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

Alex:

"Orthodoxy in Union with Rome" is a contradiction? It'll be a warm day in Canada before I believe that!

I'm finding it in my parish now. Perfectly? No, but show me a community that does live Orthodoxy (or Catholicism) perfectly...

I understand Unia is/was not a wonderful model of reunion, but I give thanks and praise to God that I can live Byzantine Christianity and still remain in communion with the successor of St. Peter.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy NEED each other. I hope I live to see reunion, but I suspect I will be long dead before it happens.

Hospodi, pomiluj!

Dear Everyone,
Perhaps another angle to look at this from would be, "What would the ecclesiology of the Eastern Particular Churches look like if there had never been a schism between East and West?" From the Catholic perspective, is it possible that some elements of Orthodox theology have strayed from the actual Eastern "big-T" Tradition because the Orthodox Church has been weakened by being out of perfect communion with the Universal Church? (Here, I am thinking about ecclesiology, as well as contraception, etc., not Liturgical differences.) Just as one cannot be Orthodox without believing in Orthodox ecclesiology, as Catholics, we believe that communion with the Pope of Rome is important and is what God planned for His Church. I'm not convinced that the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can be reduced to the differences between the Eastern and Western Traditions. There are Eastern Churches which have never been out of communion with Rome, and even with Latinizations aside, their theology is not identical with the Orthodox Church's.
I am not trying to attack the Orthodox Church's Apostolicity at all here. I have a great respect for the Church's Mysteries, Tradition, and all of the incredible suffering which has been endured on Her behalf by Her children. I am proposing that some, not all, of the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are not due to the differences between Eastern and Western Tradition, but due to the fact that the Orthodox Church has not had the benefit of Communion with the Pope of Rome and, therefore, has had an imperfect communion with the Universal Church. A, if not the, main "benefit" to being a Byzantine Catholic is that God intended all the Churches to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and so being Catholic has a certainity which Orthodoxy is lacking. I look forward to reading the thoughts of both Orthodox and Catholic posters, as most of you are much more knowledgable and well-read in these matters than I am.
Agape
p.s. I am not trying to claim that the Catholic Church doesn't have its own share of problems, including, in many cases, misunderstanding and disrespect for the Eastern Tradition. Nor is this post meant as any sort of judgement of individual Catholics or Orthodox Christians.

Thanks, agape. This brings me to a question about the Maronites.

I've read, and for a long time believed, since I had no reason to doubt, their claim that they never left communion with Rome. Recently, I'd read an article by someone who disagreed: he stated that such a claim cannot really be substantiated for various reasons.

In a way, I can agree with what this guy was saying...the Church in India was founded by the Apostle Thomas, and yet, because it was so far out there, it had next to no knowledge about the workings of the other Churches, be they Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or elsewhere. We just did our own thing until the Churches came to us...so the argument can be made that we never left communion with anyone, but an equally powerful argument can be made that that was because we were so far out there on the fringe of Christendom that we didn't know who to be in communion with.

So...can the Maronite claim to never having left communion with Rome actually be substantiated as reliable history? Or, as the dissenting opinion feels, is there more than meets the eye here?

I think that the true question is being 'begged'. The fact remains that the true Christian is one who is both baptized and who lives the Gospel. Jurisdictional matters are, in my opinion, second degree level issues.

For our Maronite brethren, these are true Christians who lived in community (i.e., a Church) and who tried their best as a community to exemplify the Gospel -- especially in light of latter-day Mohammedan persecution. ARe they Christians? No question. Are they West Syrian folks? No question. Are they in communion with one of the traditional Christian patriarchates? No question. So where is the problem? Westernized as a result of foreign influences? So are the Greeks and Slavs in the Western Hemisphere.

I'm not sure that we should be applying cultural yardsticks to judge canonicity. It's a natural response to any 'questions', but I believe that the best criterion is their adherence to the Gospel, and their willingness to be affiliated with the rest of Christendom.

Blessings!

Keep in mind that Protestant force that we know of today and of the past, is on it's way out the door. Mainstream Protestant Churches are destined to be not of any real significant numbers to pose any real force on the world culture. I suspect the "Non-Denominational" types will be in the tens of thousands spread throughout the world "exorcising" demons from people and forewarning the end of the world. But?

