Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Peter_J]

Dear brother Peter,

I believe brother Zekariya was referring to the first two conditions when referring to “ex cathedra.” “Ex cathedra” concisely means that he is using his primatial, Petrine authority, and he can do this even when he is not defining on faith and morals. Of course, we normally attach that term to infallible decrees, but this is not necessarily always so.

Blessings,
Marduk

Then I would point out that you aren’t using that term the same way Vatican I used it. From Zekariya’s link:

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when,

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,

by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.​

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother Peter,

I believe brother Zekariya was referring to the first two conditions when referring to “ex cathedra.” “Ex cathedra” concisely means that he is using his primatial, Petrine authority, and he can do this even when he is not defining on faith and morals. Of course, we normally attach that term to infallible decrees, but this is not necessarily always so.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is no historical evidence from the Scriptures that St. Peter ever exercised what you call the “Petrine authority.” There is also no evidence from any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the actual practice of the ancient undivided Church that the Bishops of Rome exercised this “Petrine authority,” especially over the Eastern Patriarchs. The canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils never recognize anything but a primacy of honor as first among equals for Rome. The exact opposite is true the councils assume authority over the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Godric2]

This is a significant point ‘Petrine authority’ over all, or first among equals.

This one will take some working out!

Armenian footwashing

 

[frjohnmorris]

They use the same liturgy as far as I know. Concelebrating may be a problem because of the unity with Rome issue, or maybe not. I am not an authoritative source, for sure.

Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition use the same services as Eastern Orthodox. According to the canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Priest may not con-celebrate with any non Orthodox clergy including Eastern Catholics.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Are there any Orthodox churches in full union with Rome?
While I’m Latin rite catholic, I know very little about the orthodox and Eastern churches, and wanted to know some basic similarities and differences that separate us because I want to know more about what goes on in the Eastern parts because the traditions and lifestyle are very special and unique.

The simple answer from an Eastern Orthodox point of view is no. You cannot be Eastern Orthodox if you are not in Communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some Eastern Catholics claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, but that claim is very offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians. The whole issue of Eastern Catholics is one of the major problems between Orthodoxy and Rome.

 

[RyanBlack]

The simple answer from an Eastern Orthodox point of view is no. You cannot be Eastern Orthodox if you are not in Communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church.** Some Eastern Catholics claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, but that claim is very offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians. The whole issue of Eastern Catholics is one of the major problems between Orthodoxy and Rome.**

Fr., what is your proposed solution to the issue of Eastern Catholics? Should we simply not be allowed to exist? Furthermore, as to the point of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” being very offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians, what if it were the case that the Orthodox calling themselves catholic were to be offensive to Catholic Christians (and it is to some), would that then mean that the Orthodox should no longer call themselves Catholic?

 

[dzheremi]

This was always an issue for me when I was RC, too, even though I was never “Eastern”. It seems impossible that reunion should occur between the two communions of Roman Christianity without one ceasing to exist as it does today. I don’t really see a way around it still, even though it obviously does not bother me anymore. Perhaps the Eastern Catholics in that event would simply be reintegrated into the Eastern churches that they left upon entering union with Rome? No clue where that leaves the Oriental Catholics, though, but I suppose let’s not complicate the matter by remembering that they exist.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, it does happen on occasion, albeit that it’s rare and totally unofficial.

Again, while it’s rare and unofficial, it apparently also happens on occasion between the EO and EC. I personally know of at least one EC priest who has done so. (He was even invited to concelebrate by an an EO bishop.) Although I’ve no personal knowledge of it, I’ve also heard that this happens between Melkites and AOC.

Orthodox clergy do not concelebrate with any non-Orthodox clergy. By Orthodox, I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church as defined by being in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch, Russia, etc. I am Antiochian Orthodox and know that any Antiochian Orthodox Priest who concelbrated with any non-Orthodox including Melkites would be suspended. There are very strict rules concerning these things. Antiochian Orthodox clergy do not participate in any service with non-Orthodox, including so called ecumenical services. Prayer with non-Orthodox sends the wrong message by creating a false illusion of union when there really is not a union. Some Orthodox Bishops allow their clergy to participate in ecumenical services as an act of economy, chiefly the Greeks, but our American Antiochian Orthodox Bishops strictly forbid participation in such services.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr., what is your proposed solution to the issue of Eastern Catholics? Should we simply not be allowed to exist? Furthermore, as to the point of “Orthodox in communion with Rome” being very offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians, what if it were the case that the Orthodox calling themselves catholic were to be offensive to Catholic Christians (and it is to some), would that then mean that the Orthodox should no longer call themselves Catholic?

I believe in religious freedom so do not think that Eastern Catholics should be forbidden to exist. But it is not honest for them to call themselves Orthodox because they are not Orthodox because they are not part of the Orthodox Church. Eastern Catholics may find this offensive, but we have to be honest about our differences. Easter Catholics may use Eastern forms of worship but because of their acceptance of the papacy we believe that they have left the Orthodox Church and are a branch of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know of any Orthodox who call themselves Catholic in normal speech because in normal English Catholic means Roman Catholic, just as Orthodox means Eastern Orthodox. When we say the Creed, we profess belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” by which we mean the Eastern Orthodox Church because we believe that the Orthodox Church has preserved the Faith of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

I believe in religious freedom so do not think that Eastern Catholics should be forbidden to exist. But it is not honest for them to call themselves Orthodox because they are not Orthodox because they are not part of the Orthodox Church. Eastern Catholics may find this offensive, but we have to be honest about our differences. Easter Catholics may use Eastern forms of worship but because of their acceptance of the papacy we believe that they have left the Orthodox Church and are a branch of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know of any Orthodox who call themselves Catholic in normal speech because in normal English Catholic means Roman Catholic, just as Orthodox means Eastern Orthodox. When we say the Creed, we profess belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” by which we mean the Eastern Orthodox Church because we believe that the Orthodox Church has preserved the Faith of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father,
Do you also have an issue with the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) identifying themselves as Orthodox?

 

[SyroMalankara]

With this narrow view, I might have more of a problem with folks calling themselves “Antiochian”, “Syrian” (like myself, not ethnically but culturally/liturgically), or “Roman” – since most of the claimed are NOT!

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
Do you also have an issue with the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) identifying themselves as Orthodox?

Not as long as they identify themselves as Oriental and not Eastern Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

Since Oriental and Eastern are the same word in most languages, and Orthodox is used in the Catholic liturgy outside American English…

 

[frjohnmorris]

Since Oriental and Eastern are the same word in most languages, and Orthodox is used in the Catholic liturgy outside American English…

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. As I have mentioned, this issue is one of the most important sources of division between us and the Roman Catholic Church. I do not want to offend anyone, but if there is to be dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, we have to be honest with each other.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father

How is the Council to decide? Majority vote? Of all bishops, or a subset?

God Bless

Usually the Bishops at an Ecumenical Council discussed the issues before them until they reached a consensus. Sometimes the majority ruled and those who rejected the decision went into schism, as was the case with Chalcedon. However, to be an Ecumenical Council, its decisions have to be accepted by the whole Church only then is a council an Ecumenical Council. For example the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 was rejected by the Church. There were times when Ecumenical Councils did not hesitate to correct a Pope on an issue. The point is that no man, even the Bishop of Rome should be above the authority of the Church acting together. All power should not reside in one man, especially the power to determine the doctrine of the Church on his own authority.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I generally don’t call myself “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. But having said that, I have noticed that some Orthodox harp on the You’re-non-Orthodox thing *quite *a lot, and in a very pejorative way.

 

[RyanBlack]

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. As I have mentioned, this issue is one of the most important sources of division between us and the Roman Catholic Church. I do not want to offend anyone, but if there is to be dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, we have to be honest with each other.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Sorry, Father, you don’t get to define me as Roman Catholic. I am not Roman Catholic. I am an Eastern (Ruthenian) Catholic whose bishop is in communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Sorry, Father, you don’t get to define me as Roman Catholic. I am not Roman Catholic. I am an Eastern (Ruthenian) Catholic whose bishop is in communion with the Pope of Rome.

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

 

[malphono]

I have noticed that some Orthodox harp on the You’re-non-Orthodox thing *quite *a lot, and in a very pejorative way.

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.

 

[Zekariya]

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.

'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.’