Dear Brendan,

Well, I have never been scrupulous about avoiding the term "Orthodox."

And you are absolutely right - Aghia Sophia was NEVER a "Byzantine Catholic Cathedral."

It was always Orthodox Catholic and when it was in communion with Rome, it considered itself as EQUAL to Rome.

Rome apparently agrees for when the EP visited the Bishop of Rome, the two patriarchal thrones they were sitting on were deliberately placed on an even keel to indicate equality, as was the case in the pronouncement of Pope John VIII (8th right? I'll be hearing from Stuart otherwise . . .) regarding St Photios the Great and Constantinople.

One problem is that some of these Byzantine Catholics that you, Brendan, have to put up with here are saying things that RC theologians studying Orthodoxy would never say while admitting past RC errors on the score of papal triumphalism.

And the only thing that's worse than that is Byzantine Catholic triumphalism, as demonstrated by that priest and his unfortunate misrepresentations of history.

As an Eastern Catholic, I hope I haven't lost my ability to think critically and to call a spade a spade from my point of view . . .

Alex

And here Alex, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

I think this thread has lived its usefulness.

As has my time here, I am going to take a break as I tire of having to explain myself over and over, that is when I do get replies. Usually I am just one of the multitude that gets ignored.

I also tire of being taken to task for something that the poster assumes I mean rather than trying to clairify what I mean. Or taking me to task even though they already know what I mean.

Have fun and be nice people, maybe I will return after the fast.

Your brother in Christ,
David

ps feel free to email me or send me private messages, I should be around to respond to those.

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

I would never say that Hagia Sophia was a "Byzantine Catholic Cathedral." And I agree with Brendan about the development of the usage of the term "Byzantine Catholic." In defense of the priest, however, we might also consider his intended audience (I believe this was on EWTN) and he probably was thinking of the fact that when Hagia Sophia fell to the attacking Turks it was a union church (still adhering to the Union of Florence...in fact, at the last liturgy in Hagia Sophia both Romans and Greeks received Communion together.)

Nonetheless, stating that Hagia Sophia was a Byzantine Catholic Cathedral is something that can only cause offense to Orthodox and should be avoided.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

DTBrown,

Actually, 'Romans and Romans' received Holy Communion together.

Abdur

Yes, you are right. I stand corrected.

As a RC coming home to my true BC heritage, I must admit I get more and more confused when I try to figure out who the "True Church" is. The thing that makes it difficult, it seems that everyone is able to prove their point; in other words, you are both right...but yet, you must also be both wrong about something since we are still a divided church.

I am still new to discovering the truths of church history, so I will humbly admit my shortcomings in this area.

It does seem,however, that a lot of it has to do with pride...on both sides. I understand that both sides have been extremely hurtful to each other in the past--but is that an excuse for the animosity that exists between the 2 church entities that claim to possess the fullness of the faith handed down by the apostles?

Was the Orthodox Patriarch justified when he failed to acknowledge the Pope's visit to the Ukraine because of differences that started 1000 years ago, with neither one of them being personally responsible?

As an individual that has a Russian and Polish heritage, and an Orthodox and Catholic background, it was quite hurtful to see this occur. I was quite moved when the other Orthodox Patriarchs welcomed PJP II.

I will have to rely upon the Holy Spirit. I can't make heads or tails of this whole situation. All I know is I am grateful for God giving me 2 heritages that possess the fullness of the faith. I enjoy the Mass and the Diving Liturgy. I love St. Vincent de Paul and St. John the Almsgiver.

What am I trying to say? I'm going to love everybody!! I hope you do, too. I think we should pray for the day that we can go into one another's churches, participate in the liturgies and sacraments, without causing World War III.

Peace and Love,
Walter Metrick
A sinner saved by Divine Mercy
Glory to the Risen Lord!!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by walt metrick:
[QB]
occur. I was quite moved when the other Orthodox Patriarchs welcomed PJP II.


Yes, His Beatitude, Patriarch +Theocthist of Romania was very cordial to the Pope on his visit and I think that His Eminence, Archbishop Christodoulos of Greece was pleasantly surprised by the Pope and was courageous for meeting him.
Didn't the Bulgarian Patrarch call on the Pope to return to the Orthodox Church?

Interesting thread.

As a Byzantine Catholic I believe that the fullness of Orthodoxy is found only within full communion with Peter. I know our Orthodox participants (not in communion with Rome) disagree with this and I respect their disagreement.

Are there some Orthodox who are hateful of us Byzantine Catholics and our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters? Certainly. Just as there are some Roman Catholics who are hateful of Orthodoxy. Luckily, in both cases such people are the exception and not the norm.

The most difficult thing for some Roman Catholics and those with a western mindset to understand is that within Orthodoxy there is a wide range of opinion about us and all of it is legitimate. It is a perfectly legitimate and Orthodox for an Orthodox Christian to believe that our baptism is invalid. It is also perfectly legitimate and Orthodox for an Orthodox Christian to consider us as a Sister Church and allow Sacramental sharing (Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown welcomes Byzantine Catholics to partake of the Eucharist in his parishes and there is great historical and modern precedence for this). Such a diversity of teaching and practice is demonstrative of the more elastic understanding of theology and economia found within Orthodoxy (even though many westerners will find it extremely confusing).

