A Problem I have noticed with Byzantine Catholicism in the West

[Vico]

But this has always confused me. What does it mean to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? How can one honestly say this without disrespecting both sides? You cant be Orthodox because you don’t believe the exact same things as them. They deny the immaculate conception, Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility as well as the filioque. You as Catholics believe these doctrines even though they are understood in eastern terms. If you are truly orthodox then how can it be said you are in communion with Rome because to be in communion with Rome means to hold the same faith as Rome. One faith, one body, one Christ and One God

The term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” was rejected by the the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate in October, 1996 when they issued a statement on the Melkite proposal:
“In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

The term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” was rejected by the the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate in October, 1996 when they issued a statement on the Melkite proposal:
“In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.”

You are conflating multiple issues here. No one asked anybody else’s opinion about ECs self identifying as Orthodox in Communion with Rome. The proposal by the Melkites rejected above was regarding dual Communion. The term Orthodox in Communion with Rome can’t be rejected even if some Orthodox don’t like it since it is the official name of some of the EC Churches, for example, the Russian Catholics are officially ‘Russian Orthodox in Communion with Rome’.

 

[SyroMalankara]

But this has always confused me. What does it mean to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? How can one honestly say this without disrespecting both sides? You cant be Orthodox because you don’t believe the exact same things as them. They deny the immaculate conception, Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility as well as the filioque. You as Catholics believe these doctrines even though they are understood in eastern terms. If you are truly orthodox then how can it be said you are in communion with Rome because to be in communion with Rome means to hold the same faith as Rome. **One faith, one body, one Christ and One God **

How can the Ordinariate be called ‘Anglican’? Does Apostolic patrimony only extend as far as it agrees with your terms? The reason ECs can be called Orthodox is because one can hold all the Orthodox positively held beliefs and be in communion with Rome and Rome with ECs. As to all those one or two word phrases, that is not Eastern language so you’d have to translate further to get any real meaning out of them

 

[SyroMalankara]

But this is not even the reality for eastern Catholics so this hypothetical is useless TBH.

unfortunately it is a reality for many ECs.

However if a few Latin parishes abandoned stations of the cross for another spiritually edifying practice then I wouldn’t mind.

you mean if a Latin parish abandoned the term purgatory or immaculate conception and started putting up an iconostasis you would be OK with it?

Its a shame. I’m not saying abandon all thy makes you yourself. I’m saying don’t be hostile to things merely because they are foreign. Such ideas are foreign to even the first millenium church where liturgies influenced each other.

i guess the Popes telling ECs again and again to be authentic and not to hybridize are in the wrong then. We should pick up latinizations faster, while the latins in ukraine or greece should Byzantinize, and those latins in india should Syriacize. But normally it never happens this way. The EC church picks up this that and the other latin/charismatic/etc practice to be ‘really Catholic’ and the latins do whatever they normally do and ignore us. We become less of who we are and no one wins.

Then with such reasoning Latins would never pray the Jesus prayer and easterners never pray the Hail Mary.

It would be strange to see public recitation of the JP in a Latin parish, I’ve never heard of it. The HM is not foreign to ECs, many pray the same, others a slightly different wording. It started in the east and organically developed without imposition to the west

 

[Wandile]

How can the Ordinariate be called ‘Anglican’?

Properly as “Anglican” at its root means English.

Does Apostolic patrimony only extend as far as it agrees with your terms? The reason ECs can be called Orthodox is because one can hold all the Orthodox positively held beliefs and be in communion with Rome and Rome with ECs. As to all those one or two word phrases, that is not Eastern language so you’d have to translate further to get any real meaning out of them

Look all I’m saying is we can’t have communion with people who don’t share the same faith. The orthodox don’t have the same faith as us. They have 99% of it but that does not constitute it being the same. And I’m also tired of some easterners saying “so and so doctrine is expressed in Latin/western terms” as if this is a bad thing. Many forget how the first 8 councils of the church used strictly Greek theology to explain dogmas and you don’t see the Latins complaining. This is because it doesn’t matter how the dogma or doctrine is expressed, what matters is the principle that is being taught.

