"Orthodox In Communion With Rome"

[Aramis]

Thanks for your explanations.

Do Patriarchs share their authority or the governance of the church with something like bishops who are responsible for different geographic areas of their churches? How is the church organized? For instance, how does one Patriarch manage, say, the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Byzantine rite) throughout the world.

Are the priests called priests?

The Ukrainian Patriarch is patriarch of the UGCC, and all Ukrainian Greek Catholic Bishops, be they in Canada, the US, the Ukraine, the UK, or Mexico, are part of his synod. They elect him, and then Rome approves him. The UGCC has metropolitans and eparchs (who are bishops), Archpriests and Priests (tho’ the ukrainian term is used in ukrainian), Deacons…

The pastors of UGCC parishes answer to their “local” UGCC bishop.

The Melchite Patriarch is patriarch for all Mechite Greek Catholics.

The Ruthenians in the US answer to the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh.

These primatial bishops answer to, and are united with, rome. But, in general, our priests answer to our bishops, and they to the synod headed by our primatial bishop. The primatial bishop and the synod answer to the pope and the cuncils of the church, not to local roman bishops.

 

[Peter_J]

DoxRox,

There is no Western Orthodox Church. All the Churches in your Communion are Eastern Orthodox Churches. Here is your Communion:

bible.ca/orthodox-autocephalous-hierarchy-organization.gif

I like that chart. (Although, in case anyone is inclined to look for additional info about the Orthodox on the bible.ca website, let me warn them that … well, let’s just say I don’t recommend that website. :dts: )

Western Rite Orthodoxy are Western Rites of Eastern Orthodox Churches. They are not Western Churches.

True, there are no Western-Rite Orthodox Churches at this time. But, as I understand it, there could be, and in fact have been (perhaps as recently as the 20th century, but I don’t remember that for sure).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

I’ll try to get to your posts in a few days. I have some classwork that I should be working on, and I’m procrastinating by spending time here on the forums

You’re not the only one.

I hope fatigue didn’t make my post too harsh:I’m afraid you got the full brunt of my thoughts on this matter, which is unfair. I’ve always found you one of the most genteel and meekest posters. I hope my utmost respect for you didn’t get lost.

 

[guanophore]

Dear brethren,

While I am a Latin Catholic (and somewhat proud of that heritage), I also feel a deep calling to the East; in fact had it not been for the help I received from the Eastern Catholics here I may have even become Orthodox.

Anyway, the Melkite Greek priest who aided me in showing me why I need to be Catholic and not Orthodox (he himself formerly an Orthodox priest), has always stressed to me that Byzantine Catholics are truly “Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome.” Because of the fatherly influence this priest has had in my life, I have taken up that belief and I have found support of it in the words of the Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch (see my sig line).

However, I am not quite sure that I truly understand what that aphorism actually means. From my own serious consideration of Orthodoxy, I found many beliefs which I still believe are not compatible with Catholic teachings.

I am going to ask my mentor-priest tommorow what he means when he says that he is an “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” However until then I wanted to ask the Byzantine Catholics (or any Oriental Catholics) why they believe, if they do, that they are Orthodox in communion with Rome; and what this affirmation means.

Thanks!

Great!

One must take into consideration that the vast majority of issues that caused the schism were related culture, language, and human ego. Once this is recognized, it is possible to focus on the very few doctrinial matters. Of those, I think the concept of the development of doctrine is the most problematic.

 

[guanophore]

To me the affirmation means that we follow the tradition and theology of what has been called the Eastern Orthodox Communion. This doesn’t mean that all opinions held by some in the Eastern Orthodox Communion are acceptable in the Catholic Communion, but it does mean that the fundamentals must be identical.

For example, viewing the filioque as heretical, or believing that the Mother of God was conceived without Divine Grace are not compatible with being in the Catholic Communion, but while such beliefs might be found in the Eastern Orthodox Communion they are not fundamentals of the Faith within it. You can find Eastern Orthodox who view the filioque as a semantical issue and not a matter of heresy (including such luminaries as Bp. Kalistos Ware, and the theological commission of North America), and you can find Eastern Orthodox who are totally comfortable with Mary having been specially Graced from the beginning. Since such views are not fundamentally “outside of Orthodoxy”, one can be Eastern Orthodox in good standing and hold to them, and that means that those of us who uphold the Orthodox tradition while in Communion with Rome are not throwing out anything of what it means to be Orthodox; in my view we actually represent to the “union” wing of the Orthodox Churches, rather than something altogether seperate (of course this is colored by my experience in the Melkite Church, which is so close to its Eastern Orthodox counterpart on a grassroots level and even above).

