"Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pravoslavac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pravoslavac

Guest
I see some of you have “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, etc.

Can someone explain what that means? I am Eastern Orthodox and I am not aware of any Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Sorry for being a newbie on the this.
 
The Pope (forgot which one) has encouraged Eastern Catholics to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Which means they preserve their Orthodox traditions and faith, while being in Communion with Rome. Of course its not an official title or official description, but more of signifying that they should carry the same Orthodox faith but be part of the Catholic Church.
 
Pravoslavac said:
I see some of you have “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, etc.

Can someone explain what that means? I am Eastern Orthodox and I am not aware of any Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Sorry for being a newbie on the this.
Click to expand...
It is wishful thinking.

It does not represent a formally defined category and is not a definition.
 
Hesychios said:
It is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t Orthodox in Communion with other Orthodox also wishful thinking? You’re not exactly in Communion with the Oriental Orthodox.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t Orthodox in Communion with other Orthodox also wishful thinking? You’re not exactly in Communion with the Oriental Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who the Oriental Orthodox are, that seems to be a title foisted upon them.

But if you mean the non-Chalcedonian Christians, I don’t think that they are orthodox yet.
 
@ ConstantineTG and Hesychios…thank you both.

Hesychios…I like the Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox 👍👍
 
Hesychios said:
I don’t know who the Oriental Orthodox are, that seems to be a title foisted upon them.

But if you mean the non-Chalcedonian Christians, I don’t think that they are orthodox yet.
Click to expand...
So do you mean that from the Eastern Orthodox point of view, the Oriental Orthodox are as Orthodox as Old Catholics are to Catholics? In short, in title only?
 
Hesychios said:
I don’t know who the Oriental Orthodox are, that seems to be a title foisted upon them.

But if you mean the non-Chalcedonian Christians, I don’t think that they are orthodox yet.
Click to expand...
That’s a matter of opinion, I suppose, and one which I personally do not share.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Pope (forgot which one) has encouraged Eastern Catholics to be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Which means they preserve their Orthodox traditions and faith, while being in Communion with Rome. Of course its not an official title or official description, but more of signifying that they should carry the same Orthodox faith but be part of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Which is an oxymoron as part of the Orthodox traditions and faith is to be out of communion with Rome.
 
ByzCath said:
Which is an oxymoron as part of the Orthodox traditions and faith is to be out of communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
You mean Orthodoxy before the schism or after? I thought the goal was the standard of the early Church? Is or is not Orthdoxy in communion with Rome the standard of the early Church?

Or perhaps the there were no Orthodox Christians in the early Church?🤷

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Pravoslavac,
Pravoslavac said:
I see some of you have “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, etc.

Can someone explain what that means? I am Eastern Orthodox and I am not aware of any Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Sorry for being a newbie on the this.
Click to expand...
From my own personal experience, when I came into Catholic communion, I did not have to let go of my Coptic Traditions. I simply had to let go of my misconceptions of Catholicism. So I have kept everything that made me Orthodox, while acknowledging that the bishop of Rome is the protos of the Church.

I suppose other OiCwR have the same perception. Many EO think that Catholicism teaches heresies. OiCwR don’t believe that. We believe that Catholic dogmas are amenable to the Oriental and Eastern Traditions. We believe that particularly Latin doctrines are not heresies, but valid Traditions for the Latin Church as long as they are not forced upon Oriental and Eastern Catholics. In point of fact, there have been no ecumenical Councils that have condemned the teachings of the Latin Church, so EO who claim that Latins (in particular) are heretical are expressing mere opinions at best.

I believe sincerely that OiCwR’s are living the ideal of the early Church, and are following faithfully our Lord’s command for unity.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Pravoslavac said:
I see some of you have “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”, etc.

Can someone explain what that means? I am Eastern Orthodox and I am not aware of any Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Sorry for being a newbie on the this.
Click to expand...
It refers to those Eastern Catholic Churches which use the Byzantine Rite. It’s an informal, and according to many, inaccurate, description of the Byzantine/Greek Catholics.

The union of the several of these churches to Rome instructed “Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter”… aside from the papal commemorations. (No additions, no subtractions, no changes)

That said, many EC parishes of the Byzantine Rite are indistinguishable by praxis alone from their Orthodox Communion counterparts, save for those papal commemorations.

