“Orthodox in communion with Rome”

[Peter_J]

Hi all.

Like many Eastern Catholics, I’ve given quite a lot of thought to the phrase “Orthodox in union with Rome”. (Not in regard to all non-Latin Catholics, of course. For example, clearly it makes no sense to apply the term to the Maronite Catholic Church, since it doesn’t correspond to any Orthodox Church. Ditto for the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.)

I’ve probably also, over the years, heard all the different objections to that phrase … “They’re not canonical Orthodox Churches.” “They’re not the original Orthodox Churches, but rather parallel churches intended to replace the Orthodox Churches.” “What about Latinizations?” etc.

And for many years I’ve avoided using “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, but recently I’ve been wondering if it should, in fact, be used. This is not a complete 180, mind you: I haven’t gotten from denial to unqualified acceptance of it. I think many of the above objections are valid, and hence I think “Orthodox in communion with Rome” should at least be qualified – and I think there’s room for different opinions about how to qualify/understand it. But the point is, I think I am coming to see that flat-out denying the name “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is to ignore, or greatly oversimplify, history. (I’m reminded of something I’ve heard: that the Union of Brest was explained to the common people as “The Pope has become Orthodox.”)

Has anyone else come to this same conclusion?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’ve come to a similar conclusion, but from the opposite direction. I used to have an unqualified acceptance of the phrase, but now keep it only with qualifications. First, we are not Orthodox in the sense of belonging to the Orthodox Church(es) and being in communion with them. Second, as Catholics we do accept certain dogmas - albeit explained from an Eastern or Oriental theological perspective - that are rejected by the Orthodox (at least on the surface). Third, as the Melkite and certain other Eastern Catholic bishops have pointed out, our vocation is to one day disappear and reunite with our Orthodox Mother Church(es). This, of course, can only happen if/when full communion is reestablished between Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

The way I see it now, Eastern Catholics are called to live the ideal of what a reunited Catholic-Orthodox Church would look like. In that sense we are called to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” Unfortunately we have not always done a very good job at living up to that vocation. As Archbishop Joseph Tawil very eloquently pointed out in his first pastoral letter to the Eparchy of Newton, we must have the courage to be ourselves, truly Eastern in an otherwise Western/Latin/Roman Catholic society. That is our vocation, and in that sense we must be Orthodox in communion with Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

I like your qualifiers, PR.

I’ve occasionally encountered someone who referred to ECs as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, and then used a qualifier whenever mentioning the Orthodox (e.g. “Orthodox not in communion with Rome”). I really think that’s taking it too far. (Consider: If I called Paris “my home away from home” … would it follow that I should always refer to my regular home as “my home not away from home”?)

 

[Peter_J]

One other thing I should add: I don’t mean to say that being “Orthodox in union with Rome” is necessary in order to be Eastern Catholic. That is to say, I’m not trying to deny the name Eastern Catholic to ECs who are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’ve come to a similar conclusion, but from the opposite direction. I used to have an unqualified acceptance of the phrase, but now keep it only with qualifications.

While I have never subscribed to the term, I agree in principle with Phillip. While it may be a goal, it is one that we have yet achieve.

There are several aspects that should be considered. One cannot look simply at praxis and spirituality as the determining factors. Where the term is clearly defective is in regards to ecclesiology. No one can rightly claim that the sui juris Eastern Churches are self-governing to the degree found in Orthodoxy. At the end of the day, it all flows back to objections over the nature of the Papacy and highly centralized Catholic Church organization, in general.

Even with respect to matters of discipline, the Eastern Churches in the diaspora are not always completely free in all matters (e.g. married priesthood).

Until such time as the communion of Catholic Churches truly functions as a union of 23 Churches of equal dignity, the claim of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is questionable, as it will be measured by many as to whether the Catholic communion is presently in a state that would be readily acceptable for the Orthodox Churches to reunite. It could only be used to refer to an individual spiritual state of mind. One might be Orthodox in spirituality and theological orientation, yet one accepts much that the Orthodox still find objectionable in being Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

Personally, I do not see how the phrase can be used at all. Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are** not** in communion…that is a fact. There is the Holy Orthodox Church…and there is the Catholic Church. When (and if) they ever partake in the same Chalice…then there will be communion. I have never heard anything coming from the Vatican that uses that phrase. If I am not mistaken, Rome has admitted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not a bridge toi reunion.

It is better to identify the specific jurisdiction.

such as:

Byzantine Catholic
Melkite Catholic
Ukrainian Catholic
Maronite Catholic
Etc.

