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

OrthoMan,

So are you suggesting that the Byzantine (and other Eastern Christian) liturgical and doctrinal tradition does not make up the primary core of Orthodoxy? Is Orthodoxy simply a static thing, defined once and for all by the Seven Councils with no way to face the challenges of presenting the Gospel in the modern world?

Moose

Alex, you are most correct.

It was once decided by the flock who would be their bishop, but not anymore.

All of these exalted titles: Archbishops, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, Super Monk, Metropolitan, Over-exhalted Metropolitan, ect, are titles invented by men to distinguish unique roles. But they have been somewhat twisted and have become vested with some of the the same papal intrigues.

In addition, and along the same lines, are the Patriarchates. Most of them fall in the same category which the Orthodox account the history of old Rome - that is, they have lost their importance and splendor, and are just honorary. Honorary in the same way like humor them.

The Lord vested the offices of High Priest and Priest with Holy Charisma and never gave it to a city.

Personally, I do not understand why so many Eastern Catholics consider the term Uniate offensive? After all, were we not brought back to the Catholic Church through the unia, should we be ashamed of the unia as something bad (Which, in turn, would actually mean that we are ashamed of being Greek Catholics) Or should we rejoice in the fact that we are in union with the Pope and Rome through this very unia?

Let us also remember that the term "Christian" was originally developed as a derogitory slander towards followers of Christ in the first century. Yes, I admit that I am a Uniate and proud f it regardless of the fact that Orthodox deem to use it in a degrading manner. I know that such pride in the Unia will cause the revisionist historians and ecumaniacs of our age to cringe in both disgust and anger. But
This name, I feel, should be born proudly as it was by our ancestors in faith who proclaimed themselves as Greco-Uniates.

AS to the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" being decieving, so what I ask? That is what we Uniates consider ourselves to be and it is our buisness as to what we choose to define ourselves as. Besides, I think the Orthodox have topped us in the past with such names as that belonging to the OCA before 1979, "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church". Talk about a deceptive name, How can a person be both Russian Orthodox as well as Greek Catholic?

Could this name have just been used to make former Uniates feel more comfortable in Orthodoxy by making them think that they were still somehow Greek Catholics?

Robert K.

[So are you suggesting that the Byzantine (and other Eastern Christian) liturgical and doctrinal tradition does not make up the primary core of Orthodoxy?]

You apparently missed my whole point. Reread what I said. Orthodoxy is made up of both DOCTRINAL and Liturgical tradition. IN THAT ORDER. It is through our Liturgical traditions that we express out doctrinal traditions.
Your doctrinal tradition as a Greek Catholic is no longer purely Byzantine. It is now a mixture of Byzantine and Latin Roman Catholicism. Your Liturgical traditions are some what similiar to ours but have been modified some what. You are now the off spring of a mixed union. You are no longer one nor the other. You are a mixture of both. Example: Having more than one Liturgy a day on the same Altar. Being able to eat up to an hour before receiving Communion, etc. But you still recognize the Pope as your earthly father. But, for some reason, refuse to accept the identity (last name) he is known by.

In most cultures you take your fathers last name even though you may be the off spring of a multinational union.

My background is of Lemko, Polish, and Croation grandparents. Since I am a mixture I identify my nationality thru the ruling authority I recognize and uphold. Which is the American government and its highest authority...the president. That makes me an American.

As far as religion is concerned I have already, on many occassions explained why I classify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.

That is why I have a hard time understanding how you can recognize the Pope as your religious father and highest authority in your church and then refuse to take his last name or the identity he is most known by.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman:

Most people in the world just refer to the Pope as "Catholic".

They also refer to his followers as just "Catholic".

Even when wrong-hearted people wish to defame the Roman Church, they still just refer to it as "Catholic".

Just my 2 cents.


defreitas

Christ is Risen!


Actually some Eastern Orthodox Christians might take offense at the term Orthodox Catholics because the full name of the Orthodox Church translated into English Is:

The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church

the various ancient Patriarchates of the East also used similar forms in their formal names:

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Jesrualem

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria


Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

OrthoMan writes above: "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."

I've got a problem with that because it presupposes that the Church is a top-down entity. Where did this come from? Christ always talked about feeding His sheep, and he was always working with the ordinary folks and not the mucky-mucks. I always start with the people, the simple ordinary good folks who ARE the Church.

It is my contention that if the members of the various Catholic, Byzantine and Orthodox (and Oriental) parishes spent time with each other, engaging in the so-called corporal and spiritual works of mercy, all the hierarchical stuff would fade into obscurity. Is this not what we oftentimes hear from Orthodoxy: it is the local parishes and their bishops that are the essence of Orthodoxy? It is not some "Pope-topped" religious entity, but rather a type of federation of those with the same faith heritage (somewhat broadly interpreted - Greek-Ukrainian-Serbian-Arab, etc.) and sharing the same liturgical/sacramental life.