 

[Wandile]

unfortunately it is a reality for many ECs.

Eastern Catholics suffer from latinization in every parish? This is obviously false. It may be common but it certainly isn’t the totality.

You mean if a Latin parish abandoned the term purgatory or immaculate conception and started putting up an iconostasis you would be OK with it?

No because abandoning dogma and doctrine is heresy. Putting up an iconostasis is ok with me.

I guess the Popes telling ECs again and again to be authentic and not to hybridize are in the wrong then.

No they weren’t. I agree with them that easterners should return to their traditions. But any influences adopted should be a natural outgrowth from interaction with various rites and not imposed illegally. If we wish to have your rigid view then we shouldn’t even have a byzantine rite, as we know it today, to protect as it was an outgrowth of the Syriac rite mixed with the old liturgy of the Greeks. If the Greeks had the mentality you have then they would have been against adopting it and claimed it to be a “Syrianization”.

We should pick up latinizations faster, while the latins in ukraine or greece should Byzantinize, and those latins in india should Syriacize. But normally it never happens this way.

Please don’t be sensationalist… All I’m saying if that local parishes choose to adopt one of two thing from another rite for use, provided it does not go against the rubrics of the liturgy, the it shouldn’t be a bad thing. It may be spiritually edifying for the parish.

The EC church picks up this that and the other latin/charismatic/etc practice to be ‘really Catholic’ and the latins do whatever they normally do and ignore us. We become less of who we are and no one wins.

and who says Latins won’t pick up from easterners? The first millenium shows this to be a historical fallacy. I’m not saying you have to adopt practices of other rites but rather that I’m saying that if such an occasion come forth, it shouldn’t be seen as detestable. I’m my church today publicly said the Jesus prayer it would be ok because the prayer is catholic.

 

[rdorseyhsd]

The traditions of both the east and west are equally valid. Both traditions seem to arrive at the same point but differently. However, to mix the two traditions is to corrupt such traditions. The damage is more pointed to the east. This problem of corruption is more prevalent in the eastern United States. The Eastern Catholics were persecuted by the Latin Church to such an extent that over 200,000 souls left the Catholic Church. As a result many Eastern Catholics wanted to look more like the Latin Church to show they were good Catholics. Unfortunately, many Eastern Catholics have become used to these wrong practices and don’t wish to change back to their roots. It is not a question of doing what one wants to do, but obedience to valid and holy apostolic tradition. The recent Popes have gone out of their way to attempt top preserve these valid and apostolic traditions.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Properly as “Anglican” at its root means English.

And “Orthodox” means “true worship/true faith”.

Look all I’m saying is we can’t have communion with people who don’t share the same faith. The orthodox don’t have the same faith as us. They have 99% of it but that does not constitute it being the same.

The Catholic Church seems to think it’s close enough to extend Eucharistic hospitality.

And I’m also tired of some easterners saying “so and so doctrine is expressed in Latin/western terms” as if this is a bad thing. Many forget how the first 8 councils of the church used strictly Greek theology to explain dogmas and you don’t see the Latins complaining.

Why should they? The Latin Church used Greek for the first 600 years. And Syriacs, Chaldeans, Copts and others do complain when they are misunderstood using the language of the Greeks and Latins.

This is because it doesn’t matter how the dogma or doctrine is expressed, what matters is the principle that is being taught.

Then we agree it is linguistic gymnastics to claim Eastern Catholics when teaching authentically “teach Immaculate Conception” - we do not, we teach Mary as full of Grace and EverVirgin and sinless. You choose to call that “Immaculate Conception”. We teach that prayers are efficacious for the dead and it is charity to pray for them. You call that “purgatory” adding some theological speculations to our common belief. Why should we be bound by your phraseology? As you’ve said, it’s the principle that matters not phrases.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Eastern Catholics suffer from latinization in every parish? This is obviously false. It may be common but it certainly isn’t the totality.

