www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox in Communion with Rome -- trying again

Recently, there was a thread on �Orthodox in Communion with Rome� -- which is a perennial and favorite topic at this forum. Sadly, but understandably, tempers flared and the thread was shut down. Hopefully, tempers have cooled enough to resume the discussion.

Some of my Orthodox brothers objected to the term �Orthodox in Communion with Rome� because they found it to be, essentially, a contradiction. In the spirit of reconciliation that is Great Lent, I would like to respectfully answer the question, �What does �Orthodox in Communion with Rome� mean?�

Orthodox in Communion with Rome means the first thousand years of the Church. During that time, the Church was correct (Orthodox) and universal (Catholic) in both the East and the West.

That was how the Church was initially spread. It is significant that two of the ancient five patriarchal jurisdictions were founded by the same Apostle Peter: Antioch and Rome. The same apostle preached the same Gospel of the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in two different places. As a result, two different jurisdictions of the same universal and correct Church were founded and arose.

Interestingly, the one Church contained much diversity. The Church in the East and the Church in the West were always different from each other in many secondary effects -- because East and West themselves were different. East and West were different places, with different peoples, languages, cultures and customs. East and West even had, one could say, different personalities. The East had always more of an inner orientation, while the West always had a more exterior orientation. (Think of the difference in mindsets between the ancient pagan Greeks who produced the philosophers, and the ancient pagan Romans who produced the lawyers. ;-) That basic difference between the East and West was expressed in their faith, too. West and East each had ancient liturgies going back to apostles, but they were different. Their languages were different. Their customs (and hence their traditions) were different. Even their theological outlook was different: the East was more apophatic (i.e., emphasizing the unknowability of God in His essence) while the West was more cataphatic (i.e., emphasizing the knowability of God�s attributes and activities in creation). Even in regarding the Trinity, there was a difference. Both East and West believed in the One God who is Three Persons, but the East emphasized the three Persons and the West emphasized the Oneness. Etc.

Yet, the One Church was One. The East and West believed the same fundamental things about the Gospel. These were articulated in the common Tradition of them both and in the (first) Seven Ecumenical Councils. Hence, the Scripture was the same. Hence, the Tradition (big T, not little t traditions of local customs) were essentially the same. Hence, their liturgies and mysteries / sacraments, while different in rite, were the same in essence -- and validity. And so on.

I would even argue that their ecclesiology was fundamentally the same. Christian East and Christian West held to the same basic view of Church organization for the first thousand years. Christ was the head of the Church. The clergy (and, in exceptional circumstances, the emperor) were His ministers. The bishops were (literally) the overseers, and they were all equal in rank. And, of course, some bishops were more �equal� than others -- as a function of pragmatism and history. Hence, the bishops of the major metropolitan areas in the Christian world held more effective rank and power than the others. They were the patriarchs (in alphabetical order) of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. The Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils bound them and guided them all.

Furthermore, during the first thousand years of Christianity, the bishop of Rome was universally recognized as the first among equals of bishops. As shown in the Acts of the Apostles and in St. Paul�s letter to the Galatians and several times since then, the bishop of Rome was neither regarded as infallible nor as a kind of monarch. On the other hand, the bishop of Rome�s primacy was not purely ornamental. There was a real authority that went with the role: as a kind of ultimate referee (but not a monarch). Perhaps the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo illustrated this idea of the bishop of Rome most clearly.

Yes, there were troubles during the first thousand years of Christianity.

The filioque was one of them, but --and this is significant-- it was not an insurmountable trouble. As St. Maximos the Confessor observed, the filioque makes no sense when discussing God in Himself (the Eastern starting point), but the filioque does make sense when describing the activities of God in His creation (the Western emphasis). http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/maxfilioque.html With this distinction, it appears that the filioque was not nearly as much of a source of division between Christian East and West in the first millennium as it became during the second millennium. This is perhaps observed by the lack of schism it caused during the first millennium and how quickly the Photian schism (in the 800s) was patched up after the underlying ecclesiastical and political issues of the day were worked out.

