"Orthodox in communion with Rome"? How do Eastern Catholics define themselves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthias

Guest
Over the years of reading Eastern Catholic material and conversing with Eastern Catholics I get the impression there is a very wide spectrum of how they define themselves and see themselves in relation to the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I have run into several Eastern Catholics who say they are exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox (theology, liturgy, etc.) only they “happen” to be in communion with the Pope of the Latin Church. I have heard this expressed to a very literal and extreme degree.

On the other side, I have also heard Orthodox disparagingly refer to Eastern Catholics as strictly theologically Roman/Latin Catholics with a veneer of eastern liturgy to lure Easterners into their churches.

I believe both of these are extreme views that do not truly capture the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Somewhere in the middle I have read Eastern Catholics say the only way to deal with the “problem of uniatism” is to emphasize that they are their own complete Eastern Churches and although they have a special connection to their historical Eastern Orthodox Sister Churches, they have their own history, martyrs, theological development, and etc. And furthermore because they are in full communion with the Universal Catholic Church they more authentically represent Eastern Christianity than even the Eastern Orthodox.

I realize there will is a large diversity of opinion on this. I find the middle ground the most interesting because it seems the most reasonable. What do others think? I am especially interested in the perspective of Eastern Catholics.

For instance Eastern Catholics are not identical with Eastern Orthodox because they accept all 21 Ecumenical Councils, correct? Furthermore Eastern Catholics do not permit divorced persons (without an annulment) to remarry. Another example, Fr. Thomas Loya who has the Eastern Catholic radio program “Light of the East” constantly makes use of St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Another example, a local Eastern Catholic monastery has a relic of St. Francis (a Western saint) and a prominent Orthodox website has an article arguing that St. Francis was in fact a demon possessed man.

The point to me is that as much as there is certainly truth in defining themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” this definition is incomplete and if taken to extremes can lead to error.

I am interested in thoughtful posts, please do not turn this into a flame throwing thread.
 
This can be a tricky question on so many levels, particularly since there are so many elements of Orthodox theological thinking that even the Orthodox themselves don’t agree on. Add to that the fact that not all Eastern Catholic Churches have an Orthodox counterpart (my own Maronite Church for example), and the matter becomes further complicated.

The “Orthodox in communion with Rome” title is one that is typically applied to Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition (Ruthenians, Romanians, Melkites, Ukrainians, etc.). As you pointed out, this title can be taken to extremes. On the one end there are some folks who emphasize the “Orthodox” part of the phrase, almost to the point of deriding their own communion with Rome. I’ve seen it. On the other end there are those who emphasize communion with Rome almost to the point of losing their unique spiritual and theological identity. Again, I’ve seen it.

I think Fr. Robert Taft probably best summed up the solution. Eastern Catholics are called to develop a theology in communion. We are called to be faithful both to our Eastern roots as well as our communion with Rome. It’s a difficult balance. But difficult doesn’t mean impossible.
 
matthias said:
Furthermore Eastern Catholics do not permit divorced persons (without an annulment) to remarry.
Click to expand...
According to Eastern Catholic theology, it’s not the couple, like in Latin Catholic theology, but the priest who confers the sacrament of marriage. Thus, the annulment process is at odds with the sacraments in the Eastern Catholic Churches, though it makes much sense in the Latin Catholic Church.

I mention this as just one of the difficulties that came with the union of some Eastern Churches to the Catholic Church that remain to be resolved, if ever. Therefore, methinks that there’ll always be a certain crisis of identity among the Eastern Catholic Churches and a certain longing for their respective Orthodox Churches of origin.

It’s a very complex and sensitive matter.
 
matthias said:
Over the years of reading Eastern Catholic material and conversing with Eastern Catholics I get the impression there is a very wide spectrum of how they define themselves and see themselves in relation to the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I have run into several Eastern Catholics who say they are exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox (theology, liturgy, etc.) only they “happen” to be in communion with the Pope of the Latin Church. I have heard this expressed to a very literal and extreme degree.

