How Much is Rome Worth To You?

[byzgirl]

Catholic does not designate that there is one Church. That point is made clearly in the creed by the use of the word ‘one’. Catholic refers to the fact that the Church calls all men in all places to the one Church. It means that it is everywhere. ‘Throughout the whole’ is the literal definition as Christy said.

That’s a poor knowledge of Jesus’ call for oneness, and further…poor knowledge of Church history and the meaning of the word. It’s clearly NOT the one that the Early Church and its Fathers recognized!!!

Yes, it means universal (that’s just one of its identifying marks). However, the definition means even more.

. The word “catholic” means “universal, in a strictly linguistic and technical sense.” And yet the translation was not entirely correct, either, because it wrongly assumed that the Greek word katholikos meant merely “universal” in the context of the Creed. To profess the Creed is to join **one’s voice, not only with all the other voices of the congregation, but also with the voices of Christendom past who also professed this Creed. **As a confession of faith which purports to link the worshiper, as it were, arm-in-arm with the early Church who forged the Creed, it must communicate not only the words of the symbol but also its meaning. In this sense, the translation given above is false, in that it introduces an incomplete (and therefore incorrect) meaning at precisely the point when meaning is of the utmost importance.
**At any rate, the Protestant (and Orthodox) often wishes to claim the title “catholic” (small “c” of course) for himself. He wants to claim that the word means “universal,” and nothing more. He wishes to say that Rome hijacked the term and pressed it exclusively into Her own service. This type of claim insists that the true Church of Christ is “catholic,” not exclusively “Catholic,” which means that it encompasses and embraces all Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ. **

The universal Church became known as the “Catholic” Church, not only because it was spread universally, throughout the world, but because it taught with one voice and spoke the one Truth with one mouth, no matter what geographical location it was in; it professed one universal, katholikos faith, to which all Catholics adhered.

2nd Century: “… the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith [orthodox] throughout the whole world [universal], as we have already said.” (St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., Book I, cap. 10, 3)
3rd Century: “Those, then, that adhere to impious words … inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of the divine words, neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain the truth … For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic [orthodox] Church requires not many words to show … From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one [universal] … For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects. Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic [orthodox and universal] Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity [universal] of the one faith [orthodox] … those already ordained.” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7:17)
3rd Century: “… the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Thus you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church, and those who creep in flatter themselves in vain, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic [orthodox] and one [universal], is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (St. Cyprian, Ep. ad Florentius, 66)
4th Century: “Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article [of the Nicene Creed], ‘* In one Holy Catholic Church’ … It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge … and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind … and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.
But since the word Ekklesia is applied to different things … and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics … for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, ‘And in one Holy Catholic Church,’ that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Catholic [orthodox] Church in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, do not inquire simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic [orthodox] Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all … And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Catholic [universal] Church alone extends her power without limit over the whole world; for God, as it is written, hath made her border peace. But I should need many more hours for my discourse, if I wished to speak of all things which concern her.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:22-27) "*

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Byzgirl,

I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. But I also believe brother Jimmy has a point. The qualities you grant to the world “Catholic” are actually distinct as reflected in the Creed. The qualities you offer as part of the definition of “Catholic” are actually subsumed under the heading “Apostolic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[byzgirl]

Dear sister Byzgirl,

I agree with EVERYTHING you are saying. But I also believe brother Jimmy has a point. The qualities you grant to the world “Catholic” are actually distinct as reflected in the Creed. The qualities you offer as part of the definition of “Catholic” are actually subsumed under the heading “Apostolic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Distinct, from other groups that would claim the title, ‘Christian’ (such as the heretics). It was necessary, early on, for the visible Church to make it’s status (as the orthodox faith) known, and used the term ‘Catholic’…not just to claim it’s universality (which is subsumed under the heading “Apostolic”, but to designate itself as distinct from others that called themselves ‘Christian’, when, in fact, they were’nt.

"Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for “Catholic” are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.

Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term “Catholic”; so that the term can be seen it its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own notion of what the term once meant or of what it ought to mean.

The early usage and importance of the word also can be seen in both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creeds. If you were a Christian in the first millennium, you were a Catholic, and if you were a Catholic you recited the Creeds affirming the “one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Unhappily, some people today try to make a distinction between Catholic with a capital C and catholic with a small c, but such a distinction is a recent development and unheard of in the early Church.

