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

Dear JR,

Pope John Paul II habitually received the EP of Constantinople sitting on a chair of equal height to that of the EP - as occurred with Photios of Constantinople after Rome and he had reconciled.

Alex

Dear Tertullian,

(Love your writings on early Christian practices, by the way! ) Too bad about that spat with the sect towards the end - you would have made a great Saint! )

WE say we are "in communion with Rome," but Rome treats us as being "under it."

Conflicting expectations . . .

Alex

It should also be noted that Pope Leo's Tome was not accepted by the Council of Chalcedon until it had been reviewed by a committee of bishops appointed by the Fathers of the Council in order to determine its orthodoxy by comparing it to the letters (and other writings) of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Dear Friends,

Also, there is the hypothesis that Rome and Constantinople are really just ONE Patriarchate, located in two different places - Elder Rome and New Rome.

BOTH represented the See of "The Romans" or the "Romaioi" - the religious and cultural pinnacle of achievement of the day.

The two, therefore, are not only equal to one another, but they could also be seen as one and the same Patriarchate.

Alex

Lawrence,

you show some very nice sensitivity here.

I happen to believe that we Byzantine Catholics should bring our practices as close to conformity as possible. I use Orthodox prayer books all the time, and all my favorite theologians are Orthodox. Still, we must respect the faith of others who have experienced the faith with Latin influences.

I myself use the Marian rosary privately; I would not recommend it in public prayer at a Byzantine Catholic Church, but it is one "Latinization" I am very comfortable with. I also would not raise cain in a church that did use it.

The Ukrainian Church down the street from my Ruthenian Church has pamphlets on the Sacred Heart & Immaculate Heart. So what? they are beautiful devotions. I went there on Sunday after my liturgy to raid their literature rack, and they were singing the most beautiful version of the Creed I have ever heard, using a melody that I remember hearing in many Orthodox churches that I have attended. They have a beautiful Iconostasis and sanctuary, which includes among the Icons a portrait of our Lady of Guadalupe. I think that they are being very faithful to their Eastern Heritage, even if they have some Latin piety mixed in.

You know guys, I have been going through a horrible time in my life, very stressful, (finally starting to come out of it) and I am finding strength in my faith. I am also finding out that some of these controversies now seem relatively trite to me.

Educated Roman Catholic lingo: 'in communion with Rome'.

Rank-and-file Roman Catholic lingo: 'under Rome'.

The Pope is not Byzantine Catholics' patriarch but because he's the head of his whole church and has universal ordinary jurisdiction throughout his churches, including the Byzantine ones, it doesn't really make a difference.

They're under Rome.

How is that "under Rome"? The Pope isn't acting as Bishop of Rome in the instance that he has jurisdiction with the East, he is acting in his capacity as first primate of the entire Church...

Even if we were to use the "under" argument, it would have to be nuanced as "under the Pope", not per se the Roman Church..

Because the Pope and the Bishop of Rome by definition are the same person.

BTW I'd thought of the matter of tact when I wrote much earlier - of course one shouldn't be a jerk walking into one's new church trying to order older born Byzantine Catholics around.

But most of the hybridisation remains... with 'pastoral sensitivity' as an excuse. (They've been told for how many centuries not to do it?)

How is that "under Rome"? The Pope isn't acting as Bishop of Rome in the instance that he has jurisdiction with the East, he is acting in his capacity as first primate of the entire Church...

Even if we were to use the "under" argument, it would have to be nuanced as "under the Pope", not per se the Roman Church

>>If you look at canon law, there is no escaping the fact all Eastern Catholics are "under the Pope," considering the pope approves and installs all of our bishops, synodal acts, etc.

>>Autocephalous churches are non-existent under Catholic ecclesiology. Even the Catholic patriarchal churches are dependent on the papacy.

Even though I enjoy having these discussions, let's all remember not to take things too personally.

One should remember that the Rosary was originally an Orthodox form of prayer.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Rosary

Dear Tertullian,

THANK YOU!

(I exonerate you from all historical charges of heresy )

And I bet that Charles wouldn't dare go after you as he has me on this score!

But THANK YOU!

Alex

I object to the term "rosary" being used for various eastern prayers. That there are eastern prayers similar to the western rosary I don't deny. However, "rosary" is a specific term defining a particular western devotion that is fixed in form and content. I don't think it appropriate to refer to eastern prayers as "rosaries." It seems to me that such mislabeling leads to confusion and causes both eastern and western prayers to lose their specific identities. For the same reason I don't particularly care for the term, "Orthodox in communion with Rome," either. It seems another use of language to confuse rather than enlighten.

Alex, my private rosary is highly modified - I use the Ukrainian Catholic/Old Believer "Hail Mary", the Eastern "Glory Be" and put the Jesus Prayer between the Our Father and Glory be, all in all it feels very eastern to me - do you do the same?