Slava Isusu Christu!

I wanted to start a post based upon what you might think the ideal life of Bzantine Catholic Church will be like in 100 years. On the eve of the "Great Ecumenical Council", one that will unite East and West and hopefully restore the Churches and eliminate the many non-canonical things going on, what would some of our fears and hopes be as Byzantine Catholics? Will whole new Jurisdictions be created to start fresh or will we be assimilated into a mainstream Orthodox one? What are some of your visions about it be. I thought it would be interesting to see some future-focused comments about it, since we probably won't be alive to see the "Great Council of Union."

Thank you.

In Mary,


Robert

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Robert ]

Great thread idea, Robert.

If in a century the Schism hasn't already ended ... or the Parousia hasn't happened... I'd like to see the re-Orthification of the Byzantine Catholic Churches complete, and there is a good chance among the Melkites that this will happen in far less time.

"Looking back' from 2101, while with the Melkites this happened voluntarily, among the Ukrainians and especially the Ruthenians, ironically it took a lot of papal prodding and even intervention, helped along by the aging Byzantine Forum members and their descendents, some of whom were the Ruthenian Church's first married men to be ordained in 150 years.

The Melkites would merge with Antioch, the Ukrainians and Ruthenians with the future Kiev Patriarchate, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, only recently (around 2050) acknowledged by Moscow... but if there is an American Orthodox patriarchate by then, the US and Canadian Byzantine Catholics would go under that. The Russian Catholic diaspora churches would be with the OCA in the new American Orthodox patriarchate of New York. (This may happen, as it geographically makes sense, whether or not the American empire falls.)

The thus-revitalized Byzantine Catholics then would be valuable allies in the great restoration going on in the Latin Church, undoing the damage of the last century and perhaps helping the whole Church go in some new directions (like new but orthodox rites and uses, and a decentralization with national or continental patriarchates West and East). Perhaps an African Pope, following in the footsteps of (St?) "John Paul the Great' or someone even greater, would be instrumental in cleaning house (knocking the American and European liberals for a loop, as they assumed any black person would be on their side). The elderly Amchurchers would repent, or break off vagante-style to form their own "American Catholic' church, perhaps merging with the Episcopal-Lutheran denomination, and go off into oblivion.

And/or perhaps a separation of the papal roles of vicar of Christ and Roman patriarch, made manifest by the election of an Eastern Pope who remained Eastern and gave the patriarchate to a worthy Roman prelate, would bring renewed understanding and trust with the Orthodox and pave the way for the end of the breach.

The less optimistic scenarios would have the frustrated Melkites still trying to reconcile with their mother Church despite indifferent or Rome-centric future Popes, the Ukrainian Catholic Church becoming an unnatural tertium quid separate from the Orthodox tradition and the Ruthenians in America??? ...dying out as a Church with its assimilated members going Novus (John Ireland posthumously gets his wish), even Amchurch, or Protestant and secular while the Orthodox-oriented members join the Melkites or the Orthodox.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox in America are one jurisdiction again, with both multiethnic and traditional ethnic congregations and perhaps ethnic vicar bishops (but one geographical bishop per city, as ancient canons demand). There may be an American patriarch in New York. ROCOR has rejoined the Russian Church (Moscow), with some congregations in America still under Moscow along with a few of today's Patriarchal Parishes. With flexibility about a still-unresolved calendar issue, perhaps all these American churches would be in the American patriarchate too.

The adoption of the Orthodox paschalion by the West may be another development.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Robert,

I too applaud this thread! And Serge too who is so wonderful that I want to hug him!!

I personally predict that a great Union Council will have taken place within the next 100 years where the Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs will participate as equals.

I believe the differences that have divided us will be settled, including those with the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, leading to one great act of sacramental reunion.

Ukrainian Catholics, satisfied that the Orthodox have "come back" will do as Met. Andrew Sheptytsky said and come under the omophorion of a united Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Patriarchate based at Kyiv. The same is true of the other Byzantine Catholics.

I even foresee a time when the Pope himself will order the Byzantine CAtholics to return to the Orthodox Churches from whence they came, there being no more reason to maintain the separation.

Alex

The ideal life of Byzantine Catholic Church in 100 years will hopefully be whatever is needed and good for the pastoral care of whoever are the Byzantine Catholic people in 100 years.

