www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox - in union with Rome?

Dear Friends,

What does it mean to say that one is "Orthodox in union with Rome?" This is a term coined by our ancestors following the Union of Brest.

Is it legitimate?

Is it a matter of a mixture of clashing theologies, a hybrid of two exclusive perspectives when we take the Orthodox theological vine and graft onto it the papal doctrines?

Alex

Alex-

Simply put, I'm not a big fan of the term. It confuses the real differences between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and theology. One is either Orthodox or Catholic; and if you are Orthodox, you ARE NOT in union with Rome. Eastern Catholics are a different entity altogether.

My 1 1/2 cents worth.

Columcille

Alex:

It may have made more sense back in the 16th century when the only doctrine that separated the churches was the 'fillioque' which was taken care of as one of the articles of the 'Union' stipulating you weren't required to profess it. Which only leaves the issue of Papal Supremacy.

But things have changed since then and doctrines have been added to the Roman Catholic Church which you, as a part of, are required to believe. The doctrines of the RCC in 1596 and today are not the same. For many new doctrines have been added. We all already know what they are because they have been discussed here and elsewhere over and over again.

Today, based on the doctrines you are required to profess as members of a church who recognizes Papal authority, the 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' theory is an oxymoron to be sure.

As I have stated before, for me to say I am an Orthodox Catholic, is for me to say I still profess the same doctrines that were formulated in the first seven ecumenical councils. My Orthodox identity signifies that my church has neither added to those doctrines, (as the RCC), subtracted from those doctrines (as the Protestants), or changed those doctrines in any way (as both the RCC's & Protestants). That's what Orthodoxy is Alex. It is based on doctrinal beliefs. Not ritual. Because, as I have said many times before, the only similiarites we as Orthodox share with you as a Greek Catholic (I'll use that term from now on instead of Uniate) is ritual. And, even though the Orthodox Church considers ritual important, it does not take presence over doctrine.
The only thing we seem to have in common anymore is that too many of our people put nationalism over both doctrine and ritual. I think its an 'eastern european' thing.

OrthoMan

Alex,

I do not think it is correct to call ourselves "Orthodox in union with Rome".

I base this opinion on the letter from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dated June 11, 1997, to His Beatitude Maximos V HAKIM
Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem.

In regards to the Zoghby Initiative.

The part that my opinion is based on is the response to "1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches."

To this the Congregation replied, "It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time."


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Bob,

You da Ortoman!

Is this term offensive to Orthodox Christians?

And can there be a "Byzantine Catholic theology and spirituality" that while not Orthodox, is inspired by the Fathers etc.?

Alex

Dear David,

That is a good reference and you make a very crucial point.

I can understand, and have argued, that a Catholic doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception that posits the total holiness and purity from sin of the Mother of God need not be accepted by Eastern Catholics - since the Eastern Church has always believed in the complete holiness of the Mother of God.

The IC doctrine addresses the western issue of Augustinian Original Sin that is not our theological jurisdiction.

I can understand the Melkite Hierarch's assertions in regards to these doctrines.

What I don't understand is the other assertion that accepts the Pope as first among equals only "as the Orthodox Church believes."

For that would make him Orthodox, not Catholic, as Orthoman rightly asserts.

And I know Eastern Catholic priests who think that way, that the only thing we are required to accept is the "Primacy of Honour" and not jurisdiction and infallibility.

These doctrines cannot be reconciled with what the historic Orthodox Church believes concerning the Patriarch of the West before 1054 AD but we accept them as Catholics.

I guess my question has to do with the idea of "organicity" and inner harmony/unity of doctrine.

We seem to talk as if we "take the train that says 'Orthodoxy' but get off where it says 'Papacy.'"

And my question is if we accept Orthodox theology, as we say we do, for all else, don't we betray it, or else graft onto it an unnatural appendage by accepting the papal doctrines?

Alex

The late Metropolitan +Judson was fond of this term, although I remember that in a talk he once gave he used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? Pope John Paul II has also called us to a more full Orthodox witness within Catholic communion. Back when the OCA was changing calendars, Archbishop Herman was interviewed on television and in print as stating that “Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction” (he was using us as an example of how we had smoothly changed calendars a decade earlier).

Is it legitimate? Yes. And originally the Orthodox thought so, too. At least until recent generations. The term they like to apply to us is “Uniate”, which means “union”. Who is in union with who? Are we Roman Catholics in communion with Roman Catholics? No. We are Orthodox Christians in communion with Peter and through that communion with Peter we are in communion with all Catholics. It would not make sense for the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome to call us “Uniates” if they believed us to be Roman Catholics.

Clashing theologies? Maybe. But since communion of Rome is really the crown of Orthodoxy the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Peter are lacking just as much as we are lacking by not being in full communion with them.

It is interesting that those who are Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) claim a wide elasticity of Orthodoxy yet deny the same elasticity to us.

I do find that some of the doctrinal expressions from the General Councils in the West need further definition. But it is unfair to state that the Roman Catholic Church had added doctrines. Using this logic one would have to state that the undivided Church added to the faith of the apostles by conduction the Seven Councils.

I do respect that the largest group generally gets to use their term of choice. Rome has generally used the term “Catholic” and the East “Orthodox”.

Do we still have anything in common? Yes. Almost everything. To deny this is to deny that we are formed as Christians primarily by our liturgical life of prayer.

Personally, I hardly ever use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", simply because it is a long term. I generally prefer to use the terms "Greek Catholic", "Byzantine Catholic", or "Orthodox Catholic". Still, my Russian Catholic Church does seem to heavily use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", stressing the adherance to Orthodox ritual and theology, while accepting the authority and primacy of the Pope of Rome. So I don't think there's anything really wrong with the term...I just am not quite fond of it because it is a mouthful...

+Тимофей, рабъ Божій

Dear Moose,

Where have you been? We've missed you!

You bring such elasticity of thought to this subject!

Ultimately, "Orthodoxy" is a term once used by both East AND West. The West still uses it as does the Pope when he prays, in his Mass, for those who teach the "Orthodox Faith."

And it goes without saying that there are separating differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

But the Pre-Chalcedonians consider themselves to be Orthodox and don't accept the later four Councils.

If "Orthodox" is a generic term, which is what I'm getting at, then it might be used and is used liturgically by others not in communion with the historic mainstream Orthodox Churches in union with the four Patriarchates that parted ways with Rome in 1054.

There is also a sense of "Easternness" that is communicated by the term "Orthodoxy." Those Byzantine Catholic parishes that are most Eastern today are also those with a strong "Orthodoxy" identity with all that entails by way of a specific Orthodox/Byzantine spiritual culture.

For us, communion with Rome is indeed the crown of Orthodoxy. It is not so for the Eastern Orthodox.

The term "Catholic" is likewise used by one and all. A Presbyterian acquaintance referred to his church as "Apostolic Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic."

And if Orthodox can use "Catholic" and this is a term that is an official part of the Orthodox Church's full title, then what does it mean to be "Catholic?" There are also subspecies involved here.

Doctrinal development is truly admitted by both East and West, as you have correctly pointed out - it is just a question of doctrinal development that is accepted as valid or not by the East.

Alex

Dear Timothy,

Yes, the Russian Catholic Church is a good example of this.

I am just wondering how it justifies adhering to Orthodoxy in everything save the papal doctrines, whose jurisdictional and infallible aspects are widely seen as inorganic to Orthodox ecclesiology.

Alex

[Is this term offensive to Orthodox Christians?]

Alex my friend. Once again I will give you a very honest answer which is YES! In fact, some of us find it almost as offensive as the term 'Uniate'.
Especially to those of us like myself whose grandparents returned to Holy Orthodoxy when they left their villages in the old country and came to America. Even before the latinizations began. The question is WHY? Its because we perceive it to be purposely deceptive to, once again prey on those who still have a strong Orthodox identity but were deprived of any religious education by the communists. Ask those people in the Ukraine that are now part of the Greek Catholic Church what they are and the vast majority will still probably say 'Pravoslavnie'! So, to tell them they are still Orthodox but 'in communion' with Rome rather than 'under Romes authority' is deception to enable them to keep that 'Orthodox' identity which is still so important to them. And, don't give me the sui juris bit until you can prove to me that the administrative structure of the Vatican has changed where one can be 'in communion with it' but not under its authority. Either directly or indirectly. Or your church gets to a point where it just informs the Vatican on what it has done or is doing rather than ask for its permission and await a reply that will be honored even if it is the opposite of what is being proposed.
When I was a kid I used to love to talk to the 'older people'. All long since gone. You would be surprised how many of them from both my home town parish as well as my current parish told me they had no idea they were not Orthodox but part of a church which recognized the Pope until they came to this country. They still heard the word 'Pravoslavnie' in the Liturgy so they never questioned it any further. Many of them had a hatred for the RCC and the Pope because they connected it all with Polish aggression.

OrthoMan

Like it or not, in popular usage, "Orthodox" (big "O") has come to mean those of us not in communion with Rome, and "Catholic" (big "C") means you guys in communion with Rome, even though we certainly think of ourselves as catholic, and you certainly think of yourselves as orthodox, even more fully orthodox than us.

"Orthodox in union with Rome" makes it sound as if you could be in union with Rome and NOT Orthodox. From your point of view, I don't think that's what you mean to convey...

I think you're using "Orthodox" (big "O") as a synonym for Byzantine. Isn't "Byzantine in union with Rome" the most exact term? Granted, it's cumbesome...

:-) And just to be mischievous, I have to point out there are canonical Orthodox parishes (under the Patriarch of Antioch) using the Western Rite. What do you call them?

Dear Orthoman,

I was just asking . . .

As for the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia, no, the 'pravoslavnie' to them are the Russians, the oppressors.

I have an uncle who was a Russian Orthodox priest with a doctorate in Orthodox theology from Moscow over there.

His parents were Greek Catholics. The fact is Greek Catholic identity and Ukrainian identity in western Ukraine are today closely linked.

When Orthodox bishops came to visit at St George's Cathedral in L'viv, he and all others began to sing "Many Years" to the . . . Pope!

The Russian bishops said, "What are you doing?"

Soon the entire city was singing that song.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had come back to life, not through the underground wing, but through the very priests trained in Orthodoxy a generation after it was suppressed.

I met one on tour here and asked him if he considered himself "Orthodox."

I thought he would say, "Not any more" or something like that.

Instead, he said "Please don't even mention that word."

And he also held a doctorate from Moscow.

It would seem that Byzantine Catholics hold stock in using the term "Orthodox" here.

For others "over there," the term "Catholic" is just fine.

Alex

Are these the same people whose experience of church and Liturgy was standing outside having a smoke while everyone else was praying?

Because I guarantee you if they were inside and paying attention to the Liturgy, they would have heard the Pope of Rome commemorated at least once if not three or more times. And his commemoration is in all the Greek Catholic prayerbooks from Europe that I own or have ever seen. Granted, many of our people were illiterate and prayerbooks were not thus useful for them, but who exactly did they think "...archijereja nasheho Pija, Papa rimskaho" was?

Dear Tim,

I just love you Orthodox with ethnic sounding names!

You are right, "Orthodox" is used as a synonym for "Byzantine" and, for us, refers more to the idea of a spiritual culture, than a "deposit of faith" (if I have your permission to use a Latin phrase).

But it certainly does refer to "faith" as well.

Those who are "Orthodox in union with Rome" would omit the Filioque and say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, following St John Damscene and St Peter Mohyla.

They would accept the Epiclesis, keep silent on Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, and tend to give a collegial interpretation of papal authority.

The fact is when the Pope canonizes a new saint, unless he or she crossed themselves with three fingers, we aren't concerned. Most of what the Pope does as Patriarch of the West is treated as a "that's nice" by us in fact.

There are bad sides to this like bishops' appointments and that married clergy thing.

And I'm not going to say I have an answer to those, because I don't.

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was also under the thumb of the Moscow Patriarchate for years, and Met. Sabodan in Kyiv, a scholar and a great churchman, still is.

I'm not justifying the one with the other, only saying that "go Orthodox" is not the panacea for liberation - if by that one means Moscow Patriarchate.

Of course, a lot of this is totally irrelevent to those for whom ethnocultural identification is no longer a factor.

As for the Western Rite of the Antioch Archdiocese, I have one Ukrainian priest friend, of Ukrainian Jewish parents, who is a member and a convert from Anglicanism.

When I asked him what he was, he simply said, "Antiochian Orthodox."

God bless,

Alex