Entire Eastern Churches refuse to commune infants. Many entire EC Churches have installed a NovusOrdo style free-standing altar and face the people during Liturgy. There are many other sad examples, if you really want to understand the breadth of latinization.

No because abandoning dogma and doctrine is heresy. Putting up an iconostasis is ok with me.

Abandoning the terminology is not heresy. I think you are the only person who’d be ok with a Latin parish installing an iconostasis and having Mass behind it. Try that suggestion to any Latin bishop.

No they weren’t. I agree with them that easterners should return to their traditions. But any influences adopted should be a natural outgrowth from interaction with various rites and not imposed illegally.

A “natural outgrowth”? What is that? You mean it’s ok here in the US and Canada for our EC parishes to do their own hybrid Massurgy while back in Eastern Europe or the MidEast they’ll do their old non-hybrid version? Why would anyone be for that?

If we wish to have your rigid view then we shouldn’t even have a byzantine rite, as we know it today, to protect as it was an outgrowth of the Syriac rite mixed with the old liturgy of the Greeks. If the Greeks had the mentality you have then they would have been against adopting it and claimed it to be a “Syrianization”.

Its one thing when an entire Church organically develops a custom or prayer over 300yrs of practice, and quite another when one diocese or parish or part takes off and does their own thing in deviation from the actual norms. We ECs do have Orthodox and other EC Churches that haven’t adopted these strange practices. What chance does reunion have when, instead of being the best of Easterners, we’ve become a half-East/half-West not recognizable to either creature?

Please don’t be sensationalist… All I’m saying if that local parishes choose to adopt one of two thing from another rite for use, provided it does not go against the rubrics of the liturgy, the it shouldn’t be a bad thing. It may be spiritually edifying for the parish.

Is each Church’s practices a seamless garment tapestry interwoven together to present a beautiful expression of Christ’s mission, or not interrelated just pieces like a ragtag quilt sewn from old pieces of fabric to be taken or discarded as each person feels?

and who says Latins won’t pick up from easterners? The first millenium shows this to be a historical fallacy. I’m not saying you have to adopt practices of other rites but rather that I’m saying that if such an occasion come forth, it shouldn’t be seen as detestable. I’m my church today publicly said the Jesus prayer it would be ok because the prayer is catholic.

so you say, but your not the priest. What would your priest say if you wanted to substitute the Rosary for public recitation of the JP, while he’s vested? I’d bet he’ll say no.

 

[Wandile]

And “Orthodox” means “true worship/true faith”.

Yes but Orthodox in communion with Rome clearly is not saying that. Its speaking of the eastern churches called Orthodox as proper noun not as an adjective of their faith as the way catholic use orthodox. For even in the sense you described Latins call themselves orthodox. You are being disingenuous. Even the Zoghby initiative specifies that they claim to be Eastern Orthodox in faith. You are clearly twisting words here.

The Catholic Church seems to think it’s close enough to extend Eucharistic hospitality.

That’s because they have valid sacraments.

Why should they? The Latin Church used Greek for the first 600 years

Because Pope Victor decreed Latin to be the official language of the of the Roman church by the end of the 2nd century. By the second century the roman church of north Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya) was unanimously Latin. By the fourth century, despite the liturgy being celebrated in Greek although Latin began to creep in, the majority of western fathers already primarily wrote and taught in Latin. By the time of Chalcedon the fathers of the west unanimously expressed the theological tradition in Latin. Thus having a council decree authoritatively in Greek terms foreign to Latin would be grounds for the Latins then to protest **but they didn’t ** because this is not a grounds for contention. If what is said can be understood even in foreign terms then there need not be any issue.

And Syriacs, Chaldeans, Copts and others do complain when they are misunderstood using the language of the Greeks and Latins.

