“Orthodox in communion with Rome”

[malphono]

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”

OK, as much as I generally don’t involve myself with things Byzantine (due, in large part, to more than one unpleasant experience in this forum), and while I’ll probably regret this comment too, I can’t help but toss my unsolicited :twocents: into the mix.

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.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No, because for the Orthodox, fully Eastern means rejecting papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction.

“Eastern” in the modern sense tends more to refer to Rite and tradition of origin than of governance. It might be more accurate to say that such rejections are characteristic of being fully Orthodox.

And as well, rejecting other things such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, indulgences, priestly celibacy, baptism by sprinkling, etc.

Not entirely accurate. For example, purgatory may not thought of as a place, but more as a process or step. That is fare from a rejection - it is a different way of understanding the same reality (to the extent any of us can humanly understand these mysteries). The Orthodox do not reject priestly celibacy at all, and in fact well recognize the demands and virtues of celibacy. It is just more prevalent in monasticism.

 

[JoeBowen7]

The Orthodox do not reject priestly celibacy at all, and in fact well recognize the demands and virtues of celibacy. It is just more prevalent in monasticism.

I thought that most Orthodox parish priests were married, unlike Eastern Catholic priests in the USA.

 

[Mickey]

I thought that most Orthodox parish priests were married, unlike Eastern Catholic priests in the USA.

I don’t know the numbers. Many are married…some are not.

Bishops and monks are celibate.

 

[Mickey]

OK, as much as I generally don’t involve myself with things Byzantine (due, in large part, to more than one unpleasant experience in this forum), and while I’ll probably regret this comment too, I can’t help but toss my unsolicited :twocents: into the mix.

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.

Yes. You are not the first one to express difficulty with the term “Byzantine Catholic Church.”

 

[JoeBowen7]

I don’t know the numbers. Many are married…some are not.

Bishops and monks are celibate.

But there is a general rule against Eastern Catholic priests marrying in the USA. This is not the case with Orthodox priests, is it?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But there is a general rule against Eastern Catholic priests marrying in the USA. This is not the case with Orthodox priests, is it?

Yes, and that was imposed by Rome. However, I believe your original point was that Orthodoxy rejects priestly celibacy. That is not the case. It also supports an ancient and venerable tradition of married clergy, while embracing celibacy as a virtue and preferred norm, more readily supported in the revered context of monastic life.

 

[malphono]

But there is a general rule against Eastern Catholic priests marrying in the USA. This is not the case with Orthodox priests, is it?

As ByzCathCantor has already implied, the rule is of, by, and for Rome, so of course it does not apply to the Orthodox. But that’s not why I’m posting this: the real reason for the post is just a simple clarification in terminology. Priests, whether Orthodox or in union with Rome, may be married prior to sacerdotal (actually, diaconal) ordination, but if ordained celibate, they must remain celibate. There are no exceptions.

 

[Mickey]

But there is a general rule against Eastern Catholic priests marrying in the USA.

I would call it an “unspoken rule.” But I think the Melkites freely ordain married men in the states.

This is not the case with Orthodox priests, is it?

No.

 

[5Loaves]

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”

[/quote]



We have an elderly parishioner who insists that we need to remove “Russian” from the name of our “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church” (I of course want to remove “Byzantine” ) because, as she insists, “We’re Byzantine. I’m Byzantine and when I moved here [a few years ago] I looked for a Byzantine Church and that is why I came here – this is a Byzantine Church, We’re Byzantine!” She is “Byzantine” because she was Latin Catholic and married a Ruthenian and used the canonical option of switching to the Church of her husband. When we’ve tried to explain to her that we are Byzantine liturgical rite, but Slav in origin not a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church and shown her information about a Church vs a Rite, and information about our Russian Catholic Church, she is intractable about us being a “Byzantine Church” (by which she means Ruthenian). The fact that our signage and website etc all say “Russian Byzantine Catholic Church” makes things as clear as mud for many. Other visitors have been similarly confused. Who knows if we have other parishioner who are also confused. :whacky:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

OK, as much as I generally don’t involve myself with things Byzantine (due, in large part, to more than one unpleasant experience in this forum), and while I’ll probably regret this comment too, I can’t help but toss my unsolicited :twocents: into the mix.

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.

All fair observation. I find myself amending it to Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church as needed, but it gets a little old after awhile. Thanks for sharing! The members of this Church can gripe about it at times, yet it is the perception of other Churches that matters.

In fairness, this Church endured much, to the point of questioning its own existence, so one cannot deny that this might have been the result of “survival instinct”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Who knows if we have other parishioner who are also confused. :whacky:

There are indeed!

Thanks for sharing this story. At least in this case the poor soul likely can’t see beyond what she had been used to through marriage.

