www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine vs. Orthodox

I grew up as an evangelical protestant,and have only been a Roman Catholic for a short time. When received into the church, I was unaware that Orthodoxy teaches much of what I have either always believed, or almost instantly resonates in my heart as truth. Rome came closer than Geneva for sure, but in my view, Constantinople surpasses them both! As a priest said to me, "Nobody can make you Orthodox...you either believe it or you don't."

Although culturally very western,my understanding of the spiritual life recoils from the Augustinian and juridical mindset that pervades western Catholicism. I was shocked to find that my thinking actually does fit in somewhere: half the ancient church believes as I do!

I assume that the primary reason one goes Byzantine rather than Orthodox is to testify to the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop. If this is a false assumption, please correct me, or nuance it so that it emphasizes what you feel is most important.

How are the notions of eastern Christianity and "communion with Peter" harmonized? While the eastern rite and canons differ, disciplines such as the celibate priesthood (in the USA) and annulments to remarry are maintained after the Roman manner.

It just seems that in some ways, Byzantines get the worst of both worlds, rather than the best: the Orthodox seem to view Byzantine Catholics as tragically errant, while the Latins dictate policy to them.

Why should one (such as myself) choose Byzantine Catholicism over Orthodoxy?

I almost feel it would be better to be invited by the Pope to commune with him - as are all Orthodox believers - and politely decline, than to be disinvited as a Catholic because I can't really identify with all of the Roman teachings. My concern is not actually being refused the sacraments, but to receive them with integrity.

by Swanflite (edited 05-12-99).]

[This message has been edited by Swanflite (edited 05-13-99).]

[This message has been edited by Swanflite (edited 05-14-99).]

Hi Swan,

First of all, welcome to the Catholic Church!

The critical thing to keep in mind is that all salvation is effected locally, in your heart, in your parish, in your community. The issues that divide Orthodoxy from Catholicism (Eastern and Western) are complicated and in all likelihood won't be solved soon. They are principally a matter for the hierarchs of both sides to discuss and resolve. For we faithful, we ought to focus on Christ, His love, His redemption and salvation effected through the Trinity in our local parish - whether Roman, Byzantine or Orthodox. If you are more attracted to Eastern spirituality, try a local Eastern Catholic parish (Ruthenian, Melkite, Ukranian, Romanian, whatever) for a change to see what you think.

Having said that, the only reason one could, in good conscience, leave the Catholic communion for the Orthodox Church is if one is firmly convinced, after prayer and reflection, that it is more important to break communion with the Bishop of Rome than to remain in communion with him under the current circumstances. That is to say, only if one is convinced that it is better to sever canonical communion with the Roman See, in light of the current excesses, than to maintain communion with it and work within that framework should one leave for the Orthodox Church.

Why is this? In our Eastern Churches, our practices are the same, our spirituality is the same, our devotional life is the same as in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox have simply made the decision that it is better for them to live outside of communion with the Holy See until such time that the Holy See itself acknowledges acceptable limits on its own power. Eastern Catholics believe, to the contrary, that it is important to retain communion with the Holy See, and work to achieve change within it, from within the Catholic communion. Eastern Catholics have, by quirk of history, a unique opportunity to force issues with the Holy See (to the extent that Eastern Catholic hierarchies seek to do it) and to challenge Latin Catholics about their assumptions, both of which are necessary and useful precursors for fruitful ecumenical dialogue - all in a way that Orthodox cannot do as effectively from outside the Catholic communion. If, after prayer and reflection, one is sincerely convinced that it is better to simply leave and break communion than stay and work for change, then one ought to follow one's conscience. The Catholic Church recognized the legitimacy of this at Balamand, Lebanon in 1993.

But, above all, recognize first that these issues of ecclesiology have very little bearing on the spirituality of the vast, vast majority of believers, Catholic and Orthodox. Christ is met and experienced, the Holy Trinity is lived and experienced, not in the abstract world of ecclesiology and jurisdiction, but in the local parish, which is in every way, fully and completely, "the Church".

Melkite1

Christ is Risen!
swanflite, if I can be so bold as to ask, what part of the Roman Catholic faith do yyou not agree with? I have read several books written by and about Protestants who came to realize the Catholic Church does indeed teach the Bible. Is there something that you know of that Orthodoxy teaches better than Rome? I would like to hear, if you wish to share it.
God bless,
jwash

In response to Jwash's question, I do not at all wish to debate specific points of doctrine. If I did not believe Catholicism was well rooted in scripture, I would not have entered the Roman church. My difficulties are less with particular dogmas, JWash, than with the entire Augustinian and juridical approach to the spiritual life.

While the Roman church has recently moved to soft-pedal the "born guilty" understanding of original sin which it had for about 1500 years, rooted in St. Augustine's understanding of a faulty translation of Romans 5:12 (which referred to Adam..."in WHOM all sinned"), the courtroom approach to salvation which his theology fostered is to this day the Leitmotif of the Western church. Pope John Paul II has written extensively on original sin and revised "the presentation" of the church's teaching, so what I write here in this regard will probably not be disputed by informed Latins.

As Kallistos Ware wrote, Catholics and Protestants answer the same questions in different ways: in Orthodoxy, the questions themselves are different.

So, my real question here is more related to Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholicism, not "East vs. West." Perhaps I am in the wrong forum, but I didn't know where better to post my question I'll be grateful for any feedback on my question.

Swan,
Melkite1 not only stated the informed Eastern Catholic point of view it was also done in the "Eastern" way. Juriticism is not found in the reply and it is all placed within the context of communion and charity. We Eastern Catholics believe we have a special role in uniting the Churches who share everything except a common understanding of the limits of the Petrine ministry. We, Orthodox united with Rome have more "leverage" (if our hierarchs choose to us it) to bring about an authentic understanding of Peter's service within the universal Church. We also have gifts to "soften" much of the residual Augustinianism and Scholasticism in the Roman Church. The life of the Trinity is found in the local parish, the truth is found there and by the Eucharist God's divine life is shared with us there. Eventually, Christ's prayer, "...that all may be one..." will be answered. This prayer has to be answered since it is the prayer of God's beloved Son. We, humans have fought the answer to this prayer for almost a thousand years. But we cannnot frustrate God forever. We work in cooperation with the Lord each according to his/her gifts to bring this Christ willed unity about. Try a Byzantine parish and see what I mean.

[This message has been edited by Batushka (edited 05-13-99).]

Thanks to each of you for responding to my post. Melkite, do I understand you correctly in saying that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as "valid" the notion that one's conscience may require him to leave the Roman communion for Orthodoxy??? I would be very interested in reading the Balamand material: is it, or a summary of this statement, available somewhere online perhaps?

Swan,

I can send you a copy of the entire Balamand declaration by email. The main thrust of it was to renounce proselytization on both parts -- but there were other things contained in it as well, some of them being controversial. Here are the provisions I had in mind when I wrote my earlier post:

"15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue."

AND

"24) It will also be necessary-on the part of both Churches- that the bishops and all those with pastoral reposibilities in the Churches scrupulously respect the religious liberty of the faithful. In turn, the faithful must be able to express themselves for this purpose. In fact, particularly in situations of conflict, religious liberty requires that the faithful should be able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church."

Balamand was a wonderful taste of what we have in store for us ahead when ecumenical dialogue intensifies. It kind of left everyone with a bad taste. Hawks in both the Latin and Orthodox Churches didn't like the admission that noone has a monopoly on salvation, and that both are a part of the "Church". Some Orthodox were ticked that the document said that Eastern Catholics have a legitimate right to exist, whereas some Eastern Catholics were ticked because Balamand explicitly denounced the concept of uniatism as outdated and unacceptable (some Eastern Catholics already believed this, whereas others felt, and feel, differently), and said that the Catholic Church has to work with the Eastern Catholic Churches to prepare them for eventual reunion with the Orthodox (this at a time when Eastern Catholics and Orthodox were literally at each others throats in Eastern Europe). It is this kind of compromise that we will need to see more of as we move forward in ecumenical dialogue -- and it will be gut-wrenching for all involved. But, nevertheless, Balamand makes for interesting reading. I'll send you a copy.

Melkite1

Well, now I'm really confused!

First, when I considered converting to Orthodoxy I decided to wait to make the move until I resolved the question of papal primacy (which I did thanks to a book called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, which contains quotes from Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Patristic sources), so I stayed Catholic. It would actually have made my life a lot easier if I could have become Orthodox!

So, to me the question is, what is the truth? What kind of Church did Christ intend to create? Maybe I misunderstood Melkite1's take on this which seems to assume papal excesses and makes the question whether one can in conscience ally oneself with the Pope.

I also just wanted to comment that the Catholic Church, despite anything individuals may have done and any excesses which may have been reported, has *always* believed in religious liberty, not just since 1991.

Hi Philothea,

I�m sorry if I led to any confusion � that was not my intention. I was trying to point out that, in my personal opinion, the primacy issue, per se, as teed up by the Church of Rome, need not be a reason to decide whether or not one wishes to be Eastern Catholic or Orthodox.

You are correct, of course � the question is, what is the truth. One view, which the one endorsed at Vatican I and Vatican II, and reflected in �Jesus, Peter and the Keys�, is that primacy means direct, universal, supreme jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome (leaving the matter of infallibility aside for the moment). The Melkite Synod in 1995 adopted a statement that reflected a different view � the Synod said that it considered itself in communion with Rome in accordance with the limits recognzed by the Fathers of the East in the period before the separation of East and West. This statement has been criticized by the Vatican (understandably, as it implies a rejection of Vatican I�s definition of �primacy�), but the statement has not been withdrawn, either. This was largely based on the ideas of Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby, and his book �We are all Schismatics!�, in which Bp. Elias rejected the universality of Vatican I and Vatican II, the means in which the Eastern Catholic Churches are �managed� or �supervised� by Rome, and called for a �double communion�. In other words, in his view, and implicit in the statement of the Melkite Synod, one can be an Eastern Catholic and have a different view on the issue of the Primacy. There is therefore, at this time, a difference of opinion, on the episcopal level, as to what the role of Rome ought to be � and this within the Catholic Church.

I fully respect your opinion on the matter of the Primacy, but I do not share it. My starting point is the 1995 Statement of Faith of the Melkite Synod, and the ideas of Bp. Elias. My point in my earlier post was that since Eastern Catholics have the same spirituality as Orthodox, the only reason one would choose to become Orthodox could be ecclesiological � i.e., as you have put it, answering the question �what is the truth� in a way that is at least skeptical of the claims of Vatican I. My opinion, however, is that the analysis has to go one step further than that, because even if one does not believe that Vatican I and Vatican II are universally true (stated outight by Bp. Elias and strongly implied by the Melkite Synod), one need not depart for the Orthodox Church. One can, even if one is convinced of that view, still elect to remain in the Catholic Church, for principled reasons, even if one is convinced that Vatican I and Vatican II are not universally true. That is all I was saying. I regret if I caused any confusion by being too glib in my earlier post.

On the religious liberty issue � I guess the issue comes down to consequences. I agree that the Church has always supported, in theory, religious liberty. However, the teaching was, for a very, very long time, that the exercise of that liberty in certain ways could jeapordize, or even foreclose, one�s salvation. Balamand specifically rejects that type of �conclusion�, by explicitly recognizing the right for individuals to move, one way or the other, and affirming that neither Church has the monopoly on salvation. This was new, for both Churches really, at Balamand.

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate them.

Melkite1

After reading the replys to the orginal poster of this topic, I was most relieved to finally come accross a mention of the Balamand statement. An overlooked statement in this discussion, was Batushka's statement regarding the Eastern Catholic Churche's role in 'uniteing' both halves of the the church, East and West. Does not the Balamand document, with both sides in agreement, denounce this practice of, what the Orthodox call prolytism? This model of using the Uniate church as a 'meeting ground' to bring the Orthodox back into the fold, rejected? I realize that this is a very complex and multi-sphered subject, but we need new models, and from my understanding of the current directions of our present ecuminism, that seems to be what we are after.
I certainly can emphasize with swanfire. I am a Western Catholic, and I also spend time with our local Russian Orthodox community. There certainly is something Holy and sacred to their faith, and I certainly feel that my own spirituality and faith in Christ has been greatly enriched with their tradition.
I am a religius studies major, and this 'ecuminism thing' is of much interest to me, because I preceive in my own life, how both Eastern and Western traditions have togetner, been part of my quest for unity with God. I can therefore, from my most basic exprience, preceive a much greater need for for greater dialogue, benifitting us both.
We also have a Rutherian Byz. mission near by, and it surely is wondrful to receive the hosts in the Eastern litergy.
My question, put simply, is how far is to far, in our actions towards ecuminism, on the laity level? Politicly, as well as theologicly, can a Western Catholic be part of a Byz. Church, and still be sensitive to the current directions of Orthodox/Catholic dialogue?
Peace, and God bless----------Rite 1

The Balamand Statement, as such statements rightly do, adopted some wordings that were deliberately vague on certain matters. The rejection of "uniatism" can be understood by Greek Catholics to mean the actions of the Catholic Church at this time in history is to work for the reconciliation of churches rather than conversions. Ideally, "Church" would mean a reconciliation of the entire Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It leaves unclear what would be the response from the Catholic Church if a portion of Orthodoxy (an autocephalus or autonomous church or an individual eparchy or metropolia) petitioned for intercommunion. It does seem clear that the Catholic Church would not send in missionaries to convert the Orthodox were no initiative came from them.

The basic problem with Balamand and the issue of prosyletizing is that Orthodox and "Uniates" view it in two distinctive ways. In many places where the Orthodox are the "official" church the collapse of communism left a vacuum which the Orthodox church is attempting to fill after years of persecution, destruction of churches, lack of clergy, etc. and view any encroachment as a violation of charity. The problem is that in many places "Uniate" congregations existed along side the Orthodox and over time buildings, etc. exchanged hands several times as geo-political forces swept across the landscape.

So many times "Uniate" churches simply believe they are reclaiming their own buildings where the Orthodox view it as an attempt to convert the Orthodox faithful since they view the Uniates as having western financial backing from Rome not available to them, so old rivalries and jealousies raise their ugly heads. This whole issue is why Pope JP II may never make it to Moscow at least in any official capacity. It's a big tangled mess that only extreme acts of charity on both sides can overcome. The past is not easily forgotten in that part of the world.

Swanlite,

I must agree with Melkite1 first response above about staying within the Church to reform Her.

I, myself, have lots of problems with Latin Church. I fully accept all the Latin's doctrines, disciplines and dogmas. It's the whole "attitude" that I have a problem with. I have problems with many priests who seem to be indifferent, apathetic and self-serving. I have left the Latin Church twice and contemplated in joining Orthodox Church.

I feel that priests being married may make them become better men, christians and priests. So, I'm thinking about Byzantine Catholicism as my church.

I don't have anything against celibacy, which I think it's a GREAT thing. But I feel that priests shouldn't "take it out on people" if they can't get married to have some of their needs to be met. I think there should be an option. I am not saying this because "it's the '90's, its different at this day and age...etc." which I think is a bogus slogan.

My point is, I have a friend who wrote me a letter saying that I should remain Catholic and work to reform the Church rather than leave Her to deteriorate. She stated that Martin Luther was correct that the Church was in need of reform during the Middle Ages. But stated that Luther was very very wrong in leaving the Church. Why would one say that Protestants are "reformers?" The true reformers of the Church are the members who battle to restore the Church. Most saints are the ones who reformed the Church. Also the Council of Trent reformed the Church.

My main point is, I feel that the Orthodox Church is somewhat wrong to not try harder to fight and make some corrections. It is true that the pope excommunicated them. But they accepted it and moved on. They should have fought against the excommunication and sincerely remain Catholics fighting to make Her stay at the "right path." Do you know what I mean? a

I am not pointing fingers at ANYONE at this point because it all happened over 1,000 years ago. And I just wish we would forget and forgive the past. Because we are heading towards a new era now, probably closer to the fulfillment of Jesus' prayer that "all may be one."