Now they do. Back then they didn’t complain about language but argued about substance. Today I’ve seen a number of melkites deny the filioque based on it being expressed in Latin. If it is true in Latin, it is true in Greek and Syriac and Aramaic etc. That is because truth is truth, no mater what language is used. We might express it differently in different languages but the substance of the truth expresses transcends all languages.

Then we agree it is linguistic gymnastics to claim Eastern Catholics when teaching authentically “teach Immaculate Conception” - we do not, we teach Mary as full of Grace and EverVirgin and sinless.

Immaculate conception means at the point of conception Mary was sinless and free from any taint of original sin. The phrase “immaculate conception” is the substance of the dogma. She was immaculate conceived. The claim Mary is full of grace and sinless does not touch on the state of Mary at her conception unless you make it known that this is implied. Because the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe the exact same things you just said but deny the immaculate conception saying Mary contracted ancestral or original sin. See the Coptic orthodox statement on the issue.

You choose to call that “Immaculate Conception”.

Like I said it is the substance of the dogma. It I called appropriately as such just as the holy trinity I is the substance of the dogma in name. Like I said if the name is avoided and phrases are used, it must be stated that it is implied that such phrases extend to her conception.

We teach that prayers are efficacious for the dead and it is charity to pray for them. You call that “purgatory”

This is not what you said. You said if Latins abandon purgatory. The wording you used did not mean abandoning the phraseology but actually meant abandoning the doctrine. I choose to believe you used bad wording in trying to say Latins would hypothetically abandon the proper noun of the doctrine taught rather than denying the doctrine itself (as you wording meant)

adding some theological speculations to our common belief. Why should we be bound by your phraseology? As you’ve said, it’s the principle that matters not phrases.

You have seriously went off a tangent here. See why I said it would it heresy to abandon purgatory. To abandon the name of purgatory is one thing. You did not say this. You said to abandon purgatory which means to abandon the teaching. This I choose to believe is an honest mistake in your part by using bad words to convey what you meant.

 

[Wandile]

A “natural outgrowth”? What is that? You mean it’s ok here in the US and Canada for our EC parishes to do their own hybrid Massurgy while back in Eastern Europe or the MidEast they’ll do their old non-hybrid version? Why would anyone be for that?

This was the norm in the west before the tridentine mass was imposed on the western church as the standardized form of the liturgy. The situation is historical.

Its one thing when an entire Church organically develops a custom or prayer over 300yrs of practice, and quite another when one diocese or parish or part takes off and does their own thing in deviation from the actual norms. We ECs do have Orthodox and other EC Churches that haven’t adopted these strange practices. What chance does reunion have when, instead of being the best of Easterners, we’ve become a half-East/half-West not recognizable to either creature?

I’m not saying a hybrid liturgy in the form of a half and half. I’m saying a Latin mass that is 99% authentic to its tradition with the addition of maybe one or two eastern practices and vice versa. This all must be approved by relevant authorities before it can be imposed though.

Is each Church’s practices a seamless garment tapestry interwoven together to present a beautiful expression of Christ’s mission, or** not interrelated just pieces like a ragtag quilt sewn from old pieces of fabric** to be taken or discarded as each person feels?

This highlighted part actually speaks more to your ideology. You wish no relations between traditions.

so you say

Read up

, but your not the priest. What would your priest say if you wanted to substitute the Rosary for public recitation of the JP, while he’s vested? I’d bet he’ll say no.

Like I said it must be approved by the relevant authorities. But I highly doubt my priest or bishop would deny such a practice on the basis of it being an “eaternization”

 

[coptsoldier]

Whilst we do not have an issue with the idea of purification after death, hence we pray for the dead, we do not accept the extra bits rome believes in. All this about say 5 decades and release 100 souls to us easterns is plain nonsense.

Us in the eastern church are meant to be identical in faith to the eastern orthodox, the only difference being we commune with rome as the church of the first millenium did. Rather we hold what the orthodox held to be true before the schism of the 11th century. But even more so, because we also believe in palamite theology. Also the subject of rome’s claim to jurisdiction over the east is a continuing contraversy in the eastern church.

