Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Not in itself, though its a convenient and originally affectionate title that to most Western Christians has come to denote the bishop of Rome specifically, whose unique role in the Church is very meaningful and historical.

But you were saying the title of Patriarch was unimportant because it in itself has been without meaning. The title of Pope should be subject to the same criteria, should it not?

The title of Patriarch is historically much more important than that of Pope, those who held it had roles which were quite meaningful and historical.

It just seems to me to be on par with the EP rejecting the title "Patriarch of Constantinople", or the Patriarch of Alexandria rejecting that title.


My point being that you're arguing that giving up the title is supposed to help relations with the East, and yet you make it clear that surrendering the title is something that only makes it clear in the context of the West.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

BUT - for all intents and purposes it seems like one group is essentially waiting for the other group to submit to a specific viewpoint. And have been waiting for quite some time in fact.

I disagree. It is a case of both groups waiting for each other to submit to their viewpoint.

I suppose we bother because it is the Christian thing to do, and even if we will never have unity it is better that we are at least cordial with each other, than that we are down each others throats, as was once the case.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

If this is not the essence of his place in the Church, then the insistence by others that he is the patriarch of Rome demonstrates the need to get rid of the title Patriarch of the West (note, Patriarch of Rome was never an official title, unless I'm mistaken), which was only officially used since the 19th century and rarely employed in any way prior to the Counter-Reformation, when it was used in an attempt to assert greater practical control over Western Europe.

That's OK.

This is a big reason why we cannot solve the schism. The bishops at Rome claim to be something other than they really are, and anathematize any who do not agree. They claim this is a dogma, which makes it worse than just a bold exaggeration.

We see the denial of the term as an attempt to do just what you suggest: if you don't like the score, change the rules of the game. If the fish don't bite, change the bait.

It's not working. He will always be a patriarch of the west, in or out of communion with the church.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

There was no joint statement from Eastern Patriarchs until after Florence. The situation was clouded by the effect of the massive influx of Latins in the Crusades, and the loss of Latin territory and influence in waning years. Communion of the faithful extended beyond 1204 in many places. In fact Rome was approving Eastern bishops in Galicia areas beyond that time.


Does any reasonable person still think that way?

Do you ever not ask loaded questions?

Against my better judgement, and knowing it is a loaded question - I'll be decried as a polemicist for sure - I'll answer you.

It depends on what you mean.
If you mean does anyone still think that was the better way (and I suspect you do), Yes. Absolutely. The East is better off for what happened.
We saw what happened to the Eastern Catholics under the Roman Catholic Church, they've only just started to reclaim their heritage and the only reason they've been able to do that is because they can look at what we still do. Without even touching on the issues of the faith, Eastern Christianity would be dead.
The nice thing about adversity is that it preserves cultures. Just look at the Orthodox in Cyprus, or the Jews throughout Europe.

If you mean would people today rather live under the harsh rule of a modern Muslim state, or the benign rule of a modern Catholic state, absolutely not. I'd rather live in modern Rome than modern Medina, and I doubt anyone Orthodox Christian today would say otherwise.

[TheAtheist]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

I disagree. It is a case of both groups waiting for each other to submit to their viewpoint.

Duly noted.

I suppose we bother because it is the Christian thing to do, and even if we will never have unity it is better that we are at least cordial with each other, than that we are down each others throats, as was once the case.

Pardon - i'm a little too much of the efficiency busy-body. I tend to look at problems in very hard practical terms. My friends who sit on both sides of the fence tend to bring up the idea of unity in conversation without addressing the err "mechanical matters." that would be necessary to bring about the desired result.

But well, cordial relations are always a good thing.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

Pardon me, but may i toss in an interjection from the Peanut Gallery?

Tied to this question about Eastern Catholics is the whole matter between Catholics in general and their Orthodox brethren and this continual search for some sort of negotiated "unity."

Which leads me to my question - Why bother?

It's complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. -- though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

[RyanBlack]

Originally Posted by Peter J

It's complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. -- though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

We want unity with Protestants, but we refer to them as "rotten apples?" And that sort of insulting language is going to accomplish unity?

