www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we really in Communion?

Brothers and Sisters:

It seems to me that we might all be missing a point concerning what it means to be "in communion."

My own understanding about being "in communion" relates to its being a state of "present progressive tense," if you'll allow me the comparison to grammar. Communion means that we are "coming into union," not that we are in some static, perfect state that exists by itself. We are constantly being re-taught and re-evangelized by our yearly liturgical cycles. That alone should tell us something about being "in communion." The fact that we all need to avail ourselves of periodic confession ought to relay this same message: we're all struggling to "get it right" or "be in communion."

If we look at Church history, there hasn't been an age where someone wasn't challenging what correct doctrine is about or how we express it liturgically or how we live it out day-to-day. And we all have to admit that we've all got some real problem people in each Church. But, then, the Lord told the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: there will be those who look like everyone else, but you'll know them by their fruit. At the same time, we are not responsible for their actions, but we ARE obligated to pray for them so that none may be lost.

It seems to me that being "in communion" means that we are willing to keep talking to each other, that we are willing to correct each other in mutual charity, and that (most importantly) we just simply don't give up on each other.

It seems to me that the terrible schisms that have occurred in the Church's history have come about because we have, unfortunately, "given up on each other": given up on trying to see the Truth through each other's eyes, given up on trying to understand how the other is living out the Gospel, given up on people that the Lord came to save as He came to save each of us. And if we read about some of the official dialogues that have taken place in the past 40 years, we discover that some of the things that have caused problems have related to language and the problem of translating doctrines into other languages that do not have the constructs that the origianl langauges have.

The tragedy continues when we take up a line of speaking that seems to imply that it's "my way or the highway." I think it's more important to learn the reasons BEHIND our own community's approach to the Truth received and then go on to learn about others by letting them tell us how they perceive the same Truth dressed in different language and approaches--being sure to learn the reasons BEHIND why the other expresses the Truth as he does and lives it as he does. I've found in my own study that the reasons BEHIND are as important as the surface of formulations and practices and that understanding them helps immensely in overcoming the problems that occur between people when they simply compare the surfaces.

Additionally, we have to be very careful about making rash statements and judgments about some of these issues. Most here probably don't have the official mandate to speak on behalf of their Churches on these issues. And, speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to keep up with what my own Church is saying in all these areas. The Holy Spirit is on the move in these areas and He sometimes changes perceptions in the twinkling of an eye. Additionally, it can be very confusing to determine who actually speaks for the Church and our tendency, being human, is to find the speaker who tells it like we want to hear it.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear GMmcnabb,

Greetings.

In regards to:
I cannot speak on behalf of our Orthodox brethren, but I can state that I personally believe in the Primacy of the See of Peter (based upon historical precedence), and feel that I could be fully Orthodox and still hold with this belief.

The Dogma of Papal Infallibility should, IMHO, never have occurred. How and why is this type of proclamation beneficial to the Nicene Creed? If the filioque was stopped, (as I feel it should have been), and communion was retained between the bishops, than this should have never occurred. It was brought about by pride.

One of the most important letters written by a Pope and accepted by bishops the world over (as known back then) was the Formula of Hormisdas. Here is the letter:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.


Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.


Now, the letter above surely establishes the Primacy of Peter, but it also requires obedience to the true faith of the Church. Was that obedience not fulfilled with the introduction of the filioque into the Creed? That act alone gives me many questions to ponder. If the head of the true Church upon the earth does modify the creed of faith without approval from all bishops, since all are teachers of the true faith, then does that leader not err? And by the Formula of Hormisdas, does he also not need to dispose of himself since he varied from the true faith?

I believe the above situation (regarding the filique and other matters) has occurred, and are in violation of the Formula that all signed, therefore, a dogma of infallibility did need to be proclaimed, since the popes fell out of grace regarding the Formula of Hormisdas, and were trying to gain respect and titular leadership back. IMHO, the only way to correct this is:

1. Formally do away with the filioque.
2. Renounce the Papal Infallibility dogma.
3. Successfully establish communion with the other churches.

Once this occurs, and we have the Apostolic See of Peter back to the worthy condition of the Early Church, then, and only then, do I feel that the Apostolic See of Peter will be restored to all its glory! Dogmas will not be required since the Pope will have the respect of all his brother bishops. So, as you can see, the dogma of Papal infallibility, to me, is not something that is being abandoned, if someone were to fully convert to Orthodoxy. It should never have occured in the first place. You cannot pass a law to make someone respect you. You must earn that respect.

I wish to go on record as accepting and supporting fully the Primacy of Peter, however, based upon the Formula, I feel major work must be done to to bring the Primacy back to its full Holiness.

In Christ.

Michael

So you are implying that the Catholic Church is wrong when it formulated this Dogma in an Ecumenical Council? One can not remain a Catholic in good standing if you refuse to beleive in Papal Infalibility in matters of Faith and Morals as defined in the Vatican I council.

I am afraid that is a one sided reply. there is nothing wrong with at least questioning the Dogma of Infallibility. the circumstances in which the dogma was defined in 1871 was at best shady. the Council was held in the dead of summer with the Council packed with Italian Cardinals who could be counted on to vote the convenient way. the whole history leading up to the dogma is disgraceful, with the Donation of Constantine to begin with. now, it is understandable, in the light of Italian unification in 1861, which led to the demise of the Papal States that the Vatican would desperately want to to hold on to some semblance of power, after all, it was the Papacy that held Europe together after the final fall of the Western Empire, and its ensuing chaos. but that does not mean that the logical conclusion of all that I have noted should have led to to the dogma under discussion. it is divisive, and I hold that a new Council should be called to junk the dogma and proclaim what I have held for many years, that the Pope should be first amongst equals. Oh, don't kick me out of the Catholic Church because I won't swallow that dogma, I am a cradle Catholic, and after the episode with the Mormons, I ain't goin' nowheres.
Much Love,
Jonn
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear GMmcnabb,

To answer your question, in all sincerity, I do not believe we have had a true legitimate Ecumenical Council since the 7th/8th prior to the Great Schism. I realize many feel all councils since then are "Ecumenical" from the Western point of view, but I personally disagree and state IMHO that these are local Church of Rome councils that are not binding on the One Holy catholic and apostolic Church due to lack of representation of the other local churches.

When the 2nd General Council of Constantinople was convoked, nobody yet knew what an "ecumenical council" was or what weight to accord to its acts. This particular council only came to be considered ecumenical when the Creed it issued was ratified more than three quarters of a century later by the undeniably ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

From "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Kenneth D. Whitehead, pg112.

Therefore, until all our bishop brothers in Christ ratify this dogma, I do not believe it to be ecumenical.

Also, in my previous post, as per the Formula, did we not mess with the Creed that is our symbol of faith for the entire Church of Jesus Christ? That, to me, is a huge issue.

Therefore, I fully accept and affirm the Nicene Creed [without filioque], and fully believe in the Primacy of Peter, but follow my own belief on the origin of sin (it is not a stain, but the condition of mortality), and the path to Theosis does not include the requirement to undyingly accept the dogma of papal infallibility...believing in the Primacy of the Apostolic See of Peter supercedes any need for the dogma of infallibility. When the Church as a whole makes a change, then that is infallibile. This is my own personal beliefs, and if I have offended anyone, I do apologize, but I have had over 30+ years to reflect upon this (I am older, just that once I heard this dogma as a kid, it kind of did not make sense to me even then).

For those that truly embrace this dogma, I salute you and your faith. However, I have stated many times in many posts, we are the Church of Jesus Christ, and not the Church of the Pope of Rome or the Church of the Pope of Alexandria, etc, and I for one, bow to God, divine and man both, but not to man, because we are to have no idols before us. Forgive me, dear Lord.

In Christ,

Michael

Dear "I" on the horse,

I think we are in an "imperfect" Communion with Rome. As long as we are subject to and governed by Rome (as opposed to being in full and equal communion with the Church of Rome but also fully independent regarding administrative duties like all the early churches), I now see that we provide a snapshot to the other churches of what needs to be possibly fixed.

This beautiful and holy Ruthenian Byzantine Church entered/returned into communion with Rome, but instead of being partners, like in a marriage, this church became a servant/subject of a dominating force. Promised rights to exist in the original form were broken, and many abuses were heaped against this wonderful church. As we strive to fight to regain our heritage and purge ourselves of latinizations (some forced, some willingly accepted in order to be accepted and slacken some of the heat) as per +Blessed John Paul II via the Oriental Lumen, any observer from the East can see what an inhospitable bed has been created for our church, and most likely would think --you are crazy if you think I am going to deal with that--.

Our love for the Apostolic See of Peter is apparent, real, and correct, but the manner that the EC has been treated with is a different story.

So yes, we are in communion, but an imperfect one, IMHO.

One last thought--has the introduction of the rosary, clickers, etc. become an organic growth? Are we now a true hybrid and lost our original identity to be given instead a new one that is neither eastern or western but instead "Byztern"? Just some food for thought.

In Christ,

Michael

Dear Jonn,

Thank you for your input. I agree with you.

Michael

Karen, I think what you�re saying is there isn�t a well marked �beliefs� and a well marked �worship� that we can partake of separately. The liturgy is a visible and tangible expression of ones belief and spiritual foundation. The liturgy is not a one time a week event, it�s part of an ongoing cycle that orders our life. That is the way I look at it.

The Eucharist is both intimate and communal, in and out of time. The worship then is not only a connection to God, but a connection to the whole body of believers in communion, both visible and not visibly present. When I partake of the Eucharist I am connected to the whole Orthodox spiritual tradition through the liturgy, because through the communion of the church I am connected to the sources of that tradition (Constantinople, Mount Athos and so on). I couldn�t break the two apart; I couldn�t worship out of communion of the spiritual font of the church and conversely I couldn�t fully be immersed in the spiritual tradition of the church without being in the worship.