On the other side, I have also heard Orthodox disparagingly refer to Eastern Catholics as strictly theologically Roman/Latin Catholics with a veneer of eastern liturgy to lure Easterners into their churches.

I believe both of these are extreme views that do not truly capture the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Somewhere in the middle I have read Eastern Catholics say the only way to deal with the “problem of uniatism” is to emphasize that they are their own complete Eastern Churches and although they have a special connection to their historical Eastern Orthodox Sister Churches, they have their own history, martyrs, theological development, and etc. And furthermore because they are in full communion with the Universal Catholic Church they more authentically represent Eastern Christianity than even the Eastern Orthodox.

I realize there will is a large diversity of opinion on this. I find the middle ground the most interesting because it seems the most reasonable. What do others think? I am especially interested in the perspective of Eastern Catholics.

For instance Eastern Catholics are not identical with Eastern Orthodox because they accept all 21 Ecumenical Councils, correct? Furthermore Eastern Catholics do not permit divorced persons (without an annulment) to remarry. Another example, Fr. Thomas Loya who has the Eastern Catholic radio program “Light of the East” constantly makes use of St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Another example, a local Eastern Catholic monastery has a relic of St. Francis (a Western saint) and a prominent Orthodox website has an article arguing that St. Francis was in fact a demon possessed man.

The point to me is that as much as there is certainly truth in defining themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” this definition is incomplete and if taken to extremes can lead to error.

I am interested in thoughtful posts, please do not turn this into a flame throwing thread.
Click to expand...
One way to view this is from Eastern canon law
CCEO
jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

“Roman Pontiff”. appears 120 times

See how “Roman Pontiff” happens in canon law. Starting with TITLE III. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
 
Augustine said:
According to Eastern Catholic theology, it’s not the couple, like in Latin Catholic theology, but the priest who confers the sacrament of marriage. Thus, the annulment process is at odds with the sacraments in the Eastern Catholic Churches, though it makes much sense in the Latin Catholic Church.

I mention this as just one of the difficulties that came with the union of some Eastern Churches to the Catholic Church that remain to be resolved, if ever. Therefore, methinks that there’ll always be a certain crisis of identity among the Eastern Catholic Churches and a certain longing for their respective Orthodox Churches of origin.

It’s a very complex and sensitive matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this should not be an issue.

Regardless of who confers the sacrament of marriage, divorce and remarriage is either adultery (without annulment) or it isn’t.

The question from an Eastern point of view should be simply this: Is the Sacrament of Matrimony like the Sacrament of Confession or the Sacrament of Confirmation?

---- Meaning: is there there a state of mind that can invalidate the Sacrament of Matrimony just like lying can invalidate the Sacrament of Confession.

For a confession to be valid, the confessee must be sincere, otherwise the confession is invalid. In Confirmation, the sacrament is valid period, even if the recipient isn’t in a right state of mind.

So, the question is: if someone doesn’t truly mean their vows (in the Eastern Churches or the Latin Church) does the Sacrament of Matrimony take hold?
 
phil19034 said:
The question from an Eastern point of view should be simply this: Is the Sacrament of Matrimony like the Sacrament of Confession or the Sacrament of Confirmation?
---- Meaning: is there there a state of mind that can invalidate the Sacrament of Matrimony just like lying can invalidate the Sacrament of Confession.
Click to expand...
Initial validity aside, I would say there is another way to take that comparison. While confirmation cannot be undone or repeated, the state of grace obtained by confession can be undone by a subsequent mortal sin.

After reading EO theologian John Meyendorff, it appears that even if initially “valid” the EO see the indissolubility of marriage as a moral imperative not an ontological impossibility. This is why they allow divorce and remarriage.

Back to the original question however. The ECs do not permit divorce and remarriage. So do the ECs believe EO have erred in their theology or are they simply accepting a stricter discipline for the sake of communion with Rome? Unfortunately this same controversy is now showing itself with Card. Casper. (a related but side issue to my original question)
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
see above
Click to expand...
Phillip (masterbeadsman), thankyou for your restatement of the question. Your wording was more succinct and clear than my own. Also I’ve read some of your blog in the past and find it helpful and interesting.

