Who are the Orthodox in communion with the Roman Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesley7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wesley7

Guest
Has anyone ever heard of such a group affiliated with the Church of Rome??
 
The Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome.

The Churches of the East, who either went into schism with Rome and then returned or who always maintained communion with Rome, form the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.

There are 22 of these.

This Wikipedia article is a pretty good overview:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
 
So why are there some Orthodox who don’t accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
 
Wesley7 said:
So why are there some Orthodox who don’t accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox Churches do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and are in schism from the Catholic Church, for many reasons going back over 1000 years. It is a long and complicated tale.

I suggest you pick up some books on the subject.
 
There are no Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome, they are Eastern Catholic. Though many of the Eastern Catholic Church originate with the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), they are not the same.
 
In reality, there are no Orthodox in communion with Rome, no Orthodox in communion with Anglicans and no Orthodox in communion with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. because once one communes with the heterodox one is outside of the church. One would absolutely require the permission of one’s Orthodox bishop or priest.

There are some Eastern Catholics who claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, most of these are internet-active, which is where you probably encountered the term, but these are actually a small undetermined percentage of the Eastern Catholics (EC in total number about 1-1/2% of all Christians under the Pope and most cradle EC I know do not make such a claim for themselves). They do not have Orthodox bishops. NO Orthodox church recognizes them as Orthodox Christians in good standing.

If one has the blessing of one’s Orthodox bishop (or one’s Orthodox priest, assuming he has the clearance of the bishop) to partake the Holy Mysteries in another church, then that’s OK. If one does this without the blessing of the bishop, or one leaves obedience to his Orthodox bishop the person is outside of the church.

Communion is a very serious issue. It acts as an endorsement of the beliefs taught by the church one receives from. Just as an Orthodox priest must take great care to assure that those who receive are Orthodox and properly disposed, the believer must take great care to find an Orthodox priest. If the Orthodox individual does partake outside the church without a compellingly serious reason (such as near death without an Orthodox priest available) perhaps out of curiosity, or a sense of religious relativism for two examples, then one most go back to one’s priest for spiritual direction. It should be confessed and perhaps might even require Chrismation if the breach has been conscious and lengthy.
 
Wesley7 said:
So why are there some Orthodox who don’t accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
Click to expand...
The question should be “why are there some Catholics who want to be regarded as Orthodox?”

Probably since Vatican Council II, the Papacy has mandated that the Eastern Catholic churches restore their ancient patrimony, which was seriously damaged after generations of interference and meddling by the Latin Catholic church at many levels. This has been observed by Orthodox who see what could possibly happen to their own churches if they got involved with Rome. It was bad press.

Rather than be an example of how good it can be to be in communion with Rome (and fostering unity), they were advertising just the opposite and became an obstacle to unity. Happily they are now restoring their traditions but they still must not reject the newer Latin theological constructs. Whether they understand these doctrines or not, whether they are taught these doctrines in their parishes or not they must accept that the church is not in error and has the right to unilaterally define new dogmas.

Eastern Catholics (and the people among them who call themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome) are under a Code of Canon Law promulgated for them by the Pope.

Orthodox are under the ancient canons of the Councils and Synods of the church.
 
Brother Michael gave a very good and fair presentation of the Orthodox perspective on the matter.

Permit me to offer a Catholic perspective:

The phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (“OCR”) represents a worldview, not a particular group.

OCR’s possess the following basic beliefs:
  1. OCR’s maintain our Orthodox theologies, practices, and spiritualities faithfully.
  2. Just because it is Latin does not mean it is not Orthodox.
  3. Rome is as orthodox now as she was in the first millenium.
  4. Every Orthodox Christian in the first millennium was united to Rome, and OCR’s fulfill the goal of returning to the practice and beliefs of the first millennium.
  5. Distinctions in theology and practice, with unity in dogma, existed in the first millennium Church, and the Catholic Church today fulfills this first millennium reality.
  6. Unity does not rest with uniformity, but understanding.
  7. The same dogma can be expressed differently according to the unique theology of the several Traditions (Oriental, Eastern, CoE, Western); the difference in theological expressions does not diminish unity in belief.
Certain dogmas of the Catholic Church are perceived by Orthodox as “innovations” only because they are normatively expressed in Latin terminology and theology. OCR’s understand this, and are able to distinguish and perceive the underlying belief that unites us with the Latins. Other OCR’s (a very small minority, IMO) who can’t seem to get past the Latin terminology/theology, understand the dogma itself (not just the theological expression) to apply to the Latin CC alone.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
The phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (“OCR”) represents a worldview, not a particular group.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much correct.

