Fr. Gabriel Bunge (OSB), a renowned monastic and master of Patristics, was received into the Orthodox Church by Patriarch Kyril of Moscow and all Russia and Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk on the eve of the Dormition (Old Calendar). Fr. Gabriel has been living the life of a hermit in Switzerland for several decades and is the author of a number of books.

Source

May God grant Father Gabriel many years.

His reception into the Orthodox Church is yet another example of people taking serious steps to follow their consciences and their hearts. May God indeed grant him growth in faith, life and spiritual understanding, in his new spiritual home.

It saddens me whenever I learn the news about a Byzantine Catholic priest becoming Eastern Orthodox. The last one that I am aware of was Fr. George Maloney,SJ whom I served with at a Divine Liturgy years ago.

Fr.Maloney is one of my favorite authors. I have been trying to find copies of most of his books. One thing for sure, each one is a new adventure with Jesus.

Why does it sadden you? We are all destined to become Orthodox, some day, and if a priest or layman feels he can no longer live the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition in the Greek Catholic Church, then he should enter into the Orthodox Church in order to do so. Insofar as both the Catholic and Orthodox communions possess the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, what matters where one stands?

I agree.

Have you read Dominus Iesus lately?

It states:


The Eastern churches not in communion with Rome do not have the fullness of the Christian faith because they deny the universal primacy of the Pope of Rome which has been revealed by God through His Church.

It is erroneous then to say and believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches compose the one Church of Christ. As it states the Church of Christ "continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church".

One need only read the lives of our holy martyrs Theodore Romzha, Leonid Feodorov, Nicholas Charnetsky, the Martyrs of Pratulin, Josaphat Kuntsevych, etc. to see that they believed to the point of shedding their blood in the fullness of the Catholic faith.

As a Greek Catholic I revere and invoke all those Eastern Catholic martyrs you refer to,(I am blessed to posess 1st. class relics of 3 of them) BUT -
-their situations were quite complicated and oftentimes political and ethnic and not merely religious considerations were involved;
- they all lived in times before the ecumenical movement really got underway and thus some of their choices do not fully reflect the insights we Eastern Catholics have gained from fruitful and friendly dialogues with our Orthodox counterparts (and I hope they've learned a few good things from us as well);
-we really gotta work on putting polemics and mutual hostilities in the past, where those things belong.I think this is a task for both Catholics and Orthodox.
- I think it's crucial to reflect with gratitude on the beliefs and values we share while not flinching away from the issues that continue to divide us.
- sincere prayer for re-union of the Churches has to accompany these efforts and we Eastern Catholics and Orthodox must really and truly want it to happen. We probably must want it to happen more than we may want "our" particular position on this or that issue to prevail.

Hospody, pomiluj i spasi nas.

As a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, I think millions would be hardpressed to feel destined to become Russian Orthodox (since Ukraine isn't allowed a canonical autochephalous Orthodox church because of Russian imperialism), even though more Orthodox belong to the noncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) than the MP. You see I agree with Prof. Geoffrey Hosking, one of the world's most respected historians of Russia from the University of London when he writes of Russians in the 2000s:

"identification with Orthodoxy was more a statement about national feeling than a reflection of religious belief. Most church hierarchs also emphasized this aspect of the church, preaching loyalty to the Russian State, and the development of national unity as much as they dealt with personal salvation or moral issues. This approach continued in the role of the church as it had been under the tsars and with modifications, in the latter Soviet decades, as the spiritual extension of the state.
Hosking, The Russians in the Soviet Union, 2006

The loyalty to the Russian State as in the MP Patriarch Kirill's propagation of the "Russian World" to include Ukraine, means a canonical Orthodox in Ukraine should be loyal to Russia's regime, which is run, let's be cleary, by K.G.B. agent Putin which provides a farce of protection of freedom of assembly, democracy, or rule of law. This is what the Russian Orthodox Church looks like to many Ukrainian Catholics: a church which demands of the Pope that Ukrainian Catholics be slowly cornered into one area of Ukraine and not grow more in numbers. (I guess one is to take off from where the KGB pseudocouncil of 1946 didn't finish).

A Ukrainian Catholic may hope (and I do sincerely) for union with any future hypothetical Ukrainian Orthodox truly Autocephalous or Patriarchal canonical church, but the question of Russian Orthodoxy raises the issues of its relationship to Putin's Kremlin and the view propagated by Putin that Ukraine isn't a country. Today's Russian Orthodox Church's calling card is the same as it was under the czars: "Orthodoxy, Autocracy (Putin is an autocrat), and Russian Nationalism."

Not all Orthodox jurisdictions preach their land as "Holy Russia" but if you join the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) it would seem to me you are joining a church which does not merely follow spiritual goals but secular and imperialist goals in countries like Ukraine.

For instance, on the caesaropapist nature of the Russian Orthodox Church, one wonders how much of the following is true:
"French secret service fear Russian cathedral a spying front"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ying-front.html

Just my 2 cents on this but may the Lord Bless the new convert.

Oh Mod. Do all member's posts have to wait some hours to be vetted before they are posted as mine are? I've been a member since April I believe but can never post upon pressing post.?

The one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is fully present wherever the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated, the Orthodox faith is professed, and the authority of a bishop in apostolic succession is recognized.

Vlad,

For a period they do. And the change required to transfer one out of that status is a manual one, so it much depends on a mod or admin noticing that a new poster has been here a while and is clearly not a spammer, hack, bot, etc. That's easily missed if one posts infrequently and during times such as Lent. I'll pass the word to the Admin and you should be fine w/in a day or so.

Many years,

Neil

Yes. Ask me if I care.

Stuart, from yr post it sounds like you just peremptorily dismissed a significant Vatican/papal document, instead of delving into it and wrestling with the issues it addresses.

If that's the case, why did you? I am not attacking you; I'm just astonished and curious. Other posters may be as well.

By the way, I don't consider myself destined to join the Orthodox Church.

No, I am putting it in its proper context. The document was written not for Eastern Catholics, but for Latin bishops in India who were syncretistically incorporating elements of Hindu belief into Christian doctrine. That Dominus Iesus was poorly conceived and written in a ham-fisted manner is apparent from the reaction it received from the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity. I had the privilege of hearing Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, the Secretary of the Commission, explain both the background of the document and its implications for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

As far as I am concerned, Dominus Iesus changes nothing, and the epistemological implications of Catholic teaching on ecumenism with regard to the Eastern Churches are unavoidable: if the Church is one, and the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, then the Orthodox Churches have the fullness of the Catholic Church, for the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is one and indivisible.

Finally, whether you like it or not, on the blessed day when communion is restored between the Catholic and Orthodox communions, the Eastern Catholic Churches become utterly redundant. There will be no need for two Ukrainian Churches, two Antiochian Churches, two Russian Churches, etc. etc. As we are the products of a schism within Orthodoxy (a well intentioned one, but a schism nonetheless), we have an obligation to heal the wound by returning to our Mother Churches. Numerous Greek Catholic bishops--including patriarchs--have said so. The Holy See has implied that this is the desired outcome of communion, which is why we are commanded to be fully Orthodox in communion with Rome--that we might bear witness to a future reality.

Now, I am fully aware that there are still (after all these years!) Greek Catholics who do not consider themselves to be Orthodox Christians, but this is their fault, not mine. If they consider themselves to be "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite", then they are in opposition to the teaching of the Church, and are promoting "uniatism", a mode of reunion that the Church has disavowed. And there is certainly no room in the Catholic Church for an Elkoist "tertium quid", neither Orthodox nor Latin. As Father Taft has said (Liturgy in the Life of the Church), if we are not willing to be fully Orthodox, then there is no reason for our continued existence and those who are so unwilling should join the Latin Church and have done.

Thanks for your thoughts on Domine Iesus. I suspected it was not written to address Eastern Christian issues.