Various popes have supported this “Orthodox in communion with Rome” mentality, most especially Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. (Pp. Paul VI’s removal of Bishop Elko being very much a practical sign of this, versus Pp. JP II’s frequent verbal support.) Also, Popes St Pius X and Leo XIII both had positive impacts upon the Eastern Churches in Union estaplishing and then staffing the Eparchies in the US.
 
mardukm said:
…In point of fact, there have been no ecumenical Councils that have condemned the teachings of the Latin Church, so EO who claim that Latins (in particular) are heretical are expressing mere opinions at best…
Click to expand...
From a Greek Orthodox (modern day) point of view there is at least one council that can be considered of ecumenical authority that anathematized the following Latin Church teachings:


  1. *]Baptism not done in an Orthodox style (i.e. triple immersion)
    *]Does not confess the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypothetically
    *]In the Mystery of Holy Communion contained in the Body is both Flesh and Blood
    *]That our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystic Supper used unleavened bread
    *]Christ God, when He comes to judge us, does not come to judge souls together with the bodies, or embodied souls, but instead comes to sentence only bodies
    *]Christians who repented while in the world but fail to perform their penance go to purgatory
    *]Hell (i.e. purgatory) is not everlasting
    *]The Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ
    *]The Pope has authority to admit persons to Paradise with his letters of indulgence
    *]The new formula to calculate the date of Easter
    *]Use of the new Gregorian Calendar

    This is known as the Sigillion of 1583, it is an official document that bears the Byzantine seal and was signed by the patriarchs Jeremiah of Constantinople, Sylvester of Alexandria, and Sophronius of Jerusalem.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Pravoslavac,

From my own personal experience, when I came into Catholic communion, I did not have to let go of my Coptic Traditions. I simply had to let go of my misconceptions of Catholicism. So I have kept everything that made me Orthodox, while acknowledging that the bishop of Rome is the protos of the Church.

I suppose other OiCwR have the same perception. Many EO think that Catholicism teaches heresies. OiCwR don’t believe that. We believe that Catholic dogmas are amenable to the Oriental and Eastern Traditions. We believe that particularly Latin doctrines are not heresies, but valid Traditions for the Latin Church as long as they are not forced upon Oriental and Eastern Catholics. In point of fact, there have been no ecumenical Councils that have condemned the teachings of the Latin Church, so EO who claim that Latins (in particular) are heretical are expressing mere opinions at best.

I believe sincerely that OiCwR’s are living the ideal of the early Church, and are following faithfully our Lord’s command for unity.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Good show, Marduk. 👍
 
In my case, I feel that I do have to let go of some of my Orthodox Traditions. I did not join communion with Rome via an Eastern Catholic Church (as perhaps I should have), I simply joined a Roman Catholic Church (Dominican). I did visit 3 different Eastern Catholic Churches, but to me, they all seemed to be so Latinized that it wasn’t much different (in terms of traditions) to just go to a Roman Church. It fact I go back to the Orthodox from time to time as I very much miss the Eastern customs that I have known for 25 years. I only came to the Roman Church because I felt a need to be in communion with Rome (or rather in communion with the Pope).

Now that I am in the Roman Church I keep trying to make distinction as to what rule, teaching, or custom that comes down from the Vatican is directed at the whole Church (both East & West), as opposed to being directed only to the Roman Church. Then I think that if I were in an Eastern Catholic Church and some rule, teaching, or custom was only directed at Rome I would not need to conform to it. Yet since I am in fact in the Roman Church it amounts to mental gymnastics as I feel obligated to conform to Rome seeing that I am in the Roman Church. 🤷
 
Dear Friends,

First of all, I wanted to compliment all the participants in this discussion - these are issues that truly are timely and important to the Eastern Churches, they are raised in public and parish lectures - you guys are great! 🙂

“Orthodox in communion with Rome” Hmmm . . .

It is a term that one finds being used more frequently (it was Pope John Paul II that encouraged Eastern Catholics to be as “Orthodox” as possible while being in communion with Rome - I doubt if he wanted to coin a name though . . .).

I don’t think we’ll find an EC parish with that term either. My Orthodox friends find it offensive and I take that at face value.

For them, to be “Orthodox” is to maintain the unity between “theory and praxis” or between “faith and worship.” So the liturgical beauty of Orthodox worship (which EC’s certainly do have in many, but not all, of their parishes) is not just that - one needs to have the fullness of Orthodox faith in the unity of the Orthodox Church to complete the picture.

Whether EC’s believe RC theology is amenable to Orthodox theology is not the point. The point is that Rome and Orthodoxy are out of communon with one another and no matter how ard EC’s strive to recreate an Orthodox liturgical environment, spirituality and even Orthodox faith within their Particular Churches, the fact is that communion with Orthodoxy is broken. At best, the term is confusing as well.

We do, however, use the term “all you Orthodox Christians” in the Divine Liturgy (although our Latinizers, even at Rome, will drop that term).

