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

Hello:

I agree with other posters: This question is biased.

"Why stay?" implies good reasons to leave that have to be annulled with better reasons to stay.

The obvious answer to this question is, "well, why not?"

I would like to remind all, that one of the characteristics that the Holy Spirit designed for the Church of Christ is its Catholicity.

Communion with all Christians is a highly desirable thing, so, if it makes no other difference, I'd choose communion over non-communion.

Of course, this is an ideal and we live in the real world. I would not like to be in Communion with people who hold different beliefs in critical doctrines.

The Eastern Churches were in communion with Rome for a thousand years, therefore communion with Rome is not something bad per se.

After some time without this communion, some Eastern Churches realized that the reasons for breaking communion were not that critical after all and they resumed that relationship with Rome.

Do you blame them? They are only returning to the original state: The Church was desined to be in communion.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo:

If I understand your argument, it is that the Holy Spirit designed the Church in its big-C "Catholic" form? HMMMMM....

Having said that, I could not agree more with your final statement that the "Church was designed to be in communion." Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it. Now, if we could only settle on a definition of "communion" that both big-C Catholics and big-O Orthodox could agree upon, that would be something.

You also say that you choose "communion" over non-communion. Of course, as others on this thread have pointed out, communion is a two way street. When you say the Eastern Churches were in communion with Rome, therefore, you should also consider that Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches as well.

Finally, you say that you "would not like to be in Communion with people who hold different beliefs in critical doctrines." This, of course, depends upon your definition of "critical." Is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception "critical?" What of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit? What about something as pedestrian as the date upon which Easter should be celebrated. If any of these is "critical" within your definition, then guess what? Whichever Rite within the Catholic Church one belongs to, those of other Rites have a different view on these issues.

Yours,

kl

Dear Memo,

That's all well and good, but we should also remember that "communion in Rome" when we use that term is not only a self-description - it is an ideal with aspects that have not yet been realized.

Yes, the Church of the first millennium was "in communion with Rome."

But the Church then would never have used that term.

The patriarchates were all in communion with each other, even though there was a hierarchy of firsts among equals.

Later Papal jurisdiction completely altered the nature of the communion of Churches of the Body of Christ of the first millennium - which is why we have the schism that has yet to be overcome since 1054.

Rome moved from an ecclesial paradigm where the Pope was the servant of the servants of God to one of an absolute medieval "Pontifex Maximus."

The latter has absolutely no basis for its existence or character in either Scripture or Tradition.

We Orthodox in communion with Rome are slowly taking back our own traditions and are demanding their acknowledgement from Rome.

While ours is not a battle with principalities and powers, it is a struggle with the Roman vice-grip.

I believe many in the Vatican would laugh at the idea of "In communion with Rome" or else would consider a "first step" only that ends with coming under Rome's full jurisdictional authority and control.

And if that is the case, then Rome can put its grand ecumenical schemes concerning uniting with the East on indefinite hold.

As for us, we continue to plod on.

Alex

One of the greatest mistakes with some Orthodox is the dislike for uniates. In our "struggle" to become who we truly are, they should assist us. If they truly desire communion too, our quest is also theirs. I would think that they would want us to succeed. Our success can pave the way for total union and communion. Fundamentalist and/or militant converts to Orthodoxy only fuel the fire of that hatred. Many know that the current situation is not totally correct, both Eastern Catholic and non-Eastern Catholic. There seems to be many strings attached to display the Catholic license plate on our ecclesial vehicle. What we need are leaders, not administrators of the status quo.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Absolutely!

I've come across Orthodox who are right there with you too.

I once spoke with a Patriarchal Russian Orthodox priest and I critiqued the Unia.

He actually chided me and told me to go easy since the Unia is clearly God's Will as it occurred and has survived (!).

He said all Orthodox should support the Eastern Catholics in helping them become as fully autonomous with respect to Rome as possible and regain their rights as complete Particular Churches.

He said that such a turn of events would greatly aid Catholic/Orthodox rapprochement, rumblings from some quarters notwithstanding.

