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

Yipes, Marie, tone down the condescension! If you have a positive contribution to make on East West relations, by all means make it. I think people have made an honest attempt to answer your questions. Might be nice to say "Thank you" or something.

Besides, while I find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be problematic for reasons I have stated, I would never accuse Eastern Catholics of being liers. That just wont fly here. There is a fundamental respect we owe each other here or anywhere.

I was shocked a few weeks ago to learn of Eastern Catholics who deny Vatican I among other Catholic doctrines. I do know and have known many Eastern Catholics and never met one with this way of thinking. And yes, most I have known I have met through Latin parishes or schools. When I brought up some of these ideas at the UGCC parish I attend at every opportunity, I was told it was just "crazy." No one had even heard of such anti-Roman talk. They love the pope and are as proud to be Catholic as they are proud to be Eastern.

I have a feeling that in the real world, the "OicwR" crowd's biggest opponent would be fellow Eastern Catholics.

Marie what is bothering me about the OP and some follow ups is that this supposed incident (which as presented sounds duplicitous) is pretty common and you have had multiple run ins with Byzantine Catholics attempting to pull the wool over your eyes or pull a qucik one at Orthodox parishes in taking communion.

You have enough sense of our identity to have found this forum and know who we are. All things being equal, if you live in a place with 3-4 Eastern Catholic parishes (even if none of them do take vespers like your parish)...

Well I would think or hope that the rest of your knowledge or experience with us would help indicate to you that it is not a standard Greek Catholic praxis to try to fool unsuspecting Orthodox into coming to our parishes by: (1) giving directions to them but not naming them or (2) refusing to identify ourselves as Catholics or worse still (3) outright lying about it. Honestly, what purpose would that serve? Do you generally believe that we think we can "fool people" into being Eastern Catholics?

It is all very odd. But to be quite clear, we are bot embarassed to be Byzantine Catholics, it is not our policy to try to fool people, and while some people may attempt to take communion where the chalice is closed to them this is not a "Byzantine Thing" or even a "Catholic thing".

Much depends on the Eastern Orthodox themselves. Certainly in the diaspora in most places they are flatly unwilling to administer Holy Communion to Catholics (although there have been quite prominent exceptions - and for that matter there are documented cases of Orthodox hierarchs knowingly administering Holy Communion to Anglicans). But there are some variations:

Priests of the Greek Archdiocese in the USA will often be willing to administer Holy Communion to Catholics if the Catholics in question are ethnic Greeks.

In the Middle East, it is normal for Hierarchs and Priests of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch to administer Holy Communion to Catholics - this includes Catholic nuns dressed in unmistakably Catholic paramonastic habits.

Then there is the whole matter of mixed marriages . . .

Fr. Serge

I would like to add that at every Orthodox parish I've visited since becoming Orthodox, I've always introduced myself to the priest before Liturgy, and told him I'm a visiting Orthodox.

This should be done to avoid ANY confusion or misunderstanding at communion.

Arguments at the chalice? Good grief! I'll let that one go.

Orthodox in communion with Rome? I'm tired of hearing this statement. The most Orthodox in practice Byzantine Catholic church (St. Elias Ukrainian Catholic in Canada for example) may be the epitome of Byzantine ritual, but it's still a Catholic church. It's not Orthodox. It's as Catholic as the Irish Roman Catholic church at the end of my street.

I have yet to meet any Orthodox Christian who claims to be Catholic under Constantinople.

I do that myself, but a lot of people, both cradle and convert, seem to be unaware of that bit of Orthodox etiquette.

You're right, it's really a misnomer. I have tried on this attitude, and concluded (due in part to my participation in these forums) that it didn't work.

A lot of us are trying to look at things from different perspectives and shake off the 'tunnel vision' that sees everything as a probelem of 'us vs. them.' The problem is that when we do this, it's easy to get confused about where we actually stand. When someone really feels wounded by this disunity--which is a feeling that grows stronger the more 'Orthodox' we become in practice as Eastern Catholics--it becomes extremely tempting to want to hasten the process, and I think a lot of this thinking comes as a result.

