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

Dear Anastasios,

Yes, exactly - they were not personal.

God bless,

Alex

I just wanted to comment at this point that the comments on this topic illustrate some of the reasons for the distances between our Churches. This includes Latins, Byzantines, and Orthodox. The passions with which we debate our Faith is incouraging in an age of relativism and materialistic humanism. Though we may disagree with how we do it, our love for the Holy Churches of God is obvious. We are willing to scrap over our beliefs in the model of St. Alexander Nevsky and St. Demetrius the Soldier. It assures me all the more that the Christian Faith is still very much alive and well.

Dmitri

Dear Catholicos,

An excellent question!

The Eucharistic model of the Church is an "ideal type" in many ways that reflects a deeper spiritual reality of the Body of Christ which is what the Church is - as is the Eucharist.

Just as the local Church is the "Whole in the Part" (or the holistic perspective), the local Church is also part of the greater "Whole" as St Paul says.

But your point is well taken. This is why Eastern Churches tend to reflect a collegial relationship between the orders of Hierarchs, from Bishop to Patriarch, even though, as we know, there are Churches that are run quite bureaucratically, "top-down."

A bishop was once trying to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist to a potential new convert.

The convert had trouble understanding how the Whole Christ can be present not only in the Whole Eucharist, but also in every Particle.

The bishop picked up a mirror and threw it to the ground where it broke into many small pieces. He then told his young friend to look down at it.

And, of course, the fellow could see himself completely reflected in each small piece.

I think the actual day-to-day relationship between the various levels of the Church vary from place to place.

But at least there is the understanding that the Local Church is to be respected for its Life in Christ.

Alex

"- There's not a single Orthodox Church but many orthodox churches and it's hard to make agreementes with them. (It took a long time for ome to discover that)"

This reflects the difference in ecclesiological perspective. For Orthodox, there is one Orthodox Church but a plurality of jurisdictions -- as there has *always* been. Prior to the great separations within the church of the oikumene, there were certainly jurisdictional differences among them, and yet there was one Church. That is the Orthodox perspective. The Catholic perspective often seems to be that unless everything is administratively united under a common head -- ie, Rome -- there is no real unity. That's simply not the Orthodox view. I often wondered why Rome persistently used the word "Orthodox churches" and not "Orthodox Church" -- I *suspected* that this was a statement regarding the Catholic perspective on the nature of the Orthodox Church, and unfortunately that seems confirmed.

Corporate reunion cannot come in pieces, otherwise it will result in more schism and acrimony.

"The "traditional" Primacy of the EP is now a questionable thing for some National churches and sometimes it's rejected, specially by the Church of Russia."

The "traditional" primacy of the EP is based on canon law and cannot be revoked other than through a council. There are many in the Orthodox world who would like to reconsider that canonical provision under the current circumstances, but the EP remains the first hierarch of the Orthodox Church until that is changed. The big difference, of course, is that we believe that this kind of ecclesiastical primacy is mutable based on circumstances -- as the Patriarch of Constantinople became the leading primate in the East following the elevation of Constantinople to the Imperial Capital (ie, a significant change of circumstances), so can the primacy be moved to another See today to accomodate changed circumstances. It's mutable, plain and simple.

"Ecumenical dialogue between the RC and the Orthodox churches has had a different development with each church:"

Which is also normal -- relations between local churches are, by their nature, multilateral.

"with the Churches of Romania and Gruzija, relations have been established in a normal way with great results,"

Hmmm. Seems to me that there is some litigation going on.

"with the Church of Greece the dialogue has almost been re-established with probable good results,"

Optimistic, but it's okay to be cautiously optimistic.

"and with the churches of the Middle East (Antioch) there's almost a full communion and unity."

That's overstating the case substantially. When the Melkites said the same thing a few years ago, three curial cardinals wrote them a letter stating that this was impossible under the current circumstances as there is not a unity of faith -- from *Rome's* perspective -- specifically naming the papal claims as a point of difference.

"Unfortunately between the MP and the RC, the dialogue is broken because of "political" interests."

