croation, Hungarian, Romanian Greek Catholic Church, etc "one" uniate Church? Why do they all have their separate jurisdictions here in the U.S.? Where is your unity?<<

All valid questions. We do know that at some future time all will melt into a single jurisdiction, probably within a generation or two. Signs of this are already apparent. The new Italo-Greek parish in Las Vegas is part of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Van Nuys, Saints Cyril and Methodius Seminary in Pittsburgh is slowly becoming a national seminary for Byzantine Catholics of all ethnic jurisdictions.

"comehome",

"comehome", unfortunately, adds weight to Robert's argument by seeking to know which parts of the last 14 councils we reject. I would ask him why should be jettison our authentic Byzantine theology to accept the theology of those 14 councils? Just why should we consider those 14 councils as Ecumenical? With all due respect to "comehome", it is clear that he does not even understand the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church that makes clear that we are not 'rites' but full Churches. Given the teachings of Pope John Paul II regarding the Eastern Churches, I find it strange that "comehome" would still try to convince us that the theology of the Latin Councils is what should be made the centerpiece of our Byzantine theology.

Comehome,
I believe you suffer from the syndrome called tunnel vision in regards to St. Peter and the Church. Why do you ignore the Sees of the other Apostles and pretend that ONLY St. Peter and his successors "are the visible heads of the pilgrim church on earth"? It's know wonder Byzantine Catholics become frustrated with this arrogant mentality. According to your mindset the Pope is superior therefore St. Peter is superior. This is your choice of belief which is not the mind of Christ given to us the Church. The mind of Christ has humility to avoid speaking your unfortunate language, created and believed within your own mindset. The Seven Ecumenical Councils had the agreement of all the major and local Sees whereas the so-called 4-21 did not. Every major See were in agreement with the 7EC. When you have every major See not in agreement regarding the decisions of the so-called 8-21 EC by Rome ALONE how can it they be Ecumenical? Is it by the teaching of Sola Petros? Is it really the mental superiority of the Pope? Or your lack of understanding of the title "Primacy"? Primacy to you sounds to me like the World Federation of Wrestling. It is a title that can be bestowed by fellow bihops to one they appoint and it can be easily forfeited if one steps out of communion. The real issue for you is the need to know what the historical meaning of Primacy meant in the early Church. Why is it that you believe St. Peter exclusively belongs to Catholicism and cannot be that of Orthodoxy? If anyone can lay a claim to St. Peter it would be the Sees of Jerusalem and Antioch to which I belong to. But you will notice that we don't speak in the manner as you consistently do regarding our St. Peter. You have an exagerated belief of being "first" tied to the See of ROme. St. Peter and the Apostles are not subjugated, monopolized, and limited to any one particular place on earth by the Orthodox Church. It sounds like you and Rome have kidnapped and hijacked St. Peter from the rest of the other Apostolic Churches. Why are you so selfish that you believe he exclusively belongs to Rome? This is the problem I deal with Roman and some Byzantine catholics. It sounds arrogant and is arrogant

"Jesus said to her, WOman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth(John 4:21-24)".

"It is not only in the diaspora that Orthodoxy suffers from a lack of reciprocal contacts. For a long time all the different Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches, often through no fault of their own, have been far too isolated from one another. At times the only formal contact has been the regular exchange of letters between the heads of the Churches. Today this isolation still continues, but there is a growing desire for much closer co-operation. Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches has played its part here: at the great gatherings of the World Council of Churches, the Orthodox delegates have often found themselves ill-prepared to speak with a united voice. Why,have they asked, does it require the World Council to bring us Orthodox together? Why do we ourselves never meet to discuss our common problems?" ***


A good question for Byzantine Catholics to also ask of the Orthodox, especially when we know that our various hierarchs meet regularly. (Just recently in Jerusalem.) Finally, we should never apologize for being: Orthodox + Plus (in communion with Rome). No getting around it, brothers. That is exactly what we are and our ancestors(especially those blessed with an education) were well aware of this reality. We are a "third way" which is neither Roman Catholic or Orthodox. We have our own and unique spiritual and theological ethos that is-Yes! Is!- syncretistic of the East and the West-this is our unique WAY IN CHRIST! Please, brothers. For at least some of us, it is the only Catholicism-Orthodoxy we have ever known and we love it with a passion! Show some respect. Don't you understand? Within the context of history, it is the Latinizations(some of them) that, ironically, make us more "orthodox"and more "catholic" than the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. Repent of our sins? Always. Repent of being Catholic Byzantines? Why? (Nothing personal, brothers.But, the dam broke and I could no longer remain silent on this issue.) Pray for me, a sinner.

***The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (Penguin Books-1997).