Here's an adjustment of my statement that I don't perceive myself destined to join the Orthodox Church:

I don't feel destined to join it as long as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are separated. When reunion takes place (if I'm alive to see it)I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

It will indeed be a blessed day.

Your post is a succinct statement of Orthodox ecclesiology and reminds me of a report I did many years ago comparing Catholic and Orthodox views of the Church. For it to be a statement of Catholic ecclesiology would require the addition of a phrase acknowledging the necessity of the local bishop to be in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Where in her official documents does the Church command us to disregard truths revealed to us by Our Lord through the Pope of Rome?
Is the Holy See telling us,for example, to deny that the Theotokos was conceived without any sin and instead believe that she was sanctified at the Annunciation as some of our Orthodox brethren do?

griego catolico,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

First, I've been curious. Are you latino? I'm just curious because of your sn. Also because I am latino. I'm from the Dominican Republic.

Secondly, are you saying that the Orthodox are not part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? That is how I am understanding your statement and just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly or if I am misunderstanding your statement.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Hello Manuel,

Yes, I am Latino. There are many Latinos who are members of Byzantine Catholic parishes, most especially in the southwest of the USA.

Now, I have a question for you. What do you mean when you say that the Orthodox Churches are part of the
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

It's one thing to say that the Eastern churches are true particular churches which have apostolic succession, true mysteries (sacraments), and the graces necessary for one to become holy. It's another to say that the Orthodox Church as a whole composes along with the Catholic Church the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Could you clarify for me what you mean by your question? Gracias.

Griego

It's my understanding that the official position of all Eastern Christendom (Catholic and Orthodox) is that the Theotokos is the "all holy, all pure, most highly blessed and glorious Lady..." She is "higher in honor than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, who without corruption, gave birth to God the Word..." At what point she became sinless is a matter of speculation, and an Eastern Orthodox could just as likely believe that she was sinless from birth, or that she was made sinless at the Annunciation.

The issue at hand isn't really a matter of whether or not the Theotokos was sinless. The issue is the fact that the "dogma" of the Immaculate Conception is inherently tied to the Latin understanding of Original Sin. In order to make the Immaculate Conception a dogma, the Latin Church would have to force the Eastern/Byzantine (I can't speak for the Orientals) Churches to deny their own theological patrimony with regards to the Ancestral Sin. No Church, however great and whoever its head, has the right to force another Church to abandon its own legitimate and equally apostolic theological tradition in favor of another's.

I (respectfully) do not think that anyone who is Byzantine Catholic should be encouraged to join one of the Orthodox Churches. I do think that part of being Byzantine Catholic is identifying yourself with the importance of union to the Bishop of Rome. For this reason I could not see myself becoming Orthodox aside from after a reunion took place, which still seems a bit out of reach (unfortunately) for where things are now.
I do see that there is room within Catholicism for a high degree of acknowledgment of the Orthodox Churches as valid Churches with a true Sacramental and Apostolic authenticity, and a respect for the theology as well. But I still think that he official Catholic position (regardless of how well Dominus Iesus is written or its context) is that to maintain union with Rome is one of the very important factors of being a member of the Church in as much fullness as could be desired. If Dominus Iesus does not convince you that this is part of our stance, than why are ideas similar in nature repeated in the more recent "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007?

I resepct what people are trying to do. They want to move ecumenism ahead and say that Catholic should go all the way and view the Church as Catholic + Orthodox (if not other Oriental Orthodox groups?) branches because of how they both have many of the important elements of being a Church. But this is dis-service to both Churches who both have the right to believe that there is something(s) more perfectly understood specifically within their structure. This is not divisiveness so much as honesty and respect, and I hear many Orthodox say the same thing. That of course they think they are the true Church and we are the one's missing a more full or perfect understanding. We can not just sweep these differences under the carpet. We need to actually work through them. The idea of agreeing on and going back to how we observe the papacy working in the first millennium is a good idea to start with - I think.

But, I think that union with Rome is a non-negotiable aspect of the Catholic faith, for a Byzantine or Latin Rite Catholic. I would view else wise if I saw a group of Bishops under approval of the Holy See actually and officially encouraging Byzantine Catholics to either become Latin Rite or fully Orthodox (where possible geographically or otherwise) in order to help reunite the two branches. Even if a handful of Bishops have said this it is their opinion, I still do not think it is a good idea to encourage. I respect the Orthodox Church and I understand the pull that it has for Byzantine Catholics who want to follow it's traditions, but if this happened, (without more of a hint that it was a significant step toward an implied future unity) all that would result right now is that the Catholic Church would lose many of its members and then we would go on in disunity for however much longer.
I do find the discussion interesting as to whether we are a schismatic group with good intentions. I can see why you would say that, and I could see why we would become redundant (in most cases) once reunion took place. Though, I could also see us as a non-schismatic group. A group, that after all was originally Catholic and in union with Rome in the first place and therefore is not schismatic, but simply acknowledging our desire to be Orthodox in union with Rome like we always were. Though it is undeniable that we did break off locally from Orthodox bodies.

I mean none of this to be harsh, but just offering the way I see it. I think that Stuart is trying to offer an opinion that comes from a high degree of knowledge and intelligence and wishful and wonderful ecumenical minded thought, but is less than completely accurate.
I am also interested in whether a Byzantine Catholic is within their right to enjoy elements of both lungs of the Church (or whether this makes us uniates). Meaning, are you saying we should be as Orthodox as we can as much of the time as we can be as individuals or else we are a disservice to the Church? I could see this as ideal (and probably necessary) for our Byzantine Parish's liturgies and customs, but I do not see it as binding for an individual. Meaning, if some weeks I just prefer to go to a Latin Rite liturgy because there are aspects of it that I think are equally valid liturgically and pleasing in a prayerful way (let's not argue about how feasible that is on average, but sometimes I do find myself willfully attending and enjoying a RC service) I do not think this makes me less of a good Byzantine Catholic. I think that while one should remain mostly in communion with one branch or the other in order to maintain a certain spiritual grounding and build up the Church, I do not see it as a flaw if one occasionally supplements his or her faith with a celebration from the other side. This is why RC memebers are allowed and encouraged to go to Church at Byantine Catholic parishes with no threat of it making them less of a good Catholic. The freedom to enjoy both rites of the Church, to me, is a positive, that I would be giving up, were I to be Orthodox. Just my opinion, here.

I like the way that people try to clarify this, but as a Byzantine catholic I disagree. I think that part of our unity with Rome, is that we do acknowledge the Roman dogma. I do not see how we could be Catholic and still of the opinion that Rome is wrong in one of it's dogma. One of the few that was supposedly rendered so by Papal infallibility (another hurdle toward unity, no doubt).
I agree that maybe the issue is the understanding of original sin, but I think that Rome is or has been willing to move in more of an Eastern direction regarding her understanding of this matter. We can find unity in acknowledging that nothing is inherently sinful about being born and that it is possible that Mary was immaculately conceived once one maybe realizes this. Though, I think that we should go a little further and acknowledge that there was some sort of specific grace given to her from birth, or else the dogma would be rendered a little less meaningful IMO.
But I think that part of being Catholic is belieing that our Church (while full of sinners over the years who have made mistakes) has not made official theological errors that have become dogma, that we can just take back. Maybe we can lessen the emphasis or develop our understanding of a doctrine in a new light, but that is not the same thing as giving the okay to deny it's truth and or existence, or say, that Mary only became holy at the Annunciation. While I like the freedom that each Church may have in its understanding/interpretation of the matter, theological chaos may result from one Church dogmatically saying it is fact that she was holy and sinless from birth and other members saying, no, this is false. I think it works better to smooth the differences regarding original sin, and then maybe say, I am an Eastern Catholic who can accept the IC because it is easy for me to believe that someone can be conceived without sin, and further that Mary most likely enjoyed a virtious life from start to finish. This is the way that I see the matter.

