How do the Orthodox view the Eastern Catholics?

[Barry_Gabriel]

Why in the world not? I’ve never heard that before. I receive communion every week at a church of a different rite than the one I was officially registered in when I became Catholic.

I don’t know why not. You can of course as it is not forbidden. It is preferred that you receive in your own rite… at least that’s what I understood. I may be wrong about this. Anybody else know?

 

[malphono]

I don’t know why not. You can of course as it is not forbidden. It is preferred that you receive in your own rite… at least that’s what I understood. I may be wrong about this. Anybody else know?

Granted, most people do assist and receive in their proper Church. But FWIW, I’ve never seen or heard a that a “preference” about receiving in another “rite” was ever either expressed or implied. I’ve never been given the “fish eye” at the Latin Rite EF (I don’t voluntarily frequent the OF). Or on the occasions I’ve gone to a Byzantine DL, etc.

 

[Addai]

By your standards the Pope of Alexandria could probably claim the church at Toledo never broke communion with them.

Not so. IF were talking a Roman Catholic bishop, accepting Chalcedon would have done it.

“You cast aspersions on my motives, but this is the same position I held when I was a Catholic, and there are many Catholic scholars (judging by what was written in the CE) who have held the same opinion… so your contention does not hold water.”

Excuse me but you were the one that used the word “propaganda” and insinuated that this was some kind of deliberate Socially Constructed Revisionist history, designed to get goodies by the medieval Maronites. So questioning your motives is only fair since you were the first to do it.

 

[Madaglan]

Like what?

I’m not aware that they have had any issues causing any unrest. Nor am I aware of them having any since.

If there were not any during those 400 years, they certainly would be quite unique of the Christian Churches. I don’t know the history of those times though (does anybody?)

Just wondering: when the Maronites created their own patriarchate, did they seek Rome’s recognition?

Something interesting I discovered is that many Maronites fled to Cyprus, where their descendants remain to this day.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Michael,

That would be an inaccurate comparison. The Coptic Orthodox Church has never claimed that there was some kind of remnant of Coptic Orthodox Christianity or non-Chalcedonian Christianity in Spain. It was only in 2001 that HH Pope Shenoute established a mission in Spain to meet the needs of emigrant Copts.

Blessings

Did the orthodox bishops (non-Arian) in Toledo and Spain in general formally accept Chalcedon? If yes, I’m not understanding this analogy, although I think I understand the Ukrainian/Syro-Malabar one, translating it as: 1st millenium Maronites in communion with Rome but not in communion with any of the other Eastern Churches (including the Melkites, who were in communion with Rome during the same time). Maronite and Melkite together in communion with Rome, but not with each other.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

although I think I understand the Ukrainian/Syro-Malabar one, translating it as: 1st millenium Maronites in communion with Rome but not in communion with any of the other Eastern Churches (including the Melkites, who were in communion with Rome during the same time). Maronite and Melkite together in communion with Rome, but not with each other.

That circumstance is certainly possible. That was in fact the situation during the so-called “Meletian Schism” in the 4th century. Bishop A and Bishop C were in communion with Bishop B, but bishop A was not communion with Bishop C.

Blessings

 

[BobCatholic]

From the photo on that website, they seem to be some kind of “Western Rite” that operates out of a living room.

One thing I find interesting on that website is the lack of any indication of with whom they are in communion. Another is the conspicuous (to me, anyway) absence of any indication of Apostolic Succession.

Hmmm. Slippery wording. Roman, but not Papal. Orthodox, but not eastern. Sounds iffy to me.:nope:

OK. Maybe they’ll be looking for a patriarch, we’ll send them one of the fake popes to claim themselves as a patriarch

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

That circumstance is certainly possible. That was in fact the situation during the so-called “Meletian Schism” in the 4th century. Bishop A and Bishop C were in communion with Bishop B, but bishop A was not communion with Bishop C.

Blessings

Do you mean Meletius of Antioch or Meletius of Lycopolis? Both had schisms in their claimed sees, and both incidentally lived in the 4th century. :whacky:

I do believe that in both cases the situation was considered irregular and promptly if unsuccessfully treated with conciliar action. Moreover, there were decisions made concerning with whom one was in communion or not in communion.

The Maronite claim to have been always in communion with the Pope of Rome is interesting in that the Popes of Rome for 400 years did not even know these Churches and Patriarchs that claimed to be in communion with them existed, if the story of their re-discovery is true.

 

[Madaglan]

From the photo on that website, they seem to be some kind of “Western Rite” that operates out of a living room.

One thing I find interesting on that website is the lack of any indication of with whom they are in communion. Another is the conspicuous (to me, anyway) absence of any indication of Apostolic Succession.

They’re in communion with Pope Pius XIII.

An example of Catholic/Orthodox unity…

jk

 

[Cecilianus]

OK. Maybe they’ll be looking for a patriarch, we’ll send them one of the fake popes to claim themselves as a patriarch

Those guys are still around? Just goes to show how badly needed welfare reform is. Or have they gotten real jobs by now, and only dress up as Pope in their spare time?

 

[Hesychios]

Not so. IF were talking a Roman Catholic bishop, accepting Chalcedon would have done it.