 

[Mickey]

It could only be used to refer to an individual spiritual state of mind. One might be Orthodox in spirituality and theological orientation, yet one accepts much that the Orthodox still find objectionable in being Catholic.

Yes. When I was Eastern Catholic, I often identified myself as being Orthodox in spirituality and theology…but continuing to be in conmmunion with Rome. But I never used the term, “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” I always used “Byzantine Catholic.”

Then of course, I realized that my spirituality and theology was identical to that of the Holy Orthodox Church…and the rest was history.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Until such time as the communion of Catholic Churches truly functions as a union of 23 Churches of equal dignity, the claim of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is questionable, as it will be measured by many as to whether the Catholic communion is presently in a state that would be readily acceptable for the Orthodox Churches to reunite. It could only be used to refer to an individual spiritual state of mind. One might be Orthodox in spirituality and theological orientation, yet one accepts much that the Orthodox still find objectionable in being Catholic.

Amen! This is why I believe that “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is currently more of an ideal than the reality. We Eastern Catholics still have a very long way to go before that ideal becomes the lived reality.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Personally, I do not see how the phrase can be used at all. Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are** not** in communion…that is a fact. There is the Holy Orthodox Church…and there is the Catholic Church. When (and if) they ever partake in the same Chalice…then there will be communion. I have never heard anything coming from the Vatican that uses that phrase. If I am not mistaken, Rome has admitted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not a bridge toi reunion.

It is better to identify the specific jurisdiction.

such as:

Byzantine Catholic
Melkite Catholic
Ukrainian Catholic
Maronite Catholic
Etc.

Again, as ByzCathCantor pointed out, it is more of a state of mind than an actual designation. Rome has not used the phrase explicitly, but from the many documents coming from Rome urging Eastern Catholics to be fully Eastern as their Mother Church(es) are, the phrase can be considered implicit.

As I mentioned, “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is more an ideal, a goal to be strived for. It is most certainly - and sadly - not the lived reality today. The thing is, there needs to be much reform within not only the Eastern Catholic Churches, but even within the Roman Church before that goal, that ideal, can be actualized. But I believe that if it is to be actualized, the Eastern Catholics will have to be the ones who lead the way. Fr. Lawrence Cross once said that Eastern Catholics have to defend their entire patrimony (which includes theology, liturgy, spirituality, canon law, etc.) “to the point of schism.” I agree. But such a defense takes a great deal of boldness and courage. Rome tends to be rather complacent in its size, and Eastern Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied for too long. Mentalities have to shift. There needs to be a great deal of metanoia on all sides. Rome made a huge step forward in making official apologies for the horrors that she has afflicted on the Orthodox Church(es) in the past. It is now time that she turn to Eastern Catholics and offer the same heart-felt apology. Eastern Catholics, for their part, have to face up to their own history, in all its gory details, in an honest fashion, and admit to the mistakes of the past for the sake of reconciliation and conversion.

 

[Peter_J]

I have never heard anything coming from the Vatican that uses that phrase.

I have heard that Pope John Paul II used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, but I don’t know where and when.

Personally, even though I have recently started using that phrase (only took me 10 years ), I put it in quotation marks so that people won’t take it literally.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have heard that Pope John Paul II used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, but I don’t know where and when.

That would be a gem if you could find it

It would also have to be understood in context.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Like many Eastern Catholics, I’ve given quite a lot of thought to the phrase “Orthodox in union with Rome”. (Not in regard to all non-Latin Catholics, of course. For example, clearly it makes no sense to apply the term to the Maronite Catholic Church, since it doesn’t correspond to any Orthodox Church. Ditto for the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.)

Good point.

I’ve probably also, over the years, heard all the different objections to that phrase … “They’re not canonical Orthodox Churches.”

I don’t think that particular objection is valid at all. There are plenty of groups whom the canonical Orthodox are not in communion with, but who nonetheless are still called Orthodox - like certain Old Calendarist groups, or the Kyiv Patriarchate Ukrainian Orthodox. As far as I know, no canonical Orthodox deny these groups the title “Orthodox,” even though they’re not canonical.

So lack of canonical recognition is not a good objection.

“They’re not the original Orthodox Churches, but rather parallel churches intended to replace the Orthodox Churches.”

Yeah, I see their point. Still, the goal *today *is not to replace the Orthodox churches but one day to rejoin them.

“What about Latinizations?” etc.

Best objection to the phrase, in my opinion. This objection proves that, at best, being “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is the goal - not the reality - for eastern Catholics.

