www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Regarding differences between the EO and EC churches

Although, this should be the case, we can definitely see that this thinking is not universal.

Since Orthodoxy didn't exist as a separate faith prior to the schism, I would suggest that Orthodox theologians find it difficult to see how someone can be Orthodox and not be in schism from Rome.

That is closing in on the type of polemics one can find in abundance elsewhere, my friend. I could reply, but I won't as it wouldn't be constructive.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches certainly considered themselves very distinct from the Western Church long before the schism. And when the schism began, nobody considered that it would become "permanent". Rome and the East had broken communion before and reconciled--sometimes in a few months, sometimes nor for decades, and usually over something really stupid (sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other). After 1054, at least one Eastern Church attempted to maintain communion with both Rome and Constantinople, and communion did not totally close down until the creation of the unia--and even then, communion was maintained on a local level.

If you had attended the Orientale Lumen Australia-Oceania Conference a few years ago--or the Orientale Lumen Conferences in the U.S. this month--you would have met many Orthodox theologians who agreed.

Seems to me, so far so good re being "Orthodox-in-Communion-with-Rome" (apologies if it offends {but I take no offense at Orthodox who call themselves "Orthodox Catholics" etc.}).

We here (and indeed sometimes entire Synods, cf. the Zogby Initiative) strive to hold the Orthodox Faith as well as we can. So far we have not been excommunicated by the Latin Church authorities. So far the Melkite Synod has not been dropped from the Diptychs of the Latin Patriarchate. So, not in schism, as far as I can see.

Granted, we (some more than others) have a good ways to go before achieving full Orthodox practice (eg in canonical discipline) but I think we're moving in that direction (and Rome (the first one) (our Sister Church) seems to be supportive of & encouraging in this.

To quote one of the recent Popes: "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter".

If the Orthodox would condemn Greek Catholics for failure to live up to the fullness of the Orthodox faith, how much more should they condemn their own brethren whose adherence to the Tradition is nominal at best, whose mindset is as highly latinized as any old-school uniate, and whose liturgical praxis is riddled with abuses and irregularities? Metropolitan Kallistos recounts his embarrassment when, after telling a group of Roman Catholic priests here about the glories of Orthodox Vespers, was unable to find an Orthodox parish in the area that actually celebrated Vespers on a Saturday evening.

I don't think the Orthodox are condemning ECs for anything like that. I think the point being made is that Orthodox is a term that is not synonymous with Byzantine or eastern, just as Catholic is not a term which is synonymous with western. So saying that one is Orthodox because because one is Byzantine and eastern is like calling oneself Catholic because one is Lutheran.

Orthodoxy lies in living within the Orthodox Tradition, not in a particular ecclesiastical adherence.

So are the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox or not? If they are, why not us? If they aren't why are the Eastern Orthodox so chummy with them?

I am happy that Anglo-Catholics are trying to hold and practice the Catholic faith. I encourage and support their efforts to be as Catholic as possible.

Same with High-Church Lutherans - some of whom call themselves "evangelical-Catholics" - and if they found Franciscan and Benedictine orders - GREAT!

And if Latin-rite Orthodox want to call themselves "Catholics-in-Communion with New Rome" or "in Communion with the Third Rome", I am not bothered, so long as we grow in Christ and in true unity toward one another.

Blessed Feast of All Saints!

I think they are covered by eastern. Can a western orientated Christian be Orthodox in your view,Stuart? They can in mine, because I don't equate Orthodox with Eastern OR Byzantine. Whether they can do that in communion with the Roman Church is a different matter - and one which I am as sceptical about as I am about easterners in communion with ROme.

I would say that a Western Christian can be Orthodox. I firmly believe that the Latin Church is Orthodox and the Orthodox Church is Catholic.

On the other hand, many--if not most--Orthodox find the Western rite to be problemmatic at best, and have, in the finest tradition of uniatism, imposed a variety of "byzantinisms" upon the liturgies used by the rite (explicit epiclesis, Byzantine-style communion prayer). When in a position to do so, the Church of Constantinople attempted to do the same thing to the Armenian Church (no unwatered wine, no azymes). A Greek Catholic historian of note observed that the Eastern Orthodox Church has difficulty in accepting the legitimacy of any mode of doctrinal or theological expression that is not explicitly Byzantine.

One does wonder why so many Orthodox do not believe that the Church of Rome is Orthodox, considering that there are no substantive theological issues dividing them. As is the case with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, it's not substance but style, and the unendurable weight of history that you find impossible to transcend.

It's funny, but as I have read the papers of the north American consultaion and other scholarly ecumenical musings, I have found little, if any substantive comments regarding the examples Stuart has cited. I think that the laity, east and west, tend to magnify these things. Probably the theologians on both 'sides' don't think about them to any great degree because they seem insubstantial. But...if and when the 'great' issues are settled, will these 'not so great' ones derail the process? Could be....

Indeed. It is staggering to consider how different the situation back then was from the current relations among Catholic patriarchs.

The term "evangelical-Catholics" is an excellent name in principle, but is not very practical nowadays, as most people would assume that it describes them as some sort of hybrid of "Catholicism" and "Evangelicalism" as those two words are understood (or, from the Lutheran pov, misunderstood) in our day.

On the other hand, "Lutheran" is not a very good name in principle, seeing as it was given to them by their opponents, but it is probably the most practical name for them to use nowadays, as it is the one that people understand.