Also, if one believes the intellectual Hilaire Belloc, I believe he listed Islam as one of the five great heresies along side Protestantnism. I personaly don't know if it is justified to claim Islam to be a heresy of Christianity - like Mormonism would be - but I do know that a number of Orthodox and/or Byzantine Catholics on here take pride in claiming Islam to be a heresy of the Eastern Christian tradition. I also know that the Islamic world posses of a far greater threat to the Catholic/Orthodox world then the Protestant world does.

Remie, You remember mighty Pagan Rome that became Christian Rome? Well you might want to contemplate the possibility of once Protestant America and Britan becoming a predominatly Catholic and Orthodox America and Britan... well the possibility?

Dear Catholicos,

The Maronite question about never having left communion with Rome is repeated in the Ukrainian historical situation.

Our Eastern Catholic histories often make the claim that the Ukrainian/Kyivan Church never formally followed the Orthodox East in to "schism" after 1054 or 1204.

As "proof" they give the fact that St Peter Akerovych, Met. of Kyiv, signed the documents of unity at the Council of Lyons - which is true.

Then there was the case of St Macarius, Met. of Kyiv at the beginning of the 15th century who wrote a very warm letter to the Pope just before he was martyred by the Tatars who killed him before the altar as he was celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

Isidore of Kyiv, a Greek, signed the Union of Florence and spent his remaining days in Italy trying to defend his Greek compatriots after the Fall of Constantinople.

The Russians certainly have always suspected the Kyivan Church(es) of ties to the West and Rome. The later Latinist propensities of Kyivan Orthodox Saints didn't help matters.

The point is that the Kyivan Church was in Communion with all Churches before 1054 and in communion with Rome, but in accordance with the way all Churches, East and West, were in communion with each other.

Kyiv never had an incident like that between Humbertus and Caerularius in St Sophia's but it was clearly on the Orthodox side in the conflict, although not stridently so.

The Union of Brest brought a portion of the Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Church under Rome, but in a way that it NEVER was before.

I suspect a similar situation obtained with the Maronites.

They never excommunicated Rome, but being in the midst of Eastern Churches they went along with the Eastern policy toward Rome in general, but without making it an overt issue.

Alex

Now, to begin with, I am in a foul mood this morning, so please forgive me ahead of time here.

I am offended by the above question as much, if not more so, as by those who act as though the Latin Church is the Church and all others are inferior.

When I see someone asking this quesiton, I see them questioning my Faith.

This question is two sided as well, seeing that "Papal documents and statements affirm the validity and equality of the Eastern approaches to the Western approach" then I ask why these Latin Catholics (who are asking why I, a Byzantine Catholic, am Catholic and not Orthodox) why they are Catholics instead of being Western Rite Orthodox?

To sum up my feelings on this issue in one word: INSULTED


David

Dear David,

I'm sorry that the question insults you; that was never my intention...never is.

But it's not so much a questioning of your faith in the sense that I'm trying to take it apart and destroy it. I'm questioning it, much like someone might come up to you and ask you why you make the Sign of the Cross "backwards". I just want to know what you and the others feel regarding this, what your experience is, why you do what you do.

You say:

This question is two sided as well, seeing that "Papal documents and statements affirm the validity and equality of the Eastern approaches to the Western approach" then I ask why these Latin Catholics (who are asking why I, a Byzantine Catholic, am Catholic and not Orthodox) why they are Catholics instead of being Western Rite Orthodox?

I think the answer those Latin Catholics would give, upon your asking the question, would somehow entail loyalty to their Patriarch, the Pope of Rome. I would imagine that asking a Byzantine Catholic why he would stay Catholic rather than Orthodox, I would be given an answer entailing some kind of love/loyalty/devotion to the Pope, not as Patriarch, but as Universal Pastor or something like that. That seems to be what characterises a Catholic from an Orthodox.

Yet, in a thread I started nearly a year ago on this forum, when I'd just begun posting, about the whole Catholic v. Orthodox thing, the vast majority of Eastern Catholics responding then gave me the impression that they would rather be Orthodox than Catholic. Mind you, I know the difference between "Orthodox minded" and "wanting to be Orthodox"...it definitely seemed to me to be the latter. And so I questioned another poster privately, wondering why such people stay Catholic. It was out of a sense of frustration...on the one hand, they seem like they'd rather be Orthodox and/or rather not have to deal with the idea of the Pope, and on the other hand, they belong to an organisation that pledges some sort of loyalty to the office, rather than just up and go back to the Orthodox. It presented a problem to me.

