www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox in Communion with Rome

Currently, the whole thing is reduced to the question of who has the fullness of faith. That is not how I would put it, but the two sides are out of communion with each other because of what each says should be the faith held in common.

Dear Alex,

I don't know if we can do otherwise than to put it as a matter of the fullness of faith.

I've read (Roman) Catholic sources, post-Vatican II, which say that if you deny a tenet of the faith knowingly, your eternal salvation is in jeopardy. Presumably, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the Incarnation, etc. are all included in this, but so was papal infallibility, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

Admittedly, with some of these things, there is a special Eastern understanding that complements the understanding of the West. But things like papal infallibility...I wonder if there is indeed a legitimate Eastern understanding of that.

And if one holds that such beliefs are necessary for salvation, how can the Orthodox be saved, objectively speaking? It's not like there's invincible ignorance...they know what the doctrine says, and they reject it. And yet, no one says that the Orthodox cannot or will not be saved, because they are true Churches, with true sacraments, a true priesthood, etc. The only thing they don't have is communion with Rome. I don't even remember the point I was trying to make, that's how confusing this is.

I think it is a question of where do we see the greatest approximation of the unity that Christ wishes for His Church?

And I believe that while it is far from perfect, that kind of unity is today found in the Communion with Rome.

I think the unity Christ ultimately wishes--nay, demands--is the unity of all. Of course, as the history of the Church has shown, people and bishops do abandon that communion. Now, that causes damage to that communion for both, but that doesn't always necessarily mean that both sides must compromise. What if one side breaks away claiming that Christ wasn't really divine, while the other side doesn't hold that? In order for the damage to be repaired, both sides need not compromise...what is need is only that one side confess the true faith.

What is the nature of the Schism between Rome and the East? I would think it is, by now anyway, a difference in faith. Both sides differ on certain theological points. Now I suppose everyone here knows what one might point to if one were to accuse Rome of altering/changing the faith. But, if we're quick to say either that both sides gradually split from each other, or if we're to take the position of some RC's and say that the East broke away, can we establish that the Orthodox in some way altered/changed the faith? If our primary unity is unity in faith, then it remains to be seen who has altered it. If both altered it, both need to return to it, and thus to union. But if only one altered it, and the other didn't, then do both really need to return to something? I would think only one side needs to do anything.

The impression I get when I see what comes out of Rome is that, while unity in the faith is important, unity with Rome is more important. That seems to place the administration above the religion, and I don't think any real unity can be had this way, at least in matters of faith and religion.

But, if we accept that it is not heretical, as I think the two of us generally do, papal doctrines aside, then Rome's original role as symbol of unity and arbiter in faith and morals when problems in these departments arise amongst the other Churches remains.

Papal doctrines aside, I'm willing to say that Rome is orthodox. Of course, that's probably a minority opinion, and if someone points out how Rome, aside from these, is still not orthodox in theology, I'd be willing to hear them out. But for now, I think that way.

Nor do I have a problem with Rome as a symbol of unity, or as the arbiter of matters of faith and morals when these problems cannot be solved in the local Churches in which they arise. But two questions come up. When problems arise in the Roman Church that cannot be solved, then what? Do we assume that Rome will always always be able to fix it? If the current situation in some parts of the West is any indication, I'd say no, we cannot assume that at all.

The other question relates to what I wrote above. I'm willing to admit that Rome is by and large orthodox. And yet, I am able to say that by putting aside the question of the papal doctrines. But do the papal doctrines constitute an alteration/change in the faith? I would think so. No Orthodox will say that Rome is not important (I haven't heard it anyway). But no Orthodox will deny that a person/bishop/patriarch/Church can leave the communion of the Church by professing something other than the true faith. If Rome has the position in the Church that it enjoyed pre-Schism, do the papal doctrines of the past two hundred years constitute a change in faith that indicates that, even after the split, Rome has "split" from Orthodoxy and thus forfeited that place in the Church, until such a time as she "returns"? The quote you sometimes bring up that goes like "Let the Pope prove he holds the faith of Peter, and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter" or something like that comes to mind. Does the Pope of Rome, in line with Roman teaching as it stands now, indeed hold the faith of Peter?

