www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics - why are you in union with Rome?

A Roman Catholic in the US tends to know that,

1) There are something called eastern catholics or greek catholics,
2) They have married priests,
3) They're kind of like orthodox (some will know of the shared liturgy),
4) Their clergy have more colorful robes.

That they exist in the US is not on the list . . .

hawk

Four outta five ain't bad!

Awareness varies largely by where we are or are not present. Even where we are present, what the local Latins think the parish is or is not varies. A friend of mine who grew up down the street from a 70+ year old UGCC assumed that it was just an ethnic parish that celebrated the Roman rite the same as a Slovak or Polish parish did.

South of the Mason-Dixon and West of the Mississip' I would expect less knowledge about the ECs as we have far fewer churches out that way.

I have generally found that most Catholics consider what is done in their parish to be the norm and imagine it to be so in all other parts of the world.

CIX! Fr. Gary, bless.
I very much agree - part of our job as clergy of whatever rank in the UGCC in North America is indeed educational to the larger Catholic community.

With respect for our Latin brethren, I do think there is certainly a greater awareness not only post-Vatican II, but especially because of the tireless efforts of our late Holy Father John Paul II. Orientale Lumen, Slavorum Apostoli, his very public trip to Ukraine including the beatification of our New Martyrs; his words on the centenary of the Union of Brest, etc., have not gone unnoticed in the West.

When I pitched the idea of having a class on the Eastern Catholic Churches at Benedictine College in our area, it was readily and enthusiastically accepted by the head of the religious studies department and a Melkite fellow and myself team teach that class. I am asked at least annually to go and give talks at various RCIA classes, Knights of Columbus, etc. groups in our area on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

We still have much work to do in the educational realm in our capacity as UGCC clergy working as a minority amongst our RC brethren.

I would like to follow-up Diak's experience with my own. As a BC in a RC high school in the Pittsburgh area during the 60's, I used the opportunity of religion classes to present information about the BC liturgy and traditions. I used Msgr. Rossack's articles in the BCW as a basis for presentations on symbolism in the BC liturgy. The information was always well received. My fellow students were often fascinated. I was happy that I had something "unique" to talk about, and it was easy, too!

It would be valuable for today's BC teens to be equipped with the information to explain their faith and Church practices. Some are. Much more needs to be done. A student

I have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. If the Ravenna Document recognizes that Rome is the protos of East and West and if Rome had always had primacy even if only of honor, what is the Patristic and Scriptural justification for being out of communion with Rome? Furthermore, if as many on this forum contend, the Union of Brest allows for juridical autonomy and the preservation of traditions, hierarchies and doctrine, what is the present historical justification for schism? How can a part of the body remain separate from the head when it has been given the necessary assurances that it will be respected? Given the common presumption on this board that Melkites and other Eastern Catholics are justified in denying all Western innovations, how can the Orthodox justify remaining outside of communion with Rome?

Hi Arthur,

I'll give a relatively quick simplistic answer...I know there are others who can add more "meat" if need be...


My understanding is that the bishop of Rome had primacy, as it was the center of the Roman Empire. The Orthodox have always believed that to be the case, the Ravenna Document is nothing new in those regards. Constantinople became the "new Rome" as center of the Roman Empire. When the Church of "Old Rome" fell into heresy...it was quite understandable to transfer that primacy to "new Rome", let the "old Rome" break away and work on "its issues".


In regards to the Union of Brest...just take a look at how the unia has gone...even the Roman Catholics say the unions of the past are not the model...

I'll duck now!!!

Job

Job,

No need to duck. But, you have not provided any patristic or scriptural support for the break. Roman primacy is not based on the Roman Empire but on the death place and tomb of St. Peter which is unique to Rome and cannot be replicated. While it is understandable that a major power center such as Constantinople would want to accrue to itself the authority of the apostolic see, the church administration there is not of apostolic origin but imperial origin. Whereas the pre-constantinian church understood Roman primacy already, Constantinople had not yet been founded.

Actually, the Union of Brest is working just fine. As the Melkites have not been disciplined for their independence, it can be understood that the Orthodox Churches will be respected. It seems, however, that the Orthodox Churches place a higher value on their disdain for Rome than their submission to the will of Christ.

I am not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.

And I am a six foot Polock.

-ray

You wouldn't happen to belong to the Society of St. Pius X would you?

Joe

The Scriptural and Patristic justification is quite simple: following the apostles in Acts we "obey God rather than men," and we hearken to St. Paul's words that if anyone should come preaching another Gospel then that which was received, (even if it were to be angel), then let him be cut off.

Since we think that Rome is in doctrinal error by teaching papal supremacy and infallibility, we cannot be in communion with her. Rome's primacy within the Church depends upon her profession of the Church's faith. When Rome returns to the ancient faith held by all, then she is free to take up her position as protos among the Churches.

Joe

Of course Roman primacy and jurisdiction has ample scriptural justification. By virtue of the Keys Rome is preserved from error. Rome occasionally has to cut off other parts of the body, but they cannot separate from Rome without cutting themselves off from the Church of Christ. Rome is the sine qua non of the Church of Christ. That is scriptural.

Dear Arthur,

You forgot to add "In my opinion."

Jason

Wow! So what becomes of all the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue? Is it just glad handing and document signing?

I thought I was a member of the Church of Christ...

Arthur, you won't like the answer to your question (how can the Orthodox justify remaining outside of communion with Rome?) despite I think it it is more rhetorical than real. As Joe stated, "Since we think that Rome is in doctrinal error by teaching papal supremacy and infallibility, we cannot be in communion with her. Rome's primacy within the Church depends upon her profession of the Church's faith. When Rome returns to the ancient faith held by all, then she is free to take up her position as protos among the Churches." Arthur, it would appear that for you Rome has the only key to truth. Many would make the argument that Rome lost the right to be primus inter pares in 1054. You are an advocate of Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Ethnik, according to Arthur, you and I are not members of that Church!