Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Peter_J]

That may be, but the Oriental Orthodox do not try to identify themselves as something that they are not. They clearly identify themselves as Coptic, Syriac, or Armenian and use a different Liturgy than we do. They do not try to pass off themselves as what we Eastern Orthodox are. When Eastern Catholics call themselves Orthodox in communion with Rome, and use the Byzantine Liturgy, they give the false impression that you can be both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholics are not merely in communion with Rome. They have rejected Orthodox doctrine and have accepted Roman Catholic doctrine. Somewhere on this site, someone posted quotes from the canon law concerning the Eastern Catholics. It clearly proclaimed the doctrine of papal supremacy. If a person believes in papal supremacy, they are not Eastern Orthodox. They are Roman Catholic.

I’m seeing a big problem with that since “Roman Catholic” = Roman Rite Catholic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do not care what you call yourself as long as you recognize that whatever you are, you are not Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

:bigyikes:

 

[frjohnmorris]

Ya think …

We’ve had this on-and-off for years in EC forum, but lately it somehow seems to be out-of-control. Or maybe it’s just my imagination.

If Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are to resolve their differences and restore Communion between us, we cannot ignore the differences that exist between us and pretend that they do not exist. We must face them and discuss them honestly in an effort to resolve them.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I do not care what you call yourself as long as you recognize that whatever you are, you are not Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

In the Melkite translation of the Divine Liturgy we are called Orthodox. In the Melkite Publican’s Prayer Book, we are called orthodox Christians. I am not heterodox just because your Church calls herself Orthodox, and you claim to have the monopoly on that term. I am not a heterodox Christian, therefore, I am orthodox.

You may have already seen it, but if not I think you’d both be interested in the “A stranger asks for the Catholic Church…” thread.

 

[malphono]

That may be, but the Oriental Orthodox do not try to identify themselves as something that they are not. They clearly identify themselves as Coptic, Syriac, or Armenian and use a different Liturgy than we do. They do not try to pass off themselves as what we Eastern Orthodox are. When Eastern Catholics call themselves Orthodox in communion with Rome, and use the Byzantine Liturgy, they give the false impression that you can be both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Eastern Catholics are not merely in communion with Rome. They have rejected Orthodox doctrine and have accepted Roman Catholic doctrine. Somewhere on this site, someone posted quotes from the canon law concerning the Eastern Catholics. It clearly proclaimed the doctrine of papal supremacy. If a person believes in papal supremacy, they are not Eastern Orthodox. They are Roman Catholic.

And I’m seeing a REALLY BIG problem with the post you quoted, and that on a variety of levels. I’m surprised you didn’t have more to say about it, Peter.

Whatever, I won’t address the author. The ignore list is my friend.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m surprised you didn’t have more to say about it, Peter.

You obviously haven’t been noticing all the times when I don’t say anything at all. That happened this afternoon around 3ish, for example.



(Actually, that case was slightly different, inasmuch as the person that I didn’t say anything to was Catholic. But you get the idea.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m seeing a big problem with that since “Roman Catholic” = Roman Rite Catholic.

I believe that what make a person a Roman Catholic is that they accept the authority of the Pope of Rome. There are Roman Catholics of various rites, Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, etc. When Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics portray themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome, it confuses the Faithful and gives the false impression that one can be both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

You obviously haven’t been noticing all the times when I don’t say anything at all. That happened this afternoon around 3ish, for example.



(Actually, that case was slightly different, inasmuch as the person that I didn’t say anything to was Catholic. But you get the idea.)

Oh yeah, I get it. Could be I missed that post though … remember I said the ignore list is my friend? It really is. Some threads the only posts I see are yours and those of a select few others.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

I believe that what make a person a Roman Catholic is that they accept the authority of the Pope of Rome. There are Roman Catholics of various rites, Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, etc. When Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics portray themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome, it confuses the Faithful and gives the false impression that one can be both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father. I think you’re playing with terminology.

The same thing can be said about the Eastern Orthodox.

“How can the Eastern Orthodox call themselves ‘Orthodox’ when they use a liturgy that came 300 years after the Antiochene, Alexandrian and Roman liturgies”.

“How can the Eastern Orthodox call themselves ‘Eastern’ when they are so close to Rome when compared with Edessa, Persia and China”.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe that what make a person a Roman Catholic is that they accept the authority of the Pope of Rome. There are Roman Catholics of various rites, Latin, Byzantine, Syriac, etc. When Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics portray themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome, it confuses the Faithful and gives the false impression that one can be both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I would suggest the term Roman Communion to mean everyone in full communion with Rome. Calling us all “Roman Catholics” (or the “Roman Catholic Church”) makes it sound like we’re all in the Latin Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father. I think you’re playing with terminology.

The same thing can be said about the Eastern Orthodox.

“How can the Eastern Orthodox call themselves ‘Orthodox’ when they use a liturgy that came 300 years after the Antiochene, Alexandrian and Roman liturgies”.