To me it also means something more, which is that “Communion with Rome” is essential to what it means to be an Apostolic Christian. The “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” stand as an example for trying to reunite the Apostolic Churches back into the Communion they were intended to be, without sacrificing our own identities. For me, being “in Communion with Rome” is fundamentally part of the authentic Eastern tradition, and the more we hold on to unity AND our own unique identities, the more we truly represent Orthodoxy in its fullest. Of course this also means that we must strive to make the Catholic Communion always function in a manner that is respectful of the non-Latin Churches and traditions, upholding the rights and dignity of the other ancient Catholic traditions.

Peace and God bless!

As always, well said Ghosty.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve been to our Western parishes who are Latin. The “Old Catholics” would be Latin, but neither are under the Vatican.

Personally, I don’t have any problem with WRO or Old Catholics describing themselves as “Latin” if they wish.

Is the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem Eastern or Western?

Western (just located in the East).

Many Antiochians, Ukrainians, Russians (i.e. those under Alexei) call themselves, and are, Orthodox Catholics. The cornerstone of the Church where I was received said “SS Peter and Paul of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America”

I think it’s perfectly natural for (Eastern) Orthodox to describe themselves as “Catholic”, seeing as they consider themselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (I disagree, but that’s not the point.)

The Vatican calls the Mozarabic and Milanese/Ambrosian rites rites, not sui juris churches, although both have their sees, bishops, etc. (the later having their own popes of Rome). How is how are they rites and not churches. How is this different from the WRO?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Isn’t it clear the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are rites, not sui iuris churches?

 

[Peter_J]

Great!

One must take into consideration that the vast majority of issues that caused the schism were related culture, language, and human ego. Once this is recognized, it is possible to focus on the very few doctrinial matters. Of those, I think the concept of the development of doctrine is the most problematic.

See also Theologoumenon.

 

[DoxRox]

DoxRox,

There is no Western Orthodox Church. All the Churches in your Communion are Eastern Orthodox Churches. Here is your Communion:

bible.ca/orthodox-autocephalous-hierarchy-organization.gif

Western Rite Orthodoxy are Western Rites of Eastern Orthodox Churches. They are not Western Churches.

Western Rite Orthodoxy should never be put on the same level as the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches. We are not Eastern/Oriental Rites of the Western/Latin Church. We are Eastern/Oriental Churches in full communion with the Western/Latin Church.

God bless,

Rony

Someone else already brought up the French Orthodox, so I won’t go into that.

I’ve had personal experience with the Western Rite under the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate (Liturgy of St. Gregory), though not any under ROCOR, so yes, I’m well aware of the differences.

I’m not even sure it could work the same way in Orthodoxy, but that’s just another pondering.

I just returned from venerating St. John’s relics. Gorgeous Cathedral in the midst of modern Sodom. Very nice shrine with this incorrupt relics.

Yes, Western Orthodox Catholic he would of approved of. I am sure the saint would have rejected “Catholic in communion with Moscow.”

Beautiful.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Personally, I don’t have any problem with WRO or Old Catholics describing themselves as “Latin” if they wish.

I’m not Western, so I try to tread lightly here.

Western (just located in the East).

Now what of the Western Ordinaries in Ukraine, Asia Minor, etc.

I think it’s perfectly natural for (Eastern) Orthodox to describe themselves as “Catholic”, seeing as they consider themselves to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. (I disagree, but that’s not the point.)

As I would say that is perfectly natural for those under the Vatican to call themselves Catholic AND Orthodox, as they consider themselves to be. My disagreement is obvious. But that itself is part of the problem of the aphorism: any Latin rite member, according to the Vatican, could and should call himself “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” At best it’s a redundancy. I question whether the term Orthodox has any meaning here (and, for instance, the Chalcedonians woul not use it, althought technically they are in the same boat as the Ukranians under Cardinal Husar).

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Isn’t it clear the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are rites, not sui iuris churches?

