www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Differences with Orthodox Catholics

My understanding is that the reason there is no
intercommunion between Roman Byzantine Catholics and
Orthodox Catholics is because of major differences in
beliefs. Is this correct? What are these differences?

Dear Father:

As some one educated by both Churches, I will try to address this complex question as simply yet succintly as posible (may He who Lovest Mankind help me).

There are four areas that need ot be addressed (great threads, all four) and they are theology, ecclesiology, praxis and ethos. Giving the Greek functional English meaning, it's belief, worship, practice and way of thinking (or being). The Catholic Church's Affirmative Theology differentiates (or can when needed) among the four. Orthodoxy's Apophatic (or Negative) Theology does not.

At Vatican II, the Catholic Church's documents on Ecumenism and Eastern Catholic Churches state that regarding the Orthodox, communicatio in sacris (or intercommunion outside of full)is allowable dueto the "real sacraments" (from Roman Catholicism's perspective) of the Orthodox Church. Thus, there is a real (yet incomplete existing Communion). Indeed, the pew Missals of the Novus Ordo allow for Orthodox to receive the Sacraments (with repect to their traditions).

Orthodox Eucharistic and Apophatic Theology deals with the Local Church (Eucharistically united around its Bishop) as the Church its totality. Thus, it is actually a Communion of Local Churches. The very uncanonical North American situation notwithstanding, every Orthodox Christian in a particular Diocese belongs to that Church (the Church of Corinth, par Agios Paulos), regardless of ethnicity or ritual practice. An example of this is that the Patriarachate of Antioch allows for Western Rite parishes as full members of Local Dioceses, other Patriarchates do not have Parishes with Western Liturgical Practices. Yet all are in Communion with each other, yet defer to the Local Church when there. No Greek or Bulgarian priest has an axios in Antioch unless greated to him by the Local Bishop, and vice-versa. If you cn find in a Catholic bookstore and old copy of the Documents of Vatican II (you'll see that Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote the Orthodox response to "Eastern Catholic Churches by stating with much friendship that it was a Western Document about Eastern Churches. I hope that the future editions of the Documents will restore the Commentaries).

Orthodoxy doesn't speculate on issues not of its immediate concern (thus only Seven Ecumenical Councils). Nonetheless, there are North American pastoral issues which should be addressed. Family members cannot communicate in each others parishes, and 90% of Greek Archdiocese marriages are to non-Orthodox spouses. Thus I feel, that pastoral issues should be addressed. The question is, how can this be done without lapsing into the doctrinal indifference and relativeism of the Protestant Incommunion Agreements which have Anglicans with Lutherans with Presbyterians with Disciples of Christ, etc.

I hope that some of the other fine posting individuals will address the four points of difference between Affirmative and Apophatic Theology (I feel most issues fall within the four or from Orthodoxy one)with clarity yet pastoral concern. Nothing less that than our Personal Daily Theosis is at stake. That's All!

In Christ's Service,

Three Cents

I think what it all boils down to is: are Catholicism and Orthodoxy really different religions or simply different, estranged parts of the same Church? Are we a different, adversarial faith or are we a form of Catholicism? Or, is Catholicism a different and sometimes antithetical faith or is it really Orthodox? No one has agreed on an answer yet, certainly not officially, so the Schism continues. At least everybody realizes we aren't Protestant.

http://oldworldus.com

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

First of all, there is no such thing as "Roman" Byzantine Catholics. The Byzantine Catholic aren't Roman Catholics. We are Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Catholics...well it's an old term that Orthodox Christians used back in the old days (as it shows in their old missals)...but they're not in communion with Rome or Byzantine Catholic Church...but Serge is right...with his question: Are we the same Church...that's enstranged from each other? Or are they two different religion?.

We all know the answer to the question.

Now as far as intercommunion goes, out in the mother lands of the East (Syria, Turkey, Greece, etc.), there are tons of Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians who intercommune with each other's Churches since we are so close. I guess it seems like it's only in America that divisions are shown more clearly.

spdundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear Mephodie,

In addition to these insightful and scholarly comments that we have been blessed with here, I simply wanted to add that there is no communion between those two Churches since they are "out of communion."

The point is that even if both sides believed in EXACTLY the same things, perspectives and all, they would still not be in communion with one another until such time their bishops entered into full communion.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have been separated for about 1,800 years on a disagreement over the Person of Christ.

Even with the theological agreements of today, the liturgical act of restoration of full communion has yet to be accomplished.

Alex

"Now as far as intercommunion goes, out in the mother lands of the East (Syria, Turkey, Greece, etc.), there are tons of Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians who intercommune with each other's Churches since we are so close."


spdundas

Deaf Byzantine[/QB][/QUOTE]

spdundas,

I wish I could agree with you that in Turkey and Greece intercommunion between Catholics and Orthodox is common, but I am afraid it is not.

There are very few Orthodox left in Turkey and intercommunion there would be impossible. I doubt if the secular Turkish authorities would approve of it since they have always tried to pit Christian groups against one another: divide and conquer.

