www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "No such thing as Eastern Catholicism"?

I just read Robert's statement:

"For the record, there is no such thing called Eastern Catholicism. It is a misnomer and should not be used unless it is a rite of Roman Catholicism."

I've seen this a few times before. I've known Catholics (even a few Byzantine Catholics) who have become Orthodox and who insist on referring to Eastern Catholics as "Roman Catholics." As Eastern Catholics they took offense at the term "uniate" but as Orthodox that's the term they use to refer to their former brethren--even in discussions with them.

I've seen a couple statements on the web (one on the OCA website comes to mind) that is more conciliatory and downplays use of the term "uniate." Unfortunately, such statements are too few. What is is that causes people to insist on using offensive terminology? What is it that causes some to deny we even exist?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Shame and humiliation.

And your point is...?

I can't speak for Vasili but in one sense he seems to be correct. The use of these terms are meant to bring shame and humiliation. People insult each other so that Christ remains unseen and so that the work of the devil can continue apace. Would we needlessly insult one another if we were truly seeking Theosis? Would we attempt to deny another's heritage if we we truly "In Christ"? We know the answer to that. Of course not.

The fall is displayed in many ways. To try to shame or humiliate another is just another way to express our sinfulness.

One antedote from the perspective of the one insulted is, as you know, to claim it. We are all sinners.

I happily wear the badge of "uniate". I pray that some day we will all become uniates and follow the teaching of Christ in John 17.

Dan Lauffer

Dave,
I have argued this before that there is nothing wrong with the term uniate. It describes former Orthodox Churches who committed to unity with Rome without agreement in the Unity of the Faith. The word 'uniate' is not an offensive word like 'niger' as some have attempted to express and to silence the Orthodox opposition. Uniatism, built on subverting the Orthodox Church, has had the intention of converting Orthodox Christians. However, someone else would come back and say that was then this is now. However, the foundation of uniatism was false if not outright evil. Uniatism divided Orthodox villages, tribes, and families. There is no basis for the existence of uniatism other than a Roman subversion tactic. Uniatism has great Orthodox characteristics and features but it really is not the Faith of Orthodoxy. You may ask why? Unity with Rome is not unity of the Faith. It is an organizational unity that says "you keep & practice your faith and we'll keep & practice our own faith" creating two faiths. The reality is that there can only be ONE FAITH not numerous quanities. The Uniate polemics that favor ONE FAITH (when it is really two) with Rome are not merely expressions of that ONE FAITH. All the discussions in these forums are proof of that.

I thought "Uniate!" was the cry of those seeking unity with Rome. It doesn't make sense to me for them to get upset about a word they created or used to define themselves.

The shame and humiliation of being deceived by Rome. Rome is a promise-breaker. Rome cannot be trusted. Any questions?

Insecurity and defensiveness.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

As far as I know the term "uniate" was used by Orthodox to describe Eastern Catholics and was not a term we coined to describe ourselves. Anyone have information to the contrary? I've always understood "uniate" to be one of those words one uses as one spits on the ground. (The OCA website makes a brief comment on this at: http://www.oca.org/Q-and-A/Uniate.html)

That's a side point to this thread. Although, it is something to listen to someone say: `I don't care how you want to be referred to--I'm going to use the term you dislike regardless.'

Back to the thread title:

Is the statement `there is no such thing as Eastern Catholicism' true?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 11-01-2000).]

Yesterday I received a package from:
"The Roman Catholic Church of St. Elias,
Maronite Rite".
What the heck is this? A "Roman Catholic" Church of the Maronite Rite?
Silouan

it is something to listen to someone say: �I don't care how you want to be referred to--I'm going to use the term you dislike regardless.�


A lot of Orthodox post-ers on the Internet enjoy doing that deliberately.

Whether there really is any such thing as Eastern Catholicism, as Stuart will tell you, until around 1970, no. The Orthodox detractors had a point that the Eastern Catholics basically were treated like Roman Catholics allowed to have different rites. Today this mentality is a lingering problem. The notion of the Byzantine Catholic Churches as Churches in communion with Rome, rather than literal parts of the Roman Catholic Church, has yet to sink in, including among lots of the Byzantine Catholics themselves.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>


[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 11-01-2000).]

To my friend Rusnak, I would correct him that before 1970, no Orthodox authority ever suggested that Eastern Catholics could have legitimacy if they reformed the relationship they had with the Latin Church.

To my friend Siloun, the term "Roman Catholic Church of the [x] Rite" is one that emerged inthe late 19th century when the civil authorites required it for incorporation purposes out of a hostility towards catholicism, relating back to the original psot here.

K.

To my friend Rusnak, I would correct him that before 1970, no Orthodox authority ever suggested that Eastern Catholics could have legitimacy if they reformed the relationship they had with the Latin Church.

The issue I was addressing wasn�t whether the Orthodox authorities consider the Eastern Catholics part of Orthodoxy � �legitimacy� in Orthodox eyes � but rather that before around 1970, the insults �Eastern Rite Roman Catholic� and suchlike sadly had some basis in fact as that�s how they were treated (and in some measure still are). With legit reform, the Orthodox authorities still probably wouldn�t say the Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox but the basis for insults such as that above would be gone.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

To all of you,

I don't really give a fig whether someone thinks my church exists or not. As it was explained to me, we are an "Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome." That is what it is whether others who aren't part of this communion believe it or not. If that reality has not kicked into gear with some Roman Catholics, or with most Orthodox, or even with some Byzantine Catholics, doesn't really matter. It is what it is. Take a look at us in ten years. Until then keep your insults to yourselves. Or even if you choose not to, I will happily wear the badges Eastern Catholic and Uniate as a sign of what the Church once was and what it will, by God's grace, some day be again.

To my newfound Eastern Catholic and Uniate friends, "Be proud of what God has called us to be. If others want to use us as an excuse for being disobedient to our Lord's desires for it, there isn't much we can do about it. But don't let it affect your faith one iota."

Dan Lauffer

Orthodox in communion with Rome? Since when have the Patriachs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Moscow,etc., believed in papal infallibility? Using your logic the Western-rite parishes of the Patriarchate of Antioch should refer to themselves as Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch? Absurd! Besides,the Patriarch would never allow it, realizing how insulting such a misnomer would be to Rome. The Pope would find your attitude distressing.

Peace