The worst sin would be trying to straightjacket future generations.

K.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

WOW! How awesome! I know this is gonna be an exciting thread. I can't wait for the next post. What a fabulous post Serge. May the blessing of the Lord be upon us as we place our trust in Him!

In Christ and Mary,


Robert

"Meanwhile, the Orthodox in America are one jurisdiction again, with both multiethnic and traditional ethnic congregations and perhaps ethnic vicar bishops (but one geographical bishop per city, as ancient canons demand)."

Yipee! May it come to pass. Main obstacles I see are (1) reconciliation between ROCOR and MP (if it happens, there will certainly be a schism in ROCOR, with the anti-ecumenical wing splitting off or calling itself the "True ROCOR" or something like that), (2) getting the buy-in of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I don't see the OCA and AA accepting being subject to the EP's jurisdiction, and unless something is changed about the EP it's unlikely that the EP would be willing to cede jurisdiction over its American dioceses. If the EP is to serve as the center of Orthodoxy it shouldn't be in Istanbul anymore, and it shouldn't always be a Greek. In any case, I think these are two formidable obstacles to this.

"There may be an American patriarch in New York."

That is something that seems logical, but again given the problems with the EP, I don't see buy-in on that one from the Phanar. Perhaps we can all take a page from Metr. Philip's proposal to move the EP to NYC? After all there are more Orthodox there than in Istanbul, and it doesn't belong to any one ethnic state.

"ROCOR has rejoined the Russian Church (Moscow), with some congregations in America still under Moscow along with a few of today's Patriarchal Parishes."

In my opinion, this will happen, but ROCOR will split over it.

"With flexibility about a still-unresolved calendar issue, perhaps all these American churches would be in the American patriarchate too."

That would be following the OCA solution, whereby Bishops can grant the right to parishes to follow the OC. There are numerous OC parishes in the OCA -- I even know of one parish with two communities (English and Slavonic), where each community follows a different calendar.

=======

"Perhaps an African Pope, following in the footsteps of (St?) "John Paul the Great' or someone even greater, would be instrumental in cleaning house (knocking the American and European liberals for a loop, as they assumed any black person would be on their side). The elderly Amchurchers would repent, or break off vagante-style to form their own "American Catholic' church, perhaps merging with the Episcopal-Lutheran denomination, and go off into oblivion."

Would be nice to see it. The personality of the Pope will be critical to what happens within the Catholic Church in the next 50-100 years. It seems unlikely that there will be another so-called "liberal" Pope for a while -- but 100 years is "a while". In addition a so-called "conservative" Pope could, with good reason, be more concerned about the issues in the largest church of the Roman communion than with ecumenical concerns with the foot-dragging Orthodox. The present ecumenical initiative of the RCC is largely, in my view, a product of the personality of the present Pope who, in light of his background, has a very positive view of the Orthodox Church. Future Popes may be well-intentioned (or perhaps less so), but it's hard to imagine a Pope that would be so, um, predisposed to be of good will towards us, particularly when we are so good at dragging our own feet.

"And/or perhaps a separation of the papal roles of vicar of Christ and Roman patriarch, made manifest by the election of an Eastern Pope who remained Eastern and gave the patriarchate to a worthy Roman prelate, would bring renewed understanding and trust with the Orthodox and pave the way for the end of the breach."

An interesting idea, but fraught with ecclesiological difficulty. ISTM that insofar as as the Pope has a church-wide role (which even Orthodoxy admits of), that this is derivative of his role as Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. I think that the roles need, very much, to be distinguished to prevent the patriarchal from spilling over into the universal -- but, I think this needs to be done on the theoretical/theological/ecclesiological level, and not on the personal level.

"The adoption of the Orthodox paschalion by the West may be another development."

I actually give this one better than 50% of happening in the relatively near future. It's fairly easy to do, and I understand that the leading folks on this arcane issue are leaning towards the Orthodox paschalion. The only problem I can see is that there is a calendar-science issue relating to using the New Calendar of fixed feasts and the Orthodox paschalion (as the NC Orthodox presently do). In the short-term, it's not a problem, but in the medium-term and long-term it becomes a problem because, apparently, Pascha migrates forward gradually on the NC, and eventually would be served around Christmas time! The OC fixed feast has an (admittedly artificial) "reset" feature that prevents this from happening, but the more accurate NC for foxed feasts, in its enhanced accuracy, doesn't feature this. I think they would have to come up with some adjustment either to the NC for fixed feasts, or to the Paschalion itself (which will meet with resistance).

