“Orthodox in communion with Rome”

[Peter_J]

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:

On a prior occassion, I expressed concern about “melkitization” (not an official term, of course, just a spinoff of the more-commonly used “latinization”) of other Eastern Catholic Churches. It seems to me that Bishop Elya is trying to do the reverse of that: “un-melkite-ize” the Melkite Church. I’ve read a number of his statements (some on my own and some b/c they were quoted on CAF) and I just don’t think he can be considered representative of the Melkite Church.

 

[Peter_J]

                 Originally Posted by **Peter J**

By “just Eastern Catholic” I just mean that with the Maronite Church there’s no “Orthodox in communion with Rome” complication. (In much the same way that with WRO there’s no “RC in communion with Constantinople” complication.)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

By “just Eastern Catholic” I just mean that with the Maronite Church there’s no “Orthodox in communion with Rome” complication. (In much the same way that with WRO there’s no “RC in communion with Constantinople” complication.)

Sorry, but still not quite following (perhaps I need more coffee). I’m guessing you might be considering things like the Zoghby Initiative, or more broadly, the Melkite Church’s decided tendency to be vocal on matters of ecclesiatical organization or privilege.

FWIW - I do think the Melkite Church has exercised its voice well for the good of the Catholic communion, and I do not think that their allegiance to such is in question.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m guessing you might be considering things like the Zoghby Initiative,

Yes, things like that. I’m not suggesting that any ECs are literally Orthodox (hence the quotations marks around “Orthodox in union with Rome”).

In the end, I think this all goes to show that terminology isn’t an exact science.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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”.

I believe the WROs are “Anglicans in Communion with Constantinople”.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe the WROs are “Anglicans in Communion with Constantinople”.

I’d have to disagree with that too. I don’t see them as either “RC in communion with Constantinople” or “Anglican in communion with Constantinople”. I see them as (if you will) “just Western-Rite Orthodox”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’d have to disagree with that too. I don’t see them as either “RC in communion with Constantinople” or “Anglican in communion with Constantinople”. I see them as (if you will) “just Western-Rite Orthodox”.

But they were Anglicans who came into the Orthodox Church and asked to continue using their Mass. That is the history behind the WRO, isn’t it?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

ByzCathCantor,

One problem with quoting Bishop John is that he is not really considered representative of the Melkite Church at large, for a specific reason. When the Melkite Synod of Bishops (back in 1993 I believe) signed their “Confession of Faith” - which was no more or less a repetition of Archbishop Zoghby’s “Confession of Faith” as well as a confirmation of his “Initiative” - it was unanimously voted upon and applauded by all but two of the bishops present. One of those two was Bishop Elya.

This is one problem I have when folks try to quote him as a definitive source (I know that’s not what you’re doing here, but I’ve seen it done by others in the past). At least in regards to the Q/A available on the Eparchy of Newton’s website, he cannot be considered to be fully expressing the mind of the Melkite Church at large. Take our current Patriarch for example. His Beatitude has expressed his own attitude (and by extension the attitude of the Melkite Church at large) publicly when he proclaimed at an Orientale Lumen Conference, “I am Orthodox with a plus;” a comment which elicited the applause of Catholic and Orthodox attendees alike amid shouts of “Axios!” Also representative of our Church would be voices like Archbishops Joseph Tawil and Joseph Raya who both called for a full restoration of our authentic liturgical, spiritual, and theological patrimony both through explicit exhortations as well as through the work that they themselves did (work which has come to be highly respected by a large number of Orthodox faithful, clergy, and hierarchy). Finally I would point to the example of our current Bishop Nicolas (who, incidentally, was chosen over Bishop Elya to lead the Melkites in the U.S.), who has been working tirelessly since his enthronement to ensure that our proper Eastern/Orthodox traditions are restored to our Melkite Church.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Yes, things like that. I’m not suggesting that any ECs are literally Orthodox (hence the quotations marks around “Orthodox in union with Rome”).

In the end, I think this all goes to show that terminology isn’t an exact science.

