On Being in Communion with Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonius_Lupus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Antonius_Lupus

Guest
Dear brethren,

This is mainly directed to my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters, but anyone can answer of course. šŸ˜‰

In my journey home to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, I spent a considerable amount of time discerning the Eastern Orthodox Church. It took much reading, a discussion with a Melkite Greek Catholic priest (formerly Orthodox), and a visit to a Melkite parish (St. Ignatios of Antioch, Augusta, GA) to help me overcome my doubts and to revert to the Catholic Faith. It would take some time AFTER my full initiation before I could finally say that Eastern Orthodoxy no longer had a ā€œholdā€ over meā€¦in the sense of being doubtful which church was the Church founded by Our Lord.

Indeed, I believe that my time studying and experiencing Eastern Catholicism with the Melkites played a crucial role in convincing me of the truth of Catholicism as a whole.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, and after all my time discerning, struggling, and seeking; being in communion with Rome means ALOT. It gives me the assurance that I am truly within the Church founded by Christ. It assures me that what I believe is Catholic Orthodoxy, and what I practice is true. Being in communion with Rome makes me feel certain that I am a Christian in the sense Christ fully intendedā€¦one in many respects with the Holy Fathers who also looked to Rome. I know through this communion that I lack nothing in what Christ intends and that I am a Christian of the most ancient kind.

But, being a Roman Catholic makes communion with Rome obvious, LOL. Indeed, for me the Pope of Rome is not only the ā€œPatriarch of Patriarchsā€, but he is also MY Patriarchā€¦that is, the father of my own self-governing church.

What I want to know is what being in communion with Rome means for those who are not Roman Catholics, but rather Catholics who are members of another self-governing church.

Granted, you wouldnā€™t be Catholic if you werenā€™t in communion with Rome. But even still, what makes you cleave to Rome? I mean, there are plenty of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches which mirror your own traditions and which can offer you much of the same things you find in your own self-governing Catholic churches.

What does being ā€œin communion with Romeā€ mean to you guys? Why be in communion with Rome at all if you can be an Eastern Christian (with Apostolic succession!) without being in communion with Rome?

Then of course you have the many times that my own self-governing church has maligned, persecuted, and mistreated so many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Catholic Churches through history (and, sadly, even now).

Obviously, I am playing the ā€œDevilā€™s Advocateā€ here, and may God forbid that the questions I have asked lead anyone to abandon communion with Rome (may it never be!!). :signofcross:

I just wanted to get some of yallā€™s thoughts.
 
Iā€™m a cradle Roman Catholic who got interested in the Eastern faith. I was reading into Eastern Orthodoxy before I discovered there were ā€œOrthodox in communion with Rome.ā€ The reason I never stepped into an Orthodox church was of all the differences in traditions and understanding of the faith, it was the keys of Peter I cannot bring myself to stop believing. I donā€™t mind a different understanding of what Roman Catholics believe as Purgatory. I donā€™t even understand fully Indulgences. I can accept that Original Sin can be defined in another way. And so on. But not that Peter didnā€™t have any sort of authority over the Apostles and over the Church. So I stayed Catholic and instead Iā€™m on my journey East now to become an Eastern Catholic.
 
To me the mistreatment of the EC by the RCC is a fallacious argument. It is just like when Prots say the Catholic Church can not be the Church because look at all the papal sins in history. To which I say, so what? Even Christā€™s own Apostle turned out to be His betrayer. Christ never promised that the memebers of the Church would be holy, only that the Church would remain holy. It seems like a stupid distinction, but it really is important.

For me communion with Rome is more important than how ā€œauthenticā€ EC tradition is, or how well the EC are treated by some Latins. And it is so important to me because Christ wants it this way.

Also the See of Peter is the only See that is guranteed infallibilty. The See of Constantinople fellow into heresy many times before the Great Schism, while the See of Peter never fell once. But all of a sudden I should believe the EO when they say Rome is wrong now, even though they openly admit Rome was never wrong before and Constantinople was wrong many times before?
 
smad0142 said:
Also the See of Peter is the only See that is guranteed infallibilty. The See of Constantinople fellow into heresy many times before the Great Schism, while the See of Peter never fell once. But all of a sudden I should believe the EO when they say Rome is wrong now, even though they openly admit Rome was never wrong before and Constantinople was wrong many times before?
Click to expand...
In a way, you misrepresent the belief of the Pope speaking on behalf of Peter and his Keys. You also skip over the gross abuses of power by popes and all bishops in history, and the tragic events around the Western Schism and Pope Honoriusā€™ Anathema at the 6th ecumenical council.
None of which I believe affects the authority given to Peter as 1st among the apostles.

Secondly, this complete underscores the problems faced with the Indian Church when the Portuguese encountered it and the forced renunciation and supplanting of native syriac traditions.

