www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What's in a name? Who are we?

Dear David Ignatius,

I have avoided looking in this thread, fearing the question "Who are we?". It seems like if we have to ask, we are already lost. I once knew a man who was always asking me such questions, and it seemed such a "miasma of blisslessness".

I do not mean to criticize the thread, it is an interesting and timely discussion. I have encountered this kind of searching recently. What is in a name...?

May I quote the "Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity" Oxford, 1999?

"Today, the term 'Byzantine' remains synonymous with 'convoluted' and 'labyrinthine', redolent of intrigue, decadence, cruelty, despotism, duplicity..."

Wisely did Constantine retitle the city, but the word will not die. "Byzantine Catholics" is an invented term that was meant to unite all the Greek Catholics using the Constantinopolitan Rite, the use of the Great Church of Constantinople. As a scheme to unite, it was an utter failure. Why has the word been rejected by every Church which worships in the use of the Great Church of Constantinople, except the Ruthenian Church?

For me, Orthodox Catholic works quite well, (or Catholic Orthodox) but that could be any Catholic or Orthodox. Inclusive language found a natural home... But when we seek to define ourselves by who we are not, (eg. them), then are we not already lost?

I agree with you, and would like to simply call myself Orthodox. But that word cannot be used exclusively of "Christians using the Liturgy of the Great Church of Constantinople". For Orthodox have many Liturgies, Laws, Theological Expressions in Truth, and that is the true richness of Orthodoxy.

In looking for titles to identify ourselves, and to reference others, I cannot wait until the day when "brother" is all that needs to be said.

In a dreamy kind of mood...

Christian

Dave,
Of course you should not have an objection on the Orthodox Church using the term Catholic. The Orthodox Church is truly the Catholic Church. Orthodoxy and catholicity can never and should never be separated. Separation of the two leads to schisms and heresies which are quite common nowadays. Many schismatics, heretics, and heterodox claim to be Orthodox and Catholic when they are not. This is the challenge many like myself confront from time to time.
In regards to the Melkites use of the word "Orthodox" in their services it is correct. However, they need to return to the fullness of the Orthodox Church. They need to return to their real Mother Church. The relationship with Rome is artificial rather than being authentic and genuine in the unity of the faith. As much as I love my Melkite brethrens it is my duty to remind them of the Orthodox unity of the faith which Rome does not fully share. One cannot help the sick by becoming sick. What needs to be done is for Rome to become Orthodox and truly Catholic. The potential for this transformation lies within her. She must be willing to admit the theological errors committed outside Orthodoxy and fully embrace Orthodoxy for what it is. For someone to claim that Rome has always been Orthodox & Catholic is mislead and fed distortions. All an Orthodox like myself wants is the truth of Orthodoxy to be incorporated in the hearts and minds that do not know any better and that desire to spiritually grow in Christ. Defend Catholicism or Roman communion as much as you may want but the truth is that it needs to become Orthodox for a true Catholic communion.

Dear Brother Dave Ignatius,
Christ is in our Midst!

You wrote:
"I see as key to our future direction our reclaiming our heritage. There is no reason for us to be ashamed of what the Liturgy call us: we are Orthodox. To infer that somehow that name is now tarnished is more of an insult to Eastern Orthodox than our reclaiming our name would be.

As to whether or not some Eastern Orthodox would be offended by our so doing I would say that many of those would only be satisfied by our closing up shop and joining Roman parishes."

The Eastern Orthodox Communion (NICR) believes that those Orthodox,who entered into communion with Rome ceased to be in communion with the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church of the East and instead chose to enter in communion with the Latin West, thus severing their mystical connection with the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church of the East. It is confusing to many of us why they would seek to use the title "Orthodox" as the title of their Church when they have instead chosen in the past to emphaisize the term Catholic. To me the term Eastern Catholic Churches describes most fully their stance and communion with Rome. The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church of the East, seems to in like manner emphasize the term Eastern Orthodox Church--- this limits confusion occurring when one member or the other visits the other church.

I have visited an Eastern Catholic Church when traveling and there was no Eastern Orthodox Church. I found few differences in the liturgical worship until the ektanias--- where we would pray for our diocesian Bishop, the Eastern Catholic Church prayed for the Patriarch of Rome, His Holiness John Paul II. It was only then that I remembered that I would not be able to partake of the Mystical Supper for I am not in communion with the Pope.

I commend the Byzantine Catholics or Eastern Catholics for their desire to return to more
traditional worship and spirituality of their Orthodox Ancestors, however to unilaterally declare themselves "Orthodox" without embracing fully what the Eastern Orthodox Church means spiritually and historically, seems to me to be confusing and unneccessarily confrontive to many Eastern Orthodox Christians. Many Eastern Orthodox Christians are only beginning to work through the challenge of Ecumenical discussions that will lead, I fervently believe, to full communion with in the two sister Churches of the Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox and Catholic Church.

I do not wish to be bringing up the "red Herring" but as I said in my earlier posting,
"How do you propose closure on this issue". My proposal is that the Eastern Catholic Churches use that title to avoid confusion with the Eastern Orthodox Church (NICR). What is your proposal?

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited 11-14-2000).]

Hmm. Catholic Orthodox, as in �St X Catholic Orthodox Church�. I like it!

If the Byzantine Catholics � Catholic Orthodox � deny something essential to Eastern Orthodoxy, that seems to say being in schism is part of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy, which I wouldn�t want to say. The best from both sides in the churches of the Chalcedonian/Constantinopolitan � Orthodox � tradition emphasize the positive in that tradition and are not �Protestant� � not protestant vs. the Pope, Roman Rite, Rosary, etc. etc. (but not wholly uncritical either) � not using a negative to define who they are.

For similar reasons � denying their obvious historical connection to the Orthodox � the Ruthenians� silly nonuse of the word Orthodox is wrong, emphasizing a negative, as do the hatefulness of deliberate latinization (such as Nicholas Elko�s 1950s-1960s tearing down of iconostases) and, sorry, church signs and nomenclature like �St X CATHOLIC Church (Byzantine or Byzantine-Slavonic Rite)�.

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

After reading the posts concerned, I have a few observations and suggestions:

1) Right now nobody needs to change the names of any churches.

2) If we call ourselves "Catholic Orthodox" or "Orthodox Catholic" how in the world will anyone know that we are Byzantine and not belonging to the Union of Utrecht?

3) Right now,it seems proper to distinguish between Parish name, sui juris status, Rite, and communion (ie Orthodox or Catholic). For instance, say you have Saint Peter (Byzantine) Orthodox Church and Saint Peter (Syriac) Orthodox Church, and Saint Peter Syriac Catholic Church. They all claim to be "Orthodox Catholic", so right now, regardless of official title, this formula might work to distinguish:


(Name of Church) + (Sui Juris Church in cases where more than one church uses same rite) + Rite + Communion

Example: Saint Bob Syriac Catholic Church
Saint Bob Syriac Orthodox Church
Saint Bob Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church
Saint Bob Russian Byzantine Orthodox Church
Saint Bobos Coptic Orthodox Church

etc. etc. etc.

This way everything would be plain and clear.

Dave,

I'm not a lingust so I offer no opinion on the words of the English Liturgy. As far as the name of the Church -- of course we are Orthodox. As a counciliar church we are also Epsicopal; as a Church founded on Pentecost we are Pentecostal; as a church which brings the saving grace of baptism we are Baptist, and certainly we are the United Church of Christ, are we not?

K.

Dear friend, Anastasios,

You asked:

If we call ourselves "Catholic Orthodox" or "Orthodox Catholic" how in the world will anyone know that we are Byzantine and not belonging to the Union of Utrecht?

Yes, that�s a spanner in the works I hadn�t thought of � Old Catholics (the Utrecht group) and the tiny, usually heterodox vagante groups that use Orthodox and Catholic in their usually fulsome names. There is such a group that goes by �Byzantine Catholic Church�, so why don�t real Byzantine Catholics appropriate �Catholic Orthodox� as no other major group is using this moniker? It�s yours for the asking, so take back the O word!

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

Kurt wrote:

As far as the name of the Church � of course we are Orthodox. As a conciliar church [Serge adds: and one that is governed by bishops who claim apostolic succession] we are also Episcopal; as a church founded on Pentecost we are Pentecostal; as a church that brings the saving grace of baptism we are Baptist, and certainly we are the United Church of Christ, are we not?


I�d thought of that. The word Catholic � �universal� � is great because it encompasses all those other things.

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

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 11-14-2000).]