www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Dear JW10361,

It is nice to wake up to a blessing!

Thank you, and I pray for God's blessings upon you too!

I am glad that I was able to verbalize some of your feelings, but that doesn't mean that you should post less...on the contrary, your thoughts and feelings are very important here!

Wishing you every blessing for the rest of Lent,
Alice

Diak, this quote is refering to Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. It is not refering to Orthodox Christians.

Okay, but Vatican II reaffirmed Vatican I's dogma that the pope enjoys full and immediate jurisdiction over all churches of any rite.

Dear sister Alice,

You wrote:

Absolutely correct. That was when Rome held the Orthodox Faith. Rome was a great witness against the heresies developing in the East. By God's grace, Rome and the Orthodox East prevailed.

Sorry Alice, I have to disagree with you. Rome and much of the Churches in the West began to accept the pope's claim to immediate jurisdiction over the western Churches. Both were not "equally culpable" during this time. Would you ever say that Orthodox and Arians were "equally culpable" because the Arians held an incorrect belief? Of course not! Henry VIII broke from Rome. So, according to your statement, why isn't Rome culpable in this situation? Why can't protestant churches be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I wish we were all one also Alice, but it is not reality.

As I stated before, God's Grace can work in any church, pagan, sinner, etc, etc. God can work miracles in Protestants too. Are they, because of this, part of the one Church?

That is not what I am saying. Protestants have fallen further from the Truth than Catholics. That is clearly obvious.

This is the Catholic position. It is not the Orthodox position. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church believe that her own Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Church stops there. But the Catholic Church goes forward and claims that the Eucharist is truly present, etc in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, does not say so categorically.

Orthodox believe that Catholics, protestants, etc can be saved and that God's Grace can work in their lives. However, they do not enjoy and participate in the fullness of Christian Truth.

I am not sure. Whatever Grace was lacking was perfected when I was Chrismated as an Orthodox Christian.

Concerning the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church takes, for the most part, an agnostic approach to this. Personally speaking, I believe that God gives His Grace to those who partake in the Mass/Eastern Liturgy with a pure and contrite heart. I don't believe, however, that Christ's Body and Blood is truly present. It is nothing personal against Catholics or anyone on this forum. I was once Catholic. I am grateful for my time as a Catholic and I believe that God shared His Grace with me.

Greg

One other thing:

If so many people here believe that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are One, then why don't you just become Orthodox?

If people here are so sick of Rome's intervention, then just become Orthodox. Once Orthodox, just pray for reconcilation and live out your lives within the Orthodox Church where you feel most comfortable anyways.

How does current union with Rome enrich your spiritual lives and allows your bishops to govern in freedom within an eastern tradition?

It seems to me that people here spend so much time rationalizing why they don't have to accept Rome's teachings rather than embracing her teachings.

Greg

Gregory, I am not denying that part of what I quoted pertains to those in communion with Rome. But and clearly do apply also to our Orthodox brethren not in full communion with Rome, and this is clear and strong language.

Vatican I happened, no one will deny that. But as the present Pope himself has stated the nature of the ministry of the Petrine Office has developed since Vatican II and will continue to develop. The Pope has said repeatedly the Creed without the Filioque just as one sign of his good will.

I see signs of metanoia coming from Rome with respect to her treatment and understanding of the East. A document like Oreintale Lumen at the time of Pio Nono would have been unheard of.

I hope and pray the Orthodox East will also in humility and charity also look inward and see where she can also engage in this charitable pilgrimage.

But since Orthodoxy is not one and all are not in communion with each other (i.e. don't share the same faith, hence the lack of communion) this will only happen one soul at a time, one person at a time asking mutual forgiveness of each other.

May we all pray for the eventual full communion of our churches, which with enough love and charity on both sides can occur.

I want to comment on something.

First of all, it is difficult in many cases to make a statement like "the Orthodox believe..." unless one is referring to statements of Faith in the Seven Ecumenical Councils and things of that nature.

