Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

If that is the case, and decisions are made in a collegial fashion, why cannot the Pope simply reform the method to return to the time when Ecumenical Councils made decisions on doctrine?

I’m not sure I understand. As the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser asserted, the Ecumenical Council will always be the norm for promulgating the most solemn doctrinal decrees (i.e. dogmas) of the Church. I don’t know why you would think there is anything to “return to” as if Pastor Aeternus somehow cancelled the existence or utility of an Ecumenical Council.

However, I am afraid that from what I have read and what people have written during these discussions, the Pope has the final say and a veto over the college of Bishops who can only advise the Pope not make the decision as the Ecumenical Councils did.

I am afraid I am only intermittently involved in this thread. Could you please direct me to the posts that claim that the bishops only advise the Pope on a matter of doctrine, and that he can veto the bishops? Whoever stated that was simply wrong.

There are only two possible scenarios to consider here:
(1) One portion of the bishops is orthodox, and another portion heterodox. Whoever the Pope sides with is the orthodox group. In this instance, the Pope is actually making a judgment based on their teaching. Is that mere “advice?”

(2) All bishops are heterodox, and the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left. All the bishops advise the Pope on the matter, and the Pope decides to go against all their “advice” because they are all heterodox.

Scenario #2 cannot happen - it is simply impossible - as explained in the Petrine views thread, because there can never come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. Only scenario (1) is possible, and the Pope is constrained by Divine Law to make a decision in communion with those other orthodox bishops.

As far as an Ecumenical Council goes, the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser affirmed that all the bishops sit in judgment WITH the Pope, not that the Pope sits in judgment over all the other bishops. Even the old Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that in an Ecumenical Council, the ENTIRE college is infallible, not merely the Pope, so there is no way that it is all on the Pope’s say-so.

What the Catholic Church does affirm is that the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) is the only bishop in the college (whether dispersed or in the formal setting of an Ecumenical Council) whose consent is absolutely necessary. If bishop X from New York does not agree, that does not affect the validity of the doctrinal decrees of the council. But if the bishop of Rome, as head bishop, does not agree, then it does indeed affect the validity of those doctrinal decrees.

But the source of the misunderstanding might be the strange idea that the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council (or, alternately, in the whole world). Assuming he was the only orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council, then and only then would there be such a thing as a “veto power.” However, such a scenario is simply impossible, so I don’t know where this idea of a “veto power” comes from. If a Pope does not consent, it is only because there are OTHER bishops as well who do not consent. It is impossible that the doctrinal decision of the Pope is the ONLY decision that matters, since there will always be other orthodox bishops along with him. That being so, the Pope is constrained by divine law to make a decision in communion with those orthodox bishops.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

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:.

I think this comment is worth a dollar, not just 2 cents.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother Peter,

I think this comment is worth a dollar, not just 2 cents.

Blessings,
Marduk

Therein lies the problem. If your theology is Orthodox, you would believe that by Communion you mean something more than just agreement on a few basic points of belief, but total and complete agreement on all aspects of the Faith. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church your Communion with Rome means that you accept the teachings of Rome, some of which are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, chiefly the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope, not to mention purgatory, indulgences, the prohibition of non-abortive methods of birth control, the requirement of an annulment before a divorced person is allowed to remarry, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and other Roman Catholic teachings that The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept. Therefore, from an Orthodox prospective, you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr. John,

Seems to me to be a bit more nuanced than that. EO have to choose what is “required” and what is “theological speculation”. EC agree in what is required, but let Rome do their own theologizing on aspects that are not, what these are, well - are “tollhouses” required, what about “Essences/Energies”, how about “Theology of Icons”, and others? If these later developments of doctrine/theology must be dropped, then you should get on it before asking OO to fully unite. If it’s a matter of emphasis, then why insist on a more stringent requirement on Latins? Seems like the old spec/plank.

