I would like to remind a few of our Roman Catholic participants of the rules and policies of The Byzantine Forum that they agreed to as a condition of membership:

The Byzantine Forum welcomes all newcomers to our on-line community. This forum is mainly a community of Byzantine and other Eastern Christians who share a common historical and theological heritage. Roman Catholic and other Western Christians who have come here to learn about how we express our faith in Christ are warmly invited to participate, but we make clear that the primary purpose of this forum is to exchange information and ideas and not to engage in heavy apologetics. If you have come to overload us with apologetic quotes to test how "Catholic" we really are, please don't bother to register - that is simply not how we live out our lives of faith.

To truly understand who Eastern Christians are you must "come and see" for yourself by joining us in worship. The warmth and fellowship of our faith experienced in person cannot be described in any book. We extend a warm invitation to everyone to visit one of our parishes and join us in prayer.

To put it a bit more bluntly, Roman Catholics who have come here to learn about Eastern Christianity are most welcome. Roman Catholics who have come here to use Latin doctrinal expressions as a measurement of our Catholicism are not welcome. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. We do not intend to become Roman Catholics and make no apologies for not being Roman Catholics. We proudly proclaim the authentic theology of Orthodox Byzantium. We will not engage in apologetics against Roman Catholics who feel that we need to adopt the theology of the Latin Church.

If you have question about Byzantine or other Eastern Christian theology, ask away. We are more than happy to engage in these discussions.

If you are seeking to understand how Eastern and Western doctrinal expressions can mesh given that they sometimes appear quite different, good!

If you demand that we prove that our Eastern Christian approach to theology is acceptable to the Latin Church then go away and please don’t come back. This is something that we do not need to do.

We have engaged in numerous and repeated discussions over the years with each new Roman Catholic who joins our community. Many have a mindset that uses the Latin theological definitions as the only acceptable measuring stick of what is considered Catholic. To these participants I highly recommend that they study the teachings of Pope John Paul II and learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. When you study the Holy Father’s teachings you will find two important themes throughout: 1) He repeatedly states that the Western Church needs a healthy dose of all things Eastern Christian and 2) He repeatedly directs us not to copy Latin theological forms but instead to brightly witness the Light of the East.

I post this because there are currently several newer members who have ignored the agreement they made when they joined this community. I know that most are well meaning but we should not have to bear the brunt of their ignorance of Catholic theology.

Again, if you have come to ask questions, welcome and please stay. But if you have come to demand that we accept Latin theological forms or count more than Seven Ecumenical Councils, please go away and do not post in the future.

Admin

Thank you, brother administrator.

Another way to describe it: speaking to each other instead of at each other, would also help. Don't be reluctant to ask clarifying questions when you don't understand something. Part of the problem is a tendency of some to jump to conclusions instead of getting all the facts before replying.

Dear Administrator,

A welcome reminder to those of us who are of the Latin rite that we are guests here and have much to learn of the riches of our Eastern brothers and sisters. If I should ever cross the line of courtesy I hope someone will very quickly remind me.

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Personnaly, I am not as much offended by some of the attitudes as I am amazed by the lack of understanding. It points to the ever present need for better catechization for everyone. I think this is part of what the Pope was talking about in his "not being imprisoned by the past" letter. It should apply to both East and West.

Dmitri

Dear Friends,

Well, I only hope that I will still have the opportunity to have friendly fights and mental wrestling matches with our Latin AND Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) posters.

It's just so therapeutic to convince someone of the error of their ways and have them submit, er, ADMIT it . . .

Our recent visitor, John McAlpine, I must say, is a gentleman with whom it is a great pleasure to discuss things from within our own perspectives, while coming to an understanding of the biases that we both have.

Mr. McAlpine is not only a scholar in his own Rite , but is also someone who is both reasonable and who believes in "give and take."

John says he has learned a few things here - and I've certainly learned from him.

And I wanted to take this opportunity to publically thank John McAlpine for the privilege of exchanging stimulating posts with him.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

I have read your posting and think that it quite appropriate. There is no need for apologetics among members of Sister Churches.

As you point out, there is need for discussion and and sharing as well as learning and understanding. Alex points out this sometimes leads to heated discussions. I agree with that, too. These can lead to great light as long as they are based on mutual respect and love. I've learned from such discussions on occasion. :rolleyes:

I think that the patience and willingness on the part of Eastern and Oriental Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, to share the riches of the East with us Westerners and to listen to us when we share ours is a signature characteristic of this forum.

I am grateful for that. So, thanks to you and the other administrators. Thanks, too to all of the Eastern and Oriental Christian posters who welcome us into the midst of your community and make us feel at home here.

Frankly, this is the best place I've found to learn of the East as the Pope has asked us to do.
I know that the enthusiasm of some of us Latins for our way of understanding and living the Truth gets out of hand. For that we should and, I think, do apologize.

May our enthusiasm be tempered by coming to know your way of understanding and living our shared Truth. Your continued patient explication of the East's ways is a great gift to us.

So, thanks to you all!

Steve

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your comments!

But I might just add that we only have ONE administrator here.

The rest are just lowly moderators .

They observe the principal of collegiality, but there is a "First among Equals" among them who, nevertheless, finds a good practical application of "Primacy of Jurisdiction" a solid tool for maintaining order and decorum here . . .

But, as far as I know, the Administrator has never claimed infallibility . . .

Alex

Brother Administrator,

I acknowledge your statement and hopefully have not violated it in any way. I am a baptized RC however I pray and think in the Eastern Rite. I guess because I was born in Boston has something to do with it?

In Christ,
james

Perhaps the administrator is infallible when speaking on matters of JAVA and SQL

Dear Paromer,

But only when he speaks from the Chair of Google?

Alex

James,

To my knowledge you have never violated any Forum rules. My reminder was to two or three newer participants who have tended to constantly demand that Eastern Catholics accept Latin theological formula in order to be considered as Catholic by those participants. Many of these types of participants have an incomplete grasp of Catholic theology and often do more harm to the Church than good. Most have not read the teachings of the Catholic Church about the equality of Eastern Christian theology (and especially Eastern Catholic theology) to Latin Catholic theology and falsely assume that the Latin doctrinal formula constitute the standard against which we in the East must conform ourselves. This, of course, is not accurate.

A single discussion of this type would be ok, but since we regularly get new members who are of this ilk these discussions occur repeatedly. They chase away Eastern Christian participants who rightly feel that they should not have to constantly defend themselves in their own internet home. We must be diligent to keep The Byzantine Forum as primarily a place for Eastern and other Christians to discuss Eastern Christianity. Other discussions are always welcome but just not in the context of Latin Catholics always putting Eastern Christians on the defensive.

Admin

It's your Forum, Mr. Administrator, but so what if they did? The person who apparently prompted you to post this thread was at the very least respectful and didn't resort to name-calling, anathemas or denunciations. Those who would do (and have done) so usually get their jollies after about 3 posts and move along to troll some other forum of "dissenters".

ISTM that you allow or tolerate certain opinions only so far when they are diametrically opposed to your own. Granted, in your interpretation, things like the number of ecumenical councils and which dogmas "must be accepted" to be a Catholic in good standing, are quite different than the claims made by the poster in question.

