Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Peter_J]

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.

Good point, although I’m not sure that’s what shlomo3amrooh meant – after, he didn’t say “I would call you Antiochian rather than Antiochene.”

 

[Peter_J]

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

Father, you seemed to be making a very sound point until I got to the second paragraph. Why would we be offended by Anglicans (or Lutherans for that matter) calling themselves “Catholic”?

 

[SyroMalankara]

As far as I’m concerned everyone who calls themselves anything outside my Communion is wrong, and even those in my Communion are wrong when they call themselves and others terms that are generic or popular but inaccurate. For example, ECs calling themselves RC. Malankara Syrians calling “Syro-Malabarese” “Syro” for short, as if we aren’t “SYRO-Malankarese”. The term “Syro’-Malabar” itself should be “Malabar Chaldean”… Maronites using the term “Maronite” instead of “Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch”. Byzantine Antiochian Orthodox claiming to be “authentic Eastern” is as funny as Muslims claiming their CONversion is a “reversion” when neither they nor anyone in their entire family has ever been. Anglicans playing Catholic is funny as well, they can call themselves whatever but we all know who they really are. The Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar in the Anglican Communion gets my goat, since they don’t acknowledge “Mor Thoma’s” intercession, split partially due to use of “Syriac”, and was mainly around two south-central districts of “Malabar” and not close to being within the whole region. Don’t get me started on the “Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Holiness, Believers, and others” they stole our terms and reject all the intended meaning - jerks.

 

[Nine_Two]

Father, you seemed to be making a very sound point until I got to the second paragraph. Why would we be offended by Anglicans (or Lutherans for that matter) calling themselves “Catholic”?

I’ve seen quite a few Catholics on this forum get offended by non-Catholics using the term on themselves.

Mind you these tend to be the same ones who believe that because the Catholic Church calls itself Catholic that it must therefore be the one true Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve seen quite a few Catholics on this forum get offended by non-Catholics using the term on themselves.

Mind you these tend to be the same ones who believe that because the Catholic Church calls itself Catholic that it must therefore be the one true Church.

Me too, I believe Father John made a fair point. I can relate to his feelings. In all honesty I feel the same way for example when a given individual describes themselves as “catholic” then proceeds to promote a completely contrary orthodox view. I can’t think of a specific but I vaguely remember a similar situation.

 

[Zekariya]

I’ve seen quite a few Catholics on this forum get offended by non-Catholics using the term on themselves.

Mind you these tend to be the same ones who believe that because the Catholic Church calls itself Catholic that it must therefore be the one true Church.

I do not mind other groups calling themselves catholic unless they are trying to deceive others by using it. For exampl: I know what is meant by Anglo-Catholic, therefore, I don’t mind it being used by Anglicans. I would not call myself an Orthodox Christian because it would deceive people into thinking that I am in Communion with Constantinole or Coptic Alexandria.

The Antiochian service book says, Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve seen quite a few Catholics on this forum get offended by non-Catholics using the term on themselves.

True, but I’m not sure they have good reason for being offended.

 

[Peter_J]

As far as I’m concerned everyone who calls themselves anything outside my Communion is wrong,

Everyone? What about the Church of Stupidheads?

 

[malphono]

Everyone? What about the Church of Stupidheads?

Much too crowded for me.

 

[Nine_Two]

I do not mind other groups calling themselves catholic unless they are trying to deceive others by using it. For exampl: I know what is meant by Anglo-Catholic, therefore, I don’t mind it being used by Anglicans. I would not call myself an Orthodox Christian because it would deceive people into thinking that I am in Communion with Constantinole or Coptic Alexandria.

The Antiochian service book says, Orthodox Catholic Church.

But I think that was Fr. John’s point. I have seen Eastern Catholics represent themselves as being the same thing as Eastern Orthodox - just with a little more Rome.

I do understand the use in your service book, and I think that’s a situation where you have to annoy some people, after all if you changed it you’d be accused of moving away from Orthodoxy.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not mind other groups calling themselves catholic unless they are trying to deceive others by using it. For exampl: I know what is meant by Anglo-Catholic, therefore, I don’t mind it being used by Anglicans. I would not call myself an Orthodox Christian because it would deceive people into thinking that I am in Communion with Constantinole or Coptic Alexandria.

The Antiochian service book says, Orthodox Catholic Church.

That is not exactly correct. I am looking at the title page right now. It is:
Service Book
of the
Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church

How is that misleading? The title clearly identifies us as Eastern Orthodox. The problem with some Eastern Catholics is that they tell others that they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but they fail to tell people that according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church if you are in Communion with Rome, you are not Orthodox. In the past this claim was used to confuse people and make Orthodox think that by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches they were not leaving the Orthodox Church. This was particularly true in the Ukraine, where some people though after the Union of Brest of 1595-1596 that the Pope had become Orthodox. This issue is one that strikes a nerve with Eastern Orthodox Christians because we feel that Rome sent Jesuits and others into Orthodox areas to subvert our Church and lead some of our people to submit to the papacy. At the same time some Roman Catholic monarchs like Sigismund III of Poland persecuted those Orthodox who refused to submit to the Union of Brest.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

And the Byzantine Orthodox did this and that to the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians, the Oriental Orthodox did this and that to each other, and the Romans did it to everyone including their own.

