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

Touche on two counts. Where the lines are drawn IS certainly a matter of perspective, as your analogy of a Lutheran receiving the Eucharist made clear to me. Moreover, I grant that I could be more charitable in my analysis of the situation and apologise if I gave offence.

Alas, MY frustrations are not sufficient grounds for the reconciliation of all Christians!

Ed

I am a Ruthenian Catholic who holds the Orthodox faith.

But of course I subscribe to the socalled Zoghby Initiative:

NP, I didn't mean you but in a general sense. I have heard people say they view the Orthodox policy as one that is negatively motivated. I don't believe that to be the case.

It should be noted for the sake of this conversation that many
Catholics East and West find this kind of formulation problematic, if not self-contradictory.

It should also be noted that relations between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics is very mixed. There are Orthodox priests who are openly hostile to Eastern Catholics and there are some who are very friendly. This weekend I sung the deacon part of UGCC mass and a deacon whom I had not met before sang the epistle. Later I learned that the deacon was Orthodox and visiting the parish especially for its feast day.

Needless to say, there are people of every stripe regarding these matters on every side of the Latin, Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox conversation. It is a reminder that God in creating us in his image and likeness has foremost made us FREE.

Fr. J.

Hello everyone,

I find this whole thread very curious, especially in regards to the attitudes of fellow Eastern Catholics; this is the first place where I have seen Greek Catholics share views like everything post-schism in the west is wrong.. Something I very much disagree with.

As a Greek Catholic (in the words of Patriarch Slipyj) I view myself as Orthodox in the sense that in our belief to be Orthodox is to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, but I don't identify myself publicly as "Orthodox" because not only of the confusion this may cause a Roman Catholic but I think it gives a pretty snobbish image to Eastern Orthodox if they see me parading around calling myself Orthodox when in their eyes I am anything but Orthodox.

I also find strange is the communing of Catholics at Eastern Orthodox parishes, while I share the same Liturgy and spirituality and many of same dogmas with Orthodox Christians to commune at an Orthodox church would be saying that I agree with them on everything, which I do not. I mean I can take the same logic used here in regards to taking Eucharist at an Orthodox parish to justify me taking communion at an Anglo-Catholic church or an Old Catholic church...

Marie,

I would also like to say that though I understand why some Eastern Catholics might want to avoid the "uniate" conversation, I do not think it honest for anyone to misrepresent themselves. It is interesting to note that the same debates over language occur with the term "Orthodox" as with "Catholic." One of the pastoral problems the Catholic Church has had in the United States with hispanic imigrants especially is the plethora of churches which call themselves "Catholic" without honestly saying they are not part of the the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. I have prepared couples for marriage who have said they were baptized Catholic only to find that one was baptised by deceit in the local Polish National CC. What a mess that creates!!

Anglicans, Polish Nationals, Old Catholics, etc. are among those who ascribe to the idea that the "Catholic Church" is some abstract theological non-entity of which they, the "Romans," and the Orthodox are all a part. Engaging Anglicans on this matter is tiresome and useless as are most conversations about semantics. Suffice it to say Anglicanism is reinventing Christianity every generation all the while calling themselves truly "Catholic." This semantic conversation would not end even should they ordain demons.

Regarding Eastern Catholics, I think they have the right to call themselves how they wish. That is for them to figure out. While the formulation "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is problematic on virtually all fronts (East and West), they have to come to terms with terms. My guess is that this is a necessary stage in their progression in self understanding in a place in Christianity that is decidedly difficult to define.

My experience is that identity politics in the Church absorbs way too much time and energy, and I try to avoid such conversations. IMHO, there is a gospel to be preached and lived, an entire world to be evangelized and more and more desperate for the good news all the time. So why spend a lot of time arguing over titles?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because I see nothing contradictory in the Zoghby Initiative. It is only contradictory if one accepts the ecumenicity of the later Latin Synods, and since I do not accept them, it follows that there is no problem.

God bless,
Todd

I agree with the Melkite Patriarch, who has said that the Eastern Catholic Churches must move from "Unia to Koinonia."

Exuse me, I mean no offense but I am very curious, how can one be a Catholic and reject post-schism councils? I mean is that not the same as being Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic or (in some cases) Anglican?

And didn't former Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reject the "Zoghby Initiative"?

edit: And if one accepts Rome as being first among equals and the prime see of the Church, how can someone reject the stance of the Holy See on something like the Zoghby Initiative?

But does that mean that he - and the adherents of the Zoghby Inititaive - would or should accept this, while still declaring full communion with the See of Rome?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

In ICXC,

Gordo

Paragraph 39 of the Ravenna Document [geocities.com] explains it quite nicely, "Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an 'institution' whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an 'event', a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively."

There have been no ecumenical councils since the schism, only local synods.

Gordo,

That would have to be determined by joint dialogue, but I could accept certain aspects of the 1848 encyclical, e.g., the Latin Church will have to remove the filioque from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, but -- of course -- the agreed statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation, entitled, "The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue? [scoba.us]", has already said the same thing.

God bless,
Todd

But I am very certain that the Ravena Document is not authoritative.


I wonder how Eastern Orthodox Christians view the canonical value of that encyclical since it refers to an "Eigth Ecumenical Council".

It has to have some type of authority or there is no point in having ecumenical dialogue in which official representatives of the Holy See participate.

I refuse to believe that Rome is lying to the Orthodox when it issues agreed statements of this kind.

Of course, Todd, I agree that we disagree, but I do not agree that we MUST disagree, hence the conversation. Agreeing to disagree is an admirable conclusion to a conversaton, but an impossible starting point for one. As long as we are all talking, I am going to presume that actual conversation is taking place and not just a restatement of crystalized positions, otherwise this forum is pretty useless.

I would hope Todd, that you would at least recognize the apparent incongruity in claiming communion with Rome while also claiming that the claims of Rome are non-binding. I am not saying that this is wrong or making facile judgments, just saying it is problematic. It involves essetially calling the pope and his predecessors for a thousand years liars, but liars with whom one is in communion, at least that is how it reads to my mind.

If this apparent incongruity can be resolved, I would be very much pleased to see that. Please dont take my reservations as judgment against you. I am trying to honestly say how I currently see it and am asking you for a clarification. From my point of view, the burden is on those who hold this formula to explain how it can be held without contradicton. I would ask the same of a Western Catholic who would claim to be fully Catholic but dissenting on some issues.

Perhaps the first question you could halp me with is whether you see this position as a form of dissent.

Please, please, I dont want a war of words, just a charitable conversation.