Brendan

Thanks, Alex, Robert and Brendan!

Main obstacles I see are (1) reconciliation between ROCOR and MP (if it happens, there will certainly be a schism in ROCOR, with the anti-ecumenical wing splitting off or calling itself the "True ROCOR" or something like that)

That split already has happened, actually twice, with the anti-reunion people having two options, Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal', Russia, or the mini-ROCOR group based in Mansonville, Que., Canada, nominally under infirm former ROCOR head Metropolitan Vitaly. As I see it, now the trouble is Metropolitan Laurus and the actual ROCOR, fearing attrition to these two schisms, may put off reunion efforts. Understandable.

(2) getting the buy-in of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I don't see the OCA and AA accepting being subject to the EP's jurisdiction, and unless something is changed about the EP it's unlikely that the EP would be willing to cede jurisdiction over its American dioceses. If the EP is to serve as the center of Orthodoxy it shouldn't be in Istanbul anymore, and it shouldn't always be a Greek. In any case, I think these are two formidable obstacles to this.

The American Orthodox Church shouldn't be under the EP anyway since the Russians and their designated successor, the OCA, have the canonical claim on these lands. Period. The EP and AA are the main obstructionists to the correction of the Orthodox mess in America, for understandable reasons — those sees, as they are now, need American money to keep going. But I don't consider the EP the center of Orthodoxy. He is not the Orthodox Pope! (Implying so is a mistake a lot of secular journalists make.) His former position in the Byzantine Empire — which has been gone a long time — doesn't make him so. Frankly I don't know what would happen to these older patriarchates in my future scenarios. It's very possible the EP will have to leave Turkey, but IMO he should move to present-day Greece! As for the main see of Arab Orthodox, perhaps, as the world gets smaller (patriarchs now can zap out encyclicals through the Internet!), there could be one strong patriarchate (instead of two relatively weak ones), in Jerusalem or perhaps in Beirut. The latter may be less problematic because there are lots of Christians in Lebanon, more perhaps than in Palestine.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Hi Serge --

"The American Orthodox Church shouldn't be under the EP anyway since the Russians and their designated successor, the OCA, have the canonical claim on these lands. Period."

I agree with that analysis, but the EP canonists claim that the EP has jurisdiction over all of the "territories of the barbarians" per a 1st millenium council. As the EP has interpreted that, especially post-1970, that would effectively mean that the EP has jurisdiction everywhere that isn't a canonical part of one of the five ancient patriarchates -- and if that isn't a formulation for an Orthodox papacy (at least on the jurisdictional level), I don't know what is! The Russians were in North America first, it was a part of the canonical territory of the MP, so unless the EP believes it has the power to divest the MP of its canonical territory, then it has no *case* as to why it should have canonical jurisdiction in North America. Hint: I believe that the EP's canonists would argue that the EP has the power to divest anyone other than the ancient 5 Patriarchates of pieces of their territorial jurisdiction -- that's the only way, legally speaking, you can look at what the EP has done in North America (and what it's now doing in Eastern Europe).

"It's very possible the EP will have to leave Turkey, but IMO he should move to present-day Greece!"

I don't think that the Greek Synod or the Metr. of Athens really wants that, as sensible as it might be. Most importantly, I think that if the EP ever left Istanbul there would be a huge uproad in Greece (don't want to give up last tie to Constantinople). And as long as the EP is in Istanbul, with the main part of his jurisdiction created in the Orthodox diaspora in the 20th century, we're certainly going to have the problems in the diaspora that we have now.

Brendan

Dear Serge,

I was gonna ask about the separation of Papal roles which you brought up, since I felt that that was not necessary...instead of an Eastern Pope with a delegated Roman patriarch, why not have the Eastern guy become Bishop and Patriarch of Rome, and be Roman Catholic, but at the same time preserve all his Eastern sensitivities? I think that would work, and probably work better than separating things. But since Brendan addressed that, I move on to a small issue which I've wanted to know more about...