I have been reading some Fr. Taft texts and I find him helpful. I however have encountered a lot of the uncomfortably extreme “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and I want to be able to respond to their ?errors? What if anything are they required to say the EO get wrong and the RC+EC get right? For instance are they obligated to accept all 21 Ecumenical Councils? Can they call St. Augustine a heretic? (I have heard ECs do this and frankly I think they are reading Augustine through Calvin and the modern EO)

I realize there is a wide range of legitimate positions but what are the bare minimum that ECs really must accept contrary to EO?
 
matthias said:
Over the years of reading Eastern Catholic material and conversing with Eastern Catholics I get the impression there is a very wide spectrum of how they define themselves and see themselves in relation to the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I have run into several Eastern Catholics who say they are exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox (theology, liturgy, etc.) only they “happen” to be in communion with the Pope of the Latin Church. I have heard this expressed to a very literal and extreme degree.

On the other side, I have also heard Orthodox disparagingly refer to Eastern Catholics as strictly theologically Roman/Latin Catholics with a veneer of eastern liturgy to lure Easterners into their churches.

I believe both of these are extreme views that do not truly capture the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Somewhere in the middle *I have read Eastern Catholics say the only way to deal with the “problem of uniatism” is to emphasize that they are their own complete Eastern Churches and although they have a special connection to their historical Eastern Orthodox Sister Churches, they have their own history, martyrs, theological development, and etc. And furthermore because they are in full communion with the Universal Catholic Church they more authentically represent Eastern Christianity than even the Eastern Orthodox.*.
Click to expand...
To that highlighted point

Just like Newman’s phrase

“to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

it can also be said

to be deep in history is to cease being an Eastern Orthodox
AND
​
To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

To the question of the thread.

From Retired Melkite Bishop John A. Elya.
Code: 
          **[Are we Orthodox united with Rome?](https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome)**

                           [Bishop John](https://melkite.org/category/eparchy/bishop-john)
Jan 10, 2003

Question:
Code: 
  Are we Orthodox united with Rome? Several different people have  written in asking some variation on this most fundament of questions.  Since each question was directed in a slightly different way, Bishop  John has chosen a rather more complete answer.
**
Bishop John’s Answer** “Sometimes I think that the Melkite Catholic Church, as well as other Byzantine Catholic Churches, enjoys the best of two worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We rejoice in the affirmation of the good Pope John XXIII that “what unites us is much greater than what divides us.”
When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.
An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:
The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.
Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)”
 
matthias said:
I have been reading some Fr. Taft texts and I find him helpful. I however have encountered a lot of the uncomfortably extreme “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and I want to be able to respond to their ?errors? What if anything are they required to say the EO get wrong and the RC+EC get right? For instance are they obligated to accept all 21 Ecumenical Councils? Can they call St. Augustine a heretic? (I have heard ECs do this and frankly I think they are reading Augustine through Calvin and the modern EO)

I realize there is a wide range of legitimate positions but what are the bare minimum that ECs really must accept contrary to EO?
Click to expand...
I have honestly never heard any Orthodox person refer to St. Augustine as a heretic. In fact, I’ve been inside Greek Orthodox parish churches that have icons of him in prominent places. The difference, however, is that they venerate him as just another great theologian among a number of great theologians. They recognize that he had his theological problems and they pretty much leave it at that. In the West, on the other hand, Augustine is revered as the Patristic theologian par excellence. Much of Western theology and theological thinking can be thought of us further developments of Augustinian thought.

In terms of the number of Ecumenical Councils, that’s somewhat of an open question. I know Pope Paul VI referred to the 14 post-Schism Councils as “general synods of the West,” and that there were a number of supposedly ecumenical Councils that dealt predominantly with disciplinary issues that the West was facing at the time, but that hadn’t been a problem in the East.