I am not sure, but I think you missed my point.

I was pointing out that there was no official correspondence between most Latin dioceses and most eastern churches for many centuries. One could say “they have never broken communion” because you will not find a formal document from the Archbishop of Toledo (or Paris/Milan/Carthage) anathematizing the Pope at Alexandria by name or title, or vice versa. Most local churches could theoretically claim they have not broken communion with must other local churches because there is nothing formal extant. They followed their synods.

So no document turns up showing a formal break between Rome and Lebanon, but they were already out of communion with local Catholics, formed their own synod and elected their own Patriarch… basically they were not sharing the Eucharist with the local Catholics and not concelebrating with them for centuries.

Even the group of Maronite refugees who migrated to Cyprus sometime between 1200AD and 1300AD (a time when the island was controlled by Roman Catholics from the west, and after the “reaffirmation”) were definitely NOT in communion with Rome. There were Roman Catholic (and presumably Greek Catholic) bishops right there on Cyprus and they had to have known they were fleeing to a Catholic country.

How much more does it take? This is not rocket science.

“You cast aspersions on my motives, but this is the same position I held when I was a Catholic, and there are many Catholic scholars (judging by what was written in the CE) who have held the same opinion… so your contention does not hold water.”

Excuse me but you were the one that used the word “propaganda”…

But it is propaganda. Some people are stretching the facts, but why?

People want to believe this fantasy for their own reasons, and they want others to believe it too so they post this information and repost it. But there is no evidence that it is true at all.

A good example is someone assuming that “might your seeing this as “fudgey” really be because you deny the historically legitimate possibility of Papal Supremacy”. When in fact I have never addressed Papal Supremacy. We are simply discussing whether or not the Maronites were in continual communion with Rome.

The way it looks, not even in your dreams could they be in continual communion with Rome once they had broken with the Melkites. If you insist on this, we have to recognize there was an entirely different ecclesiology at the time than the Catholic communion has today.

Does perpetuating an idea like this actually support Papal Supremacy?

 

[Addai]

“How much more does it take? This is not rocket science.”

Actually I find the Maronites situation somewhat plausible because it mirrors the situation of the Oriental Orthodox. By their own admission, Oriental Sees were often out of Communication for centuries yet they still considered that they were in the same “Church”

Also to bring up some things you said about the Melkites a post or two back. The Maronites by their own history were hiding out in the mountains for centuries. You find this implausible but it actually fits what other groups have managed to do. Like the Medieval Basques, there is a Koine Greek speaking group in the Italian mountains that hid out from when the Romans conquered that part of Italy and survived and kept its culture etc.

Besides the fact that in pre-automobile days it was quite common for folks to not leave their immediate area (like not venture more then 20 miles beyond their home). Anyway I don’t see the inevitably of contact with them.

Also the Melkites from what I gather reading online were much more recent additions to the Catholic Church. (Dating from the 1300s or 1700s depending on the source). So I don’t see that they would necessary have the motivation for contact that you previously talked about.

 

[Addai]

"But it is propaganda. Some people are stretching the facts, but why? "

Well I guess here is where we got to part ways. Or I could say that I think every Church engages in Propaganda if that word is defined as telling some embellished story to bolster its prestige and make its faithful proud of it etc.

Or to put it another way. I’ve read from a few occasions where my Armenians brothers were speaking dismissively of the EO’s “Holy Fire” They say its a sham. They are faking. Hiding matches somewhere to light it etc. Which is not something I would approve of (Because the other guy thinks its sacred). And it may be a legitimate supernatural phenomenon which if its is you definitely don’t want to belittle). Anyway if such a person did that in my presence I would admonish them, especially if they did it on the EOs home turf (That’s just bad manners right?)

 

[dvdjs]

This is not rocket science.

Let’s look at some other, 20th century situations.

The ROC and ROCOR while at loggerheads were both in communion with, for example, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and both had the idea that there were Orthodox. But this is some quirk of Orthodox ecclesiology, I suppose, so let’s consider a Catholic example.

The BCC and UGCC in America, soon after the appointment of different bishops for each group, probably practiced little if any intercommunion or concelebration, and, overall, probably wanted nothing to do with each other. But it would just be an gross error to assume that this desire to be separate and affirm the individuality of one’s particular church meant that communion was broken or that either group regarded the other as outside of the Catholic Church. One could harbor such fantasies, perhaps for propaganda purposes, but they would be wrong.

 

[malphono]

Actually I find the Maronites situation somewhat plausible because it mirrors the situation of the Oriental Orthodox. By their own admission, Oriental Sees were often out of Communication for centuries yet they still considered that they were in the same “Church”. …

Besides the fact that in pre-automobile days it was quite common for folks to not leave their immediate area (like not venture more then 20 miles beyond their home). Anyway I don’t see the inevitably of contact with them.

Yes, that’s about right. The Maronites were caught between the hostile Byzantines and their imperially (read artificially) imposed “Patriarch” on one side and the somewhat less hostile (but hostile nonetheless) non-Chalcedonians on the other. Then came the Arab invasions and conquests which made the first two look friendly. Anyway, with enemies on all sides, “hiding out” is just about what most people would do. It was either that or be annihilated.

But prior to the rise of the Ottomans and then the Crusades, there was at least limited contact with the “outside world” (so-to-speak): less with the Byzantines and more with the non Chalcedonians (who were still trying to gather-n the Maronites), but contact nonetheless. It should also be noted that while the bulk of the Maronites took refuge in the mountains, there was still a remnant in the Aleppo area.

There are, unfortunately, those on this forum who seem intent on producing a “history of communion” for the Maronites based on selective sources and their own agenda. **mardukm **had it right when he said:

Why would it matter to anyone else but the Maronites if they were once monothelite or not? ISTM that’s an internal matter among Maronites.

Rather than be redundant, I’ll end my involvement with a reference to an earlier post of my own in this [post=5772419]thread[/post].

 

[yeshua]

Whether it was true or not, the matter is long resolved and is little more than a historical footnote which no longer means anything. So no, the OO don’t usually get worked up over it. Neither do the RC, for quite the same reason.

No, it can be written away as a historical footnote. By your own admission, and one I agree with, the state of our church is all out depressing post-Vatican II. How can we not admit that this claim of perpetual communion encouraged or even drove those hierarchs who crafted this school of Neo-Latinizaiton? What better reason to emulate the Latins other than our “unique” status among the Easterners as those who never broke communion with Rome? I have documents & quotations, and I can assume you do as well, that show an all-out pride in Maronites (at least in this country) crafting their identity on this claim. It matters as much now as it did when it was incubating in the fifteenth century.

We need an honest historiography. We need an honest discussion about our past if we are ever going to try to mend the damage that has been done, and continues to be done.

The OO’s can rightly be left to their own issues, but Rome’s apathy over the situation is a wholly different matter.

 

[malphono]

No, it can be written away as a historical footnote. By your own admission, and one I agree with, the state of our church is all out depressing post-Vatican II. How can we not admit that this claim of perpetual communion encouraged or even drove those hierarchs who crafted this school of Neo-Latinizaiton? What better reason to emulate the Latins other than our “unique” status among the Easterners as those who never broke communion with Rome? I have documents & quotations, and I can assume you do as well, that show an all-out pride in Maronites (at least in this country) crafting their identity on this claim. It matters as much now as it did when it was incubating in the fifteenth century.

We need an honest historiography. We need an honest discussion about our past if we are ever going to try to mend the damage that has been done, and continues to be done.

The OO’s can rightly be left to their own issues, but Rome’s apathy over the situation is a wholly different matter.

Obviously, I do not disagree: I frankly care less about the “perpetual communion” aspect. That wasn’t where I was going, and I think you can see that.

The damage that has been, and continues (even as I type this) to be done really has nothing to do with whether or not there was a dallience with monotholetism in the 5th century. The thing that bugs me is the EO insistence on it. They’re rather beating a dead horse. If there was a dallience, it didn’t last. And I don’t appreciate the negative aspersions they inevitably cast upon the inception of the Maronite Patriarchate, while turning a blind eye to the artificially created Byzantine “Patriarchate” of Antioch.

Sorry for the rant but I’m sure you understand.

 

[Harpazo]

Obviously, I do not disagree: I frankly care less about the “perpetual communion” aspect. That wasn’t where I was going, and I think you can see that.

The damage that has been, and continues (even as I type this) to be done really has nothing to do with whether or not there was a dallience with monotholetism in the 5th century. The thing that bugs me is the EO insistence on it. They’re rather beating a dead horse. If there was a dallience, it didn’t last. And I don’t appreciate the negative aspersions they inevitably cast upon the inception of the Maronite Patriarchate, while turning a blind eye to the artificially created Byzantine “Patriarchate” of Antioch.

Sorry for the rant but I’m sure you understand.

Hello malphono,

Two questions for you: were there any negative reactions from the Chalcedonian camp when the Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch was set up? And if you feel that the Byzantine Patriarch of Antioch (I assume you are talking about the Antiochian Orthodox), do you feel the same about the Melkite Patriarch? Is he illegitimate, too?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[malphono]

Hello malphono,

Two questions for you: were there any negative reactions from the Chalcedonian camp when the Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch was set up? And if you feel that the Byzantine Patriarch of Antioch (I assume you are talking about the Antiochian Orthodox), do you feel the same about the Melkite Patriarch? Is he illegitimate, too?

Oh, it has nothing to do with “legitimacy” as you put it. There may have been at some point in the very distant past, but what’s done is done.

This has all been gone over and over in other threads. I have no intention (or interest) in rehashing it yet again, and I absolutely will not do so. If you read my last post again, you should be able to see why I made the comparison.

 

[Harpazo]

Oh, it has nothing to do with “legitimacy” as you put it. There may have been at some point in the very distant past, but what’s done is done.

This has all been gone over and over in other threads. I have no intention (or interest) in rehashing it yet again, and I absolutely will not do so. If you read my last post again, you should be able to see why I made the comparison.

I did in fact read the last post, but was not quite clear, hence my question. But if you do not want to discuss it, then we do not have to.

In Christ,
Andrew