Andrew

I can attest though experience that this is not 100% true.

InCogNeat3,

It depends on what one means by "in full communion"...as others have stated here.

RE: John's statement...

/Yes. Byzantine Catholics are different from Roman Catholics, but they are Catholics. They believe the same things about faith and morals, and they follow the pope/

I agree to a point...which is..that the Byzantine Churches do uphold the same basic faith and morals..and are following the Pope. Some things differ as to number of icons, where the Eucharist is placed, and some theological terms and concepts, however. And, of course, the Divine Liturgy...which is so much more beautiful than anything I have ever experienced in a Latin church.

However, it has been my experience on this forum and others to have observed...that Eastern Catholics (namely Byzantines) themselves personally differ as to their intent about being "in communion with Rome." I have sought this same question you pose for two years now and the only thing I can come up with as far as the people themselves is that:

Some do and some don't consider themselves in "full communion." There are many stuggling with the issue of identity and rightly so.

Perhaps there is so much focus on this identity struggle that the very Christian foundation the West and the East share can be lessened...the traditions based on scriptures, the Liturgy, the Saints, prayer, the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ...which we both East and West remember and celebrate soon...

In a world where the guns of materialism, atheism, rampant immorality, agnosticism, terrorism, war, and many societal afflictions are aimed at Christians..we need to bond together on our common ground. The enemy we face is not one another...

Peace in Christ,

Porter

I stepped away from this topic for a few days; sorry for not responding sooner.

Are Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics truly in communion with each other? Technically they are, but "truly" ?

Some Catholics (BCs and RCs) would answer that questions by saying "deeply"; others would say "essentially"; others would say "not much at all in practical effect." The very able posts on this thread --by OrthodoxCatholic, Theophan, Lost&Found, JonnNightwatcher and Porter-- illustrate the diversity of degree and depth of that answer.

But, at least Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics *have* a formal, technical communion which allows them, if they wish, to share their differences and similarities around the same Eucharistic altar. That kind of unity, sadly, does not exist (yet?) between Catholics and other Christians.

Aside from the technical, legal unity, real communion is a much deeper and a much more intimate sharing of spiritual life. I would say that Rilian's post, Porter's post and especially Theophan's post are very competent descriptions of that deeper level to spiritual and religious communion.

Be well.

-- John

I would say that, if no one else will. I also regard V-I as a General Council of the West, and not above error.
This is a common Roman Catholic opinion.

The Byzantine-Tradition Catholic churches (for the most part) entered into communion before the Vatican Council of 1870.

They were not given the right to debate these novelties in their own synods, it was imposed upon them from the outside after union.

I think some Eastern Catholics could be forgiven if they viewed it as a "bait and switch" scheme. I know for sure that numerous Eastern Catholics privately hold dissenting opinions on the papal doctrines, but for the sake of church unity wait, and pray for a swift coming of the day when the Holy Spirit will sweep away the theories.

I think we may be seeing the beginnings of this very thing. There are more and more oblique references to not imposing the papal doctrines on the Orthodox churches in a future church union.

If that is possible (an unknown as of yet) and the Eastern Catholic churches can be returned to their mother churches those doctrines will have gone the way of the "Divine Right of Kings".

+T+
Michael

I have heard this arguement before, you say easterners had no say in the "general councils" of the west, but what about the first 7 councils where there was very little if not any participation from the West? Also some eastern prelates were invited to these "general councils of the west". I can think specifically of at the council of Trent where the Catholic Chaldean Patriarch was invited, but declined the invitiation.

Dear GMmcnabb,

Glory to Jesus Christ! Welcome to the ByzCath message board.

No, the Orthodox do not accept papal infallibility. But they do believe in the infallibility of the Church, which is really the same thing. I consider the dogma of papal infallibility, while not *wrong*, to be superfluous. I mean, the Church has taught all along that she is infallible-- i.e., unable to formally teach error in doctrine and morality; therefore, it's rather unnecessary to say that the head of the Church is unable to formally teach error in doctrine and morality. That is only my opinion; of course, you're entitled to your own.

So you see, I'm not "abandoning" anything "just" to retain my eastern liturgy (it's not *my* liturgy, btw, it's the Church's). I said it before, but apparently it bears repeating: to the eastern mindset, worship (e.g., liturgy) can't be separated from doctrine.

God bless,

Karen

Hey Andrew-- glory to Jesus Christ!

Um... yeah, okay, that's exactly what I was saying. You said it extremely well, though.

Unfortunately, the West seems to have forgotten the dictum "lex orandi, lex crendendi"... what we pray is what we believe. Our worship and our beliefs are intertwined, because Christian worship-- the liturgy-- is the manifestation of the presence of God's Kingdom.

God bless,

Karen