www.byzcath.org

What does "Communion with Rome" mean?

Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 07:15 PM

Dear Friends,

I gave my own view of what "Communion with Rome" means and this was considered by some, not on the forum, however, to be wrong and not what Rome itself believes.

But we BC's believe that we are not "under" Rome but in "Communion" with it.

What do WE mean when we say this?

Does what WE mean about this term constitute a contradiction of the teachings on papal jurisdiction and infallibility?

To rephrase something, are we "deluded" insofar as we think one way about the papacy and the RCC thinks another way - and since no one wants any more defections to Orthodoxy, we all stay quiet?

Alex
Posted By: JoeS

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 07:43 PM

Alex,

Simply put, as far as I can see personally, that is just about it.

JoeS
Posted By: francis

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 08:19 PM

As a RC, it is my experience that the common EC view of the papacy is very contradictory of the two main views of the papacy in the RC Church (I'm not talking official doctrine, but the average Roman Catholic's position). These views are (apologies for the inadequate labels):

"Conservative": The pope is the ultimate, and only, power in the Church. In practice, he is infallible most of the time he talks. (It is more nuanced than this, of course - many Catholics understand the limitations in the dogmas, but in practice ignore those limitations).

"Liberal": The pope enjoys no real authority over a Catholic. Listen to him only if you feel like it.

As a RC, I must admit I find both of these views lacking, and I admire the more balanced EC view. One example I find shocking is how the idea of anyone other than the Pope appointing bishops is considered liberal heresy by most conversative RC's. However, the universality of papal appointments is only a couple hundred years old! Of course, the idea of American laypeople picking their bishops sends shivers up my spine; we would just pick bishops that furthered our deep-seeded narcissism. Then again, how is that different than most of our bishops now? eek

I would say, however, that these things go in cycles and there has been much movement since the heyday of the papal monarchy of the 19th century. So I think there is much hope that the EC Churches can again in practice live in true communion with Rome, instead of submission. Of course, our current Holy Father is very much part of this movement. There will be a special place in heaven for all the EC's who have endured much suffering for their faithfulness to the papacy, even when that faithfulness was not necessarily deserved by it's human occupant.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 08:30 PM

Does what WE mean about this term constitute a contradiction of the teachings on papal jurisdiction and infallibility?

To rephrase something, are we "deluded" insofar as we think one way about the papacy and the RCC thinks another way - and since no one wants any more defections to Orthodoxy, we all stay quiet?

Alex

=======

Alex:

I think you answered your own question.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Unity In Christ

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 08:42 PM

As a Roman Catholic who is just becoming acquainted with Eastern Catholicism, I am not sure if I even belong in this discussion....

However....

I think of the Eastern Catholic Churches ideally as running pretty much under their own steam, that is under the authority of their own spiritual leaders, while acknowledging that the Pope has a certain position of honor and authority unfillable by any other Patriarch in any other see....

Pretty much then, unless an Eastern Church fell into some heresy as a body, it would be left alone as to all the rules of everyday life....

However, whenever the good of the universal Church required some sort of joint decision, the Pope, along with representatives from all the Churches would meet together, as in the earliest early Church, discuss the matter, and come to a mutual agreement.


Here is the difficult part....then, if the Church was divided as to an important, very important matter, if all the bishops could not agree, then perhaps they would listen, if so to speak, "Peter spoke through Leo...."

Certainly, as in the early Church, I think there must be some sort of universal respect for the beliefs of the Church of Rome...some things should be universal, while other, non life-and-death matters need not affect those outside of the latin rite...

I am willing to have my opinion blasted apart....remember, I know little of what I speak....I am but a poor, ignorant Westerner.

UIC
Posted By: djs

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 09:01 PM

What it means, practically, is that we are able to participate fully, should the need arise, in each other churches - in the Mysteries of each others churches - by mutual consent of the hierarchs of the churches.

And this consent presumably is achieved by a recognition of a sufficiently similar, if not rigorously identical, outlook on faith and morals - which as individual members of particular churches, we learn from our religious-lives in our own churches.

I supppose that we could spend a great deal of time and effort - effort that is rather likely beyond the capabilites of most of us - to try to second-guess the hierarchs by scrutinizing the criteria and norms of this recognition for ourselves - and much worse, among ourselves, putting each other to the test: is your outlook equal to mine? This is prelest. This is the delusion, Alex. It is a vanity that has little if anything to do with being good, becoming holy, or bearing fruit.
Posted By: Administrator

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 09:24 PM

What does “communion with Rome” mean?

It means that we have Eucharistic communion with Rome.

It means that we accept her teachings as valid and submit to the authority of Peter.

It does not mean that we give up our Byzantine Orthodox theology and liturgy in favor of Latin Catholic theology and liturgy. The Church existed for its first millennium with two distinct approaches to theology (Eastern and Western), so anyone who tells you that such a communion is not possible simply does not acknowledge the historical reality.

What is the difference between “under” and “in communion with” Rome? That depends how one defines each term.

In the past we Byzantine Catholics lived with the reality that the two terms were interchangeable. This is slowly changing as Rome reexamines and rediscovers that Roman primacy does not need to equate with micromanagement. Pope John Paul II has a true respect and love for the Christian East and is teaching this to the Roman curia (even though some are kicking and screaming). I believe that Rome is in a slow process of divesting itself of many of the nonessential elements of papal authority. We can see this in her new respect to not just allow, but to almost insist, that the Eastern Churches in communion with her to function as they did before reestablishing communion. Not because Rome is giving them some sort of special permission, but because it is proper and just. Right now the progress is mostly in external stuff, but the internal theology has been planted and is growing in Rome.

Papal jurisdiction? Infallibility? All that stuff? This is where I believe that the Orthodox not in communion with Rome are incorrect. Near the end of the first century there was a schism in the Church at Corinth, one in which that Church kicked out some bishops and priests. Did they appeal to St. John the Evangelist, who was still alive and living nearby at Ephesus (much closer than Rome) to resolve the problem? No. They appealed to Clement, the Bishop of Rome, to resolve the matter. In his reply Pope Clement discussed the issue, issued judgment and ordered those involved to submit to their pastors. The historian Eusebius tells us that the Corinthians took this judgment from Rome so serious that they were still reading Pope Clement’s letter to them at every Sunday Divine liturgy over 75 years later. That is papal authority in focus and history is full of such examples, including examples where the Successor of Peter didn't wait to be asked before acting for the good of the Church in those early days.

Are we deluded to think about the papacy differently than the Roman Catholics do? No. We, having lived with both the excesses of Rome and the vacuum of authority in the East, are right to acknowledge and submit to papal authority. We call the West to divest the nonessentials. We call the East to examine herself and to realize that communion with Rome is necessary and that papal authority is more than the honor of being the eldest brother.

Quite a challenge.
Posted By: Halychanyn

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 09:48 PM

Esteemed Admin, et al:

So, does the sticking point boil down to one of "where do we draw the line?"

Allow me to ask this, however.

Is the Pope really the issue or does the problem run deeper into the Vatican apparatura?

Specifically, we are hearing news of an alleged "plot" by the Roman Curia and the MP to destroy the UGCC. It was apparently the action of the current Pope of meeting with our prelates and allowing himself to be photographed standing among them that apparently put an end to this.

I stress that these are only allegations and none of us will probably ever know the truth.

However, it does raise the point apparently made by His Holiness John XXIII when he was asked by a reporter, "How many Cardinals work with Your Holiness in the Roman Curia?"

The Pope replied, "About half of them."