Exactly. ECs who claim to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” aren’t expressing an official title, so much as an attitude. At this point the attitude is more on the individual level, but I believe the ideal would be that such an attitude would eventually become the corporate attitude of all Eastern Catholics who originated from Orthodox Mother Churches (obviously the Maronites wouldn’t have to worry about that).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Of course. But their *orthodoxy *is not in question from your end, is it?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

One problem with quoting Bishop John is that he is not really considered representative of the Melkite Church at large, for a specific reason. When the Melkite Synod of Bishops (back in 1993 I believe) signed their “Confession of Faith” - which was no more or less a repetition of Archbishop Zoghby’s “Confession of Faith” as well as a confirmation of his “Initiative” - it was unanimously voted upon and applauded by all but two of the bishops present. One of those two was Bishop Elya.

Thanks, Phillip! I am aware, and quoted him specifically above not as a general statement about the Melkite confession, but rather as a direct response from an Eastern Catholic bishop on the notion of “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

Again, I do commend the good bishops and Patriarchs of the Melkite Church present and of recent, blessed memory for their courage in taking a stand which ultimately goes to the heart of the central tenets of the Catholic Communion, indeed with clear implications for the potential reunion of Apostolic Churches. Yet, despite the strong stand and insistence in many matters over the years (including the Zoghby initiative), I would never doubt their allegiance to the Catholic Church is anything less than true and heartfelt.

 

[Peter_J]

but I believe the ideal would be that such an attitude would eventually become the corporate attitude of all Eastern Catholics who originated from Orthodox Mother Churches (obviously the Maronites wouldn’t have to worry about that).

So long as we all accept that not everyone shares that goal/ideal, I don’t think there’s any problem.

 

[Mickey]

Of course. But their *orthodoxy *is not in question from your end, is it?

Are you asking if I think that the non-canonical Orthodox Churches are Orthodox?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So long as we all accept that not everyone shares that goal/ideal, I don’t think there’s any problem.

I think you made a great point earlier: it can’t be considered the goal of all oriental Catholics, because the concept doesn’t apply to the Maronite Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, or the Chaldean Catholic Church.

Do you, Peter, think it *should *be or should *not *be the goal of all oriental Catholics whose churches’ origins lie with specific Orthodox jurisdictions (whether Eastern or Oriental)?

Are you asking if I think that the non-canonical Orthodox Churches are Orthodox?

Yes.

I was under the impression that no one in canonical Orthodoxy questions the orthodoxy of such groups (certain Old Calendarists, the Kyiv Patriarchate, etc.), and that they are considered to be in schism but not in heresy.

As opposed to the Latin Church (indeed, the whole Roman Catholic Church), which - as I understand it - most of Orthodox Christianity does consider to be in heresy at least to some degree, in addition to schism.

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

My answer would be that we see them as non-canonical and not in communion with canonical Orthodoxy…I suppose the same way you might see your Catholic schismatic groups?

But in relation to the term “orthodox in communion with Rome”, It is not possible for me to see the Eastern Catholics this way. Holy Orthodoxy does not recognize certain Roman Catholic doctrines such as: Papal infallibility/supremacy, IC, purgatory, filioque, etc. So in my opinion, it would be impossible to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”…except if you are referring to small “o” orthodox as a function of the right belief according to the Latin/Eastern Catholic Church…in which case the term would be redundant.

Having said that, I recall as a Ruthenian Catholic being told that we do not understand things the same way as the Latins…and that we are closer to the Orthodox. I was never sure what this meant…but I was quite sure that it was not official teaching (as much as I hoped that it was).

 

[Peter_J]

I think you made a great point earlier: it can’t be considered the goal of all oriental Catholics, because the concept doesn’t apply to the Maronite Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, or the Chaldean Catholic Church.

Do you, Peter, think it *should *be or should *not *be the goal of all oriental Catholics whose churches’ origins lie with specific Orthodox jurisdictions (whether Eastern or Oriental)?

I’ve been thinking about this question (which is kinda funny, b/c I’ve been off line for the last few hours, so I didn’t know that you had asked it ).

Earlier I just said “not everyone”, but actually I think you can count me in that “not everyone” – that is, I’m inclined to say that it’s still an over-generalization, even though you qualified it as just those “whose churches’ origins lie with specific Orthodox jurisdictions”. (Obviously, many here will disagree with me.) Perhaps if you also added the word “most” in there.