My purpose in asking this again is twofold: in one sense, the question arose as a defence of what I understood another poster's point of view to be, and which others didn't seem to get; I was confirmed in my understanding of his point. The other reason I ask is because a year later, now that I've had a chance to mature and learn more, I want to see what people think/believe, with that much greater a foundation...and since the opportunity to ask came up, and was also encouraged, I went for it. Know that I intended no insult to you, other Catholics, the Orthodox, or to the two Churches, but if I came across that way, I apologise.

Forgive me.

What does it mean to be Catholic?
What does it mean to be Orthodox?

What exactly is Catholic ecclesiology?
What exactly is Orthodox ecclesiology?
What are the essentials of each?

Can one truly be completely Orthodox without communion with Peter?
Can one truly be completely Orthodox without communion with world Orthodoxy?

Does communion with Peter make it impossible for anyone to be Orthodox?
Is ortho-praxis secondary to ortho-ecclesiology or are they on an even footing?

Can one really state that lex orandi - lex crendendi is false and that even though our common Byzantine approach to liturgy and theology is identical (save national expressions) that we Byzantine Catholics are not in any way Orthodox?

Tough questions. No easy answers!

One cannot delete ecclesiology from Orthodoxy and have it remain Orthodoxy. But one cannot have the fullness of Orthodoxy as Christ intended it without communion with Peter. Any realistic analysis of the papal primacy in the early Church will show that it was far more than a primacy of honor and far less than the primacy of immediate jurisdiction Rome now claims. This same analysis will also show that communion with Peter was a necessary thing to the early Christians. Orthodox ecclesiology is flawed because it does not currently have the communion with Peter that it had during the first millennium. Roman Catholic ecclesiology is also flawed but its flaws are far less serious than Orthodoxy's flaw in not being in full communion with Peter. The flaws in Roman Catholic ecclesiology are large but not large enough to break communion.

Are Byzantine Catholics "Orthodox in communion with Rome"? This depends on one's viewpoint. Byzantine Catholics certainly have ortho-praxis (we may not celebrate all of the Divine Services that a ROCOR parish might have but we certainly celebrate a more fuller slate than does the average Greek Orthodox parish). Byzantine Catholics, however, do not share every detail of current Orthodox ecclesiology so in this sense one would have to say no (and Brendan is correct in stating that we are wrong to try to lump the Vatican atop our version of ecclesiology). But what are the essentials in current Orthodox ecclesiology? What differences are there in ecclesiology among the various Orthodox Churches and, if any, why are they all not major? If not being in communion with Peter is an essential than we are not Orthodox. But if communion with Peter is essential to being fully Orthodox (and I think it is) then it is the vast majority of Orthodox Christians who are lacking the key element necessary for Orthodox ecclesiology to be fully Orthodox.

Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians who embrace full communion with the Church of Rome and its primate, Pope John Paul II, the successor of St. Peter, the first among the Apostles.

Dear Moose,

I certainly agree that communion with Peter and his successors is crucial to being fully Orthodox.

But therein lies the problem.

It is not that the Orthodox reject Peter and his successors.

It is just that they have a different theology of Peter and his successors.

Orthodox ecclesiology understands the Petrine Ministry as belonging to the entire episcopate.

Indeed, Peter was the spokesman for the Apostles when he declared Christ to the Son of the Living God.

But all the other Apostles then declared this as well.

And Peter was never "Bishop of Rome."

He consecrated the first Bishop of Rome, as he consecrated the first Bishop of Antioch before that, and which is also a "Petrine See."

Peter consecrated the bishops of many cities, towns and even villages. And none of them have ever wanted to have their bishops declared "Ecumenical Pontiffs" etc.

Rome's place of honour was mainly expressed during an Ecumenical Council within a context of five Patriarchates.

It was actually Alexandria that began to call its Patriarch "Pope" and "Ecumenical Archbishop" (as well as "New Pharaoh").