Nor have I, but watch out! If these 'Western Rite Orthodox' churches continue to grow ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Fr. Steele,

Thank you for your charitable tone. I understand your concerns and if you think I'm crazy feel free to say so. Many people would undoubtedly agree with you

Just to be clear, I didn't say that Vatican I isn't binding; I just said I consider it a valid opinion to say that it's not. Previously, I have been of the mind that the Melkites should feel bound to Vatican I as they accepted it: the Papal primacy cannot infringe upon the rights and privaledges of the Patriarchs. Of course, one can debate about how much is left of universal jurisdiction after that qualification, but that discussion is for another day.

For a couple reasons I am moving closer to Todd though. I'm actually not entirely convinced Vatican I was a free council. Also, I'm not convinced that the Roman Catholic bishops are interested in enforcing it - or the other western councils - on the East. And historically, there is a case to be made that Florence saw itself as the eight ecumenical council. Since that reunion failed what does that say about the councils that came after it? Would another reunifying council call itself the eight ecumenical council? I think these concerns, and a couple others I could come up with, legitamate Todd's opinion. And I am beginning to think he may be right...

I have to go now, but hopefully I'll respond to others later.

There's a political dimension to this which I think is important to take in to account. The historical experience of the Melkites is not the same as the Rusyns or the Ukrainians. Particularly in the 20th century.


Real world vs. online is always a key difference to keep in mind. There are many Orthodox extremists online, but few I've ever met in person. In the same vein, I get the feeling many Catholics who are online are of the very conservative variety. In real life I can't honestly think of any Catholics who personally don't deny some key teaching of the church in one form or another. That would include the clergy who taught some of my classes, and they actually held some of the most unorthodox opinions I've run across.


As I've said, I have no idea why a Catholic would want to receive communion in a church that clearly denies elements of Catholic teaching, let alone why this would be allowed beyond exceptional circumstances. The over use of ekonomia however in one way or another will in the long term not turn out positively. It's the same as continually breaking any other discipline we try to hold ourselves to.

In the mixed marriages I have seen where the spouse does not convert, the children are raised Orthodox and the non Orthodox spouse does not receive communion.


Ethnick, there's an Episcopal Church near me that if you wandered in to it, you would think it is one of the most traditional Roman Catholic parishes you've ever been in. They of course consider themselves fully "catholic" in every sense of the term. I'm guessing people here would not agree, and they would also say that the lex orandi, lex credendi aphorism doesn't actually hold up fully as a principle for this very reason. The church you mentioned may be very Orthodox in praxis, but they share the same faith and are just as Catholic as the guitar playing, EEM communion distributing parish which may be down the street.


I did one page back!

I should add too something from my experience. Awhile back I visited my former parish (Melkite) and while some people were standoff-ish, some others approached me and we had a good time. One person remarked, "Hey, now that you are Orthodox you can commune in both Churches, cool!" (Of course this is not true). Another responded that he was resentful that the Orthodox would not let Melkites commune and then he proceeded to criticize the Orthodox Church as having faulty moral teachings. Why a Catholic who thought that the Orthodox Church erred on morals would want to commune in an Orthodox Church is beyond my understanding.

Joe

Thanks, Matt, for your willingness to engage my questions. I have found that others will generally avoid direct inquiry. The slogan approach to theology without further discussion is deadly to the Body of Christ.

I am not sure I understand the Florence argument entirely. However, I do think that you wording of it does place your position firmly in the area of speculation. Neither of your points is squarely theological. One is speculative and the other is political, but neither engages Vatican I from a theological point of view, which would includes arguments from scripture and tradition. My argument against a limitation of Vatican I is that it is inherently illogical.

