www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What does "Communion with Rome" mean?

Alex, you know that everyone, including Andrew and Fr. Deacon are right.

We are living in a new era of the Conciliar Church, and it is terra nova for many of us. The old boundaries of Uniatism are beginning to crumble, and that is making some very uncomfortable.

In fact, everyone is right about Bob's posts here. Nothing has changed in his polemic, tone or demeanor the two years I have been on this Forum with him around, with the possible exception of eroding charity.

On the other hand, the spiritual growth of about everyone else besides him who has been here in that time is apparent. I say that as an admonishing brother who has his own grievious faults. I certainly know I am not tactful on this Forum (usually not, BTW), and I ask forgiveness from any and all I have offended. B

But posting strictly to uphold tired rhetoric, heat up ecclesiastical debate, insult, divide, and incite polemic which has debatable basis in praxis and lacks charity is his established modus operandi.

While I am not for censorship, I believe there comes a time when thresholds are crossed and some should be permanently banned. I think the time has come for consideration of that for Bob by the forum poobas. Not because I nor anyone can't hold our own with him, which is not a problem or excessively difficult, but because too many other people get hurt in the process.

If you don't stay here, please by all means go full speed ahead with the Unicorne site. I also maintain many friendships with my Orthodox friends, and contacts in Orthodox parishes I used to frequent. All can take me for who I am and who I want to be. You've dealt with worse than this, I know.

Dear Diak,

Yes, you are right.

However, I have no wish to leave the other site and, for reasons I'll make private, my continued being there has already been put into jeopardy as a result of what has been written about me here.

I can't believe these things can go on, but they do.

In any event, I need to stay off here and repair bridges elsewhere, if that is at all possible now.

Alex

My former RC pastor is trying valiantly to save my soul by trying to convince me of the necessity of communion with Rome.

His most convincing argument, IMHO, is that communion with Rome brings universality to the Church. That communion with Rome allows a Church to look outward.

The best way to figure out what something means is to look at how it actually works in real life. Canon law and theology can't fully explain it. And I think in real life, the Orthodox Churches (and I'll probaby be in trouble for saying this) seem to need someone to exercise primacy. As a potential Orthodox convert, I won't go so far as to say they need Rome as it currently exists today to exercise primacy.

Communion with Rome gives the Churches in communion a single voice on issues such as abortion and artificial birth control.

If I've once again put my foot in my mouth here, I apologize.

[If someone asked me who I am spiritually, I would say "Ukrainian Catholic."]

Hasn't the Pope denied you the right to identify yourself as such? Hasn't he reserved that title for the 1st class Catholics who are western but reside in Ukraine?

[Good-bye to you and to this forum of wonderful people.

This time, I've no reason to return.]

Alex, you have said that so many times in the past that no one really takes you seriously. You're like the little boy who cried 'wolf' one to many times.

[That position of yours would be quite offensive to Ukrainian CAtholics AND all Ukrainian Orthodox, including the ones in union with Constantinople.]

That position of mine is held by all canonical Orthodox Churches worldwide including the Patriarch of Constantinople. It's only the Ukrainians (both Orthodox & Greek Catholic) that think, for the sake of Ukrainian nationalism,
they can do whatever they want and forsake the canons of both churches when it doesn't comply with their objectives. Just reading the posts in this website makes that quite evident. And yet they cannot understand why both Rome and Orthodoxy is hesitant to grant them a Patriarchate!

[You should learn to have some respect for EC's and encourage them when they want to become as Eastern as possible, even to the point of calling themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome."]

Where is the respect in allowing any group to have delusional ideas about their very identity? A title that was originally coined as a deceptive means to confuse people into believing they we still something they were no longer.

[You say you are my friend, and yet you manage to write what you have just now.]

Alex, you are constantly contradicting yourself. I have brought that out to you many times before. This time I have given examples. Besides a real friend is a person who knows your faults but likes you anyway!

[Not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" since I think, as you would agree, that would prove confusing.

And Orthodox would object to any church using that title formally.]

Yet that hasn't stopped you from using that very title off and on when you post. If you do a search on your ident and the subject 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' you will come up with five pages totaling ninety eight times you use the title. Here are but a few of those posts -
======

[4/12/04: The term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the original name for the Belarusyan and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians whose bishops signed the Union of Brest in 1596.