The Pope of Alexandria was the first to declare an immediate jurisdiction over every priest and chapel throughout Africa, not Rome. Rome, whose Bishop initially didn't even have full jurisdiction over all of Italy, was called "His Beatitude." Later, the titles of the Pope of Alexandria and of the Byzantine Emperor ("Vicar of Christ") were taken over by the Bishop of Rome.

There were no other Apostolic Sees in the West besides that of Rome, established by Sts. Peter and Paul (later they said it was by St Peter and Paul submitted to him).

In the East, there were Sees established by Apostles galore.

In the West, the churches needed to be united around the central and only Apostolic Centre they had, which was Rome.

To be cut off from Rome was to be cut off from Apostolicity and canonicity.

Not so in the East. The later titles and privileges assumed by Rome were foreign to the East and not in keeping with tradition.

Add to this the issues about Triadology and the Filioque, the estrangement of Rome from the East over heresy was not, by any shape or form, considered by the Orthodox Church as being "cut off from communion with Peter and his successors."

Peter's successors were in abundance in the East.

And the East upbraided and chastised Rome years before the break for, e.g. changing the weekly fast from Wednesday to Saturday.

As one Orthodox writer, noted by Meyendorff, said, "Do not argue with the Bishop of Rome over the primacy of Peter. The primacy is good for the Church. Just let him show he has the faith of Peter and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

To the East, communion with Peter is being in communion with the Apostolic Episcopate.

Communion with the Pope is contingent on his being in communion with the pre-1054 understanding of his authority and the Orthodox faith.

We're in a quandry because we say we are "Orthodox" and yet, as Brendan has stated so well, we think we can get away with just "gluing" the Vatican on top.

And if you only accept the "primacy of honour" of the Pope, my friend, you aren't Catholic. You are Orthodox worshipping in a Catholic Church.

Alex

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

David the question is fair and right. The question you take offense to has much to do with culture and choice. In the end do to free will choice is predominate factor. I know personaly you take offense to women who question the sacrament of the Priesthood being avalible only to men. Now the question of women in the Priesthood is a matter of biology. Thus it must be much more personaly significant to a woman *who had no choice in wheter to enter this world as a female or male*. So while you feel women should not *question* their status in the Church, I fail to see where the real insult comes in *questioning* one's *choice* be that Westerner or Easterner.

Keep in mind that choosing to be in commuinion with Rome is making a *choice* not to be in communion with the Orthodox Church.

To answer your question as a Latin Catholic: I choose not to be of a Western Orthodox Rite because as a Catholic I see obiedience and union to the Pope of Rome as binding. I also accept Papal Infalibility. And since we speak of culture so much on here... you should no that it is particular of us Latin Catholics to have such a strong tie to our Pope, to rate us the label Papist - so it is probably fair to say that to be of Latin Catholic culture is to be very Papal in culture. I personaly don't find it insulting to say that I chose Rome over the rest of the Christian world. It is a choice I made or make. And if it is a good one then it is worth suffering for, if that need be the case. But the Buddhist say that to be free we must examine ourself and continuely re-examine ourselves. So what is wrong in questioning (as long as it's done with respect) ourselves as to our Christian indentity?

Dear Maximus,

Yes, and even the Western Rite Orthodox, being Western Rite, are the most ecumenically-minded toward Rome.

Culture is exceedingly important.

What you said was

Alex

Alex,

I appreciate all of your points and agree with many of them.

Orthodoxy is correct in its understanding that all bishops do participate in the petrine ministry. The Roman Catholics do not deny this. What differs here is the understandings of the specific ministry of the direct successor of Peter. If one studies the petrine role in the early undivided Church one can clearly see that Peter was accorded far more then just a primacy of honor but that he had far less than the immediate jurisdiction he now claims. As Byzantine Catholics we embrace the successor of Peter as he is. This does not mean that we also accept that Roman Catholic ecclesiology is flawless. We can embrace this necessary communion while also calling for a clarification of the ministry of Peter to better serve the Church when full communion with all the Churches of the East occurs.

Moose

Dear Moose and others,

The way you write indicates that you hold Roman ecclesiological presuppositions. All this concern about "communion with Peter." Orthodox are in union with Peter--because all Bishops are Peter and all bishops received the keys. Eucharistic ecclesiology as demonstrated by Prof. Nicholas Afanasiev and Metropolitan John Zizioulas demolishes the idea that there is a visible head of the church. But to hold universal ecclesiology (like Rome does) you get the notion that there for some reason has to be an earthly head of the Church--ie in Rome. The conclusion of this is that Orthodox are schismatics, period.