As to being specific, maybe you do Fr. John, everyone in your jurisdiction does not:
allsaintsorthodox.org/about_us.php

 

[frjohnmorris]

And the Byzantine Orthodox did this and that to the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians, the Oriental Orthodox did this and that to each other, and the Romans did it to everyone including their own.

As to being specific, maybe you do Fr. John, everyone in your jurisdiction does not:
allsaintsorthodox.org/about_us.php

I do not understand your point. Just what is misleading or incorrect about this statement. It is not meant to be a detailed history of the Orthodox Church. It is a statement about what we believe about ourselves.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

That is not exactly correct. I am looking at the title page right now. It is:
Service Book
of the
Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church

How is that misleading? The title clearly identifies us as Eastern Orthodox. The problem with some Eastern Catholics is that they tell others that they are Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but they fail to tell people that according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church if you are in Communion with Rome, you are not Orthodox. In the past this claim was used to confuse people and make Orthodox think that by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches they were not leaving the Orthodox Church. This was particularly true in the Ukraine, where some people though after the Union of Brest of 1595-1596 that the Pope had become Orthodox. This issue is one that strikes a nerve with Eastern Orthodox Christians because we feel that Rome sent Jesuits and others into Orthodox areas to subvert our Church and lead some of our people to submit to the papacy. At the same time some Roman Catholic monarchs like Sigismund III of Poland persecuted those Orthodox who refused to submit to the Union of Brest.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I think that there are, in fact, some who call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and are able to back it up in terms of their adherence to Orthodox belief. What’s more bothersome is when someone applies the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” to Eastern Catholics in general – in other words, implying that we are “Orthodox” just by virtue of being Eastern.

Just my :twocents:.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I do not understand your point. Just what is misleading or incorrect about this statement. It is not meant to be a detailed history of the Orthodox Church. It is a statement about what we believe about ourselves.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You said that EOs always say they are EO, so there is no confusion among others. Here, the site doesn’t differentiate between EO and OO.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You said that EOs always say they are EO, so there is no confusion among others. Here, the site doesn’t differentiate between EO and OO.

I meant that on this site, I use the term Eastern Orthodox out of respect for the sensibilities of the Oriental Orthodox. However, we normally refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians or simply Orthodox. For example The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America is the name of our national conference of all Eastern Orthodox Bishops.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

… In the past this claim was used to confuse people and make Orthodox think that by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches they were not leaving the Orthodox Church. This was particularly true in the Ukraine, where some people though after the Union of Brest of 1595-1596 that the Pope had become Orthodox. This issue is one that strikes a nerve with Eastern Orthodox Christians because we feel that Rome sent Jesuits and others into Orthodox areas to subvert our Church and lead some of our people to submit to the papacy. At the same time some Roman Catholic monarchs like Sigismund III of Poland persecuted those Orthodox who refused to submit to the Union of Brest.

Odd history.

Until recently, particularly in Eastern you would typically hear Greek Catholics use some circumlocution like pravovirnyj rather than pravoslavnyj - in fact you will hear that even today in liturgies insome areas of Eastern Europe, and the equivalent, in English, in some churches in the US.

I would be surprised if you were able to provide documentation for the claims that you make about the time of Brest: that the phrase OiCwR was used then (if so, when/why was it later abandoned), or that there was a meme that the Pope had “become” Orthodox. Moreover the Jesuits, at that time, were certainly not interested in the Union, but in conversion to the RCC in the Latin rite. (See Taft, archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Anamnesis%20not%20Amnesia.pdf)

The Articles of Brest included the an article stipulating that the state move to prevent the the admission of new Orthodox bishops into the territory and the fracturing of the people into parallel Greek Catholic and Orthodox groups. While there was some action behind this at the outset of the union, the reality was that this article was quickly abandoned. In fact, not all of the Bishops accepted the union and the eparchies that did not remained in the Orthodox communion. Given the strife and statecraft of the time (cuius regio, eius religio), the the outcome should be considered remarkable for its diversity and lack of violence: the Orthodox church was never suppressed in Polish-Lithuania - a feature remarkably different from the occasions in which Orthodox conspired to suppress Greek Catholic churches in the area - even through recent times. .

 

[SyroMalankara]

I meant that on this site, I use the term Eastern Orthodox out of respect for the sensibilities of the Oriental Orthodox. However, we normally refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians or simply Orthodox. For example The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America is the name of our national conference of all Eastern Orthodox Bishops.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Well, I’m confused, no differentiation here.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, I’m confused, no differentiation here.

Why should there be. Although Eastern Orthodox officials are working on resolving our differences with the Oriental Orthodox, until Communion is restored they are technically in schism from the Orthodox Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think that there are, in fact, some who call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and are able to back it up in terms of their adherence to Orthodox belief. What’s more bothersome is when someone applies the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” to Eastern Catholics in general – in other words, implying that we are “Orthodox” just by virtue of being Eastern.

Just my :twocents:.

If your Bishop is in Communion with Rome, he is not Orthodox. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church if a Bishop is in Communion with another Bishop that means that he shares a common doctrine with the other Bishop. If the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch is in Communion with Rome, from an Orthodox point of view that means that he agrees with all the doctrine taught by the Bishop of Rome including those doctrines such as papal infallibility that Orthodox reject. Therefore you cannot claim to adhere to Orthodox belief if you are in Communion with Rome. There real and significant doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. You cannot simply ignore them and pretend that they do not exist because they do and will not be resolved unless we deal with them honestly and resolve them.

Archpriest John W. Morris