In addition, Qathuliqa, I think the Oriental Orthodox get a much more open welcome and acceptance by Catholic theologians and people today than by others.

This is true. Then again, when Catholics are more lenient with the whole ecumenical council thing...

I honestly don't know why we get a better welcome from Catholics than from the Eastern Orthodox. Certainly, there are great improvements in relations with the Eastern Orthodox. But I guess Catholics are more easy going about some things, and so there is a willingness to accept differences that may be absent/not as pronounced as with the Eastern Orthodox.

But this dialogue is not without its downsides. The Syrian and Armenian Churches signed joint Christological declarations with Rome, even allowing for a limited intercommunion approved by the Roman, Syrian, and Armenian patriarchs. And yet, subsequent to the joint declaration between the RCC and the Assyrians (Nestorians), there has been some talk of rescinding such agreements from the Oriental side, although I don't think it's going to get that far.

When the Ecumenical Patriarch was in Toronto, sorry, but it was really a "Greek" affair. He is Greek, to be sure!

But so is the Pope of Rome Polish. And yet, during WYD I saw Christians of many, many backgrounds come out and join together as a truly world-wide community of believers in Christ to worship together, share one another's experiences together and reflect on our relevance to this world together.

I just don't see that in the Orthodox Church, even though I consider myself to be Orthodox Catholic, and my mother, from whom I admit I am estranged, to be the Kyivan Orthodox Church.

Alex, I love the Pope, but I wonder how much of this difference is in the way each of the respective Churches sees its prelates. The EP and other Eastern patriarchs and leaders don't have nearly the amount of official power that the Pope has. There is no infallibility, there is no sense of "Where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church", etc. as there is in the RCC. So in many senses, could not the way Catholics see the Pope of Rome have something to do with his "voice of God on earth/religious celebrity" status?

I would also suggest with respect to papal doctrines on jurisdiction that there isn't that much practical difference between how the Patriarchates of Rome and Moscow are run on a day-to-day basis. Some of my favourite relatives are priests of the Moscow Patriarchate.

There may not be much practical difference. And I don't pretend to be an expert on Russian matters. But if both Rome and Moscow are run the same way, I'd venture to guess that there is no doctrinal support for the way Moscow acts, as there is for Rome, even if that doctrinal support was only solidified in 1870.

Again, the papal doctrines aren't the last word. And frankly I don't personally consider them to be such terrible stumbling blocks. They need work, yes, but I wouldn't consider leaving my communion with Rome over them.

I don't know if this can really be said. How is Vatican I not the last word? It defines a doctrine binding on Catholics. Yes, the present Holy Father has invited Orthodox to help "redefine" the Petrine ministry, but how do you just overturn an "ecumenical" council? I don't know if you can say it is not the last word. I don't say the situation is hopeless, I just don't know how willing Rome is to overturn what it considers an ecumenical council, and an infallible doctrine of the faith, or how willing Orthodoxy is to accept this in the interests of unity (actually, with the Orthodox, I have a bit of an idea ).

Dear Qathuliqa,

Does the Pope have the faith of Peter? If Peter were around, that would really solve things in a hurry, wouldn't it?

Although I don't know what Peter would think about the ritual et al. of Eastern Orthodoxy - I will surmise that he, in Heaven, sees it as normative liturgical development in all cases, East and West.

The faith of Peter is also the faith in the continuing experience and influence of the Holy Spirit in the Church which has the authority of Christ to bind and loose.

And there is also the fact that Rome has, by virtue of the martyrdom and relics there of St Peter and Paul, always had a pre-eminence of sorts that has fluctuated in terms of its jurisdictional capabilities as recognized and acknowledged by other Churches throughout the ages.

The pope's personality is a great factor in the way he attracts people.

But we should remember that he is very much someone steeped in his Polish roots and heritage. And yet he can reach out to the world.

That is explained in part by his charisma. But I don't see how that can be the only thing. The Catholic Church with Rome as its centre is a culturally and liturgically diverse construct. That just doesn't obtain in the Eastern Orthodox Church nor elsewhere. Is it because the East doesn't have charismatic figures? I don't think that even enters into it.

