How Much is Rome Worth To You?

[byzgirl]

I have been advised by my Spiritual Father that if I were to move to another area which did not have a Melkite Catholic Church that I could get to and there were no other Eastern Catholic Churches, I should go to an Eastern Orthodox Church rather than ever go to a Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is simple. Our Faith and our Traditions are Orthodox not Roman.

Our Patriarch is currently in union with Rome and so we are too. This could change, as it has in past, at some point. We must hold on to our Faith regardless of what the People at the Top are doing.

So you’re holding to union with Rome, with reservation??? The People at the Top, refers to Christ and to Peter. That is where the CATHOLIC faith stands (on the Rock that Christ chose to build His Church).

And, respectfully, your spiritual Father, in this matter, would be wrong. You are confusing traditions and customs (of the Eastern tradition) with the capital T (Tradition --the faith passed down from the Apostles). There is only one Tradition, of the CATHOLIC Church, which is the original Christian Church (found in the succession of Saint Peter’s Chair). The Orthodox, while rightly caliming apostolic succession (since they were Catholics at one time)… they removed themselves from the authority of Peter, and, therefore, stepped out of the one Tradition of the Church which claimed the sucessors of Peter as the rightful authoritative line.

It is the ‘Catholic’ designation, of your Eastern tradition, that takes precedence over and above the customs and traditions of the Eastern rites (no matter which we’re speaking of----I, personally, being a Byzantine Rite Catholic). While it wouldn’t be WRONG for you to go to an Orthodox Church, if ‘no other Eastern rite CATHOLIC churches were in the area’, you’re home is in the one, true, ‘CATHOLIC’ Church, and you should seek out a Latin Rite Church before going to an Orthodox one.

Besides, how often would this scenario happen, and how horrible could the ‘idea’ be? You’re receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, in his Holy Eucharist, in His Catholic Church…I don’t think it is such a terrible notion.

We are Catholics, and are welcome in every Catholic Church (no matter that it be an Eastern rite or Latin Rite Church)…we are home. I think that’s a beautiful thing, and not meant to be held with any reservation or mentality that ‘Eastern rite’ versus ‘Latin Rite’ holds in some individual minds.

Our Catholic FAITH is one in belief. We believe, among other things, that Peter was chose, by Jesus Christ, to head the Church, changed his name and instituted a covenantal bond between himself (in Peter’s special role) and the Church (until His glorious return).

Rachel

 

[vocatio]

The Pope is a Fallible person except when speaking Ex Cathedra. In all other instances he is as Fallible as you and me.

More like you… not me.

 

[vocatio]

I have been advised by my Spiritual Father that if I were to move to another area which did not have a Melkite Catholic Church that I could get to and there were no other Eastern Catholic Churches, I should go to an Eastern Orthodox Church rather than ever go to a Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is simple. Our Faith and our Traditions are Orthodox not Roman.

Our Patriarch is currently in union with Rome and so we are too. This could change, as it has in past, at some point. We must hold on to our Faith regardless of what the People at the Top are doing.

What you are saying sounds like heresy.
Straight talking, if I could be or were allowed to be Orhtodox, I would. I still have no problem with the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This division really pricks my heart for some reason. Probably because it was discovering the Orhtodox Church that helped me put away my previous Fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[Hesychios]

What you are saying sounds like heresy.
Straight talking, if I could be or were allowed to be Orhtodox, I would. I still have no problem with the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This division really pricks my heart for some reason. Probably because it was discovering the Orhtodox Church that helped me put away my previous Fundamentalist beliefs.

While a young Melkite in Chicago (this was in the early 1960’s) my Godfather was advised to find an Orthodox church, by none other than His Beatitude Maximos Sayegh.

And so he did.

 

[Christy74]

It is the ‘Catholic’ designation, of your Eastern tradition, that takes precedence over and above the customs and traditions of the Eastern rites (no matter which we’re speaking of----I, personally, being a Byzantine Rite Catholic). While it wouldn’t be WRONG for you to go to an Orthodox Church, if ‘no other Eastern rite CATHOLIC churches were in the area’, you’re home is in the one, true, ‘CATHOLIC’ Church, and you should seek out a Latin Rite Church before going to an Orthodox one.
Rachel

Peace Rachel,

You have a passion for your faith and that is fabulous! I would encourage you to obtain a little more knowledge about what you are speaking to coinside with that passion and then you would be on fire!

My spiritual home is in Eastern Christianity. Whether or not the Church I am in, which was founded in Jeruselem by St. James and in Antioch by St. Peter, is currently in union with Rome, founded by St. Peter & St. Paul, is completely up to the Patriarchs.