Yet, it appears that in terms of Byzantines (Eastern in heritage and mindset -- including the much maligned correlation with nationalism/ethnicity), we are not allowed to be considered as "Orthodox", because we are tarred with the Roman brush of hierarchization. I.e., the "Roman Model" of Pope at the top and everybody else being subservient is being placed on Byzantine (and other Eastern Catholics), and whether we like it (or LIVE it) or not, or are in the process of re-discovering and re-claiming our identity, we are being told by some Orthodoxes that because we are "in communion with Rome" we are automatically Roman Catholics (and are told that because of our 'status', we are obligated to this, that or the other thing.)

I find this both a cutesy cow-towing to the New York TIMES' understanding of Byzantines (i.e., "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite" that's it - no questions!) as well as an irrational and total failure to attempt to understand what we, by right, are, even when we ask for understanding.

These Orthodoxes are not bothering to listen to US Eastern Catholics, especially as we recover from the misinterpretation of our identity, and attempt to recover what we truly should be. It is as if we are climbing out of a hole of past pain and subjugation; and some in our Orthodox family, rather than reaching out to grab our hands and help us out, stomp their feet upon our handholds and kick us back into the hole.

And, --I'll be more than blunt here -- this treatment is oftentimes more likely to happen from newcomers to Orthodoxy than from our blood/marriage relatives. Why is it that the most "Orthodox" and anti-Catholic or anti-Byzantine internet boards are primarily populated by the non-cradles? Is this a mere coincidence? While the cradles are more likely to consider the 'nashi' component and are willing to just "be" with their brethren, some of the newly-converted seem to revel so much in their new-found faith, that they go into attack mode against anybody and everybody else who is not in their particular mind-set. It drives me crazy.)


Let's face it: the neo-HyperOrthodox have already abandoned their heritages. They've got nothing else to lose. The cradles have a lot more to 'lose' in engaging in interjurisdictional strife: one could lose one's family if one were being hyper-jurisdictional. Some choose this route; most do not.

Sometimes I wish that we were still speaking Greek, Ukrainian, 'po nashemu', or Arabic so that we didn't have to deal with this neo-hyper-Orthodoxy. We'd be dealing with people who didn't "assume an Orthodox role", but rather have an innate understanding - in their bones! - of what "belonging" to Orthodoxy means.

I know that this would doom our churches to miniscule 'ethnic' entities, but at least it would save us from the lunacy of the neo-hyperOrthodox.

OrthoMan notes that it is both doctrinal and liturgical elements that constitute Orthodoxy. I will agree, but I would subordinate BOTH of these elements to the sense of 'ekklesia' which is the true touchstone of the Church. One can doctrine and liturgize out the ears, but it is the self-incorporation into the ongoing apostolic community that constitutes membership in Orthodoxy (or REAL Catholicism).

Byzantine Catholics, familially and organically evolved from the heritage of Constantinople, are closer to the true Orthodox 'ekklesia' than the wanna-bees who have all the books and who assume the roles but who don't have the "dushij" that the true Orthodox have. And when someone (especially a newbie) castigates another part of the family, then it demonstrates that he/she does NOT share the faith that is at the familial and ecclesial core of Orthodox Christianity.

Lord, have mercy upon us all.

Blessings!

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

It seems to me that all of the Traditionalist Orthodox groups came from the old country, not from here. And the ones that are here are filled with mostly "cradles", at least the Greek Traditionalists.

It is groups like the OCA who are filled with converts, in fact, half of the heirarchy are converts.

But if one wants to start stereotyping new converts as being zealous for the faith or that most who are zealous for the faith are converts, that is a strawman in it's most raw form.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear Friends,

How wonderful we're keeping this discussion on a civil level without sacrificing anything of the passionate aspects!!

Officially, Eastern Catholic Churches have indeed taken the name "Orthodox Catholic" in the sense used by St Peter Mohyla, especially in his Catechism.

Mohyla's Catechism was considered a statement of Byzantine Catholicism as well and so was often used by our forefathers.

The term "Roman Catholic," like "Orthodoxy" can mean different things at different times to different people, including Roman Catholics.

In England, for example, during the time of the Catholic persecutions, "Roman Catholic" was never used but "English Catholic" and this latter term is still used by their College at Rome.

"Roman Catholic" is really an invention of the Protestant Reformation since the Protestants insisted on being originally called "Reformed Catholics."

Add to this the fact that the West was NEVER a homogeneous monolith, but had other Churches and Rites and we are left with a "Johnny come lately" with respect to this term. (No offense Dr. John ).

The fact is that both East and West have used BOTH terms - and still do.

I would argue that the fact that the Latin West used "Orthodox" for years before the Schism and that it was first coined in response to the teaching of a Pope of Rome, Leo, that this means the West is entitled to use it as well.

Even if one could argue, and one could, that Eastern Catholics have "gone over" to the Latin West with its innovations etc., the fact that the Latin Church maintains a tradition of using the term "Orthodox" could also justify Eastern Catholics using it as well, and not only based on their Byzantine patrimony.

Again, this term is also used by the Pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox.

It is used by some competing Orthodox jurisdictions who regard themselves as "Orthodox" but not other "Orthodox" jurisdictions.

And the Pope regularly prays for all Catholics who "teach the Orthodox Faith."