Administratively, culturally, internationally, what have you - Orthodoxy just doesn't compare with the Catholic Churches in union with Rome. And that is something readily admitted by Orthodox leaders too, to be fair. There is a strength to be drawn from the Petrine Ministry, and I believe it is Christ's Will, as do millions of others, through the ages.

As for Vatican I, decisions in some Councils have been undone by others - Stuart did a brief precis on that last week I believe.

I see it as a question of evolving perspective over time.

Language is language and the Oriental Orthodox remained separated from the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church for years because of what amounts to one word, as the ecumenical commissions bear out.

Ultimately, reunion has more to it than words and words can be rewritten. Emperor St Justinian tried to effect a reunion with the Oriental Churches but when told by his theologians that the Oriental teachers were anathematized by an (infallible) Ecumenical Council, he simply said that "anathemas can be dropped."

Part of the problem when Catholics and Orthodox discuss Ecumenical Councils is that some get their backs up against the wall, seeing in Councils the same sort of infallible character that they perceive the Pope claiming to have.

And I don't know if the ongoing praxis of the Eastern Churches bears that out, especially with respect to the disciplinary canons of the Councils.

Whether Moscow has a doctrine backing up its bureacratic power means not a wit to someone who feels its anger or control personally in their parish or elsewhere. Moscow too is built on the tradition of St Andrew, brother to St Peter, and sees itself as the "Third Rome." Rome and roome enough, as Shakespeare said.

And I think a distinction can be drawn between how Rome deals with its affairs as a Patriarchate and how such regular dealing should not affect other Particular Churches.

A lot of the "oppression" of Rome on the Eastern Catholic Churches, is, regrettably, of our own making.

Our bishops tend to be more papal than the Pope. The Latinizations that we are always being attacked on were voluntarily adopted via Poland - as Fr. Lypsky said in his "Spirituality of our Rite" not one Latinization came to us directly from Rome.

If anything, Rome has tried to defend our Eastern patrimony and has told us to do that. We are the ones who have issues with the fullness of our Byzantine patrimony and openly oppose such Byzantinization at the parish level.

Rome's Eastern Christian institutes of higher learning are the best anywhere - a friend of yours who is thinking of becoming Orthodox is headed to Rome to study there too.

And we are the ones who fall down every time Rome shows some inflexiblity on adminstrative matters. If we just learned to say, "Mind your own Particular business" to Rome, Rome would leave us be - what else could it do? Excommunicate us? I don't think so.

And I want it all. I want the richness of my own Particular Church and liturgical tradition and I want Communion with the rest of the worlds traditions.

If Communion with Rome effects that, and for me and millions of others it does, then Communion with Rome it is.

And I believe I'm closer to the vision of the united Church of Christ of the Fathers than if I was outside of Communion with Rome.

Rome had and has a universal doctrinal authority that the other Patriarchates simply never had.

Alex

That is explained in part by his charisma. But I don't see how that can be the only thing. The Catholic Church with Rome as its centre is a culturally and liturgically diverse construct. That just doesn't obtain in the Eastern Orthodox Church nor elsewhere. Is it because the East doesn't have charismatic figures? I don't think that even enters into it.

Dear Alex,

The key word is "centre". If you have a centre, it doesn't matter who says "I'm Malankar" or "I'm Byzantine, this is not my particular Church" or whatever. The common man does not often perceive that they are separate but in communion...more probably, he thinks "Catholic is Catholic".

This doesn't apply in the Orthodox Churches, precisely because there is no such centre. Even in the Oriental Churches. Within the OO communion, every major liturgical rite is present (I recently read that there are a handful of Latin and Byzantine rite communities within the larger context of the Syrian Church...I better brush up on my novenas and Akathists). And yet, with all that liturgical diversity, you know you're an Indian, or a Copt, or an Armenian, because there is no palpable centre. You may not feel that sense of "unity" always, but you have the sense of distinction. But when you have a centre like Catholics do, the tendency is to say "Catholic is Catholic", and the distinctions can get blurred. As usual, the ideal is in the middle.

