“Orthodox in communion with Rome”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you really want to mess with all the “popular jargon”, why not try:

“Eastern Rite Roman Catholics In Search of Orthodox Heritage” (to the extent tolerated, of course)

That manages to cover most, if not all, of the popular myths and misconceptions 😉
 
ByzCathCantor said:
If you really want to mess with all the “popular jargon”, why not try:

“Eastern Rite Roman Catholics In Search of Orthodox Heritage” (to the extent tolerated, of course)

That manages to cover most, if not all, of the popular myths and misconceptions 😉
Click to expand...
LOL! How about this one?

Sui juris Eastern Catholic Church in communion with the Pope of Rome but feeling closer to their Holy Orthodox ancestry.
 
Mickey said:
I was aware of the Church of Finland…rebels! 😃

I am not so sure of the others. The link for the Estonian Orthodox Church shows they are on the revised Julian. 🤷

“Certain parts of the Czech Lands and Slovakia” is a rather vague statement.
Click to expand...
Okay; I suppose OrthodoxWiki could be wrong. I obviously don’t have firsthand experience, as I’m not Estonian Orthodox or Slovakian Orthodox. 🙂
Mickey said:
It is a very sad state of affairs. Secular humanism has spread across the globe like a virulent plague. If we could follow one basic teaching of the Church Fathers and keep it at the front of our thinking at all times…it would be a much better world. That teaching is: “Remembrance of death.”

The Churches would be filled everyday. 🙂

As of all foods, bread is the most essential, so the thought of death is the most necessary of all works. the remembrance of death amongst those in the midst of society gives birth to distress and meditation, and even more, to despondency. But amongst those who are free from noise, it produces the putting aside of cares and constant prayer and guarding of the mind. But these same virtues both produce the remembrance of death, and are also produced by it.
St John Klimacos
Click to expand...
Well said. And that’s a beautiful quote.
 
JoeBowen7 said:
In any case, it is wrong to call Eastern rite Catholics by the name: Orthodox in union with Rome, since they are Catholics and not Orthodox.
And it is wrong to call western rite Orthodox by the name: Roman Catholics in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople, since they are Orthodox and not Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
I take it then that you wouldn’t be any more favorable to Patriarch Gregory’s phrase “Orthodox with a plus”. I’m curious, however, as to how you would feel about the alternative I mentioned, “Eastern Catholic with a plus”?
 
Peter_J said:
Has anyone else come to this same conclusion?
Click to expand...
Many have, but I haven’t.

In part because, in the case of the Ruthenians, the Maronites, and the Italo-Albanians, the whole of those Churches came into union, and have been in union, for centuries…
… but the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” implies that there is value in communion outside of those in communion with Rome.

This isn’t to say that the Orthodox are not valuable. Each Orthodox Parish and Church (be it a diocese, metropolia, or patriarchate) is of value - but their being in communion with each other is of little import to those outside that communion. Especially given their specific ecclesiology, which puts their communion as a matter of needing to convince them of Rome’s Orthodoxis individually… and convincing them of that truth to a degree that they come into communion with Rome despite the loss of communion with their fellow EO churches.

“Orthodox in communion with Rome” will be best served when the alternative isn’t “With Constantinople” or “With Moscow”, but “With no-one”… until then, it’s a title that simply divides us, misleads the Romans, and denies our particular national churches as valuable churches who happen to be in communion with Rome.
 
Aramis said:
… but the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” implies that there is value in communion outside of those in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Actually, if anything, the danger is that the phrase might give the impression that there’s no value to communion, outside of being in communion with Rome.
 
I did happen to see a YouTube video posted by St George Byzantine Catholic church, bearing a banner in its presentation saying, “Orthodox in Faith, Catholic in Love.” If anyone would be brave enough to parse it for me, that’d be great 😃
 
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).
 
dzheremi said:
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) .
Click to expand...
It can be said to be the opposite, as well - lack of communion with Rome indicates a lack of Orthodoxis in and of itself.