Wondering how a future council might be numbered or what its content might be is a matter of speculation. It is hard to convince anyone on the basis of speculation. I am glad to engage in speculation, but I do separate such speculation from the matter of my own faith. IOW, I do not place any faith in my own speculation nor in that of others. Or, to put it another way, what the Church has not yet taught and may never teach is TRULY non-binding on everyone!

The other argument that the Latins are unwilling to enforce Vatican I on the Eastern Churches is a political observation, not a theological one. It is probably an accurate observation. The Vatican is not likely to discipline theologically wayward Eastern Catholics in an era of warming relations with the East. But the lack of discipline on non-negotiables during a certain period of history does not make them negotiables. In the West, Rome has stopped pressing Humanae Vitae, but that does not mean the teaching has changed or that the Vatican in a more favorable cultural climate will not press it in the future. Opposition to HV today is still a matter of dissent, even though it is a teaching currently not so vigorously "enforced."

Still, I am curious how you will address the question on the logic or rejecting Vat. I.

Father, I will point out that the Vatican did send a letter to the Melkite Patriarch when the patriarchal synod voted to endorse Archbishop Elias Zogbhy's statement of faith and proposal for reunion with the AOC. The letter emphasized that the doctrine of the Primacy, especially as articulated by Vatican 1 & 2. So I am not sure that the claim that the Vatican is unwilling to enforce its understanding of papal primacy on the east is correct, though individual Catholic bishops may be unwilling to do so.

Joe

Joe,

I agree completely with your observations on intercommunion. As a matter of mercy in cases of dire emergency a Catholic is permitted by the Catholic Church to receive in an Orthodox Church. But there is no emergency when a Latin rite Catholic Church is in the neighborhood.

As a UGCC priest once told me: "Ruthenian is the rite, Ukrainian is the ethnicity, but CATHOLIC is the faith!"

BTW, the Catholic's permission to receive in an Orthodox Church in cases of dire emergency as a matter of mercy in no way implies such merciful permission on the part of the Orthodox Church. At present in most cases, mercy notwithstanding, the Orthodox would never cooperate.

I learned all about the pitfalls of intercommunion when I was a kid. My father was Episcopalian. The "mass" looked the same. The preaching was considerably better. The "priests" and youth minister encouraged and even pressured Catholics to receive communion. So, I did. Then one day in the early 80's JPII visited the Abp. of Canterbury and they embraced. The evangelical wing of ECUSA including my father's pastor went ballistic. "Rome hath erred. We will NEVER go back to Rome," he pontificated that Sunday. I winced and learned a valuable lesson. We may look the same, but we are not the same. I have never received communion outside the Catholic Church since then.

As a Catholic I resent (which I know is a strong word) the Anglican claim to being Catholic. It just isnt true. So, I have real sympathy with Orthodox who feel the same way about OicwR.

Fr. Steele,

Let me try with Florence again.

There are fourteen councils after the schism which the West generally views as ecumenical. Some of these (e.g. Lateran IV) are before Florence. If Florence can be seen as the eighth ecumenical council then what does that say about the previous post-schism councils? It would seem they may not be ecumencial after all. Moving on, since Florence failed, it seems reasonable to suggest that a successful reunion council could be viewed as the eight ecumencial council. This is not an air tight case, but it's certainly a legitamate opinion. Like I said earlier, I am still working this stuff out myself.

One more general note if I may. What I am essentially arguing for here is legitamate theological diversity. Everyone believes in this to some extent. For example, contra Joe above, I know Orthodox who believe that Orthodoxy today errs in allowing articifical birth control; nevertheless, they still receive communion in Orthodoxy and have not left the faith because of it. Even though they believe some of their brethren are holding the wrong opinion they have not broken communion with them. Other examples of legitamate theological diversity in the East include life after death and the status of Catholic sacraments. The West has its own diversity as indicated by Augustinians, Thomists, Scotists, etc.

There are other statements I'd like to comment on from other people, but I will leave it at this for now.