Jesus commissioned his apostles with the words, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:19–20). As Frank Sheed reminds us, “Notice first the threefold ‘all’—all nations, all things, all days. Catholic, we say, means ‘universal.’ Examining the word universal, we see that it contains two ideas: the idea of all, the idea of one. But all what? All nations, all teachings, all times. So our Lord says. It is not an exaggerated description of the Catholic Church. Not by the wildest exaggeration could it be advanced as a description of any other” (Theology and Sanity, 284).

Jesus used the word church twice in the Gospels, both in Matthew. He said, “I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). He didn’t say “churches” as though he were building subdivisions, nor did he imply that it would be an invisible church made up of competing groups. He was going to build a visible, recognizable Church, as shown by the fact that he appointed Peter to lead it in his absence. And in Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to “the Church.” Notice the article “the” referring to a specific entity. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority.

What good was an invisible, theoretical, impractical unity? For the world to see a catholic unity, the oneness of the Church must be a visible, real, and physical reality. All of this the Catholic Church is. Since the earliest centuries Christians have confessed that the Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” One because there is only one, visible, organic, and unified Church; holy because it is called out of the world to be the Bride of Christ, righteous and sanctified; catholic because it is universal and unified; apostolic because Christ founded it through his apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18), and the apostles’ authority are carried on through the bishops. Through the centuries, this creed has been the statement of the Church.

Likewise today, Christians need to stand confident and obedient in the heart of the Catholic Church. It has been our mother, steadfastly carrying out the mandate of Jesus Christ for two thousand years. Jesus requires us to listen to his Church, the Church to which he gave the authority to bind and to loose (cf. Matt. 16:19; 18:18)—the Catholic Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).

Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
–St. Athanasius (ca. 296-373)
Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic, and is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies” (The True Religion 7, 12). And again, “The very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani called “The Foundation” 4, 5).–Saint Augustine"

 

[Badaliyyah]

Byzgirl,

I am not sure who among Eastern Catholics you think does not affirm the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic character of the Church. Where we have a problem is when you equate that to the Church of Rome and when you try to assimilate our Churches into Roman Catholicism.

Again, no one here has a problem with the unique and irreplaceable role of Rome in the Body of Christ. Many of us do have a problem when the unity of that Body is reduced to Rome, as if no one else were needed. That said, I personally don’t think that is what is going on in JP2 or B16. I haven’t seen any criticism among recent posters on this thread of either of the two most recent Popes, who we love and for whom we offer prayers.

No one is focusing on the “Eastern” part of our identity. We are insisting that we too are One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. The Eucharistic and eschatological Christ is found in us.

Catholicity refers to the gathering of the universal communion of believers across time and space into the eschatological Lamb of God, which is mediated through the Eucharist. This is why communion between the Churches is such a crucial thing; shared communion in a particular time and place is an anticipation of that ultimate communion of the Body of Christ in which we all participate through the Eucharist, being raised up to the heavenly synaxis. The failure of the Melkites, for instance, to share communion, in the current time, does not in any way indicate that we do not think that the Antiochene Orthodox are not members of that body of Christ which is One and Catholic. Nonetheless our current relationship fails to embody that unity due to failures on both sides. The Body of Christ is, as I have said on several occasions, scandalously broken and torn.

and may God have mercy on us all.
salaam.

 

[Claudius]

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.

The person who told you to do this was wrong. Eastern Catholics are Catholic because they hold the Catholic Faith. They are Easten Catholic because they adhere to the Eastern form of the Mass and other devotions. If there is no Melchite Church in your area then you should go to a Roman Catholic Church and meet with the priest in case there are any special needs that you may have like Children under 7 who will recieve communion. You are not to commune with Eastern Orthodox who are in schism. Doing so disrespects the cannons of our Church, the Catholic Church, and their Church.

Just imagine yourself in an area where there is no Melchite church and no Roman church. Is it ok to go to an Eastern Orthodox Church then? NO. You are not a member of their Church. They consider you an unbaptized person. You have to go to whatever Catholic Church is avaliable, be it the Ethopian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church or what have you. The Eastern Orthodox will tell you that they consider it disrespectful and an act of vandalism to go to their Liturgy when you are a Catholic.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Claudius,

Just imagine yourself in an area where there is no Melchite church and no Roman church. Is it ok to go to an Eastern Orthodox Church then? NO.

