The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream, CA_Avgvstinus, goalie31
5,767 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 113 guests, and 44 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,055
Posts414,076
Members5,767
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 12 13
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by theophan
Quote

Quote
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?


chadrook:

Remember that this is an Eastern Christian forum, not exclusively Eastern Catholic despite our name. We respect each and every group that we try to understand and learn both from and about.

I have to ask why the situation described in the first post is such a problem. We Catholics are supposed to be beyond the idea that the Orthodox are not somehow part of us even though we are not visibly in communion. Vatican II hasn't sunk into many Catholic minds, apparently. It seems to me that the situation described is but the practical application of V2. If the Catholic Church routinely dispenses Catholic/Orthodox weddings in deference to the more strict requirements that the Orthodox Church has for its members in such situations, that must mean that Orthodox Christians somehow have status akin to those of us in communion with Rome. Then there is the routine practice of offering pastoral care to Orthodox Christians and others with the same Apostolic Faith as the Catholic Church in the form of Eucharist, if this is not in conflict with the discipline of their own Church.

IMHO, those who cling to extreme positions to keep us apart aren't really all that attached to the Lord Who willed that we be one (and find our way to it in and through Him). To me it's even more sad that these rigid postures are still alive and well in this time some 46 years after the mutual anathemas were lifted by our respective patriarchs. BTW, if memory serves, those anathemas were supposed to be PERSONAL and not applicable to the whole of each hierarch's Church. But to listen to some people I know, one would come away with the idea that each such action so many centuries ago was meant to apply to all of us. frown Dear Lord, why didn't You give those people cell phones a millenium ago and maybe we'd be brethren today rather than trying to remain enemies.

Bob


Exactly. So we will see the same respect given to the Traditional Orthodox?

I will also assume that everyone involved in this discussion understands the varying levels of ecumenism, so no need to bring that up.

But answer this, what is wrong with people believing in the faith that they hold? If you make the statement that they are incorrect, can they not make the same about you?

Abp. Alipy at Trapeza was approached by a convert several years ago with the same legalistic questions about salvation and where it could be found. He gave the answer that we know it can be found in the true Orthodox Church and as for anywhere else,"who are we to put limits on God." The convert followed up with the question of why we were in communion with the Serbs. His answer, "well there are Serbs and there are Serbs." The convert just stared at Vladyka while others who had been in the church for several years tried to explain the answer. Then Vladyka said to the convert, "see, after you have been in the church for five years then you can question your bishops."

It seems that the questions of division are always brought up. But could it be more of a question of compromise? Christ set the standard and in our sin we fail. Why must we compromise and lower the standards?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by chadrook
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?


Sorry if I can across as flippant, that's a problem with the use of android devices, always in a hurry and too hard to correct. I usually try not to be snide and the "perfect world" remark was that.

I do refer to those Orthodox who hold that Catholic sacraments are without grace and who demand rebaptism, reordination etc..when a Catholic professes the Orthodox Faith. Likewise as to those of the Catholic world who hold beliefs ranging from sedvacantism to lessor forms of schism who typically hold the Orthodox in similar disdain. [/quote]

It fine, but I welcome your belief that we are wrong. I am one of them! I was re-baptized when I left the Catholic church. Was there a question to the validity, of course. I was not triple immersed. So, that is what ABP. Alipy required. That is just one example of where there is contention between even the various jurisdictions of the Orthodox.

We dont have a supreme pontiff, we have synods. Even the "canonical" Orthodox. So several checks and balances. Antioch might be in communion with monophysites, but not ROCOR.Even the calender issue can be seen everywhere both sides believing they are correct. If you believe you are correct, and not just compromising for your own personal failings in sin, then you must trust in God that you are.

If we hold fast to the faith that was handed down to us...


Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by theophan
chadrook:

Remember that this is an Eastern Christian forum, not exclusively Eastern Catholic despite our name. We respect each and every group that we try to understand and learn both from and about.

I have to ask why the situation described in the first post is such a problem. We Catholics are supposed to be beyond the idea that the Orthodox are not somehow part of us even though we are not visibly in communion. Vatican II hasn't sunk into many Catholic minds, apparently. It seems to me that the situation described is but the practical application of V2. If the Catholic Church routinely dispenses Catholic/Orthodox weddings in deference to the more strict requirements that the Orthodox Church has for its members in such situations, that must mean that Orthodox Christians somehow have status akin to those of us in communion with Rome. Then there is the routine practice of offering pastoral care to Orthodox Christians and others with the same Apostolic Faith as the Catholic Church in the form of Eucharist, if this is not in conflict with the discipline of their own Church.