Yours,

hal
Posted By: Administrator

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:04 PM

Hal,

It is my personal belief that Pope John XXIII was being very generous when he used used the term “half”. biggrin

I dismiss the “plot” allegations totally.

We know that the MP does not want to cede any territory and the creation of a patriarchate in Ukraine – even a Greek Catholic one – is a threat.

We also know that Rome has a great fear of offending the East. So, when the East complains about a Ukrainian patriarchate, Rome backs off any support of a patriarchate in Ukraine.

But there is progress here. Rome is not against a patriarchate in Ukraine because Rome doesn’t think it appropriate. Rome is choosing to delay it because it wishes good relations with Moscow and the other Eastern Patriarchates. Not quite the desired behavior but it is progress.

I believe that is all this uncertainty that has given rise to allegations of a MP/Rome plot to put down the UGCC.

Admin

PS: Anyone wishing to discuss issues not directly related to Eucharistic communion with Rome please start a new thread.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:14 PM

Dear Administrator,

Well, I'm going to praise you for your comprehensive and erudite post on this matter, if that's O.K. . . smile

I think what you've said is exactly what "communion with Rome" should mean and does mean if we, as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" be who we really are.

His Beatitude Lubomyr also insists on the term "Eucharistic Communion with Rome" and I remember the eye-brows that were raised when he said that here.

But there is no going around it.

It is up to us as EC's to live that "Eucharistic Communion with Rome" while being fully Orthodox in our faith and traditions.

This is also how Metropolitan Andrew and Patriarch Joseph and others saw our identity as EC's.

I would like to take this opportunity to especially thank the Administrator for taking the time from what is surely a very busy schedule to inspire us by sharing his understanding which is also that of the Church.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:17 PM

Dear Hal,

Most of that plot is of the UGCC's own making, the bishops and others I mean.

Patriarch Lubomyr would agree whole-heartedly with what the Administrator has said above. If we live those words, then everything else shall be ours as well as "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

If you or any Ukie want a patriarchate to be realized from the "top" (Pope) down, then we are still "Greek-Catholics under the jurisdiction of Rome."

It's time that we change ourselves by ourselves and for ourselves.

Alex
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:23 PM

Quote
Are we deluded to think about the papacy differently than the Roman Catholics do? No. We, having lived with both the excesses of Rome and the vacuum of authority in the East, are right to acknowledge and submit to papal authority. We call the West to divest the nonessentials. We call the East to examine herself and to realize that communion with Rome is necessary and that papal authority is more than the honor of being the eldest brother.
I'll join Orthodox Catholic with my Amen too!

When I see the tangled mess our modern society has made of reproductive ethics I rejoice in the clear and prophetic voice of the modern (and ancient) popes on these subjects.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:44 PM

DEar Dave,

Yes, good point!

It was Billy Graham who said: "When the pope speaks, the world listens - we don't have anyone like that in Protestantism."

Nor does, I might add sincerely, world Orthodoxy.

There's something about that Office that has resilience, continuity and forcefulness as a source of teaching doctrine.

Don't know what it is, but it's there.

Do you have any idea what it could be? wink

Alex
Posted By: Father Deacon Ed

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:50 PM

Just to weigh in with a couple of additional, rather meaningless, thoughts.

First, we must think of Rome a little differently than do our Roman brothers and sisters. Why? Because Rome is not our Patriarch! What we share in common is the papacy approving/appointing (pick your term) our bishops in the diaspora.

Second, I absolutely support the statments our esteemed Adminstrator made. I think they are salient and concise. But I think it is up to each Church to claim and live its own history and heritage. Part of what Rome has demanded of us is that we stand on our own two feet and be Churches in the fullest sense of the word.

Fr. Deacon Edward
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 10:56 PM

[I think what you've said is exactly what "communion with Rome" should mean and does mean if we, as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" be who we really are.]

Gee Alex, you seem to be living a double life where this 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' claim comes up. You say one thing here and the complete opposite in your answers regarding the same title in the Ukrainian Orthodox website you co author with a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.

Where do you really stand? Or does it depend upon where you are posting?

===============

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/capitalletters.htm


Answer: It is true that there are a number of Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests who insist on calling themselves "Orthodox Christians in union with Rome." This is however a term which is based on a fallacy and which therefore makes no sense, apart from the fact that it is also offensive to Orthodox Christians. To be an "Orthodox Christian" in the truest sense of the word is to be a member of the One, Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is not a part of this Church, due to a number of (new) doctrines it espouses, including those affecting the position of the Pope of Rome. Even if a Greek Catholic calls himself or herself an "Orthodox Christian," as is done in the Liturgy anyway, and even if he or she accepts the majority of Eastern positions on the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit etc., that does not mean that he or she really is an "Orthodox Christian" in the true sense of the word.


======================================


http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/hiver2004/union.htm


“Orthodox in communion with Rome:”
Trials and Tribulations of Eastern Catholics


Dr. Alexander Roman 

Eastern by ritual, Western by ecclesial jurisdiction, Eastern Catholics have historically been pulled in two directions by competing loyalties that continue to cause tension in their church identities and lives. With politics and cultural issues thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that they appear to be forever pondering what the future holds for what is a true complex of various, distinct perspectives on everything from liturgical issues to what really constitutes a “Particular Church” in union with Rome . . .

Even the issue of “union with Rome” can provoke numerous arguments that never do seem to get resolved. (If you doubt me, then join an internet Eastern Christian chat forum and see for yourself!)

One may go happily on one’s way talking about the ups and downs of Eastern Catholic “union with Rome” when someone breaks into the debate to say that “union” implies “subservience” and so “in communion with” should be used to avoid that implication.

Eastern Catholic discussion circles are also prone to develop their own sense of “political correctness” and Roman Catholic and Orthodox “intruders” can be rudely corrected in the way they innocently express themselves about the realities of Eastern Catholic life.

Thus, under the terms of such correctness, “Church” replaces “Rite.” In every which way, Eastern Catholics involved in such discussions wish to carefully distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholic West, while insisting they are “Orthodox” in all but the papacy.

And even with respect to the papacy, they have their own (Eastern) theological viewpoint that qualifies their relationship with the Pope in Rome. Some maintain they recognize him only as a “first among equals.” Others say he is only the court of last resort and when the primates of the Eastern Catholic churches ask him to step in. As in other respects, what Rome expects of Eastern Catholics is at variance with what some of their bishops and laity feel is actually the case.

Of course, one would find that the majority of Eastern Catholics, the people in the pews (oh my, now let’s not get started on the issue of PEWS!) are oblivious to any of this. They truly do see themselves as “Catholics” rather than as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” – in fact, the very idea of calling themselves “Orthodox” would suggest, to them, that they aren’t fully under Rome or fully “Catholic.”

Within the Eastern Catholics Churches, especially the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches, there are parishes which are truly very Eastern. In some cases, they are “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” in terms of their liturgical practices. Apart from the commemoration of the Pope of Rome, there is no other apparent distinguishing feature about them that would make a visitor to them suggest they are anything other than “Orthodox.”

And yet, this particular Eastern Catholic movement is not without its own pitfalls.

One of these is that the more “Eastern” they seem to become, the more likely that members of such parishes will eventually become formal members of Orthodox Churches (“definitely NOT in communion with Rome”).

It is, in a sense, inevitable that this would occur. Such Eastern Catholics would tend to have close relations with Orthodox priests and parishes (and monasteries, such as that of Jordanville, New York).