“How can the Eastern Orthodox call themselves ‘Eastern’ when they are so close to Rome when compared with Edessa, Persia and China”.

I do not understand what your point is. In common usage we are called Eastern Orthodox. Terminology is important. It is important to us that Eastern Catholics not call themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome, because you cannot be both under Rome and Orthodox. You are either one or the other. Eastern Catholics use an Eastern Liturgy, but they accept the papacy. That makes them not Orthodox, because we do not accept the papacy.
I usually call myself Orthodox Christian or simply Orthodox, but out of respect for the Oriental Orthodox in this discussion, I have been careful to use the term Eastern Orthodox. I am an Archpriest of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America which is a part of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.
Antioch is considered part of the East. Our theology is based on the Eastern Fathers. Our Liturgy is an Eastern Liturgy with roots in the ancient Liturgy of the Church of Antioch. Our Liturgy is certainly much older than the Novo Ordo now used in most Latin Rite Roman Catholic Churches. Liturgical scholars classify the Byzantine Liturgy as part of the West Syrian family of Liturgies based on the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem. St. John Chrysostom brought the Antiochian Liturgy to Constantinople.
What would you have use call ourselves? We are not Western, which is Latin. Our liturgical traditions come from the Eastern Roman Empire, also called Byzantine.
I should point out that the most common Liturgy used by the Coptic Church is the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which really means that the Anaphora comes from St. Basil. We also use the Anaphora of St. Basil during Great Lent. I believe that the Armenians also use the Anaphora of St. Basil and that one of the Canons of the Novo Ordo Mass is based on the Anaphora of St. Basil.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

All this terminology stuff is pretty funny. Amongst ourselves we are just “Orthodox.” When we pray in the Liturgy of St. Basil that the Lord watch over this place (e.g., the place where the day’s liturgy is being held), and every church and every monastery of our Orthodox fathers, we mean just that. We do not specify that we mean “Oriental Orthodox” and not “Eastern Orthodox” (a pair of terms which don’t make sense in the vast majority of the world’s languages, as another poster pointed out). Just like how when either communion uses “Catholic” in the Creed, we know what we mean and what we do not mean. It does not matter what any Byzantine, in communion with Rome or not, thinks. But Fr. John Morris is right, in that we do not try to say that we are Chalcedonians. That would be kind of silly of us, after all these years.

What is important is what we are, not what others are not, as all are free to believe as they wish and we have no control over them anyway. God will take care of His people, and we know that there are many who are not in the Church now who will be counted among the Orthodox faithful when it matters, and many more who are in the Church now who will be in for an unpleasant surprise in the afterlife. Lord have mercy. With that in mind, the EO can call themselves the most true, pure, etc. whatever they want. Fine. Ditto the Catholics of any stripe (though I, like Father John Morris, do bristle a bit on reading “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” because it’s sort of like Oriental Orthodox claiming they are Chalcedonians…you know you aren’t…if you know your history, you know the reason you exist as a separate communion is to be separate from those who go by that name who you disagree with, so why try to be both at the same time? It is a made-up term that satisfies no one). Historically, we apparently treated all Chalcedonians the same (Byzantine or Latin; it’s essentially two sides of the same coin from this side of the Nile), and the longer I live in the Oriental Orthodox Church, the more I see the wisdom in that approach.

 

[Zekariya]

To clarify my earlier post. I do not go around calling myself an Orthodox Christian much in the same way that the Orthodox do not go by the name of Catholic Christian.

“I do not care what you call yourself as long as you recognize that whatever you are, you are not Orthodox.” - frjohnmorris

The above quote takes this to far. I may not go around calling myself by a name that refers (in general English usage) to another Communion of Churches, but I will not call myself “not Orthodox”. If I am not orthodox, then I am heterodox.

I would not tell Eastern Orthodox Christians or Oriental Orthodox Christians that they are not Catholic. While the Orthodox do not use Catholic as a name that refers (in general English usage) to their Churches, they do consider themselves to be catholic (as the Creed says).

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

I do not understand what your point is. In common usage we are called Eastern Orthodox.

‘Common’? is quite an unmeasurable standard.

Terminology is important. It is important to us that Eastern Catholics not call themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome, because you cannot be both under Rome and Orthodox. You are either one or the other

and you are the authority on this why?..We were orthodox and now are in communion with Rome. Hence we are “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”. In the Syriac Catholic case it was the SOC Patriarch Jarweh who came into communion with Rome.

I am an Archpriest of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America which is a part of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Self-ruled? You obviously aren’t aware of the History of your church and the imperial pressure that Constantinople put on your Church.

Antioch is considered part of the East. Our theology is based on the Eastern Fathers. Our Liturgy is an Eastern Liturgy with roots in the ancient Liturgy of the Church of Antioch. Our Liturgy is certainly much older than the Novo Ordo now used in most Latin Rite Roman Catholic Churches. Liturgical scholars classify the Byzantine Liturgy as part of the West Syrian family of Liturgies based on the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem. St. John Chrysostom brought the Antiochian Liturgy to Constantinople.

