Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Hesychios]

What is your understanding of the doctrine of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I if you say you acknowledge it? Are you an Orthodox in communion with Rome? Because if you are not you cannot possibly say that you “do not have to absolutely accept anything beyond what was accepted during the 1st millenium”?

Two points to make here:

1. 
   *]There are no Orthodox in communion with Rome, it is an oxymoron.
   *]Everyone in communion with Rome is a Catholic (even if a poor excuse for one), and absolutely must accept the doctrine of papal supremacy as defined by Vatican I, or they are anathema and should not be presenting themselves. This goes for Eastern Catholics of any and every jurisdiction as well as Roman rite Catholics. If some Eastern Catholics have told you they are ‘Orthodox’ and don’t have to believe these dogmas, don’t fall for it. There are no exceptions.
   

   … I am a Catholic who believes in papal supremacy as defined by Vatican 1.

   As well you should, you must, and I would be surprised if you didn’t.

 

[josie_L]

Aren’t you? Isn’t that what “Catholic” means?

If Eastern Christians (which is what you presumably mean by “Orthodox”) don’t have to believe what Western Christians have to believe, then your Communion’s pretensions to unity are bogus.

I say this as a Western Christian who would happily unite with Rome if I had to believe only what the Orthodox believe. At this point I’m convinced both of the need for union with Rome and of the generally greater faithfulness of the Orthodox to Sacred Tradition. Which leaves me in a bit of a pickle, since each side insists that they have nothing lacking.

Edwin

I’m confused by Leo_the_Great’s responses because he is using Ratzinger’s proposal as if it were an official statement regarding unity between “East” and “West” (which is to say it is not).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s signature on the letter to the Melkite patriarch makes it clear
that whatever his private opinion may be about his earlier proposal—made before he
assumed responsibility for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—that proposal
is not on the table in any official context. The only proposals on the table are, vis à vis
the Orthodox (and other separated Christians), the well known proposal made by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint to search for new modalities for the exercise of the Petrine ministry;10 and with respect to Eastern Catholics, acceptance of the Catholic faith as currently defined by the Roman Church.

imageandword.com/agc/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/are-the-ratzinger-and-zoghby-proposals-dead-20080404.pdf

I am even more confused now that I know that Leo_the_Great is actually Roman Catholic but for some reason goes by Orthodox Catholic.

Edit: By “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I meant those who converted to the Catholic faith from Orthodoxy (which some posters at CAF have used in just that like manner). I was trying to figure out (that is before I found out he was actually RC) from what perspective he was coming from.

 

[Bluegoat]

Edit: By “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I meant those who converted to the Catholic faith from Orthodoxy (which some posters at CAF have used in just that like manner). I was trying to figure out (that is before I found out he was actually RC) from what perspective he was coming from.

It is confusing.

Now I would think Orthodox Catholic = Orthodox.
orthodox Catholic = a sort of conservtive serious Catholic

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Josie,

Edit: By “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I meant those who converted to the Catholic faith from Orthodoxy (which some posters at CAF have used in just that like manner). I was trying to figure out (that is before I found out he was actually RC) from what perspective he was coming from.

Not to belabor the point too much (after all, it is a small matter) but I am pretty sure most people who do use the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are in fact cradle Catholics, and quite a few actually started out as Roman rite Catholics. I can think of only one or two exceptions to that even posting here at CAF (one being Marduk, who was raised as a Miaphysite Copt, not Eastern Orthodox).

I have personally known a few Catholics who did convert from Orthodoxy, back when I was EC, and ironically these friends did not bother with the terminology, they converted to Papal Catholicism and did not consider themselves Orthodox at all.

 

[Contarini]

I’m confused by Leo_the_Great’s responses because he is using Ratzinger’s proposal as if it were an official statement regarding unity between “East” and “West” (which is to say it is not).

Yes, that’s definitely wishful thinking. And it’s also worth noting that the “proposal” was made a couple of decades ago–before Ut Unum Sint, which clearly picks up on the “proposal” in a somewhat more cautious way.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s signature on the letter to the Melkite patriarch makes it clear
that whatever his private opinion may be about his earlier proposal—made before he
assumed responsibility for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—that proposal
is not on the table in any official context.

Yes. There’s a difference between what people suggest as theologians and what they say in official church office. Our present Archbishop of Canterbury has confused people that way too.

Edit: By “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I meant those who converted to the Catholic faith from Orthodoxy (which some posters at CAF have used in just that like manner).