The other problem was the changing perception in the West of the scope of authority of the bishop of Rome. Alas, that difference in opinion between Christian East and West was not worked out. It was the main proximate cause for the schism of 1054, which has lasted till this day.

Nevertheless, 1,054 years of unity is nothing to overlook. That was the reality of �Orthodox in Communion with Rome� in the past. That is also a reasonable hope and expectation for the future. If both sides -- the Eastern Church and the Western Church-- can be humble enough to repent; if both sides can be loving enough to care more about their unity in Christ than the fact that they are different; they can heal their divorce and be one family in Christ again.

Just my two cents.

-- John

I did not read the other thread (I don't think I did), but I guess this discussion will revolve around how one defines Orthodox.

Or perhaps how one defines "in communion with".

I will lay out my understanding of the Orthodox position.

From the Orthodox Catholic viewpoint being Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a contradiction, one cannot be both! It doesn't have to be that way, but since 1870 at least it most certainly is. Some would say since that climactic coronation Mass in Rome in 1014AD.

In Holy Orthodoxy, there is no super-Pontiff. Sharing communion is the highest ideal and can only be possible of both bishops are in full agreement theologically. If an Orthodox bishop departs from the Faith he not only is no longer in communion with his brother bishops, but he actually no longer is a bishop. There is no distinction between licity and validity, he simply ceases to be a bishop of the church.

Therefore if an "Orthodox" bishop shares communion and concelebrates with the bishop of Roma, he either does not believe what Orthodox believe, or we could say he agrees with the bishop of Roma. He is out of the church.

The only way to correct this is for the bishop of Roma to repudiate any false teachings, and those he is in communion with would need to do the same or be cut off. Then it would be possible for Orthodox bishops to share communion and concelebrate with the bishop of Roma, and the phrase "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" would have a genuine ring to it.

---

Mike's personal comment: I do not subscribe to the idea that Catholicism is devoid of Grace, or any such thing (that is something I could never know). I believe that the Roman Catholic church can be a means of salvation for many. The Holy Spirit goes where He wills. God can use anyone in any circumstance as a means to accomplish His will, we cannot speak for God. (For example, many early church fathers actually speculated that God worked through the ancient philosophers, giving them an understanding of Truth in preparation for the full Truth to come.)

Neither can we make any assumptions. We know what we know and no more. We believe what has been revealed and no more. Orthodox know where the church is, but not where the church is not. That is to say that the Body of Christ (to use a Latin term) subsists in the Holy Orthodox Catholic church. But may indeed extend beyond, we just don't know and cannot, must not, actually declare it so.

All we can know is if a church teaches Orthodox theology, and rejects heresy. If we know that, we know we see the church.

Michael

That sounds more protestant than Orthodox. And who is the judge? Every person gets to judge what is good theology, and what is heresy? I don't think that works. The whole Church, and the whole tradition has to pass a verdict, and the whole Church includes (for better and for worse) the Pope of Rome.

the Church in Council decides

Since this topic is made to order for acrimonious disagreement, I shall not contribute to the substance of it. I will, however, add in a linguistic consideration:

There are a number of words to do with the Church and the Faith to which no one can seriously claim a monopoly. These include:

Christian (used by almost everyone to whom it could be applied)

Catholic (used by the large majority of Christians)

Orthodox (used by the large majority of Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox - and quite a few Lutherans and Anglicans. When I lived in the USA I would sometimes encounter an "Orthodox Presbyterian Church" here and there. And, of course, certain Jews use this word).

I could extend this list almost indefinitely, but I trust we can all get the general idea. Having a never-ending fight about who is not entitled to use which term is a waste of effort - besides being unsuited to those who strive for Christian and evangelical (there's another one!) standards of conduct.

So, as John Paul II exhorted us, let us all do our best to be Orthodox in Faith and Catholic in love.

On Sunday of Orthodoxy particularly, that might be a more excellent way!