The primary issue is that, at the core, we hold the same Faith. We may look at the Faith from different angles, and thus ask different questions and draw some differently nuanced conclusions based off of the questions we ask. But the core/kerygma that we believe is the same.
 
matthias said:
The ECs do not permit divorce and remarriage. So do the ECs believe EO have erred in their theology or are they simply accepting a stricter discipline for the sake of communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
The EO does not accept divorce, but permits remarriage as a pastoral remedy for the innocent party of the broken marriage. The EC used the same practice, but had to forego it to become uniate.
 
phil19034 said:
So, the question is: if someone doesn’t truly mean their vows (in the Eastern Churches or the Latin Church) does the Sacrament of Matrimony take hold?
Click to expand...
The couple does not have to exchange vows in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
I just wanted to say there are some really thoughtful and informative posts in this thread. This is good reading - thank you!
 
I think that the existence of the eastern rites is a recognition of the legitimacy of the Christian tradition of the Orthodox.
 
poche said:
I think that the existence of the eastern rites is a recognition of the legitimacy of the Christian tradition of the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
They are not Eastern Rites, but Eastern Churches. And the legitimacy of the Orthodox Churches is their adherence to Apostolic Tradition. If Orthodox Churches were not legitimate Churches, Catholics would never be allowed to receive Holy Communion and the other Sacraments from them. Alas, we are, albeit in special circumstances.
 
I am one of those EC who considers herself Orthodox. Why? Well, I was born and raised into a Roman Catholic family, pre-V2. I was not exposed to the new mass upon it’s inception. I attempted to revert but failed because to revert means go back to what was there before. So I searched for my RC church. The Orthodox do not like RC converts. The EC do. So I am EC. But I am Orthodox. Kind of in limbo.

Gee, that kind of doesn’t make sense.

If you think back when there was simply the ONE, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church, it may help you understand my POV. I do not like divisions, but they exist, so I feel like the church, broken.
 
Casilda said:
I am one of those EC who considers herself Orthodox. Why? Well, I was born and raised into a Roman Catholic family, pre-V2. I was not exposed to the new mass upon it’s inception. I attempted to revert but failed because to revert means go back to what was there before. So I searched for my RC church. The Orthodox do not like RC converts. The EC do. So I am EC. But I am Orthodox. Kind of in limbo.

**Gee, that kind of doesn’t make sense.

**
Click to expand...
**

As retired Melkite Bishop John Alya said in a Q andA

**Heading: **When can there be re-union with Constantinople
**
Question:
Code: 
   I am an orthodox Christian and I am wondering if the Byzantine rite  Catholic Church will ever unite under the mother church of  Constantinople. We are so similar in almost everything that it's a shame  for us to be apart, from the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomeow.
Bishop John’s Answer: (all emphasis mine) Thank you for your candid question. Books filling innumerable libraries have been written pro and con your question. I don’t intend to give you a last answer. However, you may consider the following facts: The Holy Scriptures never promised primacy to St. Andrew who is traditionally believed to be the founder of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople. In fact, the See of Constantinople became listed as apostolic See late in history, due to the residence of the Emperor.
Our Lord gave St. Peter the “Keys to the kingdom of heaven …” (Matthew 16:19) He told him: “You are Peter (the Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my Church … etc.” (Matthew 16:18) He previously had changed his name from Simon to Peter.(Mark 3:16) Despite his weakness, Peter was entrusted by the Lord to “strengthen his brothers.” The Lord told him: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat. But I prayed that your own faith may not fail. And, once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:32) ** Among the Apostolic Sees, Rome alone claims to be the model to other churches in falling in no heresy. Peter’s name is always mentioned in the Scriptures at the top of the lists of the Apostles. **(Cf. Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13, I Corinth 15:5-8) Were any of the above prerogatives given to Andrew or to any of the other Apostles?" Can His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew, successor of St. Andrew, claim any of these? I think that the Eastern Catholics, despite their small number and their many limitations, are called to show the other Eastern Christian brothers and sisters the way to unity not “under,” but “with” the Successor of Peter.
Let us pray for the unity of all the followers of Christ, as Our Lord prayed at the Last Supper, “That all may be one.” God bless all the people of good will who are working to make the wish of Christ come true.

From: constantinople,

Also , Please open the link rome

Heading : Are we Orthodox united with Rome?
From: rome

Note the theme in both answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top