I’ve heard it used by Byzantine Catholics–not necessarily, or even usually, converts to Catholicism from Orthodoxy. Indeed, many Western Protestants convert to Byzantine Catholicism for various reasons, one of them being the appeal of “Orthodoxy in communion with Rome.” (Some of these folks later become “Orthodox not in communion with Rome.”)

I am interested in the term because it describes where I would like to be. I am convinced both that communion with Rome is important (whether as important as the more pro-Roman Orthodox admit, or as important as the less triumphalistic folks in your Communion would claim, I’m not quite sure–I’m quite sure that the triumphalists on both sides are wrong, though if given the choice I’d prefer Orthodox triumphalism) and that on the specific doctrinal issues that divide East and West the East is generally right. I don’t think I should have to be “Eastern” in order to do this–not because I have any problem worshiping as an Eastern Christian, but because I think there is one o/Orthodox, c/Catholic Faith that should be shared by East and West.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I am interested in the term because it describes where I would like to be. I am convinced both that communion with Rome is important (whether as important as the more pro-Roman Orthodox admit, or as important as the less triumphalistic folks in your Communion would claim, I’m not quite sure–I’m quite sure that the triumphalists on both sides are wrong, though if given the choice I’d prefer Orthodox triumphalism) and that on the specific doctrinal issues that divide East and West the East is generally right. I don’t think I should have to be “Eastern” in order to do this–not because I have any problem worshiping as an Eastern Christian, but because I think there is one o/Orthodox, c/Catholic Faith that should be shared by East and West.

Edwin

Have you ever considered Western Orthodoxy? Of course for most it is an abstract, since there are few parishes.

 

[dcointin]

Have you ever considered Western Orthodoxy? Of course for most it is an abstract, since there are few parishes.

You might find this link interesting:

westernorthodox.com/

Unfortunately there are very few western-rite Orthodox parishes, so there is only a small chance that there is one near you

 

[Bluegoat]

You might find this link interesting:

westernorthodox.com/

Unfortunately there are very few western-rite Orthodox parishes, so there is only a small chance that there is one near you

No, there aren’t any in Canada as far as I can see. But given how the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be going, maybe there will be some more traditional parishes looking for a new home that can be recruited.

 

[Nine_Two]

I was sure there was one in the Maritimes, guess I was wrong because I can’t find a mention of any.

 

[JohnVIII]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

I convinced my life long Roman Catholic wife that Rome broke from Orthodoxy before I converted from Orthodox to Roman Catholic! But I have it on the authority of the pope that RC is the true church!

Seriously though, I defenently like the EO view of primacy best, but the facts are what the facts are and the RC view of primacy can be proven to be the correct one. All churches MUST agree with Rome - sorry!

 

[Hesychios]

No, there aren’t any in Canada as far as I can see. But given how the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be going, maybe there will be some more traditional parishes looking for a new home that can be recruited.

Anglican parishes tend to be small, from my observation, and if a community splits on it’s way what is left might be too small to be realistically viable. This is probably why there are so very few, I think there are about twenty in North America and some are tiny.

[BTW, Anglican Use parishes (of which there may be seven) usually gain attendees because there are so many disaffected Roman rite Catholics out there who appreciate the liturgy, so their economic viability is more assured. However the title is in the hands of the Latin bishop and they are supposed to convert to the OF when the pastor departs, at which point the bishop could close it if it is too small to provide a priest from the available pool. In other words, the Anglican Use was always intended to be a transitional step for the congregation, at least until the announcement of the Ordinariates.]

If one lives in a region of low population density, it is very unlikely that a western rite Orthodox parish will be established, and one has to address the issue strictly on a theological basis and be willing to leave one’s comfort zone. Yes, the liturgy is different than what one may be used to, but it can be remarkably reverent and glorious to behold, even in a small setting.

 

[Bluegoat]

Anglican parishes tend to be small, from my observation, and if a community splits on it’s way what is left might be too small to be realistically viable. This is probably why there are so very few, I think there are about twenty in North America and some are tiny.

[BTW, Anglican Use parishes (of which there may be seven) usually gain attendees because there are so many disaffected Roman rite Catholics out there who appreciate the liturgy, so their economic viability is more assured. However the title is in the hands of the Latin bishop and they are supposed to convert to the OF when the pastor departs, at which point the bishop could close it if it is too small to provide a priest from the available pool. In other words, the Anglican Use was always intended to be a transitional step for the congregation, at least until the announcement of the Ordinariates.]

