www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

Once again you have not responded with an argument in support of your position, and lets be clear about this, your posts are a reflection simply of your views, and nothing more.

Ghosty,

I have spoken with Dr. Fran Colie, the head of our religious education program for the eparchy. Her words: We are Ortodox in our Theology. We have our own Theology, our own Liturgy and our own Spirituality. We are not Roman Catholics, although the Patriarch, His Beatitude, who is the Head of the Holy Synod, and the Pope of Rome are in Communion with each other.

She oversees the works of education in our Eparchy. She regulates, as per the permission of Archbishop Cyril, our material for religious education. She obviously disagrees with you. That is the party line in our church because it is what we are teaching our children and adults. If someone deviates then that's on them.

Ghosty,

I have spoken with Dr. Fran Colie, the head of our religious education program for the eparchy. Her words: We are Ortodox in our Theology. We have our own Theology, our own Liturgy and our own Spirituality. We are not Roman Catholics, although the Patriarch, His Beatitude, who is the Head of the Holy Synod, and the Pope of Rome are in Communion with each other.

She oversees the works of education in our Eparchy. She regulates, as per the permission of Archbishop Cyril, our material for religious education. She obviously disagrees with you. (emphasis added) That is the party line in our church because it is what we are teaching our children and adults. If someone deviates then that's on them.

In a review of the book by Father (now Archbishop) Cyril Salim Boustros, Archbishop Boustros, now successor of Archbishop Zoghby on the see of Baalbeck, concludes his article by two remarks:

1- There is no doubt that the situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in their relation to Rome, especially from the administrative point of view is not the ideal situation expected to exist between the Apostolic Eastern Sees and the Apostolic See of Rome. However, we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome, and that it would have been better if they stayed as they were. Who knows what would have happened if union didn't take place? No one can judge of possible things which might have happened. All we can do is to study in an objective way its positive and negative results.

2 - It is not allowed in any way to affirm that the Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops are the only legitimate successors of the Apostles over the Eastern sees under the claim that they represent the authentic Eastern tradition. The true Eastern tradition, according to the assertion of His Excellency (Archbishop Zoghby), supposes communion with the see of Rome. This is why His Excellency did not break the communion with Rome when he reestablished communion with the Antiochian Orthodox see and through it with the whole Orthodoxy.

We support the position of His Excellency and we deduce from it that the Greek Orthodox, because of their refusal of communion with Rome, -- regardless of the reasons for this refusal -- do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially; because the complete Eastern tradition requires absolutely the communion with Rome, although in a special way as it was in the first millennium. On the other hand, the Greek Catholics, by keeping their union with the see of Rome, have kept a fundamental principle of Eastern tradition, especially the Antiochian tradition. However this principle has been exposed in its application to different things which deformed it, so that communion almost became absorption. Therefore, the Greek Catholics also do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially. Consequently, we can affirm that neither the Greek Orthodox nor the Greek Catholic represent fully the Eastern tradition, although both churches have kept it partially.

Archbishop Zoghby declared individually his reunion with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch without cutting out his communion with the Catholic See of Rome. Now the question is addressed to both Churches: Does the Roman Catholic Church accept an Eastern Catholic bishop who proclaims his communion with the Orthodox Church? And does the Orthodox Church accept communion with a bishop who is still in communion with the Catholic See of Rome? As we wait for the answer from East and West, we offer our supplications to God and we join our prayer to the prayer of Jesus Christ the only head of the Church: "Father, let them all be one, so that the world will believe that You sent me." (John 17:21)

Dear Friends,

I do not know if this has already been raised, but it is problematic in my view that Pope Benedict retired the title, "Patriarch of the West."

I do not understand why he did that, it is a gesture that is very disappointing from an Eastern point of view. It certainly does not reflect a First Millenium understanding of the Papacy.

- Lance

Well, I don't know exactly WHAT we are talking about in this thread now. After all the whole thread and reading and re-reading it, all I can tell you is that I agree with Todd. From hearing Dr. Fran Colie at the Convention this year she was of the same opinion of Todd.

The fact is we only hold the first seven councils as ecumencial. That is in our Catechism.

I cannot of course speak for Dr. Fran Colie. I can tell you what she said at the convention. Considering her talk was on the difference between Roman and Melkite, I think it is relevant. Unfortunately, I do not have anything written from it. I can, of course provide you with an introduction to her talk that was printed in the convention book. This or cousre is not a "published" source and only serves as an "outline" to her talk.

I am referring to "Light for Life" Part One, The Mystery Believed. It can be obtained here: http://www.theobooks.org/category.cfm?subcategory_id=37

But, it is $13.00. You might be able to find a copy at an Eastern Catholic Church for $10.