IMHO, those who cling to extreme positions to keep us apart aren't really all that attached to the Lord Who willed that we be one (and find our way to it in and through Him). To me it's even more sad that these rigid postures are still alive and well in this time some 46 years after the mutual anathemas were lifted by our respective patriarchs. BTW, if memory serves, those anathemas were supposed to be PERSONAL and not applicable to the whole of each hierarch's Church. But to listen to some people I know, one would come away with the idea that each such action so many centuries ago was meant to apply to all of us. frown Dear Lord, why didn't You give those people cell phones a millenium ago and maybe we'd be brethren today rather than trying to remain enemies.

Bob


Originally Posted by theophan
Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

We've had this discussion here before and I recall a post where the poster mentioned Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory, of the Russian Church Abroad. His Eminence had been told of intercommunion in the Soviet gulag where Catholics and Orthodox had shared the Eucharist. The person His Eminence heard the story from told him that when everyone is facing the firing squad in the morning it suddenly becomes a rather moot point as to who gives a man absolution in confession and who gives him his last Holy Communion.

I thought that this profound lesson ought to be one we all meditate on, even as we are divided to this day. I came away wondering if the question the Lord will ask each of us on the Great Last Day is what we did to advance His prayer "that all may be one." It seems to me that it takes little on each of our parts to see the other as brother or sister, even as we are far removed from making full communion come into being. That small stepis demanded of us IMHO.

Bob


Hi Bob. I'm afraid these ^^ two posts have left me extremely confused.

Certainly Catholic priests do give communion to Orthodox Christians; however, as I mentioned earlier there's an issue with Fr. McNamara's hypothetical person, because he/she is in the process of leaving the Orthodox Church, but considers himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving the Eucharist.

(Maybe I should have said "a question" rather than "an issue".)

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by chadrook
Exactly. So we will see the same respect given to the Traditional Orthodox?
It's hard for anyone to predict the future.

[Linked Image]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Originally Posted by DMD
When thousands left the Greek Catholic church following St. Alexis to join the Russian Orthodox they were not treated as catachumens or rebaptised or reordained. They were received likewise in 1938 for Fr. Chornock and his followers by the Greeks. My father described it like this : "One Sunday we prayed for the Pope, the next week we didn't. No one held their breath while reciting anathemas in ancient Slavonic or Greek!"

Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


I love these stories from America's golden era, even though the outcome is sad to Catholics. (Our fault: our idiots pushed you out for no good reason.) Fits what you've told me. Before both the schisms in America and Communist rule in the old country, po-nashomu church (Greek Catholic) didn't identify strongly as either Catholic or Orthodox even though it had gradually adopted many Latin Catholic things (which ACROD kept because that's how they'd always done things). So for Fr Chornock's and Monsignor Dutko's generations, leaving the Catholic Church wasn't as big a deal as it might seem to Catholics now. The anecdote is also one of many examples how, in practice, the Orthodox have mirrored Rome's recognition of their sacraments including orders.

The schisms and Communism hardened both sides. The OCA and ACROD now have a strong Orthodox identity, and the Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity, and self-latinized further; Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused. They don't identify with the Orthodox at all. (The Orthodoxification is from converts and Rome-trained priests, not from the cradle majority in the pews.) I'm talking about Slavs, which most Greek Catholics are.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic; you may call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates, or Roman Catholics, but never call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they're obviously related.)

Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
It's a nice fantasy land in which you live, Sergei. How much is a projection of your own desires and preconceptions?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
I know that was just pushy bait but anyway, that's rich coming from you. For 15 years you've been in a religious never-never-land, thumbing your nose at Catholic doctrine while expecting the Orthodox to kiss the great Stuart's hand for deigning to agree with them, but not joining them. On the surface it has its appeal: it's credally and liturgically conservative, fights hardline anti-Catholic Orthodox too, and seems an example of Rome's policy of making Greek Catholicism as Orthodox as possible. But it's really just Protestant private judgement in Orthodox drag; your own arrogance.

