On the thread that was closed, there was a reference to the late Fr. Archimandrite Sergius (Brian) Keleher (+memory eternal!) who translated a work into English where the statement is contained that "those saints who worked against the church . . .etc."

The conclusion was then drawn that "Mark of Ephesus is definitely out . . .".

For everyone's information, I personallh spoke with Fr. Keleher about the case of St Mark of Ephesus with respect to Catholicism - on more than one occasion.

As those who personally knew Fr. Keleher would also know, he himself venerated St Mark of Ephesus personally (as part of the icon of the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" especially) and said that nowhere was St Mark of Ephesus ever condemned by the Catholic Church. Therefore there would be no reason to remove his name from the calendar in any future church union.

And St Mark's point that he raised at Florence, Fr. Keleher continued, that affirmed that one should not tamper with the Nicene Creed as it was defined by the Ecumenical Councils - is a good and true one. Fr. Keleher could not disagree with St Mark of Ephesus on that at all.

Also, with respect to the veneration of Orthodox Saints - Fr. Keleher used the St Herman Orthodox Calendar in his chapel of St Seraphim of Sarov here in Toronto and read out the names of ALL of the Orthodox Saints contained in that Calendar every day during Matins and the Divine Liturgy which he celebrated there.

He convinced me to use that same Calendar as well - which I have continued to use . . . religiously . . .

With respect to the saints of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Fr. Keleher reiterated time and again that "we (Catholics and Orthodox) do not question each other's saints."

On a point of process, Fr. Holweck SJ in his "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" 1924 (in case anyone would like to verify things . . .), lists a number of not only "schismatic" saints but also "heretical" individuals who are currently listed in the Catholic calendar.

Does that mean the Catholic Church canonizes "heretics" and "schismatics?" Not at all.

The entire discussion on that thread seems to assume that the saints in the Roman Martyrology were all subject to the same kind of canonization process that obtains today - NONSENSE!!!

There were various groups, including the Arians, who when their heresies and schisms were resolved and they came into union with Rome (either as entire bodies or in part) the saints they venerated (and who were often implicated in the heresies themselves) remained in their local calendars and, over time, were often received into the Roman Calendar.

The only times when this did not obtain was when a given saint had been formally condemned by an Ecumenical Council - such as Dioscoros, Severus etc.

However, such anathematizations could be lifted, as the Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission concluded. But even then, that does not mean that one said must somehow be obliged to accept the other side's saints.

EC Churches today will often "adopt" Orthodox saints who have not been "vetted" by Rome or their own Synods. The icon of All Saints of Rus', for example, is widely popular in UGCC churches. I have even seen an Icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, including St Mark of Ephesus, on a tetrapod in an EC monastery . . .

There is a UGCC cathedral in one of the western provinces that has an icon of St Job of Pochaiv who did opposed the Union of Brest, but whose overall life was not focused exclusively on that.

One Roman Catholic priest, who is well-known and who therefore will be nameless, published the icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy in a journal and, in a letter to me personally, said that "we Catholics are entitled to venerate St Mark of Ephesus privately."

But my main point overall is that Orthodox saints whose cultus is well established will continue to be venerated by the Churches who liturgically honour them even after any future ecclesial reunion with Rome is achieved.

That includes St Alexis Toth and others who "left the Church."

As the Monk of the Eastern Church, Fr. Lev Gillet, wrote when he left Rome for Orthodoxy, "I do not go to a different light - I go to a clearer light."

As for Mr. Stuart Koehl - I wish I had in my own brain the intelligence and scholarship he carries in his socks and shoes.

Let us not presume to judge others on the basis of our own understandings of what Catholic is.

If the last thirty years have taught me one thing, it is that there are all kinds of viewpoints within Catholicism.

As Shakespeare put it best, "Rome and roome enough!"

Alex

This is sound reasoning, especially when we consider how many Orthodox really have warm attitudes toward St. Augustine, most especially in the classical Russian school. I am aware that some Orthodox --and Catholics -- who oppose St. Augustine tend to lay it on a bit thick (I am thinking of the Romanides school) but their reasons have always struck me to be rather reductionist. (I do like a lot of Archpriest John's reminders about late antiquity.) I think I heard that in the case for St. Augustine, and in all cases, it is the man who is canonized and not his body of work. If it were about their work, I suppose there would be less to hold against St. Mark than against the bishop of Hippo.

"Trust but verify," but interesting argument about Mark of Ephesus. Thank you. As I wrote in the original thread, I support nec plus. Fr. Serge was a Russian Catholic.

Fr. Lev (Gillet) is an interesting case. According to Fr. Serge when I asked him in person, Fr. Lev was a sort of secret agent like Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, a born Orthodox and indeed a double agent, also working for the KGB. Crypto-Catholics, in Fr. Lev's case a pseudo-convert. (In Fr. Serge's masterly book Metropolitan Andrew, he mentions that until Fr. Lev died in 1980, he told Catholic authorities he was really a Catholic priest undercover; he "converted" with Metropolitan Andrew's knowledge, and, Fr. Serge claimed to me, blessing.) I sympathize but see the point that such dishonesty, making the already suspicious Orthodox distrust us more, probably isn't the best policy. They accuse just about anyone who doesn't hate us as much as they think one should of exactly that!

Fr. Serge also told me as of 15 years ago there were a few crypto-Catholics in Russia: Orthodox priests using Catholic antimensia. See above, but the thought still warms my heart. The great Russian people are still at heart Catholic.

Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam: not "my understanding" of Catholicism, but Catholicism's understanding of itself.

Christianity is fighting a few formidable enemies the likes it hasn't seen for hundreds of years in some countries. (Atheism and outright and outspoken haters of the Church and Christ in the U.S. and Europe. Boko Haram in Africa, and ISIS in the Middle East).

Russia and the countries of the Soviet block fought its own formidable enemy of Christ for sixty years.

Do you really think that it matters in the greater scheme of heaven and earth, who is Catholic and who is Orthodox?

Thank you for your posts, Alex/Alice.