 

[Nine_Two]

Fr. John,

Seems to me to be a bit more nuanced than that. EO have to choose what is “required” and what is “theological speculation”. EC agree in what is required, but let Rome do their own theologizing on aspects that are not, what these are, well - are “tollhouses” required, what about “Essences/Energies”, how about “Theology of Icons”, and others? If these later developments of doctrine/theology must be dropped, then you should get on it before asking OO to fully unite. If it’s a matter of emphasis, then why insist on a more stringent requirement on Latins? Seems like the old spec/plank.

I would leave it to the OO to speak for themselves whether they have an issue with those. Certainly theological speculation (that is things that are not taught by the Church but don’t contradict what the Church teaches) like tollhouses they are free to reject - although too often people bring that up a red herring without actually understanding what it is.

I’m not sure why you mentioned the “Theology of Icons” there, since that isn’t doctrine, rather it is a medium by which the Church teaches doctrine. That’s like talking about “books” as though they were a development within the Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John,

Seems to me to be a bit more nuanced than that. EO have to choose what is “required” and what is “theological speculation”. EC agree in what is required, but let Rome do their own theologizing on aspects that are not, what these are, well - are “tollhouses” required, what about “Essences/Energies”, how about “Theology of Icons”, and others? If these later developments of doctrine/theology must be dropped, then you should get on it before asking OO to fully unite. If it’s a matter of emphasis, then why insist on a more stringent requirement on Latins? Seems like the old spec/plank.

I am an historian. I am not a theologian. Obviously we must agree to accept the dogmatic decrees of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and most local councils. Except for the decrees of Vatican I, I am not sure that there is that much difference in doctrine between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics. For example the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem condemned Calvinism in very specific terms, but I doubt that Catholics would disagree with us on that matter. We are not Augustinian, but I am not sure that Roman Catholics are Augustinian in the same way that Lutherans and Calvinists are Augustinian. How Palamite theology can be reconciled with Roman Catholic theology is a matter for theologians much more sophisticated than I am to resolve. I may be wrong, but I think that many of the differences are a matter of saying essentially the same thing, but using different language. Some differences fall within the category of theologoumena, but it would take a theologian to determine what is essential and what is theologoumena. I definitely know that the whole matter of toll houses is theologoumena. It is popular in some monastic circles, but considered almost heresy by others. It sounds Gnostic to me. I do not teach it in my Church. I am rather surprised that you mention the theology of icons, since I am not aware of any difference between us on this issue. We both affirm the 7th Ecumenical Council. There are practical differences such as how we deal with divorce and remarriage. We do not agree among ourselves on the issue of birth control. There are those who oppose it, but the prevailing opinion of most Orthodox theologians is that used properly within marriage non abortive methods of birth control are not a sin. I frankly do not understand the Roman Catholic position on this issue. If natural family planning is allowed, what is wrong with non abortive methods of birth control? We agree on abortion, but Orthodox would not expect a woman to die if an abortion would save her life. Our administrative model is very different. Ours is conciliar while the Roman Catholic model is papal. If we could keep our conciliar practices while the West keeps its own practices, we could work out a compromise on that issue. We would not give up married priests or accept some sort of arrangement that would allow married priests for now, but require celibacy in the future. I frankly believe that celibates belong in a monastery and that it is best for a parish priest like myself to be married.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Therein lies the problem. If your theology is Orthodox, you would believe that by Communion you mean something more than just agreement on a few basic points of belief, but total and complete agreement on all aspects of the Faith. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church your Communion with Rome means that you accept the teachings of Rome, some of which are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, chiefly the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope, not to mention purgatory, indulgences, the prohibition of non-abortive methods of birth control, the requirement of an annulment before a divorced person is allowed to remarry, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and other Roman Catholic teachings that The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept. Therefore, from an Orthodox prospective, you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Thank you for expressing your pov. I do appreciate the distinction that must be made in common parlance so people will not be deceived, on the one hand, or be led into indifferentism, on the other. For example, I’ve met non-Latin Catholics on the I-net (though none in real life, actually) who really do not like the commemoration made during Liturgy of the Pope in non-Patriarchal liturgies. I always defend it for the same reason you proffer on this matter - because in the absence of any difference between Eastern/Oriental Catholic liturgies and those of our Orthodox brethren, visitors need to be made truthfully aware whether they are attending a church in the Catholic communion, or one in the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox communion.