I am probing about the characterization of the WRO. Yes, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are classed as rites, but they do have bishops, and the Ambrosian might even be said to have a hierarchy. So how can the WRO be said to be NOT analogous to the “sui juris” Churches, because the absence of hierarchy can’t be one of them.

 

[Peter_J]

As I would say that is perfectly natural for those under the Vatican to call themselves Catholic AND Orthodox, as they consider themselves to be. My disagreement is obvious. But that itself is part of the problem of the aphorism: any Latin rite member, according to the Vatican, could and should call himself “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” At best it’s a redundancy. I question whether the term Orthodox has any meaning here (and, for instance, the Chalcedonians woul not use it, althought technically they are in the same boat as the Ukranians under Cardinal Husar).

When you say “according to the Vatican”, which Vatican document(s) do you have in mind?

I am probing about the characterization of the WRO. Yes, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are classed as rites, but they do have bishops, and the Ambrosian might even be said to have a hierarchy. So how can the WRO be said to be NOT analogous to the “sui juris” Churches, because the absence of hierarchy can’t be one of them.

Well, I guess I generally take for granted that some kind of correspondence (at least a very loose correspondence) between the Roman Catholic concept of “sui iuris churches” and the Eastern Orthodox concept of autocephalous and autonomous churches. Of course, when I really think about I have to admit that I can see how some might not see that correspondence.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

When you say “according to the Vatican”, which Vatican document(s) do you have in mind?

Well, in a sense, all of them.

The Vatican claims to be the Universal, i.e. Catholic Church.

She claims to be the Orthodox, i.e. Right Believing Church.

She says the communion with her is a part of dogma.

I just take it as a given that she would say any Latin, the majority of her communicants, is Catholic because they are Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Well, I guess I generally take for granted that some kind of correspondence (at least a very loose correspondence) between the Roman Catholic concept of “sui iuris churches” and the Eastern Orthodox concept of autocephalous and autonomous churches. Of course, when I really think about I have to admit that I can see how some might not see that correspondence.

There is correspondence, but I was trying to flesh out what the OP was meaning.

 

[Aramis]

Isa: in re the WRO vs the Western Rites of the Roman Church.

There is only one Sui Iuris Western Church, the Roman Church, possessing many Rites, but those Rites are all of the Roman Patrimony, and thus properly Traditions, even though they have been called Rites for centuries.

The Eastern Rites, however, have many Byzantine Sui Iuris churches, several Syriac Sui Iuris churches, One Armenian Sui Iuris Church, several Coptic Sui Iuris churches, and at least one Antiocene Sui Iuris Church.

The Byzantines have the three major Byzantine Traditions: Greek, Slavic, and Antiochian/Melkite.

One Sui Iuris church has priests but no hierarchs: the Russian. Another has neither priests nor hierarchs (One of the east-european).

The WRO are a unique hybrid: Byzantification of the Roman Rite, but generally without Episcopacy of their own, and under bishops of a different rite, and drawn from the liturgy as filtered through heretical and schismatic sects of protestants! (The two major WRO DL’s are supposedly not drawn from actual Roman Church Traditions/Rites, but from protestant masses.)

The Russian Church Sui Iuris is not latinized much, but are under Latin or Melchite bishops. It is likely, however, that a bishop could be appointed to unify them. Therefore, while the closest parallel, they are not quite the same situation as the WRO. Especially since their DL is that of the Russian Orthodox, save for adding the Papal commemoration.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, in a sense, all of them.

The Vatican claims to be the Universal, i.e. Catholic Church.

She claims to be the Orthodox, i.e. Right Believing Church.

She says the communion with her is a part of dogma.

I just take it as a given that she would say any Latin, the majority of her communicants, is Catholic because they are Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I see what you mean. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (also known as “the Orthodox Church” and “the Catholic Church”) both claim to be CATHOLIC (universal) and they both claim to be ORTHODOX (right believing).

At the same time, though, most Catholics recognize “Orthodox” (with just the first letter capitalized) as referring to the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, hence we would call ourselves “orthodox” (right believing).

In the same way, I would say the Pope is “episcopal” not “Episcopal”.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I see what you mean. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (also known as “the Orthodox Church” and “the Catholic Church”) both claim to be CATHOLIC (universal) and they both claim to be ORTHODOX (right believing).

