www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic?

Alex,

I don't agree. I think Byzantine Catholics are what the mix of the two Churches can be. To be both Orthodox and in union with Rome is the ideal that we actually have. Personnaly, I think that that perculiar relationship is what has kept our historical faith from being deminished into larger ethnically more powerfull entities. Regardless of the opinions people have of the Unia, it is a model that can work in my opinion.

Dmitri

Literally no one on the Orthodox side of the equation would agree with you---from Patriarch to ya-ya.

I am pleased it---the Unia--- works for you at the personal level. I certainly will not argue that.

But the Orthodox will never accept union with Rome via the current East-West union model.

ER

[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Dear Dmitri,

Well, you've certainly raised an issue about which volumes have been written and the jury is still out on that one, to be sure.

I think of it in terms of a spiritual "cultural mix" that has definitely worked for our peoples and I've said that often enough.

The point is that both Rome and Orthodoxy have joined in repudiating this ("Uniate") model of church unity and have said that this cannot be the model of such unity in the future.

But my point is that the two ecclesiologies, Eastern and Western, have an inner flow and integrity that is literally vandalized whenever we claim to be "Orthodox in union with Rome."

I've certainly had earfuls from Orthodox about the use of this term and my initial, knee-jerk reaction was to tell them to calm down.

But to be fair to the Orthodox (and we gain nothing by upsetting or angering them), we must realize that to be Orthodox is to be "completely" Orthodox, to accept the Orthodox ecclesiology and the fact of Rome's separation from Orthodoxy today - to be a member of an Orthodox Church, in fact.

We can say that we are "Orthodox" in terms of "everything" save the Pope and the papal doctrines.

But is that really being honest with ourselves, with the Orthodox and, ultimately, with the Rome we are in union with?

I don't believe so.

The papal doctrines as they stand are a development, an outgrowth of a specifically Latin ecclesiology pertaining to notions of Jurisdiction, infallibility etc.

The questions posed by Latin ecclesiology and the answers given would not obtain in Orthodox ecclesiology.

So what we have only succeeded in creating is a third kind of ecclesiology, one that is relativistic at worse (since it assumes there is "no basic difference" between East and West) and a "patchwork" of borrowed and self-contradictory concepts stuck unnaturally together at best.

And it is trite for us to say that we "recognize the Primacy of Honour of the Pope" as does the Orthodox Church. We know darn well that we recognize more than that and that much about our Churches' inner workings are out of our own hands and are in those of Roman bureaucrats.

Right now, we are Catholics, plain and simple. We are Byzantines, to be sure. But we are not Orthodox from the perspective of Orthodoxy. If we were, we would not be in union with the Rome of today.

Alex

Dear Ephraim,

At least we two are in union with one another on this issue!

And on the issue of our love for all things Greek!

Alex

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. Byzantines can claim to be Orthodox just as the many un-cannonical and cannonical Orthodox groups can claim it. This is one of the issues that drove me from Greek Orthodoxy years ago. The supposed unity of Holy Orthodoxy is in name alone. Sure, the Unia has caused bad blood, but I see no love loss between the ROC and ROCOR or the Greek Orthodox under Constantinople and the Holy Othodox Church of Greece. Yet, all these groups have the true faith. They all have valid Mysteries yet no unity. I find it disturbing that anyone would deny the Orthodoxy I practice within the Catholic Church. I have not found that opinion amoung the Orthodox I know.

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

Of course, we use the term "Orthodox Christian" in our Liturgy etc.

But by "Orthodoxy" I mean "World Orthodoxy" (not the vagantes or the renegade groups which also obtain in the West).

Rome considers itself to be Orthodox and Catholic, the same is true of the East.

But I don't think the two can both be Orthodox and Catholic while remaining separated.

As a Church title that expresses a particular, historical ecclesiology, when one asks where is the "Orthodox Church" there would be no doubt where we would look in the phone pages.

As for disagreements etc., I think Catholics may have them too .

Just mention "abuses" and see the posts come rolling in . . .

Alex

Dmitri,

At Balamand, the Catholic Church officially moved beyond the current uniatism model of unity.

It does not work. Period.

In Christ,

anastasios

PS Where do you see unity in Catholicism? I don't see it. Neither Catholicism, Orthodox, or the "early church" was unified! Orthodox "disunity" is not in my opinion a very good reason to become Catholic!

I think Balamand clarified what it meant to be of the Unia. If it doen't work then technically my Church does not exist which of course it does. To deny that the Unia is not an important option is to negate the many who died to keep it alive. Sure, there are problems. Few human organizations are without them. But, my point is that we can be "Othodox in union with Rome" and be accepted by the world as such. And if they don't, we know the truth.

Dmitri,

PS: My reasons for becoming Byzantine Catholic are entirely my own and in no way reflect any universal opinion. With respect, I really don't care if it may not seem a good reason - it's mine. It reflects years of experience with various Orthodox diciplines. I shall leave it at that.

"Orthodoxy" includes ecclesiology. Byzantine Catholics are "Orthodox" only if they (1) deny that ecclesiology is a part of "Orthodoxy" or (2) deny that the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church is "Orthodox ecclesiology".

As Alex has said well, you can't just take the Orthodox ecclesiology and glue the Vatican to the top of it -- that defaces both ecclesiologies. I would add that you can't delete ecclesiology from "Orthodoxy" and have it remain "Orthodoxy".