I know that these issues are extremely complex. Let's all get on our knees and pray that it will be resolved. And we should help our leaders during the process. We can't just let them do all the dirty work for us becase WE ARE THE CHURCH. We must take part of the efforts too. It would all begin in our hearts, locally then globally.

Please pray for me because I am in a very very difficult battle with the Latin Church's poor priests. I have been hurt. I have so much to offer to the Church, both Eastern and Western. I feel that I have a mission in my life to bring the Eastern and Western Church to harmony. Bringing the Catholic and Orthodox Churches together. I think it's so beautiful to see the Church have variety of churches (byz, latin, etc.) that express the One and Same Faith differently.

So, please DO STAY in the Catholic Church, whatever kind you are. And to help Her become more and more perfect and holy just as Her Spouse, Jesus, is. We should remind everyone that BOTH Orthodox and Catholic Churches do share the same 4 marks: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Peace.
SPDUNDAS

PS I think the best way to bring both Churches together is 3 things: EDUCATION, EDUCATION AND EDUCATION! I guess this forum is one great example!!!!

We, the lay people, must make more efforts to educate the Latins more about the Eastern Churches. Like I do when I make some presentations occassionally in workshops, seminars or even discussion meetings about it. I bring videos, materials and etc. to "show and tell."

Please, folks, write down the recommendations and ideas of what I can do. If there's any materials, information, etc.

Also, I spoke with a programming director at EWTN (for those who don't know what EWTN is, it's Eternal Word Television Network, it's an international Catholic television network, broadcasting 24 hours a day via satellite or cable. And is founded by Mother M. Angelica in the Poor Clare Nun monastery in Birmingham Alabama.) about needing to have somebody in the Eastern Church to host a show about Eastern Church spirituality, faith, or any topics about the Eastern Church which a host wishes to share. Do you know anybody who would be interested in doing that? I wouldn't be good because I am illiterate in those areas. Because, after all, the Catholic Church is one Church, yes? So why not show people there's variety of churches within Her? I've been there few times and was in an audience with Mother Angelica Live and one of her guests was a Byzantine Catholic BISHOP! Of course one appearance isn't enough to tell the world about it. But it was good though.

Please let me know by e-mailing me at
spdundas@aol.com

Thank you.

Dear SPDundas,
I appreciate your thoughts on staying in the church to reform it. Were I a cradle Catholic, with deep family and cultural ties to the Roman church, or a passion for its reformation, perhaps such a crusade would be appropriate for me. However, I am in no condition, spiritually speaking, to be banging my head against a brick wall in the hope of reshaping it. Having said this, it is surprising even to me the degree to which Catholicism grew on me during the year in which I received its sacraments.

I have not yet come to the point where I am ready to commit with finality to Orthodoxy (in receiving chrismation), but I now feel past the point where I can commune in a Latin church...nor can I receive in a Byzantine church, knowing that regardless of how well Papal supremacy is argued, I can't buy it.

It is a hard place to be...I do miss my Lord's body and blood, as well as the sacrament of confession.

Are there any Orthodox websites that are as good as this one, in terms of an informed exchange of ideas? I seem to have hit on some extremists, as well as the church directory type sites...but haven't found a real discussion site. I'd appreciate anyone's help in this regard.

Swanflite,

Have you tried the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese site (http://chat.goarch.org/scripts/chat.dll)? But I personally think this form is much better.

I have an appreciation of your dilemma, myself moving from the Episcopal Church to Orthodoxy (chrismation on June 29). Not only could I not stay to help reform the ECUSA from within, but my attraction to the Eastern rites negates my desire to do so.

On the other hand, leaving is never an easy thing. I would agree with Melkite1 who rightly places the struggle back at the local, faith community level. My own switch is a response to my local faith surroundings, both Episcopal and Orthodox (no local Byzantine Catholic alternative). Are you sure that you would be so out of step with your local Byzantine Catholic community? My impression of the breadth of opinion expressed in this forum is that there's likely to be enough "give" on even this important issue for you to take communion with integrity.