Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with your statement! It seems to me that every Church in union with Rome are not of the Roman Rite. It has been my understanding based on what I had read that there are now at least 33 Rites within the Cathilc Church. That being said, it seems to me the different Rites only add much to the Catholic faith. To me if a Church is in union with Rome then they are one together with their Rite. That does not mean that they have to somehow use the Latin Rite. East, West, North, or South if a Church is in union with Rome together with their Rite, they are Catholic’s even if they call themselves Orthodox in their own Churches. I think Orthodox is a meaning they understand while some of us might not have the same understanding as they do, I accept it as whether Orthodx in union with Rome or Catholic in union with Rome they are intitled to call themselves what they like whether or not anyone else agrees with them or not
I disagree. We have a right to the use of the name of our Church, which is Orthodox. It is not honest for a Church that is not in Communion with the Orthodox Church to portray themselves as Orthodox. Because we are Orthodox, we get to define what it means to be Orthodox and what an Orthodox Church believes. Catholics get to define what a Catholic is and what Catholics believe. Our Western Rite Churches do not identify themselves as Catholics. They identify themselves as Western Rite Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church should respect the sensibilities of Orthodox Christians. Just as I have tried to respect the sensibilities of Eastern Catholics by not calling them Uniates because I am told that they are offended by that title. Why, I do not know, because it comes from the Union of Brest and that is what they are called in all my books on Russian history.

Fr. John
 
I disagree. We have a right to the use of the name of our Church, which is Orthodox. It is not honest for a Church that is not in Communion with the Orthodox Church to portray themselves as Orthodox. Because we are Orthodox, we get to define what it means to be Orthodox and what an Orthodox Church believes. Catholics get to define what a Catholic is and what Catholics believe. Our Western Rite Churches do not identify themselves as Catholics. They identify themselves as Western Rite Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church should respect the sensibilities of Orthodox Christians. Just as I have tried to respect the sensibilities of Eastern Catholics by not calling them Uniates because I am told that they are offended by that title. Why, I do not know, because it comes from the Union of Brest and that is what they are called in all my books on Russian history.

Fr. John
You need to stop insisting on a Catholic forum that we need to change our name as used in our liturgical books because it offends you. It is my honest opinion that I am Orthodox. Out of respect for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I use a lowercase “o” for what I consider myself. You keep insisting that I am heterodox (ie a heretic) which is why I come forward as being orthodox (with a little “o”).

It is against the rules of the forum to call us Uniates or heretics:
“Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.”
 
Father, it has been made known to you many times that we are not Roman Catholics. Regardless, you could act politely in this matter even if you think us to be Roman Catholics. As someone who has been part of joint dialogues in the past, surely you understand this concept. If you wish, call us “those in Communion with Rome” but please stop using that pejorative term (Roman Catholic) to refer to us. 🙂
Not so much as a defense of Father John Morris’ terminology (as he is perfectly able to post such himself, if he wants to), but a reminder of sorts, it bears repeating that there is an ecclesiastical difference built into the Roman communion itself that has no analogue in the Orthodox Church that can explain the confusion in terms (in the sense that it can be confusing for Orthodox to understand what they should and shouldn’t call people in your communion). As you well know, having been Orthodox once yourself, there is traditionally no concept of a difference between “Eastern” and “Western” Orthodox that would necessitate different canonical enrollments for those who are attracted to a given tradition, in the sense that we have many people on this board who who were baptized as infants into the Latin/Western church but later canonically ‘switched’ to one of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic churches. I am Coptic Orthodox by baptism, but if I were to begin to attend an Armenian Orthodox Church for some reason, there would be no circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me to petition to be “formally enrolled” or whatever in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Why? Because I’m already a part of that Church by virtue of my participation in it, including receiving all the sacraments I could also receive in the Coptic Orthodox Church into which I was baptized or any other Church within our communion. I know the same is true in some ways in the Roman Catholic communion (i.e., a Roman Catholic can receive in any church in communion with Rome, regardless of its particulars), but the crucial difference is that there is no canonical transfer of enrollment or whatever you guys call it whereby I could even conceivably go from being Coptic to being Armenian. It is unnecessary, not allowed, and frankly weird. We are all one Church and it doesn’t matter that I’m from over here and these other people are from wherever they’re from. I will be Coptic until the day I die (even that day comes when I’m communing in a different OO jurisdiction), but I will be Orthodox (just as you will be Catholic) by virtue of the fact that I share the same faith regardless of form.

