"Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

[Matariel]

Sad, sure.

By that token it is also sad when Catholics take that attitude about Anglicans and Lutherans, but one sees that all the time. Is it justified?

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have much in common, and our liturgy and dogmata are very close (with some exceptions, like Immaculate Conception, Latin-Rite conception of Purgatory, Filioque, necessity of the Successor of St. Peter as Protos, ect.). How we act (both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) towards Protestants is not comparable.

 

[Hesychios]

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have much in common, and our liturgy and dogmata are very close (with some exceptions, like Immaculate Conception, Latin-Rite conception of Purgatory, Filioque, necessity of the Successor of St. Peter as Protos, ect.). How we act (both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) towards Protestants is not comparable.

I think it is very comparable.

That is precisely the point.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I did not say they were not divinely inspired. I said they were not instituted by God.

There is no point in making an idol of the institution. The institution of the church exists for one purpose only, and when it ceases to do that, it has lost it’s mandate.

The patriarchates, and I am including the bishop of Rome in that august collection, are not a separate order (there are the three higher orders of bishop, priest and deacon, that’s it), they are bishops.

Their offices exist essentially due to the human condition, human history. The Israelites needed a king, and they got Saul.

We need patriarchs, popes and catholicos.

But ultimately the authority in the church is the bishop, to work in concert with each other (and not at cross purposes) these gather into synods (for convenience the synods originally gathered according to their political provinces in the Roman empire, but other criteria were used outside of the empire) and the chair of the synod (not as the ruler, but the chair) is the Metropolitan, the bishop of the greatest city. This pattern repeated all over Christianity, not just a few times but dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times, it is a principle of the organization.

Some Metropolitan churches carry a great deal of prestige because of their great age, because they were established in great cities by apostles (often martyrs for Christ) and developed larger, closely knit congregations. I think we can say that apostles often brought their closest associates, their disciples and “camp followers” with them as they traveled. We can assume that these founders. the apostles and their disciples, lent a special character to the churches where they stopped. There was a closer connection to Christ where there was so much orthodox learning and study abut Him concentrated in one place. These were the places to go for answers.

That made the bishops of those churches special to our eyes, and they were seen not just shepherds, but ‘great fathers’ (patriarchs/popes). That was our doing, we saw them as special, it was an evolution in our thinking, and that was reflected in the canons.

I now get what you are saying, Hesychios.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I am a Latin Rite Catholic who is interested in Eastern Catholicism and occasionally attends a Byzantine Catholic Church.

I personally dont like the title “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. I think its posturing and confusing for people who are unfamiliar with it. I also think it is a title that Eastern Catholics use to emphasize their connection with the Orthodox and to downplay their connection with the Pope. The Eastern Catholics I know simply call themselves Eastern Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, or Maronite Catholics etc, because by virtue of them being in submission to the Bishop of Rome, they are by definition Catholic.

Ironically, many EOs and OOs would agree with you about us ECs not being True Orthodox, Augustus24.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The EO Patriarch? We have more than one patriarch my friend.

I fear you have it backwards my friend. A patriarch has the same authority as any other bishop. He rules his own diocese within the bounds of the canons. Any additional authority he may have has been ceded to him by his brother bishops. It’s not a matter of the patriarch ceding authority to them.

He has no right to act outside of his own diocese, much less outside of his own local Church. The only exception would be if the local synod had ceded certain duties and authority to him. Then he could exercise those duties within the bounds of the canons.

In Christ
Joe

I was simply turning the questions Hesychios was asking and asking them to HIM, JosephDaniel29.

I actually know there is more than one EO Patriarch. I simply conflated all of them into one for convenience’s sake. I was trying in my own funny way to be “terse.” Sometimes I can do that, sometimes I can’t.
I did not mean to give out the wrong impression. If I did, I regret it.

Thanks for describing some of the structure of the Othodox Church anyways, JosephDaniel29.

 

[dzheremi]

All things being equal I would be in general agreement with this.

The ROCOR is a bad example of this because the “mother church” of ROCOR was driven underground by the Bolshevik revolution, and the official church became an obedient slave of the Communist government. This kind of so-called “mother church” cannot speak of the orthodoxy of ROCOR, and ROCOR was justified in braking communion with the ‘Soviet’ (not really ‘Russian’) Church.

That’s fine. Remember ROCOR was Mardukm’s example, not mine. From what little I know about it, the situation of ROCOR forms a rather special case (though I have read about similar problems with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church under the communist “Derg”, I am not aware of any “Ethiopian Church in Exile” being formed). My point was about the principle of who can rightly determine orthodoxy – those inside the communion, not outside of it, obviously. You seem agree.

Besides, even in the ROCOR situation the principle holds: ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church reunited only recently, once communism was no longer a factor in the running of the mother church, and so prospects for communion could once again be evaluated on the basis of religious faith, not political affiliation.

 

[malphono]

The Eastern Catholics I know simply call themselves Eastern Catholics, or Byzantine Catholics, or Maronite Catholics etc, because by virtue of them being in submission to the Bishop of Rome, they are by definition Catholic.