But that’s the Catholic teaching, anyway…
 
Uh huh. And if it weren’t for all the other things that are ‘Catholic teaching’ that also indicate that lack of Orthodoxy, it’d be right, too. 😛
 
The Philokalia
St Diadochos of Photiki
On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination
One Hundred Texts
  1. Only the Holy Spirit can purify the intellect, for unless a greater power comes and overthrows the despoiler, what he has taken captive will never be set free (cf. Luke 11:21-22). In every way, therefore, and especially through peace of soul, we must make ourselves a dwelling-place for the Holy Spirit. Then we shall have the lamp of spiritual knowledge burning always within us; and when it is shining constantly in the inner shrine of the soul, not only will the intellect perceive all the dark and bitter attacks of the demons, but these attacks will be greatly weakened when exposed for what they are by that glorious and holy light. That is why the Apostle says: ‘Do not quench the Spirit’ (1Thess. 5:19), meaning: ‘Do not grieve the goodness of the Holy Spirit by wicked actions or wicked thoughts, lest you be deprived of this protecting light.’ The Spirit, since He is eternal and life-creating, cannot be quenched; but if He is grieved - that is if He withdraws - He leaves the intellect without the light of spiritual knowledge, dark and full of gloom.
  2. The loving and Holy Spirit of God teaches us, as we have said, that the perceptive faculty natural to our soul is single; indeed, even the five bodily senses differ from each other only because of the body’s varying needs. But this single faculty of perception is split because of the dislocation which, as a result of Adam’s disobedience, takes place in the intellect through the modes in which the soul now operates. Thus one side of the soul is carried away by the passionate part in man, and we are then captivated by the good things of this life; but the other side of the soul frequently delights in the activity of the intellect and, as a result, when we practice self-restraint, the intellect longs to pursue heavenly beauty. If, therefore, we learn persistently to be detached from the good things of this world, we shall be able to unite the earthly appetite of the soul to its spiritual and intellectual aspiration, through the communion of the Holy Spirit who brings this about within us. For unless His divinity actively illumines the inner shrine of our heart, we shall not be able to taste God’s goodness with the perceptive faculty undivided, that is, with unified aspiration.
Come Holy Spirit

Peace
 
Aramis said:
It can be said to be the opposite, as well - lack of communion with Rome indicates a lack of Orthodoxis in and of itself.

But that’s the Catholic teaching, anyway…
Click to expand...
I doubt that what you state is the Catholic teaching. That would mean that no-one outside the Roman communion can be orthodox even if they believe the same as the Romans.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
I doubt that what you state is the Catholic teaching. That would mean that no-one outside the Roman communion can be orthodox even if they believe the same as the Romans.
Click to expand...
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sanctis.

Rome officially says they’re not completely outside the church… at the moment.
 
Aramis said:
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sanctis.

Rome officially says they’re not completely outside the church… at the moment.
Click to expand...
Outside of the Church nothing to the saints? That’s a weird motto.
 
malphono said:
If you read it as “outside the Church there is no holiness” it’s not so strange. But somehow I think it’s supposed to be “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” … 🤷
Click to expand...
Holiness would be sanctitas. And even if he meant holiness it would still be weird, since St. Isaac of Nineveh was neither Orthodox nor Catholic.

I think he meant Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus too.
 
Aramis said:
It can be said to be the opposite, as well - lack of communion with Rome indicates a lack of Orthodoxis in and of itself.

But that’s the Catholic teaching, anyway…
Click to expand...
As I said before, terminology isn’t an exact science.

Ask someone if, when they say “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, they mean the “orthodox” to be with a small-o; and they will presumably answer no, they mean “Orthodox” as a proper name. Otherwise you would have “orthodox in communion with Rome” = “orthodox Catholic” which is really not the same concept.

To look at it another way, the whole point* of saying “Orthodox in union with Rome” would be defeated if it applied to the Latin Church too. (*Of course, many would question whether there is any point anyhow. :o)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top