Soon, most of their spiritual “significant others” are, in fact, traditional Orthodox Christians. The beauty and detail of the Orthodox liturgical services draws them toward the Orthodox Church in a way that Eastern Catholic services, for all their efforts, simply do not. In fact, most Eastern Catholic parishes do not invest nearly as much time and effort in their liturgical lives while tolerating varying degrees of Westernization and Latinization.

The only thing that keeps them “Eastern Catholic” is a murky idea about a relationship with the Pope of Rome. And, in time, it becomes increasingly more difficult to “tune out” of the Orthodox charges of heresy against the Roman Catholic Church with the prime issue of the “Filioque” addition to the Creed taking front and centre stage.

And the efforts of some “Orthodox in communion with Rome” to effectively water down the jurisdictional and infallible universal claims of the papacy can also lead

Eastern Catholics to fully embrace Orthodoxy. In response to one Eastern Catholic’s contention that his Church recognizes the Pope only as “first among equals,” an Orthodox monastic of the Greek Church replied, “So do we!”

One can often come across Eastern Catholics who are therefore always teetering and tottering between their own church and where they really do wish to belong – to Orthodoxy proper.

Some of these would prefer to attend an Orthodox Church for liturgical services rather than suffer kneeling, pews and shortened services in Eastern Catholic parishes. Others have had bad experiences with other Eastern Catholics, being called “Russifiers” and other quaint locutions for their love of all things Orthodox.

The rebirth of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe has tended to make age-old Latinizations a matter of priority rather than something to be eventually gotten rid of. Latinizations there are today symbolic means of differentiating the Greek-Catholic Church from their old religious/national oppressor, the Russian Orthodox church.

It is true, of course, that historically the Russian Orthodox Church has used force in Eastern Europe in bringing “uniates” back into the (Russian) Orthodox fold. Part of this was an initial attitude of “respect” for the Ruthenian Greek-Catholics while “assisting” them in the process of ridding their spiritual lives of Latin practices (rosaries, stations of the Cross etc.) that were imposed by Latin national oppressors in a political attempt to Latinize and Polonize the people. And afterwards, the Russian Church simply moved in, often with force of arms (and not only in 1946) to impose on the Greek-Catholics another form of religious/cultural domination.

And so this could explain the actions of nationalistic Ukrainian Greek-Catholics as they nervously examine and critique the “Vostochnyk” (Easternizing) party of their Church. And woe to the long-bearded, three-bar Cross wearing Eastern Catholic priests that resemble the hated Russian “Batiushkas . . .”

From here, Eastern Catholics in North America have tended to move into a debate over how they can divest themselves from their ties to the Churches in the cultural homelands.

There are those who energetically propose a single, merged “Byzantine Catholic Jurisdiction” for North America – even with its own Patriarch. This jurisdiction would include all Ukrainians, Melkites and others – while “respecting” their cultural identities (that, unfortunately, tends to be viewed by these solely in terms of different ethnic foods and the like).

And the fact is that there are converts to Eastern Catholicism from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in North America who do want English liturgies and a more culturally neutral church life.

Traditional Roman Catholics, long the enemy of the very idea of “Eastern Catholic Churches” and married priests, now, more often than not, prefer to become Eastern Catholics where their need for high ritual (gone from the post-Vatican II RC Church) is, at least, satisfied. In the Eastern Catholic parishes, they have the best of “both” of their worlds – the beauty of ritual, even if non-Latin, AND the security in knowing they still are members of the “true Church.”

The tensions involved in Eastern Catholic church life was brought home to me during the consecration of the new Ukrainian Catholic bishop for Eastern Canada in July of last year.

The whole event seemed to have turned into an eccesial “tug of war” between His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr Husar and the papal nuncio.

The Ukrainian Catholic primate insisted that the consecration was his affair and that of the synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (in fact, two years before, the synod did choose the new bishop to replace the retired (and on that very day, reposed) Bishop Kyr Isidore Borecky - + memory eternal!).

But the papal nuncio kept reiterating the scenario where it was HE and he alone who contacted the new bishop and “convinced” him to lead the troublesome eparchy. The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Eastern Canada is probably the most “Ukrainian” and most “Eastern” at the same time, accepting the married priesthood and other traditions that have always been the mainstay of the Ukrainian Church.

But the Episcopal Candidate did choose to read quite Latin-sounding documents and oaths to the Pope and the like.

As to who won the tug of war, the jury is still out . . .

Vladyka Yurij of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada was present as a guest and he was enthusiastically greeted by His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar (and by everyone at the banquet later).

A bit of a tug of war developed between these two, as it turned out . . .

His Beatitude cordially greeted the Orthodox Hierarch and then talked about how we all needed to return to the unity of the Church in the time of St Volodymyr the Great.

Somehow I knew Vladyka Yurij wasn’t going to let that one by . . .

At the banquest, at his closing remarks, Vladyka Yurij revisited that comment by His Beatitude.

And, said Vladyka, “If we wish to return to the unity of the Church in the time of St Volodymyr the Great, I would suggest that we return to the unity of the Faith in his time . . .”

Sitting where I was, among several Ukrainian Catholic priests, including two friends, I immediately blurted out in the midst of the silence that enveloped the room just then, “Now that is my wonderful bishop! My wonderful bishop!”

One of the older priests turned to me with slightly bared teeth. “You are kidding, right?” he asked me in Ukrainian.

“Most certainly not!” I replied.

Another troublesome aspect of certain Eastern Catholics is that they sometimes tend not to take you at your word

===============


OrthoMan
Posted By: JoeS

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 11:09 PM

I simply sit back and shake my head. How can you be both same, distinct and different? Sounds like a bad dream.

JoeS

//What does “communion with Rome” mean?

It means that we have Eucharistic communion with Rome. It means that we accept her teachings as valid and submit to the authority of Peter.

It does not mean that we give up our Byzantine Orthodox theology and liturgy in favor of Latin Catholic theology and liturgy. The Church existed for its first millennium with two distinct approaches to theology (Eastern and Western), so anyone who tells you that such a communion is not possible simply does not acknowledge the historical reality.//
Posted By: djs

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/11/04 11:44 PM

Quote
I simply sit back and shake my head. How can you be both same, distinct and different? Sounds like a bad dream.
Sounds like the Persons of the Trinity. Sounds like the people in a marriage. Sounds like the Church.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:19 AM

[What does “communion with Rome” mean?]

It's your own 'code Of Canons Of The Eastern Church' that defines what being in 'communion with Rome' means. Somehow you all tend to ignore that fact -

Canon 43The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of theApostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of thecollege of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entireChurch on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) heenjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power inthe Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 451. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not onlyhas power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy ofordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them bywhich the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishopspossess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. 2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling theoffice (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is alwaysunited in communion with the other bishops and with the entireChurch; however, he has the right, according to the needs of theChurch, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, ofexercising this function. 3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 571. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression ofpatriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of theChurch. 2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church. 3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church musthave a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in aprincipal city inside its own territory from which the patriarchtakes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a mostgrave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 58Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degreeeverywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms ofprecedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

=========

Canon 921. The patriarch is to manifest hierarchical communion with theRoman Pontiff, successor of Saint Peter, through the loyalty,veneration and obedience which are due to the supreme pastor ofthe entire Church. 2. The patriarch must make a commemorationof the Roman Pontiff as a sign of full communion with him in theDivine Liturgy and divine praises according to the prescriptionsof the liturgical books and to see that it is done faithfully byall the bishops and other clerics of the Church over which hepresides. 3. It is to be the custom for the patriarch to visitthe Roman Pontiff and, according to the norms established especially for this, to send to him a report concerning the state ofthe Church over which he presides. Within a year of his electionand then often during his tenure in office, he is to make a visitto Rome to venerate the tombs of apostles Peter and Paul andpresent himself to the successor of Saint Peter in primacy overthe entire Church.