In general, most “cradlers” in the diaspora simply say “Maronite” (or, more traditionally, “Syro-Maronite”) without any further qualifier. The same is true of the Melkites and the Chaldeans. That’s also the way it is always done in the Middle East. The only Church that uses a qualifier there is the Melkite, which in Arabic is called “Roum Catholique” to differentiate itself from the Antiochian Orthodox which is called “Roum Orthodoxe” (in both cases “Roum” of course, refers to Constantinople or “New Rome”).

Addendum: Lest I be remiss, I should note that, in the Middle East and in the diaspora, the Syriacs and Armenians, both CC and OC, also use a qualifier. AFAIK, the Syro-Malabars do not, but it’s possible that the Syro-Malankara may do so. I’m not familiar with the nomenclature use by either the Copts or Ethiopians.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

In general, most “cradlers” in the diaspora simply say “Maronite” (or, more traditionally, “Syro-Maronite”) without any further qualifier. The same is true of the Melkites and the Chaldeans. That’s also the way it is always done in the Middle East. The only Church that uses a qualifier there is the Melkite, which in Arabic is called “Roum Catholique” to differentiate itself from the Antiochian Orthodox which is called “Roum Orthodoxe” (in both cases “Roum” of course, refers to Constantinople or “New Rome”).

Addendum: Lest I be remiss, I should note that, in the Middle East and in the diaspora, the Syriacs and Armenians, both CC and OC, also use a qualifier. AFAIK, the Syro-Malabars do not, but it’s possible that the Syro-Malankara may do so. I’m not familiar with the nomenclature use by either the Copts or Ethiopians.

You’re right about the “Roux Catholique” and the “Roux Orthodoxe,” Malphonto. We Melkites are “Roum Catholique” all the Way.

 

[Matariel]

I think it is very comparable.

That is precisely the point.

It’s not comparable.

The Catholic Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

The Eastern Orthodox churches, though broken off from the Catholic Church, have their historical origins with Jesus Christ and the Apostles as well.

The Protestant communities do not have their origin with Jesus Christ or the Apostles except indirectly and incidentally.

Therefore, there is no comparison.

 

[Hesychios]

It’s not comparable.

The Catholic Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

The Eastern Orthodox churches, though broken off from the Catholic Church, have their historical origins with Jesus Christ and the Apostles as well.

The Protestant communities do not have their origin with Jesus Christ or the Apostles except indirectly and incidentally.

Therefore, there is no comparison.

I would have written it this way:

The Orthodox Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

The Ultramontanist churches, though broken off from the Orthodox Church, have some of their historical origins through Holy Orthodoxy from the Apostles as well.

The Protestant churches broke off from the Ultramontanist church, and have their origins through the Ultramontanist church and ultimately to the Orthodox church …

 

[Matariel]

I would have written it this way:

The Orthodox Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

The Ultramontanist churches, though broken off from the Orthodox Church, have some of their historical origins through Holy Orthodoxy from the Apostles as well.

The Protestant churches broke off from the Ultramontanist church, and have their origins through the Ultramontanist church and ultimately to the Orthodox church …

Which is historically inaccurate. The Eastern Schismatic churches (which I, out of politeness, dubbed the “Eastern Orthodox churches”) were the ones who broke communion with the See of Peter. They are the ones who left the Church by that schism.

As St. Maximus the Confessor has stated, and rightfully so, that those not in communion with the See of St. Peter are outside the one Church:
"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."

So the proper formula is as follows:

The Catholic Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles whom He commissioned.

The Eastern Orthodox churches (or, less politely,“the Eastern Schismatic churches”) though broken off from the original Catholic Church, nonetheless historically derive their sees and traditions from Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

The Protestant sects did not retain an authentically Christian understanding of the central dogmata of the Church when they broke away from Her, and are not historically derived from Jesus Christ or the Apostles, but merely indirectly and incidentally.

So, in conclusion, there is no comparison.

 

[dzheremi]

“No, YOUR church is wrong!”

“No, YOUR church is wrong!”

If we’re not careful, the mods will turn this thread around and go home and then nobody will have any thread!

 

[ciero]

Which is historically inaccurate. The Eastern Schismatic churches (which I, out of politeness, dubbed the “Eastern Orthodox churches”) were the ones who broke communion with the See of Peter. They are the ones who left the Church by that schism.

As St. Maximus the Confessor has stated, and rightfully so, that those not in communion with the See of St. Peter are outside the one Church:
“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

So the proper formula is as follows:

The Catholic Church’s origin is Jesus Christ and the Apostles whom He commissioned.

The Eastern Orthodox churches (or, less politely,“the Eastern Schismatic churches”) though broken off from the original Catholic Church, nonetheless historically derive their sees and traditions from Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

The Protestant sects did not retain an authentically Christian understanding of the central dogmata of the Church when they broke away from Her, and are not historically derived from Jesus Christ or the Apostles, but merely indirectly and incidentally.

So, in conclusion, there is no comparison.

The fact that communion was broken is enough…I dont believe it is our job to place the blame. Either way the fact still remains communion has been broken.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The fact that communion was broken is enough…I dont believe it is our job to place the blame. Either way the fact still remains communion has been broken.

Yes, unfortunately so.

 

[Matariel]

Yes, unfortunately so.

Yes, I think we can all agree that the schism was unfortunate.