Mark, I'm reminded of what I discussed with a friend about saints: many are venerated and canonized, for a variety of reasons. This is why I'm often fond of the term, or phrase: theological vision of the Whole Church (laity and clergy)

Yes.

You DO realize that preaching this relativism makes it HARDER to be an unlatinized Byzantine Catholic?

Ah, so you are a secret Templar, are you Serge?

Catholicism is such a beautifully rich and historical faith - I don't believe any one person or group of persons could ever lay claim to being able to grasp its essence fully, in every age. There are always subjective layers to our understanding of this or that. You and I also impress our own subjectivity onto the matter and our subjectivity says more about our own personal views/biases than the Faith itself.

Fr. Keleher of blessed memory was a great lover of all things Eastern Orthodox and East Slavic, as you know. When he visited an Old Rite Orthodox Church, he came away with a very high view of the Old Rite Orthodox, their saints and the like.

Also, St Mark of Ephesus did come to Florence as a supporter of church reunion theologically (apart from the political aspect of obtaining church union for purposes of military aid for the Byzantine Emperor against the Turks).

Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff, in more than one of his publications, affirms this and stated that Markos Eugenikos believed that if the West removed the "Filioque" from the creed, then church reunion could be had. And, over time, all else could have been resolved, Latin theologoumena notwithstanding. But without that minimal condition, Eugenikos delivered a "non possumus" to the Latin Church. And we know the rest of the story.

Fr. Serge was a Russian Catholic (privately he preferred "Orthodox Catholic" and I use that moniker here on byzcath.org in his honour). But he worked mostly with Ukrainian Catholics, some of whom suspected him of being "too Russian" while others, the "very Eastern Greek-Catholics" just adored him.

He really followed the strict observances of the Russian-Byzantine tradition while in the UGCC. So much for that.

Again, in terms of verifiability, one need only begin by reading the Forward of Fr. Holweck's book (he provides many other sources) to see that there are truly many saints in the Roman Canon who were not Catholic at all.

Fr. Keleher was more than correct - the only ones who could not enter the calendar were those who were formally condemned by a Council. The Emperor justinian, however, in his dealings with the Miaphysites told them repeatedly that if reunion could be achieved with them, then the anathemas against their teachers and saints could be lifted - so it isn't a matter written in stone.

Again, this all leads to one of SEVERAL ways in which saints are recognized. 90% of all saints in the Roman Canon were never canonized in accordance with the process in vogue today. And even today, popes will and have simply ordered the inclusino of a locally venerated saint into the universal calendar e.g. Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian of the Immaculate Conception, was beatified by St John Paul II, but he was locally venerated in Italy for a few centuries as a local Italian bishop beatified him for his diocese. St Thomas More was canonized in 1935, or 400 years after his martyrdom. However, Rome established his local cultus as a saint of the city of Rome in 1575 and he has been venerated in Rome since that time.

Even with the directive of Pope Urban VIII that even beatifications be done only with Rome's permission (Rome never said that local bishops could not beatify their own saints), Italian and other RC bishops continued to establish the local cultus of their worthies.

This also happened, as I found out last year, in London, Ontario where a local Catholic soldier, who prayed for hours before the Blessed Sacrament, and who died after contracting consumption because he continually worked with ill Irish immigrants, had a local cultus established for him there as late as the 19th century, a cultus that was renewed by successive Bishops of London until the early decades of the 20th century.

Fr. Lev became Orthodox, but without repudiating anything about his Catholic past. Now, one would surmise that the act of becoming Orthodox meant just that. I spoke with a Studite monk who interviewed him once on this matter - we don't really know how he viewed Catholicism after his joining Orthodoxy. He cleared did see and acknowledged a difference and said so, for example, in his publications he referred to EC's as "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite."

Fr. Lev was Metropolitan Andrew's private secretary and told him that he was converting to Orthodoxy. They remained friends always.

One of our priests in my parish here in Toronto decided to join the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada. Our Eparch, Bishop Isidore Borecky, actually gave him a letter of very positive reference to the UOCC Metropolitan as to his priestly qualifications etc.!

So I suppose what I'm saying, sir, is that there are EC's and Orthodox who simply do not have a siege mentality when it comes to each other.

You do come across as an SSPXer annoyed at all the "fuzzy good will" being shown to "schismatics" etc. in the aftermath of Vatican II.

I don't doubt your sincerity or your Catholic commitment.

I just find your perspectives in this regard to be rather medieval, having nothing to do with what has occurred between Catholicism and Orthodoxy since.

Verify that.

Alex

Dear Alice,

(Are you still mad at me?)

You are more than correct and, as Fr. Holweck also stated, in many cases it would be IMPOSSIBLE to know which saints, in the Roman Canon no less, were Catholic or were members of heretical sects.

St Isaac the Syrian is a good case in point. He was certainly a Nestorian/East Syrian bishop while his ascetical writings have been embraced by the Church in general. In his writings, he does make reference to Nestorian teachers like Theodore of Mopsuestia - and these tend to be edited out of Orthodox publications of his work.

St Nicetas the Goth was himself an Arian priest, as was St Sabas the Goth. St Basil the Great, although an uncompromised opponent of all heresy, actually thought the "Semi-Arians" had some intelligent things to say. And it was St Basil who composed a panegyric for an Arian martyr (I'm not sure which one it was - it could have been either St Nicetas or St Sabas).

Also, the Bollandists, mentnioned by Holweck, discovered that the St Lupus associated with St Demetrius is none other than the Arian "Apostle to the Goths" Wulfila ("Lupus" being Latin for "Wulfila" i.e. a little wolf).

He had a cathedral built in his honour in Bulgaria (where an annual "recreation" festival is held).

Also, even the arch-heretic Arius himself was in the Roman Canon until the Bollandists discovered who "St Arpotis" under June 6th really was . . .

Alex

Serge, Serge,

What Alice has said has been reiterated by Fr. Holweck and others he quotes.

It is not relativism, but she is talking about the union of the Saints on both sides in heaven.

