www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is the BCC Roman Catholic?

Dear Friends,

This topic is, of course, related to the topic "Where is the Catholic Church?" elsewhere on the Forum.

In the crypt of St. George's Cathedral in Lviv, Ukraine lie the mortal remains of Metr. Andrew Sheptytsky and his protege, Josyf Cardinal Slipyj. IMHO, whether you are Catholic at all depends on how close your heart, mind and soul are to these confessors of the faith.

As to the question, I think of myself as a Catholic, but not Roman. I understand that the origin of the term is from the reformation in England, as a pejorative reference to the "Papists", so I do not use the term Roman Catholic in general conversation. I like the term "Greek Catholic" but Americans will not understand that, thinking only in national origin terms.
But there are other questions, not spelled out, that must be faced.

Are we seeking institutional unity?
Bureaucratic obedience?
Liturgical purity?
Doctrinal purity?

Or are we to proclaim the Lord's Gospel in the face of evil?

The real question should be: Are you a Lviv Catholic?

Is anyone in Rome a Lviv Catholic?
Are there any Orthodox who are Lviv Catholics?

WE ARE The Catholic Church!!!!

Just a few provocative pokes at the hornets nest.

Have a Blessed Day!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Universal Uniate True Believer

I see we have slightly changed the topic. So let me add my opinion.
To me the Catholic Church is only truly found in the Vatican communion of churches. Meaning the Roman Catholic Church and all the other Churches in communion w/ her.
I do not accept the eastern orthodox claims as being legitmatly Catholic. To me, only those in communion w/ the pope form the complete Truth. The orthodox have a partial truth, b/c they do not accept the papacy at all right now. Of course their position is that the papacy has changed and they will only recognize it when the pope dismisses his primacy over the entire univrsal church. If you do not accept the current papacy, tough, too bad so sad, your not Catholic. I mean even the more heretical protestants (ie Anglicans) also call themselves Catholic, but they have even less claim to the Truth, what w/ their bishopettes and other errors. I see it this way, any non-Catholic can state "I'm Catholic", but they are not, they just say they are. So just b/c a group says they are Catholic it does not make them so. As a Roman Catholic I cannot and will not accept the claims of Catholicity of any church that is currently outside our communion. There can only be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and it is found in the Roman and Eastern rites of the Catholic Church only. Any other churches should state they are universal churches, w/ no legitimate claim to the continuation of the One church founded by Christ. To me, the continuation of Christ church is found in Catholicism alone, not in Orthodoxy and certainly not protestantism. The eastern orthodox can trace their churches to Christ, but since they deny the current papacy they lack the complete truth and are in heresy. Does this make them heretical? Probably, one should decide for themselves. Many EO churches say the RCC and her sister churches are heretical, but our Catholic Churches should not feel offended, but rather feel comfortable in the knowledge that they belong to the Complete Truth of Christs Church. Thats my opinion, and my intention is not to offend. But again this is a Catholic forum where everyone is welcome, but Catholic views should be supported before others.

God Bless You All

ProCatholico

Luckily, ProCatholico does not speak for Catholicism since his post is wrong. The Catholic Church does consider the Orthodox Churches to be fully Catholic, even though they are not in full communion with us at the present time. BTW, from the Catholic perspective, it is not the Roman Catholic Church itself which is the measuring stick of who is Catholic. It is the person of Peter.

Thanks for your (which differs from ours) explanation of Catholicism.

Bill

Catholic and Orthodox Christian in communion with the Orthodox and Catholic Christian See of New Rome/Constantinople.

"Where Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." --St.Ignatios of Antioch (Of the See of St.Peter).

[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-18-2001).]

In a word: NO. It takes time to recover that which was lost for a period, leading to confusion and contradictions in the meantime.

Pax Christi,
John

ProCatolico:

I suggest if you are an honest person you will go and read Ut Unum Sint RIGHT NOW. It's available for free on www.ewtn.com [ewtn.com] Follow that up with a reading of the Balamand Agreement (much shorter), also available online.

Now I don't consider every word out of the Pope's mouth infallible, but since you are speaking like such an ultramontane, I'd suggest you pay CLOSE attention to how your Point of View is NOT Catholic!!

"11.2 Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

"11.3 To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communites, THE ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS EFFECTIVELY PRESENT IN THEM.

"12.2 The Council's Decree on Ecumenism, referring to the Orthodox Churches, went so far as to declare that "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, THE CHURCH OF GOD IS BUILT UP AND GROWS IN STATURE." Truth demands that all this be recognized. (quote from Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism _Unitatis Redintegratio_)

If you do not agree with Pope JP II and the Vatican II COuncil, please admit that then this is your personal opinion, not the Catholic position.

anastasios

Vatican II recognized only two churches. The Catholic and Orthodox both can claim apostolic succession. Hopefully in the future, those two churches will be fully in communion with each other.

[This message has been edited by Iohannes (edited 08-19-2001).]

>>>Vatican II recognized only two churches. The Catholic and Orthodox both can claim apostolic succession. Hopefully in the future, those two
churches will be fully in communion with each other.<<<

It also recognizes the Oriental Orthodox Churches (formerly known as the heretical monophysites) and the Church of the East (formerly known as the heretical Nestorians). It now recognizes them has professing the same faith as the Catholic Church, the 1500-year separation being based largely on linguistic misunderstandings ("Sorry about the schism, boss".). Ironically, both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to reunion with these two ancient Churches than they are with each other. How interesting life will be if for some reason, both Rome and Constantinople establish formal ecclesial communion with either the Assyrian Church of the East or the Armenian Apostolic Church before they do with each other.

Not to mention recognizing the validity of the orders of the Polish National Catholic Church and some of the Old Catholic Churches.