Likewise, I don’t think the WRO need to make it their goal to be “RC in communion with Constantinople” or “Anglican in communion with Constantinople”.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My answer would be that we see them as non-canonical and not in communion with canonical Orthodoxy…I suppose the same way you might see your Catholic schismatic groups?

Okay, I understand that. I understand that they’re not in communion with canonical Orthodoxy - I kind of pointed that out myself earlier - but I’m asking about their faith, not their canonical status.

To put it differently, are they considered to be in heresy? We know they’re in schism. But those aren’t the same things, and I mean to ask about the former.

My guess - I await correction if I’m wrong! - is that they are not heretics but are considered to be persevering in the true Orthodox Faith.

But in relation to the term “orthodox in communion with Rome”, It is not possible for me to see the Eastern Catholics this way. Holy Orthodoxy does not recognize certain Roman Catholic doctrines such as: Papal infallibility/supremacy, IC, purgatory, filioque, etc.

Of course. I understand and respect that.

Having said that, I recall as a Ruthenian Catholic being told that we do not understand things the same way as the Latins…and that we are closer to the Orthodox. I was never sure what this meant…but I was quite sure that it was not official teaching (as much as I hoped that it was).

I think it is… although I admit eastern Catholics don’t yet live up to that standard (and it’s at least as much the fault of us Latins anyway).

I’ve been thinking about this question (which is kinda funny, b/c I’ve been off line for the last few hours, so I didn’t know that you had asked it ).

Earlier I just said “not everyone”, but actually I think you can count me in that “not everyone” – that is, I’m inclined to say that it’s still an over-generalization, even though you qualified it as just those “whose churches’ origins lie with specific Orthodox jurisdictions”. (Obviously, many here will disagree with me.) Perhaps if you also added the word “most” in there.

Hmmm, okay.

Likewise, I don’t think the WRO need to make it their goal to be “RC in communion with Constantinople” or “Anglican in communion with Constantinople”.

There I agree. The western-rite Orthodox are simply not the Orthodox equivalent of eastern Catholics. The latter are constituted as self-governing churches and are explicitly urged to be as true to eastern (or oriental) Christianity as possible.

The western-rite Orthodox, by contrast, are not ecclesiastically distinct, nor are they meant to be as western as they can manage (if that were true, the Orthodox wouldn’t have added an explicit epiclesis and removed the filioque, among other things). Eastern Catholics aren’t supposed to be “Latin Catholics with an Eastern Liturgy,” while it seems western-rite Orthodox basically are intended to be Eastern Orthodox with a Western Liturgy.

 

[JoeBowen7]

The western-rite Orthodox, by contrast, are not ecclesiastically distinct, nor are they meant to be as western as they can manage (if that were true, the Orthodox wouldn’t have added an explicit epiclesis and removed the filioque, among other things). Eastern Catholics aren’t supposed to be “Latin Catholics with an Eastern Liturgy,” while it seems western-rite Orthodox basically are intended to be Eastern Orthodox with a Western Liturgy.

I don’t think so.
You say that western rite Orthodox are not as western as they can manage.
But you can say the same thing about Eastern rite Catholics - that they are not as Eastern as they can manage, because they accept the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and they go by the Gregorian calendar.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think so.
You say that western rite Orthodox are not as western as they can manage.
But you can say the same thing about Eastern rite Catholics - that they are not as Eastern as they can manage, because they accept the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and they go by the Gregorian calendar.

True, but many Eastern Catholics do make it their goal to be as Eastern as possible.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

True, but many Eastern Catholics do make it their goal to be as Eastern as possible.

Well, my generation (born around the year of Vatican II) is learning to how to do so, as we were formed in a more Latinized Eastern Church, and the younger generations are being raised in an increasingly more Eastern Church.

Ironically, I grew up in a rare parish for its day, served by a married priest (with family), so my rearing in the faith included more Orthodox elements than many of my contemporaries. In fact, I have observed that those around my age who had any experience with married clergy, including sons and daughters of priests in religious life, tend to have had a better rooting in Eastern tradition. That is not necessarily a case for the married priesthood, but simply to say the awareness of the existence of such in a more visibly Latin Catholic world at least fostered an appreciation for our unique traditions aside from the more obvious signs in our distinct form of liturgical worship.