Alex

Dear J Thur:

Hear! Hear!

So often history has taught us that it is not the masses that create conflicts, but the fanatics. Yet, somehow, we don't want to learn.

Yours,

kl

Dear Alex:


The Catholic Church in the U.S. having just weathered, but scarred by, the priestly scandals I nearly choked when you said:

Hopefully, we have loosened the vise-grip of this priestly vice.


AmdG

Dear Amado,

Well, sometimes you have to just pull the pinky fingers backwards when it comes to vices of all kinds!

Have a blessed Easter!

I am going to do some in depth prayerful preparation and I'll pray for you and yours - see you later!

Alex

OrthodoxCatholic<<He said all Orthodox should support the Eastern Catholics in helping them become as fully autonomous with respect to Rome as possible and regain their rights as complete Particular Churches.>>

This Patriarchal Russian Orthodox priest actually used the word, "Particular Churches," Alex? I've *never* heard an Orthodox priest use that term, which seems more part and parcel of what one would hear in Roman Catholicism. Most Orthodox priests I know simply ignore the Unia, but that's here with my last priest in New Hampshire and my present priest being converts to Orthodoxy from Russia.

OrthodoxEast

Dear Alex:


Thanks for remembering my family and me in your prayers.

You and yours are, likewise, in our prayers.

AmdG

Hello:

Don't confuse things over uppercase and lowercase, please. I think what I wrote is clear enough.

Communion would be the ability to share the Eucharistic table. If we can do that, we can work out anything else.

Now, don't take me wrong. Sharing the altar is the GOAL, not the starting point. We still have issues to figure out before we can do that.

Ecclessial Commuinion in the "C"atholic Church is ALWAYS commutative, associative and tansitive.

Things like A in communion with B and B in communion with C, but A and C NOT in communion happen only outside the "C"atholic Church. And yes, I do think that this situation hurts badly that other organization's claim to "c"atholicity.

Limited strictly to its dogmatic definiton, yes. But the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics agree that the Theotokos is sinless (how can an "all-holy" person be anything else but sinless?). So this is not a big issue.

Already condemned by both Catholics and Orthodox as heretical. We Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as Cause. We also believe that the way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is also determined by the Son and that is what we mean with the "Filoque" clause.

Non-critical, although highly desirable.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

You have spoken well, Teacher!

Have a blessed Pascha!

Alex

Dear OrthodoxEast,

And he is not the only Orthodox priest who has told me that!

The term "Particular Church" is popular among Ukrainian Orthodox too, I don't know why. Perhaps they are Latinized . . .

I've had some wonderful conversations and even counselling advice from Orthodox priests and one Orthodox bishop.

All of them told me to stay where I was. Interestingly, they also told me I could "consider myself Orthodox."

I too was amazed at how they chided me for being too hard on the Unia.

I've repented since and have mended my ways.

Perhaps they were all just confused, do you think?

If you've never heard an Orthodox priest say things like this before, could be because you just don't get out enough?

I was told that by one confessor you told me to find a girl and go out on the town . . . and to leave him alone so he could confess some "real sinners."

What do you think he meant by that?

Have a blessed Pascha - in two weeks of course!

Alex

Dear Alex,

You may have lost something in the translation from the Ukrainian. Are you sure they didn't say "Peculiar Church" or "Particles of (the broken) Church"?

John
Pigrim and Odd Duck

Friends,

Right now I am working on a dissertation on Adrian Fortescue, an early twentieth century liturgical scholar who wrote extensively on Eastern Christianity. In his book on Eastern Catholicism, he addresses the question as to why Eastern Catholics remain in communion with Rome. He notes that Eastern Catholics are often misunderstood and treated unfairly by the authorities in Rome. But, he adds, that Eastern Catholics remain in communion with Rome because they are essentially IDEALISTS. Eastern Catholics have a vision of a truly universal Church in which East and West dwell in perfect equality, and they remain committed to this vision even though reality usually doesn't live up to it. The more that I think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with Father Forescue's assesment.

Anthony