But I guarantee that even in the Vatican you would find a wide range of opinion on these issues, based on the reading of the same documents you cite again and again. Even those in teaching authority in our Churches don't seem to have reached a consensus about the number of Ecumenical Councils, the binding nature of the dogmas of P.I. and the I.C., etc. But you're asserting that the Byzantine Catholic position on these issues is self-evident, in the precise way that you state, and absolutely resolved and taught to us by our bishops.

Has your objective been reached with respect to said poster? I suppose it has -- he acknowledged that perhaps he was in error and that he had some more learning to do. But instead of being affirmed in his desire to grow, he goes away humiliated never to return.

I note your use of the terms "demand", "constantly demand", "must conform", etc. On the contrary, while clearly this attitude does appear **occasionally**, so what? The inherent weakness and unsupportability of these Roman-first positions is self-evident, as is the caricatured way it is usually presented by the more odious of the "do-gooders" who occasionally show up here. Or are you not trusting in the ability of Eastern Catholics to think for themselves?

LR,

Thank you for your post. Actually, two Roman Catholic participants prompted this thread. Both have been polite and respectful. The one you speak of was certainly polite and respectful but I had already made several posts to this individual reminding him that this is an Eastern Christian internet community and that it was not proper for him to post in a manner that puts the Eastern Christians who participate here on the defensive.

This is a fair statement. Every individual has his or her own interests and reacts more strongly to people to whose opinions are diametrically opposed to from his or her, especially when they are presented in a “you can’t be correct” type of argument. I attempt to be fair all around but I make plenty of mistakes.

You are correct in that there is not an official pronouncement in any Church, Byzantine or Latin, Catholic or Orthodox regarding the exact number of Ecumenical Councils. The Latins tend to think that any council they participated in is fully ecumenical. Our official catechism (“Light for Life”) merely details that “the Byzantine Churches venerate the seven councils during the course of the liturgical year” and notes that “[t]he Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical”. It should be clear to anyone who reads this that the authors and the bishops who approved this catechism are gently reaffirming our traditional Byzantine perspective regarding the number of councils. The point, however, is not whether the later fourteen General Councils in the West were valid. The point is whether they are to be considered to ecumenical according to the same definition as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Even Pope Paul VI taught that there was a difference in the qualitative nature of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

No. He has probably gone away convinced that we just don’t get it. I am saddened by this but the Forum cannot be all things to all people. He should not have chosen to come to an Eastern Christian internet “household” and engaged in heavy apologetics against us thus violating the rules he agree to. My first priority on the Forum is to make it a friendly place for Eastern Christians to discuss topics of interest to Eastern Christians. He was a guest in our household and chose not to abide by our rules. I did only what I felt was necessary.

Again, you are correct in that the Latin-first positions of some of the posters are unsupportable and that the Eastern Christian participants here are well able to think for themselves and respond appropriately (and they have done a quite good job). The problem is that the Eastern Christian participants should not have to do this repeatedly. If some of the Roman Catholics who hold such positions came into our internet household and simply engaged in challenging discussions there would be no problems and I would have done nothing. But when they come demanding that we use their measuring stick of what Catholic is then I must object. We should not have to do that in our own house.

I am sorry that we disagree about this but I must do what I think best for this community.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Are you suggesting that the Orthodox Church, since it apparently/allegedly lacks this "official pronouncemnt," accepts more than 7 Ecumenical Councils?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Tony

Could be--Fr. Dvornik shows in his article "Which Councils Are Ecumenical?" that there has always been considerable debate in the Orthodox Church as to if the Council of 879-880 (the Photian Reunion council) is number eight and the Hesychast Synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351 together constitute number nine. The consensus now is majority-for seven ecumenical councils BUT at times several Orthodox hierarchs and writers have posited that all nine are in fact ecumenical.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear anastasios,

Perhaps looking at the Third Confession of Faith that is made by an Orthodox bishop-elect at his consecration (this can be found in the Hapgood Book) will make it obvious. The Church holds that there are 7 Ecumenical Councils. That number is not frozen and, I imagine, could be revised.

There are certainly other councils that are "binding" but they are not called Ecumenical.

Here are a few links:

http://www.patriarchate.org/councils/ecumenical_councils.html

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/The-Councils.html

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/

http://www.goholycross.org/studies/councils.html

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Ecumenical_Councils.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/54h/54h038.html

http://www.uocc.ca/practices-e.html

The list could go on but it is really unnecessary. You can see what an Orthodox bishop affirms at his consecration in the Hapgood Book.

I would vote for the number of 7 in the case full unity is re-established, but if we think about it, the non-chalcedonians, and the non-ephesians would disagree

About the Latins, I think that the Pope has said that the Roman Church would not have problems in acknowledging the last councils it had after the schism as "local councils". After all I don't think the Latins are very happu with those who put Vatican II at the same level with Nicaea or Ephesus

Just my two cents,

I think we are lucky that ANY Roman Catholic that is posting something here says something. They at least know something about the Byzantine rite, Catholic or Orthodox. Should we as such a small community in the U.S. even worry about them offending us. Not to say they should, but let's be grateful that we are being acknowledged. I wish we could all get together sometime and hash things out in person. Would cut down of a lot of typing!!!

Hi, Tony!

No, I was not suggesting anything like that. I’m surprised that you saw that idea in my words. When I wrote that I was thinking of two separate things: 1) that the Latin counting of 21 Ecumenical Councils is very recent, dating I think only to the last hundred years or so and that 2) there are those in Orthodoxy who consider some of the later Councils to be Ecumenical (as Anastasios has already noted) but that the general consensus is that there are Seven. No Church has issued an official ruling on the qualitative nature of the various councils and which are fully ecumenical. If we look at what Paul VI has taught, however, we can see that he did hold the Seven Councils above and apart from the others.

The Hapgood reference is interesting. Do you know anything about the historical development of these professions of faith? That would make for an interesting discussion (in a new, properly titled thread).

Admin

You know I've been holding back here

I suppose I'm now one of the longstanding RC members, since I originally registered BC [ Before the Crash ] and when I posted something a while back about the courtesy that we guests needed to show our hosts,I was in fact reminded in double quick time by our Admin [ God Bless him - what would we do without him ?] that since I had been here for some time I was now Family.

I have to say that I do feel part of the family of Christians here - and when I drop a clanger I am corrected with gentleness and kindness, but as I am here to learn [ and thank God the education is fantastic] I prefer to sit back and post questions as and when necessary - I don't try to push my own views. I ask, and am answered, and then I can compare the ways that East and West treat the same topics - I can assimilate much from here and I do appreciate greatly the knowledge that I have gained.

Oh what I suppose I am trying to say is that dialogue of this kind will always bring results - in the looooooooooooong term the reunion of all branches of East and West - oh not in my life time and probably not in the lifetime of my children/grandchildren - but I am sure that it is God's Plan for us and His plans always come to Fruition.

Non-confrontational dialogue is always fruitful and I welcome it

Anhelyna - your local inquisitive Eastward tilting Scottish Latin with a Ukrainian name [ thank you ]

Dear Friends,

The discussion on the Ecumenical Councils is interesting, but, from an Eastern point of view, what does it mean to say someone holds 7 or 9 Councils?

Well, precisely that but . . .

Other Local Councils have had their canons extended beyond their immediate Churches to the entire Orthodox Church as well and so these canons are "Ecumenical" also.

What we ultimately mean here can be illustrated from the Oriental Orthodox point of view, I think.

Roman Catholics generally say there are 21 Councils that must be accepted by anyone who is "Catholic."