At the same time, though, most Catholics recognize “Orthodox” (with just the first letter capitalized) as referring to the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, hence we would call ourselves “orthodox” (right believing).

Hence why I asked about the aphorism “Monophysite in communion with Rome.”

In the same way, I would say the Pope is “episcopal” not “Episcopal”.

I use Episcopaian for that reason, and usually Anglican as the catch all phrase.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa: in re the WRO vs the Western Rites of the Roman Church.

There is only one Sui Iuris Western Church, the Roman Church, possessing many Rites, but those Rites are all of the Roman Patrimony, and thus properly Traditions, even though they have been called Rites for centuries.

But in the case of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, they are vestiges of “sui juris Churches.” Milan, for instance, was founded by St. Barnabas, and was the actual capital (Diocletian moved it from Rome in 286) when Christianity was legalized, hence the edict of Milan

The Eastern Rites, however, have many Byzantine Sui Iuris churches, several Syriac Sui Iuris churches, One Armenian Sui Iuris Church, several Coptic Sui Iuris churches, and at least one Antiocene Sui Iuris Church.

The Byzantines have the three major Byzantine Traditions: Greek, Slavic, and Antiochian/Melkite.

One Sui Iuris church has priests but no hierarchs: the Russian. Another has neither priests nor hierarchs (One of the east-european).

The WRO are a unique hybrid: Byzantification of the Roman Rite

,

“Byzantifized” how?

I do know that it is made Orthodox (e.g. changing of references to the merits of the saints).

The only “Byzantine” things I know is the insertion of the epiclesis of Constantinople to make an explicit epiclesis, and the communion prayer of St. John (which I’ve see Latins use). Otherwise no other changes, and I once, a long time ago, compared the Orthodox Missal with the Old (Latin) St. Joseph Missal.

but generally without Episcopacy of their own, and under bishops of a different rite, and drawn from the liturgy as filtered through heretical and schismatic sects of protestants! (The two major WRO DL’s are supposedly not drawn from actual Roman Church Traditions/Rites, but from protestant masses.)

The DL of St. Tikhon might fit this description, but that of St. Gregory does not: the Russian Synod was asked to evaluate the Roman rite 1869 by a former Latin priest, Overbeck (who was received as a layman because he had married as a Lutheran before embracing Orthodoxy), and the Holy Synod organized a Western Diocese in 1898 in what is now the Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church. It used a revised Tridentine mass.

The Russian Church Sui Iuris is not latinized much, but are under Latin or Melchite bishops. It is likely, however, that a bishop could be appointed to unify them. Therefore, while the closest parallel, they are not quite the same situation as the WRO. Especially since their DL is that of the Russian Orthodox, save for adding the Papal commemoration.

The Russian example does give the closest parallel, thank you for it.

Actually the WRO point out that the differences are because the keep the same DL without the changes of Vatican II and earlier (they are quick to point out that their was a revision just before the council).

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know about reliable, but I don’t think you will argue with this source:
newadvent.org/cathen/08206a.htm

The last part is interesting:
The Italo-Greeks are subject *to the jurisdiction of the diocesan ** * bishops; several times, but in vain, they have sought exemption… Naturally, the position of a people whose rite and discipline differed in many points from those of the surrounding population, required special legislation. Benedict XIV, in the Bull “Etsi pastoralis” (1742), collected, co-ordinated, and completed the various enactments of his predecessors, and this Bull is still the law. The Holy See has always endeavoured to respect the rite of the Italo-Greeks, on the other hand, it was only proper to maintain the position of the Latin Rite. No member of the clergy may pass from the Greek to the Latin Rite without the consent of the pope; and no layman without the permission of the bishop. The offspring of mixed marriages belong to the Latin Rite. A Greek wife may pass to the Latin Rite but not a Latin husband to the Greek Rite. Much less would a Latin be allowed to become a priest of the Greek Rite, thus evading the law of celibacy [this how much the rite was "evading the law of celibacy I question]. As regards the Eucharist, any promiscuity of Greeks and Latins is forbidden, except in case of grave necessity, e.g. if in a given locality there should be no Greek church. Where custom has abolished communion under both kinds, a contrary usage must not be introduced.

So much for sui juris.