So this difference creates a situation in which there are very self-consciously “Eastern” or “Oriental” Catholics on the one (or two) hand, and Latins on the other, and when we as outsiders look at what unites them it is ecclesiastical submission to the Pope of Rome.
The very fact that you would consider being identified as Roman Catholic to be an insult speaks to the fact that you have your own theologies and such that need to be respected and that being associated with Rome in that way does not do so. So it is an awkward situation in that we apparently cannot state plainly what makes you Catholic and not Orthodox (or something else) without offending you, yet what else is there to call you? I am fine with “Eastern Catholic” as a courtesy, but given the Orthodox view that you are who you are in communion with, combined with the unique ecclesiology of the Roman communion that places the defining feature of your eccelsiastical identities entirely in a Roman context (i.e., you are Catholic by virtue of your relation to Rome, not Rome’s relation to you), it seems a bit like we are having to pretend with you that you are something that you really are not. And that feels weird and, well…kinda wrong.

As a counterpoint, you have perhaps noticed how before I decided it was better for both of us that I put Fr. John Morris on my ignore list, I had no trouble confronting him on what I believe to be his wrong assessments of the Oriental Orthodox communion of which I am a part, as he had presumably no trouble writing those assessments. Say what you will about OO-EO relations, but this is preferable to me than another situation in which he would have to play lip service to the Orthodoxy he clearly does not believe that the OO possess. This is what happens when you have two who are serious about ecclesiology, Christology, etc. I’m not saying this to be mean or insinuate that Eastern Catholics either has a whole or as individuals are not serious about the same, only to point out that for the Orthodox (no matter who you believe that is), offense does not get in the way of the truth, even if others may find it offensive. So while no offense is ever intended (I assume), sometimes it happens if there’s no other way to make the same point in a softer fashion.
 
Not so much as a defense of Father John Morris’ terminology (as he is perfectly able to post such himself, if he wants to), but a reminder of sorts, it bears repeating that there is an ecclesiastical difference built into the Roman communion itself that has no analogue in the Orthodox Church that can explain the confusion in terms (in the sense that it can be confusing for Orthodox to understand what they should and shouldn’t call people in your communion). As you well know, having been Orthodox once yourself, there is traditionally no concept of a difference between “Eastern” and “Western” Orthodox that would necessitate different canonical enrollments for those who are attracted to a given tradition, in the sense that we have many people on this board who who were baptized as infants into the Latin/Western church but later canonically ‘switched’ to one of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic churches. I am Coptic Orthodox by baptism, but if I were to begin to attend an Armenian Orthodox Church for some reason, there would be no circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me to petition to be “formally enrolled” or whatever in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Why? Because I’m already a part of that Church by virtue of my participation in it, including receiving all the sacraments I could also receive in the Coptic Orthodox Church into which I was baptized or any other Church within our communion. I know the same is true in some ways in the Roman Catholic communion (i.e., a Roman Catholic can receive in any church in communion with Rome, regardless of its particulars), but the crucial difference is that there is no canonical transfer of enrollment or whatever you guys call it whereby I could even conceivably go from being Coptic to being Armenian. It is unnecessary, not allowed, and frankly weird. We are all one Church and it doesn’t matter that I’m from over here and these other people are from wherever they’re from. I will be Coptic until the day I die (even that day comes when I’m communing in a different OO jurisdiction), but I will be Orthodox (just as you will be Catholic) by virtue of the fact that I share the same faith regardless of form.

So this difference creates a situation in which there are very self-consciously “Eastern” or “Oriental” Catholics on the one (or two) hand, and Latins on the other, and when we as outsiders look at what unites them it is ecclesiastical submission to the Pope of Rome.
The very fact that you would consider being identified as Roman Catholic to be an insult speaks to the fact that you have your own theologies and such that need to be respected and that being associated with Rome in that way does not do so. So it is an awkward situation in that we apparently cannot state plainly what makes you Catholic and not Orthodox (or something else) without offending you, yet what else is there to call you? I am fine with “Eastern Catholic” as a courtesy, but given the Orthodox view that you are who you are in communion with, combined with the unique ecclesiology of the Roman communion that places the defining feature of your eccelsiastical identities entirely in a Roman context (i.e., you are Catholic by virtue of your relation to Rome, not Rome’s relation to you), it seems a bit like we are having to pretend with you that you are something that you really are not. And that feels weird and, well…kinda wrong.

