www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What does it mean to be Orthodox in Union with Rome?

So what you are saying is that the Orthodox Church actually does not exist. We are all "Eastern Catholic" and we should all be in communion with Rome. In other words you are saying that we have no right to be Eastern Orthodox who consider Constantinople to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

I really don't understand what you are tryting to say...

There is an obvious rift between what we believe and hold to be dogma.... This is obvious.

For me, I would rather to NEVER have communion with Rome than accept Papal supremacy or any council past 7th.

Hi I'm new, I've been Orthodox for 20 years, and have thought a lot about Orthodox / Catholic relations.
First, Rome must drop her dogmas of Papal supremacy, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility etc. which was the root cause of the sad divisions in the first place. It was Rome which left the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rome is the one which invented all those modern doctrines. I do not write these things to incite anger, or division, but to make totally clear the real issues involved. The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church will never change because we stand firm in the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us from the Holy Apostles. Borislav, I agree 100 percent with you.
I have always been taught that each individual Orthodox Believer is responsible to keep pure the Orthodox Faith.

Exactly! Cardinal Humbert unjustly, placed that bull of excamunication on the ALTAR of St. Sophias, thus seperating Rome from the Orthodox Church. For Communion all Councils past the 7th and Papal claims need to be made null and void. Than we shall have ONE HOLY UNIVERSAL AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Ummmm...no, I don't think I said anything like that. I am saying that the Eastern Catholic churches are not Roman Catholic churches with different vestments and liturgical calendars. I am saying that the Eastern Catholic churches are full churches in their own right.
I really have no idea where you got this from. You called the Eastern Catholics Roman Catholics of an Eastern Rite. I said the Eastern Catholic churches reject this title and claim their full church status. That isn't a commentary on who all of Orthodoxy should be in communion with.

WHAT? I am saying that the Eastern Catholic churches claim their right as full autonomous churches, with their own theology and history and spirituality. 6 of them have their own patriarchs. This has nothing to do with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

And I also don't understand what you are trying to say in response.

I disagree. There is an obvious rift between east and west. Right now we are talking about Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Among those two groups, there is not such an obvious rift. As a matter of fact, there are some Eastern Catholics who believe they are Orthodox who share communion with the Latin church. This thread was asking what that title means, Orthodox in communion with Rome, to those people who feel that it describes them. Instead, we are now discussing what Rome would have to do for the Orthodox here to accept unity. I understand where the confusion set in, but that was not the intent of this thread. We have a lot of threads about what Rome must do, and whether we each think it is possible, to restore full unity with the Eastern Orthodox churches. This thread's premise, however, of asking those people who feel they have personally achieved that unity in their own lives what that unity means to them is a very different focus with the potential for very incisive responses.

OK. So you don't see a way for you to find that unity. I hope others who feel they have found that unity will now share what it means to them.

Talking about who has the primacy, if one says St. Peter had the primacy over the other Apostles, being the Prince of the Apostles, then by rights my Antiochian Orthodox Church could lay claim to having primacy because The Apostle Peter went to ANTIOCH first, consecrated the first Bishop and then years later he went to Rome. We trace the Linage of our Patriarch directly back to Peter. So technically, Peter has TWO EQUAL LINAGES, first:Antioch,second: Rome.
But we Antiochians would never dream of laying claim to any kind of primacy. We simply do not desire anything like that.
Another thought, If Peter Truly had absolute primacy over the whole Church, why was JAMES the Bishop of the Jerusalem Church?
Why not Peter? Also at the First council at Jerusalem it was JAMES who presided over the Council. He made the final ruling about whether Gentiles had to be circumcised or not. If Peter really was the head of the Church, and every thing else Rome claims, why didn't he instead of James make that decision?
I have many Roman Catholic friends, even some priests, I have brought up those points and they have no answer. That's why after investigating the Roman Church and then the Eastern Orthodox positions the Orthodox Church made more sense. So I converted and became Orthodox.

But that's the thing! The people this thread is targeting do not necessarily say that he does. It would be great to hear how they are able to live that out.

I welcome you to the board and look forward to many discussions with you. This discussion you wish to have is a favorite here and is sure to arise again very soon (you could even start a new thread on it if you wish, though I doubt it would get the full range of discussion it normally does with most people concentrating on being reconciled to their brothers and not on highlighting our differences during this Lenten time). So you decided you didn't agree with Roman Catholic teachings, which led you to Orthodoxy. There are some Eastern Catholics which share your opinion on the papacy and still remain Eastern Catholic. Let's hear from them now what being "Orthodox in union with Rome" means to them.

Thouse who have found that unity have ceased to be Orthodox.
I am not saying that there can not be union. I am saying that until Papal claims and all councils since the 7th are made void there can not be unity.

You seem to be saying that for us to come in communion with you we have to give up what we hold to be sacred to us, while Rome changes nothing.

I hope you can see the hipocracy in this.

Now that I have stated my position, getting back to the original intent of this thread, I would say No. Any one in union with Rome, no matter whether they are Melkite, Greek, Maronite, etc. Catholic, has absolutely no right to claim being Orthodox Catholics in union with Rome. Orthodox by the very definition of the word comes from two Greek words: OrthoDoxa= right glory, correct teaching. When Rome broke communion with the Orthodox East, she ceased being Orthodox, and became Her own Church. Then She felt free to innovate, She even has changed Her very ancient Liturgy.

I believe nothing of the sort and have detailed my position on full unity between east and west on threads here in the past, and most likely will do so again. I don't know how to impress that I am not discussing the Orthodox churches or their adherents at all. This thread is discussing those Eastern Catholics who consider themselves "Orthodox in union with Rome" and what that title means to them. Unfortunately, it has very little activity from such Eastern Catholics. I am still hoping they will chime in.

How can you lay claim to the name Orthodox! Those Churches in union with Rome are ROMAN Catholic Christians using an Eastern Rite Liturgy. They are most certainly not Orthodox. I am NOT saying their Liturgys are invalid because of their union with Rome. If you wish to be under the Authority of Rome, fine, just don't call yourselves Orthodox Catholics in union with Rome. It does not make sense to me. I do not mean to be harsh, but we must define our terms correctly.