www.byzcath.org

Recent interview with Fr. Taft

Posted By: Jaya

Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/01/13 12:11 PM

"Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians" - Recent interview with Fr. Taft. Article dated 5/1/13:

Catholic World Report
Posted By: Jaya

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/01/13 12:14 PM

Hmmm...I guess I didn't do that right, as the link doesn't seem to work. I'll paste it here, and see if that works:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...en_orthodox_and_catholic_christians.aspx
Posted By: likethethief

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/01/13 06:08 PM

Quote
Catholic World Report had the recent privilege of asking Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ for his perspective on current Orthodox-Catholic relations.


I'm always glad to hear what Fr Taft has to say, and to see him in the "news" outside of academia.
Posted By: ajk

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/02/13 06:39 AM

I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/02/13 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.


However, as Miller himself points out, Fr. Taft is not the only eccesiologist on the block. But Fr. Taft is learned enough to understand that even an ever so slightly ultramontanist ecclesiology post Vatican 2 tilt will derail any progress in ecumenical dialogue between the Church of Rome and the other Apostolc, Catholic Churches of Orthodoxy. The prime issue was, is and shall remain reaching consensus among the ancient churches as to defining the role of the primus.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/02/13 02:44 PM

Indeed, it would take many Miller's to fill just one of Archimandrite Robert's shoes.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/02/13 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

So, we can add Fr. Taft to the list of those who "do not instruct their people adequately and update them"?

Or is Mr. Miller "One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment...permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives... who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of [non-]Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the []Orthodox to read."?

Why is someone "whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite" calling Fr. Taft "Abouna"?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/02/13 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.


However, as Miller himself points out, Fr. Taft is not the only eccesiologist on the block. But Fr. Taft is learned enough to understand that even an ever so slightly ultramontanist ecclesiology post Vatican 2 tilt will derail any progress in ecumenical dialogue between the Church of Rome and the other Apostolc, Catholic Churches of Orthodoxy. The prime issue was, is and shall remain reaching consensus among the ancient churches as to defining the role of the primus.

You first have to get us to agree such a thing exists.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Why is someone "whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite" calling Fr. Taft "Abouna"?


Not exactly the most important question, but I wondered exactly the same thing as Isa.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: ajk

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.


However, as Miller himself points out, Fr. Taft is not the only eccesiologist on the block. But Fr. Taft is learned enough to understand that even an ever so slightly ultramontanist ecclesiology post Vatican 2 tilt will derail any progress in ecumenical dialogue between the Church of Rome and the other Apostolc, Catholic Churches of Orthodoxy. The prime issue was, is and shall remain reaching consensus among the ancient churches as to defining the role of the primus.
I don't consider Fr. Taft an ecclesiologist which is why some latitude is in order in interpreting him and some additional commentary is in order to clarify. The original Catholic documents addressing the term "sister churches" must be consulted.
Posted By: ajk

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Indeed, it would take many Miller's to fill just one of Archimandrite Robert's shoes.
There is no need to fill shoes, just be precise and accurate.
Posted By: ajk

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

So, we can add Fr. Taft to the list of those who "do not instruct their people adequately and update them"?

Or is Mr. Miller "One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment...permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives... who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of [non-]Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the []Orthodox to read."?
All I said about Fr. Robert was:
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology.
This is true.

Also, the full quote of Fr. Robert is:
Quote
Taft: Part of the problem is that some Orthodox do not instruct their people adequately and update them, so ecumenical progress on the upper level often does not filter down to the ordinary faithful. In addition of course, there is the problem of the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox. On how they square this with what Christianity is supposed to be according to Jesus’ explicit teaching in the New Testament, we still await their explanation. One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment, in publications like Irénikon in French, or in English Father Ronald Roberson’s highly informative monthly SEIA Newsletter on the Eastern Churches and Ecumenism, distributed gratis to subscribers via email and eventually preserved for permanent reference in the Eastern Churches Journal. These publications just give the news without comment, including quotations from the bigots permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives of Orthodoxy who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the non-Orthodox to read.
This is also true (and does not involve "sister churches" terminology).
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

So, we can add Fr. Taft to the list of those who "do not instruct their people adequately and update them"?