But as far as grace outside the Orthodox Church, and validity of Catholic sacraments, there simply is not one Orthodox position on this.

I know at one time (I hope it's still there) on the Moscow Patriarchate website that they state very clearly that it has always been the position of their Patriarchate that the Catholics have Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments. I know from my Romanian Orthodox friends that the Romanian Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church has valid sacraments. I also know that the Antiochian Orthodox believe the sacraments of the Catholic Church are valid. The MP and Romanian Orthodox are the two largest Orthodox jurisdictions in the world, by the way.
As far as the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches goes, the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Orthodox all believe the Catholics have valid sacraments.
And concerning the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, perhaps Alice could shed some light on this, I would venture to say that it is at least a widespread opinion in that jurisdiction that the Catholics have valid sacraments.

Dear Greg,

Well, I guess I asked for it when I opened this thread .

Yes, EC's can get upset over Rome.

But if Rome is willing to sacrifice the UGCC for better relations with Orthodoxy, the ROC in particular, does it make sense for the Ukies to become Orthodox when Rome's choosing the Orthodox over them IS the reason they're upset with Rome?

If the political/jurisdictional squabble is the basis for a return to Orthodoxy i.e. because the Ukies feel offended by Rome - to whom should we go in Orthodoxy?

To the Moscow Patriarchate? Somehow I don't think so . . .

To the EP's loving embrace? Hmmm . . . nada . . .

To the Ukrainian Orthodox churches that are not recognized as canonical by world Orthodoxy?

If anything, Orthodoxy fares much worse on these points than Rome.

Perhaps we should join with the Oriental Churches.

They don't just have Patriarchates - they have Catholicosates with universal jurisdictions!

As for being called "heretics," we Ukies are used to that.

As one Ukrainian bishop once wrote St Yuri Konissky of Belarus - "When they get angry at us in debate, Brother, the Poles call us (Greek-Catholics) "schismatics" just like they do you."

Sigh . . .

Alex

Shlomo Gregory,
To answer your question: "If so many people here believe that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are One, then why don't you just become Orthodox?"

Well for me and many other Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the fullness of Liturgical Tradition. To us they are just the mirror image of Romans. I believe that Eastern Orthodox are part of the True Church, but I will never give up my Antiochene-Edessan Liturgical Traditions, just as the Armenians would not give up theirs, or the Alexandrians give up theirs.

The Catholic Communion of Churches is the only place that all five major traditions are practiced in unity. No other Apostolic union of Churches can claim that.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

How can we become what we already are?

How does it make sense to exchange the wound of not being in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy for the wound of not being in communion with Rome? That would be like moving a wound from the right hand to the left hand.

Because of our current status we live with the clear knowledge of the wound of separation. Most in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have gotten used to the wound of separation. This does not mean that the wound is healed. The wound cannot heal except through mutual repentance of sin, fraternal embracement, forgiveness, dialogue and eventual restoration of full communion.

Orthodoxy does not equal liturgical rite. Orthodoxy equals right belief. By being in communion with Rome, you therefore accept teachings (papal infallibility, etc.) that are not accepted by Orthodox. Therefore, YOU ARE NOT ORTHODOX! Stop pretending you are Orthodox or that you share the same Faith as Orthodox.

This sounds nice on a Hallmark card, but it is not reality. Yes, we should pray for the restoration of all of Christendom. But to say that "both sides" are equally at fault is nonsense.

Again, Faith is what matters, not liturgical rite. You are equating theological Truth with liturgical practice alone. I would rather worship within the Latin rite that holds right belief then worship within an eastern rite that embraces heresy.

Why do you believe this when your own Catholic Church does not?

Greg

I never suggested that Orthodoxy equals liturgical rite. Orthodoxy does equal right belief. The part of Orthodoxy that is not in full communion with Rome is almost perfectly Orthodox but is missing a few important things. Communion with Rome is the crown and touchstone of Orthodoxy.