None. It's based on stories from people who lived it, such as the Ukrainians and Ruthenians I knew 20-30 years ago and the Dutkos.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I know that was just pushy bait but anyway, that's rich coming from you. For 15 years you've been in a religious never-never-land, thumbing your nose at Catholic doctrine while expecting the Orthodox to kiss the great Stuart's hand for deigning to agree with them, but not joining them. On the surface it has its appeal: it's credally and liturgically conservative, fights hardline anti-Catholic Orthodox too, and seems an example of Rome's policy of making Greek Catholicism as Orthodox as possible. But it's really just Protestant private judgement in Orthodox drag; your own arrogance.

None. It's based on stories from people who lived it, such as the Ukrainians and Ruthenians I knew 20-30 years ago and the Dutkos.


Maybe your protests are a manifestation of your own subconscious wish to be an honorary Orthodox.

[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]




Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.

I actually don't have a problem with that. As I've said in other threads, we (Catholics) don't encourage Orthodox to convert (or should I say "transfer with extenuating circumstances") to Catholicism, but neither do we discourage it. Nor do I object to the simple-profession-of-faith form of reception.

I only take issue with Fr. McNamara's idea that someone in the process of leaving Orthodoxy should still consider himself/herself Orthodox for purposes of receiving communion.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Nah. Stuart's well-spoken so for others' sake you need to confront his errors head-on. Wanting to give the Orthodox a fair deal isn't the same as wanting to be an honorary one. If Pope Benedict's Tridentine renewal and other high-church reforms were taken away, and I lived in a heavily Greek Catholic region (are there still such, or have the old-timers all died or moved away?), I'd definitely take the Greek Catholic option, either high-church Orthodox-style as Rome likes or old-school semi-latinized Uke or po-nashomu, getting to use the Slavic and Byzantine Rite stuff I've learned. Guess that would be a sort of honorary Orthodoxness.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.

I actually don't have a problem with that. As I've said in other threads, we (Catholics) don't encourage Orthodox to convert (or should I say "transfer with extenuating circumstances") to Catholicism, but neither do we discourage it. Nor do I object to the simple-profession-of-faith form of reception.

I only take issue with Fr. McNamara's idea that someone in the process of leaving Orthodoxy should still consider himself/herself Orthodox for purposes of receiving communion.


We're on the same page here.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
It's funny how Father James Dutko and I got on famously and agreed on just about everything, so I guess we both occupy the same fantasyland.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Originally Posted by StuartK
It's funny how Father James Dutko and I got on famously and agreed on just about everything, so I guess we both occupy the same fantasyland.

People and friendships aren't necessarily ideological, uncharitable anti-Catholic Orthodox don't hang out at Orientale Lumen, and theologically as a never-Orthodox you get the same benefit of the doubt from the Orthodox' true-church claim as Catholics give never-Catholic Orthodox. Plus you agree with the Orthodox on everything except actually belonging to their church.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Nah. Stuart's well-spoken so for others' sake you need to confront his errors head-on. Wanting to give the Orthodox a fair deal isn't the same as wanting to be an honorary one.

[Linked Image]

I thought I sensed a methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much scene. But who knows, I've been wrong before. [Linked Image]

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Before both the schisms in America and Communist rule in the old country, po-nashomu church (Greek Catholic) didn't identify strongly as either Catholic or Orthodox even though it had gradually adopted many Latin Catholic things (which ACROD kept because that's how they'd always done things). So for Fr Chornock's and Monsignor Dutko's generations, leaving the Catholic Church wasn't as big a deal as it might seem to Catholics now.


For many layfolk, the change from Catholic to Orthodox was not perceptible. I recall reading some of the court proceedings from Wilkes-Barre at the time of St. Alexis Toth. One layperson was asked whether the Pope or the Holy Synod was the head of his church. The man replied "Jesus Christ is the head of the church!" (Imagine that!)

But to say that leaving the Catholic Church "wasn't a big deal"--especially for the clergy--may be taking it too far. Then-Father Orestes, Fr. Varzaly and the others made several appeals to Rome. Their first choice was to be under Rome, but with Rome respecting their traditions. Would they have done that if it "wasn't a big deal"?

Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome. This fact shows that while some valued fidelity to Tradition and thus could justify breaking with Rome, others valued obedience to the Pope and the bishop he appointed.

Fr. David

Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5