Fr. Serge

Mike, read my post in the closed thread on this issue. The Cathoilic church has a stance of being united, one, but with many ritual traditions. Therefore if the Roman Catholic chuch is universal and united, if you do not agree with the teachings at any level regardless if you are Byzantine Catholic or Latin Catholic then you have seperated yourself from the church. If say the UGGC or Ruthenians are an autonomous church they would be self ruling and not subject to Rome's final approval, or at least if they are individual churches then that breaks the very notion of the Catholic church's position of being united.
I think perhaps one of the large hurdles here in this discussion is the difference between Orthodox organization and Catholic organization and other differences (not the papal issue, etc..) There are basic administrative differences. Remember in Orthodoxy, noting Mike's comment above, a Bishop is expected to teach the Deposit of Faith. Nothing needs clarification nor adjusted to the times. Just as in the early churches it is expected that the different churches follow and teach the Deposit of Faith. Only when this is not done does the synod of Bishops step in. I say synod because, let's use the Ecumenical Patriarchate for example. The Patriarch can't act alone, he is not a supreme pontiff. There is a group of bishops that must be in agreement to punish a bishop for false teachings. Likewise if a priest is falsley teaching his Bishop will correct him.
I would recommend reading 'The Orthodox Church' by Bishop Kallistos. It is an easy read and very informative as to the operations of the Orthodox church.
Like I said many aspects of how the Orthodox church is ran are very different from how the Roman Catholic and her various sui juris churches are ran. It is here we sometimes speak two different languages on this forum and don't even realize it is a major hurdle in our understanding of each other.
I was Greek Catholic, you all know this. I understand how both work.
Blessings and peace on the glorious Sunday of Orthodoxy.
One more thing. I encourage the Catholics to attend the Orthodox mission Vespers during Lent. Various churches hold vespers during lent where many parishes come together. In my area the Greek Catholics come and it is very nice to have everyone together.

All I need is my bishop, and he works in concert with the synod. I will follow his lead because he is a real bishop with real authority, in the tradition of Orthodox bishops back to the birth of the church at Pentecost.

When he tells me the Pope is Orthodox, I will believe it.

See if any Protestant can say that!

Michael

OK, I'll look for it.

Mike

But 6 of the churches are independent, individual, self-ruling, autonomous churches whose patriarchs share intercommunion with the Latin Patriarch. For those 6 churches, they do have an Orthodox model. How do you explain that?

That simply isn't reality, which is what I pointed out in the other thread. People can say they are whatever they want to think they are, but that doesn't make it so.

The churches in question must accept all of the dogma, councils, etc. including the ones giving universal jurisdiction to a single bishop. They are subject to the rules set forth in the CCEO, meaning they live essentially in a modified Latin ecclesial model. Their patriarchs are not only not on the same level as the bishop of Rome, they are effectively subordinated to the Curia. That is something the Melkite Patriarch himself has given voice to and pointed out as an impediment to ecumenical relations, while bishop John said its the price they paid for unity. Another major difference is the Eastern patriarchates do not control their flocks in the diaspora, their overseas members are direct dependencies of Rome. Imagine a Melkite church not subject to the Melkite Patriarch, because it may very well happen.

They don't exist in the Orthodox model, no matter how much one might wish it so.

AMM,

Good points, all of them.

I am sorry, but I will as courteously as I can say again, just like I said in the closed thread.

Because of Papal Claims and Infallibility, because of numerous councils the Catholic Church considers Ecumenical and we do not, because of major differences in our Liturgical, Eucharistic and Theological approaches communion at this time is impossible, thus you can not be an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome. You can however be an Eastern Rite Catholic. As soon as one comes in communion with Rome, he/she ceases to be Orthodox.