There is a strength to be drawn from the Petrine Ministry, and I believe it is Christ's Will, as do millions of others, through the ages.

You won't hear an argument out of me.

If anything, Rome has tried to defend our Eastern patrimony and has told us to do that. We are the ones who have issues with the fullness of our Byzantine patrimony and openly oppose such Byzantinization at the parish level.

Perhaps that is true for you guys. But I've read that, in receiving into full communion the Malankara Catholics, Rome "corrected" our Liturgies", the Trisagion, prohibited the use of Anaphorae without the "words of Consecration", added into the fifth diptych the commemoration of the "Four Ecumenical Councils", and other things, all of which are still on the books and still stand.

Rome's Eastern Christian institutes of higher learning are the best anywhere - a friend of yours who is thinking of becoming Orthodox is headed to Rome to study there too.

I assure you, that fact (and he) hasn't slipped my mind. In fact, I know of a few Indian Orthodox priests pursuing higher studies at the Pontifical Universities in the Eternal City.

And we are the ones who fall down every time Rome shows some inflexiblity on adminstrative matters. If we just learned to say, "Mind your own Particular business" to Rome, Rome would leave us be - what else could it do? Excommunicate us? I don't think so.

Why not? It may not be probable, but it certainly could happen...

After all, with non-Patriarchal Eastern Catholic Churches, the election of bishops has to be done by the Pope. What happens if a bishop is ordained without the approval of Rome in one of these Churches? Doesn't canon law excommunicated the newly ordained and the consecrating bishops? What if any Eastern Catholic Church attempts to canonise its own saints, or even beatify someone? If this is reserved at the moment to the Pope, then what? Just because something is not probable does not mean that it could not happen...

And I want it all. I want the richness of my own Particular Church and liturgical tradition and I want Communion with the rest of the worlds traditions.

Traditions or Churches? The ideal should be for communion with the latter. A Church is not simply its liturgical tradition.

If Communion with Rome effects that, and for me and millions of others it does, then Communion with Rome it is.

Communion with Rome effects what? Communion with the Churches, or with the traditions? I don't know if you can say that it is both.

And I believe I'm closer to the vision of the united Church of Christ of the Fathers than if I was outside of Communion with Rome.

Rome had and has a universal doctrinal authority that the other Patriarchates simply never had.

So by being in communion with Rome, but not with the other Patriarchates, you are closer to that vision of one Church of Christ? It requires both Rome and the others. I don't think it's a one or the other situation. You need both.

As far as your last remark, what was does "universal doctrinal authority" mean? What was it? What was it not? How was it exercised? I don't dispute that what you said is true, but how did all of this play out in the undivided Church?

Dear Qathuliqa,

I see your Significant Other has her hands full on a date with you! She must really be pleased to have you in her life!

You are right about the Centre thing. I don't dispute that. The other side of the coin is that we lose a sense of our particular identity and become so "universal" that we forget who we are.

But that is less so today than before. And there will always be tension. I'm more "Byzantine-Ukie" than I ever was, and yet, at the same time, I want to know more about other traditions and appreciate them. I like to flatter myself that this is a part of a Catholic vision that communion with Rome gives me? You say not? O.K., if you say so . . .

You are right on the Oriental Orthodox score, and Rome did indeed actively Latinize other Churches that it perceived was guilty of "heresy" when they came into communion with Rome. That is a fact. And it was bred from western ignorance (Roman and Byzantine) about the Oriental Churches. Roman and Byzantine Churches are guilty of that ignorance and many of us still are. The Assyrians became a Rite within Russian Orthodoxy and that didn't work out too well either in terms of patrimony protection.

As for excommunicated, I suppose it is possible, but not when a Church is united in its position. Rome knows it doesn't take much to send an Eastern Church or a section of it scurrying back to its Mother Church. It has happened before, sometimes involving millions of Eastern Catholics turning Orthodox (Archbishop Josif Siemashko in the 19th century - he is still named and villified in Ukrainian Catholic prayerbooks e.g. the Redemptorist "My Redeemer" published at Yorkton, Saskatchewan.).