Perhaps “Orthodox Catholic” could be used internally in our EC Churches, but then again, there will be those who will resist it. Also, the term “Orthodox” has, among Ukrainian Catholics, a pejorative connotation suggesting “Russian.” When Tsarist and Soviet forces came into western Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church engaged in an “Easternization” campaign which began with the removal of the Filioque and other “delatinizations.” Ultimately, this led to the forcible unification of the local UGCC with the Russian Orthodox Church (which was never our “Mother Church” to begin with).

And in the UGCC, we have always had our “extreme Easterners” like the “Extreme Epiclesists” (sic). Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk was one of these. He was the hapless UGCC priest who was forced by the Soviets to hold the “pseudo-Synod” at Lviv ini 1946 that united the UGCC with the Russian church. The Russian Orthodox Church has never repudiated the validity of that Synod (conducted by the Soviet secret police) and there are those who still want to canonize as a martyr Fr. Kostelnyk - repeating the Soviet propaganda that he was shot by a Ukrainian nationalist. In fact, I had relatives who studied under Fr. Kostelnyk and who knew his family - they also knew the Soviets kept his son as a kind of ransom to ensure his compliance with their (evil) directives.

Unfortunately, the Russian Orthodox Church can do no wrong and will never apologise for any of its complicity in the destruction of the UGCC. No matter - the UGCC rose from the ashes of its ruin and showed the ROC the door. The ROC complain that this was all a “Western plot” - but the voice of the people and our priests and bishops will be heard.

This is also why there are Latinizations in the UGCC that persist - they are what maintained the UGCC’s religious-national identity throughout the Soviet era of oppression.

I met a UGCC priest recently and as I stooped to kiss his hand, I noticed a large rosary ring on his finger. His entire village participates in 24 hours Eucharistic Adoration, and even the younger children have their assigned hour in which they are to be in church for Adoration.

Is that Latinization? You better believe it! Should a stop be put to it? Just try it - and see what the people will say (or do!) 🙂

For the UGCC, what makes it special is that it is “our Ukrainian Church.”

Unfortunately as well, some of our “hyper-Eastern” parishes are, for some reason, not as enthusiastically “Ukrainian” as they can be.

But the people will ultimately have their voice heard and they will do what they feel is right.

And vox populi - you know the rest.

Alex
 
I hope this isn’t considered hijacking the thread, but I have been asking myself a question lately and this post brought it to mind. So, I figured this might be best asked in here rather than a new thread. If it is hijacking, just post that and I’ll happily start a new thread.

I know Catholics are allowed by the Catholic Church to receive Communion in the Orthodox Churches in an extreme situation, but the Orthodox priest generally won’t provide Communion if they know the person is Catholic. But, will that same Orthodox priest generally allow an Eastern Catholic to receive Communion at their Orthodox Church in the same situation? Thanks!
 
Alexander - Thank you for the description of Christianity in Ukraine, in particular as it relates to “Latinizations”. I had formerly believed that Latinizations had been imposed by Rome as a way to homonogenize Catholic churches, but I’ve come to realize that they’re more the result of other factors such as the ones you mentioned. A nation’s religious identiy is always complicated by political, historical, cultural, and other factors, and these can’t simply be done away with for the sake of an ideal. I think it’s important to remember that both eastern and western traditions are good, and adopting a tradition that is foreign to your church’s historical praxis is not necessarily bad. A good example of this is the rosary, which as you’ve demonstrated originated in the east, then became so prevalent in the west that many EO today don’t realize it’s origin is actually eastern, including myself until recently. In my experience in Eastern Orthodoxy, anything which is western is viewed with suspicion if not outright rejected. I suspect this is due to the power of western society which it exerts on the rest of the world, even if unintentionally, which must be consciously resisted if other traditions are to be maintained. One example of this was in my own small mission parish several years ago during Nativity. We had just received our own full time priest who had been with us for less than a year, and before that we were served by visiting priests supplied by the Archdiocese. We had begun a tradition since our founding of singing “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence”, to the tune found in Lutheran Worship, which was an old French melody. After the Nativity liturgy, our priest chewed out the chanters for singing this, and said that it was a western, Protestant hymn, that had no business being sung in an Orthodox parish. Now read the following history from Wikipedia:

“Let all mortal flesh keep silence is an ancient chant of Eucharistic devotion based on the verses taken from Habakkuk 2:20: ‘Let all the earth keep silence before Him’ taken from one of the books of the 12 minor prophets of Bible. The original was composed in Greek as a Cherubic Hymn for the Offertory of the Divine Liturgy of St James in the fourth Century AD, with local Churches adopting arrangements in Syriac.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_all_mortal_flesh_keep_silence

He rejected an ancient eastern hymn either because of ignorance about its origin or bias against the tune we used, I’m not sure which. Needless the say the chanters were embarassed and upset, and this incident probably ruined the night for them. I’m finding it increasing difficult to be open about any positive appraisal of western Christianity in Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top