The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#126359 12/20/02 11:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
durak Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Bishop Basil Losten, in the Autumn 2001 issue of Eastern Churches Journal stated, "...others, including my own Ukrainian Catholic Church, insist that our Church never endorsed any schism nor repudiated our communion with Rome. What happened at Brest in 1596 was a restatement of that unbroken communion; not a re-union."
When juxtaposing this to the interesting, "Eastern Catholics never broke with Orthodoxy, we just added communion with the Church of Rome" idea that was well received by some on this site, the two seem mutually exclusive.
So, which is it?

#126360 12/21/02 05:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Is it possible that they are both correct - though from somewhat different points of view?

For example:

The second position: that of " 'Restoration' of Communion" - which is IMO a more accurate and preferred way to say it (I think), than " 'Addition' of Communion" (though I understand the point that 'Addition' is trying to make), could be understood from an historico-canonical point of view.

That is to say that juridically and historically, it is true that the Church of Kyiv, founded by New Rome and in communion with the Orthodox Churches were not explicitly under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church or had regular and official Communio in Sacris with the Church of older Rome.

Thus, from that perspective, the Uniya of Brest-Litovsk was in the historic sense, a Restoration of the earlier and propre Communion between Catholic and Orthodox [i.e. Greek rite and Latin rite (in the full sense of the term "rite") Churches].

On the other hand, the First Position (the Re-affirmatin or "restatement" of Union) is true from perhaps a spiritual or moral point of view.

It is clear that the Church of Kyiv as such never explicity or officially broke communion with the Church of older Rome.

As far as I know, it never anathemised the Latin Church. What problem there was existed between it's Mother Church (Tsar-horod) and the Latin Patriarchate. Did it intend "intentionally" (if you will excuse the syntax) to break Communion with older Rome? Arguably, no.

Perhaps, like some major falling out in an extended family, as one of the children, the Church of Kyiv, remaining with it's mother as it would naturally do, just lost contact with "Uncle Pete" with whom Mom was no longer on speaking terms.

Wherefore the Uniya of Brest-Litovsk was merely the clarification and restatement that "No, we have not anathemised you".

Or more colloquially, it was a statement to the effect that..."as between us and you (Kyiv and older Rome) we're Ok - even though "Mother" and you, "Uncle Pete", don't get on these days.

Perhaps the situation may be likened (at least arguably likened) to that between the Church of older Rome and the Oriental Orthodox Church in India. As I understand, when the Latins arrived, they were immediately and happily accepted and received as "long lost relatives" and were told something to the effect of, "No prob, Bro, don't worry about it. You have the law of Peter and we the law of Thomas!" The fact that they had lost contact, did not at all mean that they were "on the outs".

herb

#126361 12/21/02 11:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
durak Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Thank you, Herbigny, for your lucid thoughts on this matter.
Upon further reflection, I would say that for the centuries that the Church of Kiev refused "inter-communion-ing" with the First Rome in solidarity with her Mother Church, this indeed constituted an endorsement of the schism and repudiation of communion with Rome. Can anyone argue that it was not?

#126362 12/21/02 01:05 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
What a very interesting thread! As I have stated before somewhere on this forum that I believe that other than the 4th crusade, one of the main factors of the church "split" is due to the loss of communication between churches...probably due to demographics, politics, geography, etc. But nowadays we have computers, cell phones, fax, wireless, etc. I would say it is absolutely no excuse at all for not even intiate formal communication between churches, just like the one recently set up between Rome and Constantinople. I would imagine that communication would be a key to full reconciliation...restoration of communion between churches...and forgivness.

A penny of your thoughts on my theory?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

#126363 12/21/02 01:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Spdundas,

Yes I would agree that we have fewer reasons for at least not communicating on a regular basis than we had 1000 years ago.

Quote
It is clear that the Church of Kyiv as such never explicity or officially broke communion with the Church of older Rome.
Technically, did all of the Orthodox Churches explicitly leave communion with Rome, and vice versa? I know the Schism is dated from anywhere from 1054 to the 1450s, but when was it made official? Or was it?

I think I had heard that the Churches officially split in something like 1453.