...or that she continued to sin after giving birth.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

What I said is actually found in the CDF document Communionis Notio, which says that "the one Church of Christ 'through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord . . . is built up and grows in stature,' for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present," but which goes on to append - as you indicated in your post - the modern notion that the Pope is somehow necessary to the Church's unity, an idea that is a late second millennium theory found only in the West.

Be that as it may, a Church can no more be "a little bit Church" than a woman can be "a little be pregnant," which is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches through their celebration of the Eucharist and their profession of the unchanging Orthodox faith are local manifestations of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Hola Griego,

Es muy bueno a conocer otro latino. Yo horo que nuestro Dios, Salvador y Senor todo poderoso te bendiga este dia y que te da mucho mas dias de vida. (I'm not the best at writing in spanish since I've been raised in the US since I was 3. So, sorry for any grammatical error ) For those who do not know spanish, here is what I said: It is very good to come to know another latino. I pray that our God, Savior and all powerful Lord bless you this day and give you many more days.

I have noticed certain Latin American countries even have Eparchies of the Melkite church at least. I do not know of the other churches. I understand that there were many middle and near Easterners that moved to Latin American countries as well as North America.

Before I answer your main question, I need to (you could see this as step to my full answer) correct (not correct you, just) how I understand something you said for the sake of our conversation.



When I see the Catholic Church, I see the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do NOT see, when I see the Catholic Church, I do NOT see the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is a particular church as are the Orthodox churches. We are together, both east and west, both Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians (Catholics and Orthodox[that includes of course the Oriental churches]) the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are a communion of churches that make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do believe none the less that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has Papal Primacy and is the unifying power in that Church. But I am starting to disagree the extent to which that power goes. In other words, the extant of that universal immediate power to affect any particular church.

Do you see the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church and we are just a Rite that theologically must submit to Roman theology, tradition and understanding/disposition?


Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

PS I guess I did end up answering your question lol

I understand your dilemia here, and it is a question that I have asking myself. On the other hand it simply begs the question as to if the IC is even the proper place to dogmatize. Obviously, Christology was not affected on the Latin by those believing that Mary may have had original sin (e.g. Thomas Aquinas among many), so why did the Church need this question to be dogmatized in 1854?

That the definition given at that time carries langauge that favors one particular church's theologoumen on the question of original sin is also troubling in these ecumenical times. So why not follow Cardinal Ratzinger, by allowing the west to be the west (i.e. not say that it is heretical), while at the same time, continue to follow the eastern approach to theology? This may not solve the apparent tension, but we are not given to know all the mysteries of God.

Dear ByzBob,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You said:



Can you provide me with that specific reference?

One thing I love about the Roman Catholic church is the Dominican Religious Order. I was looking at becoming a lay/3rd Order Dominican[ since I have a daughter from a previous relationship (never married) and so could not discern becoming a Dominican priest or brother] when I started attending the Melkite parish.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

If you google "Immaculate Conception and Thomas Aquinas," you'll find my references. The point is he disagreed with the doctrine (though he said if the Church decided it he would accept it). He isn't the only one on the Latin side who disagreed with it, which I think demonstrates that liberty should be allowed.

The question I have been facing is, regardless of how this "should" be, how do Eastern Catholics reconcile themselves to what *is*?

I realize this is now totally off topic to the OP, but it is something I have been struggling a lot with.

Since the IC has been infallibly dogmatized at pain of anathema for the entire Catholic Church, how does an Eastern Catholic reconcile themself to this? Pretend the elephant is not in the room?

Interesting question. I don't pretend to have an answer to how to reconcile it for everyone. Heck, I don't even know how to reconcile Vatican II and the Council of Florence on the question of extra ecclessi nulla salsu, and those are both 'western,' councils!

ByzBob,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have no idea, what is the issue with ?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Dear Manuel,

I meant Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, not ecclessi. Sorry for not spell checking.

Yrs,

Bob

Dear ByzBob,

I'm still confused. I do not know all the issues of the Church and I do not know Latin. I have technically always been Catholic since I was baptized as a baby in the Church, but I was not raised and have only been Catholic, as far as I'm concerned, for a year and a half.

So could you please break down the issue between these two western councils?

Thank you and Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Wikipedia has a good history of the dogma in the Roman Catholic, under Roman Catholic statements of this teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

This is one example of a Roman dogma that has undergone serious developement, to the point that Vatican II calls Protestant ecclesia communities 'a means of salvation.' That seems to be at serious odd with the Council of Florence saying:



What does all this mean? It means that the concept of dogma in the RC appears to be more fluid than some would like to admit. Even the definition of Papal Infallibility/Universal Jurisdiction is not being discussed with the Orthodox Church, and may possibly be undergoing a development of sorts.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...ravenna_en.html



I'm not sure what the outcome of these talks will be, but if Rome consider Vatican 1 to be settled doctrine, then why invest the time in discussing it?

Without opening the whole issue of the IC once more, ad nauseam, I think you reconcile by simply acknowledging that the IC is the Latin church's way of articulating the sinlessness of the Theotokos that both east and west accept as the long-standing Tradition of the Church.

To be more back on topic, I do believe that it serves no one if, in our effort to be more Orthodox we become less Catholic.

I agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"].

I agree, but of course I believe that the Eastern Orthodox are Catholic, just as Catholic as the Latin West.

Zogby's book 'We are all Schismatics' is a really good book.

Greased lightening!

That's a great way of phrasing it, thanks

I'm confident that Bishop Elias was a good man, but even good men can make bad pronouncements that can even lead others astray.

Yes, even good Popes can lead people astray.

Be that as it may, on the issue of Vatican I as a particular synod of the West I agree with Zoghby.

I am sure you have some objective criteria for thinking His Grace was in error. And "the Pope said so" doesn't qualify. In any case, were that true, the Holy Father has all sorts of remedies, pastoral and canonical, at his disposal. The Melkite Initiative--for it is now the official policy of the Melkite synod--continues apace.

Yes, to the point, if Popes then certainly an Archbishop Zoghby.

Catholic Church history and pronouncements.


Nor then "Archbishop Zoghby said so."


There was a diplomatic but unfavorable Vatican response to Archbishop Zoghby's initiatives.


I've read different interpretations of what the official Melkite position actually is. Solid documentation would be of interest but, please -- an I say so response "doesn't qualify."

Dear ajk,

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Here is your official statement:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads...howflat/fpart/3

The holy Synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church met in Rabweh, Lebanon July 22-27, 1996 and, after studying the question of unity within the Patriarchate of Antioch, declared that communicatio in sacris = worship in common is possible today and that the ways and means of its application would be left to the joint decisions of the two Antiochian Church Synods - Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox. The Synod of thirty-four bishops and four general superiors under the presidency of Patriarch Maximos V (Hakim) deliberated extensively on the topic of church unity particularly within the Antiochian Patriarchate which has been divided since 1724, and issued a document titled, Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate. This document is part of the official minutes of the Synod and was made public on August 15, 1996 in the Middle East. It includes eight points about the unity of the Churches and was sent by the Catholic Patriarch Maximos V to the Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim). It emphasizes that there is an openness on the part of the Melkite Church to heal the division of 1724 and all the difficulties that followed in order to preserve our one heritage and one worship which is the fount of one belief. The Fathers of the Synod affirmed that unity was not a victory of one church over another, or one church going back to the other, or the melting of one church into the other, but rather putting an end to the separation between brothers... This unity has become possible today because of the extensive work of the Joint International Theological Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. They site [sic] four specific documents of the International Theological Commission and look forward to the study that this commission will make on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the church and in the ecumenical councils.

Emphasis is placed on church unity as it existed in the first millennium when East and West were one. The document quotes Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint - That All May Be One: The Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. She finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium (#16). The Melkite Synod sees that the church of the first millennium could be the model for unity today.