==========

Canon 1551. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the RomanPontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to thenorm of law. 2. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define theterritorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

Canon 1561. Within three months after episcopal ordination or, if already ordained a bishop, after the enthronement, the metropolitanis bound by the obligation to petition the pallium from the RomanPontiff, which is a sign of his metropolitan power and full communion of the metropolitan Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff. 2. Prior to the imposition of the pallium, the metropolitan cannot convoke the council of hierarchs or ordain bishops.

You can go through the entire Code Of Canons of your church at -

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM


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

OrthoMan
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 03:28 AM

Bob, thanks for correctly quoting Canon Law. Not sure there is an argument to follow, but I congratulate your quoting abilities.

Given the historical difficulties with Estonia vs. Moscow, Greece vs. Constantinople, I for one am glad we have some objective determination of primacy and know "who's on first", amongst other examples that can be cited.

Canon law is certainly not dogma nor theology and is most definitely subject to development according to orthopraxis. This law, as many have pointed out, is definitely flawed. I for one clamor louder than many on Rome's actions speficially related to the Ukrainian and Russian Catholics. But we'll get there. We've gotten a long way in the last 40 years via Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Orientale Lumen, etc.

We are in communion because we want to be, so get over it.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 03:54 AM

[We are in communion because we want to be, so get over it.]

Then quit complaining and claiming a freedom and independence that doesn't exist. And be the obedient servants to the 'Vicar Of Christ' you are expected to be by that very communion.

OrthoMan
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 03:54 AM

Well put, Diak.

I don't think anyone in Rome would imagine the current Eastern Code would work in a reunited Church. It's obviously an interim document.

Having said that, I don't reject the basic principles behind communion with Rome. (I did at one time but have made peace with the concept of a Petrine ministry in the Church.) I do think some changes could (and should) be made.

I also think once we get over the latinization thing and fully embrace our heritage, we could become "guinea pigs" for some revisions in the Code which would reflect a more authentic approach to the ancient canons. This could also become a demonstration of what ecclesial unity could be.
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:08 AM

OrthoMan,

Even in one of the darkest hours for the papacy when Pope Vigilius' reputation was exposed by Emperor Justinian for what it was--he really was a bit of a scoundrel...and I'm being nice smile --there was still a need expressed by the 5th Ecumenical Council to remain in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome. According to JND Kelly (Anglican):

[Justinian] then ordered the pope's name to be struck from the diptychs, making it clear, however, that he was severing communion with him
personally, not with the holy see.
Page 62 of the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes.

(The expression used was non sedem sed sedentem, "not the seat but the sitter." Remaining in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome was viewed as necessary despite the failings of its Patriarch.)

Certainly, there have been ups and downs for the Eastern Churches which have sought communion with Rome but preserving the unity of the whole Church with the Apostolic See is worth it, in our view.
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 11:41 AM

Quote
Then quit complaining and claiming a freedom and independence that doesn't exist.
Any brother in a family can complain on how he is treated by the elder brother. Anyone suffering from unjust treatment has not only the right but the obligation to admonish his brother.

The monks of Esphigmenou didn't like how they were treated by the EP, no? Neither did Christodolous? Estonia didn't like how it was treated by the MP? The KP? ROCOR? HOCNA? We can go on and on with other examples but the ludicrosity of that retort is apparent.


Quote
Then quit complaining and claiming a freedom and independence that doesn't exist. And be the obedient servants to the 'Vicar Of Christ' you are expected to be by that very communion.
To ours and Rome's credit in the last 40 years we have made immense strides in restoring tradition. We are trying to be just that according to the vision of Orientale Lumen and Slavorum Apostoli, Ut Unum Sint and Unitatis Redintegratio. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:23 PM

Dear Orthoman,

You are right.

I should not be able to think out loud and develop my thoughts about religion as I grown spiritually.

That is simply not on.

In actual fact, I don't see where the contradiction in what I've written is all about.

If someone asked me who I am spiritually, I would say "Ukrainian Catholic."

Not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" since I think, as you would agree, that would prove confusing.

And Orthodox would object to any church using that title formally.

The article in question arose as a result of a dispute in our community over a prayerbook to be published by the UGCC as for "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

I objected to that title and I led the fight to stop it from being published that way. It wasn't.

Do you object to me having done that?

I believe, as I've written elsewhere on that site, that Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox have much in common and should try to always emphasize what they do have in common, work together etc.

Why didn't you quote those articles? Not there yet?

But I believe, as EC's and ORthodox in our community believe, that we should not mix "beans with cabbage" when it comes to terminology.

Also, aren't you the one who is always most vocal about decrying so many Ukrainian Orthodox as "uncanonical" and like the SSPX? (the UOC-KP etc.).

That position of yours would be quite offensive to Ukrainian CAtholics AND all Ukrainian Orthodox, including the ones in union with Constantinople.

Quoting something out of context is simply not on, Big Guy.

You should learn to have some respect for EC's and encourage them when they want to become as Eastern as possible, even to the point of calling themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

The Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko wrote of this in his Ukrainian-language studies and said how sad it was when the "UKrainian Uniates forgot that, in their essence, they were Orthodox."

And Met. Ohienko was no friend of the Uniates!

And what about when Orthodox jurisdictions formally called themselves "Greek-CAtholic?" Perhaps we should get upset too?

As for my work on the site you quote from, they know I am Ukrainian Greek-Catholic who is sympathetic to Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

And whenever they so wish, they may eject me from that site and refuse to have anything to do with me.

But they haven't after all these years.

And when, once or twice, someone wrote in to demand I be removed, they all came to my defence and asked that I remain - even after I submitted my resignation.

I understand where you are coming from and I know that for EC's to use the term "Orthodox" affects the issue of "Orthodox faith" in the first instance.

As I've said before, so I say now, you are right.

If my Orthodox friends tell me the title is offensive, I take them at their word.

If you feel I've been two-faced on the matter, well, you've said that before.

I don't understand your vituperance towards me, however.

The person divided is really you, Sir.

You say you are my friend, and yet you manage to write what you have just now.

I find that unacceptable. I found Jennifer's viciousness toward me, for that is what it was, unacceptable.

And why should I remain where I'm still an object of attack and derision?

I'll stay where I'm appreciated which is "Ukrainian Orthodoxy."

I forgive you though.

Don't go away mad. It is I who have learned my lesson and don't have the nerves to put up with this nonsense any longer.

Nor do I feel I should. Sometimes the deeply unChristian anger or other negative stuff that comes across is simply something that is a total turnoff.

Good-bye to you and to this forum of wonderful people.

This time, I've no reason to return.

Alex
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:44 PM

Quote
I should not be able to think out loud and develop my thoughts about religion as I grown spiritually.
Alex,

If one does a search on the CINEAST archives (94-98) and there may even be some old posts here that may have survived the server crash, one will find many evidences of my spiritual growth. Who I am now is different from what I was then. Yet I am the same person.

I am grateful to the Administrator for providing this place for all of us to grow spiritually (in whatever direction we're led). Part of that growth for me is to have you here...for you have been a real encouragement. I think many others would say the same. Hoping you'll re-consider and share your journey with us.

In Christ,

Dave
Posted By: Andrew J. Rubis

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:45 PM

Dear Alex,

In order to be part of the conciliar Church (Rome and those in communion with her are conciliar, right? wink ), one must sit at the table and stand around the altar with the brethren.