Alexandria and Antioch both have EO and OO patriarchs, and some will say the EO's are the legitimate holders of those Sees, while others (like me ) will say that it's the OO's. Never mind that for now. What about Jerusalem? Right now there's a Latin, a Greek, and an Armenian, all of whom are patriarchs of Jerusalem. But there is no "Jerusalem Church" which one can claim, as you can claim an "Alexandrian Church" or an "Antiochene Church" versus the Greek Churches in these places. Every Church is represented in Jerusalem, even the Copts and Syrians (via Metropolitans of Jerusalem) and the Ethiopians. Which Patriarch of Jerusalem (I'll leave the Copts, Syrians, and Ethiopians out ) has historic jurisdiction over the Church of Jerusalem? Just as I say the Syrian Patriarch is the true Patriarch of Antioch, and the Greeks are just there due to the movements of history, who is the true Patriarch of Jerusalem, while the others are there out of the movements of history? It seems that the Greeks, Latins, and Armenians all came from "outside". The Copts and Ethiopians too. My purely personal view is that the Syrians of all of these have the best claim, just by way of geographic closeness and a direct connection with the Church of Jerusalem, but they're not claiming it, so I leave them out of it. Maybe I'm wrong in my judgment of things...what's the story? What say you all? Thanks!

Brendan,

Do you want to clarify your statement, which might be read as approval for the hope for discord and disunity in the Catholic Church?

K.

...instead of an Eastern Pope with a delegated Roman patriarch, why not have the Eastern guy become Bishop and Patriarch of Rome, and be Roman Catholic, but at the same time preserve all his Eastern sensitivities?

Wouldn't work. Such tells the Orthodox 1) invariably, the Roman Church is higher in the Catholic scheme than any Eastern Church and 2) therefore, any Eastern who becomes super-patriarch would have to adopt his "conqueror's' religion. Not good.

As for who should be the patriarch of Jerusalem, in a reunited Church all rites would have a shot at it! The new patriarch would keep his rite and have churches of several rites under him. Just like there were once Latins under Constantinople and Greeks in Italy under Rome. Initially, on reunion, who should get the job? Well, whoever has seniority, which rules out the Latin patriarchate. As Pope Shenouda III is the true leader of apostolic Christianity in Egypt (assuming the ecumenists are right and the row with the Copts was all just a big misunderstanding aggravated by anti-Byzantine politics), so it should be in Jerusalem if the oldest continuing patriarchate there is OO.

Salaam.

http://oldworldrus.com

Kurt --

Of course I was talking about the beginning of Serge's paragraph, not the end of it (although in fairness I don't think it would be a bad thing for the RCC if the AmChurch/CTA folks would either shut up or leave -- but that's just my $0.02 from the Orthodox peanut gallery).

Brendan

Mor Ephrem --

I agree with Serge -- nothing against the OOs if they are the senior in the Patriarchate. However, we may want to take into account that the vast majority of Christians in Palestine are Arabs -- whatever Patriarchate were to succeed to jurisdiction there would have to be well-conversant with the local Arab population (boy, isn't that going to sound like a vote *against* the Greeks.... not intended, but I guess it is).

Brendan

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

I just have one question, does everyone really think that this will not occur in our lifetime?

That is that it will take, at a minimum, 100 years or more?


In Christ,
David

The thought of a multiritual single patriarchate with solely geographical bishops, one per city (the apostolic way), has me thinking about America. Of course such would only work when the restoration finally cleans the Latin Church of the Amchurch infestation (perhaps under the firm hand of future Pope Mbebe I!). Who would get what? As Alaska was settled first by Russian Christians, naturally I'd think the bishop of Sitka (the present Orthodox see of Alaska), Anchorage or Juneau would be Orthodox (Byzantine) with both Orthodox and Latins under him. But again, all the sees would be open to all rites. Latin Irish-Americans in Boston (no longer considered default-style Catholicism) could commemorate a Greek- or Ukrainian-American Orthodox archbishop, Orthodox Ruthenians in Ohio a Maronite Lebanese bishop and Orthodox Russians in San Francisco a Latin Mexican-American archbishop. And, ideally, it could work, as remote as it all seems now.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear David,

Maybe not 100 years, but a few for sure!

Let's leave it with the Spirit and pray for the unity of the Church as He wills it to be, and not as we will it to be.

No?

Have a Merry Christmas!

Did you know that "Merry Christmas" comes from the Old English "Myrige Christmass" where "Myrige" means "Holy?"

The "ge" was dropped over time and now we have a term that means something other than what it once meant.

Believe it or not. . .

Alex

Naturally the patriarch of Jerusalem would be an Arab. You're right. And in a reunion scenario, I'd think Palestinian apostolic Christians would have Arab patriarchs most of the time, naturally, owing to demographics, and not because of any discrimination. Greeks simply are a minority there.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Well, it is likely the last native Christian will leae the Holy Land long before any reunion. The patriarchs will soon be nothing more than tourist agencies for visiting pilgrims.

K.

"Greeks simply are a minority there."

Agreed, Serge, which is why the bad track record of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem should count as a vote against them, I think.

Brendan

"I just have one question, does everyone really think that this will not occur in our lifetime?
That is that it will take, at a minimum, 100 years or more?"

David --

Looking at the pace of things, together with the current issues on the table, I don't think this is a "our lifetime" timeframe -- 100 years sounds a little on the low side to me, as well. My guess, which is all it is, is somewhere between 150-300 years of gradual progress, gradual growing together, with a few key breakthroughs along the way.

Brendan

...instead of an Eastern Pope with a delegated Roman patriarch, why not have the Eastern guy become Bishop and Patriarch of Rome, and be Roman Catholic, but at the same time preserve all his Eastern sensitivities?

Wouldn’t work. Such tells the Orthodox 1) invariably, the Roman Church is higher in the Catholic scheme than any Eastern Church and 2) therefore, any Eastern who becomes super-patriarch would have to adopt his ‘conqueror’s’ religion. Not good.

Dear Serge,

How does that tell the Orthodox that the Roman Church is greater? All I see is that a member of another "sui iuris" Church was elected the head of the Roman "sui iuris" Church, and in order to serve the faithful of his diocese/patriarchate well, he became one of them. Yes, it just so happens that he's also Pope and the first among the bishops..."super-patriarch" (SP) as you say. But why would his becoming Roman from Eastern be a problem? In his function as SP it would be a benefit to him to have come from the East, but as Patriarch of the West, to be Western too, because he is also responsible for his own particular Church (Roman).

**I suppose this wouldn't happen in Eastern Orthodoxy, since all EO's (to my knowledge) share the Byzantine rite, with the exception of those Western rite folks, who (again, to my knowledge) aren't a "sui iuris" Church in communion with Antioch and the others, but are just a rite.**

I guess this brings me to the question of the Papacy itself. Is the Pope the Pope because he is Bishop of Rome, or is he Bishop of Rome because he is the Pope? I always thought that he was the Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome. Looking at it from that perspective, I always thought it was natural that the Pope should be Latin (if I am wrong, and he is Bishop of Rome because he is Pope, then please let me know).

And if an Eastern man becoming Pope and becoming Latin would be such a bad thing (as you say), then I think the idea of an Eastern Pope is not good. What follows from that, I suppose, is not only that Eastern prelates shouldn't be Cardinals (who are members, at least nominally, of the clergy of the Diocese/Metropolitan Province of Rome), but they shouldn't have the right to vote for the Pope (since they aren't Roman clerics). In our democratic age, I doubt anyone would like this, and I don't like it particularly myself, but if it is not good for an Eastern guy to become Roman because he was elected Pope, Patriarch of the West, and Bishop of Rome, then I feel that the Pope being Roman is more important for the people of his diocese and particular Church than having Eastern guys participate in the vote.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't think "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome" should be separated.

So after all that, am I completely off my rocker? :p

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Dear Catholicos,

What are you doing asking an Orthodox about these questions? (Kidding, kidding).

In a reunited Church, the patriarchates would be equal, even if some would be "first among equals."

Therefore, as Sergey said, to try and get an Easterner to be Pope would be like saying, "O.K., O.K. we'll let one of you Eastern guys be Pope for a while to show we like you etc."

There were, of course, Greek and Syrian Popes.

There was also a Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore of Tarsus.

"Pope" is actually a term that came from you Oriental Orthodox fellows.