If one lives in a region of low population density, it is very unlikely that a western rite Orthodox parish will be established, and one has to address the issue strictly on a theological basis and be willing to leave one’s comfort zone. Yes, the liturgy is different than what one may be used to, but it can be remarkably reverent and glorious to behold, even in a small setting.

Yes, I had been thinking that was one reason it would be difficult to see much growth in Western Rite Orthodoxy.

I visited an OCA parish recently and I actually didn’t find it foreign or exotic at all really. (And it was a very small setting, the parish meets in the Hall of my Anglican church, and has about 25 people there most weeks. It almost seemed like a house church.)

One thing I have heard Orthodox criticizing the Catholic Church for, with regard to how they have interacted with the Eastern Catholics, is that they only “export” Latin Rite Catholicism. This, they suggest, shows that they are not really committed to the idea that other forms are just as valid as the Latin form.

What I wonder is if this argument would also apply to Orthodoxy in some way (assuming one accepts it in the Catholic setting.) Should there be some real attempt to “grow” Western Orthodoxy? Does a real commitment to local churches mean that they ought to be simply accepted when they come, or should there be an effort to preserve what is good about such expressions? (I am coming at this from the perspective of a Canadian Anglican who sees the liturgy in the BCP as quickly disappearing.)

Anyway, despite telling gurney a few months ago that I am not considering Orthodoxy, I have changed my position. But the Eastern liturgy isn’t really a factor for me; if a Western Orthodox community was available I would tend to want to support it, but I like the Eastern liturgy too.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, I had been thinking that was one reason it would be difficult to see much growth in Western Rite Orthodoxy.

I visited an OCA parish recently and I actually didn’t find it foreign or exotic at all really. (And it was a very small setting, the parish meets in the Hall of my Anglican church, and has about 25 people there most weeks. It almost seemed like a house church.)

One thing I have heard Orthodox criticizing the Catholic Church for, with regard to how they have interacted with the Eastern Catholics, is that they only “export” Latin Rite Catholicism. This, they suggest, shows that they are not really committed to the idea that other forms are just as valid as the Latin form.

What I wonder is if this argument would also apply to Orthodoxy in some way (assuming one accepts it in the Catholic setting.) Should there be some real attempt to “grow” Western Orthodoxy? Does a real commitment to local churches mean that they ought to be simply accepted when they come, or should there be an effort to preserve what is good about such expressions? (I am coming at this from the perspective of a Canadian Anglican who sees the liturgy in the BCP as quickly disappearing.)

Anyway, despite telling gurney a few months ago that I am not considering Orthodoxy, I have changed my position. But the Eastern liturgy isn’t really a factor for me; if a Western Orthodox community was available I would tend to want to support it, but I like the Eastern liturgy too.

I used to visit the Episcopal cathedral here in Chicago many years ago. I really adored the liturgy. Of course in those days I was a Roman Catholic and always made sure to visit the Catholic cathedral first.

I had always wanted to see the Anglican Use introduced into the Chicago Archdiocese, but that never seemed to happen.

The Orthodox church is not tryoing to provoke a schism in either the Roman Catholic nor the Anclican communions, so there is no formal policy promoting the western rite. It is more of a concession, sometimes allowed by a bishop, sometimes not.

No synod has introduced western rite bishops, these parishes are adjuncts of eastern rite dioceses.

 

[Bluegoat]

I used to visit the Episcopal cathedral here in Chicago many years ago. I really adored the liturgy. Of course in those days I was a Roman Catholic and always made sure to visit the Catholic cathedral first.

I had always wanted to see the Anglican Use introduced into the Chicago Archdiocese, but that never seemed to happen.

The Orthodox church is not tryoing to provoke a schism in either the Roman Catholic nor the Anclican communions, so there is no formal policy promoting the western rite. It is more of a concession, sometimes allowed by a bishop, sometimes not.

No synod has introduced western rite bishops, these parishes are adjuncts of eastern rite dioceses.

Trying to convert whole parishes doesn’t usually go over well, does it? Look at how some Anglicans responded to the new arrangements for Anglicans - they saw it as an attempt to destroy Anglicanism. And actually I think there have been some reaching out to Anglicans from the Orthodox.

I am interested in the idea of this as a mission though - I have no idea how that would work - but the idea that when sending out missions, how does one best do that? How do you present yourself? THis has been a problem for all Christin missionary projects, really.