Before you conclude that “so much for sui juris”, you ought to consider how the Catholic attitude(s) have changed in recent times. Certainly non-Latin sui iuris churches were not always respected, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t respect now. (see also)

 

[Aramis]

The Roman epiclesis replaced by the byzantine form. That there is a significant byzantification.

The use of the byzantine calendar and readings instead of the latin ones, at least according to the sources I’ve seen on-line. This is an even stronger byzantification. *

Also, the prayer before comunion.

Note that the Mozarabic/Toledo and Ambrosian particular churches have never truly been sui iuris in the sense that modern ones are; that distinction is more modern than their integration.

Also, for the Russian Rite Catholics, they still use the RO calendar, readings, and DL.

Also note that the Liturgy of St. Gregory is adapted from a schismatic group’s liturgy: Society of Clerks Secular of St. Basil, formerly the American Orthodox Catholic Church, which was non-canonical and of old-catholic derivation
orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._Gregory_the_Great

-=-=-=-

• while many might not notice it, the readings in the byzantine calendar are assembled with different themes in mind, and different theological constructs in the propers.
  This leads to a difference in both preaching and in the practical lessons taken from the liturgies.

Many would discount this difference. it’s big because it’s so subtle, yet all pervasive. It can be seen in the progressive byzantification of the homilies by Roman priests granted biritual faculties and practicing in the byzantine churches.

It can also be seen in the byzantification of thinking of roman church members who attend byzantine worship.

 

[Valentin]

in my country, Greek Catholics are very strong and very much in communion with Rome. i , myself, am Roman Catholic, and we have very good relations with them. their bishop is archibishop of Bulgaria. even, i think, their way of rite is very clever, being very much identical with the Orthodox, because Orthodox people are about 85 % of the population. even, this way gives opportunity of many people to go to Catholic Church, since the rite is similar.
those different rites make richness of our Church, somehow close to local behaviour, in some east slavic countries is not easy to change the opinion of the people, formed by hundreds of years against Roman Catholic Church. so, the previous Pope, changed that opinion of many people.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Before you conclude that “so much for sui juris”, you ought to consider how the Catholic attitude(s) have changed in recent times. Certainly non-Latin sui iuris churches were not always respected, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t respect now. (see also)

If they survived. The Italo-Greeks didn’t.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Roman epiclesis replaced by the byzantine form. That there is a significant byzantification.

The question of whether there is a Roman epiclesis (even the “Catholic Encyclopedia” hedges), prompted this. It is a significant Orthodoxizing.

The use of the byzantine calendar and readings instead of the latin ones, at least according to the sources I’ve seen on-line. This is an even stronger byzantification. *

The Readings in the Orthodox Missal of the Antiochians matches that of pre-Vatican II.

Also, the prayer before comunion.

I mentioned that (I have been told that is out of pastoral concerns, given the status of the Rite right now).

Note that the Mozarabic/Toledo and Ambrosian particular churches have never truly been sui iuris in the sense that modern ones are; that distinction is more modern than their integration.

My understanding was that Milan (and her rite) was one of the hold outs when mandated clerical celibacy was being imposed in the West, and Toledo was quite defiant in face of Rome to control things, like imposing her ritual on Spain.

Also, for the Russian Rite Catholics, they still use the RO calendar, readings, and DL.

Also note that the Liturgy of St. Gregory is adapted from a schismatic group’s liturgy:

Let’s be honest: the Vatican thinks all us Orthodox are “schismatic.” Any group restoring communion with us ipso facto would be considered schismatic.

The SSPX are schismatic, no? Yet would we doubt that they have the pre-Vatican II Trendentine DL?

Society of Clerks Secular of St. Basil, formerly the American Orthodox Catholic Church, which was non-canonical and of old-catholic derivation
orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._Gregory_the_Great

-=-=-=-

• while many might not notice it, the readings in the byzantine calendar are assembled with different themes in mind, and different theological constructs in the propers.
  This leads to a difference in both preaching and in the practical lessons taken from the liturgies.

Many would discount this difference. it’s big because it’s so subtle, yet all pervasive. It can be seen in the progressive byzantification of the homilies by Roman priests granted biritual faculties and practicing in the byzantine churches.

It can also be seen in the byzantification of thinking of roman church members who attend byzantine worship.

Isn’t that what is supposed to do?