www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Zenit on the Eastern Churches

I'd correct that observation to replace 'Maronites' with Melkites and Syriacs; I think Maronites seeking to be communed in Orthodox Churches are a rare exception to the norm.

In support of what John has said, I agree with him. Four decades ago, communing of Eastern Catholics in Orthodox temples and vice-versa was not at all uncommon among the Antiochians and Melkites in the US - most particularly in the Northeast and on the West Coast, although it was not unknown in the Midwest. That situation has changed and is much less likely to be acceptable in the US, altho I would not deny that it still happens - particularly in places where the priest involved grew up locally and is very aware of the family ties that intertwine the respective parishes. It is, officially, discouraged, however.

On the matter, I think it is hardly appropriate for anyone posting as an Eastern Catholic member of this forum to:

disparage the official stance of the Orthodox hierarchs on the matter;

gloat at their own cleverness or perceived 'special standing' in having been so communed by an Orthodox presbyter (many are tired of the 'war stories' in which posters laundry-list the various parishes and jurisdictions in which they've been communed or offered communion); or,

assign motives to those among our Orthodox brethren who believe that the official stance of the Orthodox jurisdictions should be upheld.

There are valid instances of 'convert' over-enthusiasm among both Orthodox and Catholics that have caused eyes to be rolled and teeth to be gnashed. Examples are often seen in polemic diatribes by one Eastern 'Christian' against Churches of the 'other' persuasion. That is not what is being offered here by Etnick or John and respondents need to step back and converse in charity and reason, as such are observed in civil society.

Many years,

Neil

I disagree with the addition because it ignores the Orthodox Churches outside of the Byzantine Tradition.

The Syriac and Armenian Orthodox (along with at least one Orthodox jurisdiction in India) do commune Catholics with the full consent and agreement of both the Catholic and Orthodox leadership.

Just a sidenote: Byzantinization is just as bad as Latinization.

Michael,

Points well taken. I think there is increased awareness among Byzantines here* of our brothers and sisters of the Oriental Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, but significantly less awareness on the part of our Latin brethren - except as to the Maronites (who aren't really Oriental). That said, our own awareness got lost in our reactions - pro and con - to the Zenit piece, which we saw as 'all about us' - us being the Constantinoplian Churches.

I'd still support John's additions, but would argue for the entire piece to be more explicit (an unlikely happening, as the good Father's replies are most likely intended to be both informative, but brief).

Many years,

Neil

*helped in large measure by the active participation of folks such as yourself - it's not too many years ago that my dear brothers, Bill DerGhazarian (now Subdeacon Ghazar) and Phil/Mor Ephrem, were about the only active Oriental posters here.

Michael,
In English the term "Orthodox" when capitalized and without the prefix "Oriental" is by common usage understood to refer to the Orthodox Catholic Church of the Seven Councils. I understood (as I believe did everyone else) that this is what Fr. McNamara was referring to. The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are customarily referred to as the "Oriental Orthodox."

While I am lead to understand that some progress has been made in ongoing discussions between the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox, our churches are not in communion and have not been for a while. As such I did not feel it appropriate to make statements regarding churches to which I do not belong.

As for the charge of Byzantinization I have no idea where that came from. As I just noted our churches are not and have not been in communion for 1500 years give or take. How exactly does one Byzantanize a church that one is not in communion with?

On a side note I had not heard that communion had been restored between Rome and the Armenian Church, though I have heard that at least some Syriacs are fairly liberal in their communion policies. I can not comment on the Indian Churches as I have no particular knowledge of their situation.

In ICXC
John

The principal reason the Oriental Churches are not in communion with Constantinople is not Christology (in fact, both sides believe the same thing about the nature of Christ, expressed in different ways), but precisely in the tendency of the Church of Constantinople to exert ecclesiastical supremacy over other Churches in a manner that would have done Innocent III proud. Just as the Latin Church's domination of the East resulted in latinizations, so the Church of Constantinople's domination of Egypt, Syria and Armenia resulted in a degree of "byzantinization" that was aborted only by the Muslim conquest (which severed the ability of Constantinople to impose its will on the other Eastern Churches).

Taft writes about this in his Kelly Lecture, :


Other historians, including objective Orthodox historians like Meyendorff, have detailed the cultural imperialism of the Byzantine Church at some length, and the record speaks for itself. Constantinople was as overbearing in its sphere of influence as Rome was in its.

I think Michael's point is more basic than the issue addressed by Stuart in his post and more specific than the exception that John takes to it. Michael seems to me to be saying that there is a tendency (here and elsewhere) to think Byzantine or Constantinoplian when reference is made to non-Latin Catholic Churches or to 'Orthodox' Churches - and he is not incorrect.


John,

There has been a long-standing informal agreement between the Armenian Orthodox and Catholic Churches allowing for the provision of pastoral care to each other's faithful.

As regards the Syriacs, a formal pastoral agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Rome, also along the lines of pastoral care, has existed for several decades now and intercommunion between the Syriac Catholics and Orthodox, as well as between the Melkite Catholics and Syriac Orthodox is not at all uncommon in the Middle East.

A similar document exists between the Assyrians and Rome, specifically intended to afford pastoral care to Chaldean Catholics and Assyrians when either finds themselves in places where the only available spiritual care is that afforded by the counterpart Church.

The situation in India to which Michael alludes involves the Indian and Assyrian jurisdictions situated there, which elect to honor the agreements entered into by their parent Churches.

Many years,

Neil