The Orthodox Church of the Byzantine Tradition ("Eastern") holds there are Seven Councils and says the other 14 Roman Councils are Local as they affected issues that were only issues within the Roman Patriarchate.

However, the debate goes on between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox about the same issue.

And the Eastern Orthodox appear to be taking a similar stance as the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the Oriental, Miaphysite Churches.

While the EO tells Rome to keep its later 14 Councils to itself, they are also telling the OO that they must accept the 7 Councils from the perspective that these 7 contain the substance of Orthodox-Catholic Christian truth that all must accept in order to be so.

The OO responds by saying that what is contained in the 7 is already in the first 3 and that the issues that prompted the calling of the later 4 Councils were entirely "Local" ones that did not affect their Churches, but did affect the Churches of the Byzantine tradition.

In other words, what we have here is the development of perspective on Ecumenical Councils that sees the very act of calling a Council a way to address a problem within the boundaries of a Church jurisdiction.

The OO argument is saying that the first three Councils (let's leave the Assyrians out of this right now!) are binding on everyone, Oriental and Western (Roman/Byzantine Churches) because the issues discussed there affected them all.

So if a Council, Ecumenical or whatever, doesn't address a crisis of faith or praxis within a Church community and if that community isn't present at the Council to deal with it, then that Council is: a) not as Ecumenical as it thinks it is and therefore not binding on those Churches who are not impacted by the issues dealt with and b) a further elucidation of points that are already present in the previous three Councils - the most Ecumenical of all, according to the OO.

We Orthodox in communion with Rome make a similar argument to Roman Catholics who approach us to ask if we accept the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption etc.

We tell them that we ALREADY believe in the substance of those "Rome-Cooked doctrines" (*Trade Mark by Orthodox Catholic ) and that therefore they don't pertain to us.

We tell them we cannot accept as new what we have believed for centuries via our liturgical tradition especially.

The problem is that we Orthodox of the Byzantine Tradition tend to get our knickers in a twist when we talk with our Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters who say they won't accept the Seven Councils for the same reason.

And this is in addition to the fact that they also have an annoying way of calling us "Western" when we think of ourselves as "Eastern."

It all depends on one's perspective . . .

I do hope that we can have discussions with traditional RC's here and if they want to make us feel defensive, I hope that we can speak to one another "civilized like" and defend our position.

Lemko is quite right and I wanted to reiterate this from my own experiences here in the Eastern Eparchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada.

I certainly have no problem being "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and talking the talk here.

The fact is that there are many Eastern Catholics for whom our terminology and perspective are just foreign and not what they understand as "Catholic."

Many would agree with John McAlpine and would side with him, calling me a "wayward Catholic" "someone in danger of schism" and "off his rocker."

I like to think that they would only be right two out of three times . . .

Alex

Friends,

Just a little story from my Theology classes.

I always make sure that the students know who the Father of Orthodoxy was, indicate that the Church tends to hold a special regard for the first seven ecumenical councils, and invite them to our BC Church to see an aspect of Catholicism that they are usually not aware even exists.

Invariably I get two or three comments on the class evaluation form that this or that student did not enroll in the class to learn about Orthodoxy but to learn about the Catholic Church.

Sigh...

Despite this I do seem to get something across to some of my students.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

That is a very good observation, Professor and Mentor!

I think we Easterners tend to look at RC perspectives on our Church as grounded in misunderstanding or lack of information - and so, we think, if we educated them enough, they will see things as we do! Right?

Wrong!

St Augustine for the West isn't that Father who was "almost as good as the Cappadocians, but not quite." He is THE Father of the West and of the entire Church, East and West - for RC's.

The guilt of Original Sin, the new papal doctrines, etc. are not "the patrimony of the Particular Latin Church," but "universal Catholic truth, accept it or leave the Church!"

The Orthodox Church, for these, is "Outside the True Church" at worst or else, "a part of the Church in rebellion" at best.

Our Liturgy is "part of the Rites that are allowed by Rome to exist in the Catholic Church."

And, for these, "Particular Churches in communion with Rome" and "The Seven Ecumenical Councils are the only normative ones" are things that they just can't relate to - as stated in classical fashion to me here in a post by Augustine Revere.

(Do you think that person chose that name for a specific purpose? )

Some Eastern Catholics here have told me they will not call the Ukrainian Catholic Primate a "Patriarch" (no, I'm not picking on you, David!) because he has only been recognized as such by his own Church and is not acknowledged by the Pope or other Churches.

In the SAME MANNER, our entire patrimony of "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is only acknowledged as such by us (and from what we hope is the correct interpretation from the Pope's statements ).

Alex

Exactly! When one accepts an invitation to join a discussion or visit someone’s house good manners demands that one be respectful of one’s hosts and not enter into the discussion or the house with both guns blazing at the hosts. Roman Catholics who participate here are expected to be respectful of their hosts (Eastern Christians). The immediate engagement in heavy apologetics against us is unacceptable behavior.

Dear Administrator,

I agree - but it is not as if Eastern Catholics don't "get it from both ends" from our Orthodox (in communion with anyone BUT Rome) friends.

Rules should be abided, but we should be able to defend ourselves as well.

Alex

Dear Administrator:

I am unsure whether John McAlpine's posts constituted "heavy apologetics" for the Roman Catholic Church. Or, were these directed at Eastern Catholics.

But I appreciate your concern for the integrity of this Forum, which I, myself, have come to love.

To my mind, however, John MacAlpine is not that kind of person bent to sow discord amongst us.

He recognized(es) that the Catholic Church is composed of the East and West. Suggesting that he should brush up on Pope John Paul II's encyclicals/decrees on the Eastern Churches appears to me as a pre-judgment of his level of knowledge of things Catholic.

John's "renown" preceded his joining this Forum, as far as I am concerned. I have heard, and read, about his commendable work in Dearborn, Michigan and throughout that state and elsewhere.

He used to work with the now deceased Rev. Fr. Hardon, S.J., a Roman Catholic priest of Slovak descent.

One account of the results of his apostolate, which come to my mind, is his personal contribution to the break-up of a rabid anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant group in that area AND the conversion to Catholicism of most of its members.

I think Mr. MacAlpine was not here to convert Eastern Catholics to RCsm. Not at all. Like me, he was here to learn more about the "Eastern lung" of the Catholic Church.

Also, I hope my own observations jibed with Wm. Ghazar's, THE apologist for the Armenian Church, who must have met John personally.

As a gentlemanly, and charitable, gesture, Mr. MacAlpine chose to disengage, I hope temporarily, without recriminations.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Well, I certainly found John McAlpine to be very congenial.

He worked with Fr. Hardon - and Fr. Hardon was of Slovak descent? There is MUCH good in everyone, it would seem!

There is interest, as you know, in a possible Cause for Fr. Hardon's canonization . . .

I think John "Scotus" McAlpine found some of our positions here a bit hard to take. Perhaps the St Photios commemoration pushed him over the top.

Happily, I know you don't mind any of these things . . .

And you know that when it comes to you Latins, I'm completely agreeable, amenable and loveable!

Alex

Alex,

Anyone?

Dear Tony the Quick,

I meant to say, "Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Prague etc."

But not "Rome."

Instead, I opted to say "Anyone" but should have added "else."

Alex

I would think that one reason that the Eastern Orthodox have not rushed to insist that Councils #8 and #9 are ecumenical is that they both declare the West to be in schism (so I have come to believe).

