www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in communion with Rome

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" is a common phrase, but how seriously is it taken by most Byzantine Catholics? There are many Eastern Orthodox Christians who see Byzantine Catholics as nothing more than latinized Eastern Christians with a somewhat Orthodox liturgy. Then again, there's also Bishop Elias Zoghby and others who profess to believe everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches, while still maintaining communion with Rome. Who is the most right? Why is there so much disagreement as to who Eastern Catholics are and what they believe?

Well, Orthodox Christians may think I'm Latinized, but Roman Catholic trads think I'm schismatic! You'll find out that really everyone has his or her own definition of what "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is. There is not some huge disagreement like between Roman Catholic trads vs. liberals (not counting that schismatic traitor Kovpak!), there are differences bewteen some of us Eastern Catholics but I have never seen anyone in real life bothered by it.

I consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome, as did Patriarch Josyf Slipiy, and at the same time I consider myself to be Catholic - and I'm proud of it! The fact of the matter is my faith is Orthodox but at the same time I reject nothing the Church of Rome teaches. There are theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Church, this dose not bother me like it would some Eastern Orthodox, because I view these differences as the perspectives of two different admirers of a beautiful painting, the painting being Catholicism.

I think the common mistake is that Orthodox Christians think we Eastern Catholics are supposed to be Roman Catholic, but we are not, we are supposed to be Eastern Catholic! That is what the Church teaches! I encouarge people to check out this website which explains many of the differences between us and our Roman Catholic brethren:
http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm

edited for spelling, website address

It might be helpful to place the question within historical context. Many Eastern Churches joined the Roman Church for non-theological reasons (ecclesiastical bickering and political convenience.) Many Byzantine Catholic Churches in the United States joined the Russian Orthodox Church not because they had heard compelling theological arguments but because the Latin bishops were getting on their nerves. *Theologically* that makes little sense, but theological considerations were subordinate to others.

From my perspective, anyone who believes that Scholastic theology or the the theological developments of the Western Church which took place in the medieval period are *normative* will have trouble with Eastern Catholics. Byzantine Orthodox were offended by Rome's insistence upon the claim that whoever was not in communion with them was outside the Church ("Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.") The *traditional* stance of the Western critics of Palamas was that he was heretical for rejecting Scholastic theology proper, the Filioque and the papal claims. I believe that the Non-Chalceodnian Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox have more in common than the Eastern Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches do.

Bishop Elias Zoghby is a heretic *if* (a) one accepts the General Councils of the Western Church as binding and (b) believe that the theological distinctives of the Latin Church belong to the apostolic deposit.

Scholastic theology normative for what, though? I firmly believe that scholastic theology ought to be normative within the Latin tradition in which it arose, and the fundament for the formation of Latin priests, per the instructions of Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, & Pius XII, all of blessed memory. To say that it ought to assume a status of normativity for Greek Catholics is something different altogether, and to my understanding has not been historically born out (e.g. even Uniates affiliated with the SSPX via the SSJK still receive their patristic provenance from the Greek as opposed to the Latin Fathers).

Because we constitute a 'guinea pig church' having to live out the existance of children of divorced parents. Such situations cannot by their definition ever be cut-and-dried.

Otherwise, Bishop Zoghby is honest and realistic.

The problem is that, assuming that this were the policy of the Church, this does not deal with the issue of substantive theological disagreement. We're essentially saying that "Doctrine X is binding for the Latin Church and Doctrine Y is binding for the Eastern Churches and the fact that there is serious disagreement between the two theologies doesn't matter." The issue is not a difference of style or form but of content. The distinctive expressions and specific language of "Scholastic theology" are not binding upon Eastern Catholics, but as they touch upon theological content they are. The normative theological content of Scholastic theology *must* be consistent with what the Eastern Churches believe and teach. Otherwise, there is chaos (Filioque and Vatican I ecclesiology are binding upon the Latin Church but not upon the Eastern Churches.)

I see the view of ourselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome as a bit idealistic, but as I have said before we are niether fish nor fowl. Communion with Rome means sharing the same faith as Rome, and Rome's faith is regarded as heretical by the Orthodox.

We are completely Catholic, but not completely Orthodox. It's not an easy dilemma.

Precisely, identity of faith and theological content with differences of expression, style and form.

Still, the gap between Rome and Orthodoxy is vast, and neither side will seek compromise.

'Scholastic theology' is too broad a category to warrant the strength of the opposition you brook between it Eastern theology. Even were one to speak of Thomism specifically, one wouldn't be speaking of a seemless monolith, and even here, Rome has demonstrated its unwillingness to swallow Thomism wholesale (*Immaculate Conception*).

