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

Dan, my brother,

I may not exist, but THIS Orthodox in Union With Rome sings AMEN!

Cheers,


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor, sinner & Uniate scum
sharon@cmhc.com

>>> Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch<<<

Not a bad description, all told. Much better than reverse uniates.

I agree with Vasili. I have written on this misnomer "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" before. It implies that the Orthodox Church broke off the Roman Catholic Church and have finally returned. This mindset thinking is detrimental to any talk about reunification between East and West. Know that it was Rome who left the Orthodox communion/Pentarchy.

The phrase "Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome" is quite accurate and has been publicly used by our Metropolitan and several of our bishops. There is also plenty of historic evidence for the use of this phrase. The term "uniate" simply means "union" and was originally used as an abbreviation for "Orthodox Uniate" which itself was an abbreviation for "Orthodox united with Rome". Around 1980, when the OCA moved from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, Archbishop Herman (OCA Diocese of Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania) constantly referred to Byzantine Catholics as "Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction". [He was doing this to put forward to his people the example that we had changed to the new calendar in the 1960's and survived.]

Although I understand the confusion it would cause since people are not comfortable with the term, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with Western parishes of the Antiochian Orthodox Church calling themselves "Roman Catholics in communion with Antioch". The theology that flows from the liturgy used in the Western-Rite Orthodox Church flows from the common life of the Church at Rome, not from Antioch. While some Western-Rite Orthodox may consider themselves to be Eastern in theology and Western in liturgy this is not really possible. We are primarily catechized by liturgy. The use of a Western Liturgy necessarily catechizes a Western (or Roman) approach to the Christian Life. Of course, there are some who like to see the differences between East and West as vast, uncrossable abyss. In reality, however, we are still members of the same family living in different rooms of the same mansion. It is our own sinfulness that prevents us from sharing the same supper.

Thanks for the clarification, Moose. I will inform my Cuban neighbors that they can deny the"traditional" Roman doctrines of papal infallibility, indulgences,etc., and remain Roman Catholic with a clear conscience. They are more than welcome to do so as members of the Church of Antioch-Western Rite.

And the local Roman bishop who would disagree with Moose? Talk to Moose!

>>>Thanks for the clarification, Moose. I will inform my Cuban neighbors that they can deny the"traditional" Roman doctrines
of papal infallibility, indulgences,etc., and remain Roman Catholic with a clear conscience. They are more than welcome to
do so as members of the Church of Antioch-Western Rite.<<<

Don't be obtuse, Vasili (though I note that quite a lot of anti-ecumenical Orthodox believe that God gave them heads because they make such good battering rams).

There is a fundamental difference in the ecclesial relationship between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church in regards both to the jurisdiction of the pope, and the applicability of particular Latin doctrines. The Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the Western Church, and thus he has a direct, patriarchical jurisdiction over the Roman Catholic Church, which is the only particular Church in that patriarchate (which causes some confusion). The doctrines referred to in your contentious post were promulgated by general councils of that particular Church--in the same way, e.g., that particular teachings and useages may be promulgated by the synod of any Orthodox autocephalous Church.

On the other hand, the Eastern Catholic particular Churches--21 in all--are not under the patriarchical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, but rather, are in communion with him, and recognize him as primus within that communion. He thus as no direct power over them, though on occasion the Curia acts as if he does. Rather, all 21 are self-giverning, with their own Traditions--liturgical, spiritual, theological, doctrinal and disciplinary. These they hold, as a matter of right, not merely as a dispensation from Roman useage. Thus, they are not bound to accept the specific doctrinal formulations of the Latin Church when these run contrary to their own particular Traditions. Conversely, even though the Romans have a different Tradition than do the Eastern Catholics, the latter recognize that the Latin Tradition is a legitimate mode of expression for the Western Church, developing organically out of its own experience.

Thanks for the personality profile! What you say makes all the sense in the world to Catholics, but for the Orthodox(obtuse as they may be) your position is infected with the fatal error of dogmatic relativism and this is a position long eschewed by the most able and gifted of Orthodox thinkers, monastics, and prelates.

