www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves as Orthodox?

I have been both Latin Catholic and now Byzantine Catholic, so I have seen the issues from both sides, and I changed ritual Churches for a reason.

But this was not issued from Rome, it is issued from an ecumenical meeting, which had a certain Eastern Orthodox Church missing.

As someone who finds himself somewhat close to Todd's position, though not in 100 percent agreement, I think Todd's continued communion with Rome is justifiable. If you reject Vatican I as dogmatically binding on the eastern churches - which I think is a valid opinion - then it follows that one can reduce its prononcements to that of a theological opinion. As such, one can disagree with it just as one might disagree with other theological opinions. The trick is to decide at what level differences in opinion are worth breaking communion over. I also think it's (obviously) important not to be in communion with heretics. I don't believe Todd thinks Rome is in heresy either.

Also, I think Todd would be more at home in the Melkites. The Ruthenians are (generally) more latin I believe.

And that is a problem that exists when deliberation and decision is expected by many not to be a simple majority but one of unanimity. When 100 people sit at a table and any one person gets up to leave for whatever reason what do we say? Is the meeting now useless? Even when agreements are made by those remaining how many people acknowledge them in their fullness (theopaschism, icons, etc.) with any swiftness? Do we throw Ravenna into the same bin that some have thrown Balamand?

Theologically I would be better off in the Melkite Church, but I liked the way the Ruthenians sang the liturgy better, so I guess I am more "Slavic" musically. That said, with the changes made to the Ruthenian liturgy, I may just become Melkite.

I would convert to Eastern Orthodoxy if I thought that Rome was heretical.

Matt,

Unless he has modified his position, Todd has stated in the past that he believes the pope to be in heresy.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: And what are we to say then about the authority of Trent and the weight of its condemnation of the hertical elements of the so-called Reformers? Does it not then follow that these condemnations can be "reduced" to theological opinion?

Todd,

Does that mean that you have taken a different position? I recall distinctly you asserting that Rome was in fact in heresy. It was part of one of our many discussions.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

Before this descends into a free-for-all, I would either admonish you to find the exact quote or withdraw the accusation stating that he claims the pontiff to be in heresy.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Thank you, Father. I will search for the quote later today. If I am unable to locate it, I will happily withdraw the accusation.

God bless,

Gordo

Todd,

I would be honored to have you as a fellow Melkite If you are ever in the DC area you should stop by Holy Transfiguration - it's fantastic.

Greetings, Matt.

Thanks for joining this conversation. I do not mean to create a heated environment so forgive me for pressing for a clarification on your logic. You say that you hold that Vat. I is non-binding on the East. However, Vatican I asserts a claim about infallibility. One cannot be regionally infallible. If the pope can speak infallibly, he must speak universally as truth is undivided. If he can speak universally, then the council that says he can speak universally, must also be universally binding. And, there is nothing in the text of Vatican I that says it is non-binding on the Eastern Churches.

If you are familiar with my posts, I can find lots of useful flexibility in Vatican I based on the text. What I cannot find tenable is an interpretation which disregards the text completely. We all have to live with what is and Vatican I is. Of course the Church can develop its teaching and further elucidate it, but it cannot disregard it.

The syntax of a theological conversation is essential in order that we communicate our position with clarity and give the respect due to others.

There is also an important distinction between speculation and dogma. I am wondering if some of what is stated here is speculative theology rather than dogmatic theology.

In other words we may speculate that at some point in the future the church's teaching may move in one direction or another in order to reconcile theological differences or even make personal assertions of belief in such a modification. But, we cannot claim that the Church teaches what it does not. And when we differ from the Church's teaching, it is honest to acknowledge that our position is at least speculative, if not a matter of full dissent.

Again, the syntax of the conversation is important so that we understand each other well and respect one another.

The absence of the ROC is not what makes the Ravenna Document unathoritative, but the lack of approval by Rome and the various Patriarchs who were represented.

Ecumenical dialogue almost always happens in several stages. First, there are joint statements by committees. These statements are sometimes agreed upon by the authorities represented. sometimes they are sent back to work. Sometimes the Vatican will issue a statement on the joint statement pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, though rarely, the other dialogue partner has not fully accepted a joint statement.

The Ravenna document is an exploratory document and will never be made authoritative, IMHO. The reason is that its tone is speculative and outlines a way forward for future discussions. In other words, it is not a definitive document with specific agreements but a procedural document pointing towards what will likely be many, many years of discussions.

For an idea of what a definitive and authoritative document might look like, see the Joint Declaration on Justification. It is an academic treatise and is book-length. Such a document has to exhaustively address historical issues, semantic issues, and theological issues and issue a joint agreed authoritative teaching binding on the parties. This takes lots of time and good will.

The Joint Declaration on Justification, now approved, has the force of Catholic Magisterium and is binding in whatever way documents are binding on Lutherans. Note that the JDoJ did also specify areas of continuing differences.

In the Ravenna Document we have something truly historical. It is a tiny step in a process that may require centuries, barring a miracle of the Holy Spirit, which is always a possibility according to Divine Providence.

Boy, did this thread take a way DIFFERENT direction than I could have ever imagined!

I was puzzled enough about different Byzantine Catholics repeatedly misrepresenting themselves as Orthodox that I was hoping to get some insight into WHY they might do such a thing. It seems to be the identity is confused - they see themselves as Orthodox in faith and practice, but they're in communion with Rome. By today's definition, and that of the past several hundred years at least, Orthodox by its very nature means "not in communion with Rome."

At the very least, it's dishonest to go around claiming you're Orthodox when you're not. I think that's what struck me about the whole thing. Why are these people lying?

As for the Catholics communing (or trying to, anyway) in Orthodox parishes: a mindset I've encounted among Latin Rite Catholics (friends/some relatives) is that since Rome says the Orthodox have valid sacraments, that means that Catholics can commune in an Orthodox parish. Doesn't enter their minds that the Orthodox won't commune them.

My parish is small (200-ish) and my priest watches the chalice like a hawk. I've seen arguments at the chalice, when someone who is a visitor (out-of-town) or trying the parish out for membership, probably shouldn't be taking Communion and tries to talk our priest into communing them. These are the Orthodox. It's gotten kinda ugly once or twice with people I knew to be Protestants.

In my experience Father most people who are Catholic and belong to one of the Eastern Churches refer to themselves as "Eastern Rite", and definitely identify themselves as Catholic and not Orthodox. It also seems common for people from Eastern Catholic Churches to end up Roman Catholic for whatever reason.

I get the feeling the people who identify themselves as Orthodox but in communion with Rome constitute a minority, and it actually reminds me somewhat of the position held by Anglo Papalists (as opposed to Anglo Catholics) vis-a-vis their standing in the church.

People can and should be free to identify themselves however they feel comfortable, though it can be confusing. Also in my experience, Catholics from the various churches get along well with the priests and hierarchy of my church. Intermarriage is also common.

AMM, Catholic in Communion with Constantinople.