As a counterpoint, you have perhaps noticed how before I decided it was better for both of us that I put Fr. John Morris on my ignore list, I had no trouble confronting him on what I believe to be his wrong assessments of the Oriental Orthodox communion of which I am a part, as he had presumably no trouble writing those assessments. Say what you will about OO-EO relations, but this is preferable to me than another situation in which he would have to play lip service to the Orthodoxy he clearly does not believe that the OO possess. This is what happens when you have two who are serious about ecclesiology, Christology, etc. I’m not saying this to be mean or insinuate that Eastern Catholics either has a whole or as individuals are not serious about the same, only to point out that for the Orthodox (no matter who you believe that is), offense does not get in the way of the truth, even if others may find it offensive. So while no offense is ever intended (I assume), sometimes it happens if there’s no other way to make the same point in a softer fashion.
I understand and agree with what you are saying.

Honestly, I do not take offense at being called Roman Catholic out of ignorance. Father has been corrected multiple times about the correct terms and yet he insists on calling us Roman Catholic because, as he describes it (and I know that the Orthodox tend to view us this way) we are Roman Catholics who do Eastern stuff. I do not take offense with this opinion of us but we should not be stubbornly called Roman Catholic. One does not have to constantly voice one’s negative view of us by deliberately using what one knows is the incorrect term for us. 🙂
 
You need to stop insisting on a Catholic forum that we need to change our name as used in our liturgical books because it offends you. It is my honest opinion that I am Orthodox. Out of respect for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I use a lowercase “o” for what I consider myself. You keep insisting that I am heterodox (ie a heretic) which is why I come forward as being orthodox (with a little “o”).

It is against the rules of the forum to call us Uniates or heretics:
“Knowing the offense taken by many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics who post here, and knowing the historical context for their concern, using the term uniate as a generic descriptor for Catholics of the Eastern and Oriental Churches who are in union with Rome is by nature confrontational and uncharitable and as such is not allowed. Likewise, the use of the terms schismatic or heretic may not be used as generic descriptors for any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches, whether Catholic or Orthodox.”
Read any book written by a professional historian on Russian history and you will find that they use the term Uniate to describe Eastern Catholics. Although, I do not understand why. It is simply a reference to the Union of Brest that founded the Eastern Catholic Churches in areas formerly ruled by Kievian Rus. I have avoided this term because I know that Eastern Catholics find it offensive. However, Catholics should avoid using terms to describe themselves that offend us.
I have never called you or any other Eastern Catholic as heterodox or heretical. If you want to have dialogue with Orthodox Christians, you have to listen to our concerns. This particular issue is one major concern of Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John
 
Father, it has been made known to you many times that we are not Roman Catholics. Regardless, you could act politely in this matter even if you think us to be Roman Catholics. As someone who has been part of joint dialogues in the past, surely you understand this concept. If you wish, call us “those in Communion with Rome” but please stop using that pejorative term (Roman Catholic) to refer to us. 🙂
What is the difference between calling someone in communion with Rome and calling them Roman Catholic? How is Roman Catholic a pejorative term? Your argument does not make any sense. Your Bishop is in Communion with Rome is he not? Does that not mean that he is united with Rome? By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome who accept the authority of the Roman Pope. The Roman Catholic Church has many different Rites. Not all Roman Catholics follow the Latin Rite. I am not using the term as an insult.

Fr. John
 
I am Coptic Orthodox by baptism, but if I were to begin to attend an Armenian Orthodox Church for some reason, there would be no circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me to petition to be “formally enrolled” or whatever in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Why? Because I’m already a part of that Church by virtue of my participation in it, including receiving all the sacraments I could also receive in the Coptic Orthodox Church into which I was baptized or any other Church within our communion.
Just an idle but serious question: say you decided that you felt called to Holy Orders but in the Armenian Church. What would you do? Just go to the Armenian bishop and it’s all honky-dory? :confused:
I know the same is true in some ways in the Roman Catholic communion (i.e., a Roman Catholic can receive in any church in communion with Rome, regardless of its particulars), but the crucial difference is that there is no canonical transfer of enrollment or whatever you guys call it whereby I could even conceivably go from being Coptic to being Armenian.
It’s no secret in these parts that I’m not exactly a cheerleader for Rome and its CCEO etc, but to be fair, I think the canonical requirements for “transfer” are necessary. The only reason I say that is because of Rome itself. Were it not for legal protection, the Latin Church would swallow all of us whole, if only because of its size and ubiquity. You know, the “elephant in the room” thing.
So this difference creates a situation in which there are very self-consciously “Eastern” or “Oriental” Catholics on the one (or two) hand, and Latins on the other, and when we as outsiders look at what unites them it is ecclesiastical submission to the Pope of Rome.
The very fact that you would consider being identified as Roman Catholic to be an insult speaks to the fact that you have your own theologies and such that need to be respected and that being associated with Rome in that way does not do so.
FWLIW, I bristle at the thought of being called “Roman Catholic” where on this (or any other) forum or in real life. More than one argument has ensued because of that. While I do appreciate the Latin Usus Antiquior (I will not even consider the other form for a long list of reasons), I am not and never will be a Roman Catholic. I wish I could say the same for most other Maronites, but … yeah I know …wishful thinking and of course I digress … :eek: 😉
 
