“Orthodox in communion with Rome”

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
On the other hand, there isn’t any EC church in Eastern Europe about whom I could confidently say either “That Church is ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’” or “That Church is not ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’”.

I think you might have misread me: I cannot say one way or the other. It’s not a conclusion but a lack of conclusion.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It’s not a conclusion but a lack of conclusion.

LOL - we could probably say something similar regarding the subject of the OP of this thread

 

[dvdjs]

If I am not mistaken, Rome has admitted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not a bridge to reunion.

…a bridge to reunion. I thought that this is how the Church wouyld have functioned before the schism. I was very wrong. I came to believe the opposite…that it is an impediment to reunion (I believe Rome has said something similar).

These are very interesting words to put into Rome’s mouth. I would be interested in a source. Then we could discuss the how “mistaken” the ostensible admissions here are, or how “similar” the to the actual words.

 

[dvdjs]

To me, it will always and forever be the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church. Without the “ethnic connection” it wouldn’t exist in the first place, and frankly I don’t see that the “new way” is particularly clear at all. The term “Byzantine Catholic Church” implies that it’s the only one, and of course, it’s not. There are, as we well know, numerous usages (not to mention jurisdictions) in the Byzantine family, each sufficiently different from the other as to warrant a bit more specificity in the name.

I don’t remember the church ever being called Ruthenian Greek Catholic. In the old county it was Greek Catholic, and the term Ruthenian does not appear in the names of the eparchies, (although it does appear in the names of two of the four eparchies of the BCC in the US, but not Pittsburgh.) In older times, Ruthenian would have included people now called Ukrainian.

In the US “Greek” implied an ethnicity that did not pertain to us and the switch to “Byzantine” was made. I disagree with the claim that this usage confusingly implies that the BCC is only church that uses the Byzantine rite. But then again, most anything could be found to be confusing to some. I have seen parishes of other churches use the the phrase to refer to themselves; I have never heard a member of the BCC criticize this use by others.

 

[Vico]

Eastern Churches means Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East.

CCEO Canon 903
The Eastern Catholic Churches have a special duty of fostering unity among all Eastern Churches, first of all through prayers, by the example of life, by the religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, by mutual and better knowledge of each other, and by collaboration and brotherly respect in practice and spirit.

 

[dvdjs]

This is a label for something that does not exist. You cannot be Orthodox and be in union with Rome, as Rome is not Orthodox, and Orthodoxy is not only limited to the externals of the liturgy, but also to the ecclesiology of the Church (e.g., if you can’t tell from the form of the liturgy, you listen for who they commemorate in their diptychs) . It makes sense for Eastern Catholics to claim this, though, as it reflects the ecclesiology of their communion, wherein what matters most is that they are in communion with Rome, not that Rome is in communion with them. I would love to one day see a Latin Catholic all themselves “Latin in communion with Bkerke” or “Latin in union with Baghdad” or what have you, but I recognize that this is rather ridiculous from an RC view.

From an Orthodox view, I am Coptic Orthodox by virtue of my baptism in that particular church, but I am not any more in communion with Alexandria than I am with Etchmiadzin or Kottayam. I know that this is in some sense similar to the Roman communion (in that a Catholic of any particular church can receive the sacraments in any other particular church), but as nothing in particular rests upon being in communion with a specific Orthodox Patriarch, it doesn’t really make sense to say “Orthodox in Communion with Damascus” or “Orthodox in Communion with Constantinople” or whatever, beyond perhaps specifying what your allegiances lie concerning Chalcedon (“Orthodox in communion with Constantinople” being clearer than Damascus, which has Patriarchs of all the churches).

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t remember the church ever being called Ruthenian Greek Catholic. In the old county it was Greek Catholic, and the term Ruthenian does not appear in the names of the eparchies, (although it does appear in the names of two of the four eparchies of the BCC in the US, but not Pittsburgh.) In older times, Ruthenian would have included people now called Ukrainian.

In the US “Greek” implied an ethnicity that did not pertain to us and the switch to “Byzantine” was made. I disagree with the claim that this usage confusingly implies that the BCC is only church that uses the Byzantine rite. But then again, most anything could be found to be confusing to some. I have seen parishes of other churches use the the phrase to refer to themselves; I have never heard a member of the BCC criticize this use by others.

I’m not too crazy about calling that church “the Byzantine Catholic Church”, although I’m less bothered by “the Byzantine Catholic Church in America”. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Peter_J]

Eastern Churches -]means/-] includes Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[malphono]

It’s interesting how things are a little more clear-cut in the Middle East (only with regard to this subject matter, I mean). In particular, I feel safe saying that the Melkites are “Orthodox in communion with Rome”

Does that include what seems to be an increasing practice among the Melkites in the Middle East of using a versus populum table? And that without so much as the show of a “portable” iconostasis? Or the decidedly non-authentic music that often goes along with it? As I mentioned in an earlier post, somehow that sort of practice just doesn’t seem all that Orthodox.

and that the Maronites (and the Chaldeans for that matter) aren’t.

And neither the Maronites nor Chaldeans would ever claim to be such. What would be the point?

 

[Hesychios]

… I have never heard a member of the BCC criticize this use by others.

I agree.

In fact I think many would encourage it.

I know of one parish in Aurora, IL of the Romanian Catholic diocese that has a sign in front (at least it did 15 years ago) which stated in large letters BYZANTINE CATHOLIC.