While I do believe us to be in schism (not in communion), why should it be made worse. Making these two councils ecumenical would only further inhibit reunion.

The appropriate and most valuable parts of these two councils would be extracted and added (cut and pasted) to the document summarizing the next great ecumenical council.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Ah, you've put your finger on yet another important thing!

Once we start cutting and pasting things pertaining to Ecumenical Councils, we lay open a consideration for the role of a . . .Pope!

At least, that is what I and others believe . . .

Alex

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
This discussion reminded me of a post I did a couple of years ago on the Catholic Information Network's Eastern Board (CINEAST). Here are the points that I made in that post:

I truely feel that unity will come when the Byzantines and Romans stop trying to "get" one on the other.

My brother is 12 years younger than myself, and we grew up with in a traditional Lebanese Family (ie everyone is loud). And I remember a number of times when I would ask (Shout) everyone to be quite so Scotty (my little Brother) could be heard. Our Churches need to hear those little voices. If we look to see the ecumenical relations that are going on between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (for example), most of the disagreements have been overcome. This is not to say that unity is here, but it is to say that these two big sisters can agree on something (and they don't even realize it), then we need open ourselves to that small voice.

If we look to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, we can see the BODY OF CHRIST in action. We are of different confessions, but we realize that we are ALL Christians. We are working towards a real unity. That is why the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church are at the doorstep of becoming one. It is the reason why the Antiochene Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholics were looking to have double Communion.

I like all on this list will defend the Body of Christ, but we need to realize that our attitudes can turn us into a cancer on that body.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon (Stay in Peace You'll)
Yuhannon

Dear Administrator,

I recall at least something similar to this during the registration process, but, where is it to refer to again?

If I recall correctly someone posted a link from another forum once and your response was that such was not allowed. Of course, the issue at hand is vastly different, common sense should prevail (like your analogy of going to someone's home); but as for posting a link to another forum, that does not seem like common sense.

Tony

Dear Yuhannon,

Thank you for that incredible witness to real Christian Unity!

Alex

This is a very reasonable request. At one time the software used for the Forum supported a general announcement that was linked at the top of the home page and in each forum. One of the ongoing announcements contained the Forum rules and regulations. During one of the software upgrades this feature disappeared and I forgot about it. I can still create such announcements for individual forums but not for the entire forum. I can manually post the rules and regulations in a link from the top of the home page and will do so over the weekend. This is an excellent idea. The only other way to view the rules and regulations is to log off and click on “register” to view them.

For now, the rules and regulations of the Forum. If anyone would like to comment on them or offer suggestions for improvement now is a great time!

Dear Administrator,
Very well said, but I would also like to remind everyone that respect is a two way street.
On the Orthodox side I have experienced many in here who are bottom line rude. When there should be genuine discussion and dialogue even when it challenges our own preconcieved notions.
How about adressing this issue too.

Stephnos I

Dear Stephanos,

The above rules apply to everybody, Catholic, Orthodox and everything in between and outside those boundaries.

Alex

AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT
Fr. John S. Romanides, 1964
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm

I like the discussions in which there is an effort to work toward an understanding of the constructs, and catergories of different philosophical traditions. I think it is interesting to work out the "mapping" between the two systems - the domains of similarity and the domains of complementarity. Discussion of this sort advance mutual understanding far better than the "we don't have that category" reaction.

From an ecumenical perspective it is important, of course, to identify areas of seeming incompatibility and to probe their gravity: are they apparent or real?

Within a communion, however, the latter question is already answered: we have jointly asserted that they are not grave. ISTM then, that discussion on Easten and Western Catholic perspectives on, e.g., purgatory or Original Sin can be very interesting and enriching, provided that they are conducted in manner that does not appear to be challenging that answer.

Dear djs,

Well, in my recent experience, when it came to discussing Purgatory, I really got burned ...

Alex

Dear Alex, I presume that you really meant to say: "..., I metaphorically got burned, and payed a heavy toll ..."

Dear djs,

It is "ouch" either way!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Of course, you mean a fallible, concilliar, and ultimately removable type of Pope.

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Forgive me for correcting the grammar of one so educated and luminous.

It is "INfallible when speaking from the Chair of Peter from within the Tradition of the Church, usually expressed by ratifying the decisions of Ecumenical Councils."

I know you are very busy and need to write in abbreviated form . . .

Alex

I'm just curious.

Does it not constitute a problem in Orthodoxy when the Orthodox Churches don't even know for certain which councils are ecumenical and which are not? Since ecumenical councils are the only infallible organisms in the Orthodox Churches, and the Churches can't decide on which are ecumenical, doesn't this cause a problem? Perhaps not?

Also, how do the Orthodox Churches (and how did the pre-Schism Church) define which councils are and aren't ecumenical? In the pre-Schism Church, was it by the confirmation of the Pope? By the Emperor confirming it? Since in EO there is neither a Pope nor an Emperor nowadays, even if there was a ecumenical council how would they know if it was truly *E*cumenical, if you know what I mean? Would they have to state within the actual conciliar documents that it's an Ecumenical Council, since that's the only way that pronouncement can be infallible?

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen,

Actually, world Orthodoxy (apart from the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East) does indeed recognize and proclaim 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Consideration of more is simply conjecture and has no official approval.

In the case of all seven, of course, the Emperor was involved (he was the one who first called himself "Vicar of Christ" - a title later appropriated by the Pope of Rome who also appropriated Caesar's old title of "Pontifex Maximus.")

And the entire Church sent its bishops to participate in these Councils.

The latter four are not recognized by the Orientals because of the schism that was created at the time of the Fourth Council recognized by the Byzantine/Roman West.

Only the first two are recognized by the Assyrians since Nestorianism was condemned at the Third and they were implicated with that heresy and so excommunicated.

The signature of the Pope of Rome at these Seven original Councils would only be required to obtain ratification from ALL the major patriarchates and episcopates in the universal Church at the time.

In no sense did the signature of the Pope of Rome independently ratify or "made infallible" the decisions made by the bishops of the universal Church at those Councils (and I am speaking as one from the Byzantine tradition that recognizes those Seven Councils, rather than the first Three or Two).

Alex

Dear ChristTeen:

Your youthful wisdom becomes more apparent as days go by!

Pre-schism days, the Pope OR the Emperor had the power to convoke a General (Ecumenical) Council; but ONLY a Pope had/has the power and authority to issue the seal of approval/confirmation.

Further, the Pope or his leagte(s) nrmally presides over the sessions of such Councils.

That is, only the Pope possesses the requisite
"IMPRIMATUR."

AmdG

The councils can only be valid if their teachings are valid.

As I recall, all (or nearly all) of the bishops at the Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438-45 signed on to the proceedings except Mark of Ephesus. When the Eastern bishops returned home, the body of the Church, led by Mark, rejected the council. Some of the popular rejection of it was that the byzantine merchants were afraid of renewed Genoese and Venetian domination and had memories of the crusades, but much of it was also genuine monastic and popular lay opposition to the tenets of the council.

The two sides (East and West) were close, but the resulting council's formulas were flawed (as we have discussed at length in this forum).

In the East, validity comes with assent by the worshiping Church, not through dictates from above. The Oriental/Eastern Orthodox split is a good example. There may indeed come a time when the Church will divide again over something affirmed in a council. For that reason, we need to go into the council having thought out and discussed well in adavance what to put on the agenda and why.

In Christ.