In Greece proper, intercommunion would be impossible for canonical reasons, and a whole host of other reasons that militate against it.


You are probably quite correct, however, in the case of Syrian Christians.

Thanx for a lot of good responses! I understood Three Cents to state that Orthodox Catholic family members cannot communicate in each others parishes. That is not correct. An OCA parish member, for example, can attend a Greek or Antiochian parish in the same town or elsewhere and communicate on the same basis as members of that parish being visited. Concelebration by clergy, however, is a different matter and requires hierarchial approval which is normally granted.

In response to Serge, definitions are important. We can emphasize similarities or differences. The reality, I am afraid, is that we do not have intercommunion because there are now differences thought by many to be significant between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. Spdundas claims Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. I believe that is being disengenious. Do Byzantine Catholics not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and the doctrine of Papal Infalibility when he speaks ex cathedra? If the answer is yes, then, in my humble opinion, they are Roman Catholics to all intents and purposes. I understand the differences in liturgical rites, e.g., the Byzantine Rite, the Roman Rite, etc. Nevertheless, all the various rites which accept the universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome are Roman Catholics. It is also my belief that Spdundas is in error in his allegation that intercommunion between Orthodox Catholics and Byzantine (Roman) Catholics is common in Greece, Syria, Turkey, etc. My understanding is that intercommunion ceased with the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204. Also, in most places in Europe, the Orthodox Catholic Church has better fraternal relations with non-uniate Roman Catholics than with uniate Roman Catholics such as Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics.
In addition to the question of the alleged universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome, do Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics not accept such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Purgutory, Indulgences, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, etc.? What other major doctrinal differences do we have?
I must differ with Alex in his belief that even if Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics had identical beliefs on all major issues our bishops could prevent intercommunion. My understanding of Orthodox Catholism is that actions of councils of bishops can be, and have been (for example, union with Rome and iconoclasm) rejected by the Orthodox Catholic people. There is no doubt in my mind that our estranged churches would be estranged no more if we could agree on all major doctrines.

Somebody get me a beer !!!

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

This is what happens when my "hot button" gets pushed!!!
-------------------------------------------

SINCE: The Universal Catholic Church is "a corporate body of Churches"
(Lumen Gentium);

SINCE: It "is made up of the faithful who are organically united in
the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same
government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by
their hierarchy, and so form particular Churches or Rites" (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum);

SINCE: These "has come about through divine providence that, in the
course of time, different Churches set up in various places by the Apostles
and their successors joined together in a multiplicity of organically united
groups which, wilst safe guarding the unity of faith and unique divine
structure of the universal Church, have their own discipline, enjoy their
own liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony"
(Lumen Gentium);

SINCE: "All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that
they can and ought always preserve their own legitimate liturgical
rites and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to
forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry out all
these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. They are to aim always at a
more perfect knowledge and practices of their rites, and if they have fallen
away due to circumstances of time or persons, they are to strive to return
to their ancestral traditions" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum);

BE IT RESOLVED: That "while recommending ecclesiastical celibacy this
sacred Council (Vatican II) does not by any means aim at changing that
contrary discipline which is lawfully practiced in the Eastern Churches.
Rather the Council affectionately exhorts all those who have received the
priesthood in the married state to persevere in their holy vocation
and continue to devote their lives fully and generously to the flock
entrusted to them" (Prebyterorum Ordinis);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That "where in the West there are no
Eastern priest to look after the faithful of the Eastern Catholic Churches,
Latin Ordinaries and their co-workers should see that those faithful grow in
awareness and knowledge of their own tradition, and they should be invited
to co-operate actively in the growth of the Christian Community by making
their own particular contribution" (Orientale Lumen);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: A "conversion is ...required of the Latin
Church, that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern
Christians, and accept gratefully the spiritual treasures of which the
Eastern Catholic Churches are the Bearers, to the benefit of the entire
Catholic Communion" (Orientale Lumen);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That "the Eastern Churches in communion
with the Apostolic See of Rome have the special duty of fostering the unity
of all Christians, in particular of Eastern Christians, according to the
principles laid down in the decree of this holy Council (Vatican II), 'On
Ecumenism,' by prayer above all, by their example, by their scrupulous
fidelity to each other, by working together, and by a brotherly attitude
towards persons and things" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Eastern Catholic Churches "play a
constructive role in the dialogue of love and in the theological
dialogue at both the local and international levels, and thus contribute to
mutual understanding and the continuing pursuit of full unity" (Ut Unum
Sint).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The Synod Fathers recalled the norms
given by the Second Vatican Council, which recognize that the Eastern
Churches "have the right and the duty to govern themselves according to
their own particular discipline", given the mission they have of bearing witness
to an ancient doctrinal, liturgical and monastic tradition. Moreover, these
Churches have a duty to maintain their own disciplines, since these
"corresponed better to the customs of their faithful and are judged to be
better suited to provide for the good of souls".46 The universal Church
needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so
that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so
in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.47 Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there
from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly. (Ecclisia in America)
----------------------------------------------

Joe Prokopchak
St. Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Joe Prokopchak ]

Lager or Pilsner?

