www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What are you?

You say you are Byzantine Catholics, whet in the "What we believe" section, you say you accept (or so I understood) that you only accept 7 Councils as Oecumenical. Are you the true Byzantine Catholics in union with the Holy See or the schismatic Byzantine Orthodox who claim to be "catholic" (which to me means that the Greek Orthodox consider Greece and Russia as the whole world, since catholic means all over the world, a view greatly supported by the ancient in opposition to the 1.6 billion Catholics).
So, are you Greek Catholics or Greek "Orthodox"?

Forgive me if my post is offensive. I didn't mean to.

At the moment I'm hungry.

Since you appear to live in Greece, may I suggest a visit either to Holy Trinity, Odos Akharnon, Athens, or Ss. Peter and Paul (I think that's the name of the church), Iannitsa? That might give you some idea of who we are.

"Catholic" in the religious sense does not have a geographic meaning, and Eastern Orthodoxy is not confined to Russia and Greece.

Incognitus

We are a mix of East and West. That is one of the blessings of this forum, we are Cathoiic and Orthodox. We take what we agree upon and go from there. The things we don't agree upon sometimes bring about a strong discussion, but we always go back to basics. We may agree to disagree, but we all agree JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!

He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Through the prayers of the Most Holy Theotokos, all the angels, and saints, oh Saviour save us.

Amando,

Before East and West split there existed a sense of loving kindness between the two despite the difficulties in language and the distinctions in worship. That is how things were and how things should always be. Eastern Catholics are the living representations of what is real in the mind of God and what should be real upon earth. Pray that we survive.

Dan L

Armando asks a very interesting question. The idea that we accept only 7 councils of the Church as Ecumenical makes me ask "how do we view the other 14 councils?".

Our code of Canon Law (which I do not have handy since I am out of the country at present) seems to indicate that we hold to the same criteria as the Latins re: ecumenicity. That would mean then that we recognize the same 21 councils as the Latins to be canonically ecumenical. To be sure, the first 7 ecumenical councils exercise a sort of "primacy of honor" with the first 4 holding a "pride of place" among the 7 within our liturgical tradition.

But what of the councils from the last one at Constantinople that healed the Photian schism all the way up to Vatican I and II? (not to mention the several reuinion councils) To say that we deny their authority as ecumenical councils is dangerous ground, IMHO. It begs the question - why claim our status as Catholics? And what are we to say for those Oriental Orthodox who then reject Chalcedon and beyond? At what point does rejection constitute a breach in communion? Surely communion with the Pope of Rome means more than just commemorating him in our worship.


I think that it is safe to say that as Eastern Catholics we should accept their authority and status as ecumenical, but at the same time see in their theological formulations expressions and emphases that express more of a Latin theological perspective. We certainly would not reject as heretical these formulations, seeing them rather as infallible (free from error in matters of faith and morals) and authoritative (binding on all Catholics). At the same time, I think it is important to recognize that a council may be ecumenical canonically, while its content may not reflect its ecumenical character (taking into account the concerns of both East and West). As Eastern Catholics, we should not feel obliged to adopt their manner of expression or formulation since it is clear with many (but not all) of these councils that they were called to deal with crises affecting the West only.

For instance, we should not be obliged to use Trent's formulation on justification so long as our theological position does not contravene what is dogmatically defined while using our own complimentary manner of expression. The same would hold true for, say, indulgences. We can agree that such a doctrine is "not heretical" and works well within the Latin system of theologizing. But does that mean we should adopt the use of indulgences, assigning a certain kind (partial and plenary) to our prayers? I would argue "no".

What do others think?

Gordo

Very good post Gordo. Much to reflect upon.
Stephanos I

The reason I ask is because I have recently (about a year) converted to Catholicism but since I am Greek and used to be Eastern Orthodox, I am considered a Greek (Byzantine) Catholic. From your post, I truly feel proud to be one (despite the fact that I have only attended a Latin mass). It truly reflects my views on East and West. I am interested in learning more about our history (if you all allow me to include myself in the Byzantine Catholics) and how we achieved union with the Holy See (websites, bboks etc.).

Thank you and God bless you.

Being a speaker of Greek, I am surprised that you are not aware of the more ancient use of the term Catholic, which means fullness. The Orthodox Church considers itself Catholic because it holds to the fullness of the faith, not because it exists in every corner of the globe (although these days that is becoming a reality).

