Hero and Pillar of Orthodoxy

www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.htm

>>>Hero and Pillar of Orthodoxy <<<

One of mine, too. Better no union than a false one.

>>>Hero and Pillar of Orthodoxy <<<

>> One of mine, too. Better no union than a false one.>>

If that is so Stuart, then why do you support the union. Or perhaps you don't?

Ed

Stuart's premise that "Better no union than a false one" accurately reflects the thinking of most of the bishops, priests and theologians of the Byzantine Catholic Church. I, for one, am thankful that the attempted union at Florence failed. Had it succeeded, and given the attitude prevailing attitude by Rome that the Roman style of Catholicism was superior to all others, Rome would have been in a much stronger position to force the Orthodox Churches to replace their authentic Byzantine approach to Catholicism with that of the Latin Church. Imagine the loss to the universal Church if all of Orthodoxy had been latinized as we were.

Communion with Rome is important and I do not in any way suggest that we break it now that we have it. But the price we have paid for it has been too high. If we were able to repeat history I would go back in time and insist to my "uniate" spiritual ancestors that the amount of their own tradition they had to sacrifice was too high a price to pay for communion with Rome, especially when they were already fully the Church and that their salvation was not dependent upon communion with Rome.

Moose, you write:

"Communion with Rome is important and I do not in any way suggest that we break it now that we have it. But the price we have paid for it has been too high. If we were able to repeat history I would go back in time and insist to my "uniate" spiritual ancestors that the amount of their own tradition they had to sacrifice was too high a price to pay for communion with Rome, especially when they were already fully the Church and that their salvation was not dependent upon communion with Rome."

Reply: With all due respect, your comments make no sense to me as an Orthodox Christian.
First you say - 'Communion with Rome is important'. Then you end by saying - 'especially when they were already fully the Church and that their salvation was not dependent upon communion with Rome.'

What happened in the last 400 years to make communion with Rome so important & your salvation dependent on it now?

>>>If that is so Stuart, then why do you support the union. Or perhaps you don't?<<<

I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the Union of Florence, which was not a union at all but a coerced submission so flawed that the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had in fact BEEN in communion with Rome, and which had none of the ethnic/political antagonism towards Rome characteristic of the Byzantine Church, actually BROKE its communion with Rome rather thans sign the Union. And, says Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, the Armenians were right to do so, for to sign would have meant the obliteration of their ecclesial identity. Mark of Ephesus was therefore correct in rejecting a union which was not based upon communion in the Holy Spirit but upon force majeur.

>>What happened in the last 400 years to make communion with Rome so important & your salvation dependent on it now?<<

My apologies, Robert, for not being clear. To restate, communion with Rome is indeed important, but our salvation is not now and has never been dependent upon this communion. If we could go back in time I would tell my spiritual ancestors that the price they were agreeing to pay was in effect everything that made up their existence. The price we paid was not worth the communion, even though there have been benefits to this communion. Rome, to its credit, has now acknowledged this. One only needs to read Pope John Paul II's "Light of the East" to understand this.

Having said this, however, I do not wish to imply that communion with Rome is not currently needed or that it should now be severed. As Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, we Byzantine Catholics are in a special position to educate our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters with our spiritual treasures. In doing so we can help to fulfill the Holy Father's repeated requests. At the same time we can also witness to the West that that what we offer is not just an ethnic expression of Catholicism but in reality a complete doctrinal expression that cannot be isolated from our liturgical and canonical tradition. In this way we could possibly become a model of the relationship between Churches once full communion is re-established between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I am always hesitant to discuss this topic. Some Roman Catholics who read this will immediately dismiss what I say because their own view of communion tends to lean toward submission to Rome at any and all cost. But when the cost of submission is all that you are, and that Rome is wrong for setting the price so high, one realizes that one should not pay this price. But, of course, hindsight is much clearer and we can not blame our spiritual ancestors for doing what they believed necessary to survive.

Moose:

I think that discussions just like these should be the subject of intense dialogue on programs such as EWTN, AND on a regular basis. If not, then the Byzantine Catholics will be kept quiet and confined to these websites.

On another subject, how many Eastern Catholic bishops are attending the NCCB in DC?

JoeS

Joe S:
The Eastern bishops attended the 6:30 am Divine Liturgy (celebrated by Metropolitan Judson) at the NCCB session in Washington this morning:
Byzantine Ruthenians: Metropolitan Judson, Bishop Basil.
Melkite: Bishop John
Ukranian: Byzantine Bishop Basil
Syrian Bishop: (not sure of name)
Others bishops may be in attendance at the NCCB – I am simply reporting the ones present for the Divine Liturgy this morning.
This information is firsthand. I was privileged to serve the Divine Liturgy for Metropolitan Judson.
Lector El Pekarik

Stuart wrote:

"I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the Union of Florence, which was not a union at all but a coerced submission so flawed that the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had in fact BEEN in communion with Rome, and which had none of the ethnic/political antagonism towards Rome characteristic of the Byzantine Church, actually BROKE its communion with Rome rather thans sign the Union. And, says Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, the Armenians were right to do so,
for to sign would have meant the obliteration of their ecclesial identity. Mark of Ephesus was therefore correct in rejecting a union which was not based upon communion in the Holy Spirit but upon force majeur."

Stuart,
I'd be interested in learning a bit more about the Armenians at the Council of Florence. Would you mind giving us a bit of a history lesson on that?
As far as I have been able to discern from my reading on the Council, the notion that the union was coerced, as you say, is a great exaggeration. It is true that the Greeks were seeking aid from the west to halt the invasion by the Turks. Nevertheless, the discussions at Florence make very clear that the Greeks were unwilling to compromise doctrine simply for the sake of aid. Certainly, Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, Scholarios (who later repudiated the union) and many others, signed the union freely and willingly.

Ed