Or is Mr. Miller "One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment...permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives... who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of [non-]Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the []Orthodox to read."?
All I said about Fr. Robert was:
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology.
This is true.

Also, the full quote of Fr. Robert is:
Quote
Taft: Part of the problem is that some Orthodox do not instruct their people adequately and update them, so ecumenical progress on the upper level often does not filter down to the ordinary faithful. In addition of course, there is the problem of the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox. On how they square this with what Christianity is supposed to be according to Jesus’ explicit teaching in the New Testament, we still await their explanation. One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment, in publications like Irénikon in French, or in English Father Ronald Roberson’s highly informative monthly SEIA Newsletter on the Eastern Churches and Ecumenism, distributed gratis to subscribers via email and eventually preserved for permanent reference in the Eastern Churches Journal. These publications just give the news without comment, including quotations from the bigots permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives of Orthodoxy who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the non-Orthodox to read.
This is also true (and does not involve "sister churches" terminology).

Evidently, according to the second link, it does. It would be nice to clarify the actual lung tissue of the eastern lung according to the diagnosis of Fr. Taft and his magisterium.
Posted By: Tomassus

"Sister Churches": A Clarification - 05/03/13 05:38 PM

"Sister Churches": A Clarification

May 02, 2013
By Michael J. Miller
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2227/sister_churches_a_clarification.aspx

I met the Right Reverend Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., at an Eastern-rite monastery that I was visiting in 1985. The community was still in the refectory, whereas I happened to be near the vestibule, so I was the one who went to the front door when he rang. There was a moment of confusion: I had had no idea that the monks were expecting such a renowned guest, and the guest may have expected a more formal reception. Yet it was fitting that a Jesuit scholar of the Byzantine liturgy should be greeted by a “porter” whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite.

With all due respect to Abouna [Father] Robert, who for decades has served the Catholic Church well as an erudite scholar and a tireless ecumenist, he insistently uses the expression “Sister Churches” in a way that could easily be misleading in his recent interview with Catholic World Report. The editor helpfully linked the expression to a page that thoroughly explains the significance of “particular Churches” in post-Vatican-II ecclesiology. For those who have neither the patience nor the theological training to synthesize the wealth of information on that page, this blog post may help clarify the matter.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church begins its teaching about the article of faith from the Creed, “I believe in the holy catholic Church,” with a few notes on terminology. “In Christian usage, the word ‘church’ designates [1] the liturgical assembly, but also [2] the local community or [3] the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable” (CCC 752). In everyday conversation we move easily and without confusion among these different meanings. “We went to church this morning [1].” “I’m registered at the Church of the Annunciation [2].” “Christ promised to be with His Church always [3].”

Because a diocese is normally headed by a bishop, who has the fullness of Holy Orders, while a parish is usually headed by a priest, in theological discussion the second usage of “Church” usually refers to a “local Church” or a “particular Church”. In the Latin rite this is called a diocese or an archdiocese; “eparchy” and “archeparchy” are names for it in the Byzantine rite. The relations between this “mid-sized” Church [2] and the other two connotations of “Church” can be discerned in the New Testament and are stated clearly as early as the second century in the Letters of Saint Ignatius. The local Church exists—for example, in Philadelphia or in Ephesus—for the sake of liturgical worship, which inaugurates and sustains the life of grace in Christians; moreover the Eucharist and even the sacrament of marriage is always to be celebrated in union with the local bishop (i.e. with his approval if he does not actually preside). The connection between the local Church [2] and the universal Church [3] is evident in Ignatius’ insistence on the unity of faith and the reality of Christ’s [Mystical] Body.

The expression “Sister Churches” is not theological but historical and (in recent years) diplomatic. Fr. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M., a professor of ecclesiology and ecumenism who has served with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, writes: “The intention behind such language is the establishment of the reality of sister Churches as a possible way to ‘envisage reunion among divided traditions as a family reconciliation’.... One does get the impression, however, that a certain ambiguity and lack of continuity prevail in the use of the term.” The uses and misuses of this expression are examined in depth in his essay “Sister Churches: Reality and Questions” (reprinted in the book Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue by the same author.)