You will be back (again wink ) because your heart is in the conciliar Eastern Church.

With love in Christ,
Andrew
Posted By: Gaudior

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:45 PM

Dear Alex...

Enough, already. You know full well that no one on this forum condones what Orthodoc and Jennifer have said. You are respected by everyone on this forum save a few.

Quitting dramatically is not the answer...stay, and work out your issues with them, or, allow them the opportunity to bury themselves so deeply that it is clear to all who is to blame and who is not.

Gaudior, who wishes you would remain...
Posted By: Gaudior

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:51 PM

Dear Orthoman:

Enough, already. Didn't your mother teach you that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?

Gaudior, who resents that you insist on calling yourself Orthodox when you speak with such lack of charity.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:51 PM

Alex,

I will not ask you to stay becasue I think that after you cool down you will remain on your own. I must say I am a bit surprised that you are surprised at Bob's actions as they are quite representative of his behavior here and at oc.net. He has been warned numerous times and offers the same lame excuses for his behavior. He will argue for hours about his right to use the title Catholic but then deny us the right to the title Orthodox. I am tired of his double standard and mean spirited posting. He has offended his greatest defender here and still probably doesn't get it. I would urge you to stay, hold him accountable, and don't allow him to bully you or anyone else here.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 02:58 PM

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

I'll think about it, but I'll take a break and work on the other site as I've neglected it for too long.

Perhaps I'll write an article on Bob - (just joking!)

I don't know why I get hit with stuff - perhaps it's just because I'm such a wonderful person, do you suppose? smile

I think everyone has had enough out of me for a while.

And did you know that when I read your posts, there seems to be an aureole surrounding my computer screen?

Or it feels that way . . .

Have a great weekend and talk to you in December!

Alex
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 03:44 PM

Alex, you know that everyone, including Andrew and Fr. Deacon are right.

We are living in a new era of the Conciliar Church, and it is terra nova for many of us. The old boundaries of Uniatism are beginning to crumble, and that is making some very uncomfortable.

In fact, everyone is right about Bob's posts here. Nothing has changed in his polemic, tone or demeanor the two years I have been on this Forum with him around, with the possible exception of eroding charity.

On the other hand, the spiritual growth of about everyone else besides him who has been here in that time is apparent. I say that as an admonishing brother who has his own grievious faults. I certainly know I am not tactful on this Forum (usually not, BTW), and I ask forgiveness from any and all I have offended. B

But posting strictly to uphold tired rhetoric, heat up ecclesiastical debate, insult, divide, and incite polemic which has debatable basis in praxis and lacks charity is his established modus operandi.

While I am not for censorship, I believe there comes a time when thresholds are crossed and some should be permanently banned. I think the time has come for consideration of that for Bob by the forum poobas. Not because I nor anyone can't hold our own with him, which is not a problem or excessively difficult, but because too many other people get hurt in the process.

If you don't stay here, please by all means go full speed ahead with the Unicorne site. I also maintain many friendships with my Orthodox friends, and contacts in Orthodox parishes I used to frequent. All can take me for who I am and who I want to be. You've dealt with worse than this, I know.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 03:59 PM

Dear Diak,

Yes, you are right.

However, I have no wish to leave the other site and, for reasons I'll make private, my continued being there has already been put into jeopardy as a result of what has been written about me here.

I can't believe these things can go on, but they do.

In any event, I need to stay off here and repair bridges elsewhere, if that is at all possible now.

Alex
Posted By: Jennifer

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:08 PM

My former RC pastor is trying valiantly to save my soul by trying to convince me of the necessity of communion with Rome.

His most convincing argument, IMHO, is that communion with Rome brings universality to the Church. That communion with Rome allows a Church to look outward.

The best way to figure out what something means is to look at how it actually works in real life. Canon law and theology can't fully explain it. And I think in real life, the Orthodox Churches (and I'll probaby be in trouble for saying this) seem to need someone to exercise primacy. As a potential Orthodox convert, I won't go so far as to say they need Rome as it currently exists today to exercise primacy.

Communion with Rome gives the Churches in communion a single voice on issues such as abortion and artificial birth control.

If I've once again put my foot in my mouth here, I apologize.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:08 PM

[If someone asked me who I am spiritually, I would say "Ukrainian Catholic."]

Hasn't the Pope denied you the right to identify yourself as such? Hasn't he reserved that title for the 1st class Catholics who are western but reside in Ukraine?

[Good-bye to you and to this forum of wonderful people.

This time, I've no reason to return.]

Alex, you have said that so many times in the past that no one really takes you seriously. You're like the little boy who cried 'wolf' one to many times.

[That position of yours would be quite offensive to Ukrainian CAtholics AND all Ukrainian Orthodox, including the ones in union with Constantinople.]

That position of mine is held by all canonical Orthodox Churches worldwide including the Patriarch of Constantinople. It's only the Ukrainians (both Orthodox & Greek Catholic) that think, for the sake of Ukrainian nationalism,
they can do whatever they want and forsake the canons of both churches when it doesn't comply with their objectives. Just reading the posts in this website makes that quite evident. And yet they cannot understand why both Rome and Orthodoxy is hesitant to grant them a Patriarchate!

[You should learn to have some respect for EC's and encourage them when they want to become as Eastern as possible, even to the point of calling themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome."]

Where is the respect in allowing any group to have delusional ideas about their very identity? A title that was originally coined as a deceptive means to confuse people into believing they we still something they were no longer.

[You say you are my friend, and yet you manage to write what you have just now.]

Alex, you are constantly contradicting yourself. I have brought that out to you many times before. This time I have given examples. Besides a real friend is a person who knows your faults but likes you anyway!

[Not "Orthodox in communion with Rome" since I think, as you would agree, that would prove confusing.

And Orthodox would object to any church using that title formally.]

Yet that hasn't stopped you from using that very title off and on when you post. If you do a search on your ident and the subject 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' you will come up with five pages totaling ninety eight times you use the title. Here are but a few of those posts -
======

[4/12/04: The term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the original name for the Belarusyan and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians whose bishops signed the Union of Brest in 1596.

It is coming back today as part of a return to our EC heritage.]

[05/03/04: The "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folk (of which I think I'm one) attempt to dress this up in different terminology and as close as possible to the Orthodox understanding.]

[07/26/04: Please remember that the "Orthodox not yet in communion with Rome" consider "Orthodox already in communion with Rome" to be excommunicated and not "Orthodox" at all!]

01/09/04: [Dear Daniel,

Actually, I'm "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

If you think that title is absurd, see the Administrator about it . . . if you dare . . .]

=======

[The article in question arose as a result of a dispute in our community over a prayerbook to be published by the UGCC as for "Orthodox in communion with Rome."]

The question you are answering does not state that -

Spelling of Terms
Question: Concerning the question of terminology used by Ukrainian Catholics. Do they call themselves Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, or orthodox Christians as referred to in the Liturgies of Ss. John and Basil? Is your Church one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, or is it a one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? I find it confusing when words are not proper nouns but are capitalized, like Orthodox faith instead of orthodox faith, or Polish cream and polish cream.


[Also, aren't you the one who is always most vocal about decrying so many Ukrainian Orthodox as "uncanonical" and like the SSPX? (the UOC-KP etc.).]

Yes. And as I have already stated, a postition that is held by worldwide Orthodoxy.