So for present purposes, even those areas of theology where Greek East & Latin West at least *seem* to diverge (as seems to be the case with sacramental validity, cf. Ss. Augustine & Optatus w/ Ss. Basil & Maximos with respect to the Grace of heretic Mysteries) the scholastic *method* is an (or even *the*) authentic development of the Latin patristic & dialectical tradition, and for that reason ought to be that which is inculcated in the continuators of that Tradition, which would of course necessitate a return to the vision of Leo XIII and a reversal of the Modernist deluge inundating 'Catholic' seminaries since Vatican II.

'Scholastic theology' (again, whatever *that* can be taken concretely to mean) has been approved by Rome as *safe* and normative for Latin Catholic Theologians. As an Eastern *Catholic* (one seeing Rome to be the norm of Orthodoxy) I do actually believe this, in contradistinction to most outspoken Orthodox, or at least those of the Neopatristic-synthesizing variety. There's a difference, but I think it need not be as drastic as you've been making it, and I think this becomes all the clearer calling to remembrance the precedent for Separatist-Orthodox *Thomism*, e.g. that of St. Gennadios Scholarios, or even St. Peter Mogilev.

It might essentially be the same faith shared, but from an Eastern Christian perspective.

Even though I remain a Latin, in 2007 for the first time in my life, I've spent more time among Ukrainian Catholics than among people of my own Latin Rite, and the conclusion I've come to after talking at length with people and getting to know them and their belief system is, They are definitely not Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but rather (activate force field) a sort of hybrid that is predominantly Eastern, but still contains significant elements of the Latin Church. AND, that is just how they want their church to remain. In fact I got a couple good laughs out of a few older men recently, when I mentioned the scenario they could relate to, of the 25 yr old former Evangelical turned ByzCath who tells them that the Crucifix in the church's vestibule "Isn't part of our Eastern Tradition" to which I then gave the punchline. Why do people even bother saying things like that when you know in 2 years they'll be joining the Orthodox Church anyway.

Orthodoxy, to the best of my awareness, means "right belief", not "right connections".

I could find it in my heart to feel sorry for the older gentlemen whom Laurence has met. But I could seriously question whether their response to him, as he perceives it, can be taken as reflecting the teaching of the Catholic Church. For that matter, I could seriously ask whether the borrowings from the Latins are really significant elements of the Latin tradition - and I might ask precisely what they signifiy. It usually happens that such people latch on to elements of outmoded Latin usage that mean little or nothing, and then cling to them as if they were of greater importance than the Four Gospels (the Sanctus bells are a case in point, and there's lots more where that came from).

By the way, I'm no spring chicken myself!

Fr. Serge

Eastern Catholics are required to believe what Rome does but the high-church easternising position, if it's honest about remaining under Rome, sees those teachings as compatible: translatable into 'Easternese'.

(IOW if you don't believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth with infallibility as part of his office and universal jurisdiction since the beginning with Jesus and Peter, don't be under Rome. If you do, your conscience and honour say you must go under Rome.)


After 15 years I'm not there yet but getting close. I've spent half my life as a consciously practising churchman in Eastern venues and been in the same parish for the past 10 years. (Denomination and jurisdiction are irrelevant here - it upsets some Internet people but I don't represent or preach for a denom or jurisdiction online.)


Precisamente. That's the majority, ethnic Ukrainian Catholic and Ruthenian Catholic experience: ethnic and conservative but a version of mainstream RC. They don't identify with the Orthodox at all.


Often true. And in two more years or less some of those will be hopping to ever-stricter Orthodox priests, parishes and jurisdictions looking for the perfect church on earth, and in two years or less after that a number of them either will be in little true-believer 'Orthodox' sects outside of Orthodoxy or burnt-out atheists and agnostics. (The worst of Protestant private judgement - I > the church - mixed with a schismatic mentality got from reading the most obnoxious, xenophobic Orthodox stuff one can find online or in books.)

(What's interesting, according to one blogger I've read, is few revert to Protestantism... because Catholic/Orthodox arguments demolish it, proving it doesn't work. Either they stay 'catholic' - at least doctrinally even if they blow it ecclesiologically - or lose their faith entirely.)

But not always. A few stick around to remain these churches' small vostochnik high-church minority: today's Cyril Korolevskys! I'm sure more than a few hang out here.

(And of course some people dox and stay put.)

Actually doing what Rome says Eastern Catholics should do: what a concept.

Having diagnosed frequently occurring convert pathology and moving right along... Like in Ukrainian church history where such priests sometimes doxed after being hounded out (Joseph Semashko for example) you may see some cases of self-fulfilling 'prophecy' in which the latinised majority including unsympathetic priests drive out the enthusiastic newcomer, who gets fed up and doxes, and then the majority can wag their fingers and say 'Told you so - they never stay' and go back to their Saturday-night Masses, their rosaries in church and even their Eucharistic ministers and altar girls.