But if you can show me an instance where Eastern CAtholic Bishops of a Particular Eastern Catholic Church are united against Rome on a position - well, call me immediately, even if it is in the middle of the night .

For me, traditions are truly only embodied in Particular Churches, at least the comprehensive traditions I'm talking about.

As for Roman authority, Rome spoke to the "world" or the oikumene in a way the other Patriarchates did not e.g. even beginning with the Epistle of Clement, bishop of Rome. Then there was Pope St Gregory I who spoke with the authority of Rome and St Peter, EVEN THOUGH he admitted that Peter's See included Alexandria and Antioch, since Antioch was also founded by Peter and Alexandria by Peter's assistant St Mark.

Schmemann notes Rome's increasing authoritarianism toward the rest of the Churches. Whether the East liked it or not, the fact remains that it was there. And Orthodoxy tacitly admitted Rome's first position at Councils and throughout the Church, although the question of jurisdictional primacy was another matter.

Certainly, ST John Chrysostom was happy that Rome got involved in his grievance and protected him.

And Rome took positions against the Byzantine Imperial iconoclasts, calling one such Emperor "gruff and uneducated" to be making theological pronouncements.

Rome clearly felt it had the authority to speak on behalf other universal tradition and over the heads of Particular Churches in cases of ecclesial conflict and crisis like that. I never read of any Byzantine churchman protesting against Rome over that . . .

I don't think we really disagree here on anything. We have issues, and I'm not saying I've resolved everything in my mind and heart either. I'm still wondering, pondering and sometimes floundering.

I'm not saying you should become Catholic, if that is an interpretation of what I'm saying. Not at all! I'm just reflecting on what Petrine Primacy means to me.

Have a great weekend!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I don't think we disagree on much of anything either. It was good to debate these issues with you, good Doctor...got the old juices flowing. You enjoy your weekend too; I'll enjoy mine when it comes tomorrow afternoon.

"Schmemann notes Rome's increasing authoritarianism toward the rest of the Churches. Whether the East liked it or not, the fact remains that it was there."

It's clear that the Eastern Orthoodox Church has always rejected the "exaggerated" role of the Papacy and the autoritarian conduct of Rome (the eastern catholic status in the New World, for example). But a lot of people from many religious backgrounds have been witnessing that the Pope's authority toward some bishops and priests of the Latin Rite in the modern times (the latin-american bishops, for example) seems to be very limited.

I've always admired the possitive side of Catholic Universalism ( a sense of unity, regardless of rite, background or ethnicity). But on the other side, Orthodoxy is more united (in the Faith) I think.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Seeker,

This happens a lot.

In my in-laws' parish, I would say about 30% of the membership in this Eastern Catholic community is Orthodox.

And yet they all attend Communion.

In the Church of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" this is permitted.

Yes, but shouldn't the priest be sensitive to the Orthodox Church's teaching on this and explain to them in private and with tact why there cannot yet be intercommunion?
on another subject..

Alex, I really enjoy and profit from your posts on this board. I appreciate their length, their knowledge combined with a healthy sense of humor! May He grant you Many Years! Ngogaya Lyeta!

Your "Doxing" brother in Our Lord,

Brian in Sacramento

I'm sorry but I cannot determine who is quoting whom above, but in answer to the question about intercommunion, the holy hegumen at Holy Resurrection Monastery has publically invited Orthodox faithful properly prepared to receive the Eucharist during the Divine Liturgy.

Meanwhile, back to the thread...

IMO, the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" has varying degrees of accuracy depending upon the sui juris Church to which one is refering. So this phrase may fully describe the Byzantine Church of Southern Italy and Sicily. But by what criteria are we to determine if a particular Church is Orthodox? Does it mean rejection of papal primacy? Does it mean liturgy and spirituality? Does it mean acceptance of all seven Ecumenical Council, which means (as someone else posted) Oriental Orthodox would be excluded? Actually, this brings up another question. If "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is an accurate term, can Western Orthodoxy be termed "Catholic in communion with Antioch" or "Romans in communion with Orthodoxy"?