I don't buy that Orthodox are schismatics and I am frankly doubtfull now that there is such as thing as "papal primacy" in the first place. I prefer what the authors in "The Primacy of Peter" edited by John Meyenforff have to say: that Rome had a priority but in no way did it hold primacy.

There can be no primacy in the Church becuase each local Church is completely the CHURCH. All the local churches DO NOT equal the "universal church." There is simply no such thing as the "universal Church." Saint Paul wrote to "the Church of God at Corinth, the Church of God at Ephesus." This wasn't just some stylistic cuteness; rather, it indicated the eucharistic ecclesiology present.

What makes a church fully Catholic is that its bishop is in union with all the other local churches, and they offer up the one eucharist. That's why Orthodoxy does not speculate on the Grace outside of its mysteries. I tend to believe, as a Byzantine Catholic, that there are partial communions a la the Roman theory, but I do not hold universal church presuppositions insofar as I do not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the divinely-appointed sole successor to Peter who holds a primacy over the bretheren.

Getting back to the point, several of you are asking questions like, "Can someone be Orthodox and out of communion with Peter? Can someone be Orthodox and out of communion with World Orthodoxy?" Both these questions, while attempting to show both sides of the coin, reflect unviersal ecclesiology. Every Bishop is Peter. Orthodoxy lacks nothing doctrinally (maybe love though).

In Christ,

anastasios

Suggested Reading:

Dvornik, Francis. _Byzantium and the Roman Primacy_ (pretty much shows Roman Primacy to NOT be a divinely-attributed thing)

Meyendorff, John, ed. _Primacy of Peter_ Shows what eucharistic ecclesiology is vs. universal ecclesiology. Shows why there is no need for a primacy.

Zizioulas, John. _Eucharist Bishop Church_ and _Being in Communion_ Develope Eucharistic ecclesiology to fuller conclusions.

Dear Moose and Anastasios,

Both your posts reflect two different kinds of ecclesiologies, Moose's is the Roman one and Anastasios' is the Orthodox one.

And I'm not here to be the referee and declare a "winner."

Our ideas of the Petrine Ministry derive from which ecclesiology we subscribe to.

In AD1054, Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility were not issues. Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and others were not issues.

What led to the break between East and West was a slowly developing crescendo of doctrinal discontent beginning with the Filioque, involving cultural estrangement as well.

Later on, new Roman doctrines and developments in ecclesiology would solidify the estrangement and they still complicate theological rapprochement today.

But at that time there was no question that Rome could not claim to universal jurisdiction, even though the Roman Pontiffs, beginning with St Clement I, did speak up authoritatively on behalf of the Church to defend doctrine and wronged Churchmen (like St John Chrysostom).

Rome fell into heresy at the time of Maximos the Confessor, to be sure. Roman Pontiffs until the twelfth century had to renew the anathema on their predecessor, Pope Honorius, although today this episode is thought to be "insignificant." But tell that to St Maximos who lost a hand and his tongue for standing up for true doctrine!

There is no doubt that the Roman Primacy of Honour existed, but that that did not place the Bishop of Rome on some higher plane than other Patriarchs.

When Pope John Paul II met with Patriarch Bartholomew in Rome, their thrones were set on an even level, as happened with Pope John VIII and St Photios.

The Sees of Old Rome and New Rome are equal in dignity and both sides acknowledge that.

As the Patriarch has said, Rome must simply forget about "jurisdiction" for Church unity to be realized.

The Pope of Rome is First among Equals in the entire Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople is First among Equals in the Eastern (Byzantine) Church and our respective Primates/Patriarchs are First among Equals in their local Churches.

This was the order the ancient Church adhered to so we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel here.

But Orthodoxy would recognize Rome's Primacy of Honour again. Once Rome returns to the Orthodoxy of faith that it had before the break.

We Byzantine Catholics believe in the Pope of Rome and his Primacy, to be sure.

But, in so doing, we must acknowledge that we subscribe to a Latin ecclesiology, no matter how "Byzantine" we wish to colour it, in so doing.

Alex