www.byzcath.org

Dear readers,

I posted this on Usenet yesterday to answer this question. Please don�t be offended by the categorization of Byzantine Catholicism as �Orthodox-like� and �outside Orthodoxy� because I simply am repeating the near-consensus among Orthodox groups, writing originally for a largely Orthodox readership. I hope this overview is fair.

Serge

The broadest operating definition of 'Orthodox' is: those episcopal (governed by bishops who claim apostolic succession), sacramental, liturgical Churches that use the Byzantine liturgical rite, canon law, etc., hold to the seven ecumenical councils from Nic�a in the 300s to Nic�a II in 787 and are not presently in communion with the Pope of Rome, after a gradual estrangement in
the early Middle Ages. Missing from this definition are the small experimental Western Rite churches some groups have, mostly made up of former Episcopalians in the US.

The stricter, catechetical definition of 'Orthodox' would narrow this to the Churches recognized by all the other Orthodox Churches as independent (self-headed or autocephalous, usually headed by a patriarch) and with whom they are in communion. This communion of Churches and their dependent (mission) churches makes up the Orthodox Church. There are splinter groups that fall outside these strict parameters, like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, an exile group formed after the Russian Revolution, and various Greek and other groups founded to protest the use of the Gregorian calendar by their countries' Churches, but few people say they are not Orthodox.

As for Orthodox-like groups outside Orthodoxy, these fall into two categories: 1) Byzantine Catholics (including the Melkites) and 2) vagantes.

The former once were Orthodox but partly on their own and partly due to Catholic proselytism broke their ties to their mother Churches and were put under the Pope starting in the 1500s. These Churches once were convert-making tools used by Catholics to hurt the Orthodox but that policy, called 'Uniatism', now has been discarded. There is some confusion among Orthodox and Catholics alike about the status of the BCs and what exactly they believe in. Are they exactly like Orthodox only in communion with the Pope? The BCs I know personally (Serge adds on byzcath.org: a lot of you here! ) hold this. Or are they now sui generis, something unique that is no longer Orthodox? Other BCs and a lot of Orthodox hold this. Are they full Churches like the Orthodox or just appendages of the Roman Catholic Church? Again, you'll get different answers depending on who you ask. Do the postschism Roman definitions of dogma apply to them? If they accept Orthodoxy in full, then the definitions aren't necessary.

The second group is the ragtag bunch of tiny churches that exist largely on paper and on the Web (few real members and practically no generational members) and on the fringes of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, from whence its people come. They often call themselves 'Old Catholics' (not to be confused with the actual Old Catholic sect in Germany and Holland) but recently,
adopting some Eastern trappings piecemeal and liking the decentralized, nonpapal ecclesiology of the real Orthodox, have taken to passing themselves off as Orthodox. You often will find a weird mix of liberalism with a liking for traditional ritual. Often you will find, underneath the vestments and the fancy titles they affect, the real reasons why they broke with their original church, like active homosexuality, wanting to ordain women, etc. They make much
of their 'lines' of apostolic succession, sometimes false, and something real Orthodox, who emphasize the communion of the Church more than lineage, don't do.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 03-04-2001).]

Who is "Orthodox?"

Well, my answer is this: Why should one be concerned with who is Catholic or who is Orthodox? We should be more concerned with Christians who are in the "ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH."

Present day Catholic and Orthodox were once 'ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH ' and we can and ARE OBLIGATED work to attain the goal of re-uniting together just as Christ Jesus intended. It is not YOUR or OUR Church! The Church belongs solely to Jesus Christ, whom is our Head of the Church.

Byzantine Catholics do observe "Orthodox Sunday" with processions of Icons. So, the question again is, "who is Orthodox?"

Well, my answer is this: Catholics are Orthodox and Orthodox are Catholics. Why use labels to show manifestation of physical separation (schism which by the way don't exist anymore between us)? We should all stand united, with all our eyes fixed and focused on Jesus Christ whom is our salvation!!! Especially since this year the Catholic and Orthodox Pascha falls on the same day! What a wonderful way for all of us to praise and glorified the Risen Saviour on the very same day??? Let's sing, "Christ is Risen, He destroyed death by Death save us who sing unto Thee Alleluia..."

Let's put death to feeble human separation(and pride) and restore the Church that is all for glory of Jesus Christ. This separation is so silly! That is exactly what our enemy wants!!! He wants to see the flock to scatter everywhere and attack each other. Let's focus on our Shepherd who gave His Life and Blood for us! Let's pray to the Lord.

Good inquiry.

I believe that the latter group, the 'vagantes' are, by and large, 'pilgrims from the lunatic fringe'. I've personally got nothing against gays, women or anybody else, but it appears to me that the focus of many of these groups is on the externals. I.e., it may walk like a duck, talk like a duck and act like a duck, but it ain't a duck (in general). Does God love them? I'm sure He does. Is it difficult for many folks to deal with them and their vagaries? I'm sure. Pray for them, and stay away.