There is not one usage of "Orthodox" within Orthodoxy as there is not one usage of "Catholic" given all the Protestant groups who use this term as well.

I also know a number of Orthodox who would NEVER call themselves Catholics or use "Orthodox" in conjunction with a term they regard as a reference to Western Catholics only.

And the Assyrian Church of the East always refers to itself as "Catholic" but not "Orthodox."

And I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the popular interpretation of "Orthodox Catholic" would be, more times than not, "An Eastern Christian who believes in the Pope."

Even my Orthodox friends interpreted this term in that way yesterday during a straw poll!

But for me, an important contribution to this discussion is made by the late Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan, Hilarion Ohienko, no friend to Eastern Catholics.

He wrote about a number of great Ukrainian Orthodox leaders, some of whom came back to the Orthodox Church from "Uniatism."

He wrote that the "Uniates" were always "Orthodox" in heart and maintained, for the most part, their ancient traditions. This is why large numbers, when the time was ripe, returned to their ancestral home.

Latinization, he said, destroyd their sense of Eastern Christian, East Slavic identity ("Rusin") and so led to catastrophe for our Church and people.

And this happened, according to him, when the "Uniates" forgot that, underneath it all, they were Orthodox in spirituality and outlook.

When they forgot that, all hope of their reconciliation with the Orthodox Church was lost.

Alex

Alex, Moose,

I understand what you are saying, this goes with the Bible Study aids too.

I guess it is just the last vestiges of my Roman mindset clinging on for dear life.

I'd like to think that I have come a long way as a Byzantine (Orthodox) Catholic, but I am not all the way there yet.


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear David,

Just remember your patron, St David, King and Prophet.

You should consider your rosary your "sling" by which you destroy the spiritual Goliath!!

And what did that have to do with what we were talking about . . .

Who cares? I was moved to say that!

Alex

Subdeacon Thomas hits the proverbial nail on the head. The issue is that both Churches claim the used of the terms “Catholic” and “Orthodox”. I don't have a problem with this because I think this is correct since there is very little which separates the two Churches. If the Eastern Orthodox Church at Antioch” chooses the term “The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch” then it should not be surprised when their brothers and sisters in the West insist on the correctness of the title: “The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Rome”. It's just one of those things we have to live with and respectfully allow each Church to choose the name it wants to go by.

--

Just for fun!

In my part of the world there are dozens of parishes that identify themselves as “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic”. The title indicates that they were Greek Catholics who entered communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. They maintain the historic liturgy and theology of the Greek Catholic Church (which is that of the Great Church at Constantinople with a little cabbage thrown in for good taste).

I have many friends and relatives who belong to these parishes and without exception the people over 50 identify themselves as either “Greek Catholic” or “Orthodox Greek Catholic”.

I do understand what Dr. John is saying. I don't think it is the zealousness of converts that he has issue with (they often put us cradles to shame). It is the need of some converts to convince themselves not only that their new-found faith is true that the was absolutely no truth in their old faith. Protestant converts to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy sometimes become so anti-Protestant that they forget that they should concentrating on living their new faith rather than condemning their old one. One can also see it in some converts from Protestantism or Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Just look at some of the Orthodox lists in which people use their hatred of Rome as a way of proving their Orthodoxy. [The motto of one of those lists could actually be “Shoot a Uniate for Christ”]. My guess is that the most rabid anti-Catholic among them will eventually become Catholic.

Dear Moose,

Good points!

But when did the Roman Patriarchate ever take the title you suggest? Just wondering, never heard of it before.

Yes, "Orthodox Greek Catholic."

However, at the time, "Greek Catholic" actually meant that one was "Orthodox!"

This term had two meanings, one that one was an Eastern Catholic of the "Greek Rite" as you said, and the other that one was Orthodox, at least at the beginning of this century.

The Ukrainians up here were "Greek Catholics" when they arrived in Canada, but became "Greek Orthodox" when they became Orthodox - although initially not in canonical unity with Orthodoxy until they came into union with Constantinople some years back.

During the arguments over the Unia in the 17th century, documents showed that "Latin Rule" meant "Roman Catholic" and "Greek Rule" meant "Orthodox."

Again, what this all shows is how fluid the usages and meanings of terms really are over history and according to what one is intending to say.

I can tell you that most Ukie Catholics would be unwilling to use "Orthodox" as this term, for them, means "descendants of former Catholics who are in schism from the one True Church."

Alex

He wrote about a number of great Ukrainian Orthodox leaders, some of whom came
back to the Orthodox Church from "Uniatism."

He wrote that the "Uniates" were always "Orthodox" in heart and maintained, for the
most part, their ancient traditions. This is why large numbers, when the time was ripe,
returned to their ancestral home.
[Latinization, he said, destroyd their sense of Eastern Christian, East Slavic identity ("Rusin") and so led to catastrophe for our Church and people.
And this happened, according to him, when the "Uniates" forgot that, underneath it all, they were Orthodox in spirituality and outlook.]

Hey Alex:

I thought we were going to us the 'U' word anymore! Even if it contained within a quote.
Please modify your post accordingly.

OrthoMan
(the self appointed Orthodox Catholic moderator)