However, I do not believe claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is deceptive, for the simple fact that being “in communion with Rome” is always attached to the identification, as distinct from simply claiming to be “Orthodox.” I do not agree that one cannot be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” – unless one simultaneously admits that the early Church fathers were not Orthodox for being in communion with Rome.

In any case, my own journey to Catholicism did not consist of rejecting my Coptic Orthodox beliefs, but rather consisted of rejecting the commonly held misconceptions about Catholic doctrine. In fact, I actually still accept the idea behind the misconceptions, except that I now know better not to apply them to the Catholic teaching. For example, when I was growing up in the COC, I was taught that the IC teaches that Mary did not have a natural human conception, and was thus heretical. But I learned that this idea - that Mary did not have a natural human conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah - was actually condemned by a Pope in the 17th century (Pope Alexander VII IIRC). So I certainly still do reject the idea that Mary did not have a natural human conception, as all Copts do. But I now know for a fact that this is not what the IC teaches.

Another example: growing up in the COC, I was taught that “papal” infallibility meant that only one man has infallibility. Well, I still DO adhere to the COC belief that rejects the idea that only one man has infallibility. However, I accept the dogma of “papal” infallibility because I know for a fact that such a notion (that only one man has infallibility) is not what the dogma actually claims to teach.

The examples can be multiplied. To repeat, I have rejected nothing of my Coptic Orthodox fFaith. I translated (not converted) to the Catholic communion only because I rejected my prior (and rather strong) misconceptions of the Catholic Faith. I do not believe the essence of Orthodoxy consists of what is NOT Catholic, but rather its essence consists of Truth, pure and undefiled. To be fully Orthodox, one has to let go of misconceptions about Catholicism, for a misconception is not Truth, no matter how strongly one believes in that misconception.

There are actual differences, of course, and they do still keep us divided. Of the ones you enumerated, I think the hardest to overcome are actually the moral issues.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Having said all that, please permit me some brief comments on the points of difference you enumerated:

(1) universal jurisdiction - can you please read the Petrine views thread and express concisely what the issue is on this matter? From my understanding, the only issue is that it is often presented by Absolutist Petrine advocates to mean that the Pope has proper (Catholic jargon)/ordinary (Orthodox jargon) jurisdiction in every single diocese. That’s not what it actually teaches, so if there is anything else you believe is objectionable about this teaching, please explain.

(2) infallibility - I believe I’ve explained the differences between the Absolutist and High Petrine views on this matter. I believe the High Petrine views are thoroughly orthodox. Can you possibly be more concise about what it is about this teaching that is objectionable?

(3) purgatory - there’s a lot of Latin Catholic theologoumenon (objectionable to the theological sensitivities of Easterns and Orientals) associated with this matter, but the only thing that concerns us is the dogma, which is thoroughly orthodox. The dogma asserts only three points of doctrine: (a) That there is a state of existence that is not properly heaven nor properly hell wherein souls go before the final judgment. (b) That those who are still in need of perfection/purification undergo such a process and will experience an undefined pain in the process (the pain could be nothing more than a sense of loss; sense of longing, the weight of conscience, even fire, etc. - the point is that this “pain” is undefined and its explanation is theologoumena which cannot be used as a basis for separation) ; (c) That the suffrages/works of the living, especially the Holy Sacrifice, can be offered up to aid those in this state. That’s it. Period.

(4) indulgences
There are only two main points to this dogma: (1) that there are temporal consequences due to actual sin according to the Justice of God; (2) that the Church by the power of the keys has the power to remit these temporal consequences (not by cancelling them, but by acknowledging and applying the merit of other acts) I can’t quite understand the objection, at least from an Oriental perspective. There is definitely a field of Latin theologoumena on this matter that should be distinguished from the dogma. Maybe we can start a new thread on the issue?

(5) prohibition of non-abortive methods of birth control
As I understand it, there are some EO jurisdictions that are just as strict as the Catholic Church on the matter. I don’t believe the difference is the prohibition itself, but the idea that the prohibition is universal. I’ve also come to realize that the EO are divided on this matter - some believe it is a matter of oikonomia, while others believe it is simply normative. I think the CC can somehow accept the former, but never the latter position (though it appears the latter position is more popular).

(6) requirement of an annulment before a divorced person is allowed to remarry.
In the OO, annulments are also performed, which allows a person to remarry (not as much - by a long shot - as the Latins do it). Are you intending to say that you reject annulments altogether?

(7) Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
The Catholic Church does not accept everything that St. Augustine taught on the matter. On this issue, I believe EO have to be more discerning in their criticism of Western theology, and properly distinguish between Catholic Augustinian soteriology and Protestant Augustinian soteriology.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[SyroMalankara]

Just to clarify, I mentioned the “theology of Icons” because the EO/EC(Byzatine) has more developed theology of Icons from their historical use and practice than either the RCs, ECs(non-Byzantine), or OO.

 

[mardukm]

To be fully Orthodox, one has to let go of misconceptions about Catholicism, for a misconception is not Truth, no matter how strongly one believes in that misconception.

OOPS! That came off weird when I reread it after I posted it. Sorry, folks. I did not mean to say that one is not fully Orthodox if one has misconceptions about Catholicism. I only meant that Orthodoxy is not defined by the misconceptions some might have of others, but rather by the Truth that it possesses in and of itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Just to clarify, I mentioned the “theology of Icons” because the EO/EC(Byzatine) has more developed theology of Icons from their historical use and practice than either the RCs, ECs(non-Byzantine), or OO.

Thanks for the explanation, but I also think there is a grain of truth to the misunderstanding of your statement – I’ve certainly encountered EO on the I-net who advertise the distinction as another supposedly insurmountable difference between Latins and Easterns that is cause for separation. Admittedly, that’s surely not official EO teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Thank you for expressing your pov. I do appreciate the distinction that must be made in common parlance so people will not be deceived, on the one hand, or be led into indifferentism, on the other. For example, I’ve met non-Latin Catholics on the I-net (though none in real life, actually) who really do not like the commemoration made during Liturgy of the Pope in non-Patriarchal liturgies. I always defend it for the same reason you proffer on this matter - because in the absence of any difference between Eastern/Oriental Catholic liturgies and those of our Orthodox brethren, visitors need to be made truthfully aware whether they are attending a church in the Catholic communion, or one in the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox communion.

However, I do not believe claiming to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is deceptive, for the simple fact that being “in communion with Rome” is always attached to the identification, as distinct from simply claiming to be “Orthodox.” I do not agree that one cannot be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” – unless one simultaneously admits that the early Church fathers were not Orthodox for being in communion with Rome.

In any case, my own journey to Catholicism did not consist of rejecting my Coptic Orthodox beliefs, but rather consisted of rejecting the commonly held misconceptions about Catholic doctrine. In fact, I actually still accept the idea behind the misconceptions, except that I now know better not to apply them to the Catholic teaching. For example, when I was growing up in the COC, I was taught that the IC teaches that Mary did not have a natural human conception, and was thus heretical. But I learned that this idea - that Mary did not have a natural human conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah - was actually condemned by a Pope in the 17th century (Pope Alexander VII IIRC). So I certainly still do reject the idea that Mary did not have a natural human conception, as all Copts do. But I now know for a fact that this is not what the IC teaches.

Another example: growing up in the COC, I was taught that “papal” infallibility meant that only one man has infallibility. Well, I still DO adhere to the COC belief that rejects the idea that only one man has infallibility. However, I accept the dogma of “papal” infallibility because I know for a fact that such a notion (that only one man has infallibility) is not what the dogma actually claims to teach.

The examples can be multiplied. To repeat, I have rejected nothing of my Coptic Orthodox fFaith. I translated (not converted) to the Catholic communion only because I rejected my prior (and rather strong) misconceptions of the Catholic Faith. I do not believe the essence of Orthodoxy consists of what is NOT Catholic, but rather its essence consists of Truth, pure and undefiled. To be fully Orthodox, one has to let go of misconceptions about Catholicism, for a misconception is not Truth, no matter how strongly one believes in that misconception.

There are actual differences, of course, and they do still keep us divided. Of the ones you enumerated, I think the hardest to overcome are actually the moral issues.

CONT’d

A few comments:

In Antiochian and Greek Orthodox practice a Priest only commemorates his own Bishop during the Divine Liturgy. My Bishop commemorates the Patriarch of Antioch.

I know of no Christian group that does not teach that Our Lady was conceived the way that all of us were. However, the real issue concerning the Immaculate Conception is not really the conception of The Theotokos but the definition of original or ancetral sin. The West, both Catholic and Protestant teaches the Augustinian doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt. Luther and Calvin taught that we are totally deprived and incapable of doing good before we are justified and Baptized. I am not exactly sure what Catholics believe but think that they believe that we at least inherit guilt and corruption. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church which was not influenced by Augustine teaches that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin which is mortality and the corruption that comes with it, but that we are only guilty of our own sins. Thus since we believe that Our Lady died before she the assumption we believe that Mary was born in ancestral sin. Indeed, to our understanding of salvation it is essential that Mary be born in ancestral sin, because Christ assumed ancestral sin when he was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. As St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, that which is not assumed is not healed. Therefore since we consider the entire live of Christ as redemptive it is important that He assume all that we are including being born in ancestral sin. Besides, Christ died on the Cross, showing that he assumed the consequences of our sins.
However, this is only a part of the discussion because the doctrine of the Immaculate conception embodies the principle that God prepared the Mary by His grace to become the Mother of God. On that we agree with our Catholic brothers and sister. We just express the same concept differently. Eastern Orthodox celebrate this with the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos in the Temple on November 21. We believe that Joachim and Anna brought Mary to the Temple when she was a young girl. The High Priest met them and took her into the Holy of Holies and she spent several years in the Temple being prepared by God’s grace to become the Mother of God. Therefore, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on the principle that God prepared Mary to become the Birthgiver of God by His grace, so our doctrines are not as different as they seem at first glance.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

I’m not sure I understand. As the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser asserted, the Ecumenical Council will always be the norm for promulgating the most solemn doctrinal decrees (i.e. dogmas) of the Church. I don’t know why you would think there is anything to “return to” as if Pastor Aeternus somehow cancelled the existence or utility of an Ecumenical Council.

I am afraid I am only intermittently involved in this thread. Could you please direct me to the posts that claim that the bishops only advise the Pope on a matter of doctrine, and that he can veto the bishops? Whoever stated that was simply wrong.

There are only two possible scenarios to consider here:
(1) One portion of the bishops is orthodox, and another portion heterodox. Whoever the Pope sides with is the orthodox group. In this instance, the Pope is actually making a judgment based on their teaching. Is that mere “advice?”

(2) All bishops are heterodox, and the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left. All the bishops advise the Pope on the matter, and the Pope decides to go against all their “advice” because they are all heterodox.

Scenario #2 cannot happen - it is simply impossible - as explained in the Petrine views thread, because there can never come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. Only scenario (1) is possible, and the Pope is constrained by Divine Law to make a decision in communion with those other orthodox bishops.

As far as an Ecumenical Council goes, the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser affirmed that all the bishops sit in judgment WITH the Pope, not that the Pope sits in judgment over all the other bishops. Even the old Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that in an Ecumenical Council, the ENTIRE college is infallible, not merely the Pope, so there is no way that it is all on the Pope’s say-so.

What the Catholic Church does affirm is that the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) is the only bishop in the college (whether dispersed or in the formal setting of an Ecumenical Council) whose consent is absolutely necessary. If bishop X from New York does not agree, that does not affect the validity of the doctrinal decrees of the council. But if the bishop of Rome, as head bishop, does not agree, then it does indeed affect the validity of those doctrinal decrees.

But the source of the misunderstanding might be the strange idea that the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council (or, alternately, in the whole world). Assuming he was the only orthodox bishop in an Ecumenical Council, then and only then would there be such a thing as a “veto power.” However, such a scenario is simply impossible, so I don’t know where this idea of a “veto power” comes from. If a Pope does not consent, it is only because there are OTHER bishops as well who do not consent. It is impossible that the doctrinal decision of the Pope is the ONLY decision that matters, since there will always be other orthodox bishops along with him. That being so, the Pope is constrained by divine law to make a decision in communion with those orthodox bishops.

Humbly,
Marduk

I have to agree as it is the way I have always understaood it. I would like to point out and correct me if I am wrong, but does not Orthodox mean right teaching and Catholic mean universal? I ask as it seems to me that from some of the earlier posts on this thread there is disagreement between those terms and it just seems to that if an Eastern Catholic says Orthodox in communion with Rome that their beliefs as they believe are orthodox as in right teaching so far they are concerned?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have to agree as it is the way I have always understaood it. I would like to point out and correct me if I am wrong, but does not Orthodox mean right teaching and Catholic mean universal? I ask as it seems to me that from some of the earlier posts on this thread there is disagreement between those terms and it just seems to that if an Eastern Catholic says Orthodox in communion with Rome that their beliefs as they believe are orthodox as in right teaching so far they are concerned?

Except to Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox means our Church or if it is qualified with the word Oriental it means the non-Chalcedon Churches. However orthodox means traditional Christian right teaching. Actually the word literally means Right Praise or Glory because Eastern Orthodox believe that we express our beliefs through our worship.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I have to agree as it is the way I have always understaood it. I would like to point out and correct me if I am wrong, but does not Orthodox mean right teaching and Catholic mean universal? I ask as it seems to me that from some of the earlier posts on this thread there is disagreement between those terms and it just seems to that if an Eastern Catholic says Orthodox in communion with Rome that their beliefs as they believe are orthodox as in right teaching so far they are concerned?

Before going further down this path, I think you should read (and post on if you’re so inclined) some of the many threads relating to capitalization of words like “Orthodox” vs. “orthodox”, “Catholic” vs. “catholic”, “evangelical” vs. “Evangelical”, “episcopal” vs. “Episcopal”, “Apostolic” vs. “apostolic” and any others I missed.

 

[spina1953]

Before going further down this path, I think you should read (and post on if you’re so inclined) some of the many threads relating to capitalization of words like “Orthodox” vs. “orthodox”, “Catholic” vs. “catholic”, “evangelical” vs. “Evangelical”, “episcopal” vs. “Episcopal”, “Apostolic” vs. “apostolic” and any others I missed.

I wqas only speaking of this thread not of other threads( topics)

 

[Peter_J]

I was only speaking of this thread not of other threads( topics)

That’s why I told you about the other threads.

 

[SyroMalankara]

In Antiochian and Greek Orthodox practice a Priest only commemorates his own Bishop during the Divine Liturgy. My Bishop commemorates the Patriarch of Antioch.

Fr. John, that is the usage of your particular recension of the imported Greek Rite of Constantinople in Antioch. This is not any universal practice, as it varies by Churches within the EO, as well as within the various Churches themselves. Other Churches have different practices, including commemoration of the highest ranking hierarch in the Church.

 

[spina1953]

That’s why I told you about the other threads.

I have been following some of the other threads that discuss similar topic’s but thanks for the advice.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I wqas only speaking of this thread not of other threads( topics)

My point is that the Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox. Calling themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome creates the false impression that they are part of our Church when they are not. You cannot be Orthodox if you have left the Orthodox Church to join the Catholic Church, because by entering into Communion with Rome, the Eastern Catholics have left the Orthodox Church and joined the Catholic Church. This is the single most divisive issue causing tension between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

Fr. John