Though Jesus Himself seemed to disapprove of theological nit-picking, and though to live in Hesychia (Silence) in Christ transcends all else, I still am curious to know how Christians of the Byzantine tradition who are in communion with the Papal See in Rome endeavor to resolve some pesky theological differences between Orthodox and Catholic religious philosophy. Of course, there are old ones like the filioque clause injected into the Nicene Creed by Latin theologians, the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the idea of purgatory, etc., not to mention the Bishop of Rome's claim to primacy among equals (i.e., the ancient Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, etc.). Then there are minor differences like celibacy of the clergy, full baptismal immersion vs. a sprinkling atop the head.
So, while it is only proper that all these national churches talking to each other is only proper, how then to resolve these issues? And, secondly, to what articles of faith regarding the above-mentioned do Byzantine Catholics subscribe?

The Byzantine Catholics do not have intentions of resolving theological differences & problems within Catholicism. The way the resolve the problems is by declaring them to be valid expressions of a particular church in addition to Orthodox truths. Remarks like these are the beginning of relativism. They say "we have our own Tradition & they have their own Tradition." I say there is flawness to this kind of thinking and it avoids the hardcore theological discussions that separates Rome from Orthodoxy.

I also think it's odd that none of the message boards are even attempting to resolve the issues. How can someone profess the statement of faith as required by the Papal See and then go back to his/her Byzantine Rite church? I mean, what makes a church Byzantine or Armenian or Syriac or Latin in outlook is not just the way liturgy is celebrated but also the underlying beliefs that are manifest during that liturgy, as well as how one thinks and acts when exiting the church afterwards...

Kyrie: The Byzantines never answer to accusations of theological relativism because they have no way---but through sophistry---to effectively counter a legitimate criticism from the Orthodox side. Silence may be golden in the sight of some, but it is also an answer that speaks louder than words. How far the Byzantine Catholics have fallen from their Orthodox patrimony. They no longer think like the great Greek Fathers and Saints who gifted their ancestors with the True Faith, but have swallowed an artificially crafted Latin hybrid that their great Greek Orthodox
ancestors would despise. Union with Rome is the death of Orthodoxy. Byzantine Catholics are sensitive to being called (in a derogatory sense) uniates. What they neglect to tell the neophyte converts is that they used "orthodox" in a derogatory sense for generations, even as an explitive. You see, adelphos, Catholics are ALWAYS right! Can you see what an imperialistic mindset does to an other wise intelligent people---and Rusyns are intelligent! More of this later.

Just remember, that for the Byzantine Catholics, relativism is merely relative. So much for "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." The Byzantine Catholics are the messenger who has forgotten the message. How about a type of Eastern-rite latitudinarian anglicanism?

O Theos con dasoo!

>>> How can someone profess the statement of faith as required by the Papal See and
then go back to his/her Byzantine Rite church? <<<

Just what statement of faith would that be? I was not required to make any, and neither, for that matter, were any of the priests or deacons whom I know? Or is this another ecclesiastical urban myth?

Welcome to cpapadopoulos!

I think you've brought up some worthy questions...but perhaps the field is too large for this thread. Perhaps starting or limiting this thread to one particular nuance would facilitate discussion.

BTW, I was surprised to see the difference in Baptism mentioned as a "minor difference." I still remember the surprise when I read Fr Mastrontonis' statement in his _A New-Style Catechism_ that in emergencies children near death could receive "air baptism." (page 118)Granted, he is speaking of emergency situations but it would indicate that things are not so rigid as one might think.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Well, Vasili, in the spirit of true re-conciliation (and why not?), it's kind of futile to present the Orthodox case (for non-reconciliation due to Latin heresy, etc.) in the manner you have. We've all been told the stories of the Latin Church's Microsoft-like intimidation and co-opting of other religious bodies who chose to not pay fealty to the Roman See. In truth, everybody has been guilty throughout the past 1700 years or so since the legalization of Christianity (what a long way we've come) of abusing their considerable power at point or another. That means the 'Eastern' ecclesiastical authorities as well as the 'Western'. For example, I personally believe Uniate efforts by the Catholics would not have been possible if it were not for heavy-handed administration from Constantinople or Moscow.
The main issue is not historical/political, though wounds on both 'sides' still exist. It's doctrinal. In short, can I as an Orthodox Christian of the Byzantine tradition publically profess communion with Rome in the spirit of unity, if I don't subscribe to ALL of the articles of faith that the Roman Church has traditionally held?

Stuart:
I may have been too general in my question (regarding the 'articles of faith'). I'm referring to those specific points that Orthodox Christians don't accept and that Catholic Christians do, ex. filioque, immaculate conception, etc.)

Carry on. But, as you can see by my style, I have no interest in reconciliation, since it is futile. But I will lurk quietly in the background and observe as the masters of deceit weave their charade. You are in for a "stomachi" full of good laughter and fun! Enjoy.

Vasili,
I see we have nothing to hide from each other

And, yet, if for you reconciliation is futile then I still suggest that you be patient with them and full of love, because from your point of view, at least, they may "see the error of their ways" if you present your case clearly enough.

As for me, I share a bit of your suspicion (how much of this thing is contrived?) but at heart I truly believe that union as equals in Christ should be a goal of ALL churches. It's insane that we're all splintered up like this.

A few years back, there was a special exhibit of Byzantine-influenced works (books, icons, etc.) at the NYC Metroploitan Museum of Art. I allowed myself to feel an almost nationalist pride (being a Romios and all) at what I was beholding. There were Coptic, Celtic, Greek, Iberian, Roman, even Arabic Muslim expressions of Byzantine culture. It was great. However, I overheard one woman murmuring to another in Greek, "You know, these are all heresies". I sank in my chair thinking, you don't get the point of all this, do you? We're celebrating our culture here, content in the fact that it DID make and continues to make an impact in our world.
That's why I'm genuinely interested in dialogue with ANYONE who is actively living within the Byzantine tradition in some form or another...

Vasili said..
"Carry on. But, as you can see by my style, I have no interest in reconciliation, since it is futile. But I will lurk quietly in the background and observe as the masters of deceit weave their charade. You are in for a "stomachi" full of good laughter and fun! Enjoy."

Vasili is very flipant because he is neither here nor there.

Vasili, have you converted to the Orthodox Church? Looking back at some of your past posts your tone has changed.

Whats up?