The subject of this discussion is what it means to be in communion with Rome. The responses are anything but united in their replies. When I point out that it is the 'Code Of Canons Of The Eastern Chruch' that identifies what it means to be in communion with Rome it is dismissed by some. Most of you are in denial that such canons exist or should be followed. How can you change something you deny exists until it's pointed out to you?

OrthoMan
Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:29 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Jennifer:
My former RC pastor is trying valiantly to save my soul by trying to convince me of the necessity of communion with Rome.

His most convincing argument, IMHO, is that communion with Rome brings universality to the Church. That communion with Rome allows a Church to look outward.

The best way to figure out what something means is to look at how it actually works in real life. Canon law and theology can't fully explain it. And I think in real life, the Orthodox Churches (and I'll probaby be in trouble for saying this) seem to need someone to exercise primacy. As a potential Orthodox convert, I won't go so far as to say they need Rome as it currently exists today to exercise primacy.

Communion with Rome gives the Churches in communion a single voice on issues such as abortion and artificial birth control.

If I've once again put my foot in my mouth here, I apologize.
Jennifer

For fairly obvious reasons, since you and I have clashed in the past wink , I have refrained from posting - but here , if you would permit it ,I would like to offer a little advice.

It seems to me now that you are being pulled badly by some very well meaning people and the tensions that they are creating within you are not making your attempt at discernment as to where the Father wishes you to be, any easier.

On one side you have an RC priest whom you respect - on the other side you have a large number of people , many of whom are Orthodox Christians and you are in the middle - being bombarded with advice and pressure from them all.

Take some time out from the Internet - don't read so much , say a few short prayers and allow God to speak to you. It may take a while - but He will.

We will be here should you wish to return and talk with us.
No-one here will pressurise you.

Be at peace.

God be with you.

Anhelyna
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:33 PM

Dear Orthoman,

Well, with friends like you, no enemies are needed!

I'm guilty as charged.

As for not being taken seriously when I say I won't come back here, that now is quite out of my hands (I'm not at liberty to say why).

But I take that as a challenge, Bob.

As for the nationalism thing, if you can come up with citations that show that there is an Orthodox Church today that ISN"T nationalistic, canonical or not, that perhaps would make the argument you advance a bit more credible.

It is really that the Ukies and some others aren't allowed to express their national ideals as a result of imperial domination by certain states that used Orthodoxy (and RCism) to dominate them. That too is hard reality.

In any event, I don't really blame you. You are following your conscience - which is why I have always defended you here.

You might want to do another search for all the times I really have defended you here and put it up along side the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" citations.

That should bring an element of balance to the matter.

But I really must go now to put out some other fires.

All the best, Bob, and never mind about this!

I guess it was a matter of time before I'd compromise myself to the point of no return (to the forum or anywhere else).

Alex
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:40 PM

Bob, that last line was unfortunately devoid of anything but polemic.

Quote
When I point out that it is the 'Code Of Canons Of The Eastern Chruch' that identifies what it means to be in communion with Rome it is dismissed by some. Most of you are in denial that such canons exist or should be followed. How can you change something you deny exists until it's pointed out to you?
What denial? What? Where? Who? I actually congratulated you on your ability to quote from Canon Law. Who has denied the existence of those? Give us some names and dates. YOU CAN"T DO IT. Move along, it doesn't get you anywhere here.

You've ignored in substance all of the responses to your rhetoric. Who here doesn't know that law exists? NOONE. Who here is even considering taking you seriously when you have to slash and burn your way through arguments? NOONE.

It's you who are taking the most ultra-Scholastic approach I have ever seen, from any Latin or otherwise, by ONLY taking the legal letter of the law without literlly any consideration whatsoever for praxis, economia, and development of doctrine. Read Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Ecclesiorum. Listen to our bishops. You don't, won't, and don't want to, that's plain and simple.

I'll say it again. We are in communion because we want to be. That's it, plain and simple. We know there are problems, but we also know we are covering new ground in reclaiming our authentic traditions.

Just pray for us and quit bashing us.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 04:53 PM

Dear Jennifer,

Before I take my leave of absence from here for obvious reasons wink , I just wanted to say that I was wrong to have been the way I was toward you.

Our friend, Brendan the Navigator, was right to come here and let me know that.

He is not only a great Orthodox Christian, a concerned human being and a wonderful support (as he was always for me when he was here), but a very erudite person.

I was a bit miffed at him for sticking up for you and I shouldn't have been. But he knows how emotional I can get. wink

I just wanted to say that everyone here supports you in WHATEVER decision you make, simply because it will be YOUR decision TO make with God - as Anhelyna has said.

And I promise not to try and give you a Slavic-sounding name in future . . . unless you want one, of course!

Forgive me, as I can be a real piece of work at times when I should be otherwise.

And if you are speaking with Bob Orthoman . . . be careful! smile smile

God bless you, Counselor!

Please say hello to the Navigator when you speak to him next!

Over and out,

Alex
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 05:13 PM

Dear Alex:

I knew and I know you are such a gentleman! wink

(Didn't you wish to have Brendan here instead of Bob, the Orthoman? :p )

Amado
Posted By: Jakub.

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 06:05 PM

Boy,

I can agree with all on many points, however, being a Latin of a certain sort, I highly wish that nobody withdraw from the table of discussion here. I choose to remain a member of the other site in memory of a friend who reached out to me in true charity, there also is a few others there that I will not name, but are of the same cloth. I will just choose a little more wisely on topics & remarks, just as I try to do here, but our weaknesses do appear at times.

If needed I will offer my other cheek, but will not retaliate in anger, only in charity, which will overcome the harshness.

Forgiveness is 70 X 70......

james
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 06:16 PM

Jakub, how right you are and how often I allow my head to get wrapped around heated arguments and "virtual yelling". 70 X 70, indeed, let us all forgive and ask forgiveness.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 06:26 PM

[What denial? What? Where? Who? I actually congratulated you on your ability to quote from Canon Law. Who has denied the existence of those? Give us some names and dates. YOU CAN"T DO IT. Move along, it doesn't get you anywhere here.]

You deny either their existence or importance by not referencing them when defining what being in communion with Rome means to your churches. They were established by Rome to define exactly what being in communion with with the 'Holy See' means. Why are they never referenced when questions like this come up?

[Who here is even considering taking you seriously when you have to slash and burn your way through arguments? NOONE.]

If that were true then neither you or anyone would not be calling for my ouster but ignoring my posts.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 06:34 PM

Dear Orthoman,

FYI, I don't believe anyone has called for your ouster from here.

I'm only calling for your apology in Christ.

Alex
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/12/04 06:34 PM

Bob, You still haven't honestly answered any of the questions or made sensible responses. When have we denied the existence of the CCEO? You have dodged the answer.

Your ouster would not be called for if you would communicate in a manner of brotherly dialogue, and not diatribe. I did not call for it, only mentioned the admins may "consider" (my exact word) it since many get offended by your posts here.

I frankly don't care and will continue to defend my church and my friends.

Your bishops and even patriarchs seem capable of that brotherly dialogue, even to the point of the EP recently reaffirming the renunciation of the anathemas of 1965.

Your retort indicates your lack of ability in engaging in any form of objective discussion.

You have dodged every answer on this thread which objectively question your Orthodox churches when you openly accuse others. You have failed to answer nearly every question put to you here.

We have answered every question put to us here.

Quote
You deny either their existence or importance by not referencing them when defining what being in communion with Rome means to your churches. They were established by Rome to define exactly what being in communion with with the 'Holy See' means. Why are they never referenced when questions like this come up?
You referenced them, and then accused us for denying their existence. We asked to you demonstrate how we have denied their existence when we too cite them.