This is yet another example of the Vatican's attempt to isolate the MP and drive a wedge between the MP and the rest of the Orthodox world -- that's all it is.

**********

"Could someone clarify what exactly a "eucharistic ecclesiology" entails? I mean, I understand that where the bishop is, there is the whole Church. What place does that afford for hierarchies within the system, where one may be bishop of Anyplace, yet one may have to be under some sort of authority from the Patriarch of Anylargerplace?"

The administrative authority arises from the presence of a Bishop of a larger, more prestigious, more populous See among a group of episcopates on a regional basis. That larger see can speak with some authoritativeness on behalf of the sees of its region. The level of authoritativeness differs significantly among local churches. The Roman and Alexandrian churches *always* had a high level of centralization and a high degree of authoritativeness for the leading see -- and still do today. Other local churches were always more collegial than that.

"What place do the other bishops hold within that kind of ecclesiology? If one bishop alone in a local Church makes up the whole Church, where do other bishops come in to play?"

They come into play because eucharistic ecclesiology requires *communion*. The Church is the assembly in a particular place, gathered around the Bishop who is in communion with the other orthodox Bishops.

"And if one has a legitimately ordained bishop, and he has his own local Church, and yet he isn't recognised by the others, he isn't considered canonical by them...but why would he need to be?"

Because without communion there is *no* eucharistic ecclesiology. The Eucharist has a vertical and a horizontal aspect -- the ecclesiological aspect is expressed in the horizontal aspect of eucharistic communion. A bishop who is not in communion with the other Orthodox bishops has cut himself off from the Eucharist, per eucharistic ecclesiology. That's why Orthodoxy is very reluctant to comment on the nature of sacramental grace outside the visible communion of the Orthodox Church.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Good to see you here, Brendan the Theologian, good to see you!

I find the RC comment on the Orthodox Churches to reflect a certain imposition of RC ecclesiology on Orthodoxy, and then an assessment based on how closely or not Orthodoxy resembles it.

And that is certainly neither fair nor ecumenical.

It is like saying that Orthodoxy fails here and there precisely BECAUSE it doesn't follow the "optimum" RC model of church organization.

And that Rome is there as the paternalistic big brother to help the "Churches of Orthodoxy" get back on track!

That is why we have an assessment in terms of an RC understanding of which Orthodox Churches are "good" or "bad" in terms of their relative cooperativeness with Rome (and its geopolitical aims?).

You see, Brendan, we Eastern Catholics have a good deal in common with the Orthodox over this Rome thing, as you know as well being a former member of the "M-Church" .

(How are you feeling today?)

What this whole thing does show, I believe, is that Rome seems less and less willing to tolerate an ecclesiology other than its own.

Perhaps it feels that the Eucharistic Model is too "warm and fuzzy" for its bureaucratic taste, I don't know.

Alex

"You see, Brendan, we Eastern Catholics have a good deal in common with the Orthodox over this Rome thing, as you know as well being a former member of the "M-Church""

Right.

"(How are you feeling today?)"

OK.

"What this whole thing does show, I believe, is that Rome seems less and less willing to tolerate an ecclesiology other than its own.

Perhaps it feels that the Eucharistic Model is too "warm and fuzzy" for its bureaucratic taste, I don't know."

I don't know if it's less and less willing or if the true colors only show sometimes.

In fairness to the Latins, I do believe that they sincerely believe that there is no true unity unless there is one jurisdictional head -- in other words, a "primacy" without "power" truly rings hollow to Roman Catholic ears. What is needed is a primacy of considerable "authority" but not jurisdictional "power" -- but at this point, I don't think that the Roman Catholics think that this is possible.

Brendan

Dear Brendan the Theologian,

Well, for an Orthodox Christian, you talk a pretty infallible line . . .

Perhaps, and I know we've discussed this before, Rome could keep its current authority/power position within its own Patriarchate, but (learn to) adopt a collegial relationship with others that doesn't involve such power, leaving the authority relationships within existing Orthodox Patriarchates alone.

My own view is that it shouldn't be an "all or none" kind of thing with respect to church authority for Rome.