Regarding the use of the term “Byzantine Catholic” one should be careful not to apply it to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome prior to 1054. At a certain level it is accurate. The Orthodox Church at Constantinople was and is both “byzantine” and “catholic”. At a more important level, however, it is a term that is mostly meaningless to people in that part of the world and certainly one that was not used prior to the twentieth century (they considered themselves “Romans”). It also carries with the specific meaning of Orthodox Christians who have broken full communion wit the rest of Orthodoxy to reestablish full communion with Rome. Even if one were to argue that over time leading up to 1054 the Orthodox Church at Constantinople lessened its acceptance of papal authority (and I am not arguing this) it would be incorrect to use the term “Byzantine Catholic” to describe the Great Church of Constantinople from which we, both modern Orthodox and modern Byzantine Catholics, inherit our Orthodoxy.

I do disagree that it was incorrect for the priest on the referenced television program to use the term “Byzantine Catholic” to refer to Hagia Sophia but let’s cut him a break. If you’ve ever been interviewed on a television show you know how stressful it is and how often something comes out of your mouth that your brain didn’t intend.

It should also be mentioned that the main reason that most modern Byzantine Catholics do not use the term “Orthodox” has more to do with not wanting to be identified with the communist controlled Orthodox Church of the Soviet Era and less to do with any relationship or lack of it with our Byzantine-Orthodox mother Church at Constantinople. The term “uniate” after all comes from the Latin word “union” and refers specifically to Orthodox Christians who are in union with Rome.

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your erudition, as always!

And some Byzantine Catholics, like my mother-in-law are just plain hysterical about anything Orthodox ("Alex, for Heavens' sake what are you doing with that Orthodox cross around your neck? Have you become Orthodox or what the heck is wrong with you!?").

Does the Fourth Commandment apply to mothers-in-law as well?

Alex

Alex, would she stand at the door of the Orthodox Church forbidding entry if you did "Dox" ??

Dear Brian,

If I told my dear mother-in-law I was going to "Dox," she would probably think I was going on a boating trip with some friends . . .

In both cases, she would think I would be hopelessly lost . . .



Alex

Our esteemed Administrator said:



Well put! Though I think you meant to say: "I do agree that it was incorrect for the priest..."

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

This is going to sounds a little weird, but in many matters, I just don't sweat the details. My family was a mix of Roman and Byz Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy. We all got along. No one called anyone names. No one ever used the "h" word (which I've never noticed here, but had noticed on EWTN in Q's before.)

We learned each others' traditions as a family. We went to each others' churches. We celebrated each others' holidays when they didn't mesh. Our differences are there, but they are few. On the really big stuff that affects the day to day workings of a family - our sense of morality and cohesiveness - we were in unity. And I don't believe (to quote something Dragani posted awhile ago) that there is any Schism in heaven and we need to show our apostolic brothers and sisters love and understanding.

I'm with Walt - I just love and respect my brothers and sisters in the church as I do my family. That doesn't mean we aren't going to differ on some things - and some important things - but I don't think that we're going to budge from our respective corners quickly. But whatever we say, whatever we evangelize, let's do it from LOVE first.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendan:
Dan --

Haghia Sophia a BC Church? Come on! It's the mother church of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Church of Constantinople never once -- pre-schism or after -- referred to itself as "Byzantine Catholic" -- it most commonly referred to itself (again, regardless of the time) as "Orthodox" and sometimes as "Orthodox Catholic Church", but the term "Byzantine Catholic Church" is a product of uniatism and the need to affirm (1) Byzantine heritage with (2) Catholic ecclesiastical allegiance while (3) scrupulously avoiding the use of the word "Orthodox".

As has been pointed out by numerous historians, the "Byzantines" and the "Byzantine Empire" never referred to themselves as such.

--

Ah, It is a sad day. This is the first time in my memory when you and I have disagreed. I guess we will both live through this.

In response: There are three or four Protestant denominations that call themselves either the Church of Christ or the Church of God. All claim to be the real deal because of their name. I suppose we could change our name and trump you fellows but what's the point? Hagia Sophia belongs to the Church. It first and foremost belongs to the United Church of the East. The only united Church of the East is, you guessed it, the Eastern Catholic Church.

But who's fussing? If the Orthodox and the Catholics will stop fueding and find a way to recommunion we will gladly share it with you.

Dan Lauffer

I like the irenic spirit of both Annie and our Administrator so I won't tease Brenden and others about Hagia Sophia any longer.

I believe that the truth lies with both Orthodoxy and with Catholicism. I will never believe that there are any substantial reasons for their continued separation.

I will therefore continue to live in the hopeful reality of the BC Church and hope someday to visit Hagia Sophia when it will once again be the Church it truly is.

Dan Lauffer