Thank you, most esteeemed administrator, for re-posting the rules. We all need to have our memory jogged every now and then.

I thoroughly enjoy reading and learning here. I tend to skim over anything even slightly dis-respectful.

I am very grateful there is a Byzantine Forum. I have learned a lot here and I hope to continue to do so. I love to discuss my Faith and this is an excellent place to do that with folks from around the world. This is truely marvelous.
:p

Dear ChristTeen287,

I have yet to see any evidence that "the Orthodox Churches don't even know for certain which councils are ecumenical and which are not" as you write above. Orthodoxy is clear in its acceptance of no more than 7 councils as Ecumenical as evidenced by the liturgical texts and other sources. (For a more popular presentation, see the links in a previous post.) That there are scholars who are not Orthodox who are making assertions about what Orthodoxy accepts or does not accept, inasmuch as this is in conflict with Orthodoxy, is a bit preposterous.

Because there is no mention of anything beyond the 7th Ecumenical Council certainly implies that this one is the last Ecumenical Council by Orthodox reckoning. Sure, there were other local councils, these are not called Ecumenical.

Are you willing for non-Catholics to make such assertions about Catholics or will the Catholic Church define its faith? Do you accept that certain positions of individuals on this board (positions which appear to be at variance with the Catholic position) means that the Catholic Church does not know what it believes?

While Orthodoxy does not tend to arrange things neatly into Cathechisms (sometimes it would be nice if It would) the teaching of the church is apparent.

If you can find any authoritative Orthodox voice that says that Orthodoxy does not know how many councils are Ecumenical (meaning we don't know what we believe) I (and many others) will be most interested in seeing it.

Tony

Congratulations to Alex for getting it right. It should be no surprise to anyone that there are (according to the Orthodox) seven ecumenical councils, yet there are indeed other councils and writings which have been recognized as authoritative. Bishop Kallistos in his classic "The Orthodox Church" lists at least 13 important documents or councils after the seventh ecumenical council in 787 which have, in his words, "ecumenical authority" (p. 202, 1997 edition).

The church has known such an arrangement from the very beginning. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is indeed "binding" on the whole church. Yet it is not numbered among the ecumenical councils. (I like to point that out when we're enjoying blood pudding! )

In regard to the idea that the Papal imprimateur was some how needed to "ratify" an ecumenical council, once again, Alex hits the nail on the head. Papal ratification was simply the "first among equals" of all the Patriarchates. Without the agreement of all the bishops, (and the church itself!) we have a problem. Or we should say, of those who are "in agreement"! Surely there were bishops and clerics participating who were rebuked or condemned by the decisions of the council.

So, if were looking to once again assert that the Orthodox are "confused" or "disunited" in matters of dogma, let's lay that to rest.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA

Dear Andrew:

Thanks for making this point. It is a point that is unclear to me; I hope you will be willing to elaborate.

How would you (or any posters) describe the means by which the members of the worshipping church develop and demonstrate their assent?

Clearly this formation of assent must be different than "private judgement", but it nevertheless implicates a an aggregation of individual decisions to reject the declarations of Councils - even Councils that appear, through the roster of delegates, to be speaking the consensus of a broad-base of the Overseers of the Church.

As to its demonstration: It had seemed to me that Chalcedon was the perfect example that shows that the assent of the worshipping church is not a workable criterion for the validity of a Council, inasmuch as the ancient Partiarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, en masse, rejected this Council. Yet you speak of it as being exemplary of the the requirement for grass-roots assent. So I'd like to ask you to discuss your idea in some greater detail.

Finally, as regards to Florence:
I am interested, in the context of the posts here in particular, on the evolution of its rejection. Historically, it was not officially abandoned in the EP until after the establishment of Ottoman rule in its territory. As for Rus' Bishop Tikhon (OCA Diocese of the West) has recently pointed out that, notwithstanding legends to the contrary, it was not popular discontent but a unilateral act of the Great Prince of Moscow through which the re-union was repudiated and Metropolitan Isidore was incarcerated, condemned, then allowed to flee.
http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212d&L=orthodox&O=A&P=425
Do you (or others) have any recommendations as to solid, scholarly histories of the short-term aftermath of this Council?

djs

Ah, thank you, Amado, but that is because day by day I am losing more and more youth!

I was merely relying on what some Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome have said in this very thread. I have been advised by a couple of people hereto defer to others' statements and opinions rather than formulating my own (we'll see how long that lasts) since I have no formal theological training. When I do so, it seems I still get pinned with accusing the Orthodox of something. Not so! I was simply asking if this were the case, thus the "Perhaps not?".

Well, Eastern Orthodoxy.

Well, apparently Fr. Thomas and +Kallistos Ware seem to think along these lines:

So, non-ecumenical documents and councils have "ecumenical authority" but are somehow not Ecumenical Councils. Could someone explain this to me, Fr. Thomas perhaps? I'm at a bit of a loss of understanding how this could occur.

Yes. (Equivocating is really a fine art).

Obviously not.

Tony, have I offended you by my questions?

Father, please! Some of us have weak stomachs!

ChristTeen287

I think I did, yes? Acts 15. A council with ecumenical authority yet not one of the seven. The best example that both Orthodox and Catholics (and Protestants!) can appreciate. It is not because it is "scriptural" that it has authority, but because it is a gathering of the Church's apostles, and *they* ruled on a matter which had ecumenical (universal) implications. Of course, one could nit-pick and say that it was not doctrinal in nature. However, it certainly had far-reaching implications for the direction of the Church not being judaizing.

Bishop Kallistos even further defines what he means when he names these other dogmatic writings or local councils as having "ecumenical authority": "a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumencial Council." However, the distinction being that while the doctrinal definitions of Ecumenical Councils are infallible, other councils and writings require much more selective treatment before part or all of a local councils conclusions or a writing or encyclical are seen as having "ecumenical authority."

He particularly points out five of these 13 documents and councils which are sometimes called the "symbolical books" of Orthodoxy.

-The confession of faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
-The replies of Jeremias II to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
-The confession of faith by Met. Kritopoulos (1625)
-The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the council of Jassy, 1642)
-The confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)

among these 13 are also

-The reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX (1848)
-The reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII (1895)
-The Encyclical Letters by the Patricharcate of Constantinople on Christian Unity and on the "Ecumenical Movement" (1920, 1952)

I think the whole point of Bishop Kallistos mentioning these is to show that Orthodoxy is not static in dogmatic definitions or concilar action, since there has been no ecumencial council since 787.

Priest Thomas

Dear ChristTeen287,

You formulated your question in such a way that it contains a statement. The statement is what I posted to you previously. Your question is contingent on the statement. So, your question implies the accuracy of the statement. You (whether you mean to or not) did not merely ask a question, you made a statement then asked a question based on that statement.

Note that I wrote in my post to you "Sure, there were other local councils, these are not called Ecumenical." "Ecumenical Council" is a technical term. The point is not about how many councils are "binding" or have ecumenical character but how many are called "Ecumenical Councils" by the Orthodox Church (and apparently some ECs).

Tony

A simple layperson's guide to the basic sources of Eastern Orthodox beliefs can be found at this GOARCH/ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE site:

www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7064.asp

Dear djs, you bring up a good point, namely the history behind the acceptance of the Council of Florence is long, complicated, and often sordid. And probably better suited for another thread, but here are some thoughts.

Metropolitan Mysail and the archimandrites of the Kyiv-Pecherska Lavra and the Vilnius Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Ioann and Makarii, wrote a letter to Pope Sixtus the VI addressing him as "Universal Pope". This was nearly thirty years after the closing of the Council of Florence.

This was also the famous letter which referred to Sixtus as something like the "source of four rivers, watering all creation...through the four patriarchates, the firm holy pillars of the Church". This letter also maintained that there was no difference among Greeks and Latins concerning Christ, with all of those baptized in Christ being called to live according to their respective traditions.

It has to be acknowledged that Part of the problem in continuing the union was from the Roman side. The intrigue underlying the activities of the infamous Borgia Pope Alexander VI are partly to blame and are not often discussed in the context of Florence.

Unfortunately this Pope had the ear of Sacranus, who wrote a polemical (and theologically ridiculous) pamphlet called "Elucidarius errorum ritus Ruthenici" which attacked all aspects of the Ruthenian liturgy, spirituality, ecclesiastical discipline (including married clergy), and attacked the Byzantine religious ethos in general.

Sacranus was appointed the first royal chaplain in Poland by King Jan I, and was royal confessor to him and several sucessor Polish kings who revered him. Needless to say, he used his position of prestige to poison not only the Union but relations with Eastern Christians in general whom he clearly saw as highly inferior at best and dangerous heretics at worst.

In fact, in one of his diatribes he states that the Ruthenians were the worst of all heretics, far worse than the Greeks. His only position for negotiating with any Ruthenians, Greek Catholic or Orthodox (with whom he made no distinction) was that they could only be subjects for conversion to the Latin faith.

Sacranus even publicly and violently attacked the Bernardine friars who had taken the position that no rebaptism was needed for converts from Orthodoxy to the Roman Church. Unfortunately Sacranus' works were popular in some higher Latin ecclesiastical circles. And who can then blame the Ruthenians, after reading such garbage, from distancing themselves from the Union.

To compound matters, the rise of Muscovite power and the appointment of Muscovite clergy independent of Constantinople also created distance from the Union. The Muscovite authorities also used polemic against the Union to not only distance themselves from the Latin Church and the foreign powers (especially Poland) who were closely allied with the Latins, but also to distance them from the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople.

Sorry to digress from the original point of the thread, which was well stated by the Administrator.

Sorry, it looks as if I just repeated a message.

I am a convert (1971) from a Baptist background.

I find in interesting that any "Latin" rite Catholic might question "Orthodox" Churches that are in full Communion with the one, apostolic Church. I cannot believe that they understand the words of our creed which has it roots in Egypt.

I am searching for some history of the early church. I love Egypt and am very interested in the Coptic Church and would wish to aid in getting the full communion back. I know that there is a "Coptic" Church that is in full union. I do not know a lot about "Orthodox" Churches except what I have read. I caught the end of an "Orthodox" rite when I was early for a "tourist" Mass in Aswan, Egypt in Nov 2001. The "tourist" Mass was a latin Mass that was attended by myself and a shipmate on the River Cruise who heard I was going to Mass. We arrived at the end of a "Coptic" rite. The history of Egypt and visiting Coptic Churches (not in Communion with Rome), I saw a history that intrigued me. I wondered if the "Orthodox" rite was a more original form of the Mass than the Latin Rite (which has changed slightly in the time I have been in the Church).

In my short study of the Egyptian Coptic Church, I have discovered that the "Latin" much to the early Egyptian Church founded by Christ though the Apostle St. Mark.

FATHER THOMAS:

No, Father. If you did, it was not apparent to me.

Ok, but is there a difference in the substance of the Seven and the other ecumenical councils and documents? If so, what are these differences?

Interestingly, many Catholics consider the Council of Jerusalem to be an Ecumenical Council. I don't know if this matters or what it implies, just throwing it out there.

So, I suppose my question is if these have ecumenical authority, why aren't they viewed as ecumenical councils?

TONY:

I admit this is true, point well taken, but I assure you it was unintentional.

I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

ChristTeen287

Perhaps they consider it so, but I have never seen a RC list of the Ecumenical Councils that has ever included Jerusalem, even though these lists list the Ecumenical Councils along with the other eighteen councils.

The only thing I can tell you to do is go back and re-read my posts, or better yet, read Ware's The Orthodox Church . There is sufficent evidence in both places to answer your questions.

Priest Thomas

Thank you, Father.

ChristTeen28

P.S. to Mor: No, the Jerusalem Council is not counted as an ecumenical council by the Catholic Church. Like I said, just tossing it out there.

Hey I got it. If the Romans and the Orthodox played in the super bowl.What side would the Byzantines cheer for. Answer:We would sell the hotdogs.

No, the Pierogis!!!!!

Dear ChristTeen287,

Greetings on the Lord's Day!

Maybe I am wrong but I think you are either missing the point or someone is not communicating well, since that someone could be I, let me try to say it again, another way.

You said above "if these have ecumenical authority, why aren't they viewed as ecumenical councils?" The reason is because the term "Ecumenical Council" is a "technical term." Do you know what a technical term is? It is a term with a strict meaning, one that might not be obvious. An example is "to scandalize." In the language of the Church (from NT Greek if my memory does not betray me) scandalize does not mean "shock" as it does to most caual modern American listeners. Scandalize means to cause or induce to sin.

In like manner "Ecumenical Council" is a technical term. There are seven enumerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are other councils, synods, documents, etc., that are of similar (some say equal) authority (a link provided by someone spells it out nicely) but they are simply not called "Ecumenical Council."

I can't think of another analogy that might help. It is past my bed time.

If the above helps, good. If not, sorry for wasting cyber-time/space.

Tony

Dear Administrator,

I think what you did was fair and just. You drove no one off the forum, nor did you humiliate anyone. You simply asked its adherents to abide by the rules they agreed to when they signed on. If you gave such a person several warnings, what else could you do?

I think such guidelines as you have laid down are very reasonable and just. They must be inforced. Otherwise this forum would become a free-for-all and a mad-house of raging debate. Rather what it is is a bastion of Eastern Catholic faith and tradition. A safe harbor where we can discuss, upbuild and occasionaly quarrel but always with the aim of establilshing an authentic Eastern Christian understanding.

The idea of true Eastern Christian thought being established and manifested within the Catholic Communion is certainly in its infancy. As evidenced by those who enter this forum with the aim of re-Latinizing us, it is one which will conitue to meet great resistence. I think your guidelines are wise and should be enforced inorder to preserve the aim of the forum.

Btw, I received a very strong letter from a Roman Catholic friend about the views being expressed on this forum to the effect that they are "flirting with heresy" and unCatholic.

I've been inspired by what the Administrator has written and also by many on this thread (especially Alex and Djs). I agree with those who spoke of our need to present the Eastern Tradition in a constructive way to Roman Catholics who obviously have not much exposer to our Tradition. In order to demonstrate my appreciation for this forum and the members thereof, I wish to share a reply I sent, with you all.
---------------------------------------------

Dear [Friend],

I can't accept your analysis of the forum. I KNOW they respect Elder Rome and her traditions. I've seen them defend her against those Orthodox who really do harbor hate for her. Your last reply seems full of misunderstandings about what is being said on the forum and the reasons for them. Those in this forum, for the most part, respect Latin Catholicism. The fact that we don't follow, practice or teach it, does not mean we hate it or think it illegitimate. It only means that we have our own legitimate (as Vatican II said) "liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony." The forum is dedicated to precisely these: our unique litugical usages, theology and spiritual patrimony.