The early Church in the East was organized not only by locality but regionally. A “Metropolia” united several local eparchies and/or archeparchies in an administrative unit. Within such a unit, two neighboring eparchies would be regarded as “Daughter Churches” of the Metropolia and therefore “Sister Churches” to one another. Fr. Garuti notes “the special sensibility of the Eastern Christians for the fraternity that exists among the individual [local] Churches [2]”. He immediately goes on to add, however, that “when it is a question of the principles on which to build unity, ... the [Universal Catholic] Church [3] cannot be considered a sister [e.g. to the Orthodox Churches (2)], but rather the Mother of the local Churches.”

When Pope Francis referred to himself as “the Bishop of Rome” in his first public speech on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, he was humbly acknowledging that in the first place he had been elected the Bishop of Rome, a local Church. As Bishop of Rome he can greet Orthodox bishops of other localities as “brother bishops”, since they head “sister Churches [2]”. But the Bishop of Rome is also ex officio the Pastor of the Universal Church [3], and there is no corresponding office or “unit” in the Orthodox world, nor could there ever be.

Joseph Ratzinger pointed this out as early as 1966, just after the completion of the Second Vatican Council. At a Catholic Conference in Bamberg he urged caution when speaking about “the Churches” in the plural, warning against “a euphoria ... that forgets to makes difficult demands on itself and overlooks the fact that the Catholic Church dares and must dare to take the paradoxical position of attributing to herself in a unique way the singular form, ‘the Church’ [3], despite and in the midst of the plurality [2] she has accepted.” (Quoted in Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology by Maximilian Heinrich Heim.) Because it can lead to misunderstandings between Catholics and Orthodox, Joseph Ratzinger scrupulously avoided the expression “Sister Churches” in his extensive writings on ecumenism.

In conclusion: the Right Rev. Archimandrite Robert Taft is not the only ecclesiologist on the block. If he had used the expression “particular Churches” in his interview, he would have been more accurate, because that (and not “Sister Churches”) is the expression that has been enshrined in the Catechism and in post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiology.

About the Author: Michael J. Miller translated Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology: Fundamentals of Ecclesiology with Reference to Lumen Gentium, by Maximilian Heinrich Heim for Ignatius Press.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

Indeed. He said: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others" but that should be: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one twenty-three Sister Churches among others".
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Indeed, it would take many Miller's to fill just one of Archimandrite Robert's shoes.


My little toe is thicker than his thigh -Solomon, more or less.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

So, we can add Fr. Taft to the list of those who "do not instruct their people adequately and update them"?

Or is Mr. Miller "One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment...permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives... who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of [non-]Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the []Orthodox to read."?

Why is someone "whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite" calling Fr. Taft "Abouna"?


I do think the anti-western bigotry exists among the Orthodox (especially on the internet); but even I had to cringe a little at the triumphalistic way he talks about said bigotry.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
It would be nice to clarify the actual lung tissue of the eastern lung according to the diagnosis of Fr. Taft and his magisterium.

Are you saying it's cloudy?
Posted By: ajk

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

Indeed. He said: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others" but that should be: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one twenty-three Sister Churches among others".
"twenty-three" -- and thus adding more to the confusion about the Catholic understanding of the term and the underlying ecclesiology; see NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES»
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/03/13 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by ajk
I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification.

Indeed. He said: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others" but that should be: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one twenty-three Sister Churches among others".
"twenty-three" -- and thus adding more to the confusion about the Catholic understanding of the term and the underlying ecclesiology; see NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES»

Trying to understand what you're saying here ... how does pointing out that we Catholics are 23 sister churches add confusion?
Posted By: ConstantineTG

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/08/13 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
It would be nice to clarify the actual lung tissue of the eastern lung according to the diagnosis of Fr. Taft and his magisterium.

Are you saying it's cloudy?