That's a powerful button, Joe! Go!

Steve
JOY!

Another keg is coming from Virginia, Joe!

As quoted above:
"In response to Serge, definitions are important. We can emphasize similarities or differences. The reality, I am afraid, is that we do not have intercommunion because there are now differences thought by many to be significant between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics."

Yes, but the question remains: "differences" thought to be significant by whom? If it's just theolgians, but NOT by the impacted people, of what relevance is it?


Again, as quoted above:
"Spdundas claims Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. I believe that is being disengenious. Do Byzantine Catholics not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and the doctrine of Papal Infalibility when he speaks ex cathedra? If the answer is yes, then, in my humble opinion, they are Roman Catholics to all intents and purposes. I understand the differences in liturgical rites, e.g., the Byzantine Rite, the Roman Rite, etc. Nevertheless, all the various rites which accept the universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome are Roman Catholics."

Spoken by a lawyer or someone immersed in legal terminology. The REAL question is: if someone accepts the Holy Father's authority as "first among the Bishops", does that automatically imply that EVERYTHING the Roman Church does is 'ipso facto' imposed upon the East? If the Pope wears an Organdy hat, bag and shoes for Easter, does the rest of the church have to wear Organdy just to show solidarity? No, we can wear Mary Blue, or camouflage for our Arab brethren, because it is appropriate for our circumstances. Does that mean that we are rejecting his role as "First Bishop"? Of course not. Unity does not mean uniformity.

As cited above:
"It is also my belief that Spdundas is in error in his allegation that intercommunion between Orthodox Catholics and Byzantine (Roman) Catholics is common in Greece, Syria, Turkey, etc."
My understanding is that intercommunion ceased with the Crusaders sack of Constantinople in 1204. Also, in most places in Europe, the Orthodox Catholic Church has better fraternal relations with non-uniate Roman Catholics than with uniate Roman Catholics such as Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics."

That may be. But in places where we are under persecution -- everywhere EAST of the Balkans, the folks are happy to see a golden Gospel book and a cross, and they don't give a damn about the jurisdiction of the priest. Look at Fr. Ciszek of blessed memory in the camps of Siberia. Look at the villages of Lebanon. Look at Palestine. Look also at Egypt -- although most evidence is hidden for fear of arrest and imprisonment. It's nice to adjudicate from the safety of one's Euro-American fortress, but for the front line Christians "over there", it's a radically different story.


Further quoted above:

"In addition to the question of the alleged universal jurisdiction and infalibility of the Pope of Rome, do Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics not accept such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Purgutory, Indulgences, the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, etc.? What other major doctrinal differences do we have?
I must differ with Alex in his belief that even if Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics had identical beliefs on all major issues our bishops could prevent intercommunion. My understanding of Orthodox Catholism is that actions of councils of bishops can be, and have been (for example, union with Rome and iconoclasm) rejected by the Orthodox Catholic people. There is no doubt in my mind that our estranged churches would be estranged no more if we could agree on all major doctrines."

With all due respect, as a "blood" Eastern Christian --with a LONG pedigree--, who cares when your butt and that of your family is on the line? We're talking bullets here, luv', not doctrine.

Blessings!

PS: As snow heads across the country this evening, I'm reminded of the Ukrainian Christians who went off into the woods in two feet of snow in the dark of night to participate in Divine Liturgy, when they knew that the Sov's were looking for them. Did they give a damn about the jurisdiction of the priest who would give them communion? Would the priest ask for some sort of ID before communicating someone? Get real! Us Easterns don't do that kinda crap when our souls -- and our LIVES - are on the line. Give us a break -- and leave us to our own devices. We're weird, queer, strange and an upsetting group of folks-- but we'd rather die than surrender what we know will bring us to God, and we'd rather die than deny that to one of our own, no matter where his baptismal records are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Humble opinions are appreciated. However, if language is to have any utility, invididuals must restrain themselves from applying their opinions as to the definition of every string of letters.

A common and self-accepted use of the term 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' are well known, referring to two (sadly) separate communions. Roman Catholic refers to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

One could pontificate how a Roman Catholic who is a British subject has every right to call himself an "Anglican", and to deny him the term is challenging his legitimacy as a member of English society. But, it is not the cpommon usage of the term. So get over it.

K.

Would that it were that simple! The term Catholic is used by many Orthodox and the term Orthodox is used by many Eastern Catholics (the Melkites in particular--the Ruthenians still have a bias against anything Orthodox).

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I will once again offer my example. If your church was burning down and you were on the phone to the Fire Department, what terms would you use?

K.

Dear Friends,

Kurt is quite right and his point is echoed by John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Newman wrote about how the different western churches were calling themselves "Catholic."

Yet, he said, if you asked any one of them for directions to the nearest "Catholic Church," they would all join in pointing you to the one building down the street.

Also, the use of the term "Orthodox" may not only be confusing, but also offensive to the Orthodox themselves.

It is better, for ecumenical relations all around, if we just stuck to calling a "spade a spade" and, you know . . .

Alex