You are a very clear-thinking and erudite Byzantine Catholic, but like most Catholics, you just do not understand Orthodoxy.

"It is not good for Greeks to be ruled by Latins."

Peace,

Flat-Head Vasili

Obtuse and obdurate to the "blessed" end.
PS-Ed and others should take note that Moose and you disagree on the "Roman Catholic" issue.

>>>"It is not good for Greeks to be ruled by Latins." <<<

One might also say that it is not good for Slavs or Arabs to be ruled by Greeks, but I notice that the Phanariots tried to do just that, and that the hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem are STILL Greeks to this day. And, in a similar vein, it is not good that Ukrainians be ruled by Russians, yet Moscow still insists on imposing its rule, its useage, and its clergy on the Church of Kiev.

And, one might say, it is not good for Americans to be ruled by Constantinople, Antioch, or Moscow--but the old Patriarchates refuse to let the cash cow go free. Who is more dominated by an external hierarch? The Melkite Greek Catholics, or the Antiochean Orthodox? The Ruthenians, or the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese?

It would seem that everybody these days wants to be pope, or at least to wield the power that they think belongs to him.

Everyone, that is, except the Pope himself, who has been most reluctant to act like the absolute monarch everyone says he is.

Perhaps, after the Union, one would be able to speak of 'Latin churches in communion with Constantinople'...

An addendum:"It is better to be ruled by Greeks than by Latins."

The US isn't the Vatican's cash cow?

When the Melkite and Ruthenian bishops begin the process of ordaining American men to the priesthood, then I will rethink my position on who has the highest seat in the synagogue.

>>>The US isn't the Vatican's cash cow? <<<

Actually, no. American Catholics are notoriously stingy. Perhaps because it was the anticlericalist Catholics who were first to jump on the boat to come over.

>>>When the Melkite and Ruthenian bishops begin the process of ordaining American men to the priesthood,
then I will rethink my position on who has the highest seat in the synagogue.<<<

That day is coming shortly. I think you underestimate the pastoral and administrative difficulties of restoring a tradition which has largely lapsed for seventy years. Eastern Catholics in this country have gotten used to the idea that they can support a priest on $14K per year. Imagine the sticker shock when they have to pay a living wage to a wife and (hopefully) many children. Imagine the difficult transition from thinking of a priest as someone at your beck and call, to someone who must be allowed a private life. Education and metanoia must come before radical changes.

As for high seats at the synagogue, remember that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

Again and again, the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is a misnomer and misleading as the phrase "Roman Catholics in communion with Orthodoxy". The only exception I will allow in the misnomer would be stated as "former Orthodox in communion with Rome". This sounds acceptable. It reminds me of the insertion of the filioque whereas I have inserted "former". LOL
Seriously, no Orthodox Bishop in his right mind would fully state and believe in such a misnomer as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because it is an unjust union from beginning to end. Unfortunately, many cradle Uniates and converts believe in this misnomer and I truly understand that it was not their fault. However, I truly believe that they all owe it to themselves to come home to the Orthdox Church. We know Rome is far from home and we pray that she does become Orthodox once again. There should be no excuses for the Byzantine Catholics for not coming home to the Orthodox Church. I know many of you will not like my response anymore than I despise the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

How about Orthodox in communion with Constantinople? Can all the Orthodox Churches say that?

Yosko

Robert,

I suspect that my response will come as a shock. But here it is anyway. I don't give a tinker's damn what "exception you will allow." When reunion comes we will still be Orthodox in union with Rome, and unless you become apostate, you will as well.

If you have your pipe handy stick that in it and smoke it.

Dan Lauffer

Hi Dan,
The reality is that there is no reunion. Therefore, you are not Orthodox anymore than Arius tried to claim he was until he repented. By the way, I don't like smoking. It's not proper for the body or where the Holy Spirit dwells. Please don't offer anyone to smoke. If you are "smoking", relax and cool off. What I say is only meant for the good of affairs. Have a blessed night.