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

Dear Lemko,

My family were Boykos - "good Boykos" I call them!

My grandfather served among Lemkos and Hutsuls as well. He said the Lemko language was . . . remarkable.

Is St Maxim Sandovich a saint who would be venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox Lemkos?

Alex

Yes: by the latter, because of his martyrdom for Orthodoxy; by the former, because of his nationality. Since the Ukrainian orientation is more common in Poland among Greek Catholic Lemkos (whereas the Orthodox Lemkos are Lemko "separatists" and/or Rusynophiles), it must be problematic to justify the veneration of a man whose dying words were "Naj z~yje s'vjata Rus' i s'vjate Pravoslavije" (Long live Holy Rus' and Holy Orthodoxy).

Of course, I am very happy to venerate him for all the above reasons even though I am happily Greek Catholic.

Dear Lemko,

Well, Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians venerated St Athanasius of Brest for a time, the former as a national hero who stood up to Poland.

The Jesuits actually established the feast of St Josaphat two days before his (Sept. 16) to try and work the cult of Athanasius out of their new Eastern Catholic charges.

I guess things are never quite so black and white, and in the case of saints' cults, moreso.

God bless,

Alex

I just do not see how you can use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" when one of the tests of Orthodoxy are whether or not you are in communion with Rome.

I guess I am just having a problem seeing how the two can be one. Isn't it either/or? not both?

How can we use this term when one of the tenets of Orthodox is that the Pope is not infallible, that the Catholic Church has it wrong, that he only is First among Equals, but the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

It just doesn't compute.


David

Dear David,

You are right, of course.

But the term "Orthodox" was and still is used by both Churches, East and West to describe themselves.

"Orthodox Faith" is how the Fathers called Pope St Leo's refutation of Arianism at the famous Council ("This is the Orthodox Faith! Peter has spoken through Leo!").

"Catholic" was applied to "Church." The Pope still prays for "All those who teach the Orthodox Faith." And he's not being ecumenical at that point in the Liturgy at all!

And, as I said, my Prebyterian friends also refer to themselves as "Catholics."

I guess what I'm saying is that a term like this can only have its true meaning discovered in how a given community uses it.

We have parishes who have deleted "Orthodox Christians" from their Divine Liturgy. Most of us would never consider doing so, however. The more "Byzantine" some of our parishes become, the more they use that term "Orthodox in union with Rome." Russian Catholic parishes are notorious for using it .

If "Orthodoxy" means "right believing, right worshipping," which it does, BTW, then it is only a community's definition of what constitutes that believing and worshipping that gives it shape.

A Russian ROCOR priest once told me to "continue the traditions of your forefathers." And I said, "You mean practice Orthodoxy even while in union with Rome?"

I saw him grit his teeth as he spilled out, "YES!"

Alex

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Without being a nitpicker, because Lord knows I have said many things myself that were worded wrong even though I knew better, but...

The Seven Ecumenical Synods did not formulate anything, they simply stated what was always believed.

And may I add one thing, the theology of a pope above a bishop is an attack on scripture, Holy Tradition, and the will of God - from an Orthodox perspective; so that alone is enough to make a statement such as "Orthodox in union with Rome" an oxymoron.

Might I know humbly point point out, as if I am going to resolve the age old issue with one paragraph...

If the authority of Peter was so clear, then it is shocking to know that on the very eve before the death of Christ, they were all ignorant that Christ had chosen Peter to be the first among them, and the foundation-stone of the Church. Christ took part in the discussion. This would have been an excellent opportunity for Him to proclaim the power of Peter-moreover, it was time that it should be done, for on the next day He was to be put to death. Did He do it? Not only did the Savior not recognize the superiority He is said to have promised Peter, but He gave altogether a contrary lesson to his apostles, saying to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." (Luke 9:46~48)

And with that, I will bow out of this conversation gracefully

[then what does it mean to be "Catholic?" There are also subspecies involved here.]

Why not use the definition of St Vincent of Lerins (5th century) which is a saint of both churches -

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that
is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall
observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church
throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors
and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

To an orthodox that definition fits Orthodoxy to a 'T'.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

I love St Vincent!!

And this definition would apply to "us" as well.

For by the theological reasoning of BOTH Catholics and Orthodox, the deposit of faith has been delivered once and for all.

To add anything new to them, would be, by the judgement of BOTH Churches, truly heretical.

The Orthodox side believes the RC Church did in fact add "new things" to the faith delivered once and for all (and in this OrthodoxyorDeath is right in his correction of your terminology).

The Catholic side, however, believes that the doctrines define what the Church has always believed, if at least seminally to begin with.

And that I'll let my bishop decide those things over coffee with your bishop, or perhaps at an Ecumenical Council.

But the Seven Ecumenical Councils defined the faith held seminally, but did so introducing terminology that was NEVER in the Scriptures to a large extent.

This point is often used by evangelicals to beat both of us over the head with.

Some even deny the use of the Apostles Creed for that same reason.

And don't get them started on icons . . .

Alex

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Well put and good point to da Ortoman!

But some patriarchs just couldn't help but be like absolute monarchs and this would SEEM to contradict the teaching of Christ as you've quoted - it doesn't only apply to the Pope of Rome.

The Pope of Alexandria, the very first "Pope" was a colossal figure of power and wealth, called the "New Pharaoh" and who had immediate jurisdiction over all of Africa.

