www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

On this forum, people often discuss the negative aspects of being in union with Rome, and I think this is entirely understandable. I've often wondered if union with Rome is worth the trouble. In particular, while we might like to think of the Eastern Catholic Churches as Churches in union with Rome, experience has shown that the Eastern Churches are under Rome (think Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit).

At any rate, I thought it'd be nice to discuss some of the positive aspects of being in union with Rome. What benefits does union with Rome bring the Eastern Churches?

Is being in union with Rome worth the price? Should I think of becoming Eastern Orthodox instead of Eastern Catholic?

Jason

Call me idealist, call me naive, but try thinking of following the truth as one advantage.
Why do you think you have to have some kind of advantage? Is it a "welfare" religious mentality.
What about simple fidelity to the Gospel and Tradition of the Church.
That is the bottom line question we need to ask ourselves.
What does God will for the Church?
To live in communion with one another and to follow the truth.
I for one have to conclude that Communion with the Pope of Rome is necessary to remain faithful.
Stephanos I

And from this position I will never budge.
"Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you,you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Glory to Jesus Christ!

If you are in communion with Rome you are in very good company.

The Catholic Communion of Sui Iuris churches has representation of all of the Apostolic traditions of the church. We have bridged the cultures and traditions to maintain a true communion between the Malabar Christians of Kerala, Ethiopian Christians, Maronites of Lebanon, the Chaldeans and church of the East, Byzantine-Slavs and Byzantine Arabs, the Syrian church and Coptic church.

The Catholic Communion has Jewish Christians in Israel just a generation or two into Faith in Our Lord and Jewish Christians in India (the Knanaya) that have maintained both their Jewishness and their Sacramental Christianity for almost 2000 years.

The Western church still has believers worshiping in the Mozarabic rite and the Ambrosian rite as well as other western usages.

Jesus prayed that we might be one, communion with the See of Peter makes that possible!

Michael, that sinner

From our position, the most important benefit of communion with Rome is the blessing which comes from attempting to obey the Will of God. Whether Rome regards being in communion with us as a beneficial arrangement for Rome is not for me to decide - at least not this minute.
Incognitus

Dear Friends,

If the issue of "benefits" is involved, then I would say that the Eastern Catholic Churches have had very few such benefits as a result of being "under" Rome.

If anything, the EC Churches have suffered from that union and continue to do so in a number of cases.

The problem here is not "communion with Rome" per se.

The problem is the particular forms that such "communion" have taken in history and in contemporary times that appear more as "ecclesial oppression" and jurisdictional domination.

That kind of relationship between Rome and the EC Churches surely CANNOT be the Will of Christ.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Nice to hear from you Alex! Of course I agree with this point!

There is no doubt in my mind that the nature of the relationship between the churches in communion must open up. I think we are beginning to see that process happening.

It will require a major readjustment of the thinking of some factions within the western church. It seems that some of these people are still dwelling in 19th century ecclesiology.

Nevertheless, unity in Christ is possible. We in our fallible human state are the basic reason for this "fall" of ours. The Holy Spirit, with our cooperation, can reverse this damage and make the church whole and true again.

I don't see how any future model of church union is possible without the See of Peter as an essential element. I view my place in the church as an element of the struggle for church unity, in that respect it must be less about "me" and more about "us" as a worldwide faith community.

In Christ,
Michael

Okay, I was being intentionally na�f to some extent when I asked the question to see what kind of response I'd get (it was an honest question though).

The responses are more or less what I expected. Had someone else asked, I probably would have said something along the lines of what incognitus and Stephanos I said.

Jason

The survival of a liturgical tradition that would have been altered to something unrecognisable or destroyed by either Latins or Russians.

Sorry to sound so practical, but I think this was a large reason for communion with Rome: survival.

Dear Benedictus,

As a Latin Catholic, (and for as long as you are ) this issue is different for you than it is for EC's, as you can appreciate.

The Pope is also your Patriarch. He isn't mine. I have a Patriarch who governs the internal matters of my Particular Church.

(He isn't recognized by Rome, but when one sees the kind of company Rome is keeping nowadays, what does Roman recognition of our patriarchate really add to it?)

Again, no one is denying the Petrine Ministry by the Pope of Rome. Even Orthodoxy does not deny it.

What is strenuously denied is the relationship of subservience and juridical oppression that currently exists for the EC's under Rome.

If anyone can show me from scripture and tradition how that is the Will of Christ, then I'll be quiet!

Alex

An excellent point, and one that I hoped someone would make.

Nevertheless, if we are to accept Vatican I as an ecumenical council, then I wonder how we can get around "jurisdictional domination" when Vatican I clearly defined it:

If Vatican I is an Ecumenical Council just like the first Seven Councils, then isn't this irreformable?

I realize, of course, that Vatican II stressed the importance of the bishops, but it didn't exactly diminish the declarations of Vatican I.

If we accept the Vatican I definition cited above, then it would seem that there's nothing to prevent a pope (for example) from imposing clerical celibacy on all the Eastern Churches everywhere, not just in North America or requiring the filioque to be said at every Divine Liturgy.

Jason

No, I believe you.

I am currently reading Papal Primacy: from its origins to the present [amazon.com] by Klaus Schatz. It's an excellent book and clearly documents how primacy was exercised throughout the history of the Church.

I have no problem accepting Papal Primacy (a sort of primus inter pares, first amongst equals), or as seeing Rome as the center of Communio.

The problem is that I'm not inclined to accept that supremacy of jurisdiction (� la Vatican I) was the faith of the Church throughout the first millenium and into the second.

Jason

Dear Jason,

And that's because there was no such immediate jurisdiction exercised by Rome at that time.

It was the Pope of Alexandria who declared that he had precisely such immediate jurisdiction over every single priest and parish in Christian Africa at a time when the Bishop of Rome didn't have full jurisdiction over all of Italy - and who styled himself "His Beatitude!"

You are absolutely correct.

Alex

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

I recently saw a humorous math proof that clearly documents that all numbers are equal and math is pointless.

Dear Cizinec,

I agree with your latter statement absolutely!

As for your former statement, I don't know enough to know whether I know or don't know!

Alex

a = b
a*a = a*b
a*a - b*b = a*b - b*b
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
a+b = b
b+b = b
2b = b
2 = 1

Indeed math is pointless.

And this is coming from someone who has a degree in math.