It is coming back today as part of a return to our EC heritage.]

[05/03/04: The "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folk (of which I think I'm one) attempt to dress this up in different terminology and as close as possible to the Orthodox understanding.]

[07/26/04: Please remember that the "Orthodox not yet in communion with Rome" consider "Orthodox already in communion with Rome" to be excommunicated and not "Orthodox" at all!]

01/09/04: [Dear Daniel,

Actually, I'm "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

If you think that title is absurd, see the Administrator about it . . . if you dare . . .]

=======

[The article in question arose as a result of a dispute in our community over a prayerbook to be published by the UGCC as for "Orthodox in communion with Rome."]

The question you are answering does not state that -

Spelling of Terms
Question:�Concerning the question of terminology used by Ukrainian Catholics. Do they call themselves Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, or orthodox Christians as referred to in the Liturgies of Ss. John and Basil? Is your Church one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, or is it a one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? I find it confusing when words are not proper nouns but are capitalized, like Orthodox faith instead of orthodox faith, or Polish cream and polish cream.


[Also, aren't you the one who is always most vocal about decrying so many Ukrainian Orthodox as "uncanonical" and like the SSPX? (the UOC-KP etc.).]

Yes. And as I have already stated, a postition that is held by worldwide Orthodoxy.

The subject of this discussion is what it means to be in communion with Rome. The responses are anything but united in their replies. When I point out that it is the 'Code Of Canons Of The Eastern Chruch' that identifies what it means to be in communion with Rome it is dismissed by some. Most of you are in denial that such canons exist or should be followed. How can you change something you deny exists until it's pointed out to you?

OrthoMan

Jennifer

For fairly obvious reasons, since you and I have clashed in the past , I have refrained from posting - but here , if you would permit it ,I would like to offer a little advice.

It seems to me now that you are being pulled badly by some very well meaning people and the tensions that they are creating within you are not making your attempt at discernment as to where the Father wishes you to be, any easier.

On one side you have an RC priest whom you respect - on the other side you have a large number of people , many of whom are Orthodox Christians and you are in the middle - being bombarded with advice and pressure from them all.

Take some time out from the Internet - don't read so much , say a few short prayers and allow God to speak to you. It may take a while - but He will.

We will be here should you wish to return and talk with us.
No-one here will pressurise you.

Be at peace.

God be with you.

Anhelyna

Dear Orthoman,

Well, with friends like you, no enemies are needed!

I'm guilty as charged.

As for not being taken seriously when I say I won't come back here, that now is quite out of my hands (I'm not at liberty to say why).

But I take that as a challenge, Bob.

As for the nationalism thing, if you can come up with citations that show that there is an Orthodox Church today that ISN"T nationalistic, canonical or not, that perhaps would make the argument you advance a bit more credible.

It is really that the Ukies and some others aren't allowed to express their national ideals as a result of imperial domination by certain states that used Orthodoxy (and RCism) to dominate them. That too is hard reality.

In any event, I don't really blame you. You are following your conscience - which is why I have always defended you here.

You might want to do another search for all the times I really have defended you here and put it up along side the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" citations.

That should bring an element of balance to the matter.

But I really must go now to put out some other fires.

All the best, Bob, and never mind about this!

I guess it was a matter of time before I'd compromise myself to the point of no return (to the forum or anywhere else).

Alex

Bob, that last line was unfortunately devoid of anything but polemic.

What denial? What? Where? Who? I actually congratulated you on your ability to quote from Canon Law. Who has denied the existence of those? Give us some names and dates. YOU CAN"T DO IT. Move along, it doesn't get you anywhere here.

You've ignored in substance all of the responses to your rhetoric. Who here doesn't know that law exists? NOONE. Who here is even considering taking you seriously when you have to slash and burn your way through arguments? NOONE.

It's you who are taking the most ultra-Scholastic approach I have ever seen, from any Latin or otherwise, by ONLY taking the legal letter of the law without literlly any consideration whatsoever for praxis, economia, and development of doctrine. Read Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Ecclesiorum. Listen to our bishops. You don't, won't, and don't want to, that's plain and simple.