So too did the Ecumenical Patriarch at the zenith of the power of the Byzantine Empire.

Then there is the Moscow Patriarch . . .

Caesaropapism isn't limited only to the Roman Caesars and Popes.

Alex

This is an issue where people will have to agree to disagree.

OrthoMan is correct in that we put up with a lot because of our communion with Rome. But sometimes one needs to submit to one's bishop even when he is wrong about some things. It is certainly true that Rome would have preferred to convert us to Roman Catholicism. It is also true that had there not been a union in 1595/1646 there possibly would be no OCA because the Greek Catholic Church of that era could have been abolished. But that is another issue.

In Ukraine today most Greek Catholics do not currently use the term “Orthodox” / “Pravoslavnje”. This is for political, not religious reasons. For many Ukrainians who were brutally persecuted by the Communists the term “Orthodox” meant the same thing as the Communists since the Orthodox Church of that era collaborated with the Communists to persecute Greek Catholics. Rome has insisted that they maintain the term “Orthodox Christian” in the liturgical texts because that is the correct and traditional term. Some Greek Catholics there are good Orthodox Christians in that they do what they want.

One of the ironic things about the Toth schism is that Toth (now St. Alexis) changed absolutely nothing in the liturgy when he switched allegiance from Rome to Moscow. The filioque was purposely retained for many years so as to make the transition as easy as possible. The same thing occurred with the Johnstown break. The Johnstown parish in my hometown used the filioque until the 1970's when they published their own editions of the Slavonic and English liturgicons.

--


An interesting observation. Perhaps a more accurate phrasing of this for an American ear would be “Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome”.


“Roman Catholics in communion with the Orthodox Church of Antioch” would be appropriate (though I would not want to say that three times fast). These people would be catechized primarily by a liturgical tradition that is Roman Catholic (even if there have been a few changes to make it acceptable to their patriarch).


Orthodox can refer to the entire liturgical and doctrinal approach of the Christian Church that matured in Constantinople. I now of no Orthodox who defines his Orthodoxy based upon NOT being in communion with Peter. People like to have everything in a nice, neat, package that is simple to understand. The Church doesn't work that way.

Dear Moose,

You are right - obedience truly is a virtue.

I submit to my wife even when I think she might be a bit harsh and overbearing, expecting too much.

That doesn't mean I want to end my being "in union with her."

Whenever I get a direct order from her, I take solace in muttering "Rome has spoken, the matter is finished."

Now, as for you Orthodox Christians, don't tell me you have it any easier?

Alex

I think I have a headache.

Maybe I'm reverting back to being a devotee of Ste. Therese of Lisieux (as a fifth grader, I read her life and it made great sense to me), but for her, the whole package is simplicity. So, echoing the sainted consumptive: keep it simple.

For me, if someone is baptized, recognizes the body and blood of Christ in communion, loves God and loves one's neighbor, then I'm going to pray with them. What the potentates decide to do is their concern.

(And who dreamed up all this business of jurisdictions and hierarchies, anyways?! Doesn't sound like something Jesus would do. It came and got developed into this whole byzantine structure which we humans now conveniently use to beat the daylights out of each other in the name of Jesus. Isn't this stupid?)

Blessings!

To one and all:

It is extremely satisfying for me, as a Roman Caholic, to be able to witness this on-going civil discussion between Byzantines as it has resulted apparently in relegating the offensive terms "Uniates" and "Uniatism" into the dustbin of history.

As to the propriety of Eastern Catholics, as a group, calling themselves "Orthodox in union with Rome," it seems the Orthodox Forum members likewise find it offensive to their tradition.

So, we are left with the following choices:

1. Greek Catholics;
2. Eastern Catholics;
3. Byzantine Catholics; and
4. Orthodox Catholics.

Nos. 3 and 4 have a nice ring to both and vivify the patrimony of all the East.

But I personally prefer "Orthodox Catholics." (I know I'll be clobbered by Orthoman for this.)

It at once tells who you are and who you have been since antiquity!

(And this exercise, I beg your pardon Dr. John, is not at all stupid.)

AmdG

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

[But I personally prefer "Orthodox Catholics." (I know I'll be clobbered by Orthoman for this.)]

You are right about that! To me thats like a Roman Catholic turning its back on the RCC & the Pope to become a 'Liberal Catholic' or Polish National Catholic and insisting that they are still Roman Catholic. Even though they don't accept all the teachings of the RCC and are not in communion with its earthly ruler..

In my book, if you acknowledge the Pope of Rome as the head of the Christian Church, are in communion with him, and accept and profess the doctrine he upholds and protects, you are a Roman Catholic. It as plain as that.

As long as the Pope still says JUMP and you still say HOW HIGH you are a Roman Catholic in my book!

OrthoMan

I'm Orthodox, your Catholic. I think it is just rude that we can't use the names a particular community has adopted without hyper-analyzing it. I call my sister Irene even when she is not peaceful. I call my cousin Sophia even when she is not wise. I call my boyfriend Christian even when he is not devout.

My faith community goes by the term Orthodox. I am not asking anyone to profess their personal acceptance that we and only we are "orthodox", I just think courtesy starts with addressing indivuduals and communties by their given and accepted name. If we can't do this, I don't think we can say we have any real committment to ecumenism.

Axios