A lot depends on how one defines being “Orthodox”.

If one considers it to be a member of a sui juris Church that is not in Communion with Rome, then the statement “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” is obviously an oxymoron.

However, if one views it as refering to a sui juris Church that engages in Orthodoxy praxis, then the statement is quite valid.

Most of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a “counter part” sui juris Church that is in Communion with Rome that keeps near identical praxis. It is those faithful, who are full Catholics, that are sometimes refer to themselves as “Orthodoxy in Communuion with Rome”
 
Dear brother Brendan,
Brendan said:
That is pretty much correct.

A lot depends on how one defines being “Orthodox”.

If one considers it to be a member of a sui juris Church that is not in Communion with Rome, then the statement “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” is obviously an oxymoron.

However, if one views it as refering to a sui juris Church that engages in Orthodoxy praxis, then the statement is quite valid.

Most of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a “counter part” sui juris Church that is in Communion with Rome that keeps near identical praxis. It is those faithful, who are full Catholics, that are sometimes refer to themselves as “Orthodoxy in Communuion with Rome”
Click to expand...
Thank you for the corroboration. However, I would offer a clarification. OCR’s maintain not just the praxis of Orthodoxy, but also the spirituality and theology.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Hesychios said:
In reality, there are no Orthodox in communion with Rome, no Orthodox in communion with Anglicans and no Orthodox in communion with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. because once one communes with the heterodox one is outside of the church. One would absolutely require the permission of one’s Orthodox bishop or priest.

And yet the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope and those Eastern Apostolic Churches in communion with the Pope since pentecost, have adopted an Anglican Liturgy in the self claimed orthodoxy in the West. Something to consider here Hesychios about your non communion with Protestant Western Anglicans?
There are some Eastern Catholics who claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, most of these are internet-active, which is where you probably encountered the term, but these are actually a small undetermined percentage of the Eastern Catholics
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
And yet the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope and those Eastern Apostolic Churches in communion with the Pope since pentecost, have adopted an Anglican Liturgy in the self claimed orthodoxy in the West. Something to consider here Hesychios about your non communion with Protestant Western Anglicans?
Click to expand...
Gabriel, I have to wonder about your reasoning sometimes. 🤷

May God love you and bless you and keep you.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
And yet the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope and those Eastern Apostolic Churches in communion with the Pope since pentecost, have adopted an Anglican Liturgy in the self claimed orthodoxy in the West. Something to consider here Hesychios about your non communion with Protestant Western Anglicans?
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what are your opinions on the Novus Ordo and Anglican-use liturgies done in the Catholic Church?
 
QUOTE=searn77;6720923]Just out of curiosity, what are your opinions on the Novus Ordo and Anglican-use liturgies done in the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I would apply the Uniate Church definition very loosely. It is the same IMHO as all Eastern Orthodox Catholics in communion with the Pope who practice there apostolic liturgical Traditions.

It is the Orthodox not in communion with the Pope who have a problem with "Uniate Churches who keep to their culture, liturgy, theology and practices and remain united to Peter’s chair in the Popes.

If Orthodoxy not in unity with Peter’s chair are to implement other liturgies in their communion seperated from their own Apostolic Traditions they have entered into uniatism which they despise or these with the Anglican adopted liturgy is never Orthodox as is falsely claimed in the western Orthodox. You asked my opinion? we will have to wait and see as these newly formed Orthodox in the west transforms itself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top