In other words, Rome can have different authority relationships at the same time, just as the Pope has nine different levels of pastoral responsibility as currently defined by the RC Church. And Rome needn't lose what it already has within its own Patriarchate, and I believe Meyendorff once made a comment along those lines.

It's always so nice to have a chat with you, Brendan. And it's so very enriching for all of us here!

Alex

David,

I really don't think anyone is questioning your loyalty to the Catholic Church or questioning how Catholic you are. If anything, as evident by the debate of a number of posts, the questioning would be how "Orthodox" a Byzantine Catholic is while Choosing communion with the Church of Rome over the Church of Constantinople.

Now before you get upset about what I just said let me just say I'm not proclaiming the Byzantine Catholics not to be "Orthodox". I really have no opinion one way or the other as I don't understand enough in this are to really make any good opinion. However I had always in the past held that Eastern Catholics Churches were "Orthodox", infact I had thought the Orthodox Church herself felt this way. Apperantly there is more to this issue then us just saying "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Know you guys may very well be that but it seems obvious to me that not everyone acknowledges that to be true.

Perhaps it is the Calvary of the Eastern Catholic Churches to suffer between the two extremes of Constantinople and Rome. But if it is, I still don't think it does any good to ignore important questions about our Churches and who we are by choosing the Church we do.

I don't see how any growth or understanding can come about by just saying: no you can't ask me why I choose communion with Rome over Constantinople. Perhaps some of us Latin Catholics can be better understood about the questions we ask if I tell you that there is a large population of Latin Catholics who don't know that you guys - Byzantine Catholics - exist. Infact I didn't know there where Eastern Rites to the Catrholic Church until I was an adult. I knew the Orthodox Church existed but I didn't know you guys did. And for the many in my generation that don't know you guys walk on this earth - I doubt they have a feeling of superiority to Byzantines as they don't have the knowledge of your existence to engineer a feeling of superiority over Byzantines. I also would bet most if not all, upon finding out of your existence (Eastern Catholic Rites) would think it was pretty cool.

But if I would make a suggestion (God for bid, LOL) you Byzantine Catholics can seem a bit annoying at times to - I would assume - Latin Catholics and - I would assume - Orthodox Christians, when it seems you want to ignore important theological issues of both Churches and just say what you are. Of course you all are fully Catholic and share are dogmas, but I guess to clamor to the Orthodox you all seem to deny this at times and try to play as though you all are in every way Orthodox who just happen to be in union with Rome. I have many times gotten the feeling from many on this board that Byzantines don't really like or care for us Latin Catholics, but you stay in communion with us - at least by ways of the Pope of Rome. But then one gets the feeling that you all are head over heels for the Orthodox Church, but they tell you all that your really not one of them - and infact you all reject communion with them, while at the same time seeming to say you are in some way in communion with them. I don't know but that is the way many of you come off. I'm coming to understand more that much of this "Orthodox" and Byzantine thing is very, very, cultural. With long memories. So I'm learning how difficult, how many issues, go into being a Byzantine Catholic, how really uneasy this whole Orthodox/Catholic thing is.

Alex --

I agree -- I was referring to the Pope's role beyond the Latin Church. AFAIC, the Latin Church can remain as centralized as it wishes as an internal matter. We're certainly going to have the expect that the Copts will be the same in a reunited Church.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Then we are already "in union" Servant of Christ!

May God bless you and your family in this Holy Season of the Great Fast!

Alex

Dear Maximus,

You raise a number of interesting points as you always do.

When it comes to annoying people, I don't just limit myself to those of the Latin and Byzantine Churches!

I can be rather "universally" annoying, as you, Joe Thur, Angela etc. etc. know!!

But you are quite right that we are between Rome and Constantinople, (a "Rock and a Hard Place").

Many of us Byzantines tend to move away from a perceived centre between the two and be either Pro-Latin or Pro-Eastern.

My Church has both and it is relatively easy to tell which line the parish is toeing when you enter inside.

I think you'll find a lot of us do indeed understand and appreciate the Latin Church, either because some of us want to maintain our Latinisms, or else because we want to better know what to stay away from in our own spirituality.

In some sense, we are like the Anglicans, with the "High Church" (Byzantine" and the "Low Church" (Latin).