I am a little pea in the hierarchy of the Church. If Rome is in union with us or not is between the current Patriarch of Rome and my Patriarch.

I will not leave my spiritual home just because a Patriarch had a falling out with another Patriarch. If there were a fight in my natural family - let’s same between my father and my uncle, I wouldn’t leave my father’s house and move in with my uncle until the two eventually became friendly with one another again. That would be silly.

If my Patriarch and the Patriarch of Rome ever separated again, like they have in the past several times, I know that eventually they will come back together as this is our Church Family we are talking about. Whether we are “in communion” or not, we are still a family.

There is nothing wrong with the Western approach to Christianity as found in the Roman Church (and consequently in the Protestant Churches which all, if traced back in history, go back to the Church of Rome). The very fact that our Apostolic Churches are currently in union with one another bares testimony to that fact; however, although Western Christianity is the spiritual home of most of all the Christians at this point in history, it is not my spiritual home.

Rachel, I don’t know anything about you. Perhaps you are equally comfortable in both Eastern and Western Christianity and so feel that the term Catholic (which in today’s culture refers to the Church of Rome, although in times past refered to the Orthodox Churches of other Patriarchates) is of the most importance to you and if the Eastern Catholic Churches no longer existed you would be perfectly at home in the Western Church. If that is the case for you, okay. God created us each differently and he created, via the apostles, several different approaches to Christianty: Western and Eastern and don’t forget Oriental - our Coptic brothers and sisters of Egypt founded by St. Mark and the Church in India founded by St. Thomas. Because we, as human beings are completely unique - in soul, we each feel “at home” in different parts of the Historical Church, Christ’s Church.

 

[Christy74]

What you are saying sounds like heresy.
Straight talking, if I could be or were allowed to be Orhtodox, I would. I still have no problem with the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This division really pricks my heart for some reason. Probably because it was discovering the Orhtodox Church that helped me put away my previous Fundamentalist beliefs.

No it’s not heresy.

Please refer to my response to Rachel, God Willing it will help you to understand. Perhaps not.

 

[Ghosty]

I have been advised by my Spiritual Father that if I were to move to another area which did not have a Melkite Catholic Church that I could get to and there were no other Eastern Catholic Churches, I should go to an Eastern Orthodox Church rather than ever go to a Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is simple. Our Faith and our Traditions are Orthodox not Roman.

Our Patriarch is currently in union with Rome and so we are too. This could change, as it has in past, at some point. We must hold on to our Faith regardless of what the People at the Top are doing.

Your Spiritual Father, who I assume is a Melkite, seriously said you shouldn’t ever go to a Roman Catholic Church? I find that pretty hard to believe, to be honest. Recommending to go to an Eastern Orthodox parish, I can believe and understand, but to not ever go to a Roman one?

Did he really say don’t ever go to a Roman Catholic Church?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I have been advised by my Spiritual Father that if I were to move to another area which did not have a Melkite Catholic Church that I could get to and there were no other Eastern Catholic Churches, I should go to an Eastern Orthodox Church rather than ever go to a Roman Catholic Church.

You’ve been given bad advice unfortunately.

 

[byzgirl]

Dear Kristy74:

Saint Peter was singled out, to head the Church (not just in Antioch) but the ENTIRE, universal Church.

Christ singled out Peter (not James, not Paul, nor any other Apostle) to be the Rock on which to build His Church. That Church isn’t located in the East or West, but is the kingdom of God on earth, and without boundary (geographically limited).

I am a Byzantine Rite Catholic, and love the Eastern rite (like it was made for me). I was raised a Latin Rite Catholic, and have no ‘problem’ with it, precisely because I understand it to be the original Church.

The Early Church, as witnessed by the Fathers, recognized and wrote clearly about Peter’s primacy (the Chair of Peter).

I don’t have any animosity toward the Orthodox Church. Quite the contrary. I truly believe that one day, they will unite with the ‘Roman’ Church and be reconciled, fully, with Peter. And I understand and recognize their claim to Apostolic succession, being that they schismed, and aren’t heretical.

However, to suggest that it’s somehow ‘allowable’ for a Melkite Catholic (whoever he may be) to suggest going to an Orthodox Church when a Roman (Latin Rite) CATHOLIC Church is available, is absolutely NOT (allowed). No ‘obedient’ Eastern rite Catholic (bishop or not) has the authority to state such a thing.

Now, if a Catholic (Eastern or Latin rite) cannot possibly get to a ‘Catholic’ Church, for Mass, then it is allowable for them to go to an Orthodox Church for the Liturgy. And they can receive communion, because of shared belief regarding the Eucharist and the fact that it is seen as valid (as is their priesthood).

But to suggest that, because you were ‘told’ it was okay to go to an Orthodox Church (over and above an available Latin Rite Catholic Church) is absolutely false and inadvisable.

We are Catholic first. And I LOVE the Eastern traditions and customs. But I would never deny Peter. Period.

And, yes, I have a lot of zeal for my Catholic faith!

 

[Badaliyyah]

It is the ‘Catholic’ designation, of your Eastern tradition, that takes precedence over and above the customs and traditions of the Eastern rites (no matter which we’re speaking of----I, personally, being a Byzantine Rite Catholic). While it wouldn’t be WRONG for you to go to an Orthodox Church, if ‘no other Eastern rite CATHOLIC churches were in the area’, you’re home is in the one, true, ‘CATHOLIC’ Church, and you should seek out a Latin Rite Church before going to an Orthodox one.

I assume that Christy saying she would never go to a Roman parish is a bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, i admit that as a long term solution attending a Roman parish would not work, in the absence of a local Melkite church. But as someone else pointed out, this should probably be dealt with in consultation with your Abouna. I cannot imagine a real problem arising here, though.

But that wasn’t the question, and I thought byzgirl’s statement really highlighted the problem. The question is not about a custom or a rite, it is about a Church. We are Churches (whether Melkite, or UGCC, etc.) in communion with the Church of Rome. This is essentially a question about what to do if Rome broke communion with our Church. Of course we would remain with our Church and that would almost certainly mean, in the case of being Melkite, that one would find oneself in communion with Antioch, i.e. Orthodox.

Longing for communion with Antioch (and Constantinople, and Moscow, etc.)…or, longing for communion with Rome…it is an unhappy situation no matter how you look at it.

salaam.

 

[byzgirl]

I assume that Christy saying she would never go to a Roman parish is a bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, i admit that as a long term solution attending a Roman parish would not work, in the absence of a local Melkite church. But as someone else pointed out, this should probably be dealt with in consultation with your Abouna. I cannot imagine a real problem arising here, though.

But that wasn’t the question, and I thought byzgirl’s statement really highlighted the problem. The question is not about a custom or a rite, it is about a Church. We are Churches (whether Melkite, or UGCC, etc.) in communion with the Church of Rome. This is essentially a question about what to do if Rome broke communion with our Church. Of course we would remain with our Church and that would almost certainly mean, in the case of being Melkite, that one would find oneself in communion with Antioch, i.e. Orthodox.

Longing for communion with Antioch (and Constantinople, and Moscow, etc.)…or, longing for communion with Rome…it is an unhappy situation no matter how you look at it.

salaam.

John DiMascio wrote this (from AskaCatholic.com). I thought that this may be helpful:

Before 1054 AD the Catholic Church with minor exception was one. The Eastern and Western churches developed different traditions which were both equally valid. Eastern and Western doctrines were in essence (substance) the same. However, since in the East they asked different questions than in the West, the explanations of the same truth varied.

It is also important to note that the schism of 1054 was about jurisdiction. Prior to 1054, the Bishop of Rome never really got involved in the administration of the Eastern churches. Just prior to the schism, at the behest of the Greek faithful, Rome was asked to intervene to settle a dispute over who the Patriarch on Constantinople should be. The Pope, reluctantly intervened. The Eastern Church didn’t like the decision and sought to overturn it.

Now it must be made clear, there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. This matter wasn’t exactly handled with pastoral sensitivity.
The schism could have been and should have been avoided.

The good news is that there is significant dialogue between Rome and the Eastern churches. There still are stumbling blocks, but both sides want unity from the hierarchy down to the people.

Hence we continue to seek Christ together until the day we are one again."

 

[Ghosty]

I assume that Christy saying she would never go to a Roman parish is a bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, i admit that as a long term solution attending a Roman parish would not work, in the absence of a local Melkite church.

This I can certainly agree with. For the long term, it would be detrimental to the Faith if Melkites simply melted into the local Roman Catholic parishes. Given that alternative, I would definitely advocate worshiping at an Eastern Orthodox parish, but only one that accepted Melkites as Melkites, without expecting any distancing from the Catholic point of view. Such a situation could actually be beneficial in the long run, I think; it could positively influence dialogue between our two Communions.

Speaking for myself, I would happily worship at an Eastern Orthodox parish is they allowed me, and they accepted me as a Catholic when doing so. I would not be comfortable if the parish was anti-Catholic, however, or if it expressed an overt hostility to the Latin Church and tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[byzgirl]

Why be an Eastern rite Catholic if you’re loyalties actually lie in your Eastern traditions and customs over and above your Catholic designation?

Catholics are ‘Catholic’ because of a belief in **Peter’s unique authority. **
That’s the bottom line.

 

[Ghosty]

Why be an Eastern rite Catholic if you’re loyalties actually lie in your Eastern traditions and customs over and above your Catholic designation?

Catholics are ‘Catholic’ because of a belief in **Peter’s unique authority. **
That’s the bottom line.

I agree completely, but we also owe it to the Catholic Church to maintain the unique traditions of the Faith. That’s why I wouldn’t advocate being absorbed into the Latin tradition, but I also wouldn’t advocate treating the Catholic Communion and the Pope as merely being attached to us due to the vagaries of history. We can’t abandon either without losing our Catholic identity, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[byzgirl]

1. Catholics hold the firm conviction that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church “which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.[22] They confess that the entirety of revealed truth, of sacraments, and of ministry that Christ gave for the building up of his Church and the carrying out of its mission is found within the Catholic communion of the Church. Certainly Catholics know that personally they have not made full use of and do not make full use of the means of grace with which the Church is endowed. For an that, Catholics never lose confidence in the Church. Their faith assures them that it remains “the worthy bride of the Lord, ceaselessly renewing herself through the action of the Holy Spirit until, through the cross, she may attain to that light which knows no setting”.[23] Therefore, when Catholics use the words “Churches”, “other Churches”, “other Churches and ecclesial Communities” etc., to refer to those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, this firm conviction and confession of faith must always be kept in mind
2. **Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith.[125] Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”.[126] This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities’’.

[127] It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.**123. Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for any Catholic for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from a minister of an Eastern Church.[128]

1. Since practice differs between Catholics and Eastern Christians in the matter of frequent communion, confession before communion and the Eucharistic fast, care must be taken to avoid scandal and suspicion among Eastern Christians through Catholics not following the Eastern usage. A Catholic who legitimately wishes to communicate with Eastern Christians must respect the Eastern discipline as much as possible and refrain from communicating if that Church restricts sacramental communion to its own members to the exclusion of others.
2. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed. In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.[129]

Can. 903: The Eastern Catholic Churches have a special duty of fostering unity among all Eastern Churches, first of all through prayers, by the example of life, by the religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, by better knowledge of each other, and by collaboration and brotherly respect in practice and spirit.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Why be an Eastern rite Catholic if you’re loyalties actually lie in your Eastern traditions and customs over and above your Catholic designation?

This is what I was trying to object to earlier. They are not traditions and customs. We are members of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and that Church is in communion with Rome. We are not Romans who happen to have a stronger dose of incense and funky paintings in front of the altar. Of course we recognize that Rome has a unique place. But if communion were broken between the Roman Church and our own it is hard to imagine that we would leave our Church to go become Latins.

Ghosty said: Speaking for myself, I would happily worship at an Eastern Orthodox parish is they allowed me, and they accepted me as a Catholic when doing so. I would not be comfortable if the parish was anti-Catholic, however, or if it expressed an overt hostility to the Latin Church and tradition.

I completely agree. Apart from some evangelicals-turned-Antiochene, I have always found the Antiochene Orthodox parishes very welcoming to Melkites. I think there is an understanding of the history, and pain and loss felt over the divide.

salaam.

 

[byzgirl]

I agree completely, but we also owe it to the Catholic Church to maintain the unique traditions of the Faith. That’s why I wouldn’t advocate being absorbed into the Latin tradition, but I also wouldn’t advocate treating the Catholic Communion and the Pope as merely being attached to us due to the vagaries of history. We can’t abandon either without losing our Catholic identity, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

very well spoken. I believe that it was John Paul II that actually ENCOURAGED the Eastern rite ‘Catholic’ churches to ‘return’ to some of their original eastern customs and traditions, because a lot of the churches had been ‘latinized’. Ours, for example, has Latin rite ‘Stations of the Cross’ and Western art. There’s nothing wrong with them, but they aren’t ‘eastern’. We also lack the beautiful icon screens of most eastern rite (and Orthodox) churches, due to that latinization of the past. And not just in appearance…our church now recites the Nicene Creed, but has changed the filolque phrase, and removing the ‘and the Son’…to reflect the original wording of the eastern churches (small c).

My point, it’s important to note, in all dialogue, that the real bottom line for Catholics, is the authority of Peter’s Chair. And my allegiance will always be with that God-given authority (Matthew 16:18), and no where else.