What you experienced was true contemporary Eastern Catholicism in all its glory. We make no apologies for our determination to maintain two objectives: 1. faithfullness to our Orthodox Tradition 2. Communion with the Catholic Church

I was shocked by the same things you were when I first experienced them. But after I looked into it and thought about it, the concept of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome began to make sense. There has been a revolution in the Eastern Catholic Churches, since Vatican II, at the promting of the Popes themselves.

You didn't need a Ukranian surname, just a little more willingness to hear out our positions. You exibited this on [one thread]. But on the [another] you seemed (to me) to be dictating to us what was our faith. You might not have meant to do this. But as a friend, I'm just letting you know, this is very much how you sounded.

I think you were making a good impression on several of the members of this forum. A few wrote me that they thought they had made a good impression with you. The only thing I think the Administrator was saying to you on [one thread] was that you shouldn't be surprised or alarmed that we don't use [Latin words]. Did he say more than this?

As far as Latin doctrines coming from Eastern ones, I recognize this is true. Yet it is a fact and you can not blame the East if the Latins developed them into doctrines which the East never did. We must remain faithful to our own developements of these as Rome has requested.

If Rome really believed what she taught truly took into account equally the teachings of East and West it would make little sense for the modern day call to once again theologically breath with both lungs of the Church. The Pope has wrote much to this end of the usefullness and insights of Eastern theology which, again, would make littles sense if what you say is true, namely that the Catholic Church teachings already equally represent East and West. No, we have been called to manifest the Apostolic Tradition of the East and we are stepping up to the plate to do just this in humble obedience the Apostolic Roman See. This will have great ecumencial effect, we and the Pope believe, with the Apostolic Eastern Sees. As the Administrator stated (maybe a little too harshly) we all invite you to study the Pope's teaching on the East. I have many documents on my web-site that manifest this teaching. Here are a few:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/EC_Links.html

The spirit you encountered was not "schismatic" nor "violent" against "anything Latin." If you would've gave it a little time in dialogue you would've seen that we have the utmost respect for the Latin Church and for the Patriarch of the West. But we have to make a distinction between the Latin Tradition and our own. This is all they were saying. We have been a willing victim of Latinization for so long it had got to the point that we had almost totally severed all connection with our authentic Tradition. Now we are in a process of de-latinization at the command of Elder Rome. Hence the attempt to differentiate our theology from that of the West. As a faithful Catholic you must not object to such a process.

As for the issue of what Pope Paul VI referred to as "the General Councils of the West" differentiating them from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the only official Eastern Catholic Catechim in the United States affirms that Byzantine Catholics hold to the first Seven only. Again, this is a return to their authentic Orthodox tradition. While we respect these latter "General Councils of the West" it is an undeniable fact that they manifest the Tradition maintained by the Latin Church, developed by Latin Fathers and Theologians which were proclaimed in these Latin Councils. We have our own developed Tradition which must be made manifest too.

As for your charge of "flirting with heresy," all I can say is that I think you are behind the Ecumenical curve. You are representing the unecumenical approach Elder Rome manifested in centuries past, not the one she manifests today. Read the Balamand Agreement (endorsed by the Pope), Orientale Lumen, The "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and the other documents to get caught up on the Churches modern approach to Ecumenism with the East. The forum was Catholic, just Eastern Catholic. I hope you give it and Eastern Catholicism a second look, because it is real, authentic and will conitnue to be a growing voice in the Church universal, per the call of the Roman Pontiff.

We Eastern Catholics realize that many of you apologetically minded Roman Catholics equate the "Latin" Tradition with the "Catholic" Tradition. This was the problem that was attempted to be addressed in the forum. We do not believe this view is faithful to the call of Pope John Paul II who said:

"I would like to convey a cordial greeting to those Eastern Churches who live in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, while still preserving their ancient liturgical, disciplinary and spiritual traditions. They offer a special witness to that diversity in unity which adds to the beauty of Christ's Church. Today more than ever, the mission entrusted to them is one of service to the unity Christ desired for his Church, by sharing 'in the dialogue of love and in the theological dialogue at both the local and international levels, and those contributing to mutual understanding ...' (Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, n. 60)."

and again:

"Pondering over the questions, aspirations and experiences I have mentioned, my thoughts turn to the Christian heritage of the East. I do not intend to describe that heritage or to interpret it: I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for a fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience." (Orientale Lumen, #5)

In other words, we believe in our unique Eastern theology and tradition not in spite of Elder Rome but rather because of her. This is the difference between us and our Mother Churches in the non-Catholic Orthodox East. Both of us recognize the real differences between Latin and Eastern theology. Yet, we in Communion with Elder Rome see this difference as legitimate and complimentary (as even the Catechism endorses, cf. CCC #248) whereas they see it as unacceptable and an impediment to full Communion.

We are committed to being Orthodox in Communion with Rome. As far as "secretly [feeling] more kinship with the Byzantine dissidents than with Latin Catholics" you are right, except this is not a "secret." You must read pastoral provisions made by Elder Rome about inter-marriage and inter-communion between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. They manifest that Elder Rome is quite aware and quite sensitive about the FACT that Eastern Catholics feel more kinship with what those you hurtfully title "dissidents" than with Latins. I almost can't understand why you would be surprised by this. Elder Rome finds it to be what it is: quite natural and profitable. I guess for you to understand why, you would have to experience the relations we have with our brothers and sisters of our Orthodox Mother Churches in the East. Most times we are either relatives to them (as I am), or have family inter-married with them (as we do), or simply share the identical spiritual patrimony and culture they have. Infact we are like the Orthodox in EVERY WAY except we are in Communion with Elder Rome. On the flip side, we are unlike the Latins in nearly EVERY WAY except that we are in Communion with them. And that's all right with us, we still love our Latin brethren and seek a mutual exchange of faith in equality as their own Patriarch has commanded.

This accusation of our being "Photian Schismatics" is very hurtful and unnecessary. First off, Photios is a canonized Saint in the East. He has been returned to some Eastern Catholic Calendars after they dropped him due to latinization years ago. Eventually he'll be returned to all our calendars as we follow the call of Elder Rome to return to our authentic tradition. Their are good arguments on why we should consider St. Photios thus, his reconcilliation with Elder Rome, and the honor she herself bestowed on him, etc. There is a thread, regarding him, on the Byzantine forum you can read and join in if interested. But the difference between us and those you have accused of being "schismatics" and "dissidents" is that we aren't manifesting our faith in a spirit of division but rather in a spirit of ecumenism. We are returning to and manifesting our faith because Elder Rome has called us to.

I'm familiar with your analysis of the East, ala Soloviev, and find that very hurtful too. Reading between the lines, you have told me that I -and others like me- have chosen to be Armenian rather than Christian. Not only do I find this hurtful statement to be a false dichotomy, I don't think the Pope of Old Rome would say such a thing to the East as you (and Soloviev) do. I don't put much stock in the teachings of Soloviev, anyways, because the Orthodox say he repented and returned to Orthodoxy on his death bed. Besides his views are not consistent with the ecumenical call of the Apostolic Roman See. I'm not sure exactly why you have such anger towards the East. I've wondered about this for some time. Perhaps they have done to you some harm or wrong, perhaps its from your reading of history, I don't know.