PLEASE go borrow Fr. Holweck's book and read his introductory articles . . .

(By way of verification . . .)

Alex

Dear Serge,

(First of all, is "Serge" the name you go by? I hope I'm not assuming something that isn't true and thereby giving you offense!)

Your second point here re: Byzantine Catholicism.

Do you really think Eastern Catholicism has a long-range future?

That really is interesting!

Alex

"Serge" is fine! Even though nobody uses it in person. Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt; the Russian Catholics venerate St. Sergius. Good enough for me.

Does Eastern Catholicism have a future? In its homelands, except those threatened by the Mohammedans (Iraq), I don't see why not!

America, sad to say, is another story. I would LOVE it if our dominant form of Catholicism were Byzantine, but Eastern Catholics are fading away. Immigration doesn't restock them anymore, the Ukraine notwithstanding.

The Orthodox lose people like crazy too: by the third generation in America, they're no longer interested in a cult of ethnicity so they leave, such as when they move away or marry out.

Byzantine Catholic Americans have the same problem plus "Catholic is Catholic" backfired. After the Chornock schism they so emphasized the universal over the particular (so the Ruthenian Greek Catholics renamed themselves "the Byzantine Catholic Church") that when many people move, they go Roman Rite.

So I think eventually American Byzantine Catholicism will be extinct. Archbishop John Ireland and Cum Data Fuerit have nothing to do with it. They accelerated the process but didn't cause it.

American Orthodox will be smaller versions of what they are now, immigrant/ethnic chaplaincies, mostly Balkan or Russian.

As will the American Roman Catholic Church. It will bottom out, its funds depleted, its assets sold off. Catholic liberals are dying out. The only people who still go to Mass are conservative. So in 50 years, it will look like the church in the '50s but won't have the clout of the church in the '50s. I hope, though, that America's cultural memory of us will remain; that's fertile ground for us to flourish, albeit on a smaller scale.

By the way, if this forum is nonsectarian, its domain name shouldn't be byzcath nor should it be based at a site called the Byzantine Catholic Church in America.

I certainly hope so. For one thing, where would the Maronites or Italo-Byzantines go?

Well, we can at least be sure that it mattered to St Mark of Ephesus.

But anyhow, I like (even if it's been posted here before) http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e

Dear Peter,

Perhaps they would go nowhere, just disappear - I'm not suggesting ECism will unite with Orthodoxy as a body. Some do, while others simply become RC's and also join Protestant groups.

I'm simply talking about surviving numbers over time.

Alex

Dear Peter,

Alice is not talking about the "here and now" but the Saints in heaven.

St Mark of Ephesus would not have cared who the RC Church venerated - in any event, that was not part of the talks at Florence and it has always been understood that each Church in any reunion can keep its own saints - and will.

It was only within the framework of "uniatism" or when parts of Eastern Churches came under Rome (the "erring child coming back to the Mother Church) that the issue was recast into one where any Orthodox saint who was, in life, against Rome, would be expunged from the calendar. (In the Ethiopian case, this also extended to the cultus of St Pontius Pilate - done in ignorance by Roman bureaucrats who had no idea about the ancient origins of that cultus in Alexandrian Christianity).

One UGCC priest, who had two doctorates from Roman universities, told me that such saints could, in fact, remain in the calendar, but could not be liturgically venerated.

At the Union of Brest, however, all those saints who were canonized by the Orthodox Church (i.e. outside of union with Rome) were expunged. The only two saints of the Ruthenian Church in union with Rome that could continue to have a liturgical cultus were . . . Sts Boris and Hlib, sons of St Vladimir. Even St Vladimir and St Olha could not be venerated at the beginning. Their cultus was slowly brought back, as was that of Sts Anthony and Theodoius of the Kyiv Caves.

In the latter half of the 19th century, Austria-Hungary's suspicions about Orthodoxy as a political agent of Russia led to the formal banning of many Eastern Saints that had hitherto been venerated by the UGCC. Also, a number of miraculous icons of the Theotokos were also dropped from the EC calendar for the same reason (most notably the Pochaiv icon). All this was considered "too Orthodox" and it gave fuel to local Orthodox revivals throughout Eastern Europe. (This was also the time when the term "Greek Catholic" was coined by Austria-Hungary to put pay to any reference to "Orthodox" by the EC's).

Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky and his successor, Patriarch Josef Cardinal Slypyj, returned those Saints and icons to the UGCC calendar. Notably, Sheptytsky put a halt to the ongoing legal proceedings of the UGCC against the Pochaiv monastery which had been handed to the Orthodox. The Orthodox were faced with a bit of a quandry when they got the monastery back since the Ukrainian Catholic third Order Basilian, Myron Pototsky, had spent many millions of his personal fortune decorating the interior of the monastery with Baroque-style ornaments and even statues. He was considered a great benefactor of the Lavra (and also of the anti-Unia Manjavsky Skete to whom he bequeathed a healthy some of his wealth).

When the Orthodox monks at the Lavra complained about the "Latin ornamentation" to the Holy Synod in Russia (dominated, in fact, by ethnic Ukrainians at that time), they were told bluntly to leave everything as they had found it, no further questions asked. the akathist service to the Icon of Pochaiv, to this day, makes an allusion to Myron Pototsky. The Orthodox akathist to St Maximus the Greek refers to the Dominican Jerome Savonarola as "blessed Jerome" since Maximus was, at one time, his disciple. I like going off on tangents, don't you?

The article you cite commits a number of blunders with respect to the East, but none so telling as the author's reference to the lack of a central authority within Orthodoxy.

In fact, had he any inkling of the first thousand years of Christianity, he would have known about the role of the Ecumenical Council and how only such a Council, not any one patriarch, could effect a reunion. That is the age-old dispute between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism - authority in the Church.

That author is living proof about how much the conservative RC's are behind in their estimation and understanding of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East.

Quite appalling!

Cheers,

Alex

Then this will be your big chance to get away from it all.