However, if her husband is a recent immigrant or from a family with relatives in the Old Country, I’d be shock if he wasn’t keenly aware of the distinction. To some, “Rome before Moscow” is still very much alive, sad to say.

The use of the term “Russian” in the official name of ACROD proved quite controversial at first. At the very least, Rusyns tend to want acknowledgement that they are not Russians.

 

[5Loaves]

Has anyone else come to this same conclusion?

I’ve begun warming up to calling myself a uniate. Ethnic Orthodox know what it means (and they don’t generally think of it as derogatory the way clergy and faithful converts to Orthodoxy do) and the Latin Church and others don’t know who we are anyway, unless they’ve chosen to learn about us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it was a Pope who said that Eastern Catholics should become “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”. But that is the goal, not the present reality. We are not there yet and no one at this point can make a claim to the title.

 

[5Loaves]

There are indeed!

Thanks for sharing this story. At least in this case the poor soul likely can’t see beyond what she had been used to through marriage.

However, if her husband is a recent immigrant or from a family with relatives in the Old Country, I’d be shock if he wasn’t keenly aware of the distinction. To some, “Rome before Moscow” is still very much alive, sad to say.

Husband is long out of the picture, before she ever moved out here, and I suspect there was little catechesis about any of it way back when they married, clearly none that stuck if there was any.

I meant no disrespect in sharing the story. I do very much appreciate what the Ruthenians have endured and as you say sometimes the “survival instinct” rightly kicks in.

From outside of the Byzantine Church the name “Byzantine Church” does create a lot of confusion. I think of the many times when Vico correctly says the Byzantine Church teaches XYZ etc by which he means the Ruthenain Church but many here who don’t know the distinction do think he means the Eastern Churches collectively.

The use of the term “Russian” in the official name of ACROD proved quite controversial at first. At the very least, Rusyns tend to want acknowledgement that they are not Russians.

Yes!

I’ve been glued to the Olympics on TV. Having grown up when the Soviets dominated the Olympics I was reflecting on those days and how different the Games were then, when their athletes were so clearly bulked up on steroids, and the Eastern Bloc judges were so blatantly biased. Even from these shores the iron fist was very apparent.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I meant no disrespect in sharing the story. I do very much appreciate what the Ruthenians have endured and as you say sometimes the “survival instinct” rightly kicks in.

No disrespect at all, and we do very much respect all that Greek Catholics in Russia and from Russia have had to endure in defense of their faith!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think it was a Pope who said that Eastern Catholics should become “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

This was noted earlier (post #10), and a quote and source would be helpful.

That said, other Catholic leaders have spoken on this subject, including Bishop John Elya of the Melkites:

Question:

My question is regarding the position of an Eastern Catholic (a Greek-Catholic, such as a Melchite) as to the pope’s encyclicals. In particular, this came up in a discussion on Humanae Vitae and a person made the statement that the encyclical only pertained to the Roman Catholics and didn’t concern us at all, especially since the “Orthodox Church” has a different position on birth control. It is my understanding that we are not “Orthodox in communion with Rome” but we are Greek Catholics in union with Rome therefore we are obliged to accept Roman doctrines such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility and their positions on birth control. Is this true?

Bishop John’s Answer:

When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;” but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”

source and full response: How do the Pope’s encyclicals and teachings impact on the Melkites?

 

[Peter_J]

That would be a gem if you could find it

It would also have to be understood in context.

Agreed. I’ve tried before with Google, to no avail.

(BTW, thanks everyone for your thoughts. I was offline this afternoon and evening, but I’ve caught up on post-reading now. I won’t say more tonight, as it’s getting a bit late for me here.)

 

[Peter_J]

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?

The thing about that is, there simply aren’t any WRO who are “Roman Catholics in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople” (or whatever variation of that phrase might be used).

Here’s how I look at: there are some ECs, like the Melkite Church, who are “Orthodox in union with Rome”, and there are other ECs, like the Maronite Church, who are “just Eastern Catholic” you might say. Western Rite Orthodox, on the other hand, are *all *“just Western Rite Orthodox”, as I’m sure they themselves would be the first to say.

I think the real problem is that some supporters of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” tend to be a little pushy regarding their view that “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is better than “just Eastern Catholic”.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Here’s how I look at: there are some ECs, like the Melkite Church, who are “Orthodox in union with Rome”, and there are other ECs, like the Maronite Church, who are “just Eastern Catholic” you might say.

Well, now that pushes the discussion in another direction.

How are you coming to that conclusion?

Interestingly enough, I had posted a statement of Sayedna Elya in post #37, where he gives a fairly “Catholic” response to a question referencing “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.