John

John

Dear John:

The issue of Western Rite Orthodoxy is quite complex. There's a total confussion between the notions of a rite and a Church.
Catholicism now, understands (at least officially) that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is a Church, and not only a simple "rite" of the Roman Catholic Church. The same with the Chaldean, the Armenian, etc.
On the other side, the "Western Orthodox" are former Episcopalians whose congregations were received by the Antiochian Diocese. The notion of "a Church" doesn't exist.
They don't come from the Latin Tradition, but a version of the Tridentine Mass was approved for them, so there's a confussion (it's the text of the Latin Mass but the liturgy is in English, Anglican hymns are used and a protestantized environment is still present, they have icons now, and an Anglican "Calendar" is used). As one of my contacts said: "it is a Tridentine Mass but looks, sounds and tastes like the New Mass".

Just wanted to clarify by admittedly vague last post (on non-Eastern Orthodox receiving communion in Orthodox parishes). The reason I got upset was not so much because of the actual act that was happening. My own Church (Antiochian) allows Copts and others who have no local congregation to partake in communion if they wish; this isn't the type of things I was a bit upset about. The thing that upset me was the way it happened. First, I think it's just general courtesy to introduce yourself to a Priest who doesn't know you, and ask permission to partake. Not only is it general courtesy (some would say it should be mandatory, though I wouldn't go that far), but it avoids a possibly awkward and embarrassing situation of a Priest having to question someone he doesn't know as they stand in front of him waiting to partake. I suppose that's the other part that upset me, that the Priests didn't--at least in some cases--ask any questions or inquire into what background the communicant was coming from. I hope people won't be too offended by what I'm saying, it's just that I think most of us Christians (including me) take the eucharist too lightly to begin with, and it hurts to hear things that (at least to my ears) water down it's importance and awesomeness even more.

If we aren't "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" then what the heck are we? I'm not willing to be bullied by either of our sister Churches in denying our true heritage. I'm thankful that we are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and I don't really worry about what others think about our identity.

If anyone's particular Church has not proudly laid claim to their true identity I frankly feel sorry for you.

Dan Lauffer

With respect to intercommunion situations such as Melkite-Antiochean or Byzantine-OCA, the incidents I am aware of have differing circumstances. The BC/OCA one involved the lack of a Byzantine parish in the area, and the parishioner had been with the parish longer than the latest priest, so felt she had no need to re-invent the wheel on intercommunion just for his sake. In one Melkite situation there was no Melkite parish in the area, but an Antiochean church was nearby. In the other, the Melkite community was without a priest for a time, so the parishioners went to the Antiochean parish until such time as their new priest arrived, rather than have non-sacramental services. Say what you will, but as several folks have already noted, even in eastern Europe economia is used in cases where hardship can be alleviated. After all, we are called upon to show mercy and compassion whether we are Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians. Many practicing Christians do not make it a habit to seek out a priest's permission before communing. Pre-approval strikes me as mainly an old-world phenomenon, and in the U.S. is usually only precticed in immigrant-oriented churches such as ethnic orthodox parishes. it is not as common among born americans, and seems to promote a sense of exclusivity which runs counter to the culture around us. It is also a practice that can be easily misunderstood: Some say the priest needs to know, because he is accountable for us, others say we are also accountable for ourselves as well as others we influence. Both are right, of course, and I remain unconvinced of the need for pre-approval as a result, except where the person is not a Christian recognized as having Orthodox or Catholic beliefs who is truly prepared to receive the sacrament.

What an interesting topic!

I suppose that instead of adopting the Orthodox in Communion with Rome we can adopt the Ruthenian translation:

Christians of the true faith!

It has a nice ring to it, I think.

John

with the "True Faith" being Orthodoxy of course

As far as i know, Orthodox Christians are not allowed to receive communion in a Catholic Church, no matter if it is Byzantine or Latin (traditional, or New Mass), and catholics cannot receive communion in an Orthodox parish.
Some orthodox parishioners seem to feel very unconfortable when strangers enter to the parishes, and it's sad when some priests start to ask all those questions (like in a inmigration office) if you want to take communion. I think this should change.