Perhaps you could use the same form that you use for autonomous churches. In post #180 you referred to the " Carpatho Russian Archdiocese under Constantinople". I note that you did not refer to them simply as “Greek Orthodox”.
When people ask what kind of Priest I am, I frequently tell the that I am Greek Orthodox, because Greek Orthodox is used as a generic term for all Eastern Orthodox with roots in the Middle East including non-Greeks. However, I have not meant to insult or offend anyone. I will be more careful in the future, but ask that you also consider the sensibilities of Eastern Orthodox and recognize that we find it offensive when an Eastern Catholic calls himself an Orthodox in Communion with Rome, because you cannot be both Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you are in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. If you are not, you are not Orthodox.
There are many points of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome over this issue. It is by far the most explosive problem between Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism.
Someone wrote that Orthodox stole Eastern Catholic Churches after the 2nd World War, but from an Orthodox point of view the Eastern Catholics stole these Churches from the Orthodox Church after the Union of Brest.

Fr. John
 
Just an idle but serious question: say you decided that you felt called to Holy Orders but in the Armenian Church. What would you do? Just go to the Armenian bishop and it’s all honky-dory? :confused:

It’s no secret in these parts that I’m not exactly a cheerleader for Roman and its CCEO etc, but to be fair, I think the canonical requirements for “transfer” are necessary. The only reason I say that is because of Rome itself. Were it not for legal protection, the Latin Church would swallow all of us whole, if only because of its size and ubiquity. You know, the “elephant in the room” thing.

FWLIW, I bristle at the thought of being called “Roman Catholic” where on this (or any other) forum or in real life. More than one argument has ensued because of that. While I do appreciate the Latin Usus Antiquior (I will not even consider the other form for a long list of reasons), I am not and never will be a Roman Catholic. I wish I could say the same for most other Maronites, but … yeah I know …wishful thinking and of course I digress … :eek: 😉
The sign outside of the Maronite Church near Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology reads, “Our Lady of the Cedars of Lebanon Maronite Roman Catholic Church,” or at least it did 34 years ago when I was in seminary.

Fr. John
 
The sign outside of the Maronite Church near Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology reads, “Our Lady of the Cedars of Lebanon Maronite Roman Catholic Church,” or at least it did 34 years ago when I was in seminary.
I’m well aware of that, thank you. Hence why I said [post=11388357]“I wish I could say the same for most other Maronites”[/post] and I repeat that now.
 
And so would I. I ask very little:

  1. *]Let’s work toward a common understanding of history that faces facts and avoids polemical exaggeration and made-up-stuff.
    *]A simple statement from the MP that, even as times were tough for all during the communist era, apologizes for any role that Orthodox Christians might have played in persecution of GCs.
    *]An acknowledgement that the re-union synods were at best egregiously uncanonical and at worst pure fiction.
    *]A clear acknowledgement of the right of GCCs to exist and form parishes wherever they GCs may be. Where ever.

    And frankly, I’d settle for just the last item.

  1. I cannot speak for Moscow for obvious reasons, but I have never questioned the right of the Greek Catholic Churches to exist. I have tried to avoid terms that are offensive to Eastern Catholics. I think that Eastern Catholics should extend to us the same courtesy and recognize that it offends Orthodox for an Eastern Catholic Church to call itself Orthodox in Communion with Rome. I will try my best not to offend Eastern Catholics, I only ask the same consideration from Eastern Catholics.
    I merely pointed out that the term Uniate is normally used by secular historians to describe Eastern Catholics and is no meant by them to be an insult. It is merely a reference to the origins of these Churches through various unions with Rome such as the Union of Brest or the Union of Uzgorod.