We have all sinnedā€¦
 
Abuses and sins are horrible. I am not denying that. I believe I addressed that though when I said it does not affect the promises of Christ and therefore are not valid intellectual arguments against Catholicism.
 
smad0142 said:
Abuses and sins are horrible. I am not denying that. I believe I addressed that though when I said it does not affect the promises of Christ and therefore are not valid intellectual arguments against Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I agree with you though, that Communion, is more important than whether Vespers is celebrated every evening in the parish. However we cannot be complacent and should always strive to return to our roots. By then, we can really and fully attest to the cathlocicity of the church.

No more of this Daily Divine Liturgy stuffā€¦and public rosary recitation at the expense of the Holy Hours.
 
I agree with you about the Hours being done over the Rosary, when and if it is possible in the East or West, because Public Prayer always is more important than Private Prayer. But as a pracitical consideration it is hard to get enough resources and willing people together to do an Hour, whereas the Rosary is fairly easy to get in place.

Unfortunately I do not think every tradition should be untouched. Daily Divine Liturgy is a wonderful gift for the Eastern laity that no amount of Jesus prayer recitation or the entirety of the Horologion can come close to.

Just as the West can be enriched by the East, so too can the East be enriched by the West. Daily Divine Liturgy is one of these enrichments.
 
I can accept that, IF it is an addition to an already healthy body. Right now the dispensation has been given that Vespergial attendance can account for a Christianā€™s attendance at the Sunday Divine Liturgy precisely to avoid the erection and celebration of Saturday Vigil Liturgies. This dispensation should be seen as temporary and is indicative of at least some degree of neglect concerning the public celebration of the Cathedral Hours. If many faitful treated Orthos and Vespers tenderlly and with love then I could see Daily Divine Liturgy as enriching. But I believe for most people, the Holy Hours are not looked as worth attending since there is no ā€œgift givenā€ there is no communion. There is nothing ā€œGetā€ out of it. All of this comes back to catechisis and eduction. I thank the Patriarchal synods and the Vatican for the dispensation and hopefully it will help spread an appreciation both east and west for the Holy Hours.
 
Little Boy Lost:
I understand that certain days, in the Byzantine Rite, are considered ā€˜aliturgicalā€™, in the sense that it is inappropriate to celebrate the holy sacrifice. This is also true in the Roman Rite, of course, on Good Friday and Holy Saturday (prior to the Easter Vigil). I would never suggest that these particular days be done away with. That being said, is there not a tradition of the divine liturgy being celebrated daily in the monastic setting? Every Rite of the Catholic Church has developed and grown organically over the centuries. The iconostasis, for example, was not always a part of the Byzantine tradition, and the antidoron, I understand, actually developed in the West and was later adopted in the East. There was a time when daily mass was not common in the West either, but over time the Holy Spirit guided the Church to encourage this practice, and I believe we have been much the better for itā€¦to offer the faithful the opportunity to receive the Risen Lord in such a profound way on a daily basis is a great gift. Is it not possible for this tradition to also be organically incorporated into the Byzantine praxis? I mean no disrespectā€¦I am just wondering. Is the Byzantine Rite, as it currently exists in Eastern Orthodoxy, in stasis in every way? I am not at all in favor of Latinizationsā€¦but as Iā€™ve said, all Rites organically develop over time and ā€œsharingā€ between them goes back to ancient timesā€¦Iā€™m just wondering if it is possible for daily divine liturgy to be seen as an authentically Byzantine development, echoing the practice of the monastic life, rather than as an imposed Latinization.

[EDIT] Sorry - didnā€™t see your last reply until after I had posted. I believe that it is essential that the divine office be more strongly promoted in the West as wellā€¦but do not believe that suppressing daily mass is the answer.
 
To answer the Original Post. I was flirting with Orthodoxy for a while after I became a practicing Continuing Anglican. As I approached Orthodoxy and some orthodox I encountered much bitterness toward Rome, sometimes even more than Anglicans had. So it was a huge negative. Then I learned about the Eastern Churches and I began to attend services at the local melkite church. Eventually I was reconciled to the church with a priest and I would attend both Roman Catholic and Byzantine services, but I always felt a draw for the Byzantine liturgy. Eventually I was chrismated in the Melkite Church.

The most important thing for me as a catholic are the Holy Mysteries of the Church and the Orthodox Faith, which I believe the Catholic Church holds. The Keys of heaven and the rock of the church passages never seemed to be adequately explained by Orthodox arguments. This does not mean I wholesale endorse the supremacy of the Pope or his privileges over other Bishops, but you cannot deny John Chrysostom and Maximos the Confessor when they speak of the affection and love for the leadership of the Pope of Rome.
 
twf said:
Little Boy Lost:
I understand that certain days, in the Byzantine Rite, are considered ā€˜aliturgicalā€™, in the sense that it is inappropriate to celebrate the holy sacrifice. This is also true in the Roman Rite, of course, on Good Friday and Holy Saturday (prior to the Easter Vigil). I would never suggest that these particular days be done away with. That being said, is there not a tradition of the divine liturgy being celebrated daily in the monastic setting? Every Rite of the Catholic Church has developed and grown organically over the centuries. The iconostasis, for example, was not always a part of the Byzantine tradition, and the antidoron, I understand, actually developed in the West and was later adopted in the East. There was a time when daily mass was not common in the West either, but over time the Holy Spirit guided the Church to encourage this practice, and I believe we have been much the better for itā€¦to offer the faithful the opportunity to receive the Risen Lord in such a profound way on a daily basis is a great gift. Is it not possible for this tradition to also be organically incorporated into the Byzantine praxis? I mean no disrespectā€¦I am just wondering. Is the Byzantine Rite, as it currently exists in Eastern Orthodoxy, in stasis in every way? I am not at all in favor of Latinizationsā€¦but as Iā€™ve said, all Rites organically develop over time and ā€œsharingā€ between them goes back to ancient timesā€¦Iā€™m just wondering if it is possible for daily divine liturgy to be seen as an authentically Byzantine development, echoing the practice of the monastic life, rather than as an imposed Latinization.
Click to expand...
I agree Liturgy is not static and I believe many easterners in reaction to that abuses that befell the reform of the Roman Liturgy, have become reactionary against all development. Perhaps at least for the time being, itā€™s better to be cautious than to have no regard?

Iā€™m in the middle of reading the ā€œSpirit of Liturgyā€ by Pope Benedict right now which is a pretty solid book.

A quote I think is true

"Every age must discover and express the essence of liturgy anew. The point is to discover the essence amid all the changing appearances." Pg 81
 
Wow weā€™re kinda getting side-tracked, LOL. šŸ˜ƒ

Thanks to all who have answered thus far. I canā€™t wait to hear more from my Eastern Catholic brethren!! šŸ™‚
 
There are times when it is frustrating to be in an Eastern Catholic Church in union with Rome. It seems Rome talks a good talk, but still has yet to learn that ā€œRoman Catholicā€ is not the one and ONLY Catholic church.

Much progress has been made in the last 40 years, and much more progress needs to be made in the next 40 years.

Personally, I sometimes get so frustrated that I am tempted to go Orthodox.:eek:
 
Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

Hello! Long time no see! Glad to see your handle here again.
Antonius_Lupus said:
What does being ā€œin communion with Romeā€ mean to you guys? Why be in communion with Rome at all if you can be an Eastern Christian (with Apostolic succession!) without being in communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
For me, being in communion with Rome generally means living the reality of the first millenium standard. Of course, this entails several aspects, which are:
  1. Affirming that the position of the coryphaeus of the Church came from Christ Himself (as reflected in the model of the Apostolic college who had St. Peter as their coryphaeus), and thus being faithful to the form of governnance Christ intended for His Church.
  2. Having the bishop of Rome as Court of final appeal when my local Church cannot settle an issue (i.e., it does not mean the Pope can arbitrarily interfere in the affairs of my Church), in accord with the standard of the first millenium Church.
  3. My Church can look to the Church of Rome for material help when needed, in accord with the practice of the first millenium Church.
  4. If the hierarchy of my Church is somehow impeded by secular authorities, we can depend on the bishop of Rome to watch out for us, in accord with his role in the first millenium Church.
  5. We have someone who can settle disputes between bishops of different Churches (if the need arises), in accord with the canonical standard of the first millenium.
Blessings,
Marduk
 
SVP said:
There are times when it is frustrating to be in an Eastern Catholic Church in union with Rome. It seems Rome talks a good talk, but still has yet to learn that ā€œRoman Catholicā€ is not the one and ONLY Catholic church.

Much progress has been made in the last 40 years, and much more progress needs to be made in the next 40 years.

Personally, I sometimes get so frustrated that I am tempted to go Orthodox.:eek:
Click to expand...
Itā€™s sad, yes. šŸ˜¦

Resist the temptation to schism, brother.
 
SVP said:
ā€¦ I sometimes get so frustrated that I am tempted to go Orthodox.:eek:
Click to expand...
Donā€™t let your frustrations overwhelm you.

Better to run to Holy Orthodoxy, than away from the Vatican.
 
Hesychios said:
The schism is already upon you.

We are all schismatics, and until that fact is recognized we will make no progress.
Click to expand...
Well said, brother Hesychios. Triumphalism and lack of humility are I think the two greatest obstacles to reunion.

When the OO and the CC made their common Christological agreements, no one was going around saying, ā€œHa! We were right all along!ā€ Both sides admitted that the misunderstanding that caused and perpetuated the schism came from both camps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Hesychios said:
The schism is already upon you.

We are all schismatics
Click to expand...
I must disagree with that assertion, as it does not align with Catholic Orthodoxy to which I have bound my heart and mind by the grace of Godā€¦perhaps I misunderstood you. The unity of the Church, though always intact in the Catholic Church, is nonetheless wounded (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 813-822)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#I
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top