The Synod strongly affirms its full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome and that this communion would not be ruptured.

The Fathers offered their thanks to the International Theological Commission as well as the Joint Synodal Commissions recently reestablished by Patriarch Maximos V and Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV. They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. 2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

This brief profession and its subsequent explanation became the basis for the 1996 Synods discussion on unity. The Fathers delegated the Synod Ecumenical and Theological Commission to deeply research the ways of the reunification, and discuss its canonical and pastoral implications, and to hold joint conferences and conventions to include faithful of both churches (Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Catholic) on the path towards this unity. Their prayer is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ to his Father: that they may be one, just as we are...that the world may know that you have sent me. (Jn 17: 21-23)

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church is a patriarchal church in communion with Rome and is considered a sui juris church within the Catholic communion It follows the traditions of the Greek or Byzantine Church of Antioch. Its patriarch carries the title of Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. The Church is based in the Middle East with the patriarchal see presently in Damascus, Syria. There are sixteen eparchies or dioceses in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Israel and Egypt. Outside the Middle East there are dioceses in the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and Australia, with vicariates in Western Europe and Argentina.

____________________

This document was issued by the Melkite Greek Catholic Holy Synod, meeting in Rabweh, Lebanon, July 1996. It was released to the public on August 15, 1996 - the feast of the Dormition of the holy Mother of God. It appears in the minutes of the above mentioned Synod, dated and signed on Saturday, July 27, 1996 by the Patriarch, 31 archbishops and bishops, and 4 general superiors, whose names and titles are included at the end of the document.

Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate

The Fathers of the Synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate convened in Rabweh, Lebanon July 22 to July 27, 1996 and studied the documents presented by the Patriarchal Commission established by His Beatitude Maximos V Hakim on March 25, 1996. This Commission consists of Archbishops Elias Zoghby and Cyril Salim Bustros; the patriarch asked them to do whatever is necessary through communications and meetings with the Orthodox Patriarchal and Synodal Commission to reach Antiochian unity through oneness of heart, and to find ways for the two churches - Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox - to return to communion with each other and into unity within one Antiochian Patriarchate. His Beatitude Patriarch Maximos V and Fathers of the Holy Synod are happy to announce the following:

1.They thank His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim and the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church for their concern on this subject, and the brotherly announcement they gave concerning this unity in the final communique of their Holy Synod convened October 16-22, 1995. They share what the Orthodox said [at this synod] that since receiving the mutual representatives in the 1974 synod with great love, we look forward together to Antiochian unity preserving our one heritage and one worship which is the fount of one belief.

2.They all anxiously look forward to the day when the Melkite Greek Catholics and the Greek Orthodox in the Antiochian Patriarchate return to being one church and one patriarchate. They affirm to all that this reunification does not mean a victory of one church over the other, or one church going back to the other, or the melting of one church into the other. Rather, it means putting an end to the separation between the brothers that took place in 1724 and led to the existence of two separate independent patriarchates, and returning together to the unity that prevailed in the one Antiochian Patriarchate before the separation.

3.They see that this reunification has become possible today through the progress in the communion of faith that has taken place through the grace of God in the recent years on the international level through the Joint International Theological Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. This Commission produced four documents announcing the unity of faith in basic doctrines: The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity (1982), Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church (1988), Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion (Balamand 1993). They consider their task of reestablishing communion within the Church of Antioch a part of reestablishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches on the international level.

4.The Joint Commission will discuss one point further, that is, the role of the Bishop of Rome in the church and in the ecumenical councils. On this subject the Fathers of the Synod adopt what was stated in the Second Vatican Council: to give due consideration to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation (Decree on Ecumenism #14); and also what His Holiness Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical That All May Be One - Ut Unum Sint (#61): The Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. She finds inspiration for this in the experience of the first millennium. Concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome the Fathers declare that they are inspired by the understanding in which East and West lived in the first millennium in the light of the teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, and they see that there is no reason for the separation to continue because of that primacy.

5.Based on that unity in the essence of the faith [that existed in the first millennium], the Fathers of the Holy Synod that the communicatio in sacris is possible today, and that they accept it, leaving the ways and means of its application to the joint decisions of the two church synods - Melkite Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox.

6.The Fathers of the Holy Synod announce they will remain in full communion with the Apostolic Church of Rome and at the same time will work out with her precisely what is required for them to enter into communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

7.They commend the efforts that the ecumenical leaders of our church have made especially Archbishop Elias Zoghby who has been laboring for this more than twenty years. They thank the members of the Joint International Theological Commission for their accomplishments, and ask them to continue the dialogue on this subject. The Fathers delegated the Synodal Ecumenical and Theological Commission to deeply research the ways of the unification, and discuss its canonical and pastoral implications, and to hold joint conferences and conventions to include the faithful of both churches on the path toward this unity.

8.Finally, they ask all their faithful to join with them in prayer so that the holy will of God be fulfilled in all of us and that the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ to his heavenly Father be accomplished: that they may be one, just as we are one...that the world may know that you have sent me. (Jn 17:21-23)


Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Glory forever!

Not exactly, and that is the issue. The entire first part is not an official statement that I can tell. That part is:

Hola Manuel,

Here are the responses from Rome and the Antiochian Orthodox Church in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.

The response from the Antiochians is to the point:


The Antiochian Orthodox Church does not see Melkites as Orthodox, no matter how many times Melkites claim to be "Orthodox in union with Rome".

Here is the response from Rome:



Rome has said that adhesion to the statement that Melkites believe everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches is not possible, saying that one cannot be "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

Melkites must adhere to all that Our Lord has revealed in regards to the authority and primacy of the Pope of Rome and that includes papal infallibility and universal primacy.

Circular reasoning always seems to be a good fallback for the papalist position.

Dear ajk,

I apologize for the the link. I do not know what happened. Here is the correct link: http://www.melkite.org/sa3.htm

The top part is talking about the Synod itself and the bottom part is the document produced and signed by the Patriarch, 31 Archbishops and Bishops and 4 General Superiors. This document produced by the synod is also based on Archbishop Zoghby's proclamation of faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

And at that time, before this Holy Synod in '96, 24 out of 26 Bishops had signed this proclamation of faith at the '95 Holy Synod.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The top part, all interesting but unofficial -- a press release. The official response starts at "Reunification of the Antiochian Patriarchate." That is "the official policy of the Melkite synod." Not found in that official statement:

Archbishop Zoghby's proclamation of faith, IMHO, insults the Orthodox precisely because they are not in communion with Rome and find the Church of Rome to be in error, and would probably find it difficult to understand just how the Melkites believe everything they do. Secondly, the second part of the proclamation begs the great ecumenical question: Just what were those limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium? We might also ask if the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the West merit any consideration?

"Orthodox in communion with Rome" is a rather silly claim particularly given that no "Orthodox" recognize them as such. The bottom line here is that you are who you in communion with. If you want to be Orthodox, then join the Orthodox Church. And no, the Pope is NOT Orthodox (I don't care how much lipstick you try to throw on that). If you want to be Catholic, that's fine too. Be Catholic. But please let's not insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting we are all in the same church. We are not. And it takes more than a sacramental understanding of Holy Communion to make one a member of the Church.

To those quoting Dominus Iesus, I thank you. It is an excellent and authoritative document outlining the position of the Catholic Church and one that I greatly respect. I say this as an Orthodox Christian who appreciates forthrightness and honesty, even when such create obstacles or contradict (as DI clearly does) the Orthodox Faith. Clarity is good and without it, serious dialogue is not possible.

All of which said, this reinforces my view that Rome and Orthodoxy have grown too far apart. The Antiochians are correct. Communion is the final declaration of a full unity of Faith on all essential matters of doctrine, not a stepping stone towards it. Rome will never renounce Vatican I or its various other doctrinal innovations and we will not accept them.

If and when Rome were to abjure the decrees of Vatican I (and Florence among others) and formally rescind the anathemas pronounced on the Orthodox I may have cause to reconsider my opinion. Until then I concur with the view of the Bulgarian Holy Synod in its decision to withdraw from the Ecumenical Dialogue as it serves no real purpose. We are just talking past each other.

Discussion on the topic has been and remains lively. The expectation is that it will also remain civil and respectful of one another's differing opinions because - contrary to the opinion occasionally expressed - I much prefer not to have to exercise the edit key.

Many years,

Neil

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Utroque,

It is not my intention to offend by bringing these things up, but to try my best to understand the situation. But something you said made me think of a troubled time in the early history of the Church. You said:



Allow me to state my thought in a question; were we not still in union as we were fighting through the Arian heresy which I understand had almost overcome the Church because of how much it had infiltrated and spread? Or did they cut off union with every parish/church that had accepted that heresy?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Ad Orientem,

In reference to your opening line:



It is my understanding that it is not entirely clear if the Melkite Antiochian Patriarchate ever actually separated from Rome until one section, I think because both Rome and Constantinople were tired of the ambiguous affiliation, officially proclaimed union with Rome and another proclaimed union with Constantinople. Until then, I understand that it is unclear that the Melkite Antiochian Patriarchate ever separated from Rome or Constantinople until then.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Does anyone know how Fr. Bunge was received into the Orthodox Church? I.e, was he re-baptized, re-chrismated, re-ordained (yes, I realize that the "re-" is theologically incorrect in all these cases, but you get my point), or did he just make a confession of faith?

What is the practice of the particular Church (Russian Orthodox, I presume) he was received into?

In Rome's response to the "Zoghby Initiative", the CDF stated the following:


The Holy See has never commanded nor implied that Eastern Catholics be "Orthodox in communion with Rome". As it states above, it is not possible.

The Roman Curia, even the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, is just a Roman congregation and does not have real authority over our Patriarch and Synod of Bishops. The Patriarch and Synod have the final say in what the Melkite Church believes and what it does not. If the Synod affirms that we believe everything Orthodoxy teaches, then so we do.

Rome has always commanded and implied, at least on the official level, that Eastern Catholics should be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." They've always encourage Eastern Catholics to remain true to their authentic theological, spiritual, liturgical, and disciplinary patrimony. Eastern Catholics are the ones who have denied themselves out of fear of not appearing "Catholic enough." But the terms of communion any time an Eastern Orthodox Church has reestablished communion with Rome have always been that we would remain true to ourselves and not be bound by anything that is outside of our patrimony.

Not to steal Manuel's thunder, but I'm going to have to repeat,
"Kyrie Eleison"

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

Glory to Jesus Christ!

No worries Philip. No thunder stolen. We are in more need of His mercy than we are aware.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Isn't it the magisterium (Pope and the bishops in union with him) who has the final authority of what the Church truly believes?

As for a Roman congregation not having authority over the declarations of an Eastern church,are you sure of that?

Here is an example of a Roman congregation having authority over a decision made by the Ukrainian Catholic Church:

From Wikipedia :




Encouraging Eastern Catholics to remain true to their "authentic theological, spiritual, liturgical, and disciplinary patrimony" does not mean to deny truths revealed by God through the magisterium.

Pope John Paul II of blessed memory strongly encouraged Eastern Catholics to be faithful to their "authentic theological, spiritual, liturgical, and disciplinary patrimony". Yet, this is the same Pope who attached indulgences to the Akathist and other Eastern Catholic prayers so that Eastern Catholics may gain indulgences while using prayers from their own liturgical tradition and not from the Latin Church.

Can you give me a specific official statement when the Holy See has commanded or implied that Eastern Catholics are to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome"? The claims are made but where is the proof?

I suggest that everyone should stop looking at the letter of the canonical law and look at how the Catholic Church actually operates. That resolves most of the problems.

Q: Are Indulgences transferrable? What I mean is if you prayed the Akathist, but didn't want the indulgence could you give it to a Roman Catholic who wanted it?

No one is denying that Rome doesn't attempt to force latinization upon the eastern churches, even today, rather what people are saying is they resist the attempt. This is much the same as what happened pre-schism when the bishop of Rome exceed his bounds.

Actually, we inflict much more latinization upon ourselves than is forced on us by Rome. Rome has had, on several occasions, to tell us to knock it off and get with the plan. Alas! Some people really do think RC means "Really Catholic" and BC means "Barely Catholic", and continue to act as though they are nothing more than a ritual adjunct of the Roman Catholic Church.

Respectfully, I must strongly disgree with you about that. Problems do not get resolved but become complicated and lead to disunity.

Years ago, my parish became divided between those who identified themselves as "Eastern Catholics" and those who were "Orthodox in union with Rome". This lead to disunity and parishioners leaving. Eastern Catholics did not feel welcomed in their own parish until those who were OIUWR eventually left and formally became Orthodox.

And that has been my experience, those who identify as OIUWR eventually leave and become Eastern Orthodox.

A person who prays the Akathist or other prayer with an attached indulgence gains the indulgence for him/herself or can apply it for one who has fallen asleep in the Lord. It is not transferable to another living person.

A review of Church history shows most problems get resolved when people decide not to let themselves get bound by the letter of the law.



Good for them. The Catholic Church has foresworn uniatism, now we just need for Eastern Catholics to get on board. If there had not been a Melkite parish in my vicinity, I would most certainly have become Orthodox, because the Ruthenian Church will not allow its members to live the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition in comformity with the wishes of the Holy See.

So who is not obeying the Catholic Church? Those who wish to live in accordance with the Tradition? Or those who foreswear both the Tradition and the directives of the Holy See--which has been quite consistent for more than a century now?

Why would a Greek Catholic subscribe to a doctrine of soteriology which is not only alien to his authentic Tradition, but antithetical to that Tradition as well?

One need not say indulgences are heretical, but they are specific to the Latin Church, make sense only in the context of Latin doctrine, and have no place in our spirituality.

You will note, with interest, I hope, that the official Eastern Catholic catechism doesn't even mention indulgences, and gives only passing mention to purgatory (in a footnote, no less). Also, if you have read the three volumes, you will also note that they could be used in any Orthodox parish without any significant changes.

It would seem that official circles have, in theory, at least, come down on the side of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome".

It's funny, from my personal experience, those who identify themselves as OIUWR turn out to be former Roman Catholics who began to attend Byzantine Catholic parishes in the 1970's after the changes of Vatican II. Younger generations identify themselves as Catholic, embracing the fullness of the Catholic faith but wanting the richness of the Byzantine liturgical tradition.
My parish is attracting these younger generations and growing because of it.
They don't take seriously "Orthodox in union with Rome".



So what has more authority: the magisterium or Traditon? Isn't the magisterium the guardian of Tradition?

How do you explain the Melkite cathedrals throughout the world being places where Melkites can gain indulgences durng the Great Jubilee of 2000?

I was at a Byzantine Catholic cathedral on pilgrimage during the Jubilee Year in which we prayed for the gaining of an indulgence.

I am looking at -as you put it- how the Catholic Church actually operates.

That doesn't seem to come down on the side of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

God bless,

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it moves from conjecture to fact: "If the Synod affirms that we believe everything Orthodoxy teaches, then so we do" becomes The Synod affirms that we believe everything Orthodoxy teaches, and so we do. As a case in point:

Where? Did the Melkite's official statement even say that? Who in fact was quoted in that statement? Bishop Elias? No. VCII and Pope JP II? Yes. What did the Melkite's statement actually say about Rome and the Orthodox?

I have not heard the details of this particular event. That said the customary practice of the Russian Church as laid down in the Great Book of Needs is that Roman Catholics are received by Holy Confession and a formal Profession of Faith including explicit renunciation of whatever heresies or schisms to which the convert was previously attached. This is followed by Holy Chrismation and completed by reception of Holy Communion. In the case of clergy converting the rule is that once Chrismated they are normally vested, as the Mystery of Chrismation makes whole their Holy Orders in the same way it does their Baptism.

In ICXC
John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Griego,

I think one of the issues, from what I am seeing is whether or not Eastern Catholics accept the latter 14 Councils as Ecumenical or Synods of the West. Is there any authoritative statement, I'm curious, as to whether any of the Eastern Catholic Churches had talked, mention or came out with any proclamation on this? If the 14 latter Councils are in the end not considered Ecumenical, which I have read several posts on here that certain Popes, including this one, has mentioned or shown signs that this is their opinion. But as for the Eastern Catholics at least, is there any document talking about this?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Sorry for having taken things so OT. I don't remember if it was my questioning, but I think it is that has taken this so OT. Good to see there are still people that are interested in the original topic lol.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The allowing of indulgences is a pastoral concession, many people over the course of two hundred odd years having come to adopt alien practices, mainly because of what was once called the praestantia ritus latini.

Think of allowing indulgences as on par with the old indult to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Church. But it is neither taught nor encouraged.

Until the promulgation of the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Eastern Churches Orientalium ecclesiarum, there were no "Eastern Catholic Churches", only "rites of the Roman Catholic Church". As mere "ritual adjuncts" of the Latin Church, utterly dependent upon the Propaganda fide, they had no independent voice, and their very existence was considered to be an example of "dispensation" from the norm.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Stuart,

In your statement:



Do you mean that that is how the Roman Church related to the Eastern Churches? Did the Eastern Churches also view themselves like that or as Churches proper?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

I accept this as clarification on the 'forced latinization,' and concede your point. However, as is evidence by the dissenting opinion on this thread Rome remains a fickle mistress, giving with one hand while taking with the other (or attempting to).

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear ByzBob,

Because of your comment:



I'm curious, which opinion is the dissenting opinion?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

In the context of my comments I meant those dissenting from the notion that one can be Orthodox in union (communion) with Rome. That is not to infer, necessarily, that they are wrong, merely that the are not in agreement with the notion.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear ByzBob,

That's actually not how I understood it lol. I thought you meant there was an obvious majority of one opinion over the other. Thanks for the clarification.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Indulgences a pastoral concession? First time I've heard that! Throwing in some Latin still doesn't make it plausible.

Indulgences are still taught and encouraged. We've had the Year of St. Paul and the Year of the Priest with their respective indulgences.

From what Melkite Bishop John Elya, eparch emeritus of Newton, has responded publicly about Eastern Catholics and indulgences, indulgences are part of the patrimony of the Melkite Church.

He has never been told to retract his response either from Rome or from the Melkite Holy Synod.

Oh, yeah, Bishop John. Lovely man, but when you consider that he was the only active Melkite bishop who refused to sign the Zoghby Confession, you get an idea of where he fits in.

When you consider how frequently the Eparchy of Newton alters the content of its web site, I think you can discount any particular importance to the presence of Bishop John's little note. Nothing much has been added to that feature in years.

By the way, if you do not know what the praestantia ritus latini was (still is, in the minds of a few, I suppose), I suggest you look it up. It is essential to understanding the development of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the phenomenology of uniatism.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Stuart,

Bishop John Elya is alive yes? So did he retire by coming to the age of retirement or was there another reason for the change of Bishops for the Newton Eparchy?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

PS: Also, is there any good Q&A done by any other Bishop that is as clear and concise as Bishop Emeritus John Elya but that in your opinion is more orthodox (I did the little "o" on purpose here) ? Thanks

I don't see what this has to do with the conversion of Hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge) to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Of course, he is right to follow his conscience. And of course, Catholics are right to disagree with his conscientious choice. He has made a choice which necessarily breaks the vows he took as a monk of the Order of Saint Benedict and as a priest of the Catholic Church. Even so, he is right to follow his conscience, as he sees it, though he may be wrong. This is one of the great paradoxes of human freedom.

All we can do (Orthodox and Catholics) is to pray for him and wish him well.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Latin,

If that comment was towards me, I ask because Griego Catolico put the Bishop Emeritus' Q&A as evidence. So, I just wish to make sure I have my bearings right about the good Bishop Emeritus and to see if there is a different Q&A from a different Bishop that talks on these topics.

If that comment was not towards me, then don't worry about everything I just said LOL.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Yes, I know exactly where he fits in: with those bishops of Church history who refused to sign statements or make declarations that went against the teaching of the Church. It was always the small remnant that won out in the end.

Again, Bishop John hasn't been commanded to retract what he has written.

Neither has Patriarch Gregorios.

Bishop John reached the mandatory retirement age--a requirement that does not really exist in the Eastern Churches. The better question is why he was not replaced by the most obvious and best qualified candidate for his job.

Nor has Kyr Zoghby.

I believe there is relevance in this conversation because it touches upon the issues that often lead an Eastern Catholic or even a Latin Catholic to become Eastern Orthodox.

I am reminded of a lady from my parish who considered herself Orthodox but who attended the liturgy every Sunday.
She did a lot for the parish, but struggled with where she belonged. She didn't believe in "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and that led her to go to the OCA. It was a loss for the parish, but she followed her conscience.

Yet, there are those who say they are Orthodox yet are not willing to become formally Orthodox for issues that don't pertain to faith.

A Roman Catholic youth group was left scandalized by the visit of a Byzantine Catholic priest who said he didn't follow the Pope but his Patriarch. Apparently, the priest made statements that didn't go over well with the group. When asked why he didn't just become Orthodox, the priest said there were "benefits" to being Catholic. Those benefits were interpreted to mean being pastor of a parish which he may not have gotten if he were to become Orthodox.

I've always wondered about that. Are there "Orthodox in communion with Rome" who don't follow their conscience and formally become Orthodox because of the loss of "benefits" or position they have at a parish or within an eparchy?

That doesn't sound to me as one who lives truthfully to oneself.

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Nor the other 24 of 26 Bishops that signed the Zoghby Initiative

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Dear friend,

no my comment was not specifically directed to you. I just do not see what Bishop John (Elya) has to do with the conversion of Hieromonk Gabriel to the Russian Orthodox Church. This thread seems to be mixing a lot of different issues.

Diogenes with his lantern discovered that many are such.

They didn't have to. Rome told them all that it's not possible "to believe in everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches".

Blessings to all.

Tautologies "R" Us.

So, just why are you a Byzantine Catholic?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Stuart,

What is Tautologies?

Dear Griego,

I have been wanting to ask that same question that Stuart did. But if I may. Do you see yourself as a different Rite with in the Roman Catholic Church or do you see yourself as a member of your particular church in union with the church of Rome?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Tautology: (1) using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.
(2) a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid.

In this particular case, more (1) than (2).

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you Stuart.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Well, it all began in high school...

Short version: Those who've heard my story believe it was the Lord's will.

Why have you not formally become Eastern Orthodox?

Because God put me where He wanted me. When I can no longer live as an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome, then I suppose it will be a sign God no longer wants me here, but rather there. It's all really quite the same to me.

I happen to think Christian unity is important, and that the Church of Rome has priority should preside in love. But I also believe that much Rome has done in the second millennium exceeds the reasonable bounds of primacy, and I also believe that Rome is as damaged by the absence of communion with the Orthodox Churches as the Orthodox Churches are damaged by the absence of communion with Rome.

I believe that our mission, as Greek Catholics, is to demonstrate to the Orthodox the possibility of being Orthodox while in communion with Rome, and to bear witness to the ecumenical promises Rome has made to the Orthodox Churches. After all, if we who are already in communion with the Church of Rome are not treated with respect and dignity, if our Tradition is subordinated to the doctrines of the Latin Church, how can the Orthodox be expected to take Rome at its word.

So, I also agree with Father Lawrence Cross, who wrote that it is our duty to resist--even to the point of schism--any efforts on the part of the Church of Rome to distort, manipulate or subordinate our authentic Tradition.

I agree with this post.


Yes, as an Eastern Catholic I see this as a most sacred duty.

Far be it for me to laud the excesses of power, blatant corruption and debauchery emanating from papal Rome from time to time, but do you think it possible, from an eastern perspective, to see the hand of Providence in what appear to be over-extensions of the reasonable bounds of primacy in leading the western church through much of the muck and mire of medieval, and Renaissance Europe; not to mention the Reformation, Counter-Reform and on and on down through the catastrophes of the twentieth century? I think of Yeat's The Second Coming. Would this church of the Roman communion have survived without such a strong papacy? I even think it possible, in some strange way, to see Orthodoxy's survival because of this. As in, an enemy sometimes serves as a focal point. I liked your apologia.

Good point!
But in most of the cases the Eastern Catholic Churches have big problems in preserving their specific tradition. There are so many latinized (if I may call it so) parishes, even Churches, that are keeping only a shadow of the Byzantine Tradition. In this case I think that some of the Tradition is lost, and there is still much to be done in order to recover what was lost. I can give lots of examples. The best example I can give is that there are philological differences between some national Orthodox Churches and they Catholic counterpart (best example is the Romanian case). Also the authentic Byzantine monastic tradition is poorly represented in most of the Byzantine Catholic Churches with the notable exception of the Melkite Church and the Ukrainian one. And the list can go further on. Unless we will truly show that we are really Byzantine and not just a mere copy, the Orthodox will see us as what we are: just a bad copy of the original.

Francis, my brother,

John has already addressed this in terms of the usual praxis of the Russian Orthodox, but I wanted to affirm (based on info from some knowledgeable RO friends) that Father Gabriel was received by vesting, not re-ordained.

Many years,

Neil

I only know of one instance of reordination in this country, and that was ages ago. I doubt any (canonical) jurisdiction would re-ordain a Catholic priest today, whether Latin or Byzantine.

I'm surprised since past discussions had indicated to me that practices vary. I know of a former Melkite priest who was received (ROCOR, ~1994) by re-baptism (he did not seek ordination that I know and remains as a layman).

As I said, ages ago. The incident to which I referred also happened in that time frame--which is sixteen years ago.

Many canonical Orthodox Churches receive converts by baptizing them and clergy are ordained, including Catholics. This remains the practice of most of the Greek Churches outside of the EP and N. America. The Serbians do so as does ROCOR (still) and the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Ad Orientem,

Any idea why they do this? It feels so offensive. If they re-baptize Catholics then they are saying that Catholics are not even Christian. Catholics do not re-baptize those who were baptized by other Christian communities. Unless it is a community or religion that are not Christian at all (ie Mormons).

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The Coptic Orthodox Church also rebaptizes Catholics because Pope Shenouda declared Catholic baptisms invalid due to lack of baptism by immersion.

So an RC priest doesn't require baptism and chrismation but a RC layman does?

I think before one faults the current situation amongst various Eastern Churches and how they receive those coming from the Catholic Church a little perspective would be good...

It was just 50 years ago (not long ago when one talking about such issues between Churches) that those coming to the Catholic Church from other Christian faiths were usually received by conditional baptism. In some places, this was even more recent.

To receive someone by conditional baptism or by Baptism or by Baptism is not to judge someone's previous experience as non-Christian. There are other issues involved here. People who submit to what is asked of them by the authority of the Church they are seeking to enter often do so as a matter of obedience to that authority.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear DT,

Thank you for posting that. Makes sense. And the 50 year change about the RC I imagine is something that happened post Vatican II eh.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Correction. The first sentence of the last paragraph should have read:

To receive someone by conditional baptism or by Baptism or by Chrismation is not to judge someone's previous experience as non-Christian.

The issue as I see it is inconsistency in practice, a practice that reflects a most important sacramental theology, that differs significantly among churches that are in communion.

A practice consistent with the underlying theology, respecting that baptism is only to be administered once.

But the judgment is "non-Christian" if accepted by baptism. It's at least a "not sure" if conditional.

What are those issues?

For Deacon Tony,

Yes, it's inconsistent. No quibble there.

I suppose one could say conditional baptisms were consistent with the underlying theology. I doubt they were generally perceived by the other Churches as an affirmation of the sacraments that had been received in the other Church before one became a Catholic. That was my point.

Is the judgment really that one had no Christian experience if one is received by Baptism from another Christian faith? I don't think so. I think many Orthodox converts would disagree with you there.

Conditional Baptism may again become a practice in the Catholic Church when people are received who are baptised in the Name of the Creator, Savior, and Sanctifier--or some other combination that is substituted for the formula mandated by Scripture but which runs up against the feminist anti-God-as-Father mindset/political correctness that has taken hold in many eccelesial communities.

Bob

Conditional baptism is still the practice of the Catholic Church when warranted, but the overwhelming scruples of the past are now balanced in routinely accepting those water baptized in the Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Baptism "in the Name of the Creator, Savior, and Sanctifier--or some other combination" is deemed invalid, as is baptism "in the name of Jesus," and no conditional formula would be used.

That may be, but the concept is really not that difficult to grasp.

I can't say "had no Christian experience if one is received by Baptism" but I can say "no Christian" and that is the issue. There is the death in Christ and the rebirth or there is not, the putting on of Christ, real, ontological; and if so, then not to be repeated.

How real is the difference between "no Christian experience" and "no Christian"?

In hard cases, isn't it up to God to decide?

There are times we leave it in the hands of the Church to decide what we should do. In past generations Catholics followed the policy of almost always baptizing converts from other Christian faiths conditionally. Now, that's pretty rare.

Many years ago, a remarried person entering the Catholic Church often had a hard time getting an annulment. That resulted in difficult situations for some. Now, many of these people are able to obtain an annulment and receive the Eucharist. Some people criticize this and some are grateful for it.

I think in all these hard type cases we are often called to submit to the authority we recognize and leave the judging to God.

As a former Orthodox Christian who was raised in a Catholic country and who has recently left Eastern Orthodoxy for the Traditional Catholic faith, I greatly lament that the fact that this priest decided to go into schism and leave the Church of Jesus Christ.

To say that "we are all expected to become Orthodox" is not at all consistent with the lives of those Catholic martyrs who chose horrendous deaths instead of becoming part of the Communist controled Orthodox Churches.

The fact that so many people leave the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy is nothing but a fruit of Ecumenism as practiced by the liberal hierarchy in Rome and in most of the dioceses in the world.

The Ecumenist clergy act as if the Catholic Church needed some form of "approval" from schismatic Churches. It's pitiful to see the once glorious Catholic Church begging schismatic Anti-Roman bishops to "recognize the Catholic Baptism" of those who leave the Church of Christ to join their organizations. It's sad to see the Catholic Church in such a defensive position.

Instead of kneeling before the Orthodox for the sake of Rome's false Ecumenism, Catholics should instead work for the conversion of souls. There are so many people of good faith among the Orthodox who would convert to the Catholic Church if they were approcahed with a truly traditional liturgy and a sound catechism.

Many Catholics who convert to the Orthodox Church do so because the hierarchs of the Catholic Church no longer preach that the Catholic Church is the true Church. If someone is told things are better the other side of the fence and people tell this person "we must be like those who live the other side of the fence because they're better than ourselves", it's evident that at some point this person will jump and reach the other side of the fence as it's much easier than waiting until things get better on our side.

The sollution would be to create Traditional organizations and societies of Eastern Christians in order to defend the true Eastern heritage and the Catholic faith. It's our duty to oppose the hostility of the Orthodox clergy against Catholics and to promote the truth.