(Always nice to meet another Wrath of Khan fan. )

I see what you mean; but at the same time, church experience shows that a church doesn't Have to be large to do alright -- e.g. EC Churches in Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, and Macedonia.

Hahaha. I see you are a Trekker.

Dear Peter,

If you mean the EC Churches in those countries - they are small indeed and regarded with deep suspicion and distrust by their fellow countrymen.

I don't think that was Rome's intention when it still followed the "uniate" model of church union.

If anything, it would be better for such unions not to have started up in the first place - but who knew what the outcome would have been? (Or, at that time, who would have cared on Rome's side?).

The UGCC is a strong church in Ukraine especially and it has gained much from its coming to the service of the people especially throughout the last turbulent months there.

Our Patriarch Svyatoslav, when he was here in Toronto, related this story:

"A young man with only one eye, during the Maydan demonstrationgs, was pinned in a building by the snipers/police. He jumped out of the window, hurting his leg, but managed to limp away toward the .... UGCC Cathedral of the Resurrection. He couldn't have gone to any hospital as all physicians were under orders from Yanukovych that such were to be handed over to the militia immediately. He came to our Cathedral where we had our own doctors who took care of him, our own social service workers who looked after him. Our cathedral became a safe haven for those who had been wounded in the streets by sniper fire . . . "

It is under THOSE conditions that the UGCC has earned its right to be a Church of the people. And it will survive as such, there as well as in the Diaspora.

A small parish of ours here raised over $15,000 dollars in aid for Ukraine as well. I'm not interested in what the wealthier parishes have raised.

Alex

"Trust but verify."


That seems to be a leitmotif in this forum.

I think at least in practice this forum throws unlatinized Byzantine Catholics under the bus. It encourages them to 'dox rather than follow the magisterium, which makes Catholics suspect innocent ones of being unfaithful.

I haven't seen Alex thrown under the bus, yet. I never felt the same, either. I do get thrown under the bus, by other Eastern Catholics who are highly latinized.

Here we go again. "Poor unlatinized - those stupid Latins and latinized making you miserable. (You know, Vatican II says Orthodoxy's the true church too...)"

A great thing about the church is it doesn't force you to hate the West in favor of the East or vice versa. You can be unlatinized (Orthodox style), Roman, or a mix. Rite is for good order in church; liturgical. But just as the Roman Rite has its Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms, the unlatinized and latinized Greek Rite should co-exist.

It sometimes seems the real religion on this nonsectarian board (but why's it on an unofficial site with the name of a Catholic jurisdiction?) is a misreading of Vatican II in Byzantine drag instead of potato-sack vestments, guitars, and big puppets for liturgical theater. High-church liberalism is still liberalism.

You're reading too much into my statement, that is all.

Peter,

The Albanian Greek-Catholic Church is of eparchial status, but is sine episcopi (without hierarchy). It is organized under the Apostolic Administration for Southern Albania (Albania Meridionale), a Byzantine canonical jurisdiction which exercises ordinary authority over and pastoral responsibility for Latin Catholics resident within its geographic bounds. The Apostolic Administrator himself is a Byzantine hierarch, but not an Albanian Byzantine.

Currently, the Church has only its cathedral and a single parish - and that parish is, and has been for several years, without a presbyter. All of the other parishes ascribed to the Apostolic Administration, together with their clergy and faithful, are of the Latin Rite.

Sadly, it appears that this particular Church sui iuris, like the Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church of blessed memory, will soon be a footnoted remembrance.

Many years,

Neil

Right. If you meant it as "I always get thrown under the bus by latinized Eastern Catholics, without exception" then I would object, but I doubt you did.

Dear Brother Neil,

And no one in Rome will shed any crocodile tears when that happens.

When St John Paul II visited Canada during World Youth Day, I was privileged to participate in a formal government luncheon for a number of archbishops/Vatican staff who accompanied the Pontiff (at Ste Marie among the Hurons in Midland).

I sat with the chief Vatican communications director and others and was able to discuss with them, among other things, the canonization of Kateri Tekakwitha and also the EC Churches.

They kept talking about Orthodoxy, the "sins of the past" with respect to the Unias and how the whole project has backfired on Rome . . .

Between you and I, and given that intellectual climate, our brother Serge probably won't be getting an appointment to any Vatican Catholic-Orthodox commission any time soon . . .

Alex

Dear Serge,

You make a very interesting point about the co-existence of the latinized and non-latinized forms of the Byzantine Rite.

I don't believe the situation is, in any way, comparable to the coexistence of the Extraordinary and Novus Ordo forms of the Latin Mass.

The reason being is that both forms of the Latin Mass are just that - part and parcel of the Latin Catholic tradition. And RC's will and do argue over the "validity" of one form over the other, there are local bishops who opposed the introduction of the Extraordinary forum and the like. But in either case, the tradition is clearly Latin, period.

In the case of the latinized EC's, it is clear that Latinization runs counter to what Rome, previous Popes (your favourite "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter") and Vatican II have constantly reiterated.

Now, I'm NOT talking about private or even parish-based Latin devotions. One could even notice a movement to understand such devotions as the Rosary as an ancient Orthodox private practice (which it certainly is, although others would find it debatable). This is done, of course, to make fond devotions more palatable to the "ultra-Easterns."

As a case in point, the Rosary/Rule of the Theotokos is outlined in chapter six of the book, "Staretz Zechariach: An Early Soviet Saint." (Easily verifiable!)

I met a "very Eastern, Orthodox in communion with Rome" type UGCC priest who was very much against the Rosary as a Latin practice. When I referenced the above book, he told me he had read it too, but didn't remember ANYTHING written there about any recitation of 150 Hail Mary's.

He didn't trust me, so I told him to go and verify it for himself.

I later got an email from him apologising profusely and he is now a very great promoter of the "Orthodox Rule of the Most Holy Theotokos" which, I heard him once say, the Latins took from the East . . .

And of course they did!

As for what exactly constitutes "non-latinized" is anyone's guess.