ChristTeen287

#126364 12/21/02 04:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Dear "Durak-for-the-sake-of-Christ": Let me try this arguement. I'm no historian, so my thesis may be quite easily disposed of by a few well placed documentary citations, but here goes...

Quote
Originally posted by durak:
Upon further reflection, I would say that for the centuries that the Church of Kiev refused "inter-communion-ing" with the First Rome in solidarity with her Mother Church, this indeed constituted an endorsement of the schism and repudiation of communion with Rome. Can anyone argue that it was not?
I don't know of any incidents or officially [and intentionally] sanctioned "Acta" whereby the Church of Kyiv actually excommunicated the Latin Church.

I don't know of any incidents where members of the Latin Church (especially such as Bishops-types etc. official representatives) tried to "communicate", i.e. take Communion (or tried to avail themselves of any other Holy Mystery) from the Church of Kyiv and was officially rebuffed.

I do not know of any problems until efforts at official "ReUnion" such as those of Metropolitan Izidor after Ferrara-Florence and St. Josaphat of Polotsk's efforts. I would (or could) argue that these problems were not so much excommunications and refusal of "commuicatio in sacris", as much as vigorous [and admittedly violent] rejections of what was perceived of as subjection of the Church of Kyiv to the Latin Church [which is a VERY different thing than refusal of inter-communion]

And the subtext of ecclesial submission of course was the goal of political and cultural subjection and selling out to the Polish etc. western Catholic political entities.

This misinterpretation [or perhaps correct interpretation] of the subtext of what Metr. Izidor and St. Josaphat were [unintentionally doing] in their efforts to re-establish relations with the Latin Church - is easily understood by a reference to contemporary events.

In regions and times of inter-cultural conflict [e.g. Catholic Polish domination of Galician Ukraine], where ecclesial allegiance is a shibboleth for more sinister politico-cultural hegemony, tensions are high and rumour rules and anything can be a catalyst for xenophobia [or defense of the homeland and Church from foreign imperialism].

Cf. when (the now reposed) Patriarch Myroslav-Ivan went to Kyiv to bless the foundations of the new Catholic Church, he was met with mega protests singing Akafists to the Theotokos! The rumour that was going around was that" these Catholics were here to dishonour and deprecate the Theotokos" and thus the Orthodox rallied to defend her honour and cultus. The Orthodox were very impassioned and very incensed at this perceived attack the Virgin. Totally untrue, but try to convince the masses of that!

Anyways, I would argue, that in the absence of historal proof that the Church of Kyiv actually excommunicated the Church of older Rome, one must conclude that there was no official and formal "DisUnion" between the Church of Kyiv and the Church of older Rome.

Or that it is only reasonable to conclude that there was at the very least an implicit communio in sacris situation that obtained.

The only way one could argue for an ipso fact DisUnion based on New Rome's excommunication would be if one's model of Orthodox ecclesial polity was some sort of "Papalized" Ecumenical Patriarchate, whereby all autocephalous Orthodox Sister Churches had to perforce fall in line with whatever New Rome did ipso facto and could not act in their own right.

Estrangement does not equal Excommunication!

And if Orthodox Churches are well and truly autocephalous, then the fact that one Church may be in/out of communion with another would not necessarily and in and of itself affect another autocephalous Orthodox Church's being in/out of communion with said Church.

E.g. 1:
When Moscow and Constantinople were briefly out of communion, I don't think that the other Orthodox Church's had to choose sides [except for Estonia, of course], but tried to maintain communion with Both.

E.g. 2:
When Antioch has a kind of intercommunion with the Syrians or Copts [I forget which], some of the other Orthodox Churches disapproved, but did not break Communion with Antioch over it.

Arguement in the Alternative (quasi)
There is actually Ecumenical dialogue going on between the Orthodox Church of Kyiv in Communion with Rome and the Orthodox Church of Kyiv in Communion with New Rome. I refer of course to the famous "Kyivan Church Study Group", composed of such personages as Bishop Vsevolod, Fathers Petro Galadza and Andrij Chirovskyj, Bishop Basi (Losten), etc. The proceedings of which are pubished in the Sheptytsky Institute's publication "Logos". (I do not have their Url, but one can get to the Sheptytsky Institute via the "Links" page of http://www.saintelias.com/)

The underlying basis of the Dialogue is that, well there were problems between the Churches of New Rome and older Rome. They excommunicated each other. But that doesn't mean that the Church of Kyiv had a problem with the Church of older Rome.