Through it all, we struggle, as you do, to try and understand who our ancestors were, and who we are and must become.

We don't fit into any predetermined "cubby hole" and perhaps that is why we can be so annoying at times.

Unless you're like me and an annoying character comes naturally . . .

Alex

Am I wrong in assuming that Orthodox subjectivity and the tendency to not worry about loose ends drives Latin-rite and Byzantine-rite Catholics, as well as converts to Orthodoxy--especially those from the Latin West--to distraction, on occasion?

If that is the case, should I assume--as a person born into an ethnic group that is traditionally Orthodox and operates by its own cultural values, i.e., values that often differ significantly from those of the West--that I am in need of a "get with the Latin way" remedial education program?

My anecdotal experience---and that of three hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople who discussed this issue while on a retreat---is that there is an unspoken, maybe even unconscious, assumption that the Latin way is the best way.

If it is true that the West adheres to this position--and the Unia experience would indicate it does--we cannot possibly unite as equals, since the a priori position of the Latin Church is that we are not equals, rhetoric aside.

Would the Latin Church (or Byzantine Catholics) unite with us, under the reverse circumstances, i.e., Greek cultural norms are superior to Latin norms, etc.?

ER

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Brendan makes some excellent points. He is correct in his response to Remie. The plurality of Orthodox jurisdictions is confusing to the West with its legalistic approach but this apparent lack of unity is not a "make-or-break" for communion. The East has always been more loosely organized. The West was like this at one time as well.

I don't think that the Catholic reference to "the Orthodox Churches" has anything to do with the issue of unity. The Catholic Church often speaks of "the Catholic Churches" and "the Eastern Catholic Churches". It is only appropriate that it also speak of the Orthodox Churches this way. Even if Rome was choosing its phraseology to intentionally reflect a perceived lack of unity this should be understandable since there is no united voice within Orthodoxy (there has been no method within Orthodoxy to call a council since 1452 when the Byzantine Empire fell). A substantive discussion of authority with Orthodoxy (be it with a Eucharistic, Trinitarian or another model of ecclesiology) must take in account that from roughly the time of Constantine until 1453 Orthodoxy relied on the authority of the state to call councils and keep good order within the Church. Orthodoxy has never developed a new method of keeping order within the house (and, to be fair, this is mostly because of constant persecution). This lack of an authoritarian vehicle is problematic but not reflective on the issue of unity.

At one point I had some sympathy for the MP's cries of fowl towards Rome. Rome is known for playing politics to get what it wants. But the MP's refusal to even discuss the issues with Rome is what is responsible for the bad light she is currently seen in. Rome is playing politics, but so is the MP.

Is Rome unwilling to tolerate an ecclesiology other than its own? Maybe. Maybe not. To be fair, Orthodoxy is also very reluctant to even discuss ecclesiology and its lack of a centralized method to state its case greatly handicaps it in any effort at dialogue.

There are other acceptable Orthodox models of ecclesiology. Some Orthodox argue for an ecclesiology based upon the Holy Trinity (which was discussed at length on this forum several years ago).

Dear Ephraim,

You raise fascinating points!

In fact, as you will recall, it was precisely because Patriarch Nicon of Moscow was a Hellenophile, who loved not only all things Greek when it came to religion, but also all things Greek when it came to food etc., that the Old Believer Schism took place (along with some other issues as well ).

The Ukrainians who looked to Constantinople as their Mother, and still do, followed the Greek rubrics exclusively.

Then there was the matter of the Hellenization of some of the Slavic Churches to the north of Greece.

I suppose this was inevitable as it was inevitable that Latin ways would take hold of Byzantine Catholics, as they have over the last 400 years.

A Ukrainian Catholic seminarian was having his oral exams in L'viv before both Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic professors in the 1930's.

At the end of his exam, an RC professor put the question to him, "Which Rite is more beautiful, the Latin or the Greek?"

To which this fellow replied, "Why, the Latin, of course!"

The response the RC professor gave was, "The Latin cannot even compare to the beauty of the Greek Rite, son, cannot even compare!"

Alex