Eastern Catholics how/why is Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

[1Tim215Mommy]

After reading the responses to another question I asked, it triggered for me a new question.

I am now curious as to how/why Eastern Catholics feel that being in Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

I’m hoping that the responses will potentially lead me to new areas/issues to focus research - things I’ve not thought to consider previously.

 

[Aramis]

In several of the cases, the Orthodox patriarchs do not have uninterrupted continuity - The Orthodox patriarchs of the Melkites and Chaldeans, for example came into communion, and then the rump synod that rejected communion elected a parallel. There was no “breaking” from the Orthodox patriarch in these cases, except by those rejecting communion with Rome.

In others, the Catholic Patriarch is the one without continuity - the Copts amongst them.

Amongst the byzantines, as a whole, communion with the Patriarchs isn’t the theological issue it may seem. Communion with one’s own head bishop (be he metropolitan or patriarch and one’s own bishop, whether or not they’re in communion with any other bishops, is the fundamental communion that matters. This can be seen in how the various national churches have, at various points, broken communion with each other at various points.

Communion with Rome can be seen as communion with a head bishop for head bishops; in that context, it’s more important for the head bishop to be in communion with the head of head bishops than with other bishops.

 

[SerbCath]

For me it is about the very technical issue of being able to receive communion in the same place as my wife.

You see, my desire to look learn about (and ultimately follow) my fathers Orthodoxy came AFTER marrying a RC. The Byzantine Rite church that is the closest analog to my ethnic Orthodoxy (Serbian) makes it possible for us to be in communion with EACH OTHER. She is my wife, after all.

Luckily, the Byzantine priest who has been overseeing my catechesis has been very gracious about this. His statement was something like this: “Do not ever feel you are rejecting your fathers orthodoxy and Serbian heritage. Byzantine IS ORTHODOXY, in communion with the Pope.”

I know it’s simplistic, but that’s it.

 

[Scythian]

eh nevermind, I guess im trying to say is i get all the spiritual nourishment I need from my own bishop and the existence of an Eastern Orthodox counterpart(s) doesnt bother me whatsoever

 

[steve_b]

After reading the responses to another question I asked, it triggered for me a new question.

I am now curious as to how/why Eastern Catholics feel that being in Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

I’m hoping that the responses will potentially lead me to new areas/issues to focus research - things I’ve not thought to consider previously.

select the subject, and let an Eastern Catholic bishop answer your questions
melkite.org/bishop-john

for example https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome

 

[coptsoldier]

I have been Coptic Orthodox for 4 years. I love my church, I love my bishops and I love my Patriarch, HH Pope Tawadros II. I still identify with my Orthodox brothers and sisters. 2 Months ago, I became a uniate. My reasons for this have been spelt out in previous posts.But to answer your question I will keep it brief.

The Holy Catholic Church is happy to commune Orthodox bretheren. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as members of her, as is shown by the fact that when on goes from orthodox to catholic you dont even need catechism classes or RCIA. You Confess, Say the nicene-Constantinoplian creed (Without the Filioque Clause of course), and tada your catholic.

Your post said why would we break from our Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops. The reality is we havent, they have banned us. Those of us who see banning communion with Rome as wrong are driven out, branded heretics, branded schismatics, whatever. Even if our faith hasnt changed, the very fact that we choose to recieve communion in whatever apostolic Church we are in means we cannot commune in Orthodox parishes.

My situation is like this. Even though I was chrismated Coptic Orthodox, Baptised, Communed for 4 years now I must agree to not recieve in Roman Churches. I will not. The bishops of the Orthodox church are wrong for banning communion with Rome, and As such I will refuse it. I believe it is heresy to ban communion with a church which is apostolic and not heretical.

Now some Orthodox fundamentalists hold to the view that rome is indeed in heresy and as such has no apostolic succession. Which would then make sense to not commune with Rome, as she is heretical in their understanding. However my Jurisdiction, the Coptic Orthodox Church, Does not believe Rome is heretical. They state that Rome has valid apostolic Succession. Then why refuse communion? Its wrong, and needs to stop.

 

[Nine_Two]

In several of the cases, the Orthodox patriarchs do not have uninterrupted continuity - The Orthodox patriarchs of the Melkites and Chaldeans, for example came into communion, and then the rump synod that rejected communion elected a parallel. There was no “breaking” from the Orthodox patriarch in these cases, except by those rejecting communion with Rome.

I can’t speak for the Chaldeans, but as for the Melkites that is only one side of the story.
I was curious about how the Melkites came to be a few months ago and spent some time digging on the internet for some history. Most of what I found was unabashed pro-Catholic propaganda which made it seem as you are here, The Church decided to go Roman, and a small rump led by Constantinople split off.
A few sources, including one that was Catholic, did go to great pains to tell both sides of the story. There is much more to it than a “rump synod” deciding to stay Orthodox.