 

[byzgirl]

This is what I was trying to object to earlier. They are not traditions and customs. We are members of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and that Church is in communion with Rome. We are not Romans who happen to have a stronger dose of incense and funky paintings in front of the altar. Of course we recognize that Rome has a unique place. But if communion were broken between the Roman Church and our own it is hard to imagine that we would leave our Church to go become Latins.

I completely agree. Apart from some evangelicals-turned-Antiochene, I have always found the Antiochene Orthodox parishes very welcoming to Melkites. I think there is an understanding of the history, and pain and loss felt over the divide.

salaam.

Why are you Catholic, then? If the unity is based on the Chair of Peter, and the unity is broken, will you follow Peter or not? That’s the question. Not whether you ‘feel’ more Eastern than Latin. Besides, you don’t become ‘Latin’. What makes someone ‘Latin’? We’re Catholic. That’s our designation. If you aren’t talking about eastern smells and bells, then what else makes you Catholic?

 

[byzgirl]

I have always suspected that some eastern rite Catholics have trouble imagining becoming ‘latin’ because of their connection to ethnicity, rather than any doctrinal disagreement or like or dislike of ‘Latin’ customs/traditions.

This is something I received, from John DiMascio, of askacatholic.com, in a dialogue we were having about the Orthodox Church and my thoughts regarding ‘ethnic division’.

His return comments:

"Nationalism plays a much larger role in Orthodox Churches than it does in the Western Church. In fact, I’ve that say an Orthodox person living in America won’t attend any Orthodox Church his own ethnic Church. For example a Slovenian Orthodox will forgo the sacraments rather than go to a Greek Orthodox Church or a Russian Orthodox Church, even thought these Churches are in Communion with another.

This nationalism dates back to the schism. You see, by 1054, the Roman Empire in the West had fallen. But in the East there was still an Emperor in Constantinople. So the connection between Church and State was much stronger in the East. As different Empires and Kingdoms were established, or as Nations gained their independence from various Empires, the ethnic divisions led to a lack of fellowship amongst Eastern Orthodox Christians.

To a lesser degree, the same sort of thing happened in the West. Only in this instance, the schisms were compounded by heresies and the discontinuation of Apostolic Succession. For instance the Germans pretty much all followed Luther because their Monarch did so. Henry VIII started out by simply going into Schism. However, soon after that schism, the Church of England rejected Holy Orders and they just became Protestants like the Lutherans, the Calvinists and so forth."

 

[byzgirl]

P.S.

Please don’t think that I hold to any thought that all Eastern rite Catholics should be assimilated or ‘latinized’, as I don’t. But it’s interesting to note that some eastern rite Catholics have an absolute aversion to the mere thought of ‘having to go to a Latin Rite Church’ --in the extremely unlikely event that they would, indeed, have to-- but that they would ‘rather’ go to an Orthodox Church (without any thought to what makes them Catholic besides 'being in union with the Pope). Perhaps the ‘ethnic’ divide answers the question as to ‘what else makes us Catholic’?

I have always suspected that some eastern rite Catholics have trouble imagining becoming ‘latin’ because of their connection to ethnicity, rather than any doctrinal disagreement or like or dislike of ‘Latin’ customs/traditions.

This is something I received, from John DiMascio, of askacatholic.com, in a dialogue we were having about the Orthodox Church and my thoughts regarding ‘ethnic division’.

His return comments:

"Nationalism plays a much larger role in Orthodox Churches than it does in the Western Church. In fact, I’ve that say an Orthodox person living in America won’t attend any Orthodox Church his own ethnic Church. For example a Slovenian Orthodox will forgo the sacraments rather than go to a Greek Orthodox Church or a Russian Orthodox Church, even thought these Churches are in Communion with another.

This nationalism dates back to the schism. You see, by 1054, the Roman Empire in the West had fallen. But in the East there was still an Emperor in Constantinople. So the connection between Church and State was much stronger in the East. As different Empires and Kingdoms were established, or as Nations gained their independence from various Empires, the ethnic divisions led to a lack of fellowship amongst Eastern Orthodox Christians.

To a lesser degree, the same sort of thing happened in the West. Only in this instance, the schisms were compounded by heresies and the discontinuation of Apostolic Succession. For instance the Germans pretty much all followed Luther because their Monarch did so. Henry VIII started out by simply going into Schism. However, soon after that schism, the Church of England rejected Holy Orders and they just became Protestants like the Lutherans, the Calvinists and so forth."