www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome

I used to be confused by all this, but with some priestly help I came to understand that we rightly use both terms Catholic (universal) and Orthodox (right practice), but, Byzantine Catholics are Catholic because we recognize the Pope of Rome, and we are under him (I know some folks don't want to hear that, but it's true, especially for Ruthenians.My understanding is that our ties to Rome are stronger than say, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.I'm open to correction if I'm wrong), but our religious practice and theology is the same as that practiced by the Orthodox. Technically, we're Catholic and not Orthodox and as Eastern as my parish is there's a marked difference between our service and an Orthodox service. Can't put my fingers on it, but there's a clear difference in my view.

I've asked before, if the two churches were in communion wouldn't we still be under Rome unless there's an agreement to put us under an Orthodox patriarch?

If this is discourteous, please forgive me. Your posting strikes me as a series of contradictions. Reminds me of Chesterton's expressing his surprise at people who maintain that Christianity and Buddhism are very similar, especially Buddhism!

Reminds me also of an editorial in the Byzantine Catholic World just before the consecration of Bishop Emil Mihalik. The headline of the editorial was "We Are Uniates!" You can readily imagine the reaction of most of the "Ruthenian" clergy.

You are correct in writing that the Pittsburgh Metropolia's ties to Rome are stronger than those of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics [or the Melkites]. The reason is not hard to grasp; the Melkites, the Ukrainians, and most recently the Romanians are governed by their respective Patriarchs and Synods, while the Pittsburgh Metropolia does not relate to any Eastern Synod, but instead directly to Rome. Pity, but there it is.

If your parish is using what is now the "official" Liturgy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, there is certainly a marked difference between that service and an Orthodox service - but I've published a book on the subject, which you are welcome to read.

You ask:
It's a bit difficult to discuss an agreement which has not been made, but I would be amazed if Eastern Orthodoxy would put up with the notion of a substantial Local Church of the Constantinopolitan tradition relating directly to Rome, "over the head", so to speak, of the Ecumenical Patriarch. At most, there might be some provision for a transitional period. Still, life is full of surprises.

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Just found these articles from the Syriac Orthodox perspective:

Theotokos Our Forte [socdigest.org]

Devotional Thoughts of Soonoyo [Dormition/Assumption] Perunnal - 15th Aug 08 [groups.yahoo.com]

Fr. David,

The Assumption or translation and glorification of the Theotokos in heaven is also reflected in several icons of the Dormition, where, just above the mandorla of Christ holding her immaculate soul surrounded by angelic choirs, she is enthroned (as Queen-Mother) at the top of the icon. I have just such an icon print that I purchased at the Russian center in Rome many years ago.

To my mind, a proper response by the East to the definition would be..."but of course!"

It appears that what precipitated the definition was a groundswell of petitions from the Catholic faithful and clergy all around the world over the course of many years. Pope Pius XII sent out two questions to 1232 bishops, and 1210 responded "yes" to both:

whether (a) the teaching of the Assumption of the Mother of God can be proposed as a dogma and (b) whether the people desired it.

The method of its definition seems to me to be a curious first, and highlights the important role the laity and the "sense of the faithful" can play in the magisterium of the Church. One could certainly argue, however, against defining dogmatically what is obvious liturgically, especially when there was no heretical movement denying such a truth concerning the Theotokos.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

There are heretical movements denying the Assumption every day - nearly all protestant communities, save a few high-church Anglican parishes, deny this Truth.

Yes, but usually one would think a formal definition like that would be reserved to situations where the denial of a certain doctrine is the centerpiece of a movement, such as with Arianism and its views on Christology. "Protestantism" has morphed into a 10,000 headed dragon, as far as the variety of errors and half-truths that are expounded.