I'm sorry that I, and my fellow Eastern Catholics, don't meet your criteria of what it means to be Catholic. Yet I must believe as my informed conscience tells me. And my conscience is clear:

I believe that the Apostolic Tradition received and maintained by the Eastern Churches is true. I believe that this truth is different yet complimentary to the Tradition maintained by the Latin Church, developed by Latin Fathers and Theologians and proclaimed in Latin Councils by Latin Popes. I believe the Pope believes this too and teaches it. I believe in being an Orthodox in Communion with Rome and will continue to do so until the Apostolic Roman See tells me I should leave (which is far from the case today).

The web-site I am building is a testament to my commitment to the concept of being true Orthodox in Communion with Rome. And as I wrote on my page dedicated to this very issue:

Originally it was believed that the mission of Eastern Catholics would be to bring our non-Catholic Eastern brethren "back into the fold" of the Catholic Church. But now it is becoming increasingly obvious that our true service to unity is by familiarizing our Latin brethren with the authentic theology and traditions of the East. http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Who_are_we.html

This is our call. With God's help, this is what we will do.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

-----------------------------------------------

note
[I've deleted a few specifics inorder to avoid clear references to identity.]

Ghazar,

Thank you for your excellent post. One of the most difficult ideas for many of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters to grasp is that we really cannot be faithful Catholics unless we are first faithful Orthodox. Your post demonstrates not only that you understand this but also that you have embraced it. With prayer and patience all of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (as well as our own people!) will someday also understand.

There are several points I might have expressed a bit differently but there is only one correction I need to offer. The Byzantine Forum is an Eastern Christian forum, not an Eastern Catholic forum. This is the only way our forum can exist because we are one family in Christ.

Admin

Dear djs,

Thanks for the questions.

Regarding Ferrara-Florence, I believe several other posts went far beyond my expertise in this. AQlso, I believe that this forum has carried extensive threads regardings the same Council. There is an excellent book that I reviewed while in seminary, but can't remember the name or author this morning. I'll try to find the resultant review paper later on and let you know.

My point regarding consent from the worshipping Church has to do with "the faithful."

A council may pronounce and define a doctrine, really a divining of that which has already been given to the apostles (paratheke), which is the foundation, and then later was handed down (paradhosis) or built upon as a superstructure by their successors. However, if the faithful don't understand the doctrine, or worse, if it causes confusion, argument, and even division or schism, it MAY WELL BE counterproductive. For this reason, the early Church only defined what needed to be defined in order to protect the flock from subversives.

The scriptures themselves tell us all that we need to know. If one just followed them in simplicity and sicerity, all would be well. But there are wolves in among the sheep who like to twist things. Thus Judaizers, Arianism, etc, etc. So the Church was forced to define certain points, make a Creed, add to the Creed (in the West), all for the purpose of protecting the faithful.

Remember that most of the business of the councils dealt with disciplinary matters, not theological, christological, or soteriological ones.

So reluctantly, the councils issued formulations of faith. The Oriental/Eastern Orthodox split shows how an undercurrent of geopolitical and ecclesiatical competition/tension caused the two sides to believe that each other were formulating christological definitions in error, when in fact, they both now agree that they both were correct but defined their terms differently.

This sort of "hijacking" of matters of faith, causing great damage [a shameful one thousand year five hundred year split!] are what councils are meant to prevent, not cause.

I hope that this is helpful.

In Christ.

Dear Tony,

In your last post, you wondered whether ChristTeen was either missing the point or else "someone" wasn't communicating it well to him.

Since Fr. Thomas Soroka and I agree perfectly on the Ecumenical Councils question (and Fr. Thomas even did me the great honour of praising me for my understanding of the issue ), it stands to reason that ChristTeen is missing the point . . .

Alex

Dear Ghazar,

I second the Administrator's motion concerning the in depth understanding demonstrated by your excellent post!

At the same time, I must say that this is all an ongoing education for me with respect to the point of view of traditional Catholics.

But what is fascinating for me is how, for example, one Father, St Augustine, had his significance so inflated in the West so as to give the unquestioned impression that he is "IT" and there can be no other Father that can hold a candle to him - no pun intended.

It would seem that certain (later) Latin liturgical and theological forms became so entrenched among RC's that they now judge all other Particular Churches by this peculiar "universal" yardstick.

It isn't the first time the West has demonstrated this kind of what I'll call "pretension."

At Florence, when asked by the Greeks to give evidence with respect to the doctrine of purgatory, the Latins quoted extensively from the later pronouncements of their own popes - even though that was precisely the point in contention.

Nor would it be fair to suggest that only Tradlats fall prey to this kind of perspective.

Easterners can be religious chauvinists in their own Rite . . .

I just finished reading a brief bio of the Holy Ruthenian Hieromartyr St Paul Gojdich.

I wonder what our Ruthenian and Ukrainian "Orthodox in communion with Rome" would say of him when confronted with the fact that he said the Rosary daily, practiced adoration of the Holy Eucharist and promoted devotion to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary?

It is a very interesting question to me, keeping ourselves true to our heritage, when are we not etc.

I've yet to find a comprehensive answer.

Alex

Thank you Adminstrator for your comments and most of all for this excellent forum.

I stand corrected, I can appreciate the imporatnce of this being an Eastern Christian forum rather than just an Eastern Catholic one.
Thanks again.

In Chirst's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Thank you, Tony. Yes, I know what a "technical term" is.

Alex,

Perhaps both you and venerable Fr. Thomas are both wrong?

Maybe someday...

ChristTeen287

reply: Good question.

reply: You don't have to tell this to an Armenian. We've suffered much at the hands of the Imperial Church. But that's behind us now. I thank God for the great Ecumenical progress between EO's and OO's.

reply: Well, I can't offer a comprehensive answer but if you want my insignificant opinion I would say this: The crime is not in Eastern Christians using Western forms of devotions. The crime is when this becomes part of the "measuring stick" of what it means to be a member of the Catholic Church. I know many Roman Catholics who think it blasphemous to the "Asdvadzadzneen" (Theotokos) to say one does not pray the Rosary. This is absolutizing of Latin devotions is what must be considered unacceptable.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Dear ChristTeen,

Yes, one day Fr. Thomas and I may be wrong at the same time.

Although I will still maintain that he is right . . .

And one day, in a few years' time, you'll understand what I mean

Alex

Dear Ghazarian,

Yes, while I am certainly in favour of the Rosary of the Most Holy Asdvadzadzneen, it cannot be a measure of one's Catholicism etc.

But never mind the Tradlats - we had a priest in our parish who actually used his sermon-time to establish a "yard-stick" to measure one's fidelity to Catholicism.

Kneeling for Communion etc. were among them!

And then we come here and find Anhelyna and Khrystyna, two lovely Latin ladies, defending Eastern tradition!

You just can't tell who are our allies any more!

Most Holy Asdvadzadzneen, save us!

Alex

Well - yes - but isn't this what communion is about Alex ?

Learning about each other's Traditions/traditions and respecting them

And some of us appreciate them

Anhelyna

Dear Anhelyna,

We do indeed!

Khrystyna

Dear Anhelyna and Khrystyna,

God bless you both!

And me in my job-hunt!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Please be assured of my prayers that your hunt will meet with speedy success! I will place my petition in the hands of St. Joseph the Worker!

Khrystyna

Dear Khrystyna,

Thank you - I'll see about putting up a St Joseph's Altar in March!

Alex