Today, I can find Byzantine texts, even Orthodox ones for the Stations of the Cross (as part of the Passia services) and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. There are Byzantine icons of Our Lady with the Scapular (including the Orthodox icons of the Letichivska Mother of God and that of Horodyschensk) seen within the context of the Holy Protection, to name but a few such devotions.

Anything can be given a Byzantine liturgical framework - and as EC's we should indeed be doing that.

And our friend, Stuart Koehl, once argued that there is nothing in the Byzantine tradition preventing us from using statues - he gave a number of examples in that department. I certainly have statues (Fr. Keleher once told me that as long as such statues are "well done" there is nothing wrong).

So I guess what I'm getting at is that the moniker "Latinized" can be used as a kind of accusatory term, a broad stick for beating others over the head, by those who are, plain and simple, against ECism and "creeping Uniatism" as things that ultimately lead to absorption by the RC Church (i.e. the ultimate destruction of the Byzantine/EC/EO heritage).

In the case of the Orthodox Church of Kyiv, Latinization was its way of meeting the great intellectual challenge of the then Jesuit-led West and its influential universities. Orthodox Saints like St Dmitry of Rostov, as you know, were HEAVILY Latinized in their devotions and St Peter Mohyla himself introduced many Latin borrowings into his Metropolia within a Byzantine framework - which others would, nevertheless, see as being Latinizations. Mohyla even translated the Imitation of Christ and his "Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church" was read by Eastern Catholics and I recently saw a link to it on a UGCC website.

Orthodox theologians today decry the Latinization of Orthodox theology. But, truth be told, many Orthodox theologians in the past admired St Thomas Aquinas, and even adopted his moral theology (e.g. St Gennadios Scholarios). Fr. Meyendorff even quoted, at one point, a private prayer to "Blessed Thomas" by an Orthodox theologian (this is all verifiable, I just don't remember the exact texts).

St Nicodemos the Hagiorite translated the "Spiritual Exercises" of St Ignatius Loyola - which got him into some trouble in Greece. "Unseen Warfare" is a much re-edited version of a book by an Italian priest and so on.

It gets to the point that what is "Latinized" or not is up to the person looking for a stone to throw at you. I've even found an icon at www.pravicon.com [pravicon.com] that is an exact copy of the picture of St Louis de Montfort kneeling before Our Lady, Queen of all hearts! Or the beautiful painting of Our Lady of the Grapes by Mignard which is venerated as a local miraculous Orthodox icon at a nunnery in Moscow and it is known as the "Domedovskaya" icon.

I've gotten into trouble here in the past, most of it my fault, but also because I've gone after Orthodox posters for what I call their "disingenuousness" with respect to certain issues. One Orthodox priest, to show how much he disdained the Immaculate Conception dogma, compared the conception of the Theotokos to that of the Dalai Lama.

If you think I wasn't going to go after him for that - well, forget about it!

It is like those Orthodox who, when the Assumption of the BVM was proclaimed by Pius XII, then came out to try and distance Orthodoxy's celebration of the Dormition from that . . .

In the public liturgical sphere, EC's do have an obligation, ordered by Rome, to grow in a deeper appreciation and practice of their Eastern liturgical traditions.

There is an alarming trend that I have noticed in the UGCC to have a traditional parish and then a liberal parish in one area - to suit people's "moral taste." I know this to be a fact in one city where a friend of mine is the parish priest of the traditional church.

Liberalism, I agree, is the great enemy. And UGCC parishes that tend to shorten services and otherwise downplay the Byzantine traditions fall prey to that.

In the eparchy of Eastern Canada, we really don't have any Latinized parishes (any longer) and I've never seen the rosary recited in church before the Divine Liturgy in my life.

Alex

Agreed. I would suggest changing the URL to www.byzchristian.org [byzchristian.org] or another URL along those lines.

If you choose the truly nonsectarian route, that would be perfect. AOL had a Byzantine Christians forum 18 years ago; same idea.

If you choose to remain identified as Catholic, officially or unofficially, be orthodoxchristianity.net [orthodoxchristianity.net] (originally a "schism" from here!) in reverse. Defend the magisterium and invite all to post anywhere in the forum, but limit the posts preaching Orthodoxy against Catholicism, and preaching other dissent, to one or two clearly marked folders. That would mean peace on the board and no scandal for Catholics.

We've no desire to be OC in reverse.

There is peace on the board and the only scandal that exists to the minds of most of us is whatever is stuck in the eye of those who see such here. Consult an ophthalmologist, perhaps he or she can help you with that.

Many years,

Neil

Like I said, if you use a Catholic name but are nonsectarian, there's a problem; the fine print at the bottom of the page doesn't suffice.

The relativism here is simpatico with the spirit of the times ("COEXIST"). It resembles the new high-church Episcopalianism - credally and liturgically almost conservative enough to please real conservatives, ecclesiologically liberal enough to please liberals. Plus it's small enough for the mainstream not to take seriously; it's cute. And political correctness works for it: unlike Latin Catholicism old and new, it's exotic. But my guess is such a version of "Byzantine church" is not going far and probably will fade away, a niche/hobby religion for some intellectuals, just like the new high-church Episcopalians.

If they decided to do as you suggest, I wouldn't object and would still post here; but I think it should be pointed out that The Byzantine Forum is only one part of the byzcath.org website. I.e. it's a non-sectarian (cf TYF ) forum on a Byzantine Catholic website. Which some may, of course, be unaware of since many of us call the forum "byzcath".

I'd still post here too.

Christ is in our midst!!

Apparently some of the new and old members have either forgotten or simply ignored a very important thread that is posted as "sticky" in Town Hall. It was made this way for a numbr of good reasons--one of which has cropped up in the recent set of threads that have become so unChrisitan--and we refer people to it time and again when it seems the atmosphere that we try to foster starts to unravel. May I suggest we all take a fresh look at it. It's part of the agreement we sign onto when we ask for membership here, whether we let it register in our minds or not.

This board has grown since its domain name was established. Would that the people who come here might also grow with us.