And the condescending, patronizing language towards the Orthodox is supposed to help bring unity with them? They're good apples when compared to the Protestants, but we're the best apples of all, so they should want unity with us? Do you really think insulting and patronizing language is going to accomplish any good thing?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by RyanBlack

We want unity with Protestants, but we refer to them as "rotten apples?" And that sort of insulting language is going to accomplish unity?

And the condescending, patronizing language towards the Orthodox is supposed to help bring unity with them? They're good apples when compared to the Protestants, but we're the best apples of all, so they should want unity with us? Do you really think insulting and patronizing language is going to accomplish any good thing?

Unfortunately, Peter is right on the money, despite the jocular nature of his post.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Peter J

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

I'm sure everyone is running to the line towards unity when one exudes such humility.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Peter J

It's complicated. Really, we want unity with all Christians, not just the Orthodox; but naturally we tend to pursue the good apples (the Orthodox) more than the rotten apples (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. -- though, of course, we like some of those better than others).

On the other hand, we ourselves are the best apple of all, so the Orthodox should want unity with us.

Haha. Wow. I think this post says more than you might've been planning to, Peter J!

"Such and such will unite with us" vs. "such and such will unite to the common faith"...hmmm...both would yield increased numbers, I guess, but the focus seems different. It makes it seem as though Rome is all about regaining some lost mythic "Christendom" (Empire?), which is distasteful to millions of Christians who have spent the last 1500 years opposing you and paying for it at the decrees of your holy Roman emperors and Popes.

*ahem*

And also, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Roman Church show them to be much more in tune with Protestant sensibilities (e.g., Roman Catholic criticisms of VII as "Protestantizing" the RC Church) than Orthodox ones, at any rate. Honestly, and with love, I would advise any RC to clean his own house before being concerned with uniting with others. Knowing who you are and practicing your faith with strength, confidence, and humility is a lot more attractive than simply declaring yourselves the best of apples (even in jest).

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

But you were saying the title of Patriarch was unimportant because it in itself has been without meaning. The title of Pope should be subject to the same criteria, should it not?

The title of Patriarch is historically much more important than that of Pope, those who held it had roles which were quite meaningful and historical.

It just seems to me to be on par with the EP rejecting the title "Patriarch of Constantinople", or the Patriarch of Alexandria rejecting that title.


My point being that you're arguing that giving up the title is supposed to help relations with the East, and yet you make it clear that surrendering the title is something that only makes it clear in the context of the West.

It's not that the title "Patriarch" is meaningless in and of itself. Indeed, I take your point that isolated from historical and cultural context "Patriarch" has much more meaning than "Pope". The latter literally just means "Father", which is what we call all priests. Also the Patriarch of Alexandria is still called "Pope."

I meant specifically the title "Patriarch of the West." Based on the reading I've done, this title was, in the West, used extremely rarely and haphazardly prior to the Counter-Reformation (this use likely due to exposure to Eastern statements labeling the Pope as such). After that it was used to make the Pope sound that much more impressive, during the era when Western Christendom was in chaos and the Popes were trying to re-impose order. This title finally was added to the long list of Papal titles in 1863, I’d hazard to guess mainly out of cultural values that in the English speaking world we would call Victorian or Gilded Age: the fancier and more opulent we can be the better, so let's add extra titles if we can.

But the real authority of the Pope was and is in his older, historically substantial role as Supreme Pontiff. Elsewhere in the ecclesial West, the title Patriarch is also practically meaningless, just an extra honor. The Patriarch of Venice, for example, is in the end pretty much just another archbishop, but for historical reasons he's honored with the title Patriarch.

If the West holds that the Bishop of Rome has a unique role in the Church shared by no other bishop, and the East (or at least the non-Catholic East) holds that he's just another Patriarch, even if potentially the first in honor, who is claiming undue authority over other Patriarchs, then it makes sense to me to remove the source of confusion that the use of the word "Patriarch" in one of the Pope’s titles brings to the discussion. The Latin Church is organized differently than the Eastern Churches, and title "Patriarch" just doesn't have much meaning in that Latin context. Calling the Pope "Patriarch of the West" or, worse, "Patriarch of Rome" distracts us from the real subject at hand: the Pope as Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church.

By the way, I think there was an additional, internal reason for the change: Latin Rite Catholics in places like Asia are sometimes uncomfortable with being called "Western," so we are moving away from use of that word.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

And also, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Roman Church show them to be much more in tune with Protestant sensibilities (e.g., Roman Catholic criticisms of VII as "Protestantizing" the RC Church) than Orthodox ones, at any rate.