But for the 'biggies' (Catholic and Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, etc.), let me re-phrase the question: As an individual, would you consider the members of a specific group 'of God' or not?

I think that the question of "who is Orthodox" is a red herring. The criteria that are listed are basically common for both East and West, except for the aspect of being in communion with the Pope of Rome. Should this criterion be allowed to bless or condemn folks? I don't think so. It is, once again, a phraseology that is dependent upon 'legal' definitions of what the Church is. It's the lawyers' way of making decisions, but, in my opinion, not Christ's way. (What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of a lake?..........A good start.)

I know that the 'administrators' and 'bureaucrats' will make num-nums in their di-dies, but I just absolutely refuse to submit to legalistic pronouncements about who is 'sanctified' and who is 'outside the pale'. For me, allowing this type of judgemental bull**** to alienate us from each other is an incredible sin. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that Our Lord Himself would play by these rules. He told us to love our neighbors; there's nothing there about judging.

Blessings.

Dear Dr. John,

Your view seems very reasonable to me. I am a cradle Ukrainian Catholic with a Polish mom and thus became pretty much Romanized, thus my "nom de net". I've never thought of myself as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" but rather as some stepchild of the One Church. The Orthodox Churches do not seem to consider us "uniates" worth considering, but we do exist,in numbers that even our own Hierarchs did not expect following the fall of communism. This info came to me from Fr. Andrij Chirovsky of the Sheptytsky Institute at a lecture at Holy Family Church in Washington last week.

ISTM that one is either thinking, praying, speaking, and working toward the concept of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" (i.e. "orthodox Christianity") or else one is looking for reasons why someone else or some other group is not qualified for membership in the church.

Or maybe their membership should be limited by geographic or political boundaries established by politicians and potentates ( who are well known for their total devotion to spreading the Gospel).

I don't think the jurisiction of churches should be limited by national boundaries or else all of us Easterners will end up up being eternal small potatoes next to the Roman stewpot. But we are called to be One. One what? Maybe, as a start, one worldwide Kyivan Greco-Catholic Church?

For One God, One Christ, One Faith, One Church, I humbly pray.

John

Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Rusnak,

I, like most other posters, agree with your definition of Orthodoxy except for your point about being in communion with Rome. Orthodoxy fully existed prior to the schism. Since then we have two groups, each claiming to be fully orthodox and fully catholic, but neither being fully so. The only truly Orthodox and fully Catholic are those who are Orthodox and Catholic as was the Church prior to the Schism.

Eastern Catholics are the only ones I can see who are fully living out that truth, regardless of what those who call themselves "Orthodox" and or "Roman Catholic" think or how they treat us.

Dan Lauffer

Serge,


Thank you for your post. I want you to know that I appreciate the fact that you did not cast Old Calendarists outside the pale of Orthodoxy, but you recognize them for what they are without being judgemental about their canonical status or editorializing. That is "mighty Christ-like" of you. Of course, some of us "Rudderite" fanatics refuse to break ranks with our Patriarch
and we continue to live as a community within the community of our canonical jurisdiction.


Interesting post.


Vasili

The Greek Fathers of the Undivided Church would not recognize the papacy of today. It certainly is a papacy of a different sub-species; one which has "evolved" in ways the Fathers of Orthodoxy would not consider legitimate.


Keeping the Faith and Traditions of the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy is what makes one Orthodox, for mere labels will not suffice.


Vasili

Thanks, everybody who has responded so far. It looks like a good discussion is under way as I had wanted.

spdundas, I am not using the word Orthodox here as a polemical truncheon to accuse the Latins of not being orthodox. As early as preschism, already the Latins were called Catholic and the Byzantines (or as they called themselves, Romans) Orthodox, even though both sides can and do claim both words. In fact, the Gregorian canon, the heart of the Tridentine Mass, is ancient and prays for the Church as 'all the orthodox' (omnibus orthodoxis) � ironically the current Novus Ordo/ICEL mistranslation omits that.

The question I am trying to answer matters because in this dialogue one must respect both Orthodox doctrine (unchanged since preschism and, IMO, in its essence the same as Catholicism) and postschism Orthodox opinion (even if you or I don't agree with it). The basic working definition of capital-O Orthodox today is 'Byzantine Rite but out of communion with the Pope of Rome'. Dan, of course Orthodoxy existed preschism but I meant to nail down today's sad but true definition.

It also matters because God literally became one of us and founded a Church, Modernist denials of both notwithstanding, and we are bound by faith and conscience to find where that Church is in its fullness. I agree personally with those here who say the universal Church is both the Catholic and Orthodox sides, both preschism and today, making me a bit of a branch-theorist � like Catholicism, which teaches unequivocally that both sides have grace � but not a complete (albeit conservative) antinomian.