In the circumstance you propose, attending an EO Church actually IS permissible according to the Canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Claudius]

Our Patriarch is the head of our Church and is currently in full union with Rome…that does not mean he is in submission to Rome.

The Catholic Church works on a Household basis. The wife and Children are part of the Husband/Father’s house. The husband goes to Church where he is part of the Priest’s House. The priest is part of the Bishop’s house. Now, among Bishops there is thie kind of Heirarchy but it is not the same. A Bishop is not part of the ArchBishop’s house.

However, Bishops are part of a Patriarch’s house. This is true even of the Patriarch of Venice and Jesursalem who are Latin rite. Not all Bishops have a Patriarch and not all need them but if a Bishop does have a Patriarch, then he is part of that Patriarch’s house.

All Bishops and Patriarchs are part of the Pope’s House. So indirectly, all Catholics are part of the Pope’s House. This is not a relationship of a servant or dictator. We are all in submission to Christ. Yet, we do have this beautiful relationship to each other. It is one of Family and fidelity, not of lording and honoring. The Pope is the Holy Father because we are part of his House. He is the head of the house. Just as the Husband is the head of his house and the Priest is the head of his parish and the Bishop is the head of his Diocese.

And just in case someone wants to ask, yes the Pope has the authority to interfere in the Eastern Churchs. This is not to disrespect them but to truly include them. It is not negative but possitive. Suppose Guam wanted to become a member state of the United State and Congress said yes but then said that they were not going to open up any post offices, or have any federal buildings or courthouses there. It wouldn’t really seem like there were really a part of the United States now would it.

 

[Claudius]

Dear brother Claudius,

In the circumstance you propose, attending an EO Church actually IS permissible according to the Canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

Not if there is another Catholic Church around of another rite. All Catholic Churches are to be given first consideration. All Catholic Churches are equal in this. It isn’t just My Eastern Church or the Roman Church. It is All Catholic Churches. If there is absolutely NO Catholic Church of any Rite around anywhere at all, then it can be considered to go to an EO church, but you should also rememebr, the EO probably don’t want you there.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Claudius,

The Catholic Church works on a Household basis. The wife and Children are part of the Husband/Father’s house. The husband goes to Church where he is part of the Priest’s House. The priest is part of the Bishop’s house. Now, among Bishops there is thie kind of Heirarchy but it is not the same. A Bishop is not part of the ArchBishop’s house.

However, Bishops are part of a Patriarch’s house. This is true even of the Patriarch of Venice and Jesursalem who are Latin rite. Not all Bishops have a Patriarch and not all need them but if a Bishop does have a Patriarch, then he is part of that Patriarch’s house.

All Bishops and Patriarchs are part of the Pope’s House. So indirectly, all Catholics are part of the Pope’s House. This is not a relationship of a servant or dictator. We are all in submission to Christ. Yet, we do have this beautiful relationship to each other. It is one of Family and fidelity, not of lording and honoring. The Pope is the Holy Father because we are part of his House. He is the head of the house. Just as the Husband is the head of his house and the Priest is the head of his parish and the Bishop is the head of his Diocese.

I appreciate your description. And I admit that in some Ecumenical Councils, the Council Fathers addressed the bishop of Rome as “Father.” But the relationship between the Pope and other bishops is actually one of brotherhood. I would say the bishop of Rome is the elder brother that everyone looks up to.

BTW, just as a minor correction: according to the canons of the ancient Church, a Metropolitan or Archbishop is actually the head bishop of a group of bishops in that region. And the Patriarch is the head bishop of an even larger region which includes metropolitans and bishops. The hierarchy is bishop - archbishop/metropolitan - patriarch - Pope. The office of metropolitan has all but disappeared except in name within Eastern Orthodoxy. It is still alive in its fullest sense in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

And just in case someone wants to ask, yes the Pope has the authority to interfere in the Eastern Churchs. This is not to disrespect them but to truly include them. It is not negative but possitive. Suppose Guam wanted to become a member state of the United State and Congress said yes but then said that they were not going to open up any post offices, or have any federal buildings or courthouses there. It wouldn’t really seem like there were really a part of the United States now would it.

I disagree with your use of the word “interfere.” He has a right to CARE for all the Churches, but not the right to interfere. Perhaps you meant a less controversial word. In fact, I don’t believe there has EVER been a time in the history of the Church, before OR after the Great Schism, when the Pope intervened in the affairs of other Patriarchal Churches WITHOUT the initial appeal of an hierarch from that particular Church. When an appeal is made, it cannot be regarded as interference.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Claudius]

And again, just to once again lodge an objection to the premice of this thread: It is not appropriate to tell Eastern Catholics that the Pope is going to dismantle their Churches. It is not right to force them to fight to prove that they are either Catholic or Eastern. They are Catholic and Eastern and the EO will just have to get over it. Trying to put EC at odds with the Latin Catholics is shameful.

Here is the question for the EO. How much is the EO worth to you? Suppose the Patriarchs dismantled their Churches and all became part of the Russian Orthodox Church? Suppose Greek was supressed an all Liturgies were forced to be said in Slavonic because the Patriarch of Moscow insisted upon it to keep communion?

You don’t like those kinds of harmful, hypotheticals. EC should also not take too kindly to this kind of indirect attack at them. This thread is EO trying to once again say that EC churches are invalid but they are wrong. When we take a look at the real history, it was the Legal and Legitimate leaders of the Churches that entered into communion with Rome in most cases. The Current Patriarch of Antioch for the EO can only trace his line back to after the Mechite Church reestablished communion with Rome. It was created simply to serve those from the Melchite Church that did not want to reenter communion. What else should be noted is that when the Melchite Church decided to reenter communion with Rome, they didn’t then tell the Eo that they wanted to break communion with them. That part was entirly the EO’s doing. Communion with Rome meant being excommunicated from the EO. What a shame. They Melchites could have extended communion to just about anyone else, the Syriacs, the Coptics the Armenians or the Slavs, but Not to Rome. The penalty, the EO set up a new counterpart to compete with it and say bad things about the true Patriarch of Antioch.

 

[Claudius]

Dear brother Claudius,

I appreciate your description. And I admit that in some Ecumenical Councils, the Council Fathers addressed the bishop of Rome as “Father.” But the relationship between the Pope and other bishops is actually one of brotherhood. I would say the bishop of Rome is the elder brother that everyone looks up to.

BTW, just as a minor correction: according to the canons of the ancient Church, a Metropolitan or Archbishop is actually the head bishop of a group of bishops in that region. And the Patriarch is the head bishop of an even larger region which includes metropolitans and bishops. The hierarchy is bishop - archbishop/metropolitan - patriarch - Pope. The office of metropolitan has all but disappeared except in name within Eastern Orthodoxy. It is still alive in its fullest sense in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

I disagree with your use of the word “interfere.” He has a right to CARE for all the Churches, but not the right to interfere. Perhaps you meant a less controversial word. In fact, I don’t believe there has EVER been a time in the history of the Church, before OR after the Great Schism, when the Pope intervened in the affairs of other Patriarchal Churches WITHOUT the initial appeal of an hierarch from that particular Church. When an appeal is made, it cannot be regarded as interference.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh I see what you mean. My apologies, English is not my first language. I often run into this problem of choosing a word based solely on what it means without considering the conotation. Ah, life would be so much simpler if I could just be understood by everyone when I write in Latin. I understand that far better than English.

 

[Aramis]

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.

The Melkites see their relationship as one of being an Orthodox Church which ust happens to also be in Communion and Union with Rome.

To the point of seeing the romans as not always on the right path.

Most melkites see themselves as Melkite first, Orthodox Second, Catholic third, from the way they talk on-line; the one I’ve met found more comfort in the Antiochean Orthodox than the Catholic churches available in my community (Ruthenian and Roman)

 

[byzgirl]

"Let’s take a look at what modern Orthodox scholars do concede to the Catholic understanding of papal primacy, authority, and infallibility:

[Taken from THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm]

(1) There is no systematic doctrine of Church government in the Orthodox Church and therefore it is not enough to refute Universal Primacy

“As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy.” (Afanassieff, page 92)

(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called “priority”) and Orthodox scholars generally concede this.

(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)"

"The Catholic Church claims to hold the seat of Peter, the Papacy, and therefore the charism of primacy and supremacy. Our debate with the Orthodox is chiefly over this point; they concede primacy, but not supremacy, to Peter’s seat.
We hold that the Papacy is the critical seat of unity for the Church that Christ built (he only built one) and therefore the Orthodox are the scismatics. The day we work out this issue we will likely restore the unity that Christ desired for His Church. Our present Pope has made it a priority for his papacy, to unify the “lungs” of the Body of Christ.

May Christ the Invisible Head of the Church enlighten the participants in future theological dialogues between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to study and document the manner in which the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome has been a reality in the history of the Church from its beginnings."

 

[byzgirl]

The Catholic Church - notwithstanding all the historical difficulties, culturally-based misunderstanding and theological disputes which have hindered Christian unity - takes a very high view of Eastern Orthodoxy. In the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) from the Second Vatican Council (21 November, 1964), the following glowing words are found:

From their very origins the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Church of the West has drawn largely for its liturgy, spiritual tradition and jurisprudence. Nor must we underestimate the fact that the basic dogmas of the Christian faith concerning the Trinity and the Word of God made flesh from the Virgin Mary were defined in Ecumenical Councils held in the East. To preserve this faith, these Churches have suffered, and still suffer much . . . (Chap. III, I, 14)
Everyone knows with what love the Eastern Christians celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the eucharistic mystery, source of the Church’s life and pledge of future glory . . .

These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.

Moreover, in the East are to be found the riches of those spiritual traditions which are given expression in monastic life especially . . . Therefore, it is earnestly recommended that Catholics avail themselves more often of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of divine mysteries.

Everyone should realize that it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve and foster the rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches in order to faithfully preserve the fullness of Christian tradition, and to bring about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians . . . (Ch. III, I, 15)

It is the Council’s urgent desire that every effort should be made toward the gradual realization of this unity in the various organizations and living activities of the Church, especially by prayer and by fraternal dialogue on points of doctrine and the more pressing pastoral problems of our time . . . the Council hopes that with the removal of the wall dividing the Eastern and Western Church there may be but one dwelling, firmly established on the cornerstone, Christ Jesus, who will make both one. (Ch. III, I, 18)

The Light of the East (Pope John Paul II)

Likewise, Pope John Paul II concluded his encyclical Orientale Lumen (The Light of the East; May 2, 1995), with this beautiful passage:

Every day in the East the sun of hope rises again the light that restores life to the human race. It is from the East, according to a lovely image, that our Saviour will come again (cf. Mt 24:27). For us, the men and women of the East are a symbol of the Lord who comes again. We cannot forget them, not only because we love them as brothers and sisters redeemed by the same Lord, but also because a holy nostalgia for the centuries lived in the full communion of faith and charity urges us and reproaches us for our sins and our mutual misunderstandings: we have deprived the world of a joint witness that could, perhaps, have avoided so many tragedies and even changed the course of history . . . The words of the West need the words of the East, so that God’s word may ever more clearly reveal its unfathomable riches . . . May God shorten the time and distance. May Christ, the Orientale Lumen, soon, very soon, grant us to discover that in fact, despite so many centuries of distance, we were very close, because together, perhaps without knowing it, we were walking towards the one Lord, and thus towards one another. May the people of the third millennium be able to enjoy this discovery, finally achieved by a word that is harmonious and thus fully credible, proclaimed by brothers and sisters who love one another and thank one another for the riches which they exchange. Thus shall we offer ourselves to God with the pure hands of reconciliation, and the people of the world will have one more well-founded reason to believe and to hope.

 

[byzgirl]

The Melkites see their relationship as one of being an Orthodox Church which ust happens to also be in Communion and Union with Rome.

To the point of seeing the romans as not always on the right path.

Most melkites see themselves as Melkite first, Orthodox Second, Catholic third, from the way they talk on-line; the one I’ve met found more comfort in the Antiochean Orthodox than the Catholic churches available in my community (Ruthenian and Roman)

The Necessity of the Roman See for Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy - irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) - were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic Tradition. A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the Christian Tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

 

[byzgirl]

"A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius - none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige - the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical stance assuredly cannot."

Christ’s promise, to protect the Church from the gates of hell, is upheld with the Seat of Peter.

 

[Ghosty]

Most melkites see themselves as Melkite first, Orthodox Second, Catholic third, from the way they talk on-line; the one I’ve met found more comfort in the Antiochean Orthodox than the Catholic churches available in my community (Ruthenian and Roman)

I think it would be more accurate to say that most Melkites don’t see these three things as being seperate, and in fact view them as integral to eachother.

