Are the ECs "Orthodox who are in communion with Rome," or are they "Roman Catholics with an Orthodox Liturgy"?

[ConstantineTG]

I second this. Whatever differences there are between Catholics and Orthodox, they got along just fine for the first 1000 years or so. The split was pure politics.

To say that both sides got along fine for 1000 years is to be ignorant of the history of that 1000 years. Rome and Constantinople butted heads from the moment Constantinople was founded. Sure, we can say that East and West were in communion until the 1400s at the latest, but that doesn’t mean everything was fine. I mean, Roman Catholics are in communion with the SSPX today, tell me how that is working out.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG,

I don’t see Apostolic Succession in only a mechanical sense of laying on of hands. I do agree that the True Apostolic Faith must also accompany and be transmitted to that person.

When I state that the Eastern Orthodox possess an Apostolic Succession, I am also stating that the True Apostolic Faith is also being accompanied/transmitted. I hold the same for the Oriental Orthodox, and also the Assyrian Church of the East, who not only possess the Apostolic Succession, but also the True Apostolic Faith that comes with the succession.

For example, with regards the Assyrian Church of the East, the Catholic Church in the document Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, recognizes the Assyrian Church “as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession” (sec. 3, par. 3)

Likewise, the Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism states that with regards the separated Eastern Churches, these "Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.” (sec. 15, par. 3).

The Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church goes on to explain what is meant by Apostolic Succession in section 20, in that, the transmission of the Gospel is to endure until the end of time, and this by means of the successors to the Apostles. So, the succession is not a mere mechanical activity, rather, it involves the transmission of the Divine Mission.

Now, our problem with these groups is not their Orthodoxy (Truthiness) and not their Apostolicity (Authenticity), rather, it is their lack of Catholicity that we are working to overcome. It is their isolation from the Whole, from the General, from the Universal Church that we are working to overcome.

From your perspective, we are not True (Orthodox). From our perspective, you are True (Orthodox), but isolated (non-Catholic, non-Universal, non-General, non-Whole).

God bless,

Rony

See, we can’t even agree on what Apostolic Succession means.

 

[ronyodish]

See, we can’t even agree on what Apostolic Succession means.

Constantine,

What do you mean or understand by Apostolic Succession?

Rony

 

[Peter_J]

But that is the thing, we don’t teach the same thing. So only one of us teaches what the Apostles taught. It can’t be both of us.

Thank you! This is precisely the logic that many of us have been trying for years to explain to liberal “we’re-all-the-same” type Catholics. (Of course, Orthodoxy doesn’t always come up in such discussions, but sometimes it does.)

 

[Aramis]

To say that both sides got along fine for 1000 years is to be ignorant of the history of that 1000 years. Rome and Constantinople butted heads from the moment Constantinople was founded. Sure, we can say that East and West were in communion until the 1400s at the latest, but that doesn’t mean everything was fine. I mean, Roman Catholics are in communion with the SSPX today, tell me how that is working out.

Which say nothing good at all about Constantinople when phrased as you did… it implies usurpation by Byzantium.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I believe they are Roman Catholics with an Orthodox Liturgy. I believe externally they look like the Orthodox, but internally they are Roman Catholics. That is through my experience. Even with those who capture fully the externals of Orthodox worship, I don’t think you can be fully Orthodox through and through if you maintain communion with Rome and agree with the doctrines and dogmas that Orthodoxy disagree with.

The term “Roman Catholic” is not appropriate. It implies that they hold a Latin spirituality, liturgy, etc. There are many churches such as the Maronite church that have always existed in communion with Rome but independent from it in terms of liturgy, tradition, etc. so these cannot appropriately be called Roman Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I’ve never liked stuff like “Are ECs just Roman Catholics with an eastern liturgy?”

Obvious, the “with an eastern liturgy” contradicts any notion that we are Roman-Rite Catholics.

With that in mind, the question-poser will usually follow up with something like “I didn’t mean Roman-Rite. What I meant was, are ECs just members of the Roman Communion with an eastern liturgy?” but that just seems like empty rhetoric, like asking “Are EOs liturgical Christians separated from Rome?”

Just my :twocents:.

 

[CompSciGuy]

^^ I’ve never liked stuff like “Are ECs just Roman Catholics with an eastern liturgy?”

Obvious, the “with an eastern liturgy” contradicts any notion that we are Roman-Rite Catholics.

With that in mind, the question-poser will usually follow up with something like “I didn’t mean Roman-Rite. What I meant was, are ECs just members of the Roman Communion with an eastern liturgy?” but that just seems like empty rhetoric, like asking “Are EOs liturgical Christians separated from Rome?”

Just my :twocents:.

I agree, the wording is very politically charged.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Notice:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.