A further point to be made is that the Church headquartered in Rome--Vatican City--has no corner on the name "Catholic," though it has held itself out to be so for centuries in the Western world and wherever it has dominated the writing of history. In the East, the Greeks were known as the "Romans" under the Ottomans and we, Latins (I am one), were known to the locals as the "Frankish Church." It depends on who is writing history and who is labeling the players.

There is no need to attack the people who make up this board or the Admins who have chosen to not only provide us with this place but also have chosen to pick the moniker in the long distant past when this board was established.

Bob
Moderator

Like Marist College, which still has the Marist Order and some other Catholics, but is no longer Catholic, maybe it's time to become byzchristian(s).org or implement my suggestion.

There is only one church, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Given my Anglican background - high-church Episcopalians, thanks to Episcopal semi-congregationalism, were able to practice and teach me (born Episcopal) pre-Vatican II Catholic culture, after Vatican II - I have no problem sometimes describing the body of belief we share - God, Christ, Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, the Mass/Real Presence, and the option of images - as Catholic, whether it's in the church or out of it.

And most of the Christian East is simply an estranged part of the Catholic Church; yes, the one headquartered in Rome, as Metropolitan William and the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, whose name this site uses, believe and teach.

Dear Serge,

I agree with you that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

But the Orthodox believe they are and that Rome fell away due to heresy and the imposition of Latin theologoumena, including papal jurisdiction and infallibility that were not universally shared in the first millennium.

And the Orthodox Church does include "Catholic" in its formal title.

So what's to be done?

Alex

1. Be under Rome and follow the magisterium.

2. If you are called to, learn as much as you can about the Orthodox tradition.

3. Support unlatinized Byzantine Catholicism both as good in itself and as a witness to the Orthodox.

4. At the same time, support the Byzantine Catholics who use latinized forms, their longstanding choice.

Each Catholic forum/blogger/etc claims that they're representing the views of the magisterium. Experienced readers take that claim with a grain of salt.

Alright as long as it isn't in a condescending fashion.

I think I know the difference.

Examples:

The magisterium: Jesus is true God and true man, so Mary is the Mother of God. Bishops are the successors to the apostles. The Mass makes Christ's sacrifice present. The Pope shares in the church's charism of infallibility.

Me: The church was better off before Vatican II; for example, the old Mass is better.


Fine with me.

This is generally sound advice and what is expected of Catholic posters. I will only quibble with #4, since Rome clearly instructed Eastern Christians to de-latinize and return to the normative forms of Byzantine Liturgy, and only to allow change only in concert with the Orthodox. Support them but also lead them. My opinion here has been unchanging, following the wisdom of Pope John XXII: "See everything. Change a little. Overlook the rest." [Meaning de-latinize slowly, and with great care.]

The problem is, of course, that what one person sees as an acceptable post the next person sees as heresy. I am routinely accused of being a Latinizer, Vostochnik, pro-Orthodox, anti-Orthodox, pro-RC, anti-RC, Protestant, Conservative, Liberal and a whole lot of other things (sometimes all in the same week!). I can sympathize with the complaints of harassment some of our posters receive from other posters. Our moderators show great leeway and I thank them for their work here.

As to some of the other posts, yes, The Byzantine Forum is an ecumenical forum. In his Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen, Saint John Paul the Great stated that "one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another" (#24). That is the purpose of this forum: to improve our knowledge of one another. As such, all forms of theological opinions (and especially Eastern Christian ones) are welcome to be placed upon the table for discussion. If posters think someone has misrepresented Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Jewish theology (etc.) then they are called to correct it (using charity at all times).

As to the website url (byzcath.org) and the name "The Byzantine Forum", no changes have ever been considered and are not now under consideration. byzcath.org is not dissimilar to catholic.com and other sites and forums that are unofficial, which exist to help build up the Church through witness. We have noted in the past that the title "The Byzantine Forum" has grown to include participants and readers far beyond the Byzantine Churches. Noted, but no sense changing the title after almost 18 years. And, yes, we are tiny compared to the rest and they are so much better at everything than we are.

Thank you. Respectfully disagreeing with your first and last points.

The beauty of Catholicism is it DOESN'T force you to hate one for the sake of loving the other. The latinized forms have existed for centuries, as indeed they did in ACROD [sarumuse.wordpress.com] for decades, and can go on forever as far as I'm concerned. So can the unlatinized forms.

The comparison to Marist College holds for the domain name. I can see why some think that's persnickety.

Thanks, for your points, Neil, Bob, Alex, and John. Peter J, you're on the money.

In terms of "Catholics" Why would one need to be "under the magisterium?" Can someone describe what it means to be "under the magisterium? I can understand if one is under Rome. However, what of one who isn't under Rome (nor should they be considered such), like a UGCC fellow, or gal?

I'm not sure whether we've had a thread on this or not, but my understanding of "the magisterium" is that it isn't specifically Latin (unlike eg the Vatican's Pontifical Councils).

Dear Lester,

Well, the UGCC is "under Rome" jurisdictionally and as much as we "doth protest" that it is otherwise via our ecclesial Particularity - that is largely wishful thinking on our part.

But all Catholics of all Particular Churches are obliged to obey the Magisterium, the Teaching authority of the Church that expounds what we are to believe and how we are to act in accordance with Cahtolic moral principles.

I don't know if that answers your question.

Alex

Dear Serge,

I agree totally, and have affirmed, that Latinization exists not only within EC Churches but also in Orthodox Churches. I would go so far as to argue that the Latinization of the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia constitute one of the deciding factors that led it to sign the Union of Brest.

The Latinized forms can and do exist. But the ideal is to ultimately do the "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" thing. Latinizations that we have tend largely to be at the level of paraliturgical and private devotions. That is how it is up here in our UGCC parishes. I think we can make too much out of Latinization/Latinized forms. In fact, when they are placed within a Byzantine context - no one really notices them.

I don't really know very much about the BCC in the U.S., but my time on this forum has convinced me of one thing - thank God I'm with the UGCC!

Alex

I can't say I think of anyone as "under Rome" except for the Diocese of Rome and possibly suffragan dioceses ... But then, like many metaphorical questions this one doesn't really have a black and white answer.