Near my home here in the southland there are almost 100 protestant "churches" within a 10 mile radius. Some are even shacks and mobile homes with crosses out front! (I saw one recently that had a sign out front that was written in black magic marker by the same signmaker that worked for teh Little Rascals!) Every one has its own views on a myriad of doctrines and practices - the fruit of private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Next week I plan to visit the "Third-Reorganized Second-Day After Friday Church of the First Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with Miracles and Signs Following". :-)

FDD

I am reminded of the response of an Orthodox priest who became a Melkite over at his own blog a few months back:



I used to fancy the use of the term OicwR and used it to self describe. Frankly, anymore I find it too cumbersome, ideological, and difficult to explain. (Who wants to take 2 minutes to explain what took 2 seconds to utter?) I just don't find the term all that useful inasmuch as it needs too much disambiguation and is not all that clear. I am a Greek Catholic.

Honestly, however, Etnick... Such assertive pronouncements really aren't that helpful.

My word. Does Mykhayl now claim linguistic infallibility? At the risk of appearing dense, I am unaware of any Eastern Orthodox authority that has ever issued a magisterial pronouncement that Greek-Catholics may not use the term "Orthodox" - nor am I aware of any Catholic authority that has ever issued a magisterial pronouncement that Eastern Orthodox may not use the term "Catholic". I am, of course, aware of some specific Orthodox minority groups which deliberately refuse to use the word "Catholic", even in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith (the first time I heard a Serbian Lector proclaim, during the Divine Liturgy, his faith in "one, holy, ecumenical, and apostolic Church" - I managed not to burst out laughing, but I assure you it took considerable effort). And I am aware of some specific Greek-Catholic minority groups who refuse to use the word "Orthodox". But in both cases, this is sheer foolishness.

Greek-Catholic is a favorite expression of mine, but one of its disadvantages is that people ask what that might mean. That is the moment which calls for the explanation.

Alternatively . . . well, never mind (for the moment) what alternative I might have in mind!

Fr. Serge

I can only imagine!

I have always preferred "Orthodox Catholic".

FDD

Shlomo Abun Sarkis,

Again, your wisdom is wide ranging. We Maronites because of the unique nature of our Church we do not need to use Catholic or Orthodox to identify ourselves.

At present we do say Maronite Catholic for those that are not educated in the fact that the whole Maronite Church is in Communion with the Catholic Communion of Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Fr. Serge, I appreciate your reply. Perhaps I should have reordered some of my sentences for more clarity. If you'd be so kind as to point out one or two contradictions it would help me improve my reasoning abilities.

Peace,
Indigo

Dear Indigo,

Even at this ungodly hour of the morning, I'll try to offer you something. How's this?


but


seems to me that if one uses "Catholic" to mean "universal", which is not an uncommon usage, and the Church with which we are, indisputably, in communion, that makes our use of the term "Catholic" is beyond challenge, and, that if one uses "Orthodox" to mean "right practice" and, as you write, "our religious practice and theology is [sic] then our usage of the term "Orthodox" is likewise beyond challenge, and writing that we fulfill the condition you set for Orthodoxy but are nevertheless not Orthodox is, indeed, a contradiction.

Actually, both terms ("Catholic" and "Orthodox") have not been fully or adequately appreciated here; they both have a long history and neither is entirely simple.

Hope that will do for a starter!

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge

Ah, thanks Fr. Serge, you're mighty kind. I see the contradiction you point out, let me see if i can clear it up.I should have separated those two statements becuase they really are two different issues. According to my understanding Catholic-univeral and Orthodox-right practice are terms that anyone can use and go beyond specific churches. Admittedly, I'm not privy to your clearly deeper understanding of the terms.

In terms of theology and worship practice we use the same ones that Eastern Christians, and most specifically the Orthodox Church uses.Juridiction-wise we are under the Pope, and thus belong to the Catholic church. Because we use Eastern worship practices and theology we are Eastern Catholics and not Roman Catholics.
I'm afraid I've rent more holes in the fabric, but hopefully this is at least slightly less contradictory than the first post.

Thanks for your patience, Fr. Serge.

peace,
Indigo

Слава Ісусу Христу!
Why is the term in the Creed “sobornutu” used and another term used for Catholic?

Dear Indigo,

Kind? Me? My reputation will be ruined!

