Eastern Catholic Identity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phillip_Rolfes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phillip_Rolfes

Guest
This thread is meant for Eastern Catholics. 🙂 I’ve heard several people say that Eastern Catholics are “Roman Catholics who celebrate Mass funny” (Roman Catholics of an Eastern Rite). I’ve also heard people say that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome (to which the Melkites add “as was lived in the first millenium before the Schism”). I know this second is the stance that the monks of Holy Resurrection take. I also know that it is the stance of Bishop John Michael Botean as well as Patriarch Gregory III who said, “I’m Orthodox with a plus…”

So here’s my question. How do Eastern Catholics self-identify? Are you Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Are you Roman Catholics of a different rite? Are you something else?

I ask this in all sincerity and am certainly not looking to pick any fights. In talking and listening to many Eastern Catholics I’ve come across a wide spectrum of opinions on the matter. I’m not looking for anything definitive here, but I thought it’d be interesting to see the general opinion of my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters here on the forums.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
 
I guess fundamentally what I’m asking is, what does it mean to be “Byzantine Catholic”? Ruthenians, Romanians, Melkites, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. that are in communion with Rome are all “Byzantine Catholics,” but there is a wide spectrum of thought on what exactly that means. I’m just wondering what the average church-goer thinks. 🙂
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
This thread is meant for Eastern Catholics. 🙂 I’ve heard several people say that Eastern Catholics are “Roman Catholics who celebrate Mass funny” (Roman Catholics of an Eastern Rite). I’ve also heard people say that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome (to which the Melkites add “as was lived in the first millenium before the Schism”). I know this second is the stance that the monks of Holy Resurrection take. I also know that it is the stance of Bishop John Michael Botean as well as Patriarch Gregory III who said, “I’m Orthodox with a plus…”

So here’s my question. How do Eastern Catholics self-identify? Are you Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Are you Roman Catholics of a different rite? Are you something else?

I ask this in all sincerity and am certainly not looking to pick any fights. In talking and listening to many Eastern Catholics I’ve come across a wide spectrum of opinions on the matter. I’m not looking for anything definitive here, but I thought it’d be interesting to see the general opinion of my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters here on the forums.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
Click to expand...
I consider myself Byzantine Catholic, despite my on-paper-still-roman status.

I reject the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” as redundancy; one can not be truly orthodox without rome, and the near-heresy of the Orthodox is their flawed ecclesiology, which is at the root of their schism.

Likewise, the praxis differs quite a bit from Roman. the way one prays is different. The relationship of faithful to clergy is different. The liturgy is VERY different, and the theology that it causes is different.
 
Aramis said:
I consider myself Byzantine Catholic, despite my on-paper-still-roman status.

I reject the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” as redundancy; one can not be truly orthodox without rome, and the near-heresy of the Orthodox is their flawed ecclesiology, which is at the root of their schism.

Likewise, the praxis differs quite a bit from Roman. the way one prays is different. The relationship of faithful to clergy is different. The liturgy is VERY different, and the theology that it causes is different.
Click to expand...
From my experience it seems as though many Eastern Catholics identify the same way you do. I’m a little puzzled by the second part. Are you referring to the differences between Latins and Byzantine Catholics or Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox? 🙂

Hasn’t Rome itself stated that the Orthodox Churches have maintained the fullness of their Apostolic Faith despite (and sometimes because of) their separation from Rome? I believe Vatican II said something along those lines. John Paul II and Paul VI also made similar comments. 😊
 
Aramis said:
I consider myself Byzantine Catholic, despite my on-paper-still-roman status.

I reject the term “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” as redundancy; one can not be truly orthodox without rome, and the near-heresy of the Orthodox is their flawed ecclesiology, which is at the root of their schism.

Likewise, the praxis differs quite a bit from Roman. the way one prays is different. The relationship of faithful to clergy is different. The liturgy is VERY different, and the theology that it causes is different.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I know that there are some Byzantines out there who have issues with my being in a Latin Order but for me, I view myself as being Catholic first and foremost.

I do not experience any issues with this the only thing is learning more about my Byzantine rite and heritage, which again, is not an issue as along as I can find those out there who are willing to be guides.
 
So here’s my question. How do Eastern Catholics self-identify? Are you Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Are you Roman Catholics of a different rite? Are you something else?
Click to expand...
I identify as “Byzantine Catholic”; or as “Greek Catholic” when speaking to Eastern Europeans. I have never self-identified as any kind of “Roman Catholic”, nor have I ever heard this self-identification. I have heard “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” but it usually sounds more like posturing than identification.
there is a wide spectrum of thought on what exactly that means
Click to expand...
No doubt. Probably a thought or two per person. Just as with Roman Catholics of Eastern Orthodox, or any group.
 
I am a Catholic.

A Catholic who’s spirituality is deeply stirred by the Eastern rituals and traditions and who feels an affinity with the theology early Greek Fathers.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
From my experience it seems as though many Eastern Catholics identify the same way you do. I’m a little puzzled by the second part. Are you referring to the differences between Latins and Byzantine Catholics or Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox? 🙂

Hasn’t Rome itself stated that the Orthodox Churches have maintained the fullness of their Apostolic Faith despite (and sometimes because of) their separation from Rome? I believe Vatican II said something along those lines. John Paul II and Paul VI also made similar comments. 😊
Click to expand...
Hence Near Heresy.