Estrangement does not equal Excommunication! (At least technically and de jure. Of course the "de facto" is another matter and the present reality is non-inter-Communion. But if we can start out from the premise that the present situation is both spiritually wrong and historically unnecessary, then we are well on our way to correcting the "de facto".)

Convincing?

herb

#126365 12/21/02 05:05 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Oops, sorry. Please cf. above posting.
Either a "senior moment" and/or just a very "Net-challenged"... frown

herb

#126366 12/21/02 07:40 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
durak Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Esteemed Herbigny,
Very good!
Though I do think that everyone knew the recent Moscow-E.P. fallout would not last. If it did, the Sister Churches would eventually have to choose sides and Orthodoxy could not stand the strain; even the two involved Patriarchs saw that so they backed off.
And in the face of warnings by most Sister Churches, an individual church can certainly be pressured to "stay in line" and not act as a free agent. (This happened when Antioch did not react quickly enough when the Melkites suggested it could be communion with it and Rome at the same time. As it turned out, Antioch was warned, "Don't go there" by her Sisters, as Rome said, "Don't go there" to the Melkites. I believe this is the modern example what has always been in effect since the schism - the Ukrainian Catholic church could not be in communion both with Constantinople and Rome at the same time, No?) In other words, I believe you press the prerogatives of autonomy and autocephaly a bit further than what can be done in the real world.

#126367 12/21/02 07:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
I think Bishop Basil's statements have some basis in history. The idea of dual communion between Constantinople and Rome was present throughout the later Kyivan era. Many of the Kyivan rulers, including Prince Danylo, had relations with the Vatican. The personage of Metropolitan Isidore at Florence also comes to mind.

ChristTeen, I just wanted to respond to the dates you mentioned. The excommunications of 1054 were mutual. It was basically a jurisdictional temper-tantrum. Carindal Humbert should have been spanked for his actions. But this was not taken real seriously by either side.

But the real separation came in 1204 when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople instead of pushing onto the Holy Land and fighting the Moslems. Imagine the umbrage of the people seeing some of the most beutiful churches and sites in Christendom sacked by men wearing the Cross. And 1453 was the final fall of Constantinople. To add injury to insult after 1204, it is possible that with help from the West, Constantinople would have been able to defeat the invaders.

But all is not dark - in 1965 the bulls of excommunication of 1054 were mutually rescinded by Patriarch Athenogoras and Pope Paul VI. So we have this situation of imperfect communion with Constantinople. But as Ukrainian Catholics we should continue to work towards that dual communion which is possible between Rome and Constantinople.

#126368 12/21/02 08:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
durak Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Quote
Originally posted by Diak:
I think Bishop Basil's statements have some basis in history. The idea of dual communion between Constantinople and Rome was present throughout the later Kyivan era. Many of the Kyivan rulers, including Prince Danylo, had relations with the Vatican. The personage of Metropolitan Isidore at Florence also comes to mind.

Esteemed Diak,
That "rulers" have "relations" with another political entity (the Pope is a Head of State) is entirely usual; and I believe Isidore had to flee to Rome, where he died a Cardinal. Can you, and perhaps Herbigny and others, make a more sound case for the Hierarchs of Ukrainian Catholics exemplifying dual communion?

#126369 12/21/02 09:08 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Dear Durak for Christ:

How about this:

Isidore had to flee, not because the Orthodox of Kyiv did not want to receive communion at the hands of Latins or did not want to give absolution to Latins in the Holy Mystery of Forgiveness, much less only because the Metropolitan would have added the Pope of older Rome's name to the Diptychs in the Anafora, but I would argue, because they did not want to end up slaves and colonies of the Poles and Germans a la Eisenstein's Alexandr Nevsky.

As for the "Cardinal" thing... Ok, yuk, I grant you that, but those were less enlightened times...

How's that!?