Simple question which you won't answer. You also should perhaps study your Orthodox writers to get a better grip on the relation of praxis, economia, and legalistic fixations which you seem to have. No circular, polemical or rhetorical answers, just straight for once.
Posted By: iconophile

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 12:08 AM

Matthew: to get back to your original argument, do you believe that a Catholic can be holy? Or a Protestant? Or are you of the belief that sanctity is only possible within Orthodoxy? Can a non-Orthodox Christian even go to heaven? Do you think, say, St Francis, who displayed supernatural traits was demon-possessed, like the ROCOR site I once visited?
Answering these questions would be helpful to all of us.
And Alex, you really need to chill out; you take this stuff way too hard. I mean really, yet another dramatic exit? Those of us who really count like you, isn't that enough? smile
Posted By: Menkalinan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 01:32 AM

Well, this is quite nice for one as sheltered as I.

Such rhetoric!

Dear me, I shall have to keep up with this! By the way, Orthoman, I personally don't like the harsh way you speak about the faith and way I have chosen to believe (I am a convert, in fact). But, I am not going to be angered at you.

You see, my family works in much the same way as this thread and discussion, though the words in the past have been much worse, and arguments have seldom been this deep and well worded. We had problems with each other, and we had no problems letting each other know we had problems, because being as close as we were, we had friction.

But a difference I see here as opposed to my family, is there is no dinner table. After many arguments, my parents forced us to eat at the table with each other. We were forced to live with each other, despite our differences, and despite our ire with each other.

Sound familiar? God works in mysterious ways, I guess.

Through the harsh words you have chosen, I see why and how you think, and can make a much better argument for it. Thank you for the chance to further myself in my spiritual growth, though, it may sadden you to hear it, I am sure I will not become orthodox because of your arguments. My influences are a number of Byzantine Ruthenian mentors including, but not limited to, of a Priest, a Deacon, two discerning vocations (I am one myself, though not of my mentors, that would be just the pinnacle of egomania) a Lector, and the entire congregation.

But, Orthoman, I'm sorry to say I don't know if we can have dinner.
Posted By: byzanTN

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 01:52 AM

Quote
Originally posted by Menkalinan:
Well, this is quite nice for one as sheltered as I.

Such rhetoric!

You get used to it after awhile. They have actually been worse than this, at times. This is really kind of mild. You can only remain sheltered for so long, and then it ends. biggrin But do keep in mind that they are basically good people.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 02:22 AM

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say I have indeed "chilled out!"

The Administrator warned me to limit my posting to about five per day - I have repeatedly ignored his warning, not deliberately perhaps, but allowed myself to continue on.

And I have failed to be a responsible poster yet again, ignoring the Administrator's repeated advice on this very matter.

On second thought, I can't say that Bob Orthoman is wrong in his assessment of me.

It's just that I now accept that assessment.

I reacted in anger when I shouldn't have or at least should have expressed it in a way that was not "giving as good as I got."

But I do tend to attract some of the anger that inevitably develops on any forum.

For whatever reason . . .

And I now accept that I can't handle it and make a mess of things each and every time it happens.

For that reason alone, and not because of Orthoman or Jennifer or any other myriad excuses I've made in the past, for that very real reason alone, I'm done posting - period.

Life was very good when I wasn't posting some time ago and when I was bugging the Administrator with my long PM's on various issues, I proceeded to ask his permission to post on a trial basis.

He has been more than patient with me and I'm sure I've worn out the welcome wagon, although he's too much of a gentleman to say so (although when he does say so, you know that you've really crossed the line!).

I just can't handle the emotions that develop in me on the forum - just can't.

I've lots to do in terms of church work that keeps me busy. What I do here, which is of my own making, just doesn't relate to much that the New Testament would define as positive in that respect! wink

Orthoman did not end my sojourn here - my good sense has.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave by making that point.

I apologise to the Administrator for my behaviour here and for my disobedience of his directives that we agreed to before I resumed posting.

As an official lurker, I hope to continue to learn from this Forum and wish everyone here the very best.

God bless you all,

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 04:13 AM

Diak:

All I know is that when I make statements that you and others would take as contrary, I usually back them up both here and elsewhere with references. If you have answered all my claims, then where are all the references to back up all your counter claims? Must be why I missed them.

I notice in your profile you list yourself as a Kievan Catholic. What the hell is a Kievan Catholic? I thought you lived in California. You state on more than one occassion that you are in communion with the pope by choice but I'm restricted from referring to you as a p**** Catholic with threat of being banned from this site once again.

You, as well as others, have stated to back up your claims to being 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome', that you have been instructed by the pope to return to your ancestral traditions and practices. If you are so Orthodox and free and self governing, then why did it take the pope to instruct you to initiate the change? Why didn't you all do it on your own long ago? Are you implying you can't do anything without the popes ok or that you are really not as Orthodox as you claim without the popes permission to be so?

Now, once again my honesty and directness has caused havoc. Especially my accusations regarding Alex being contrary in his posts. Especially those regarding the 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' issue. To back up my accusation regarding this matter I once again gave a website address and dates of posts Alex made which were in opposition to what he was claiming somewhere else. And, once again rather than being proved wrong, I have been accused of being rude, crude, etc. I never apologize for telling the truth. If you don't believe it's the truth then prove me wrong by giving me some facts to back up your disagreements.

Now I don't know of any issue regarding Orthodoxy I haven't addressed except maybe Alex's question on nationalism within Orthodoxy. Yes, there is nationalism within Orthodoxy also. Especially amongst the Greeks and of course once again the Ukrainians. It seems the Ukrainians are united in one aspect. Which is they have no direct loyality to pope or patriarch which I have already stated. If they don't like what either says they will ignore it or do what they want. Examples being the UGC's calling Cardinal Husar patriarch in spite of the pope denying them a patriarchate. And, of course the UOC-KP electing a defrocked married bishop patriarch of a self proclaimed autocephalous church. A church which is recognized by no one including Rome & Constantinople as being canonical. It seems that the only ones that recognize them as such are other Ukrainians.

It seems that I too need a rest from this site.


OrthoMan
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 11:56 AM

Bob,

As you've mentioned me by name in your post above, I wanted to respond.

That the pope has told EC's to return to their Eastern roots is a positive, not a negative thing.

It shows, contrary to much Orthodox opinion, that Rome is not hell-bent on Latinization. Indeed, historically we did not receive ONE single Latinization from Rome, but from the Roman Catholic countries under which EC's lived.

Nationalism is not just among the Greeks and the Ukrainians, as you've said.

Great Russian chauvinism, something that goes well beyond nationalism, is central to the Russian Orthodox Church. That is so evident in the ROC's life, and I'm not saying it is such a bad thing, however, when it denies the rights of other groups to self-determination, it is a bad thing.

Admit it or not, it is there. Perhaps you are not a reader of Russian. If you were, you would be better acquainted with the ROC.

As for your charge that I've said one thing on one site and another on another site, I deny that.

EC's, in the main, would NEVER formally refer to their churches, by way of title, as "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Perhaps there are a few such parishes. But this would NEVER be accepted in the UGCC and it would constitute an offense to Ukrainian Orthodox and others, to be sure.

That is my point, here and everywhere, that I still affirm.

However, EC's DO and always HAVE used the term "Orthodox" and in the Liturgy especially. I know of one Ukr. Orthodox Metropolitan who referred to the UGCC as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and acknowledged that this was our historic title soon after the Union of Brest.