Amongst the byzantines, as a whole, communion with the Patriarchs isn’t the theological issue it may seem. Communion with one’s own head bishop (be he metropolitan or patriarch and one’s own bishop, whether or not they’re in communion with any other bishops, is the fundamental communion that matters. This can be seen in how the various national churches have, at various points, broken communion with each other at various points.

Communion with Rome can be seen as communion with a head bishop for head bishops; in that context, it’s more important for the head bishop to be in communion with the head of head bishops than with other bishops.

I thought you made an interesting point in your first paragraph, not one I’m sure I’d agree with, but an interesting one that requires though, however your next paragraph seems to be throwing it out. It is no longer about being in communion with your bishop, but who your bishop is in communion with. Of course we’d agree on this one, though not about the “head bishop part”.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

The Holy Catholic Church is happy to commune Orthodox bretheren. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as members of her, as is shown by the fact that when on goes from orthodox to catholic you dont even need catechism classes or RCIA. You Confess, Say the nicene-Constantinoplian creed (Without the Filioque Clause of course), and tada your catholic.
.

This would have to be my reason that, cradle Latin Catholic who mostly attends a Ruthenian church, I did not go over to the Orthodox church when I was seeking. There is a greater fullness of faith that I find under a universal truth that has many different ways of seeing the same thing.

I think you asked once about how diversity could be good for the Church, because it means it isn’t really united. I am the oldest of seven, we are all very different voters, parents, earners, etc… we walk together and we eat together. And we seek unity in all things, even when it seems complicated or impossible.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister 1Tim215Mommy,

After reading the responses to another question I asked, it triggered for me a new question.

I am now curious as to how/why Eastern Catholics feel that being in Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

I’m hoping that the responses will potentially lead me to new areas/issues to focus research - things I’ve not thought to consider previously.

I am puzzled. In all my years debating Eastern Orthodox on ecclesiology (both when I was in the OO communion and now in the Catholic communion), I have NEVER ever heard an EO make communion with their Patriarch a basis for ANY sort of argument. In fact, the EO I have debated more often than not insist that communion with your head bishop is of no consequence at all.

To be perfectly honest, unless you have simply not exactly intended what you wrote, I think you are a lot closer to being Catholic (I mean Catholic as an Orthodox in communion with Rome as distinct from an Orthodox who is not in communion with Rome) than you might think.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MichaelinMD]

After reading the responses to another question I asked, it triggered for me a new question.

I am now curious as to how/why Eastern Catholics feel that being in Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

I’m hoping that the responses will potentially lead me to new areas/issues to focus research - things I’ve not thought to consider previously.

Scythian’s answer, “I guess im trying to say is i get all the spiritual nourishment I need from my own bishop and the existence of an Eastern Orthodox counterpart(s) doesnt bother me whatsoever” is excellent.

I would only add that, despite the many failings of many of the humans in the Catholic Church, and having experienced the Orthodox Church first hand, after lots of prayer, and after being “woken up” in a not-so-subtle manner by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church, i.e. all those churches in communion with Rome, has the fullness of the faith. What more could one ask for?

I hope and pray that one day conditions will be right enough for all of us, Orthodox and Catholic, to be in full communion with each other once again.

In Christ,
MinM

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I’ve read so far:

• Marriage Compromise (communion with spouse trumps communion with Orthodox Bishops)
• Indifference (who cares/doesn’t matter)
• Rebellion (refusal to obey Orthodox Bishop after an order to not commune with another Apostolic Church)
• Indifference mixed with a personal Spiritual awakening experience (was spiritual direction sought to insure the experience was not a demonic deception?)

Not solid theological reasons that I was hoping for but I’m glad I asked anyway.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I’ve read so far:

• Marriage Compromise (communion with spouse trumps communion with Orthodox Bishops)
• Indifference (who cares/doesn’t matter)
• Rebellion (refusal to obey Orthodox Bishop after an order to not commune with another Apostolic Church)
• Indifference mixed with a personal Spiritual awakening experience (was spiritual direction sought to insure the experience was not a demonic deception?)

Not solid theological reasons that I was hoping for but I’m glad I asked anyway.

LOL!

What would a “solid theological reason” consist of? Perhaps an example would be good.

Is a belief and certainty that the Church has the fullness of the Faith not “theological”?

(Are you still looking, somehow, for us to “convince” you to transfer to the Eastern Catholic Church??)

In Christ,
MinM

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ve read so far:

• Marriage Compromise (communion with spouse trumps communion with Orthodox Bishops)…

.

What is your opinion of a marriage compromise? Should exceptions be made for a married couple to receive Holy Communion together?

 

[dzheremi]

Ah, yes…the wisdom of only allowing marriage within the communion is shown once again. It’d be great if all the churches would get back to this (including those in union with my own church who allow it, sadly, and hence often have many in the younger generation who don’t firmly identify as Orthodox, but instead have this ridiculous “it’s all Christianity anyway!” idea…cough cough Syriacs and Armenians), or at least ban the absolute insanity that is a Christian marrying a non-Christian. With all of this running around, across communions and inside and outside of religions, it is at least conceivable that one day Christians of the non-Protestant churches could end up like the Jews, with their distinct heritage and beliefs watered down to the point of irrelevance (even more so than is currently the case) due to massive rates of intermarriage with heretics and heathens. Sad.

 

[Aramis]

Dear sister 1Tim215Mommy,

I am puzzled. In all my years debating Eastern Orthodox on ecclesiology (both when I was in the OO communion and now in the Catholic communion), I have NEVER ever heard an EO make communion with their Patriarch a basis for ANY sort of argument. In fact, the EO I have debated more often than not insist that communion with your head bishop is of no consequence at all.

To be perfectly honest, unless you have simply not exactly intended what you wrote, I think you are a lot closer to being Catholic (I mean Catholic as an Orthodox in communion with Rome as distinct from an Orthodox who is not in communion with Rome) than you might think.

Blessings,
Marduk

Some Russians and some OCA do speak of the importance of the head bishop of their church; it was one of several issues during the incident with bishop Nikolai. Communion with the OCA Synod was touted as part of "True Orthodox Christianity " by several OCA clerics on the local News. Similar rhetoric has been used by the Russians for over a century. Even back to the Anti-Nikonian schism of the Old Believers.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the clarification, brother. I do notice that RO tend to express things on the high petrine part of the ecclesiological spectrum than other EO (though the Ravenna colloquy would seem to indicate that the rest of the EOC’s are more High Petrine than the ROC).

Blessings

Some Russians and some OCA do speak of the importance of the head bishop of their church; it was one of several issues during the incident with bishop Nikolai. Communion with the OCA Synod was touted as part of "True Orthodox Christianity " by several OCA clerics on the local News. Similar rhetoric has been used by the Russians for over a century. Even back to the Anti-Nikonian schism of the Old Believers.

 

[josie_L]

Ah, yes…the wisdom of only allowing marriage within the communion is shown once again. It’d be great if all the churches would get back to this (including those in union with my own church who allow it, sadly, and hence often have many in the younger generation who don’t firmly identify as Orthodox, but instead have this ridiculous “it’s all Christianity anyway!” idea…cough cough Syriacs and Armenians), or at least ban the absolute insanity that is a Christian marrying a non-Christian. With all of this running around, across communions and inside and outside of religions, it is at least conceivable that one day Christians of the non-Protestant churches could end up like the Jews, with their distinct heritage and beliefs watered down to the point of irrelevance (even more so than is currently the case) due to massive rates of intermarriage with heretics and heathens. Sad.

“Heretics and heathens” . . . . .I didn’t realize people still use those words?

 

[coptsoldier]

Funnily Enough, the early church didnt ban intermarriages, like thw coptic church of today. St monica is one such example, and by her loyalty and devotion to christ her husband was baptised catholic on his deathbed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister 1Tim215Mommy,

You obviously have a different understanding of the matter than Catholics. Can you please explain what you mean by what you stated?

*]Marriage Compromise (communion with spouse trumps communion with Orthodox Bishops)

Are you referring to the Pastoral provisions regarding marriage or are you referring to the idea that someone actually switches Churches for the sake of marriage?

*]Indifference (who cares/doesn’t matter)

I don’t understand. Please explain. I suspect you think that our paradigm that the different theological expressions of our COMMON Faith are not an impediment to unity.

Please be reminded that our acceptance of different theological expressions does not equate to acceptance of the historical heresies to which those theological expressions were traditionally attached.

The heresies continue to be condemned by the Catholic Church,. It’s just that the terminologies used by the historical heresies, it has been discovered, CAN mean something else than the heresy it was originally thought to convey. Please let me know if you understood that.

Again, please clarify what “indifference” you perceive in the Catholic Church.

*]Rebellion (refusal to obey Orthodox Bishop after an order to not commune with another Apostolic Church)

As brother Coptsoldier has pointed out, we are not rebelling against our Orthodox Faith. That is the most important consideration for us Orthodox who choose to make the move to be in the Catholic communion.

Not solid theological reasons that I was hoping for but I’m glad I asked anyway.

As noted, the most important consideration for Orthodox is that we are not rebelling against our Orthodox Faith when we choose communion with Rome. It seems to me that should be the ONLY consideration on an Orthodox Christian’s mind.

IMO, the ONLY thing that should concern you is whether or not you believe the Catholic Church teaches heresy. If you believe she does, then do not join. On the other hand, if you believe she has faithfully preserved the Orthodox Faith of the Fathers, then one has to seriously consider communion with the Catholic Church as an option.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

“Heretics and heathens” . . . . .I didn’t realize people still use those words?

If you can think of more succinct terms by which to classify the likes of Oneness Penetecostals and their ilk and the various new age religions, feel free to substitute those, then.