Of course, I don’t know who you’ve talked to personally or online. I know from personal experience that many of the vocal Melkites online are converts from Protestantism or transfers from the Latin Church who were disgruntled with their previous “home” (or a combination of these two). The “native” Melkites I’ve known (such as at our Mission parish) don’t hold quite the same view as what I typically see expressed online, and sometimes the “Melkite” expressions online aren’t even by Melkites, but by other Byzantine Catholics who like what they think goes on in the Melkite Church.

This isn’t intended as a blanket statement (as I’m sure your post wasn’t either), but more of a personal observation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[byzgirl]

**Badaliyyah to Marduk,

Her (byzgirl’s) position boils down to an understanding of the unity of the Body of Christ as obedience to a tyrant**

You may understand him as a Tyrant, but faithful Catholics, of course…do not. Rather, we see him as the successor of Peter, a Father (Papa), a Shepherd (Feed My Sheep)…Christ’s representative here on earth.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned backstrengthen (confirm) your brothers” Luke 22:32

David Currie, a former Evangelical wrote this: “There have certainly been popes who have made foolish mistakes, enacted ruinous policies, or been bona fide scoundrels. There is one thing, however, that no pope has ever done in all history, from Peter to the present day. No pope has ever taught heresy.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" Matthew 16:13-20

“If Peter is able to bind things in heaven itself, be enlightened by God the Father himself, and lead the Church in such a way that she will never be overcome by evil, then infallibility is an extremely modest conclusion to these promises. If the highest office of the Church taught error as truth, then how could it be claimed that hell had not succeeded against Christ’s Church? Infallibility is rooted in the promise of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

And to this one, from Christy74:
"In the Eastern Churches we don’t have that problem and the other Liturgical problems that I hear about in the Roman Church…using popcorn and punch to Consecrate for Holy Eucharist and the Tabernacle of Christ not in the Church, people dancing during Mass/Divine Liturgy, etc. We don’t have those problems"

Without straying from the thread’s main subject, I thought this deserved a response. What you’ve heard about in the ‘Roman’ Church (Latin Rite of the Catholic Church) is known as Liturgical abuse (meaning that it is not allowed, under Canon Law, and can and should be reported by the faithful). “Such innovations usually serve to suit the fancy of whomever is coordinating the liturgy of the mass. Sometimes it’s the priest’s doing. Sometimes it’s the result of lay involvement in liturgical planning”. Sadly, they sometimes happen, but it doesn’t mean that they are condoned, encouraged, or widespread and frequent. I’d be the first to admit that I personally ‘prefer’ the Byzantine Liturgy to the Latin Rite Liturgy; however, to state (and so snidely) that it’s a common occurrence (or allowed) is false.
“None of this is sanctioned by the rubrics of the mass mandated by the Holy See, nor the Code of Canon Law”, including ‘Liturgical dance’ or ‘substitutions for the Eucharistic preparation’. You may find ‘crackers and grape juice’ (I refrain from using your chosen ‘substitutions’ because of its lack of respect for all)… at particular Protestant communal services (and ‘Praise Dancing’) which are often allowed and encouraged during certain Protestant ‘services’, but to suggest that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church allows for such innovations and substitution, is ridiculous and ignorant…and just plain nasty for the sake of being nasty.

 

[Badaliyyah]

**Badaliyyah to Marduk,

Her (byzgirl’s) position boils down to an understanding of the unity of the Body of Christ as obedience to a tyrant**

You may understand him as a Tyrant, but faithful Catholics, of course…do not. Rather, we see him as the successor of Peter, a Father (Papa), a Shepherd (Feed My Sheep)…Christ’s representative here on earth.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned backstrengthen (confirm) your brothers” Luke 22:32

i don’t understand the Pope as a tyrant at all, as I have already said many times over. I understand YOUR position to paint him as a tyrant. It is your position, not Rome, that I object to. I do not think the autocratic version of the Papacy which you preach represents the actual Papacy or the Pope’s position on the Eastern Churches very well.

Once again, as I have said repeatedly, the Pope has a unique and irreplaceable role within the Body of Christ (go back to my comments on Marduk’s “5 points”, for example; i also thought that Marduk’s clarifications in reply to Claudius in post#163 was very much on target).

It is not clear to me over your last batch comments who it is you think you are objecting too. I haven’t seen anyone over the last several days attacking either the Pope, whom we love, or the idea of Catholicity. You seem to be having a very vigourous conversation with someone who apparently is denying the importance of Rome and who writes Catholic with a “small-c”…I’m just not sure who it is. Whoever it is, it doesn’t seem to be any of the Melkites who have been talking here over the past few days.

salaam.

 

[byzgirl]

i don’t understand the Pope as a tyrant at all, as I have already said many times over. I understand YOUR position to paint him as a tyrant. It is your position, not Rome, that I object to. **I do not think the autocratic version of the Papacy which you preach represents the actual Papacy or the Pope’s position on the Eastern Churches very well.**Once again, as I have said repeatedly, the Pope has a unique and irreplaceable role within the Body of Christ (go back to my comments on Marduk’s “5 points”, for example; i also thought that Marduk’s clarifications in reply to Claudius in post#163 was very much on target).

It is not clear to me over your last batch comments who it is you think you are objecting too. I haven’t seen anyone over the last several days attacking either the Pope, whom we love, or the idea of Catholicity. You seem to be having a very vigourous conversation with someone who apparently is denying the importance of Rome and who writes Catholic with a “small-c”…I’m just not sure who it is. Whoever it is, it doesn’t seem to be any of the Melkites who have been talking here over the past few days.

salaam.

Without quoting many of the statements made within the large amount of dialogue, I’d disagree. I HAVE been arguing with some regarding the idea that the Church is NOT one physical, tangible, institution; against the definition of catholic being small-c; and have endured many slams against ‘Rome’ and the ‘Pope’. Rome is the epicenter of the Papacy, and is the home of the Supreme Pontiff. He is the leader of the flock, and the critical seat of unity for the Church. I don’t know much about the Melkites, but I have been defending the Pope’s universal supremacy , and not just his primacy,(as the heir of Saint Peter’s authority–the Chair of Peter).

There seems to be a LOT of nastiness in regards to anything Latin (or Roman), which I think undermines an individual’s understanding of unity and desire for unity. The Latin Rite is the complimentary, valid lung of the Church just as the Eastern Rites (of the Catholic Church) is its counterpart. The Orthodox Church is in schism, so I would suggest that Catholic (with a captital C) takes precedence over and above any Eastern-ness. We are all Catholics. We are Catholic in both senses. The one describes the Church, and the other identifies Her.

Even the use of the term ‘Rome’ and ‘Roman’ seems to come with some ‘resentment’. It shouldn’t. It has felt, at times, like I’ve been arguing with non-denominational Evangelicals, who have the same resentment and fling around anti-Pope and anti-Rome comments and descriptives, like there’s no tomorrow ('popish, Romanish, Romanism, papist, etc…)…all with anger and hostility.

I didn’t bring in the words ‘tyrant’, or ‘dictator’, but I’ve seen it used in these posts, and I’m just here to defend the Papacy from any wrongful depiction.

And, as someone raised in the Latin Rite of the Church (now, for quite a few years, Byzantine Rite–my brother is a Byzantine rite priest), I am also defending the Latin Rite, which has been the focus of much resentment as well.

I do not hold any hostility toward Eastern Rite Catholics (or, for that matter, the Orthodox). But I do NOT go for the 'Eastern first" mentality when it comes to being a Catholic.

**“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific…”

Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D… **

I think that both Pope’s have made it clear that they, in turn, give the utmost respect to the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, and have (like I’ve mentioned before) encouraged the Eastern rites to claim their heritage in custom and tradition (see the previous post from John Paul II).

I feel that I shouldn’t be defending the Latin Rite and the Supreme authority of the Papacy from Eastern Rite CATHOLICS. The title Catholic means much more than ‘universal’, and, throughout history, since Pentecost, has been a visible institution…not an invisible entity (as most Protestants believe).

Once again, I believe in the universal supremacy of Peter’s Seat…the Pope of Rome, and the infallibility of that office (as promised by Christ). Once that is understood, obedience is something that is gladly given, without reservation. And I view that obedience as ‘not mindless subserviance’…but as trusting in the promise of Christ, in a child of God who believes in the promise (to protect the Church from the gates of Hades). And that promise is protected and perpetuated in the Chair of Peter, alone.