    Fr. John
 
Just an idle but serious question: say you decided that you felt called to Holy Orders but in the Armenian Church. What would you do? Just go to the Armenian bishop and it’s all honky-dory? :confused:
Haha. I see what you are getting at here, and I must be more careful with my words in the future. 🙂 As a general principle, of course, it should be noted that not everyone who feels called to the priesthood (or monasticism, etc.) actually becomes a priest (etc.), so in that way I wouldn’t assume that things would be “honky-dory” in any jurisdiction, even in the Coptic in which I live. And while I do not know of any historical or current example of such a thing happening on the parish or diocesan level, I do know that the Coptic Orthodox Church has in the relatively recent past (c. 10th century) been headed by ethnically Syriac Popes, not Copts, and that their background did not hinder their ability to govern the Church. So I would have to guess that if a man were properly disposed toward actually serving the liturgy in a given church (i.e., knew its structure and could faithfully serve it), and willing to rise up the ranks without expecting preferential treatment or whatever, I could conceivably serve in the Armenian Orthodox Church as a priest. It would be unusual, and I’m not entirely sure the steps required to go about it (I don’t think I’m the priestly type, so I’ve never even asked this about my own particular jurisdiction), but as we are one Church I don’t think I would stopped on account of being a “Copt”. There was a Syriac person (self-identifying as “Assyrian”, despite being named Bishoy) serving as a deacon at the Church of St. Mark in Phoenix/Scottsdale, where I was baptized, and of course there are already convert priests who are not Copts serving in the Church here in America, such as Fr. Bishoy Brownfield (not sure his exact parish, but I think he’s in the L.A. Diocese).

I have a feeling this is an unsatisfactory answer, but without modern examples to point to, I don’t know how this would handled. Chances are when the initial shock and confusion wore off, they’d contact my bishop and priest and if there was a will, they’d find a way. My point was more that we don’t have this idea of canonical transfer as the Roman communion appears to whereby I could actually go from being Coptic Orthodox to being Armenian Orthodox. Even if I were serving the Armenians in Holy Etchmiadzin they’d probably still look at me, befuddled, as “the convert Coptic priest”. Maybe Fr. Shenoudian has a nice ring to it…I dunno…
It’s no secret in these parts that I’m not exactly a cheerleader for Rome and its CCEO etc, but to be fair, I think the canonical requirements for “transfer” are necessary. The only reason I say that is because of Rome itself. Were it not for legal protection, the Latin Church would swallow all of us whole, if only because of its size and ubiquity. You know, the “elephant in the room” thing.
Sure. I’m not disputing their necessity, I’m just saying that we don’t have anything similar. Because our ecclesiology is different, we don’t worry about one church being swallowed by another.
FWLIW, I bristle at the thought of being called “Roman Catholic” where on this (or any other) forum or in real life. More than one argument has ensued because of that. While I do appreciate the Latin Usus Antiquior (I will not even consider the other form for a long list of reasons), I am not and never will be a Roman Catholic. I wish I could say the same for most other Maronites, but … yeah I know …wishful thinking and of course I digress … :eek: 😉
Yes, some Maronites are very confused. We have our own ignorance to deal with in the COC, I suppose. After liturgy yesterday abouna was talking about the differences between the OO, the EO, and the Latins (as we had celebrated that day the feast of the rediscovery of the head of St. Mark, which entailed getting into the story of his relics, the Byzantines, and the Venitians/Latins), and someone asked if the Coptic Catholics recognize HH Pope Tawadros! When abouna said no, he said “So they’re not Copts, then? They’re like the Greeks?”

I felt bad for abouna, in a way. Hey, at least our ignorance is FOB-ishly adorable. Hahaha. Yes, Birginiyya, there is Christianity in Egypt outside of the OO and the EO… :rolleyes:
 
Maybe I should be brutally honest about the EO Church of Antioch. :rolleyes:

Seraphim Tanas was consecrated as Cyril VI in the patriarchal cathedral of Damascus on October 1, 1724. The Antipatriarch, Sylvester, was illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (outside of Antiochian jurisdiction) on October 8, 1724. Patriarch Cyril VI decided, along with his followers, to resume communion with Rome.

Perhaps the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has universal jurisdiction as an eastern pope of New Rome:

“Eastern Pope” Jeremias III of Constantinople, using his universal jurisdiction as the “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”, legally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch and excommunicated him. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch using his universal jurisdiction as “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul on October 8, 1724. And, using his universal jurisdiction, placed him in Antioch.

There is only one issue with this story. The pope only has the honor of being first amongst equals according to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I will tell the story according to my understanding of “first amongst equals”:

Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople illegally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch even though Jeremias III had no jurisdiction over Antioch. Jeremias illegally appointedSylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch even though that See was legally held by Cyril VI. Jeremias illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (why not in Antioch?) and placed him illegally into the territory of Antioch on October 8, 1724.
That is not quite how we see the events of 1724. When Cyril VI entered into Communion with Rome, he left the Eastern Orthodox Church and lost his claim to be the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Under these extraordinary circumstances, the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised economy to save the Orthodox Church of Antioch. His action was not usual, but someone had to rescue of the Eastern Orthodox in the Patriarchate of Antioch from a union with Rome that they did not want. The fact that most people in the Patriarchate of Antioch accepted Patriarch Sylvester shows that most Antiochian Orthodox did not want to become Eastern Catholics. Today, we are much larger than the Melkite Church.