Your post is certainly less of a verbal contradiction and therefore something of an improvement. But the basic problem remains: the double use of the two terms, as denominational labels and as intrinsic definitions. Let me attempt to repair my reputation and possibly make things a bit clearer:

Again, I am ignoring the secular use of both of these words (to illustrate, one might ask such a question as "Was Joseph Stalin really an orthodox Marxist", or a book reviewer might write that "the Larousse Gastronomique caters to a catholic taste in cuisines").

Even so, I am also paying little or no attention to the use of either of these terms when they are applied beyond the boundaries of our own concerns (as in "the Orthodox Presbyterian Church" - which exists in the USA, incidentally - or "The Liberal Catholic Church" - a denomination which is dwindling rapidly, but continues to exist in quite a few countries).

In our ball park (excuse that expression, please!), "Catholic" sometimes simply means relating to the Pope - what C. S. Lewis used to call "Papist" - but more usually means of or belonging to the great ecclesial tradition of using this word, which probably begins with Saint Ignatius of Antioch, is found in the Seven Councils, in the liturgical texts, in the second half of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and so on. Hence if someone is being peaceful, he may very well say "the various Eastern Orthodox Churches are Catholic, but sadly most of them are not in communion with Rome", and if someone is being stentorian, particularly in Greece, he might say "The Papists call themselves Catholics, but in truth they are not only not Catholic, they are not a Church at all" - Protopresbyter George Metallinos is notorious for this sort of utterance.

Like "Catholic","Orthodox" also relates to what might be called a large and somewhat unruly "family" of Churches. Used in this way, it originally referred to Churches - and people - who accepted and received the Council of Chalcedon and who did not accept Monothelitism (or Eutychianism, or Nestorianism, or Docetism, or Donatism, or . . . Since the Catholic Church obviously receives the Council of Chalcedon and does not accept any of those heresies - or any other heresies - she accepted and continues to accept the term "Orthodox", in her liturgical texts, her doctrinal texts, and her general self-description. Patriarch Joseph (Cardinal Slipyj) wrote a well-known brief essay on this use of the term.

Used in that way, "Orthodox" is common to the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics, and the relatively small "Western-Rite Orthodox". It has become such a "family name" and is therefore properly used by those who belong to this family. Similarly, the Anglican Communion is not a unitary body, but one can note some features which make it possible to say that one set of Christians is Anglican and another is not.

Or one can (as Patriarch Joseph does) compare the use of such terms as "Orthodox" to ethnic/national designations. One can be Irish; at the same time an Irish person might be a Roman Catholic, a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Unitarian, a Mormon, an atheist, a secularist, or whatever else by way of religion or irreligion. In terms of politics, he might be a monarchist, a traditional Irish Republican, a Unionist (heaven forbid!), a Communist (not many of them about these days, but they still run a bookstore in Dublin), and so on.

The use of the denominational-family sense of "Orthodox" has broadened a bit since it first entered the vocabulary; most of the, er, "pre-Chalcedonian" (we're not supposed to say "Monophysite"!) Churches call themselves "Orthodox" and their persistence in so doing seems to have brought about a fairly general acceptance of that usage - thus the expression "the Coptic Orthodox Church" no longer causes eyebrows to shoot into the air.

The Greek-Catholics never repudiated the term "Orthodox", nor did we or our predecessors act in a way which would justify attempts to deprive us of this term. We use it, and it suits us. We certainly do not deny any doctrine taught by the Eastern Orthodox teaching authority, although we do not think that theology suddenly stopped dead in its tracks in 1054, or 1470, and so on.

"Orthodoxy", to Father Archimandrite Robert Taft's annoyance, has also taken on the meaning of "right glory", and with this broadened meaning has also come to signify those who worship God "in the Orthodox manner". We are certainly supposed to do that - we sometimes fail, but so does everyone else.

Hence, in the words of Patriarch Joseph, thus "Orthodox we are, and Orthodox we shall remain".

Those of our Orthodox brothers who are, sadly, not in full communion with Rome continue to call themselves "Catholic", and we do not make trouble over it. The same courtesy should be reciprocated.

Now it is for me to thank you for your patience in reading this overlong posting, and to hope that I have managed to make the position clearer rather than add to the confusion!

with every blessing, fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge