www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Why communion with Rome ?

Dear Jim:

The Holy Sprit works through the churches in communion with Rome more than those outside of communion with Rome? So are you suggesting there are levels of Grace that are dependent upon recognition of Papal Jurisdiction?


Dear Andrew J. Rubis:

Right or wrong, the "my parish" or "my Church" approach is how many of us who grew up within and have antcestoral roots to a particular church view it. As we say in Ukrainian, the shirt is closer than the overcoat (loose translation of "sorochka blyzhcha yak kozhuch"). Where the successor of the Servant of God Metropolitan Andrej and Patriarch Joseph the Confessor are jurisdiction-wise, there you will find us. If others had thrown off their historical and ethnic ties when it came to matters of the church in the past, we all may have have been Latins right now.


Dear DavidB:

You sound offended. Don't be. We all have our viewpoints, and someone asking us for ours as to why we stay with Rome may just simply be an invitation to explain ourselves. If a Latin unfamiliar with us asks you how is it possible for there to a completely different Rite within the Catholic Church, do you take this as a threat as well? I don't know, maybe it depends upon how the question is posed. Still, in this forum, where vocal inflections are absent, let's give the poster the benefit of the doubt.

Yours,

kl

Dear KL,

Not to offend you or anything, but I can guess your stand on this as well as others from your past posts.

As I see from your profile, you have only been here a month.

As I have said, this question is asked repeatedly here.

There is no excuse or justification for this, period.

As for your comment that I take this as a threat.... Thanks for the laugh.

To say, "I am in communion with Rome only becuase my parish is" implies that there is nothing to being in communion with Rome. Well I, as well as others, disagree with that.

This is just one of the many reasons why I disagree with the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" title. It doesn't fit.


David

Dear Friends:


I think questions like those of COS are prototypical of Catholics like me who become "uneasy" when confronted with the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

Frankly, we are more comfortable with the term "Eastern Catholic" as exemplified by the tact our own Anthony Dragani constantly (and correctly I might say) shows at the EWTN Q&A Forum. In this East-West communion of Churches in the Catholic Church, we, Romans, or Catholics of the Latin Rite, are Western Catholics while you are Eastern Catholics.

COS' "questions" do not question your Catholicity at all. Rather, why is there a penchant for some (well, many) Eastern Catholics to "explain away" their Catholicism by adding, in a heart beat, that they are "actually" "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"

To me, this is a "justification" for your being big "O" Orthodox and not for your being big "C" Catholic.

The Catholic Church was, is, and always will be, a communion of the East and of the West, and of some Churches in between. Eastern Catholicism is more encompassing as the term also embraces non-Byzantine Catholics. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are, also, part of THE Catholic Church but are presently not in communion with us.

There is no offense intended in my own questions. I am just curious yellow!


AmdG

Dear David:

Believe me, it takes a lot for me to be offended. I don't see what my being "here" for a month has to do with anything. OK, maybe "threat" was not a good choice of words, but I'm sure you see my point that there is no difference between an intellectual query by an Orthodox asking you about your communion with Rome and one by a Latin asking you about what you have in common with the Church of Constantinople.

As for everything else, well, we agree to disagree and that's fine.

Yours,

kl

Dear Amado:

Your point about certain among us insisting upon labels is, IMHO, a very good one. Really, what prevents any of us from explaining ourselves in a sentence rather than in a soundbite? Put another way, if you come down to it, all of the apostilic churches consider each other to be BOTH "small-o orthodox" (i.e. those who properly glorify) AND "small-c catholic" (i.e. part of the "universal" church). It was history and politics that tragically divided us and nothing else.

Yours,

kl

Dear Amado,

Well, I read your post with interest . . .

I can see your point, but there is more to it from our Eastern vantage than what you've stated.

For us, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is not an attempt at being "less Catholic" and "more Orthodox."

Orthodox not (yet:)) in communion with Rome find our terminology offensive, laughable, and even shocking - believe me, I know.

If we wanted to be Orthodox - we would be, it wouldn't take much.

No, this term is all about affirming our true ecclesial identity, historically and now.

Our ancestors who signed the unions NEVER called themselves "Catholics" since, in their time, this term meant "Latins" or even "Poles."

They were always "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and another term was later also in use "Greco-Uniates."

When one would ask such an "OICWR," as happened, why the Pope was being commemorated in his Church, the answer was "because the Pope has joined Orthodoxy!"

When, in God's time, the Churches of East and West reunite, I am sure the RC Church will teach its faithful that the Orthodox have "returned to Rome," while the Orthodox side will say that "Rome has finally come to its senses . . ."

Whenever our ancestors downplayed that crucial term "Orthodox" it was to our Churches' great detriment. Latinization and a loss of a sense of our own Eastern liturgical, ecclesial, theological, canonical et al. identity followed.

The Eastern Church also uses the full title "Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church." For the East has a different, Eucharistic understanding of what the "Catholic Church" is. By the way, the Oriental Churches also describe themselves as "Orthodox" too!

The West also still retains "Orthodox" which I here the Pope using in Latin during his televised Masses.

"Orthodox" originally had to do with "faith" and "Catholic" with "Church."

Today, "Orthodoxy" for us is a composite concept that includes the totality of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Churches together with its many ethnocultural variants and traditions that have welded themselves to it.

It is a religious-cultural identity without which we are lost.

We hang onto it for dear life and with all due respects for the feelings of our other Orthodox colleagues, whose Orthodoxy we do truly acknowledge and respect.

Alex

Dear David,

You make a good point, however . . .

(I hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you. I'd disagree with Andrew Rubis, but I've already disagreed with him on another thread, and I don't want him to fall into a depression that I would have to bear the responsibility for . . . ).

You've made this point before and it is an important one.

Frankly, the fact is that when we say things like "if my parish or Church would become Orthodox, so would I," it is a statement of fact.

To say otherwise would imply that there is a great chasm dividing Eastern Catholics from Orthodox - and I just don't see how that is today.

Has Rome ever condemned Eastern Catholic communities that returned to their Mother Orthodox Churches? Would such be considered a grave sin worthy of eternal damnation from the RC perspective?

Can you honestly say there is a lot dividing Eastern Catholics and Orthodox today, other than the Pope?

For me, Eastern Catholic AND Orthodox Churches are my spiritual home. Yes, there is the matter of formal belonging here or there. But I hardly think about it. Do you?

And there is the cultural/religious factor, not an issue for North Americanized Easterners, but it is for many others.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is much closer to me and my spiritual/cultural identity than is the Roman Catholic Church, Big Guy. We are identical and they even have some Latin practices (the result of years of taking in Ukie Catholic converts ).

If I had the choice to attend Easter services at either a Ukie Orthodox parish or a Roman Catholic parish, and Easter fell on the same date - I'll give you three guesses which parish I'd attend.

And St Andrew Sheptytsky also approved of Ukie Catholics attending Orthodox Churches rather than Latin Churches.

And throughout our history when Rome was perceived to be disrespectful of our Church patrimony - many of our ancestors up and rejoined their Mother Orthodox Churches.

The return of people to the Ukie Catholic Church in Ukraine didn't occur, as I've heard some say, from "loyalty to Rome" (how ridiculous!!).

It was a move of Ukrainians from the Russian Orthodox official Church, that they were forced to be a part of, to THEIR Ukrainian Catholic Church that, by this century, has become literally ingrained in its members' blood as OUR Church where we find our full religious/cultural self-expression as a people.

This has very little to do with the dry and largely irrelevant doctrinal topics that engage those discussing Catholic/Orthodox issues.

I have an uncle who was a Russian Orthodox priest with a doctorate in theology (he is now Ukrainian Catholic).

When he visited here, he listened to our Ukrainian religious program where a priest was discussing the procession of the Holy Spirit.

He was incredulous. "What are you people doing over here!"

When I asked him what he was talking about, he said. "The procession of the Holy Spirit! I myself coming from the Soviet Union have a few things to say about that topic since I did a doctorate on it!"

"Why don't you people talk about how our Ukrainian Church is persecuted and is without basic freedoms?"

For him, doctrinal issues were quite secondary. The freedom and life of "OUR CHURCH" were primary.

I'll understand if you don't understand this.

But try . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

Bravo! Bravissimo! Or as, we used to say in Plast: "harno, harno, duzhe harno."

Yours,

kl

Here is where we disagee, and you seem to disagree with many Orthodox as well as Catholics. As many see being in communion with the Holy Father as a "great chasm dividing Eastern Catholics from Orthodox", if it isn't then why aren't the Orthodox already reunited?

As if the Pope is a small thing... Yes I can, adherance to all the Catholic Church teaches. Papal infallibility, Papal supremecy, Immaculate Conception.

Here is where we differ, yes I do think about it, how can I not? I am a Byzantine Catholic (with no ethnic customs or knowledge) living in a Melkite Chruch (full of ethnicity that differes from mine (If I knew it)).

I am trying to learn more of my church and ethnicity. To learn more of the practices within my church and its recession. While I live within another church with a whole different practice and recession.


Right, this is why I chose to attend a Melkite Church, as I have experienced, Ukrainian Churches have a strong national identity. If it wasn't for the Melkites, I would most likely be attending a Roman Church.

For me, it would be the Roman so that I could participate fully by receiving communion.

I notice that in your post you bring up a lot of stuff about ethnicity. Seems that, here, your putting being Ukrainian over everything.

And you know my feelings on that! :p


David

Dear David,

Are you one of those who still has an issue with the Immaculate Conception?

What about Pope Paul VI's statement once that unity between Catholics and Orthodox on the level of faith is "almost complete?"

And are you one of those who believes that reunification is about the Orthodox submitting to the Pope, without the RC Church changing or reforming anything about the Papacy?

As for the cultural thing, I said I'd understand if you didn't . . .

Ethnic identity is one thing and it is a separate issue, even though it is related here.

But my Ukrainian Church, even though it would use English in its services and would, for all intents and purposes, be "de-ethnicized," would still have the spiritual/cultural identity of Kyivan Rus' and of Ukrainian spirituality contained in its life and worship.

That's what I mean by "spiritual culture."

I would simply say that we disagree, but I don't believe we do. We have not yet come to a complete understanding of each other's real positions.

But that's fine!

Alex

Dear Alex,

To condense your argument into a phrase, we could say that "We are Ukrainians with whom Rome is in communion."

John
Pigrim and Odd Duck

Dear Krylos,

I offered my perception about communion with Rome. I will not quantify it, or limit it further. I believe, as do others, that the Holy Spirit has a calming effect on the Church, which is less apparent in churches outside communion with Rome. Sorry, but there is nothing more I can say on this that will help clarify for you. As with other posters, I am somewhat skeptical of the worthwhile nature of the original observation.

Dear Brethren:

Please note that I have never asked anyone Roman, Byzantine, or other Rite to justify why they are or are not in communion with Rome.

I focus on differences that have kept this (issue of in communion/not in communion) schism alive in the hope that someday the differences will be reconciled.

Soteriology: It comes to an understanding of sin. The Eastern understanding is a broader, more encompassing understanding. Romanides' article on original sin in the Pauline texts does a fabulous job of explaining the Eastern understanding (as gleaned from Paul).

In short, disobedience (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) causes God to prevent us from eating from the tree of life. Hence mortality/death takes reign in the world with Satan as the ruler. Fear of death/mortality pushes all to sin or at least remain under its reign (sin is the sting of death). So no one may be called "sinless" (anamartitos) except Christ [every matins service has the words "the only sinless one."]

This is a soteriological issue.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear John,

Yes, that sums it up rather nicely!

And you really put your finger on an issue that is all too often overlooked.

Rome is not just an Apostolic centre with whom other Churches are in communion with.

That "communion" works BOTH ways.

So much so that the schism between East and West not only has an impart on the Eastern Churches, but also on Rome.

Without each other, we are not fully "Church" in the way Christ wills.

We have an inner emptiness that only full communion with one another will fill.

Alex

Dear Reader Andrew,

There is no problem with Orthodoxy filling out what it perceives the West is lacking or where the West needs a change of perspective.

The West has shown its flexibility and willingness and ability to learn from the East, especially in these decades.

Who has a greater love for Eastern spirituality such as the Jesus Prayer than Western Christians? Who has a more profound yearning for the mysticism of Orthodoxy than the Western catholic tradition?

Efforts toward East-West unity imply, to be sure, that we learn from each other and become more in Christ through drinking deeply in the waters of each other's spiritual Fountains.

Like our Old Ritualist Orthodox Fr. Mark from England, I too have come across RC and Anglican Christians who are "Orthodox" in their beliefs and yet remain who they are.

There is nothing in Western Catholicism that prevents us all from sitting at your feet and inhaling the aromatic wonders of Eastern thought and praxis that emanate so profoundly from your mind, heart and mouth!

Alex