Quote
Esteemed Diak,
That "rulers" have "relations" with another political entity (the Pope is a Head of State) is entirely usual; and I believe Isidore had to flee to Rome, where he died a Cardinal. Can you, and perhaps Herbigny and others, make a more sound case for the Hierarchs of Ukrainian Catholics exemplifying dual communion?
As for an example: what about the Antiocheans having some sort of interCommunion with the Syrians/Copts.

Or the Greek Orthodox Patriarch having a Coptic hierarch on their Holy Synod! [I think Mor Ephrem posted this info].

As for

Quote
the Ukrainian Catholic church could not be in communion both with Constantinople and Rome at the same time, No?) In other words, I believe you press the prerogatives of autonomy and autocephaly a bit further than what can be done in the real world.
Yes, of course you are right, BUT....

I would want to argue that it is important to Push the perogatives of autonomy and autocephaly and fully accesses those rights and responsibilities and NOT just accept passively "the real world", but start pushing for a bit of the Kingdom (Blessed be).

And while it is perhaps unlikely and improbably given all the factors and forces at play both in the Vatican and the Phanar & the Kremlin, there is no Juridical and Ecclesiological reason why not! Even if it is arguably a bit of a legal-canonical fiction, the future is created by such - otherwise we would be stuck with the status quo.

I mean look at how far we've come. If we were not dreamers and visionaries, we would not be so Orthodox and remained Orthodox-hating uniats ready at every turn to distinguish ourselves from them. But thanks to people like you, here we are, iconostases et al.

If we as Orthodox in C with R took ourselves seriously qua both Orthodox and qua ecclesia sui iuris and if the Uk. Orthodox took their autocephality seriously, why not? Well, we could both be excommunicated by older Rome and New Rome respectively. Ok, I grant you that. But what if we made it too costly for them to do that [I haven't quite figured that one out yet]. But why should e.g. New Rome excommunicate Bishop Vsevolod if he reestablishes communion with a Church that is truly Orthodox in every sense, but merely has that pesky thing of having sacramental relations with those "weird Latins"? wink

Unless they want to go the route of "I can't be in communion with anyone who is in communion with {no matter how remotely} someone with whom I disagree about something theological or ecclesiological". Like some people who are "in communion with 7 other people in the world" [probably apocryphal, but you know what I mean].

convinced yet?

herb

#126370 12/22/02 02:43 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Durak, here's just one example and I could go into many more. In 1476, representatives of the Kyivan Church, including Metrpolitan Mysail and the archimandrites Ioann and Makarii of the Pecherska Lavra and Vilnius-Trinity monasteries, respectively, sent a letter to Pope Sixtus IV addressing him as "universal pope".

It even addresses Sixtus as the "source of the four rivers, watering all creation...through the four ecumenical patriarchs, the firm holy pillars of the Church".

Certainly this reflects a situation of percieved harmony between the West and the Papacy, while at the same time honoring the concept of the Pentarchy and not in any way repudiating Orthodoxy or relations with Consantinople with whom the Kyivan Church had regular ecclesial relations.

The Kyivan Church had sent official representatives to the Councils of Lyon (1245) and Constance (1414) and in both cases offered statements attempting to resolve the Greek-Latin disagreements.

This letter maintains later that "there is no difference among Greeks and Latins concerning Christ".

Certainly there were some political viscitudes in operation, but I don't think the entire modus and basis for dual communion resides stricly with political motivation. Rather it would seem that the concept of dual communion was something at least some of the Kyivan hierarchy identified as a possibility or even a reality.

#126371 12/22/02 04:28 AM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
I thought that being in communion with someone who is communion with someone with whom you disagree didn't make any sense, was a bit hypocritical, and wasn't allowed? Is this not true?

ChristTeen287

#126372 12/22/02 06:32 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
If you had a friend that you liked a lot, and he or she had a friend you couldn't stand, would it be hypocritical for you to be friends with the first person? Don

#126373 12/22/02 03:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
But Don, communion with other Churches can't be likened to a friendship. In a communion, you're saying, "We agree on every doctrine, albeit we may have very different outlooks. We ultimately agree on the same Truth even if we use different words, phrases, and theologies." So, if A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C, I think it's hypocritical of B because B's saying that they agree with both A and C at the same time. And if that were the case then A and C would be in communion, unless it was some non-doctrinal dispute (which then I could understand).

ChristTeen287

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5