OK, but this still doesn't answer the question about how Catholics and Orthodox are to relate to each other.

Do we, as Catholics, need to have a particular approach to the Orthodox that is basically one of "convert!"

Is that a good approach to take? It is something that is definitely Catholic - but is it Christian?

Alex

+1

Think I know what the answer to ths will be.


Are you also a country boy?

Dear Peter,

What is the answer then? I'm asking, not telling. Go ahead, give us your take.

I spent half of my life in the country working with my father's beekeeping operation - all in all a stinging indictment of urban life.

That's the buzz.

Cheers,

Alex

Yes, yes, and yes.

In terms of Catholics, and Orthodox, there needs to be give on both sides. Secondly, their needs to be another council (truly ecumenical in some way) to affirm what it is to be professed, as an entire Church. I think this item is something my friend tells me still impedes on the Eastern Orthodox reuniting w/ the Oriental Orthodox.

Essentially, they understand there were linguistic hurdles causing misunderstanding. But, there needs to be a common profession of Faith (as strange as it sounds), alluding to the need of addressing anything covered by the subsequent three or four councils held by the Byzantine Orthodox, but not the Oriental Communion.

What is it the Orthodox have to convert to, Young Fogey? It seems the other side needs to do the converting.

As I wrote:

There's an authentic Catholic version of that - the Orthodox give up schism (convert to Catholicism) and we bend over backwards to respect their traditions, making sure that what happened to Frs. Alexis Toth and Orestes Chornock (and DMD's grandpas and dad) never happens again. You bet this reconciliation is a two-way street!

well, what would they need to accept? Because I'm sure they would take issue with various papal prerogatives which weren't historically present, in the united church.

The Orthodox likely will the say the same about the Roman Church, along with requested repudiations (papal prerogatives only being one of the items on the table)

Well, I thought it was going to be "Born Orthodox etc benefit of the doubt etc not individual conversions etc" but i was wrong (see the above yeses) and must retire from the scene shame-facedly.

Just for the sake of good conversation, I very much hope that an Orthodox will post the reverse of your proposal.

I just realized that you, Lester, already did more or less what I said,


Unfortunately, I don't think I'll live to see either one of you get your wish.

I think, in some ways, it's better that way

Well, I don't believe that the terms "convert" (used by ultramontanist RC's on Orthodox for years and years) and "schism" are acceptable terms in our conversation with the Orthodox.

They presuppose that the structure of the once undivided Church was very much like that of the medieval and contemporary Latin Church - with the powerful Pope at the top of the hierarchy and the world as his diocese, in effect.

Schism on the part of the Orthodox is something that is really untenable. It is far too "black and white" and lacks the historical and theological subtleties that has characterized the Latin-East relationship.

As a UGCCer, I cannot accept it as it is an older RC modus operandi that is also a failed one - and also one repudiated by not only Vatican II but also by Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical commissions, Balamand and the like.

Rome has evolved in its understanding of these matters.

If our beginning point is that the Orthodox are in schism - that is a non-starter. Always has been, always will be.

The mutual excommunications have been lifted. What remains now is for doctrinal unity.

That can only be accomplished by means of a union Council between both sides.

I believe there is no reason why Rome, without discarding any of its traditions, cannot simply agree to hold that the faith of the first millennium is normative for all, that papal infallibility ideally occurs when Rome ratifies an Ecumenical Council and that papal jurisdictional primacy is exercised when a Particular Church calls on Rome to get involved, when a bishop/theologian calls on Rome to hear their case and/or when a church canon, accepted by all Churches as laid down by Ecumenical Council, is broken. Otherwise, "stay out of our face."

Papal power can and should have its limits with respect to Particular Churches of the East - who have taken their orthodox doctrine from the Ecumenical Councils, not from any magisterium.

Also, Rome can and should begin the process of examining what doctrines are of a "universal" and "necessary to Catholic faith" nature and which reflect Latin theologoumena and are not "necessary" to the universal Catholic faith.

Catholics hold the true faith. That doesn't mean there are issues that need to be addressed that harm unity with the East.

Eastern Catholicism is not the model for church unity any longer. It is destined to one day disappear of its own accord - once church unity is re-established.

And yes, we have our Latinized parish members. So Latinized that they want what the Latin Church has for our Church - including altar girls and women reading the epistle, women extraordinary ministers and the like. We already have this and more thanks to that kind of Latinization.

But to suggest, as is sometimes suggested here, that the model of church unity is simply a matter of getting the Orthodox to "see it our way" and that any other approach is somehow a betrayal of Catholicism - that is just too overly simplistic and is not where Rome is at today.

Alex

Alex, as my friend often says, "we're figuring things out, but no one's bothering to listen to us."

"Yes" AND "born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt." In other words, the branch theory isn't Catholic.

I know it's uncool here, but our doctrine's not negotiable. That's right, the mystalicious Orthodox would have to admit they're embarrassing, retrograde, boring CATHOLICS.

Our polity except the papacy and episcopate is entirely negotiable.

I don't know young fogey, maybe it is just me because I am Orthodox, but I am getting a little tired of your vitriol towards the Orthodox. It is of course your prerogative, and you are correct in that this is a Catholic website...

We were ONE church...one side is as incomplete as the other, so instead of listening to your type of attitude, I rather let our esteemed clergy that have been commissioned to work this all out, be led by love and the Holy Spirit into an understanding of what kind of unity we can have.

For people of good will and the love of Christ on both sides of the divide, I personally believe that such unity exists already as a spiritual unity.

There is still one church; you are still a beloved, estranged part of us.