I tend to think having separate bishops is a bad idea, though I believe that is how the Catholics manage with the Eastern Catholic churches. We have had a tendency to create non-geographical bishops recently in Canadian Anglican circles. There is one for the military, and one for aboriginals.

On the other hand, perhaps this is reflective of a society that is no longer land based. But I can’t help buy think that geography is a basic fact - we are geographical beings. But I have doubts in general about the future of globalization - I think we will be retuning to a local existence sooner rather than later.

Sorry for the all-over-the-place post! I’ve got too much going on in my mind this morning.

 

[searn77]

No, there aren’t any in Canada as far as I can see. But given how the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be going, maybe there will be some more traditional parishes looking for a new home that can be recruited.

mail.white-rabbit.ca/churchsites/www.westernorthodox.ca/index.htm

I’m not sure if that’s their main website (because I thought I remember they got a new website but I could be wrong) but this is a western rite Orthodox monastery in Canada.

 

[Contarini]

Have you ever considered Western Orthodoxy? Of course for most it is an abstract, since there are few parishes.

As I said, I don’t have a problem worshiping as an Eastern Christian. I’d be sorry to give up Charles Wesley, but as it stands I long for Byzantine liturgy. Practically speaking, one can’t have everything at once. So I’m happy to worship in the style of whatever parish is close to me.

That being said, the possibility of Western Orthodoxy is an important theological issue for me in considering the claims of Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy really is the true Church, then Western Orthodoxy ought to be possible. But I have real problems with the claim that Orthodoxy is the true Church (as opposed to the Church with the best doctrine and liturgy).

On a practical, local level, a major factor in my reluctance to become Orthodox is the fact that I live in a heavily Catholic town, with two Catholic parishes just down the road from me. When triumphalist Catholics use Catholic numbers and ubiquity as a knock-down argument that the Roman Communion is truly the Catholic Church, I can argue the case against them. But this fact on the ground does mean something. I find it hard to accept the idea that Rome is not part of the Church, whatever may be true of the rest of us.

If I don’t become RC, I’m more likely, at least for the time being, to go on being Anglican while trying to promote those aspects of Anglicanism closest to Orthodoxy. If I were to move to a place where there was a local Orthodox parish, and where the historic Anglican bishop in the area was not in compliance with the Windsor Report (that’s the simplest way of putting it that I can manage–I’m willing to expand if you need me to), I’d be much more likely to become Orthodox. But would the Orthodox have me on those terms?

But back to your question–founding a local Western Orthodox parish (even if feasible) would be horrifying to me, because it would be further splitting the Christian community in my town. And that, again, is the bottom line of why I’m not Orthodox–the ecclesiology implied in the previous sentence is probably not compatible with Orthodoxy.

Edwin

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Bluegoat, if you ever travel to New Orleans

reu.org/public/default.htm

reu.org/public/liturgys.htm

reu.org/public/soufan/damas.htm

This is the Holy Innocents Orthodox church, a Western Rite church in New Orleans. I attend DL there whenever I visit New Orleans. The celebrant is the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil, Archbishop Paul. He is a wonderful man who has been to Soufanieh (Damascus, Syria), where Our Lady and Jesus Christ have been appearing since 1982 to Myrna Nazzour, and instructing the clergy to unify the Feast of Pascha (Easter), as the first step to reunion. The apparitions have been approved by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (Myrna is Melkite Catholic), the local Greek Eastern Orthodox Bishop and I think also the EO Patriarch of Antioch (Myrna’s husband Nicolas is Greek EO, and the apparitions and miracles linked to the Holy Icon of Soufanieh have been taking place in their home), and also approved and believed by the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, plus just about any Catholic, EO, and OO Bishops and Priests who visited and witnessed the many miracles there. Let’s not forget the local Baptist pastor in the Soufanieh area - he also believes in Theotokos’ apparitions there, according to Archbishop Paul!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I should mention, though, the Russians I knew wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a Western rite Orthodox parish that celebrates Christmas on December 25 and not on January 7 as they do in Russia. That’s the Mother of All Heresies, to them. Nevermind that the Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil (S.S.B.) was founded by the Moscow Patriarch in the 19th century, to tend to the needs of Western Orthodox people converted from Western Catholicism. Also, rather inconveniently (to other EO) the S.S.B. believes that the Eucharist in the Catholic Churches IS valid, because the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarch investigated this issue in the 19th century and came to the official conclusion that the Catholic Eucharist IS a valid sacrament. So, today the Russian Orthodox reject the findings of THEIR OWN Holy Synod of the MP of some 150 years ago, when these Russians today reject and mock the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. At least that’s what the ROCOR priest I knew did, he wasn’t simply agnostic about the validity of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, he mocked it. And the first reaction of the Russian Orthodox woman I dated, when I brought up the validity of our (Catholic) Eucharist, was “don’t bring the Devil to the Ceasha (Chalice)!” Sure she was just a layperson, but let’s not forget that in EO ecclesiology, the laity has the power to reject the teachings and decisions of the clergy, see the rejection of the Unions of Florence and Brest by the laity.