With all due respect, you are incorrect. The Latin Patriarch? This solidifies my position in my previous threads. The Pope is
the supreme pontiff, the true and final leader of the Catholic Church. Bishops in the Catholic church are local representatives of the Pope. Orthodox bishops are not representatives of a patriarch, they are the heads of their dioceses and the only time they have to answer to their spirtual leader is when a huge issue arises or if they are found to be teaching contrary to the sacred Tradition of the church. Back to the papal issue and to refute your nomenclature of Latin Patriarch, he is not merely the Latin Patriarch. Refer back to the point I raised about the fact that many Orthodox and Catholics do not understand the organizational structure/administrative structure differences between the two.
Another point is the fact that while the Byzantine Catholics/Greek Catholics have LITURGICAL differences than the Latin rite, they MUST, I repeat MUST adhere to Catholic dogma and teachings. It doesn't matter if a sui juris eparchy does not have to answer to the local Latin bishop or not, they still have to adhere to the teachings of Rome (I say this about being under the control of a Latin Bishop because if they were they would be subject to a bishop, the main priest of a diocese, that did not understand the byzantine liturgical customs).
Likewise if a church calls itself a canonical Orthodox Church it must adhere to the teachings of the church.
Perhaps one of the bigger issues with Byzantine Catholics is that since they share a similiar liturgical practice with the Eastern Orthodox it is assumed they are the same. Trust me, I publically admit I believed that at one point back in my Greek Catholic days, I believed I was Orthodox in communion with Rome. I realized that you can not be both, you have to be one or the other. I accepted the Orthodox teachings while a parishoner at a Greek Catholic Church. This meant I was defying the teachings of the Catholic Church, which meant I could not accept the Eucahrist or call myself Greek Catholic ( to accept the Eucharist means you accept ALL the teachings of your church, wheter Catholic or Orthodox). To fully be Orthodox and live Orthodox and be in obidience to the church's teachings(a huge part of Christianity) I knew I had to become a member of the Orthodox Church. I am not big on telling "me" stories, but this is true for anyone. Once I joined the Orthodox church I found it was different. I am sorry if I offend anyone by saying this. I have been here for two years and I don't often raise controversial issues, but this is one time I must.
Quite often I hears, "oh the only difference between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics (this includes Ruthenians) is the papal issue." This is not true. While we have so much in common there is so much that is different. Before claiming to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, I invite everyone to spend a good bit of time in an Eastern Orthodox church to get a full picture and evaluate their claim. I may have upset some people, but I am not an outsider, I am not a stranger. What I speak of here is not an opinion. It is factual. I just finally had the strength to speak my mind.

I want to say that in no way am I attacking anyone personally. Contrary to American culture it is possible to present opposing views to one's position. Doing so is not a personal attack. Keep in mind I have family and super good and very close friends that I call brothers that are Byzantine/Greek Catholic. It is just such that there are so many differences. Even though we Paki i Paki the same, once we get past that the differences are great. Once again I invite everyone to attend an Orthodox parish regulary to see how it is ran, and I would (again) encourage reading some Orthodox books that explain the abc's (I imagine many have, but for those that haven't please do so, and for those who have couple what you have already learned with a regular attendance at an Orthodox parish. If you do not wish to attend Divine Liturgy, attend Vespers or a similiar Liturgical Service. Speak with the Batushka one on one).
God Bless.

The thing which nobody seems to acknowledge in these debates is that the Orthodox Church has moved on the question of primacy as well. The state of the first millenium was certainly *not* a first among equals, whatever that means. It's a contradiction in terms--if we are equal, there is no first. The pope was quite active in the governance of the Church in the first millenium, and many of the popes (recognized as saints by the Orthodox) were vocal proponents of universal jurisdiction. Leo the Great is the prime example.

Let's have discussions, of course, but let's be historically honest. If the first millenium doesn't match the current mode of governance in the Catholic Church, neither does it match the current mode of the Orthodox Church.

First among equals is a *development*, a view taken up in response to the papacy, but it is not the way things were. The Orthodox must recognize that primacy was stronger than that, in the period when we were all one.

Thus, of course I don't see the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as a contradiction. I stand with John of Damascus, Maximos the Confessor, and even Photius, who were all Orthodox, in communion with Rome, a Rome that exercised a robust primacy.