Also regarding the coptic view on st mary. Most copts I know believe st mary sinned, including 2 priests at my local parishes. This is in clear contradiction of the faith of our fathers.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes but Orthodox in communion with Rome clearly is not saying that. Its speaking of the eastern churches called Orthodox as proper noun not as an adjective of their faith as the way catholic use orthodox. For even in the sense you described Latins call themselves orthodox. You are being disingenuous. Even the Zoghby initiative specifies that they claim to be Eastern Orthodox in faith. You are clearly twisting words here.

I’m using it in the same way Anglican Ordinariate is used, it doesn’t mean English Roman Catholics.

That’s because they have valid sacraments.

?? They had valid sacrament s before the allowance as well.

Because Pope Victor decreed Latin to be the official language of the of the Roman church by the end of the 2nd century. By the second century the roman church of north Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya) was unanimously Latin. By the fourth century, despite the liturgy being celebrated in Greek although Latin began to creep in, the majority of western fathers already primarily wrote and taught in Latin. By the time of Chalcedon the fathers of the west unanimously expressed the theological tradition in Latin. Thus having a council decree authoritatively in Greek terms foreign to Latin would be grounds for the Latins then to protest **but they didn’t ** because this is not a grounds for contention. If what is said can be understood even in foreign terms then there need not be any issue.

sure, but what happens when language like “inherited sin of Adam” start creeping in? That’s not something universal, that’s strictly Roman. Easterners could agree with Mary being sinless from St. Anne’s conception without any of that extra language.

Now they do. Back then they didn’t complain about language but argued about substance.

is that why orientals were falsely accused of being monophysites? It is generally accepted by everyone that language obscured that they were always miaphysites. Also, language wasn’t argued between Greek and Latin because it was generally understood that back then philosophy was primarily Greek, when Rome was a backwater.

Today I’ve seen a number of melkites deny the filioque based on it being expressed in Latin.

then you misunderstand because most don’t deny it but think it imprudent to dogmatize when it means different things in different languages and theologies even within Catholicism

If it is true in Latin, it is true in Greek and Syriac and Aramaic etc. That is because truth is truth, no mater what language is used.

i see so when i say man becoming god because God became man, its the same whether we written that in a Hindu Indian context or does it need further explanation? How about in a Arab Muslim culture? Can I just go around saying whatever I hope to mean and assume everybody gets my meaning despite speaking in a totally different context?

We might express it differently in different languages but the substance of the truth expresses transcends all languages.

then the Latin expression need not be used, that was my original point from the beginning.

Immaculate conception means at the point of conception Mary was sinless and free from any taint of original sin. The phrase “immaculate conception” is the substance of the dogma. She was immaculate conceived.

I know exactly what it means, I also know the term 'taint of original sin" means something else that you intend when speaking to the Greek Churches.

The claim Mary is full of grace and sinless does not touch on the state of Mary at her conception unless you make it known that this is implied. Because the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe the exact same things you just said but deny the immaculate conception saying Mary contracted ancestral or original sin. See the Coptic orthodox statement on the issue.

the Orthodox haven’t dogmatized the point of when, so an equally ORTHODOX position can agree that this full of Grace occurred at St. Annes conception. Hence we ECs can hold this and be Orthodox and united to Rome without considering Rome heretically wrong as some of the not united to Rome Orthodox say.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is not what you said. You said if Latins abandon purgatory. The wording you used did not mean abandoning the phraseology but actually meant abandoning the doctrine. I choose to believe you used bad wording in trying to say Latins would hypothetically abandon the proper noun of the doctrine taught rather than denying the doctrine itself (as you wording meant)
You have seriously went off a tangent here. See why I said it would it heresy to abandon purgatory. To abandon the name of purgatory is one thing. You did not say this. You said to abandon purgatory which means to abandon the teaching. This I choose to believe is an honest mistake in your part by using bad words to convey what you meant.

I didn’t use bad language, you misunderstood in plain English, while we are speaking the same language - imagine the complications if we were speaking in two or three different languages with the cultural context and Traditions of those languages and cultures… Heres my exact quote: you mean if a Latin parish abandoned the term purgatory or immaculate conception and started putting up an iconostasis you would be OK with it?

 

[Vico]

You are conflating multiple issues here. No one asked anybody else’s opinion about ECs self identifying as Orthodox in Communion with Rome. The proposal by the Melkites rejected above was regarding dual Communion. The term Orthodox in Communion with Rome can’t be rejected even if some Orthodox don’t like it since it is the official name of some of the EC Churches, for example, the Russian Catholics are officially ‘Russian Orthodox in Communion with Rome’.

I doubt that I am conflating since I addressed the dual communion concept in the post:

What does it mean to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? How can one honestly say this without disrespecting both sides? You cant be Orthodox because you don’t believe the exact same things as them. They deny the immaculate conception, Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility as well as the filioque. You as Catholics believe these doctrines even though they are understood in eastern terms. If you are truly orthodox then how can it be said you are in communion with Rome because to be in communion with Rome means to hold the same faith as Rome. One faith, one body, one Christ and One God

 

[SyroMalankara]

I doubt that I am conflating since I addressed the dual communion concept in the post:

When you stated that Antiochian Orthodox rejected the Eastern Catholic Melkites calling themselves “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” you conflated the Antiochian Orthodox rejection of dual Communion with Melkite self-expression.

 

[Vico]

When you stated that Antiochian Orthodox rejected the Eastern Catholic Melkites calling themselves “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” you conflated the Antiochian Orthodox rejection of dual Communion with Melkite self-expression.

I don’t see what what you mean. I was augmenting the posters statement, not the idea of self identification. The statement addressed was: “If you are truly orthodox then how can it be said you are in communion with Rome because to be in communion with Rome means to hold the same faith as Rome.”

 

[PatrickC]

Whilst we do not have an issue with the idea of purification after death, hence we pray for the dead, we do not accept the extra bits rome believes in. All this about say 5 decades and release 100 souls to us easterns is plain nonsense.

Us in the eastern church are meant to be identical in faith to the eastern orthodox, the only difference being we commune with rome as the church of the first millenium did. Rather we hold what the orthodox held to be true before the schism of the 11th century. But even more so, because we also believe in palamite theology. Also the subject of rome’s claim to jurisdiction over the east is a continuing contraversy in the eastern church.

Also regarding the coptic view on st mary. Most copts I know believe st mary sinned, including 2 priests at my local parishes. This is in clear contradiction of the faith of our fathers.

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I feel for you; you essentially signed up to be a second class Catholic or a martyr in your own church. This “Orthodox in communion with Rome” thing is a pretty recent phenomenon. I imagine you’ll struggle with it your whole life, if it’s what you believe. I hope you can make it work for you, if it’s important to you, but we wait for you with ring and fatted calf should you decide. My prayers for you.

 

[jeannetherese]

Catholicism is a big umbrella.
May God bless us all and bring us ever closer in His love and mercy.
Amen.

 

[coptsoldier]

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I feel for you; you essentially signed up to be a second class Catholic or a martyr in your own church. This “Orthodox in communion with Rome” thing is a pretty recent phenomenon. I imagine you’ll struggle with it your whole life, if it’s what you believe. I hope you can make it work for you, if it’s important to you, but we wait for you with ring and fatted calf should you decide. My prayers for you.

You are 100 percent correct, By being Byzantine Catholic, I am not in communion with my mother Church, the Antiochians, whilst at the same time I am not accepted by alot of Roman catholics due to supposed “issues with eastern schismatic theology”. However, Our Vocation as Eastern Catholics is to be the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The main reason for the schism is lack of trust and suspicions on both sides. By being Byzantine Catholic in every way, shape and form, with authentic Byzantine spirituality and theology, we show the Church, Both Rome and Constantinople (and other Jurisdictions) that we an bring an end to the schism by learning to trust each other.