www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Recent interview with Fr. Taft

fixed that for you.

Interesting. Do you know if the EP has made any statement about these losses?

I think that this article is rather good, and fits in with this discussion: Are You Part of the Problem, or Are You Part of the Solution? An Interview with Fr. Robert Taft [preachersinstitute.com] (February 2013). [It may be worthy of a new thread.]

Regarding the whole OicwR debate, I was taught when I was a kid that we Greek Catholics were "Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction". And I grew up in a fairly latinized parish!

Those who reject the OicwR description need to consider what Pope Pius IX told the Russian Catholics at the end of the 19th century: "Ne plus, ne minus, nec altera: add nothing, omit nothing, change nothing." That is all that OicwR means for the vast majority of us who use the term to describe ourselves.

I don't know when that was exactly, but given that he said "add nothing", I'm guessing it was after he had finished defining dogmas.

It was Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), who did not define any dogmas ex cathedra, who said "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter," not Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).

However, I'd bet a lot of money that the whole point was largely that he didn't see Catholic dogmas, even those defined ex cathedra, as fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

I'm all in favor of the OicwR language, as long as it's not understood to mean that Latins are heretics (as I've heard it used.)

Maybe, but I would have assumed he didn't, even without being told. He was the pope after all!

Thank you sir!

That's a very good point sir.

"Very Eastern Greek-Catholics" will make the case that Rome should return to certain things that Orthodox affirm as "objectionable" to say the least.

One example is the removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed or a return to the original text (in fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence did NOT insist the Latins repudiate the Filioque as a theological opinion - only that it be removed from the Nicene Creed.

Rome has always affirmed the original text of that Creed to be legitimate. Why couldn't Rome officially say it is returning to the original text while leaving the Filioque as part of the Latin Triadological tradition?

Alex

Semantics.

What Administrator describes is fine. (But I've never met an ethnic Greek Catholic who described himself that way, and have had one ask me not to!) What I would describe as high-church Greek Catholicism and what Alex just called very Eastern Greek Catholic. St Pius X simply repeated what Rome's wanted all along for the Greek Catholics: be liturgically Orthodox, unlatinized, and express Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms. Because of that, Rome has never told the Greek Catholics to add the filioque, which in my real-life experience has surprised Catholics, understandably since it seems to be about doctrine. It's a matter of knowing the history and context.

In this thread, by OicwR I mean something different from the high-church Greek Catholics who describe themselves, sometimes, as Orthodox: someone who doesn't accept the true-church claim as taught by either church; a Greek Catholic who dissents from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, rather than expressing them in Orthodox terms. In other words, he thinks he's smarter than both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and thinks the Orthodox ought to be kissing his hand for deigning to agree with them, yet remaining outside. Granted, the ecumenical Orthodox he knows give him the same recognition (true bishops, true sacraments) and benefit of the doubt, as a never-Orthodox Catholic, that Catholicism gives never-Catholic Orthodox. But, even though his theology happens to be conservative, which is great, the dissent is just as arrogant as that of Catholic liberals, or of Anglicans with their branch theory dismissing the teachings of 'the Romans' (a very Anglican way to referring to Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox while seeming nice by including them.

I know that Sviatoslav's official title is major archbishop but that such have been calling themselves patriarch since Joseph (Slipyj); not a real problem, Rome looks the other way, and I call him patriarch to be polite.

Of course the Greek Catholic pastor in Toronto would call Filaret by his title; whether canonical Orthodox or not, Orthodox are true bishops in Catholicism. Filaret was the Russian Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev who tried to parlay Ukrainian independence into a promotion, declaring church independence and himself patriarch. It's sort of like the split of the Bulgarian church from Constantinople in the 1800s, only the rest of the Orthodox communion isn't in communion with it right now. Also, many/most Ukrainian churchgoers are happy being Russian Orthodox, because most Ukrainians are Russian. The Greek Catholic far west isn't. Related, but not. Who knows? The KP has lots of members (such as former President Yushchenko); maybe after a long time it will get its wish and be the state or national church, and recognized by the Orthodox communion. (If one canonical church recognizes you, as the EP did the KP until recently, you're in the club.)

^a very Anglican way to refer to Catholics

Well, I was basically intent on accepting your usage of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread); but after reading your last post I have to object or at least request clarification: are you including arrogant/triumphalistic attitudes as part of the definition?

If Yes, then I would say that I find that rhetoric problematic.
If No, then I guess I can accept your meaning of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread) ... and I can get to my actual point, that I don't believe that being OicwR as such is the problem. The problem is if an OicwR has an arrogant/triumphalistic attitude.

There is nothing in what Sergei has said about the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" issue that I wouldn't agree with.

Certainly, he is right about our pastor referring to Patriarch Filaret as such. One could go further to say that many UGC's feel close to the KP as do Ukrainian Orthodox of the EP jurisdiction. The divisions we have, EC or the various Orthodox jurisdictions, canonical or not, are beginning to be understood not as theological issues, but as geopolitical ones which make the theological/canonical issues of less significance.

How this will pale out is something we shall have to see.

Alex

No. The true-church claim isn't sinful of course; it's Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. But arrogance and triumphalism often appear with it. Basically, that kind of arrogance is attributing a mark of the church to yourself. I object to the kind of arrogance that puts oneself above either church; the OicwRs think they're better than both good Catholics and good Orthodox.

As am I, but I have never heard any OicwR say Rome or Latins were Heretical. What would be the point of being in communion with someone that you believe to be a heretic?

They passively do by saying they don't assent to post-schism Catholic defined doctrines. (As opposed to expressing them in Orthodox terms, which is what Rome wants them to do.) Because of that, you're right; it doesn't make sense for them to remain Catholic.

OicwRs: Stuart, an occasional Melkite, maybe Bob Taft, and light, high-turnover traffic of converts who may start in Greek Catholicism as high-church but get fed up with the latinizations and second-class treatment, buy into Orthodoxy and convert.