Fr. John
 
Read any book written by a professional historian on Russian history and you will find that they use the term Uniate to describe Eastern Catholics. Although, I do not understand why. It is simply a reference to the Union of Brest that founded the Eastern Catholic Churches in areas formerly ruled by Kievian Rus. I have avoided this term because I know that Eastern Catholics find it offensive. However, Catholics should avoid using terms to describe themselves that offend us.
I have never called you or any other Eastern Catholic as heterodox or heretical. If you want to have dialogue with Orthodox Christians, you have to listen to our concerns. This particular issue is one major concern of Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John
You consider yourself to be Catholic, no? Your liturgical texts call your Church Catholic. My Church’s liturgical texts call us Orthodox.

Someone who is not orthodox is a heretic or schismatic. You cannot tell me that I am not orthodox and pretend that I am not a heretic or schismatic.
 
You consider yourself to be Catholic, no? Your liturgical texts call your Church Catholic. My Church’s liturgical texts call us Orthodox.

Someone who is not orthodox is a heretic or schismatic. You cannot tell me that I am not orthodox and pretend that I am not a heretic or schismatic.
We never portray ourselves as anything but Orthodox. We never claim to be Catholic because in popular English Catholic means Roman Catholic.

I told you that you are not Orthodox with a capital O. I am aware that many people use the term orthodox with a small o to mean that they adhere to traditional Christianity. In that sense the Roman Catholic Church and those in Communion with it are orthodox.
In the future, I will try very hard not to use terms that are offensive to Eastern Catholics. I only ask for the same courtesy in return. Is that not fair. Now let us leave this subject, because the arguments have become repetitive and non productive. I will not call you a Roman Catholic, but will call you and Eastern Catholic. You should respond by calling me Orthodox and calling yourself an Eastern Catholic.

Fr. John
 
Not so much as a defense of Father John Morris’ terminology (as he is perfectly able to post such himself, if he wants to), but a reminder of sorts, it bears repeating that there is an ecclesiastical difference built into the Roman communion itself that has no analogue in the Orthodox Church that can explain the confusion in terms (in the sense that it can be confusing for Orthodox to understand what they should and shouldn’t call people in your communion). As you well know, having been Orthodox once yourself, there is traditionally no concept of a difference between “Eastern” and “Western” Orthodox that would necessitate different canonical enrollments for those who are attracted to a given tradition, in the sense that we have many people on this board who who were baptized as infants into the Latin/Western church but later canonically ‘switched’ to one of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic churches. I am Coptic Orthodox by baptism, but if I were to begin to attend an Armenian Orthodox Church for some reason, there would be no circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me to petition to be “formally enrolled” or whatever in the Armenian Orthodox Church. Why? Because I’m already a part of that Church by virtue of my participation in it, including receiving all the sacraments I could also receive in the Coptic Orthodox Church into which I was baptized or any other Church within our communion. I know the same is true in some ways in the Roman Catholic communion (i.e., a Roman Catholic can receive in any church in communion with Rome, regardless of its particulars), but the crucial difference is that there is no canonical transfer of enrollment or whatever you guys call it whereby I could even conceivably go from being Coptic to being Armenian. It is unnecessary, not allowed, and frankly weird. We are all one Church and it doesn’t matter that I’m from over here and these other people are from wherever they’re from. I will be Coptic until the day I die (even that day comes when I’m communing in a different OO jurisdiction), but I will be Orthodox (just as you will be Catholic) by virtue of the fact that I share the same faith regardless of form.

So this difference creates a situation in which there are very self-consciously “Eastern” or “Oriental” Catholics on the one (or two) hand, and Latins on the other, and when we as outsiders look at what unites them it is ecclesiastical submission to the Pope of Rome.
The very fact that you would consider being identified as Roman Catholic to be an insult speaks to the fact that you have your own theologies and such that need to be respected and that being associated with Rome in that way does not do so. So it is an awkward situation in that we apparently cannot state plainly what makes you Catholic and not Orthodox (or something else) without offending you, yet what else is there to call you? I am fine with “Eastern Catholic” as a courtesy, but given the Orthodox view that you are who you are in communion with, combined with the unique ecclesiology of the Roman communion that places the defining feature of your eccelsiastical identities entirely in a Roman context (i.e., you are Catholic by virtue of your relation to Rome, not Rome’s relation to you), it seems a bit like we are having to pretend with you that you are something that you really are not. And that feels weird and, well…kinda wrong.

