www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What does it mean to be in union with Rome?

Eastern Catholics propose to be both Eastern and Catholic--a distinctive feature of which is a real union with the See of Peter, the Pope of Rome. I know that the question raises a host of others--all worthy of exploration. I accept as a given proposition that one can be both Eastern and in union with Rome and do not wish to debate whether this is in fact possible. I simply ask, "What does this unity with Rome mean?" "How must this unity be born out in the life, faith and worship of the Eastern Churches?"

I would rather say that the various Eastern Catholic Churches are "in Communion with Rome".

What we should be is authentically and fully an Eastern Church according to our appropriate rite.
And at the same time we maintain our inter-Communion with the Bishop of Rome and his Patriarchate, the Latin Church.
We recognize the differences in theology, spirituality, church discipline, and strive to respect those difference and as sister churches encourage each other to follow ever more faithfully the path and dynamics God has graced us with in "being church"

that's what I think anyways.

Herb

Well said, Herb!

Many years,

Neil

Tylenol and Tums!

LOL

Yes I would also agree that being in Communion with Rome means that each self-governing Rite holds communion with Rome where each has its respective expression of theology, spirituality, and liturgical traditions respective (West, East and further East, etc.)

By re-establishing communion with certain particular Eastern Churches, I believe Rome's original intention was to establish a kind of "bridge" that would facilitate communication and eventual communion with the Eastern Churches that were still "separated."

The reason this failed so miserably, historically, is that very few in the West had any understanding of the Eastern traditions, and many simply assumed that these unia were no more than an interim step before simply absorbing the EC Churches into the Roman Church (that is, if they were aware of the situation at all, as many priests and bishops in the West were not). In some cases, the infamous "latinizations" were embraced by the ECs as a way of saying, "hey, guys--we're with you!"

None of these facts, however, should be taken to mean the idea of the ECCs as a "bridge" between East and West is invalid. Now that we have a mandate to re-discover our identity as Eastern Churches, the possibility of our becoming an authentic "bridge" is enhanced significantly. The goal is clear: to become a model of a re-united Church that is acceptable to the Orthodox Churches. (This may involve persuading Rome to reorganize or even eliminate the Sacred Congregation for Eastern Churches, but that's another matter ...)

I think our role as a bridge between East and West needs to be highlighted more. Many of our people continue to see their EC identity as one of being different from both the RCC and the EOC, but more in the sense of being separate from both, rather than being a point at which the twain do meet.

If we can get to a point where our people are aware of being called to this role, I think they will have a new sense of possessing a unique and special identity. They will no longer feel that they are "neither fish nor fowl," and as a result, will have a new appreciation for the Gospel and their lives as Christians.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Some good posts all around!

If I can be picky about Father Deacon Richard's excellent post, I would say to abandon the "bridge" terminology since it suggests that one must move or give up what one is (that Orthodox must leave their homes to cross a bridge into Roman Catholicism or vice versa).

For us Byzantine Catholics, I prefer to state that the model of unity that created us was not a good one but that we do exist, and have a right to exist. And until full communion is reestablished between East and West our task is to be the best witness of Orthodoxy within Catholic communion that we can be (theologically, liturgically, etc.).

I didn't know if this was a propos to this thread so, rather than hi-jack it, I started a new thread.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=280320

I think it relates, but I'm not sure how much. lol Anyway, comment there. I appreciated this thread. I find it interesting and your honest approach to these matters are very refreshing. This is a wonderful forum.

Xpy

I would merely wish to add that most bridges I've seen are two-way streets, with as much traffic going one way as the other. This is what I mean by "bridge" between East and West.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

It means to live, personally and ecclesiastically, as if you really believe in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

It means to love your neighbors, even when you don't understand them.

It means NOT spending your time looking for reasons why "_________ is a heretic because of ________".

It means NOT spending your time looking for reasons why "_________ is outside of the Church."

It means to be truly orthodox.

Maybe not so much what it "means" as to what it allows... but it is with great joy that my communion with the Holy See allows for my ability to share at the Eucharistic table of Melkites, Maronites, Romans, and (when I get up to Detroit!)Chaldeans who are some of the FINEST cooks in the whole wide world. (Thinking of Chaldean food makes my mouth water...)and the whole host of others... Syro Malabars have a mission locally and so do the Maronites... In the next few weeks I would like to assist at both. Communion makes this possible.

No need to debate as many on this Forum and off live this out every day.

As my dear departed classics professor used to say, start in the beginning. Our forefathers certainly had a full vision of unity and a full vision of particularity at the time of the various Unions that incorporated full Eucharistic communion with a full existence as a particular Church in full communion, whether that be of Kyiv, Antioch, or Baghdad. The two are certainly compatible.

Perhaps our call is as much for witness and education to our Latin brethren of our respective and venerable authentic Eastern Catholic heritages as it is to serve as a "bridge"; I have mixed feelings about that term and can see validity with both Deacon Richard's and John's positions regarding potential problems with that specific term.

From Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Catechetical Directory of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church: