www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

With all due respect the Pope is NOT OUR PATRIARCH!! A Church does not need a Patriarch to be a particular/local Church.

I agree with both statements, but in actual practice the Pope does function as our patriarch.

In practice, there is only one bishop in the Catholic Church: the pope. All other bishops are merely his assistants and have no rights beyond what he grants to them. The Holy Father has immediate and complete jurisdiction over the whole church.

Well I remember when I was beginning to find God. My family was shunned by the Roman Catholic Church because my mom refused to go through a year of marriage classes before getting married, so my family had a non-Catholic wedding. When they went to get my baptized, they cast us out of the church and refused to baptize me.

With that, my family always told me "The Roman Catholics only care if things are done their way, they would abandon an innocent newborn because of the transgressions of the parents". This obviously soured my opinion on the RC Church, so I began looking for another church that had the message but not the laws.

Protestantism didn't appeal to me in anyway, and Orthodoxy did, but the ethnic divisions and the insistence on using Greek, Russian, etc, despite the Church doctrine saying Liturgies must be in the vernacular, that drove me away. Turning to the Byzantine Catholic Church broke through those ethnic divisions and gave the same message as the Orthodox, problem solved. Though admittedly, I was raised in a traditional Southern Italian setting, so much of the Slavic culture that dominates my area was hard to get used to, but now no one really looks at me as an "outsider."

"Turning to the Byzantine Catholic Church broke through those ethnic divisions and gave the same message as the Orthodox, problem solved."

That, perhaps, answers a question I raised on another thread concerning the possibility of experiencing an ethnically-neutral Eastern Catholicism. There is a Byzantine Catholic Church (styled as such) in a neighboring suburb. I think I'll check it out one of these days.

Well said, my sister!

Many years,

Neil

Indeed, well put.

I think that we all have to agree to disagree on a number of points here regarding where we of the Christian East stand on these important matters.

A couple of points - yes - the Patriarch can, and does, summon his Bishops for meetings. Patriarch Bartholomew has made this a regular practice in recent years. He can not, however, 'summon' for example the Archbishop of Cyprus or Prague to the Phanar as they are independent of his jurisdiction.

As to ACROD, I mentioned in an earlier post that our Bishop may not consecrate chrism - it must come from the EP. The late Bishop John (Martin) did so one year and received a clear message that he lacked the prerogative to do so. (I suspect that given his theological background and experience in the Pittsburgh BCC Eparchy, it was assumed that this was not an issue.)

One question: Are Ukrainian Greek Catholics in the 'diaspora' able to select their Bishops in Sobor through K'yiv or are they dependent upon Rome as are their BCC brothers? If the head of the UGCC is truly a Patriarch in the sense understood by us Orthodox and as asserted by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, how could Rome assert such a power? It seems patently inconsistent, does it not?

The Bishop of Rome maintains that Eastern Catholic Churches of patriarchal or major archiepiscopal [sic] status may only elect bishops within their "canonical territory"; i.e., within the borders of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires at the end of the 16th century. Apparently he takes an historical accident--that the "New World" was "discovered" by representatives of Catholic monarchies as a divine sanction to exercise jurisdiction over all of it.

Frankly, I say turnabout is fair play: Eastern Catholic patriarchs should have the power to appoint Latin bishops within the bounds of their own "canonical territory".

So the answer comes back as always to 'universality' as dogmatized by Rome. Why then allow the different 'rites' to exist at all outside of their ancestral homelands? Perhaps a nod to the realization that most would have become Orthodox in new lands which might have spread to the ancestral ones? Just wondering.....

Also that is why the Orthodox can not view the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch as a Patriarch in Orthodox understanding. Just as the Orthodox Bishop of Muchachevo or Presov may not appoint a Bishop for ACROD or the former Metropolia in the pre-OCA days, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch is similarly limited. He lacks the jurisdiction to so act.

I guess that we are still Byzantine Catholic and not Orthodox only because we have not physically changed from a Byzantine Catholic parish to an Orthodox parish. Our family is on auto pilot. Our Church has lost everything over the years. We've lost the married priesthood. We've lost Vespers and Matins. And a few years ago we lost our Liturgy (with the mandate of the PC-RDL). All at the hands of our own bishops. Maybe it's time to turn off the auto-pilot and start visiting the local Orthodox parishes, find one we like, and join it. I mean, does anyone seriously think things will ever get better?

There are Orthodox hierarchs who refer to +Sviatoslav as Patriarch. I'm not going to go into the lion's den of "canonical" and "non-canonical".


I always assumed +Nicholas blessed the chrism and this is news to me. In a way it seems both the ACROD and BCCA are subject to "Rome" - BCCA to the "First Rome" and ACROD to the "Second Rome".

The Synod in Kyiv decides the candidate with the Patriarch's approval. The name of the candidate is sent to Rome for "concurrance" for areas outside of "canonical territory" (whatever that is - our Church is on five continents now). The Melkites probably do something similar.

The last time Rome unilaterally appointed its own candidate over the Synod was the awful situation in Toronto between Kyr +Roman who was appointed by Rome and Kyr +Isidore who remained as bishop and who was the candidate of Patriarch +Josyp of blessed memory. Kyr +Roman was never really accepted by the clergy and people because he was a Rome appointee. Kyr +Isidore outlasted Kyr +Roman who eventually was recalled to Rome. Unfortunately strong leadership was not one of +Myroslav Ivan's talents, but our current and former Patriarchs have not had that weakness.

Slava Isusu Christu!
One does not need to look only to an Orthodox parish when we have parishes which are beautiful, heritage rich and spiritually rich Eastern Catholic parishes such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic, etc.
Perhaps there's such a parish near you Jason.
Slava Na Vike!

The UGCC is not yet officially a Patriarchal Church. Both it and the Romanian Greek Catholic Church are considered to be Major Archbishop Churches, which is one step down from a Patriarchal church. So, as Diak has explained, Rome is still involved in the appointment of bishops.

In all Eastern Catholic Patriarchal Churches such as the Melkites or Coptic Catholics, bishops are chosen from a list of names pre-approved by Rome -- this is the procedure for eparchies inside the traditional territories. As I understand, the Melkite Church has petitioned Rome to change this to get more autonomy in the selection of bishops.

Because I don't believe for a minute that any other Greek Catholic Church is going to be allowed to keep its own liturgical traditions. Father David Petras has said the these other Churches will soon all adopt the Revised Divine Liturgy.