As a counterpoint, you have perhaps noticed how before I decided it was better for both of us that I put Fr. John Morris on my ignore list, I had no trouble confronting him on what I believe to be his wrong assessments of the Oriental Orthodox communion of which I am a part, as he had presumably no trouble writing those assessments. Say what you will about OO-EO relations, but this is preferable to me than another situation in which he would have to play lip service to the Orthodoxy he clearly does not believe that the OO possess. This is what happens when you have two who are serious about ecclesiology, Christology, etc. I’m not saying this to be mean or insinuate that Eastern Catholics either has a whole or as individuals are not serious about the same, only to point out that for the Orthodox (no matter who you believe that is), offense does not get in the way of the truth, even if others may find it offensive. So while no offense is ever intended (I assume), sometimes it happens if there’s no other way to make the same point in a softer fashion.
I have never written that Oriental Orthodox are not Orthodox. I have written that I think that our differences are not doctrinal but different interpretations of the history concerning Dioscorus and Chalcedon. I am sorry that you feel that it is necessary to discontinue dialogue with me, because I would like to learn more about the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As I understand it Oriental Orthodox accept the Chrisology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553 made normative in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The 5th Council was necessary to clarify that Chalcedon was meant to be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril. I agree with the Oriental Orthodox that by itself it is possible to interpret Chalcedon in a Nestorian way, because that is what Calvin did. Therefore, please reconsider and let us continue dialogue.

Fr. John
 
Maybe you don’t mean it as an insult calling Eastern Rite Catholic’s Roman Catholic’s, but those Churches uning a different Rite are not Roman Catholic’s simply because the term Roman Catholic as I am, have always considered it to mean the Latin Rite. We are not the Roman Catholic Church but ‘The Catholic Church’ which has many different Rites. As I said Roman Catholic simple means to us that we belong to the Latin Rite of the ‘Catholic Church’ Other Churches with their different Rites are part of the Catholic Church, not of the Roman Catholic Church. I know many people call us Roman Catholic Church to mean all the various Churches in union with Rome and while myself am not offended , there are others who are. I wonder if the Orthodox and Catholic Church ever reunites will we call ourselves Catholic-Orthodox or Orthodox- Catholic? since it appears too me that names are important to some, or one or the other?
 
I have a feeling this is an unsatisfactory answer, but without modern examples to point to, I don’t know how this would handled. Chances are when the initial shock and confusion wore off, they’d contact my bishop and priest and if there was a will, they’d find a way. My point was more that we don’t have this idea of canonical transfer as the Roman communion appears to whereby I could actually go from being Coptic Orthodox to being Armenian Orthodox.
That’s actually what I would expect. Albeit the OO are in communion, still, there are some differences and I wouldn’t expect cross-over on the level of Holy Orders without at least some inter-episcopal contact. But in the end, it really amounts to a “canonical transfer” in all but name. 😉
Even if I were serving the Armenians in Holy Etchmiadzin they’d probably still look at me, befuddled, as “the convert Coptic priest”. Maybe Fr. Shenoudian has a nice ring to it…I dunno…
😃
Sure. I’m not disputing their necessity, I’m just saying that we don’t have anything similar. Because our ecclesiology is different, we don’t worry about one church being swallowed by another.
Sadly, those in union with Rome do have to worry about that. The behemoth knows no bounds. :eek:
Yes, some Maronites are very confused.
Tell me about it. :eek: :mad:
We have our own ignorance to deal with in the COC, I suppose. After liturgy yesterday abouna was talking about the differences between the OO, the EO, and the Latins (as we had celebrated that day the feast of the rediscovery of the head of St. Mark, which entailed getting into the story of his relics, the Byzantines, and the Venitians/Latins), and someone asked if the Coptic Catholics recognize HH Pope Tawadros! When abouna said no, he said “So they’re not Copts, then? They’re like the Greeks?”

I felt bad for abouna, in a way. Hey, at least our ignorance is FOB-ishly adorable. Hahaha. Yes, Birginiyya, there is Christianity in Egypt outside of the OO and the EO… :rolleyes:
Now that’s cute. 😃 And “like the Greeks” eh? More like the Romans I guess, but I digress again … 😉
 
The inheritance of guilt (Latin - culpa) is a distinctly Protestant teaching. The Catholic teaching, according to Trent, is that what is inherited is reatus (that is the actual word used by Trent, not culpa).
Unfortunately, English translators often translate reatus as “guilt.” This has led many (both Catholic and "non-"Catholics) to mistakenly imagine that the Catholic Church teaches that humanity has inherited Adam’s guilt (or blame) (culpa) for his sin.