Actually, Rome has, at various points, called the great schism Heresy, and at others merely indifference. The current view is only a century or two old. (It can be shown to have been in the 1917 CIC…)

The reject the Pope as visible head of the church; if a catholic taught that, he would be branded a heretic.
 
Hence Near Heresy.
Click to expand...
“Near Heresy” doesn’t jibe with quite a bit of Magisterial teaching in the last fifty years. “Full catholic and apostolic character of the Church” is how I recall Unitatis Redintegratio putting the Orthodox tradition.

With regards to identity, Greek Catholic or Ukrainian Greek Catholic has worked fine.
 
Diak said:
“Near Heresy” doesn’t jibe with quite a bit of Magisterial teaching in the last fifty years. “Full catholic and apostolic character of the Church” is how I recall Unitatis Redintegratio putting the Orthodox tradition.
Click to expand...
For the last 100 or so years, really. But the truth of the matter is that their ecclesiology, when spouted by those in Union with Rome, is heretical; it denies Christ’s endorsement of Peter (Mt 16 & Jn 21), it denies the role of the popes in the early church even (Reread the Letters of Pope St. Clement).

It isn’t a sufficient heresy to break their apostolic succession, nor does it affect the sacraments in any meaningful-to-the-laity way. It is the same error as the SSPV.

Either the Pope is the rightful and proper successor to Peter, and unity with him is essential, or he is not. Now, there is imperfect unity of belief with the EOC, but that isn’t full unity. There is imerfect unity of belief with the SSPV, too. And with many (but dropping steadily as they delve into more radical heresies) of the Old Catholics.
 
Aramis said:
it denies Christ’s endorsement of Peter (Mt 16 & Jn 21), it denies the role of the popes in the early church even (Reread the Letters of Pope St. Clement).
Click to expand...
Nothing is denied here. Holy Orthodoxy knows that all bishops are successors of all apostles. We know that Mt 16 speaks of a confession of faith and we know that John 21 says nothing about the Pope of Rome–in fact it tells us that St Peter is being restored to his apostolic ministry after his triple denial.
Aramis said:
It isn’t a sufficient heresy to break their apostolic succession
Click to expand...
It is not heresy at all. It is the way of the early Church. It is true apostolic Christianity in it’s fullness. 😉
 
It is the same error as the SSPV.
Click to expand...
Not even close, ecclesiologically or theologically speaking. The SSPV example is ultramontane and rigidly accepts the last twelve councils, and especially the 19th, as more definitive than the first seven.

The Orthodox do not believe in the idea of “sedevacante”, they most certainly believe the Pope is the synodally-elected Bishop of Rome chosen by Latins. A serious error comes with oversimplification and empirical reductions such as this when they simply cannot be applied.

You’ll actually have to define where the Church has declared the “ecclesiology” of the Orthodox as you put it to be “heretical”. The letters of St. Clement are fine, salutary, and enlightening, but when Constantinople became the Bishop of New Rome, it becomes much more complicated when attempting to concretize letters of the early second century with a much different ecclesiological framework as normative for application of the principle of primacy to the entire and very complicated later history of the Church. Again, ecclesiology cannot always be equated with theology.
 
I inconsistently use Greek Catholic or Orthodox in Communion with Rome.
 
Just an aside, and please forgive me if this comes across inflammatory, but would Catholics (of any stripe) object to Orthodox Christians calling themselves “Orthodox Catholic in Communion with Patriarch N. of X”? Not that I would do such a thing, I am just curious of the responses from ECs.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
No skin off my back… my Orthodox friends frequently refer to themselves as “Catholic but not Roman” and “Orthodox Catholic”… but it would seem odd for an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to refer to themselves as “Orthodox Catholic in Communion with Patriarch N. of X” since in today’s Orthodox theology communion with Patriarch N. of X is not important (exception, many Syriac Orthodox in the Middle East and India do find this communion essential).
 
Harpazo said:
Just an aside, and please forgive me if this comes across inflammatory, but would Catholics (of any stripe) object to Orthodox Christians calling themselves “Orthodox Catholic in Communion with Patriarch N. of X”? Not that I would do such a thing, I am just curious of the responses from ECs.

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
My first thought would be “Vagante”… it’s the mode of a great many of the so-called “Independent Orthodox” and “Independent Catholic” quasi-churches.
 
Well the Orthodox do refer to themselves as Catholic in the Creed ;). It doesn’t bother me at least. I think you’ll find it hard to make it into as catchy as a phrase as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (I guess you could go with Catholic in Communion with New Rome or Third Rome if you are Russian or Greek)
 
Formosus makes a good point; both “orthodox” and “catholic” have much larger historic usage with Eastern and Western churches than the polemics sometimes would lead one to believe. We have used “orthodox” in the English UGCC translations since at least the time of Metropolitan +Konstantin of blessed memory, and never one formal complaint from our Ukrainian Orthodox brethren.

What’s in a name? Everyone knows what particular Church they belong to. It’s a bit less significant than the omission of the one iota of the Arians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top