I see what you're saying, to an extent, but that seems like an odd example to use -- RCs criticizing VII as "Protestantizing" the RCC is hardly complementary to Protestants!

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

It's not that the title "Patriarch" is meaningless in and of itself. Indeed, I take your point that isolated from historical and cultural context "Patriarch" has much more meaning than "Pope". The latter literally just means "Father", which is what we call all priests. Also the Patriarch of Alexandria is still called "Pope."

I meant specifically the title "Patriarch of the West." Based on the reading I've done, this title was, in the West, used extremely rarely and haphazardly prior to the Counter-Reformation (this use likely due to exposure to Eastern statements labeling the Pope as such). After that it was used to make the Pope sound that much more impressive, during the era when Western Christendom was in chaos and the Popes were trying to re-impose order. This title finally was added to the long list of Papal titles in 1863, I’d hazard to guess mainly out of cultural values that in the English speaking world we would call Victorian or Gilded Age: the fancier and more opulent we can be the better, so let's add extra titles if we can.

But the real authority of the Pope was and is in his older, historically substantial role as Supreme Pontiff. Elsewhere in the ecclesial West, the title Patriarch is also practically meaningless, just an extra honor. The Patriarch of Venice, for example, is in the end pretty much just another archbishop, but for historical reasons he's honored with the title Patriarch.

If the West holds that the Bishop of Rome has a unique role in the Church shared by no other bishop, and the East (or at least the non-Catholic East) holds that he's just another Patriarch, even if potentially the first in honor, who is claiming undue authority over other Patriarchs, then it makes sense to me to remove the source of confusion that the use of the word "Patriarch" in one of the Pope’s titles brings to the discussion. The Latin Church is organized differently than the Eastern Churches, and title "Patriarch" just doesn't have much meaning in that Latin context. Calling the Pope "Patriarch of the West" or, worse, "Patriarch of Rome" distracts us from the real subject at hand: the Pope as Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church.

By the way, I think there was an additional, internal reason for the change: Latin Rite Catholics in places like Asia are sometimes uncomfortable with being called "Western," so we are moving away from use of that word.

But to our minds, the title of Patriarch is the highest he can ever hope to claim. He may see himself as the Western equivalent of the Georgian Catholicos, but even he's ultimately just a patriarch.

[Catherine Grant]

Note from Moderator:

This debate is not adhering to the Eastern Catholicism debate guidelines.
It's a fasting time. Please let us see the fruit of your self-restraint and prayer.

A new thread may be started to continue the debate. Anyone who violates the debate guidelines in that thread will receive a suspension.

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism
These guidelines are the same as CAF's long-standing religious discussion guidelines and charity guidelines, but they re-state the general guidelines taking into account the specific nature of debates and the style of posters frequently seen in the Eastern Catholicism forum. All debates in the Eastern Catholicism forum are held to these guidelines, which were developed from trial and error by Eastern Catholicism posters from diverse backgrounds.

No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said...
• You need to...
• You don't get it.
• Why don't you...
• If only you...
• It is you who...
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I'm not the one who...
• Some people here...

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to...
• Why don't you...
• If you'd only...
• Those of us who have...

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always...
• Every single time this comes up...
• Aren't you a saint?

Remember: your goal in a debate on the Eastern Catholicism forum is to sound like an encyclopedia robot. If you think you sound like a robot, that means you're probably discussing the topic and not each other.
Please remember that there are many people lurking who are judging your position and all those who are in your communion by your behavior alone. It does not matter what anyone else says; you should be a model of charitable dialogue. If someone else is not, please do not respond in kind. Let the moderator know and it will be handled as necessary.


CAF's General Guidelines for Posting in a Religious Discussion

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don't answer a question with a question. If you don't know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices.
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual's beliefs.
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren't going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word "avowed." Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

Sarcasm, Making Corrections and Jumping Threads

• On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn't dump a shakerful on your food, don't dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
• Don't jump threads. If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread. Also, if the moderator closes a thread, consider the subject closed and do not begin it anew in another thread.
• It is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them.

Praise

• When you agree with a part of what someone said, tell them. It doesn't hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.

What to look for in your post before you press submit:

• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.