The point is, and it is unresolved, how can we be as Orthodox as possible and in communion with Rome. How can we be "Orthodox" and "Catholic" at the sam time, in other words? There is the matter of giving offense to Orthodox, but I've come to realize of late that nomatter what we do, we constitute an offense to many Orthodox.

I don't know the answer, we're discussing it. I, like other EC's, would prefer not to offend the Orthodox, but we will anyway, it would seem.

While there are limits, as I've outlined in articles on UO, I see NOTHING wrong with EC's using the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" amongst themselves - taking into account also there are many EC's who would balk at using the term "Orthodox" as this reminds them of Russian Orthodox imperialism under soviet communism, religious and cultural imperialism.

As you refuse to acknowledge Russian chauvinism, it is no use continuing with that, is there?

You yourself say you are an "Orthodox Catholic" which you have every right to do as this is the original title of the Eastern Christians.

For us who accept this name, it means the same as "Orthodox in communion with Rome." For indeed, the early Church knew of no other Orthodox Christian.

Yes, there is a schism between the Churches that changes perspectives on the matter of primacy.

As for the UOC-KP and the non-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox, they are what the Russian Orthodox Church made them.

If the Moscow Patriarchate, which operates very much like a medieval papacy, would have allowed a real self-determination of the Ukrainian Orthodox (and your contention that the UOC-MP is such a formation is simply an opinion that is problematic), that situation would not exist today.

Conversely, the ROC wants to have it both ways. The ROC declared its patriarchate against the wishes of the EP and then just hung on until Orthodoxy finally acknowledged its status - as did other national ORthodox Churches (there is no such thing as an Orthodox Church that isn't a "national Church").

Yet, Ukrainians are not allowed to do the same and follow suit in the same manner.

As for Filaret, there were other Patriarchs of the UOC-KP before him who were equally despised by Russian Orthodoxy - no matter who it would be, he would be despised by the ROC.

If we cannot see the issue of chauvinism and imperialism via the church in that, then we will agree to disagree.

Your idea of the "truth" is one which does not go beyond the interpretive prism of what you acknowledge it to be.

I'm not saying that mine isn't.

All I'm saying is that on a forum like this, we all come with our views of the world.

And conversation is only possible if we agree to respect one another's views. We are all open to error. We are all here to contribute to a deeper understanding of issues.

But without respect of one another, we cannot hold civil discourse.

And that, my friend, is where you have erred. You have erred not in your devotion to Orthodoxy and Orthodox faith.

You have erred in an entirely personal matter which you will not acknowledge.

And that means that discourse, real discourse, cannot be had with you.

I am so sorry about that.

Alex
Posted By: Gaudior

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 12:40 PM

Dear Orthoman,

Rudeness is not any less rude if it communicates true facts among its ravings.

Kindly stop giving Orthodoxy a bad name by spewing invective.

Gaudior, who reminds you that no one is going to want to grow up to be like the foul tempered old man that you show yourself as. Let others see the icon of Christ in you, and perhaps your words will carry weight without recourse to statements like "What the hell is..."
Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 01:07 PM

Quote
And conversation is only possible if we agree to respect one another's views. We are all open to error. We are all here to contribute to a deeper understanding of issues.

But without respect of one another, we cannot hold civil discourse.
This comment is oh so very very true - but I would also add something to it .

As well as respecting one another's views we must also be courteous .

There has been a sad lack of courtesy on the part of some posters recently - not just on this thread - but elsewhere also.

Anhelyna
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/13/04 01:20 PM

Bob, it's simple. Kievan Catholic is a Catholic of the Kievan tradition. That's not hard, and a feeble attempt to remove jurisdictional and nationalistic barriers. I feel it is a much more descriptive term for myself than the ubiquitous "Byzantine Catholic" of which I am somewhat critical. The bottom line is it is simply a matter of personal preference which I hope one would respect instead of froth as you just responded with. As an historical note, the legitimate Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv, Mikhail Rahoza, entered into communion with Rome in 1596 and I honor his memory and vision.

I don't know where you got California from. Visited but never lived there. I'm just a hayseed Okie who ended up one state north of his home state. Several on the Forum have been to my house (and some have lived to tell about it). smile

What counter claims? You still havent't answered the questions. When did we ever deny the existence of the CCEO? Cite one, just one, only one, example on this Forum when ANYONE claimed to have denied the existence of the CCEO. Just one. I don't want any circular excuse, just an historical citation. That's all. That was your accusation. Back it up.

Nor have you addressed the fact that law is neither dogma, can be modified through praxis, nor is it theology. We have remanded you to such documents as Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Dignitas, Slavorum Apostili, Orientalium Ecclesiorum, which you have outwardly discarded. The guidance from the US Catholic Bishops Conference regarding Eastern Churches.

You've been quite too scholastic, methinks, to discard the praxis and episcopal guidance to fixate on the law. One without the other is meaningless. This is not Latin or Orthodox, but reality.

Your 'honest and directness' still hasn't answered the questions that have been asked in a direct manner. We've answered all the questions put to us. You don't have to like those answers, but there they are.

To continue to educate you and answer your questions, Bob, from the turn of the 19th century such luminaries as Metropolitan Sheptytsky, Cyril Korlovesky, Exarch Leonid Federov, Nicholas Charnetsky, Nicholas Tolstoy, and later Maximos IV, Maximos V, Elias Zoghby, Isidore Boretcky, and many more were actively working for the restoration of orthodox tradition within the Greek Catholic churches.

This all generations before Vatican II, and the current Pontiff. So drop the whole idea that the return to orthodoxy is some Pontifical whim. Anyone with a basic idea of sociology knows what the psychological effects of minority do to identity. Sometimes it isn't pretty.
We have been in an identity vise between the Latins and the Orthodox, and we are coming out, a process that went into fuller steam during the pontificate of Leo XIII.

Shall we keep going into the specifics regarding your unanswered questions? In the interest of brevity I will only cite the most recent example from this thread. Your admonition for us to "quit complaining" was answered by a simple question.
Quote
The monks of Esphigmenou didn't like how they were treated by the EP, no? Neither did Christodolous? Estonia didn't like how it was treated by the MP? The KP? ROCOR?...
which you never answered. Orthodoxy has its problems, too.

Once again the bottom line is (1) we are in communion because we want to be and (2) we will be faithful to our Orthodox heritage (as that is the mother church of our origin). That will entail love, patience, and charity on our side and education, love, patience, and charity on the side of our Latin brothers.

Forgive us for being Eastern and being in communion with Rome. Just forgive us, pray for us, and let it go. We are not going away. We are reclaiming our heritage and stepping into the orientale Lumen.

We have a right to exist, which is recognized by your Orthodox Balamand Agreement, and many of your bishops such as Vsevelod and Kallistos Ware firmly believe that.
Posted By: Alice

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/14/04 02:47 AM

Quote
Once again the bottom line is (1) we are in communion because we want to be and (2) we will be faithful to our Orthodox heritage (as that is the mother church of our origin). That will entail love, patience, and charity on our side and education, love, patience, and charity on the side of our Latin brothers.

Forgive us for being Eastern and being in communion with Rome. Just forgive us, pray for us, and let it go. We are not going away. We are reclaiming our heritage and stepping into the orientale Lumen.
...and may God bless you all! smile

Your Orthodox sister in Christ,
Alice
Posted By: Diak

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/14/04 04:40 AM

And may God bless you, and the Holy Theotokos, the holy St. Nektarios, and all the angels and saints always intercede for you! Doxa Theou!
Posted By: Menkalinan

Re: What does "Communion with Rome" mean? - 11/14/04 06:08 AM

Amen!
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum