Orthodox Church with the best relations with Rome?

[NorthTexan88]

That’s cool Malphono, I did not realize that the Maronites were actually Orientals, I guess I thought they were somewhere in between the two since they have no exact Orthodox counterpart, am I correct on this? Also, as a previous poster mentioned, the heavy Latinization clouds it lol. I attend a Maronite parish near me pretty frequently and it is a mix, I guess, of traditional Maronite and Latin. I love the priest though, so I would go anyway even if it was not.

I had some other questions concerning the Oriental Churches, and more specifically the Armenian Church (This is the only one I’m overly familiar with).
I recently got back from a trip to California to see some friends and went to badarak (spelling?) with one of them. She told me that I could receive communion, the priest was fine with it, and she said there were probably Catholics there that day receiving communion. I, however, declined even though I had permission since I was not sure 100%. Here are my 4 questions:

1. Could I have actually received communion, since the priest said it was ok?
2. I went to Saturday Mass the night before so I had already fulfilled my obligation. However, if I had not gone to Mass on Saturday and just attended badarak with her on Sunday and received communion, would that have fulfilled my Sunday obligation?
3. If intercommunion is as common as it seemed when I was in California, why are there already not guidlines in place for Catholics receiving at Orthodox Churches, specifically the Armenian one?
4. If, at some point, the Orthodox do come back into communion with Rome, is this what it would look like? Sacramental sharing?

 

[neokarny]

And BTW, we **are **considered Orientals. Chalcedon only comes into play in terms of what came after. We were always Syriac, **never **Byzantine.

My point is not that Maronites are Syriac or Byzantine. It’s that “Eastern Catholic” vs “Oriental Catholic” is often arbitrary, and even more so if they’re solely defined as “Eastern Catholic” = any Catholic using Byzantine Rite, and “Oriental Catholic” = any Catholic using any other Rite that’s not Western/Byzantine. Especially when you consider that the Maronites would be the only Chalcedonian “Oriental” Church, and since not all “Orientals” have the same, or even similar, Rite. Interestingly, Antiochians/Melkites used to be Syriac in Rite before becoming Byzantine, and I couldn’t imagine calling them “Oriental” if they were to just start using it again.

 

[malphono]

My point is not that Maronites are Syriac or Byzantine. It’s that “Eastern Catholic” vs “Oriental Catholic” is often arbitrary, and even more so if they’re solely defined as “Eastern Catholic” = any Catholic using Byzantine Rite, and “Oriental Catholic” = any Catholic using any other Rite that’s not Western/Byzantine. Especially when you consider that the Maronites would be the only Chalcedonian “Oriental” Church, and since not all “Orientals” have the same, or even similar, Rite.

Does it really matter if “all” Orientals have the same Rite? The Maronites share the Syriac patrimony. We are Orientals, Chalcedon notwithstanding.

Interestingly, Antiochians/Melkites used to be Syriac in Rite before becoming Byzantine, and I couldn’t imagine calling them “Oriental” if they were to just start using it again.

When they adopted Imperial Byzantine usage, they ceased to be Orientals. Pure and simple. They are Byzantines.

 

[malphono]

That’s cool Malphono, I did not realize that the Maronites were actually Orientals, I guess I thought they were somewhere in between the two since they have no exact Orthodox counterpart, am I correct on this? Also, as a previous poster mentioned, the heavy Latinization clouds it lol. I attend a Maronite parish near me pretty frequently and it is a mix, I guess, of traditional Maronite and Latin. I love the priest though, so I would go anyway even if it was not.

As I’ve said so many times on this forum, the whole business of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization among the Maronites saddens me more than I can express. No offense, but I’d just as soon not rehash it now.

I had some other questions concerning the Oriental Churches, and more specifically the Armenian Church (This is the only one I’m overly familiar with).
I recently got back from a trip to California to see some friends and went to badarak (spelling?) with one of them. She told me that I could receive communion, the priest was fine with it, and she said there were probably Catholics there that day receiving communion. I, however, declined even though I had permission since I was not sure 100%. Here are my 4 questions:

1. Could I have actually received communion, since the priest said it was ok?

Yes.

1. I went to Saturday Mass the night before so I had already fulfilled my obligation. However, if I had not gone to Mass on Saturday and just attended badarak with her on Sunday and received communion, would that have fulfilled my Sunday obligation?

You’ll get different answers on this, but as I’ve said repeatedly on this forum, my view is yes.

1. If intercommunion is as common as it seemed when I was in California, why are there already not guidlines in place for Catholics receiving at Orthodox Churches, specifically the Armenian one?

If the Orthodox allow it, there’s no problem. After all, it’s the same Eucharist. Even Rome accepts that.

1. If, at some point, the Orthodox do come back into communion with Rome, is this what it would look like? Sacramental sharing?

Tough question. I’d like to answer in the affirmative, but … well, all I’ll say is I doubt that Rome would be inclined to do it that way.

 

[neokarny]

Does it really matter if “all” Orientals have the same Rite? The Maronites share the Syriac patrimony. We are Orientals, Chalcedon notwithstanding.

When they adopted Imperial Byzantine usage, they ceased to be Orientals. Pure and simple. They are Byzantines.

I gave the hypothetical of them restoring the Syriac usage, which you clearly overlooked. I really don’t understand why you seem to be so on the offense. Further, I simply disagree with your categorization by Rite alone. I wouldn’t begin to have put the post-Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox into the same category of the post-Chalcedonian Syriac Orthodox, even if they did possess the same Rite for a time. They may have both been Syriac, but they would not have both been Oriental.

To put it another way, what is the difference between being “Eastern” and “Oriental?” Is it just Rite alone? That doesn’t seem satisfactory, for reason of the Orientals having multiple Rites and vastly different patrimonies. So there’s something more to being “Oriental” than just belonging to X Rite, and I’d say that something more that makes them “Oriental” is their shared heritage in being part of, or until recently a part of, the non-Chalcedonian Communion for more than 1,000 years. Unless you just say every non-Western/non-Byzantine Rite is “Oriental,” by virtue of their Rite alone, but then we arrive at it “Oriental” being a meaningless catch-all category.

 

[malphono]

I gave the hypothetical of them restoring the Syriac usage, which you clearly overlooked. I really don’t understand why you seem to be so on the offense. Further, I simply disagree with your categorization by Rite alone. I wouldn’t begin to have put the post-Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox into the same category of the post-Chalcedonian Syriac Orthodox, even if they did possess the same Rite for a time. They may have both been Syriac, but they would not have both been Oriental.

First, I am not on the “offensive” and I’m sorry you see it that way. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Melkites and AOC “restore Syriac usage” they will cease to exist.

To put it another way, what is the difference between being “Eastern” and “Oriental?” Is it just Rite alone? That doesn’t seem satisfactory, for reason of the Orientals having multiple Rites and vastly different patrimonies. So there’s something more to being “Oriental” than just belonging to X Rite, and I’d say that something more that makes them “Oriental” is their shared heritage in being part of, or until recently a part of, the non-Chalcedonian Communion for more than 1,000 years. Unless you just say every non-Western/non-Byzantine Rite is “Oriental,” by virtue of their Rite alone, but then we arrive at it “Oriental” being a meaningless catch-all category.

Yes, there is “something more” and that is the theological thought process. The Orientals don’t rely on Greek philosophy to anywhere near the same degree as do the Byzantines.

In any case, it seems to me we’re going around in circles, and I think it’s time for me to bow-out of this exchange.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s cool Malphono, I did not realize that the Maronites were actually Orientals, I guess I thought they were somewhere in between the two since they have no exact Orthodox counterpart, am I correct on this? Also, as a previous poster mentioned, the heavy Latinization clouds it lol. I attend a Maronite parish near me pretty frequently and it is a mix, I guess, of traditional Maronite and Latin. I love the priest though, so I would go anyway even if it was not.

I had some other questions concerning the Oriental Churches, and more specifically the Armenian Church (This is the only one I’m overly familiar with).
I recently got back from a trip to California to see some friends and went to badarak (spelling?) with one of them. She told me that I could receive communion, the priest was fine with it, and she said there were probably Catholics there that day receiving communion. I, however, declined even though I had permission since I was not sure 100%. Here are my 4 questions:

1. Could I have actually received communion, since the priest said it was ok?
2. I went to Saturday Mass the night before so I had already fulfilled my obligation. However, if I had not gone to Mass on Saturday and just attended badarak with her on Sunday and received communion, would that have fulfilled my Sunday obligation?
3. If intercommunion is as common as it seemed when I was in California, why are there already not guidlines in place for Catholics receiving at Orthodox Churches, specifically the Armenian one?
4. If, at some point, the Orthodox do come back into communion with Rome, is this what it would look like? Sacramental sharing?

I see Malphono has tackled these questions already. I’d just like to (as the risk of boring everyone ) clarify a point that could be confusing some of our readers: namely, that the Armenian Church we are talking about is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches:

Oriental Orthodoxy is the faith of those Eastern Christian churches which recognize only the first three ecumenical councils …
Hence, these Oriental Orthodox churches are also called Old Oriental churches, Miaphysite churches, or the Non-Chalcedonian churches …
These churches are in full communion with each other but not with the Eastern Orthodox churches. Slow dialogue towards restoring communion began in the mid-20th century.[2]

Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (the word “Oriental” being synonymous with “Eastern”), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six churches: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (Indian Orthodox Church) and Armenian Apostolic churches.[3]

(abridged from Wikipedia)

I guess the most relevant point at the moment (since it may be confusing some readers) is that despite many similarities between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, they don’t necessarily have identical views concerning inter-communion with Catholics.

 

[neokarny]

First, I am not on the “offensive” and I’m sorry you see it that way. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Melkites and AOC “restore Syriac usage” they will cease to exist.

I honestly have no idea what this means.

Yes, there is “something more” and that is the theological thought process. The Orientals don’t rely on Greek philosophy to anywhere near the same degree as do the Byzantines.

I thought you said that Antiochians used to be Oriental until their Rite changed, which had nothing to do with their degree of use of Greek philosophy in their theology. I also disagree with your universal claim about Orientals in general; the Alexandrian and Antiochene Schools both greatly utilized Greek philosophy.

In any case, it seems to me we’re going around in circles, and I think it’s time for me to bow-out of this exchange.

Alright.

 

[Peter_J]

My point is not that Maronites are Syriac or Byzantine. It’s that “Eastern Catholic” vs “Oriental Catholic” is often arbitrary, and even more so if they’re solely defined as “Eastern Catholic” = any Catholic using Byzantine Rite, and “Oriental Catholic” = any Catholic using any other Rite that’s not Western/Byzantine. Especially when you consider that the Maronites would be the only Chalcedonian “Oriental” Church, and since not all “Orientals” have the same, or even similar, Rite. Interestingly, Antiochians/Melkites used to be Syriac in Rite before becoming Byzantine, and I couldn’t imagine calling them “Oriental” if they were to just start using it again.

Hi Neo (or Neok? ). I was thinking about posting on this matter yesterday evening, but got involved with other stuff. So I’ll make a few remarks (possibly closing remarks) on the subject now.

For one, I definitely agree with you that there is a danger of thinking Any (non-Latin) sui iuris Catholic Church that isn’t Byzantine/Greek is automatically Oriental Catholic. (Which would basically impose on Byzantine/Greek perspective.) But the thing is, while that’s a bad reason for including Maronites in the term “Oriental Catholics”, there are some reasons for doing so as well.

Second, I also want to say something about “counterpart” churches. I certain agree that this should be a factor in talking about families of churches, and defining terms like “Oriental Catholic”. The CNEWA website has a listing; see the left margin here. I note the

Churches with no … counterpart
Maronite
Italo-Albanian

But having said that, where I would I disagree with you is if you wanted to use “counterpart” as the only criteria. I.e. taking other factors into consideration, I think the most sensible thing is to include the Maronites in the “Oriental Catholic” family of churches (and likewise, to include the Italo-Albanian Church in the “Greek/Byzantine Catholic” family of churches).

If I’m talking too much, please feel free to tell me.

 

[malphono]

In any case, it seems to me we’re going around in circles, and I think it’s time for me to bow-out of this exchange.

Thank you.

 

[Peter_J]

The fact of the matter is, however, if the Melkites and AOC “restore Syriac usage” they will cease to exist.

This probably isn’t something we want to get into in this thread; but let me say that I think malphono is going further “out on a limb” than I would. (Which is definitely saying something, since many of my posts involve going out on a limb.)

P.S. Actually, in the case of the AOC, I’m thinking that the ultimate reason they would never decide to restore Syriac usage (not that they couldn’t, per se – note that they do have a small number of “Western-Rite” parishes) is that they would see it as competing with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

 

[neokarny]

Hi Neo (or Neok? ). I was thinking about posting on this matter yesterday evening, but got involved with other stuff. So I’ll make a few remarks (possibly closing remarks) on the subject now.