I'll say it again. We are in communion because we want to be. That's it, plain and simple. We know there are problems, but we also know we are covering new ground in reclaiming our authentic traditions.

Just pray for us and quit bashing us.

Dear Jennifer,

Before I take my leave of absence from here for obvious reasons , I just wanted to say that I was wrong to have been the way I was toward you.

Our friend, Brendan the Navigator, was right to come here and let me know that.

He is not only a great Orthodox Christian, a concerned human being and a wonderful support (as he was always for me when he was here), but a very erudite person.

I was a bit miffed at him for sticking up for you and I shouldn't have been. But he knows how emotional I can get.

I just wanted to say that everyone here supports you in WHATEVER decision you make, simply because it will be YOUR decision TO make with God - as Anhelyna has said.

And I promise not to try and give you a Slavic-sounding name in future . . . unless you want one, of course!

Forgive me, as I can be a real piece of work at times when I should be otherwise.

And if you are speaking with Bob Orthoman . . . be careful!

God bless you, Counselor!

Please say hello to the Navigator when you speak to him next!

Over and out,

Alex

Dear Alex:

I knew and I know you are such a gentleman!

(Didn't you wish to have Brendan here instead of Bob, the Orthoman? :p )

Amado

Boy,

I can agree with all on many points, however, being a Latin of a certain sort, I highly wish that nobody withdraw from the table of discussion here. I choose to remain a member of the other site in memory of a friend who reached out to me in true charity, there also is a few others there that I will not name, but are of the same cloth. I will just choose a little more wisely on topics & remarks, just as I try to do here, but our weaknesses do appear at times.

If needed I will offer my other cheek, but will not retaliate in anger, only in charity, which will overcome the harshness.

Forgiveness is 70 X 70......

james

Jakub, how right you are and how often I allow my head to get wrapped around heated arguments and "virtual yelling". 70 X 70, indeed, let us all forgive and ask forgiveness.

[What denial? What? Where? Who? I actually congratulated you on your ability to quote from Canon Law. Who has denied the existence of those? Give us some names and dates. YOU CAN"T DO IT. Move along, it doesn't get you anywhere here.]

You deny either their existence or importance by not referencing them when defining what being in communion with Rome means to your churches. They were established by Rome to define exactly what being in communion with with the 'Holy See' means. Why are they never referenced when questions like this come up?

[Who here is even considering taking you seriously when you have to slash and burn your way through arguments? NOONE.]

If that were true then neither you or anyone would not be calling for my ouster but ignoring my posts.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

FYI, I don't believe anyone has called for your ouster from here.

I'm only calling for your apology in Christ.

Alex

Bob, You still haven't honestly answered any of the questions or made sensible responses. When have we denied the existence of the CCEO? You have dodged the answer.

Your ouster would not be called for if you would communicate in a manner of brotherly dialogue, and not diatribe. I did not call for it, only mentioned the admins may "consider" (my exact word) it since many get offended by your posts here.

I frankly don't care and will continue to defend my church and my friends.

Your bishops and even patriarchs seem capable of that brotherly dialogue, even to the point of the EP recently reaffirming the renunciation of the anathemas of 1965.

Your retort indicates your lack of ability in engaging in any form of objective discussion.

You have dodged every answer on this thread which objectively question your Orthodox churches when you openly accuse others. You have failed to answer nearly every question put to you here.

We have answered every question put to us here.

You referenced them, and then accused us for denying their existence. We asked to you demonstrate how we have denied their existence when we too cite them.

Simple question which you won't answer. You also should perhaps study your Orthodox writers to get a better grip on the relation of praxis, economia, and legalistic fixations which you seem to have. No circular, polemical or rhetorical answers, just straight for once.

Matthew: to get back to your original argument, do you believe that a Catholic can be holy? Or a Protestant? Or are you of the belief that sanctity is only possible within Orthodoxy? Can a non-Orthodox Christian even go to heaven? Do you think, say, St Francis, who displayed supernatural traits was demon-possessed, like the ROCOR site I once visited?
Answering these questions would be helpful to all of us.
And Alex, you really need to chill out; you take this stuff way too hard. I mean really, yet another dramatic exit? Those of us who really count like you, isn't that enough?