Actually it is the reality. Both sides have sinned and both need to repent and seek forgiveness. Only then can the healing, which will result in the restoration of full communion, occur.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church (those not already in communion with us) is still part of the Catholic Church, although imperfectly. Pope John Paul II has stated that �even the term �schism� is too strong to describe our continuing separation.�

Would you respect the Catholic Catechism�s words as the actual teaching of the Catholic Church? If yes, note that it states:

What are these "few important things"?

You as a Catholic say that communion with Rome is the crown and touchstone of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox would NOT say this. Union with Rome would be great, as long as she held right belief, which, according to Orthodox, she does not.

The Orthodox Church does not regard you as Orthodox. You are a Catholic who worships within an eastern liturgical setting. That's it.

Some Orthodox jurisdictions use a western rite. They don't claim to be "Roman Catholic in communion with Orthodoxy". They are Orthodox. Their identity lies within their Faith.

Out of respect for your Church, I do not go around saying that I am Catholic.

Prove it. Without generalizations, point out to me where that Orthodox Church has "sinned" and is culpable in the schism. Where does the Orthodox Church hold a heretical view? Where has the Orthodox Church strayed from the Church of the first millennium? The Catholic Church left the Orthodox Church by holding beliefs contrary to right (orthodox) belief.

Right, they (according to Catholic teaching) do not participate in the fullness of the Church. Hence, the use of the word "imperfectly".

Christ's Church is infallible and lacks nothing. The gates of Hell will not prevail against her. The Catholic Church is still implying that the Orthodox Church still lacks something. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church cannot lack anything. Therefore, according to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church does not enjoy the fullness of Faith.

Greg

Greg wrote:

Are you just as emphatic (caps usually signify yelling) that Copts and Armenians and other Oriental Orthodox are not Orthodox either? They don't share the same faith as you. Or are they "pretending" to be Orthodox too?

The term "Orthodox" is not the sole possession of those Churches in union with Constantinople and Moscow. We are "Orthodox" (just as the Roman Church is) by our adherence to the ancient Apostolic Faith.

What do you do when the Creed is recited at Liturgy at your new parish? Are you "Catholic" then? I know Byzantine Catholics who are now Orthodox who refuse to use the term "Catholic" to refer to those Christians in union with Rome--either Western or Eastern.

Personally, I have no problem with Orthodox using the term "Catholic." I doubt any Eastern or Western Catholic does.

For starters, they aren't One. The unity, from our perspective, is very close--so much so that we have no objections if Orthodox receive the Mysteries from our priests (other than to caution them to be aware of their own Church's position on the matter). As has been stated to you many times--you are emphasizing one aspect of the Catholic understanding without balancing it with the other aspect.

I actually did this myself. There's a period on this Forum where I was fairly anti-Catholic in my postings here. I reached a position where I felt I was hit by a "two by four" and I felt sure I was supposed to return to the Catholic Church. This is my journey. This is not to say that others would receive the same leading I did. I just had to be obedient to the leading I received.

I liked Yuhannon's point. The Church is much bigger than the Byzantine Church:

Why am I a Byzantine Catholic? Because I'm an optimist. I got tired of being a whiner about the problems we've experienced in the past and still have. It's important to reflect on these and work for the betterment of the Church. And there are times to speak on these issues.

I'm an optimist, however, who believes that the Catholic Church is comprised of five major traditions. Catholic does not just equal the Latin Rite. I see 3 major things we Eastern Catholics need to work for:

1) We need to educate the rank and file of the Latin Rite that Catholic also means Alexandrian, Byzantine, Chaldean, Armenian, etc. A "Catholic Prayer Book" should not just be a collection of Roman Rite prayers. A "Book of Catholic Saints" should not be predominately Latin in focus.

2) Lay Eastern Catholics need to urge their Bishops to fully implement the restoration of our traditions. For too long we've operated under the presumption that our Churches need to deny their heritage and look more "Catholic." That's a contradiction in terms. The traditional way our forefathers worshipped before entering union with Rome is just as "Catholic" as the Romans are "Catholic."