This is actually exactly what the Catholic Church teaches as well, though English translators have unintentionally portrayed the matter differently by often translating reatus as “guilt.”

On the matter of St. Augustine, the Oriental Orthodox Church also considers him one of its fathers. Like the Catholic Church, the OOC does not accept everything that St. Augustine taught on this topic. Like Latin and Oriental Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox generally use the language of “debt” and “Justice” very commonly when describing Original Sin –
Hello mardukm,
Holy Scripure says: “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6). Now, the Catholic Church baptizes infants who have only the stain of original sin but the Scripture says that God laid upon Jesus the guilt of us all. Therefore, original sin has the character of guilt or fault in every human being.

Further, Psalm 51:7 says “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me.” And St Paul says “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.” (Romans 5:12). “Inasmuch as all sinned,” i.e., as all mankind sinned in Adam for “the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man.” (CCC#404). Therefore, original sin has the character of guilt or fault in every human being.

Further, the Council of Trent stated “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.” (DS 1515). Original sin has the true and proper nature of sin, i.e., guilt or fault and punishment. The latin word “reatus” is properly translated as guilt while “culpa” is properly translated as fault. Strictly speaking, reatus (guilt) is a mean between fault and punishment according to St Thomas Aquinas, although it is sometimes transfered to mean either fault or punishment. The Church more commonly uses culpa (fault) and reatus (guilt) interchangably as can be seen in its doctrine on indulgences “An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned.”

Further, the Council of Trent states that the washing away of original sin in baptism does not just refer to the consequences of original sin and its punishments but it refers to the cleansing of sin also, i.e., to its guilt. "If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12]. (DZS 1512).

Further, the CCC states : "1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.

For the forgiveness of sins . . .

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God."

Now, nobody can be forgiven original sin or any sin unless sin has the character of fault or guilt. Nor can anybody be forgiven the punishment due to sin unless they are first forgiven of the fault or guilt of sin. For punishment follows upon fault or guilt. Every sin has a double consequence, namely, fault or guilt and punishment as the Church’s doctrine on indulgences states.

The CCC#405 says that original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. This does not mean that original sin does not have the character of fault at all. It means that original sin is imputed to us as our own sin (cf DS 1513) not as a sin we personally committed as Adam and Eve did, but in the sense of being the members of the head of the whole human race which is Adam. For the CCC#404 says " The whole human race is in Adam as one body in one man."
St Thomas Aquinas explains it thus:
And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body [for example, a murder which the hand commits], is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.” ( Pt. I-II, Q. 81, Art.1).

Richca
 
That’s actually what I would expect. Albeit the OO are in communion, still, there are some differences and I wouldn’t expect cross-over on the level of Holy Orders without at least some inter-episcopal contact. But in the end, it really amounts to a “canonical transfer” in all but name. 😉
Well, to be fair you asked about a situation that essentially does not happen, so obviously things would be a bit more complicated in that case than they are with a Copt showing up and participating and communing in the Armenian Church, as does happen. It’s much more rare that someone from another church should act in an official capacity in the liturgy as a reader, a deacon, priest, etc, though come to think of it I remember hearing once a story from a Malankara acquaintance who acted as a deacon during an Armenian service (I can’t remember if it was liturgy, vespers, or what) when for some reason nobody else showed up. He said the priest was very kind and read everything in English as much as possible and really walked him through exactly what to do, since this was obviously an ad hoc situation neither of them had foreseen, and of course the Malankaran spoke/read no Armenian, and the Armenian no Malayalam or Syriac. But again, where there’s a will…
Sadly, those in union with Rome do have to worry about that. The behemoth knows no bounds. :eek:
Yes, it’s a regrettable situation.
Now that’s cute. 😃 And “like the Greeks” eh? More like the Romans I guess, but I digress again … 😉
The funny thing about our community here in ABQ specifically is that before we had an organized presence, years ago, the local Copts would commune at the preexisting Greek Orthodox Church. So everyone who has been here since a certain time has intimate exposure to the Greek liturgy and customs. One of them said yesterday over the Agape meal that he really likes the Greeks, and is sad that we are not in communion (of course, this same man was the one who asked me only about a year ago what “Chalcedonian” meant…Lord have mercy), but he stopped attending their liturgy when he realized he was participating without understanding what he was saying. I found that an odd comment to make given some people’s contention (thankfully an extreme minority) that we should jettison Coptic because it is praying without understanding…oh well…a discussion for another thread, certainly…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top