It was first used by the Pope of Alexandria who, incidentally, was the first Patriarch to declare an immediate jurisdiction over every single church and priest throughout Africa.

In fact, most of the rights the Roman Pope has today are based on the example and tradition of Alexandria. Even the idea of papal universal supremacy is ultimately descended from the title and role of the Oriental "Catholicos." (Do you see how important you are?)

At the zenith of Christian Alexandria's glory, the Roman Pontiff was simply "His Beatitude" and his immediate jurisdiction did not even include all of Italy.

The Pope actually bears nine titles and roles that are all interrelated with one another: Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan-Archbishop of the Roman Province etc.

To become Pope is to hold all nine titles simultaneously.

Normally, the Pope is of the Latin Rite. But Pope Paul VI was of the Milanese Rite.

Ultimately it is not a question of whether an Easterner can be Pope (there were Easterners who were at a time when the church had much greater liturgical uniformity), but a question of how Rome exercises her authority and Petrine Ministry in relation to other Churches.

Alex

Dear Alex,

There you have it. Normally the Pope is of the Latin rite, but Paul VI was of the Milanese rite. It is generally accepted, to my knowledge (that's my phrase of the day I think) that the Milanese rite is just that--a rite of the Latin Church. But the issue is not rites, but Churches. So it would be nothing if someone went from one rite to another within the same particular Church as Paul VI did (Milanese to Latin, but the same Latin Church). But what about an Armenian becoming Pope of Rome (such as Card. Agaginian, suggested during the period after Pius XII and before John XXIII), or some other member of another Church? That's the issue with me...

Both the Orthodox and Catholics will finally become Christian.

I will now post an emotional and controversial post.

Edwin is right. Most Catholics and Orthodox do NOT act Christian.

What unchurched person gives a flip about ecumenical councils? About the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit? About whether St. Gregory Palamas is reconcilable with St. Thomas Aquinas? About Papal Infallibility?

I am NOT saying these issues are not important--they are. BUT reunion is in my opinion not really going to happen on the basis of some supercouncil. I believe that one will have to eventually be called to make some Orthodox happy, but really, that will be the culmination of a defacto union based on our NEED to cooperate in a post-Christian culture.

Let's try to LOVE one other SO THAT with one mind we may profess....

anastasios

But he did. From the particular church of the Metropolia of Milan to the Metropolia of Rome, as the current Universal Pastor went from the Krakow Metropolia to the Roman. Remember, particular church can be anything - Metropolia, eparchy, parish, etc.

Which raises the next question:



I say abolish the patriarchates. Every Metropolia be given the perogatives formerly with the patriarchs..

K.

Dear Serge,

Your concern for the beauty of God's house is a constant source of inspiration to me. It is echoed in the posting here.

While reading and learning from these visions of the future of the Byzantine Catholic Chruch, I became aware, not for the first time, of a curious behavior on your part.

You wrote:
The thus-revitalized Byzantine Catholics then would be valuable allies in the great restoration going on in the Latin Church, undoing the damage of the last century and perhaps helping the whole Church go in some new directions (like new but orthodox rites and uses, and a decentralization with national or continental patriarchates West and East). Perhaps an African Pope, following in the footsteps of (St?) "John Paul the Great' or someone even greater, would be instrumental in cleaning house (knocking the American and European liberals for a loop, as they assumed any black person would be on their side). The elderly Amchurchers would repent, or break off vagante-style to form their own "American Catholic' church, perhaps merging with the Episcopal-Lutheran denomination, and go off into oblivion. (Serge above)

I ask with all charity, from whence comes your apparent need to express your dissatisfaction with the majority of the Latin Church and it practices. In a thread on the vision of the Byzantine Chruch of the future you suggest that the Byzantine Church of the present is acting in appropriately. Your apparent dislike throws your posting out of kilter, IMO. It side tracks the discussion unnecessarily.

The above portion of your posting does not seem to add to the vision of Byzantine Chruch in the future. Your comments here suggest that our hosts should or will somehow come to the assistance of a great restoration in the future that is different from the one begun by Vatican II. Their contributions at that Council are legend not to be ignored or to be disregarded. The Eastern Catholic Churches were our Sister Chruches then; and they are our Sister Churches in our ongoing efforts to renew our Church today

There is nothing remarkable in that now and there will be nothing remarkable about that in the future. We are family and family helps family to grow. I, personally, treasure the help of my Eastern and Oriental brothers and sisters. The Latin Church cherishes them as is made clear by the words of the Pope and the Council. I believe that they will be in the future a bridge between our Communions by respecting the truth found in both.