I think that there was some sort of agreement, perhaps informal, that several churches would use the term, but only Pittsburgh seems to have largely embraced it. You may know more about this first hand than I will ever know.

 

[Vico]

Re, Peter J: Eastern Churches includes Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East.

Sure, fostering unity between Eastern Catholic Churches and those not in full communion, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, and also preserving the existing unity among Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Does that include what seems to be an increasing practice among the Melkites in the Middle East of using a versus populum table? And that without so much as the show of a “portable” iconostasis? Or the decidedly non-authentic music that often goes along with it? As I mentioned in an earlier post, somehow that sort of practice just doesn’t seem all that Orthodox.

Well, I’m not suggesting perfection.

And neither the Maronites nor Chaldeans would ever claim to be such. What would be the point?

No, I should think not. If you/they did I would have to say “Hmmm … inferiority complex?”

 

[Vico]

I’m not too crazy about calling that church “the Byzantine Catholic Church”, although I’m less bothered by “the Byzantine Catholic Church in America”. Just my 2 cents.

The Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh is the official name, and can be seen on the Archeparchy web site:

archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm

There has been a lengthy use by the Church in naming churches of the Byzantine tradition after the see plus Byzantine Rite. Also Ordinariates for the Faithful of Various Eastern Catholic Churches Without Their Own Hierarchy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh is the official name, and can be seen on the Archeparchy web site:

archeparchy.org/page/metropolia/metropolia.htm

There has been a lengthy use by the Church in naming churches of the Byzantine tradition after the see plus Byzantine Rite. Also Ordinariates for the Faithful of Various Eastern Catholic Churches Without Their Own Hierarchy.

Sometimes Latin is helpful, even in discussing Eastern Churches:

Pittsburgensis Ritus Byzantini
Eparchia Passaicensis Ruthenorum
Eparchia Parmensis Ruthenorum
Eparchia Sanctae Mariae a Patrocinio in urbe Phoenicensi

 

[malphono]

Sometimes Latin is helpful, even in discussing Eastern Churches:

Pittsburgensis Ritus Byzantini
Eparchia Passaicensis Ruthenorum
Eparchia Parmensis Ruthenorum
Eparchia Sanctae Mariae a Patrocinio in urbe Phoenicensi

And it’s especially handy for reading the CCEO in the ORIGINAL :bigyikes:

 

[malphono]

Well, I’m not suggesting perfection.

I guess not … could be just me, but the very idea of that table business, et.al, is kind of the **antithesis **of perfection.

No, I should think not. If you/they did I would have to say “Hmmm … inferiority complex?”

The Chaldeans can legitimately claim to be “Assyrians in Communion with Rome.” The Maronites, unfortunately, can claim only to be “in communion with Rome” at best. I suppose that the Syro-Malabars would be in the same position. Oh well …

 

[Peter_J]

The Chaldeans can legitimately claim to be “Assyrians in Communion with Rome.” The Maronites, unfortunately, can claim only to be “in communion with Rome” at best. I suppose that the Syro-Malabars would be in the same position. Oh well …

Indeed. I rather like the phrase “just Eastern Catholic” … but there’s the obvious danger that people might think that’s meant in a derogatory way.uch:

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Russian Orthodox do this, too… at least in the OCA diocese of Alaska. Makes the paper every year around February… for all of great lent, nothing with a spine. Not even on Sundays…

Saturdays and Sundays are not days of fasting, excepting Holy and Great Saturday, which is why they are all elevated to oil and wine days throughout all of Great Lent, just as the Feast of the Annunciation is not properly considered a day of fasting either. It is, in fact, forbidden to fast on Saturday or Sunday, except on Great and Holy Saturday

 

[Vico]

Saturdays and Sundays are not days of fasting, excepting Holy and Great Saturday, which is why they are all elevated to oil and wine days throughout all of Great Lent, just as the Feast of the Annunciation is not properly considered a day of fasting either. It is, in fact, forbidden to fast on Saturday or Sunday, except on Great and Holy Saturday

It can be misunderstood, easily. There are several levels of fast and abstinence (so called fasting), conservatively speaking. Least to greatest (also marital fast):

  1. no meat 
  2. no meat, eggs, dairy products

1. no meat, eggs, dairy products, fish
2. no meat, eggs, dairy products, fish, wine or oil
3. nothing

Saturdays and Sundays during the Great Fast, Apostles Fast, and early Nativity Fast, Annunciation, are level 2.

Saturdays and Sundays Dormition Fast and latter Nativity Fast are level 3.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It can be misunderstood, easily. There are four levels of fast and abstinence (so called fasting), conservatively speaking. Least to greatest (also marital fast):

  1. no meat 
  2. no meat, eggs, dairy products

1. no meat, eggs, dairy products, fish
2. no meat, eggs, dairy products, fish, wine or oil
3. nothing

Saturdays and Sundays during the Great Fast, Apostles Fast, and early Nativity Fast, Annunciation, are level 2.

Saturdays and Sundays Dormition Fast and latter Nativity Fast are level 3.

Adding to the confusion is that some use the word fasting to indicate not eating between certain hours (what is probably the more proper meaning), while others use the term to indicate abstaining from certain foods (as in the so-called degrees of fasting). Typically the fourth degree of abstinence mentioned in your post is accompanied by some sort of fasting up until the ninth hour or maybe even sunset, which only further adds to the conflation of the two concepts.