Quote

Ironically, both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to reunion with these two ancient Churches than they are with each other. How interesting life will be if for some reason, both Rome and Constantinople establish formal ecclesial communion with either the Assyrian Church of the East or the Armenian Apostolic Church before they do with each other.

That is an intriguing idea...

Pax Christi,
John

Deo Gratias!

To All those who disagree w/ me,

I have clearly stated that the EO churches can trace their churches, back to Christ, therefore they have the true apostolic succession and valid orders. And anastasios, yes I've read "Ut Unum Sint" and the Balamand Agreement, but have you read "Dominus Iesus"?

It states:
17.Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in
the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the
Bishops in communion with him.[58] The Churches which, while not
existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to
her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and
a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.[59] Therefore, the
Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even
though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do
not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the
will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the
entire Church.[60]

This means they (EO) are in fact true churches, just not fully and in my opinion truly Catholic. So my problem w/ Orthodoxy is their refusal to accept the current papacy as is. That is why our churches have no intercommunion. The RCC teaches that the EO churches have left the Roman Catholic communion (And no one tell me that the RCC teaches that she left Orthodoxy!) I mean many Old Catholic churches are in the same boat as Orthdoxy, w/ valid orders and sacraments, but they also do not follow the pope. That does not make them false churches, yet positions on the present-day papcy are flawed and in grave error. In closing, I see the EO churches as the closest cousins to Catholicism, and vice versa. The SINGLE Church of Christ not only subsists in the Catholic Church but is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church therefore is made up of only those churches which are in communion w/ the Holy Father and his fellow bishops.

ProCatholico

I don't see, after all of this reading, how one can deny, short of playing a legalistic game with the Canons of the Latin Church, that the Byzantine Church is anything but LATIN theologically. I see so much speculation and attempt on the part of BC's to reclaim their theolgical heritage while remaining completely within the Latin communion (whose entire being, the Orthodox would say, has been compromised for at least 1000yrs) . What does communion mean if not theolgical agreement, and what are the Latin developments if not exactly that. This is a game I tried very hard to play for three years, only to discover that my canonically allowed "theological speculation" had left me utterly un-Latin. Of course, I still fulfilled the required letter of the law and gave intellectual assent to the dogmas of papal infallibility, immaculate conception and the like, but "privately" I had abandoned all of these. Of course, as with most of you, it all began with the Byzantine Liturgy and Eastern spirituality...practice of the Jesus Prayer, longing for prayer of the heart, etc. But what does "orthodox" mean if not correct praise...what is the point if our theology does not have practical devotional implications? We split hairs over and over again insisting that we can adopt all of these Eastern "externals" while remaining substantially latin, when the whole point of these "externals" is that they are the product of a theology and ecclesiology utterly foreign to the scholastic west. What we find in romancing the East from the within the west is a tantalizing goal that we can never obtain from that position. To truly adopt the practices of the Eastern Church, one must simultaneously reject the theology of the Western Church. To adopt the externals only is to betray the development of those externals. We become Protestants insisting, with no knowledge or care of how they received the Sacred Scriptures, that they are the key to salvation. To acknowledge the table of contents of the Bible is to acknowledge the Fathers, the Councils, and the authority of the Church acting in history. To adopt methods of hesychasm, Orthodox devotions to the Theotokos, an Orthodox understanding of monasticism, etc. is, simply put, to reject the Latin approaches to these things, which, historically, represent very different perspectives. My only solace was to become fully Eastern...to become Orthodox. When I finally decided to become Orthodox, for the first time since my interest in the East I felt myself calm, as if a constant struggle within me had finally abated. I encourage all of you who have begun this journey not to stop so close to the end.

I realize that this post will incite anger and distasteful replies, and, in fact, for that reason I almost didn't post at all. My only intention is to relate the completion I discovered in taking the next and final logical step from the point where many of you are. Forgive me for any impropriety, and take everything I have said as coming from one who knows little but says much. I am a sinner,

jonah

I suppose it's only fair to give the Eastern Catholics here a chance to respond first, but this comment here I cannot resist. You are aware of course that there is no such thing as an Eastern Orthodox Canon of Scripture. There is a Russian/Slavic canon and a Greek canon, both of which differ. Which one is the correct canon based on this "authority" you speak of?

Pax Christi,
John

The concept of authority in the Church is independent of the details of canon...the point was as analogy, and, at least from the Latin perspective makes concrete since as there is but one canon. If your goal is to parce every sentence of my post in an attempt to corrupt the point, I'm sure you will be successful...regardless of which local canon within Orthodoxy, its establishment occurred through the medium of the holy synods. In the context of the analogy, the point was made for the sake of Protestants who, obviously, are indirectly giving credence to the Council of Carthage (383). As the point was tangential to the Orthodox Canon(s), I don't exactly see the relevance of the response.

Forgive me.

jonah- sinner

I believe the only difference is the Fourth Book of Maccabees and that difference is certainly not a critical issue for the Orthodox, who like many cultures of the East, Christian and non-Christian, have a tolerance for ambiguity which might not appeal to those of the West.

I believe those of us of the Orthodox East actually thrive on a bit of institutional chaos. That Orthodox characteristic has historically protected us, not from authority, but from authoritarianism.

We do a great disservice to ourselves and our interlocutors when we argue from the mindset of the West on issues of authority or any other issue; we should stop justifying ourselves for being...well...ourselves and differing philosophically from the West, which has its own great tradition.

However, we are not complete "anarchists," and converts to Orthodoxy (since we are on the subject of Scripture and authority), do take a solemn oath to, "...accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother."

Bill




[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-20-2001).]