And it matters because there are spiritually dangerous (though some may be sincere) imposters out there (especially online), the vagantes, pretending to be Orthodox, so some working definition of the capital-O word is called for.

I've never thought of myself as "Orthodox in communion with Rome"

Neither did the Ruthenian old-timers I used to worship with, nor did my born Ruthenian girlfriend a year ago.

but rather as some stepchild of the One Church.

My ex had the same feeling.

Eastern Catholics are the only ones I can see who are fully living out that truth, regardless of what those who call themselves "Orthodox" and or "Roman Catholic" think or how they treat us.

Not true of the Ruthenians I used to know, who were pretty much content trying to be Roman Catholics of a different rite (see above), but definitely true of people like you, Dan, and of other convert Byzantine Catholics I now am friends with personally. You're trying to live the future now, and get flak from both sides for it. As I've written (with an idea partly got from others), to be a sincere, authentic Byzantine Catholic is a kind of martyrdom. You're not accepted by most Orthodox but most of your own 'fellow Catholics' really don't either. You're living a life on the margins.

Vasili, your condemnation of the postschism papacy is certainly within the range of Orthodox opinion (pretty mainstream, I dare say) but is not Orthodox doctrine. So the ball bounces back to the forum: do Byzantine Catholics really hold to the faith of the fathers, as Vasili says, the basis of the holy Orthodox faith? Can one be in communion with postschism Rome and, as Archbishop Elias wrote, �believe everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches�? And if so, then should the parameters of the O word be extended by all to include the BCs? I count among my friends some Catholics in good standing who say �yes�. Yet there are those like the Ruthenians I remember who are afraid of the word and don�t accept it even when it is offered to them. The current, yes, �Uniate� setup, the current relationship of BCs to the Roman Catholic Church, is unhistorical and dysfunctional. My BC friends (they are not �Uniates�), including those here, say this boldly and want it to change.

This online meeting place of Catholics and Orthodox, especially with people like Dan, Anastasios and Stuart on the Catholic side and Brendan on the Orthodox with me, is one of the few places in my life where I feel I can really be myself and experience real �community�.

Thanks.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 03-04-2001).]

Dear Serge,

This is truly a critical issue you have raised here!

It was John Henry Newman who said that the plethora of Western Protestant churches all called themselves "Catholic."

But when you asked anyone where the "Catholic Church" was, they would all point you in the same direction, toward the Catholic parish Church down the street.

So "Orthodox" refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church and also to the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Byzantine Catholics use it in virtue of their Eastern Rite, but the Orthodox Church would disagree with this approach saying that you cannot divide what you believe from how you worship. If one is heretical in terms of belief, then their worship will reflect that as well.

The term therefore is a contextual one, from where I stand, although, like Newman, if someone asked me where the Orthodox Church was, I would know exactly where it is.

God bless,

Alex

With great trepidation, I say, "Amen" to Dan's posting. Rusnak gives voice to my understanding of the special place of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the lives of the Churches today. Perhaps the aphorism that the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians holds true in a new way today.

This Latin Catholic and others here and not here on this forum hold you as our most loved sisters and brothers. You are role models to us as you find your own Orthodox Catholic heritage and share it. Our number is growing as you make God's face more visible to us in the way that He has given you.

Thankfully there are many among our number who are in positions to make changes in the way in which the Latin Church deals with you and with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Thank you for your struggle to clarify the role among the Churches of our servant who lives in Rome and to remain loyal to your truth.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning.

Joy!

Dear Inawe,

For the Ecumenical Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, the Pope of Rome,

Ad Multos Annos! Many Years! Mnohaya Lita!

Alex

"The broadest operating definition of 'Orthodox' is: those episcopal (governed by bishops who claim apostolic succession), sacramental, liturgical Churches that use the Byzantine liturgical rite, canon law, etc., hold to the seven ecumenical councils from Nic�a in the 300s to Nic�a II in 787 and are not presently in communion with the Pope of Rome, after a gradual estrangement in
the early Middle Ages. Missing from this definition are the small experimental Western Rite churches some groups have, mostly made up of former Episcopalians in the US."

I agree with this definition.

"The stricter, catechetical definition of 'Orthodox' would narrow this to the Churches recognized by all the other Orthodox Churches as independent (self-headed or autocephalous, usually headed by a patriarch) and with whom they are in communion. This communion of Churches and their dependent (mission) churches makes up the Orthodox Church. There are splinter groups that fall outside these strict parameters, like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, an exile group formed after the Russian Revolution, and various Greek and other groups founded to protest the use of the Gregorian calendar by their countries' Churches, but few people say they are not Orthodox."

They are Orthodox, without question. They are not in communion with the remainder of Orthodoxy (in some cases) but they are still Orthodox.

"The former once were Orthodox but partly on their own and partly due to Catholic proselytism broke their ties to their mother Churches and were put under the Pope starting in the 1500s."

Or you could use the phrase "chose to submit themselves to the Pope", since it appears to have been voluntary in all cases.

"These Churches once were convert-making tools used by Catholics to hurt the Orthodox but that policy, called 'Uniatism', now has been discarded."

I think the term "uniatism" can also refer to the policy of "partial reunion" with Catholicism of parts of the Orthodox Church. What is now abandoned is partial reunion -- the desire is now for full corporate reunion between the whole of Orthodoxy and the whole of Catholicism. That wouldn't be uniatism.

"There is some confusion among Orthodox and Catholics alike about the status of the BCs and what exactly they believe in."

The reason for this confusion is that it exists among the BCs themselves.

"Are they exactly like Orthodox only in communion with the Pope? The BCs I know personally (Serge adds on byzcath.org: a lot of you here! ) hold this."

That's one "wing". It's worth noting that many in this wing are not cradle BCs.

"Or are they now sui generis, something unique that is no longer Orthodox? Other BCs and a lot of Orthodox hold this."

I'm closer to this view. Not fully Orthodox, but not Latin Catholic (or "Eastern Rite Roman Catholic" as some anti-BC Orthodox sometimes slur them) -- they are something inbetween Rome and Orthodoxy. It is also worth noting that I have met almost no cradle BCs who self-identify as "Orthodox" -- almost to the man, they self-identify as "Catholic".

"Are they full Churches like the Orthodox or just appendages of the Roman Catholic Church? Again, you'll get different answers depending on who you ask."

I don't think any Eastern Catholic would describe the BCs as appendages of the Roman Catholic Church. Some Orthodox would. Similarly, there are very few Orthodox who would describe the BCs as "full churches like the Orthodox" -- I think there are a considerably greater number who would view them as "still Church, but not fully Orthodox".

"Do the postschism Roman definitions of dogma apply to them? If they accept Orthodoxy in full, then the definitions aren't necessary."

Right. Compare Melkite Bishop John Elya with Melkite Bishop Elias Zoghby. There you have the two schools of self-identity among BCs, and it cascades throughout the ranks of the cergy and laity as well.

Brendan

"You're not accepted by most Orthodox but most of your own 'fellow Catholics' really don't either. You're living a life on the margins."

Right. It's made harder by some of the Eastern Catholic hierarchs (who continue to teach Latin doctrines) and the publications of the Vatican in this regard (such as the CCC, which many Eastern Catholic priests ignore, but which by its own terms applies to Eastern Catholics). The Eastern Catholics have been put in a mercilessly ambiguous situation by Rome (as Kyr Elias Zoghby as described as "an essentially false situation") -- and my own opinion is that the reason for this is that Rome simply does not want to resolve these issues within the context of the Catholic Church, but rather wants to reserve them for the discussions with the Orthodox Church. So, for the meantime, the Eastern Catholics are in a very ambiguous situation.

This ambiguity hurts the Eastern Catholic churches mightily because it opens them to attack from *all* sides (Latin and Orthodox), for whom this level of "ambiguity" on these matters is neither normal nor understood, and at the same time is used as a license for both latinophile and graecophile BCs to pursue their own agenda in the BCC. It forces the "pro-Orthodox" element into a situation of at least nominal (if tolerated) dissent from official Catholic teaching (which on its face applies to everyone in communion with Rome).

Brendan

Thanks, Brendan.

"Are they exactly like Orthodox only in communion with the Pope? The BCs I know personally (Serge adds on byzcath.org: a lot of you here! ) hold this."

That's one "wing". It's worth noting that many in this wing are not cradle BCs.

[...] It is also worth noting that I have met almost no cradle BCs who self-identify as "Orthodox" -- almost to the man, they self-identify as "Catholic".

My experience to a T.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Brendan has made some very good points. As a former Roman Catholic and newly practising Melkite, I am still very much confused on some issues. Here is one BC that feels as if he is living on the fence.

I suppose that I do consider myself Orthodox in communion with Rome, but I do not think that communion with Rome is the only difference...this is my problem.

Must BC's "accept" post schism dogma? Beats me. Nobody will give you an answer. If you do get an answer, it will must likely be: "We BC's don't worry about those questions." Gee, that's helpful.

In my heart, I believe that the pope of Rome is the "pope of the popes". But, I don't see and really believe in the papacy that Vatican I paints. Now I am a heretic. Yet, I think that the papacy has a dynamic course through history. Can anyone elaborate?

Greg