Byzantine Catholics are just that -- Catholics of the Byzantine Rite (which entails ritual, liturgy, some theological tradition, spirituality and disciplinary practices, much the same as practiced by the Orthodox Church, but which does *not* include Orthodox ecclesiology).

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

It is always good to hear from you. To have you comment favourably on one's posts is always a privilege and an honour!

I am really upset about my hypocrisy with respect to Joe Thur, so I'll leave this at that.

God bless,

Alex

Again, I think our Latin friends keep looking at this as a question of "what benefits to me derive from the Petrine Ministry. In fact, the Petrine Ministry is not a minsity to persons. Individuals don't directly benefit. It is a ministry to the communion of churches. To truly understand the East, one must free oneself of Western individualism.

K.

>>>If it doen't work then technically my Church does not exist which of course it does.

No.... I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. Uniatism doesn't work, which is why we have the sad, confused situation we have today. That in no way 1) denies the reality and validity of Eastern Catholics or 2) denies that some lost their lives over it as martyrs. But some also lost their lives on the Orthodox side to maintain the Orthodox faith. The only real solution is a union between the entire Byzantine Church, the entire Latin Church, and the entire "lesser" Eastern Churches based on equal players.

>>>But, my point is that we can be "Othodox in union with Rome" and be accepted by the world as such. And if they don't, we know the truth.

I don't see how we can claim to be Orthodox in Union with Rome. I used to think that way. I am beginning to think otherwise. Bishop Jan Hirka, for example, is NOT Orthodox (NOTE: I do not know the guy and I do not seek to judge his personal integrity, Christian values, etc--but he is NOT Orthodox, and probably would not want to be either)!

>>PS: My reasons for becoming Byzantine Catholic are entirely my own and in no way reflect any universal opinion. With respect, I really don't care if it may not seem a good reason - it's mine. It reflects years of experience with various Orthodox diciplines. I shall leave it at that.

Well I probably spoke to strongly and judgementally so please forgive me. My point was that if you are saying that a reason to become Catholic is that Orthodox are disunified (and thus the implication is that Catholics are) that that is not a good reason, becuase my line of thinking is that Catholics are not unified. I didn't mean to infer that you made a bad decision. Just that I hope other factors were involved than just that. But that's your business and I don't want to intrude.

In Christ,

anastasios

I just wanted to hop in and say thanks for posting all your messages. Even though I didn't ask the questions, I have found this to be enlightening.

My two primary reasons for remaining Catholic are familial connections with Catholicism and the current state of chaos within Orthodoxy.

I'm not one hundred percent sold on the situation as it now stands. I'm quite happy with Rome, but when the next Pope comes, I'll be watching closely to see what he does. I think I would find it difficult to leave Rome knowing what my wife's family did to preserve unity, although I'm certain she would change to Orthodoxy if I changed. They held on and wouldn't be torn through abuses and persecution from both West and East.

However, I'm not certain I can stand to see more Eastern traditions ignored, insulted or abolished by Roman Catholicism. I guess I have the attitude of "wait and see" with the next Pope. I am distrustful of Rome's intentions towards the Eastern Churches. I suppose that�s not very Catholic of me.

I have spoken to some who think I'm Orthodox waiting for an excuse to change churches. I'm not so sure.

This is very interesting. Just a comment. Catholic authors claim that the administrative union of the Church (represented by the Pope, the ministry of St. Peter and confiermed by the papal infalibility) and the RC sees church unity as an administrative unity (under the Pope). The Orthodox would say that the true unity is the unity of the true faith (ecumenical councils, ecclesiology...). The results are interesting: the RC claims that these dogmas and the pyramid-like leadership of the Popes of Rome protect the Church from schisms and divisions and at a certain degree it's true (now the RC doesn't have the problems that can be found in Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus... and jurisdictionalism) but the Orthodox Church hasn't had a powereful heresy like the western protestantism that came from the RC, and in the unfortunate schisms and conflicts of the local churches, the orthodox faith has not been affected.

The truth is that there have been movements in order to build a bridge between both communities (Eastern Catholic uniatism, and now the western orthodox rites used in some Orthodox jurisdictions) and this shows that there is a real desire of union and brotherhood but we haven't found the way to establish this unity. There also a historical trauma that hasn't been overcome/-.

Remie's last post got me thinking. Through all the schisms and other squabbles among Orthodox Churches and jurisdictions, they've preserved the true faith. He brings up the Protestant heresy, seemingly to say that while Catholics have preserved jurisdictional unity, the "deposit of faith" hasn't been guarded well. Forgive me if I've misunderstood his point or misrepresented what he said.

Sure, the Protestant heresy sprung in the West, but Arianism came from the East, if I'm not mistaken. So I don't completely buy that line of thinking. Which leads me to a new question.

As far as I can tell, the only real and main issue is the office of Pope, and what it means. So...

1. Is there basis in Scripture and/or tradition (and thus, doctrinally/theologically) for the office of Pope to be what it is now? If so, what is that basis?

2. If not, then is the current state of the office of Pope representative of a departure from the original to a new form, a change in the exercise of the office that has been confirmed, solidified, as a change in belief, or masked as a development of doctrine, but that really isn't so? In short, does the current state of the papal office constitute a change, however subtle or radical, in the true faith that was kept in the West (forgive me if the question sounds confrontational...I don't mean it to be, but I don't know how else to ask it)?