At any rate, I don't wish to argue with you (I am a Byzantine Catholic turned Orthodox) but merely wished to point out that you seem to misunderstand the Orthodox use of the term Catholic.

Regards,

Anastasios

I think it has been assumed that you have come into the Catholic Church as Byzantine Rite. The only Greek I know of who became Catholic also went into the Latin Rite here in Australia. He had no interest in the Byzantine rite and with the appopriate permissions this was granted. I suppose in one way all the catholcis of greece are Greek Catholics it would need further qualification to make things clear to who ever you are talking to.

Dear Armando,
You mention an interest in how the Greek-Catholics came into Communion with the rest of the Catholic Church. This varies with specific Local Churches:
In Italy one can find communities (most notably the historic Greek-Catholic Monastery at Grottaferrata) founded before the Great Schism and continuously in full Communion with Rome. So there was never a time when one could not find Greek-Catholics (or Byzantine Catholics if one prefers that term) in Communion with Rome, if one knew where to look.
The largest single reunion is that of Brest (now in Belarus) in 1596, which brought the Metropolitanate of Kyiv into full Communion with the Catholic Church. The Metropolitanate had never repudiated that Communion in the first place, but the Union of Brest re-emphasized it. Eventually several rounds of intense persecution destroyed the Greek-Catholics in Belarus and most of Ukraine, but the Church survived in Western Ukraine and just recently the Metropolitan (now with the style and title of Patriarch) restored his residence in Kyiv itself, where a new Greek-Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Resurrection is under construction.
In 1646, following the model of the Union of Brest, the Union of Uzhhorod brought the Eparchy of Uzhhorod into Communion with the Catholic Church. This is the remote origin of a substantial Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA.
In 1700 a sizable portion of the Romanian Church accepted Communion with Rome; this Church continues today (despite a ferocious persecution under the Communists) and has an eparchy in the USA as well.
In 1724 the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East reaffirmed Communion with Rome (which had never in fact been broken). The Sultan, of all people, then put up a Patriarch of Antioch of his own preference, since the Sultan preferred not to have Greek-Catholics if he could avoid it. But the Greek-Catholic Church and Patriarchate continued in Antioch, finally attaining full civil and religious rights in the first half of the nineteenth century. This Church also has eparchies nowadays in several countries of the emigration, as well as the Middle East.
In Constantinople, after 1848 two Bishops, several priests and a significant group of lay people renewed Communion with the Catholic Church - these were the remote descendants of the "Enotiki" from the time of the Council of Florence. After World War I and the catastrophe of the Greeks in Turkey, most of the clergy and faithful fled to Greece, where they still are, headed by Bishop Anargyros of Gratianopolis (who is based at Holy Trinity Cathedral in Athens, 246 Odos Akharnon). The recent political and demographic changes in Eastern Europe have had the unexpected result of significantly increasing the Greek-Catholic numbers in Greece as substantial groups of Greek-Catholics from Ukraine, Romania and the Middle East have settled in Athens and Thessaloniki.

So there is a thumbnail sketch. I've left out quite a lot, but I hope this gives you some idea.

Incognitus

Hi Armando,

I'd say you are a Hellenic Greek Catholic.

The term "Greek Catholic" refers to people and churches in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, who have a Byzantine spiritual, liturgical and canonical heritage.

Most Greek Catholics are from Slavic or Middle-Eastern ascent, but there are a few from Hellas, like you.

And yes, since you entered into full communion with the Catholic Church from the Greek Orthodox, that would make you canonically a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church of Greece, regardless of where you happen to you to church every Sunday.

Shalom,
Memo

I can�t recall all of the specifics, but I think that while the statement may be true in that mutual anathemas were never pronounced, they were then as now not in communion. Antioch before the 18th century had close relations with both the Byzantine and Russian churches for instance. I would assume the Jesuit missionaries who were active in the area starting the in 16th century also would not have been there if Rome felt like Antioch was part of the church.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,
As it happens, in many cases, particularly in the Patriarchate of Antioch, the bishops invited the Jesuits to come into their churches, preach and hear Confessions. The wisdom of making such invitations is, perhaps, another discussion!

Incognitus

Each side can, has and will argue their own version of the history. Either way, I would restate, the Jesuit missionaries who were active in the area starting the in 16th century would not have been there if Rome felt like Antioch was part of the church. Nor would there be two patriarchs as there are today.

Andrew

Dear Friends,

Is "Greek Catholic" a generic term outside of the context of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that gave EC's that name?

Hmmm?

Alex