Is you suggestion that there is some restoration
in the Latin Catholic Chruch taking place apart from our Patriarch or hierarchy and that the Byzantine Catholics will become instrumental in developing an opposition to their mandates? I think that such a suggestion is inappropriate given the history of Latin Church and of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Is your suggestion that the Eastern Catholic Church will assist a group of Latin Catholics who are unhappy and dissatisfied with their Church to subvert lay members or even members of the hireacrchy from the rest of that Chruch? If so, your words seem to cast the purported future actions of Eastern and Oriental Catholics in their Communion in a poor light in contrast to the behavior that they have consistently exhibited. They are members of our Communion today and we, in the Latin Chruch share that communion.

Your words seem to suggest that the Latin Church consists of the small number of dissatisfied members who disagree with the teaching of our Hierarchs and who reject the disciplinary and liturgical practices mandated by our Hierarchy. Are they, the Hierarchy, the liberals that you refer to; are they the ones who would be eliminated in the purported house cleaning by the future Pope?

If this is what you suggest, your words misrepresent the reality of what the Latin Church is. You misrepresent one of the Sister Churches of the Byzantine Catholic Church and the validity of her practices. It is not an Amchurch abberation.

If that is the case, are you suggesting that the Byzantine Catholic Church of today is acting incorrectly by maintaining its historic communion. This seems to be a conclusion that one might reach if your suggestions are really what the appear to be.

You share many insights with the rest of us, Serge. Your words about the Latin Chruch bend reality to a perception that is not the one that our bishops and the Pope guide us in living. This section of your posting throws it out of kilter especially when you toss in what you perceive to be a charge of a kind of racism into the hopper.

What are you talking about, Serge? Am I right in discerning a bias here? This discussion is about the future of faith communities. It is not about conservative or liberal.

Are you really saying what it appears that you are saying? I don't understand. I hope that my conclusions and reading of what you are suggesting is in error.

If it is, please accept my apology.

If not, what ever are you saying in a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC FORUM about BYZANTINE CATHOLICS who are catholic, among other things, because of their communion with the Pope who is the Patriarch of the West? He is the Patriarch of the Latin Chruch with whom our hosts are in Communion.

Is this section about the future of the Byzantine Catholic Church or about someone's wish list for things to make the Latin Church fit someone else's mold?

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

Steve, I had a hard time reading your post but here is a try at an answer. The condition of the Latin Church in practice does matter because 1) the Byzantine Catholic are in communion with it and 2) the issue matters to Orthodox if the end of the Schism is a goal that's taken seriously.

My occasional criticisms of the state of the Latin Church, mostly about it in practice, are not out of place in a discussion of ecumenical matters and I shall continue writing on this topic where it is relevant, unless a moderator revokes my membership. There have been posters here who were out-and-out Catholic-bashers engaging in Internet trollery and have got away with it; I think I can stand on my reputation here as not being one of those.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear David,

I hope, in my lifetime. I want to live to see it.

Who would have thought in my life-time, since the II Vatican Council, I would have seen the progress that I have?

With the help of God...

Elias

Hi,

The Ruthenian Church in The US is a Sui Iuris Church. We are in Communion with the Pope of Rome not under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church .The RC and the OC should be talking to us not about us.I feel as part of this Church that if a reunion should occur Our Hierarchs should be asked about what direction our Church will take.Not be told. I don't think Churches should disappear or be absorbed into one another.Being in Communion doesn't mean that.Being a loyal member of the Metropolia I think all other Churches should be under our jurisdiction. :p


Nicky's Baba

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

The test, of course, as to if a practice of the Latin Church presents a difficultly or barrier to reunion or greater communion with the Orthodox, would be the matters raised by the Orthodox parties in the frequent official dialogues between our two Christian communions.

Other issues, such as those which match some of the common complaints of the Latin Church's Reaction but have never been raised by the blessed Orthodox hierarchs, can be considered issues not of ecumencial consideration but as a means to buttress the Reaction from outside the Catholic communion.

K.