The Orthodox I knew in person usually weren't like most online Orthodox. Not doctrinally strict but good-hearted. Their approach was "tribal." The idea of "bloom where you're planted" (us: born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt), C.S. Lewis' idea that the people at the centers, at the hearts, of their religious communities are closer to God and to each other than the fringe people yelling online for example. They were Orthodox because they were Greek or Russian, etc., and proud of that, but had no problem with, nay, expected Anglo-Americans to be various kinds of Protestants, Latin peoples to be Catholic, etc. But to turn your back on your own mama, papa, yiayia/baba, village, etc.? "That's crazy!" And it often is. Witness the online Orthodox circus. For a Westerner, converting to Orthodoxy is a self-hating act. Joining Greek Catholicism is not. Because one is not leaving the church.

Granted, Christianity is both tribal and propositional/universal (not phyletist), but as the late Fr. Serge (Keleher) told me in person, small-o orthodoxy has tensions in it, paradoxes, and this is one of them: it's both particular and universal.

YF's colors are shining through..

If your point is that Catholic "apologists" should stop attacking the Orthodox for not embracing said theory, then I'm behind you 1000%.

Why don't you all just become a nonsectarian version of orthodoxchristianity.net, then? Police it by restricting uncool Catholic posts to one or two clearly defined folders. Your prerogative.

Ha ha ha.

Seriously, our doctrine is not a branch theory. Estranged part of one church ≠ divided church. Semantics? Not really.

I understand how you're bothered by Catholics "schisming" to become Orthodox (just as I understand how Orthodox are bothered by Orthodox "schisming" to become Catholic) but I honestly cannot believe you just said ^^ that.

This thread is confirmation of the ancient synodical principle,"None of us individually is as stupid as all of us together." Some come impressively close, though!

Yes and no (or really and not really ). Read a bunch of Catholic internet-apologists and you're bound to see some pretty shameless semantic exercises.

Edit: not to mention Catholic propaganda like "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto."
- This Rock, also quoted by Fr Reardon in the article mentioned earlier

It is an interesting conversation in any case. I was aware, already, that there are not just two possible p.o.v.s ("us and them" as some might put it) ... but this thread really drives that fact home.

Catholics and Orthodox both believe they have the true Faith and that their respective Churches are the ONLY true ones - that is a fact.

The point of this forum is to allow for a "neutral zone" where the two can meet and discuss matters of mutual interest without denigrating each other in the hope that one will convert to the other.

There are Orthodox who have tried to convert me - and I didn't appreciate that at all, so I removed myself from the entire situation. To this day, I won't go into an Orthodox Church, other than for weddings and funerals, because I've had one too many such experiences in the past where not only my own EC allegiance was, shall we say, "not appreciated" but also my church. No one should stand for that, on either side.

Any ecumenical conversation, such as should be had here, must be free of the "threat of proselytism." That is a principle that the Catholic Church accepts too.

It is perfectly legitimate to affirm what one personally believes about schism etc. I just don't believe that has any place here and haven't heard the word "schism" used for years before I came across it here.

I'm a born UGCC and half of my family, here and in Ukraine, is Orthodox. The only time anyone decided to become Catholic was following St John Paul the Great's trip to Ukraine when he beatified new Martyrs there. He made such an impression that some Orthodox, like two of my relatives, became EC, some secular people became religious and tepid EC's became fervent.

I understand and love all that. I know all about the branch theory of Anglicanism and how some Catholics can closely approximate it.

That has NOTHING to do with the ecumenical atmosphere which should exist on this forum. That it is "Byzantine Catholic" and warmly embraces Orthodox Christians is, in and of itself, a great testimony to Catholic openness. There are Orthodox Christians who are Moderators here, such as our beloved Alice (on whose nerves I do get on) and Father Anthony.

And these Orthodox Christians themselves demonstrate great Christian love and understanding of us Cath'lics. Alice's warm embrace of true Christian piety in both traditions and her always very positive comments about Catholicism are well known - appreciated by all.

I once got angry at a UGCC poster from Poland for attacking our Primate. OK, so I tore him a new . . . navel.

Fr. Anthony came on and actually understood my anger completely. Rather than chide me for it, he told the other fellow to observe the bounds of order and decency. I almost fell out of my chair, but that is the kind of high quality of person he is and this Forum is better for having him on board.

That such excellent individuals embrace, and are embraced by, the Byzantine Catholic Forum says a great deal about the Forum and about the Administrator whose vision has led to the development of such an ecumenical community.

To sit down with Orthodox Christians, look them in the eye (figuratively, of course) and share our mutual experiences as Christians is the sine qua non of ultimate reunion.

Anything less will set the reunion clock back and that would be a tragedy and even a great sin.

We are all here to advance the cause of Christ and the unity of His Church.

Let's keep focused on the positive things of our traditions. If we centre ourselves on the following of Christ within our respective Churches, we will truly become one in the same Christ.

I think this thread, which I began, has come full circle and I ask the Administrator and the Moderators to consider closing it down.

Thank you for your attention.

As Fr. Keleher of blessed memory once wrote to me in a letter: "May St Mark of Ephesus pray for us."

Alex

All I'm saying is Byzantine Catholics, running a board that, while nonsectarian, is still an unofficial apostolate of the Ruthenian archeparchy, must do better than preach "two branches of the church."

I understand and sympathize to a degree your point about indifferentism, YF. I encourage my Roman Catholic friends generally to visit Orthodox Churches, but not the ones I think are of a rash cast of mind that would make them likely to leave the Roman Catholic Church. Unrelatedly, I was grieved when some Eastern Catholic friends recently became Orthodox.


But I think this is a losing point. The web site is titled "Byzantine Catholic Church in America," but the forum hosted here is quite clearly "The Byzantine Forum" not "The Byzantine Catholic Forum". There's a disclaimer right at the bottom of each page too:


I think the position of the forum itself is fine. It's a meeting place, a town square. Individuals need to be responsible for their views for the most part, not the forum. They're the ones who need to avoid "branch theory" theology.

Nothing wrong with being nonsectarian. But fact is, this is known "on the street" as byzcath.org. Become byzchristian(s).org! Or something like "easternchristianity.org" to include the non-Chalcedonians and their corresponding Catholic churches.

Alice posted:

Catholic in an inclusive sense that includes you, Alice, as one of our dear sisters in the Faith.


Done.

Bob
Moderator