It's certainly true that the Orthodox Churches have no liturgical problems, that you will never find liturgical abuse, that all priests will be traditional, that you won't find corruption. However, these Orthodox bodies and their bishops (who occupy these once Catholic dioceses) have no affiliation with the Church of Christ, they have no authority from God. If these Churches hold so many truths of the faith and the true mysteries it is because they took them from the unidivided Church. The fact that these organizations have been prudent enough to preserve the holy mysteries that they took from the Catholic Church (while the Protestants, on the other side, lost them) does not make them venerable at all.

What they have is a purely material apostolic succession. There is no apostolic mission in them, and no authority from God.

The sollution is not to join the Orthodox Churches but to resist Modernism, to defend the Eastern tradition from Latinization and Novus Ordization, to ask for true orthodoxy and true catholicism, to ressist and oppose the political attacks of the State Orthodox Churches.

This is my personal opinion.

Irish Melkite's post on the different sacramental approaches of East and West is helpful, and should probably be reviewed by all those taking part in this discussion:

Here is a link to his most recent posting on the topic:

Augustinian versus Cyrianic Sacramentology

Hola Manuel,

It is not my saying but the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Please read the following:

Responses to Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church

and

Note on the expression "Sister Churches"

Please let me know your reaction after you have read them.

God bless,

griego

Read this and tell if this group of Catholics are living the fullness of the faith.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/09/redemptorist-publications-promote.html

Quote from Mexican: "It's certainly true that the Orthodox Churches have no liturgical problems, that you will never find liturgical abuse, that all priests will be traditional, that you won't find corruption."

Maybe that is part of the problem!. Why so many Eastern Catholics return to their mother churches!.

Quote from Mexican: "If these Churches hold so many truths of the faith and the true mysteries it is because they took them from the unidivided Church."

Truths that most, in the undivided church, fail to retain, for the sake of modernism!. The Roman Rite also suffers the same problems, if not more. Novus Ordo Catholicism vs Traditional Catholicism.

We shouldn't judge others when we ourselves do not provide a good example to follow by. How many Roman Rite clergy follow Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical examples. Not many!.

Quote from Mexican: "Instead of kneeling before the Orthodox for the sake of Rome's false Ecumenism, Catholics should instead work for the conversion of souls. There are so many people of good faith among the Orthodox who would convert to the Catholic Church if they were approcahed with a truly traditional liturgy and a sound catechism."

But until that day comes, and it won't be for along time, they will remain Orthodox. And judging from most European Catholics, and their liberal philosophies, it will be centuries. Maybe the Pope sees something in the Orthodox that he wishes he would see in his own Church. Which yes is right now more divided than ever, thanks to secularization and modernism.

The Pope in his latest discussions at Castle Gandolfo, with his former students, Koch and Schonborn, spoke of trying to avoid a schism between Pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics, and Post Conciliar Roman Catholics. And this wasn't just about the SSPX.

So as the first response went.
"May God grant Father Gabriel many years."

I wish the Catholic Church could have Metropolitans and Archbishops, as young as Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk. Than we might have more traditional parishes, instead of parishes run by the 60's generation. Just my opinion!.

Manuel,

Actually 50 years would be just prior to VII (1962-65). Post VII, conditional baptism was much less likely to happen.

Many years,

Neil

Bravo to this brave post.

As a side note, I would add nationalism to the list of problems you cite. My UGCC parish glorifies God in a remarkably beautiful way, and other people are closed to it because it isn't "American." On the other side, it appears that the Eastern churches may eventually subdivide themselves out of existence because of nationalism.

Back to the main topic, it seems to me that all of us, Catholic and Orthodox, should pray for Christian unity, the conversion of sinners, the total triumph of the church on earth, and the growth and success of our ritual traditions and all ritual traditions that give glory to God. Then we know with confidence that God will answer our prayers, although maybe not in the ways we thought.

A difference of some experience. But the difference addressed was between being baptized and not being baptized; and that is a BIG difference.

God is not limited by the sacraments, but God, Jesus, gave authority to the Church -- the keys, binding and loosing, to Peter.

Of course, but I would expect a consistent practice, or the intent and desire to do so, that reflects the proper theology.

Better practices, or practices that change with times, sure. The point is that the "conditionally" even if invoked too scrupulously, is the right theology and looms large.

See my previous three remarks.

We definitely "submit to the authority we recognize." My issue with what has been put forth in past threads as what I would characterize as the Cyprianic-economia theory is how it works out in practice. Using the case of the Catholic priest being received by vesting: let's say an RC priest and his twin layman brother, both having been baptized Catholic, same time, same priest baptizing, yet the priest-brother is received by vesting, but the layman-brother is received by baptism/chrismation. What does this practice say about the necessity of baptism and that it can only be done once and it is sacrilegious to try to repeat it? So theory is fine and may be readily stated but the proof in many cases is in the practice and results or ramifications of the practice.

Amin.

Many years to Fr. Gabriel.

Lost in all of this, unless I'm missing somewhere in the 14 pages, is the fact that Fr. Gabriel was received AFAIK by vesting and a profession of faith. I think there is something significant in that.

"We definitely "submit to the authority we recognize." My issue with what has been put forth in past threads as what I would characterize as the Cyprianic-economia theory is how it works out in practice. Using the case of the Catholic priest being received by vesting: let's say an RC priest and his twin layman brother, both having been baptized Catholic, same time, same priest baptizing, yet the priest-brother is received by vesting, but the layman-brother is received by baptism/chrismation. What does this practice say about the necessity of baptism and that it can only be done once and it is sacrilegious to try to repeat it? So theory is fine and may be readily stated but the proof in many cases is in the practice and results or ramifications of the practice."

I will attempt to answer your misgivings as to the consistency but of course it is a pastoral concern and is to be decided by the Bishop. in your scenario both brothers have received the Grace of Baptism. Let me explain what I mean. No Orthodox church that I know of accepts that there are sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church ( though I have heard others disagree...I can only think that they are misinformed)The OC would not recognize either baptism as being Grace filled, only through economia at the teaching of St Basil would the Church be willing to accept the form of the sacrament. Since it has the form but not the Grace Chrismation will fill the previously empty form. If however, it is determined that Economia will not be used then both brothers would be baptized (not rebaptized), chrismated, etc. If they go to the same priest they will be treated the same.If the one is received one way so will the other as long as it is under the same Hierarch. Since we have a canonical abnormality here with overlapping jurisdictions it may seem inconsistent but it is not. There are many who feel that due to relatavism and false ecumensim (as opposed to genuine ecumenism) that it may be better to accept all converts through Baptism however, that is something the Bishops will decide. Thankfully this is on the list for the North American Episcopal Assembly. They may end up picking one way or respecting the Hierarch's decisions.
Hope this clarifies.

So in the Catholic and Oriental churches there is no baptism, chrismation, eucharist etc.? For instance, the bread and wine a Catholic receives as communion is just bread and wine?

So economia accomplishes what actual baptism should have? And it can also effect ordination (and simultaneous baptism and chrismation?) for the brother who is received by vesting?

Does the baptism and "not rebaptized" imply or denote that they were not Christians?

If the "priest" brother is received by vesting the lay brother cannot be received the same way.

They needn't be overlapping; how about just adjacent, or whatever, since it is based on the policy of the bishop?

Again then, is it fair to conclude that (all) converts, since they are (properly, according to best practice) being baptized, are not considered to have been Christians?

According to our oriental friends, when the the "conversion" is from Catholic to orthodox it is perfectly ok and celebrated with great fast, while when the "conversion" is in the other sense it is simply a "horrible proselytism".

I too some time ago was thinking to pass to the Orthodox, but then I realized of how much "intellectual proud" is there, and I preferred to remain with the imperfect, but humble, Catholics

And there is no "intellectual pride" among Catholics?

Never met a Jesuit, I imagine.

I think the Ruthenian Monks in Miami were also received by vesting into the OCA.