And for many years I’ve avoided using “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, but recently I’ve been wondering if it should, in fact, be used. This is not a complete 180, mind you: I haven’t gotten from denial to unqualified acceptance of it. I think many of the above objections are valid, and hence I think “Orthodox in communion with Rome” should at least be qualified – and I think there’s room for different opinions about how to qualify/understand it.

I agree. For instance, sometimes people interpret it to mean that eastern Catholics are or ought to be free to reject as universally binding any dogmatization from the second millennium.

But understood in a certain way, I do believe that “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is certainly an appropriate designation…

Has anyone else come to this same conclusion?

I’m more like Phillip. I really liked the term when I first heard it, and have now come to see that its use must be qualified.

The way I see it now, Eastern Catholics are called to live the ideal of what a reunited Catholic-Orthodox Church would look like. In that sense we are called to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

Wow, that’s an excellent point. I really like the way you put that, Phillip.

Unfortunately we have not always done a very good job at living up to that vocation.

And we Latins have at times definitely made it harder for you to do so.

Where the term is clearly defective is in regards to ecclesiology. No one can rightly claim that the sui juris Eastern Churches are self-governing to the degree found in Orthodoxy.

Exactly. The eastern Catholic churches aren’t even self-governing to the degree that Catholic teaching advocates in theory.

The patriarchal eastern Catholic churches are one thing. But the metropolitan churches, and every type with less autonomy than even they, are as yet clearly far from the ideal.

Even with respect to matters of discipline, the Eastern Churches in the diaspora are not always completely free in all matters (e.g. married priesthood).

Yeah, that’s quite irksome.

Until such time as the communion of Catholic Churches truly functions as a union of 23 Churches of equal dignity, the claim of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is questionable, as it will be measured by many as to whether the Catholic communion is presently in a state that would be readily acceptable for the Orthodox Churches to reunite. It could only be used to refer to an individual spiritual state of mind. One might be Orthodox in spirituality and theological orientation, yet one accepts much that the Orthodox still find objectionable in being Catholic.

These are very fair and important points.

 

[Peter_J]

                 Originally Posted by **Peter J**

Hmmm, good point.

 

[Mickey]

There are plenty of groups whom the canonical Orthodox are not in communion with, but who nonetheless are still called Orthodox

These groups refer to themselves using the Orthodox title in their name. So if a canonical Orthodox Church needs to make reference…they use the name. There is no communion and they are certainly not recognized as canonical Churches. For example, in Catholicism, we would say “The Byzantine Catholic Church” or “The Ruthenian Catholic Church.” We would not say the “The Orthodox in Communion with Rome Church.”

 

[JoeBowen7]

Rome has not used the phrase explicitly, but from the many documents coming from Rome urging Eastern Catholics to be fully Eastern as their Mother Church(es) are, the phrase can be considered implicit.

No, because for the Orthodox, fully Eastern means rejecting papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction. And as well, rejecting other things such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, indulgences, priestly celibacy, baptism by sprinkling, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

I guess my position could be summed up by saying that I support the term, but I think we all need to be on guard against taking it too far, in terms of either (1) literalness (e.g. referring to Orthodox as “Orthodox not in communion with Rome”), (2) generality (e.g. thinking that all Eastern Catholic ought to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”), or (3) *triumphalism *(e.g. assuming that all Catholics and Orthodox recognize “Orthodox in communion with Rome” as a superb objective).

 

[JoeBowen7]

These groups refer to themselves using the Orthodox title in their name. So if a canonical Orthodox Church needs to make reference…they use the name. There is no communion and they are certainly not recognized as canonical Churches. For example, in Catholicism, we would say “The Byzantine Catholic Church” or “The Ruthenian Catholic Church.” We would not say the “The Orthodox in Communion with Rome Church.”

That’s right.
How would Catholics feel if the Orthodox called their Western rite Orthodox by the name: Roman Catholics in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople?

 

[Peter_J]

  			Originally Posted by **Fone Bone 2001**

Okay, that’s a good point too. (I’m starting to feel like Tevie in that one scene. )

 

[ByzCathCantor]

we would say “The Byzantine Catholic Church” or “The Ruthenian Catholic Church.”

Well, we should say “Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church”, conforming to convention used by other Churches of Byzantine tradition, but since it was decided this would both too ethnic and too confusing, we went for the much clearer “Byzantine Catholic Church”

 

[Mickey]

Well, we should say “Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church”, conforming to convention used by other Churches of Byzantine tradition, but since it was decided this would both too ethnic and too confusing, we went for the much clearer “Byzantine Catholic Church”