Anyway, the S.S.B. won’t get phased by the hostile attitudes of other EO, and they (Archbishop Paul and the S.S.B.) contacted the RC Archbishop of New Orleans about coming into communion with the RCC, while staying Orthodox themselves. Archbishop Paul has been to Soufanieh, and Jesus Christ’s and Theotokos’s messages on the need to reunite our Churches weigh more in his mind than the lack of sympathy he receives from other EO Church representatives, including the Russian and Greek EO. He will admit Catholics to Holy Communion in S.S.B. churches, and of course EO are admitted to Holy Communion in RC churches in New Orleans and elsewhere.

 

[Harpazo]

Trying to convert whole parishes doesn’t usually go over well, does it? Look at how some Anglicans responded to the new arrangements for Anglicans - they saw it as an attempt to destroy Anglicanism. And actually I think there have been some reaching out to Anglicans from the Orthodox.

I am interested in the idea of this as a mission though - I have no idea how that would work - but the idea that when sending out missions, how does one best do that? How do you present yourself? THis has been a problem for all Christin missionary projects, really.

I tend to think having separate bishops is a bad idea, though I believe that is how the Catholics manage with the Eastern Catholic churches. We have had a tendency to create non-geographical bishops recently in Canadian Anglican circles. There is one for the military, and one for aboriginals.

On the other hand, perhaps this is reflective of a society that is no longer land based. But I can’t help buy think that geography is a basic fact - we are geographical beings. But I have doubts in general about the future of globalization - I think we will be retuning to a local existence sooner rather than later.

Sorry for the all-over-the-place post! I’ve got too much going on in my mind this morning.

This blog used to have a little “manual” on how to start a Western Rite Mission, but there is now an email address for someone you can contact about starting one. I’m sure they could give you that little “manual” I was talking about. It starts with one.

The recent martyr in Russia, Fr. Daniel Sysoyev reached out to all kinds of religious groups in Russia, including various Protestant sectarians, probably some Roman Catholics and Muslims. The Muslims had enough after he baptized 80 of them, so they shot him in his church. I feel like we need some priests like that here that are willing to go out to the heterodox and the pagans and bring them to Christ.

I don’t entirely know what to make of Western Orthodoxy at the moment. I would love to see it flourish and grow. However, I do agree that they do not need their own bishops and the converse would be true if the entire British Isles came home to Orthodoxy and some of their bishops were made Orthodox bishops. The Eastern Orthodox would have to accept their authority, even if they did not use the same liturgy, devotions, etc. However, this is one sinner’s opinion.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Bluegoat, if you ever travel to New Orleans

reu.org/public/default.htm

reu.org/public/liturgys.htm

reu.org/public/soufan/damas.htm

This is the Holy Innocents Orthodox church, a Western Rite church in New Orleans. I attend DL there whenever I visit New Orleans. The celebrant is the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil, Archbishop Paul. He is a wonderful man who has been to Soufanieh (Damascus, Syria), where Our Lady and Jesus Christ have been appearing since 1982 to Myrna Nazzour, and instructing the clergy to unify the Feast of Pascha (Easter), as the first step to reunion. The apparitions have been approved by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch (Myrna is Melkite Catholic), the local Greek Eastern Orthodox Bishop and I think also the EO Patriarch of Antioch (Myrna’s husband Nicolas is Greek EO, and the apparitions and miracles linked to the Holy Icon of Soufanieh have been taking place in their home), and also approved and believed by the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, plus just about any Catholic, EO, and OO Bishops and Priests who visited and witnessed the many miracles there. Let’s not forget the local Baptist pastor in the Soufanieh area - he also believes in Theotokos’ apparitions there, according to Archbishop Paul!

From what I can tell on their website and your descriptions, they are not Orthodox. They list no bishop or canonical jurisdiction. This group is no different than any “Old Catholic” group or some such. This Archbishop Paul, from what I can tell, is no Archbishop at all.

In Christ,
Andrew