For one, I definitely agree with you that there is a danger of thinking Any (non-Latin) sui iuris Catholic Church that isn’t Byzantine/Greek is automatically Oriental Catholic. (Which would basically impose on Byzantine/Greek perspective.) But the thing is, while that’s a bad reason for including Maronites in the term “Oriental Catholics”, there are some reasons for doing so as well.

That perspective-pushing is a good point I hadn’t thought of.

Second, I also want to say something about “counterpart” churches. I certain agree that this should be a factor in talking about families of churches, and defining terms like “Oriental Catholic”. The CNEWA website has a listing; see the left margin here. I note the

But having said that, where I would I disagree with you is if you wanted to use “counterpart” as the only criteria. I.e. taking other factors into consideration, I think the most sensible thing is to include the Maronites in the “Oriental Catholic” family of churches (and likewise, to include the Italo-Albanian Church in the “Greek/Byzantine Catholic” family of churches).

If I’m talking too much, please feel free to tell me.

This is also a good point, and I don’t want the counterpart church to be the only criteria. It was something I was trying to avoid too much of, although my saying Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian is effectively emphasizing counterpart I suppose.

I don’t know anything about the Italo-Albanians to say if they have any peculiarities with the rest of the “Greek/Byzantine” family comparable to the Maronites being Chalcedonian in an otherwise non-Chalcedonian family of churches. You’re right that it may be the sensible thing to do, but it just doesn’t seem satisfying for reasons touched on before.

 

[neokarny]

This probably isn’t something we want to get into in this thread; but let me say that I think malphono is going further “out on a limb” than I would. (Which is definitely saying something, since many of my posts involve going out on a limb.)

P.S. Actually, in the case of the AOC, I’m thinking that the ultimate reason they would never decide to restore Syriac usage (not that they couldn’t, per se – note that they do have a small number of “Western-Rite” parishes) is that they would see it as competing with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

I’m not sure I see, but I’ll trust you about not wanting to get into it.

And your PS is true. The AOC wouldn’t want to compete with the SOC. Although, I guess we might adopt more of the Syriac usage when/if we unite (as I’m sure you know, if we enter communion our Churches AFAIK, like the Alexandrian ones, will “merge”). Either way, that would topics like this even more confusing, with Byzantines and Orientals within the same Church.

 

[malphono]

This probably isn’t something we want to get into in this thread; but let me say that I think malphono is going further “out on a limb” than I would. (Which is definitely saying something, since many of my posts involve going out on a limb.)

P.S. Actually, in the case of the AOC, I’m thinking that the ultimate reason they would never decide to restore Syriac usage (not that they couldn’t, per se – note that they do have a small number of “Western-Rite” parishes) is that they would see it as competing with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

Peter, the point is that if they were to reverse 1500 years of history, they would no longer be Byzantine. Find me a Melkite or Antiochian Orthodox who doesn’t proudly wear the Byzantine banner.

Yeah, sure, the Antiochene liturgy was in two languages (I won’t say “bi-lingual” because they weren’t much mixed) before the Imperial usurpation of the “Orthodox” (read: Chalcedonian) Patriarchate of Antioch, but the fact is that the Melkite faction, as it was known (and remember it comes from the Semitic word for “king”), abandoned the Syriac-Eddesene tradition in favor of the Constantinopolitan. It wasn’t just a matter of Chalcedon: they willingly and purposefully adopted the Constantinopolitan tradition. Ergo, without being of the Constantinopolitan tradition, they simply would not exist as a Church. They would, per force have to be subsumed into the Syriac Church, and you know as well as I do that that is about as likely as chickens growing lips.

 

[neokarny]

Peter, the point is that if they were to reverse 1500 years of history, they would no longer be Byzantine. Find me a Melkite or Antiochian Orthodox who doesn’t proudly wear the Byzantine banner.

Antioch wasn’t fully Byzantinized IIRC until the 13th century, so more like 800 years. I’m personally a rather pro-Syriac Antiochian, and I know of at least one or two other Antiochians on forums that are staunchly against a monolithic Eastern Orthodxoy (including Antioch returning to its Syriac roots). One I’m thinking of is rather anti-Byzantine at times, and I’m sure Peter may have a good idea of who I’m referring to (hint: OCnet).

they willingly and purposefully adopted the Constantinopolitan tradition.