Your theology is based on a inculturated-Hellenized (i’m not against inculturations but you can’t claim the be authentic) Imperial version of Eastern Christianity. It is not authentically Antiochene.

What would you have use call ourselves? We are not Western, which is Latin. Our liturgical traditions come from the Eastern Roman Empire, also called Byzantine.
I should point out that the most common Liturgy used by the Coptic Church is the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which really means that the Anaphora comes from St. Basil. We also use the Anaphora of St. Basil during Great Lent. I believe that the Armenians also use the Anaphora of St. Basil and that one of the Canons of the Novo Ordo Mass is based on the Anaphora of St. Basil.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I certainly wouldn’t call you ‘Antiochene’. I would call you Melkites. Your church are the Antiochenes who gave into every little pressure from their Imperial overlords in Constantinople.

 

[Peter_J]

All this terminology stuff is pretty funny. Amongst ourselves we are just “Orthodox.” When we pray in the Liturgy of St. Basil that the Lord watch over this place (e.g., the place where the day’s liturgy is being held), and every church and every monastery of our Orthodox fathers, we mean just that. We do not specify that we mean “Oriental Orthodox” and not “Eastern Orthodox”

Interesting point. I often refer to myself as simply “Catholic” without a qualifier … and my friends in the PNCC often refer to themselves the same way.

 

[Peter_J]

I certainly wouldn’t call you ‘Antiochene’. I would call you Melkites. Your church are the Antiochenes who gave into every little pressure from their Imperial overlords in Constantinople.

It seems more than a little unfair to conclude that he isn’t Antiochene.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In the Melkite translation of the Divine Liturgy we are called Orthodox. In the Melkite Publican’s Prayer Book, we are called orthodox Christians. I am not heterodox just because your Church calls herself Orthodox, and you claim to have the monopoly on that term. I am not a heterodox Christian, therefore, I am orthodox.

'It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him ‘Aren’t you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?’ ‘Yes, it is very true,’ he answered. They resumed, ‘Aren’t you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?’ 'I am."

Again they said ‘Aren’t you Agathon the heretic?’ But at that he replied ‘I am not a heretic.’

So they asked him, ‘Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.’ He replied ‘The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.’ At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.’

You cannot be Orthodox and be under the Pope. Melkites are Byzantine Rite Catholics who went into schism from the Orthodox Church in 1724 and submitted to Rome. According to Orthodox theology, if your Bishop is in Communion with another Bishop that means that the two Bishops share a common doctrine. Since the Melkite Patriarch is in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology he accepts Roman Catholic doctrine and thereby rejects Orthodox doctrine. If you really were Orthodox you would understand that.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have been thinking of a way to diplomatically explain why Orthodox object when Eastern Catholics call themselves Catholics in Communion with Rome. The whole history of Eastern Catholicism is a sore point for Orthodox. A few years ago the International Orthodox Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue almost ended in an argument over this issue. It would be counter productive to go through all the sordid details of this divisive matter. I recognize that there have been wrongs on both sides. But to us, Eastern Catholics are heirs of those who left our Church to accept the authority of the Pope. By accepting the papacy, they ceased to be Orthodox. At the very least Eastern Catholics should respect our right to define what is and what is not an Orthodox Church. We do not presume to tell Catholics who is and who is not a Catholic. The Catholics should extend to us the same courtesy.

One way to explain our feelings is to ask: Is it not offensive to Catholics when a High Church Anglican or Episcopalian claims to be Catholic? We both know that regardless of their incense, and love of medieval Catholic vestments and ceremony that they are not real Catholics. They lack valid Apostolic Succession and come from a Church whose history shows that it is definitely Protestant.
We do have an Orthodox Western Rite, but they very carefully identify themselves as Western Rite Orthodox, not Catholic because in the popular mind Catholic means Roman Catholic. We do not want to offend Catholics because we allow Western Rite services in some of our parishes. The title on their service book reads:
The Administration of the Sacraments
and Other Rites and Ceremonies
According to the Western Rite Usage
of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Archdiocese of North America
They are mostly former Anglicans who came to us and wanted to retain their Western traditions. They were allowed to do with a few revisions in their Liturgy to conform to Orthodox doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh yeah, I get it. Could be I missed that post though … remember I said the ignore list is my friend? It really is. Some threads the only posts I see are yours and those of a select few others.

I’m glad for you that you’ve discovered the joys of the ignore list and all, but do you want to stop talking about it?

 

[malphono]

'I certainly wouldn’t call you ‘Antiochene’. I would call you Melkites.

It seems more than a little unfair to conclude that he isn’t Antiochene.

Yeah, maybe he went just a little too far with that sentence, but of course I still understand his meaning. It’s interesting, though, that the Byzantines normally use the spelling “Antiochian” whereas the Orientals normally use “Antiochene.” It’s a good way to make the differentiation in a subtle way.