3) We need to work towards unity with our separated Mother Churches. One way, of course, to do this is to fully honor our heritage (both liturgical and theological.) Some are scandalized by our very existence. The way to reach them is to show our fidelity to our liturgical and theological traditions. The issue of the papacy is, in my opinion, the only real dividing point between our Churches. Even here we may be able to make a contribution.

Greg, I wish you the best on your spiritual journey. Please pray for us your former brethren and we will pray for you.

The different understandings on Petrine authority tops the list of important things.

I agree that the Orthodox not currently in communion with Rome would not say this. That is where they are imperfect.

How the Orthodox who are not in communion with us regard us is important, but it is not their opinion of us that determines our Orthodoxy. It is the Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome who are imperfect in their Orthodoxy.

They are most certainly Roman Catholics in communion with Orthodoxy. We are primarily catechized by worship. Those who worship according the style of the Latin Church are catechized into Latin Catholicism. They are Romans, not Byzantines. They are Romans in communion the Orthodox Church at Constantinople, at Antioch, and etc.

There is nothing wrong with calling yourself Catholic. Your Church is most definitely �One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic�. You have a right to the term. Metropolitan Herman is most certainly a Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop of Washington, DC.

The Churches have strayed from one another. That is sinful. Bishop Kallistos (Ware) acknowledges that the root of the schism is in the fact that the two Churches became strangers to one another over the centuries. It is in the sin of becoming strangers to one another that both Churches are complicit in the schism. It is only by rediscovering the brotherly relationship between East and West that we can mutually repent from this sin of being strangers.

Have the Orthodox strayed from the Church of the first millennium? Yes. Just as Rome has, at times, misused papal authority so, too, has the East, at times, made too little of it. The earthly head of the college of bishops must never ignore the other bishops, nor can the other bishops ignore the earthly head.

What you have written is incorrect. Imperfect communion cannot be equated with no communion at all. When you have painted a room and find you missed a few spots, is the room painted imperfectly or not at all?

Both Churches are lacking communion with one another. Both are wounded by the sin of separation.

Shlomo Gregory,
Please re-read what I wrote, I did mean Tradition not rite. The Antiochene-Edessan Tradition is a valid. Liturgy is a part of it, but not all. For us Antiochenes this also includes: language, native customs, discipline, theology, and spirituality.

Or as Fr. Salim states in his book that some of wellsprings of the Maronite Tradition are:

1. the West Syriac expression of the great Church of Antioch, with its characteristic emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and the historic approach to Scripture interpretation.

2. The acceptance of the wisdom of the Edessan and Nisibene Church of the East, in its use of the liturgical poetic style of the Syraic Teachers, like St. Ephrem and others.

3. The deep and adiding influence of monasticism, which began in the East, developing in Egypt and Syria.

Our Churches (the Antiochene-Edessan) are the closest in mentality to the Apostles (fellow Semites). Our Liturgical practices are closest to that the Temple of Jerusalem. We are Orthodox in our understanding of the Savior, that understanding is fully accepted by our fellow Catholics, but still and all the Eastern Orthodox do not see that for the most part, and still seek to byzantinize us.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I believe it is about time for the Orthodox to revise their "Synodikon of Orthodoxy" and add these in their anathemas:

1. To the addition of the Filioque doctrine in the creed, anathema!

2. To the papacy's pretension of supremacy and infallibility, anathema!

3. To the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, anathema!

4. To the dogma of the Assumption, anathema!

You see Greg, if and IF the Orthodox Church believe wholeheartedly that the Roman Church is in heresy, why oh why is the anathema of papal primacy and the filioque not included in your Synodikon of Orthodoxy though it included anathemas that are much "younger" than the filioque and Roman claims. This imprecision shows the relationship of the Orthodox with the Roman church.

Much as the Catholic Church is being plagued with modernism, the Orthodox Church is being plagued by the heresy of phyletism.