This willingness has been debated by such Antiochians as the forementioned.

Ergo, without being of the Constantinopolitan tradition, they simply would not exist as a Church.

Folks like the above-mentioned, and myself to a degree, argue that the Byzantination of Antioch needs to be undone (like undoing Latinizations, those willingly self-imposed and otherwise), but that doesn’t necessarily mean it must merge into a Church any more than saying the Maronites must merge with the Syriac Catholic Church, etc.

They would, per force have to be subsumed into the Syriac Church, and you know as well as I do that that is about as likely as chickens growing lips.

It’s my understanding that, given communion between EO and OO, our churches would in fact merge like I’ve heard the Alexandrians have agreed to do.

 

[malphono]

…
neokarny;11121324:

malphono;11120842:

In any case, it seems to me we’re going around in circles, and I think it’s time for me to bow-out of this exchange.

Alright.

 

[neokarny]

I misunderstood you as not wanting to discuss the topic of Maronites being Oriental, not that you just didn’t want to speak to me anymore.

And if I had known, I still would’ve posted to let others know that not all Antiochians fit your assertion.

 

[malphono]

I misunderstood you as not wanting to discuss the topic of Maronites being Oriental, not that you just didn’t want to speak to me anymore.

Misunderstandings happen. No problem there. Just to clarify, my intent concerned the discussion within this thread, so the latter part above seems to be a bit overly broad. Time will tell, of course, but in any case, I’d rather not have someone put words in my mouth.

And if I had known, I still would’ve posted to let others know that not all Antiochians fit your assertion.

That’s fine. But I bowed-out so addressing it to me seems to be rather pointless. OTOH, perhaps others might be interested.

 

[chimo]

I know that there are several posts on CAF about the relationship between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. I am wanting to know that out of all of the individual Orthodox Churches, which one has the closest relationship with Rome? Which one would most likely come back into communion with the Catholic Church?

For example, I have an Armenian friend who is Orthodox but she says that in Armenia there is a lot of intersharing between the Orthodox and Catholic Church there, so I would say the Armenian Church, are there other Churches like this?

I am certain that all the Orthodox Churches are very close to Rome. Your question is an interesting question from the perspective of what constitutes unity with Rome. The question though cannot be answered from what you asked since coming back to Rome is not what constitutes the eventual unity. It is very interesting that Catholics think this way. The problem with this perspective is simply it will never work. The platform for the basis for unity between East and West today as professed from Rome will never work or come into existence. Since this perspective has been on the tables for the last 1000 years this tells us there must be a different platform to work out this unity. The current state of affairs will never bring about this unity. There has to be courageous men on both sides who will offer a better platform, a better solution. If you are waiting for this unity based on what the Catholic Church has been suggesting, this unity will be stalled forever. The actual fact is this. The unity by which Rome seeks with the East must come from agreement from both sides. From this perspective it must come from Rome whether this unity is to come and not specifically from the East. The problem than is more Rome’s than it is the East. The change must come from Rome. Once this occurs than unity will not be a problem. The problem today as it was for the past 1000 years is simply we are not knowledgeable of who the other is. This lack on our part is the real cause of our disunity. We will not take the risk to know the other.

Popes can’t do this on their own. Patriarchs cannot do this on their own. This knowledge of who the other is must come from somewhere else. It must come from the Laity and from the average layperson. We are only now discovering each other. This discovery will take time. If anything that will bring this eventual unity into our lives it will be when we know the other as we know ourselves. This is the unity which God seeks from us. It has nothing to do with political unity at all. It has to do with the proper arrangement by which the Catholic Church will have with the Eastern Church. This relationship has nothing to do with the Pope having an authority with the East as He enjoys with the West. The Pope’s authority must be defined differently for his own relationship with the East than it is for his own. Without this change in defining his pastoral role for the whole Church this unity will never come. All it takes for this unity to finally arrive is for the Laity to begin to know each other in each other’s Churches and for the Pope’s role to be better defined for him to act in his pastoral role for the whole Church.

 

[Peter_J]

That perspective-pushing is a good point I hadn’t thought of.

Thanks.

Incidentally, in my last post I forgot that I speaking to someone Antiochian – you may have noticed that I said “they” instead of “you”.

Anyhow, this might interest you: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11121984