Isn't it. We've said it several times across different forums, why is the Eastern Church, which is actually a number of autocephalous Churches and also a number of traditions (counting the Oriental traditions) lumped together as one, while the West which is the Latin Church and Latin Tradition, the other? So that imagery shows that the lone West is equal to the multitude in the East.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/08/13 09:53 PM

There's a lump too? I think this is my worst x-ray ever!
Posted By: lovesupreme

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 02:26 AM

I posted about this interview on OC.net. I was pretty impressed with what Fr. Taft had to say, but his jabs at the more traditionalist Orthodox probably aren't going to win him many non-Catholic admirers.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by lovesupreme
I posted about this interview on OC.net. I was pretty impressed with what Fr. Taft had to say, but his jabs at the more traditionalist Orthodox probably aren't going to win him many non-Catholic admirers.


True, but I would not be surprised if a non-edited transcript of the interview were reviewed, Father Taft probably directed a few jabs at the Catholic ultra-trads as well.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 09:14 AM

The "more traditionalist Orthodox" are, at this point, unreconcilable anyway. It's axiomatic not to waste time or breath trying to convince people who don't want to listen in the first place. On the other hand, there are lots of more moderate Orthodox who do not reflexively reject ecumenism as the "Great Panheresy", and they are likely to be interested in what Taft has to say--he is, in fact, widely respected and admired among the Orthodox both for his scholarship and his piety.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
The "more traditionalist Orthodox" are, at this point, unreconcilable anyway. It's axiomatic not to waste time or breath trying to convince people who don't want to listen in the first place. On the other hand, there are lots of more moderate Orthodox who do not reflexively reject ecumenism as the "Great Panheresy", and they are likely to be interested in what Taft has to say--he is, in fact, widely respected and admired among the Orthodox both for his scholarship and his piety.


This can be confirmed by simply reviewing the websites of most canonically united Orthodox church bodies.Pictures and articles confirm this.

The anti ecumenical voices are mostly bloviating online or at least have had the integrity to follow their beliefs into schism, reschism, further schism and so on.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by lovesupreme
I posted about this interview on OC.net. I was pretty impressed with what Fr. Taft had to say, but his jabs at the more traditionalist Orthodox probably aren't going to win him many non-Catholic admirers.


That seems a bit over-reaching. "... aren't going to win him many Orthodox admirers" would make more sense.
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 06:53 PM

Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 06:58 PM

Doesn't that simply reflect the ancient Pentarchy? Their was no single head of the Church, yet they were all united. The Orthodox Church is comprised of national churches united by the One Faith.

*Catholic with Orthodox sympathies*


Originally Posted by ConstantineTG


Isn't it. We've said it several times across different forums, why is the Eastern Church, which is actually a number of autocephalous Churches and also a number of traditions (counting the Oriental traditions) lumped together as one, while the West which is the Latin Church and Latin Tradition, the other? So that imagery shows that the lone West is equal to the multitude in the East.
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 07:11 PM

Some questions, as someone sitting on the fence between Orthodoxy and Catholicism:

1. If Rome was always Supreme, did the early Bishops of Rome appoint the bishops of other dioceses?

2. Why were early councils called by and presided over other bishops (such as the Council of Jerusalem), instead of the Bishop/Pope of Rome? Why did emperors like Constantine convene councils, instead of the Roman Pope?
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear?

Perhaps, perhaps not. What's more important for me is that it isn't our mission to get Orthodox to switch sides:

Quote
Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/16/13 11:51 PM

Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear?

Perhaps, perhaps not. What's more important for me is that it isn't our mission to get Orthodox to switch sides:

Quote
Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other

and whom are you quoting?
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 12:00 AM

Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Some questions, as someone sitting on the fence between Orthodoxy and Catholicism:

1. If Rome was always Supreme, did the early Bishops of Rome appoint the bishops of other dioceses?

2. Why were early councils called by and presided over other bishops (such as the Council of Jerusalem), instead of the Bishop/Pope of Rome? Why did emperors like Constantine convene councils, instead of the Roman Pope?

1. No. They did try on occasion, but were rebuffed.
2. I'll someone who subscribes to Pastor Aeternus try to answer this one.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear?

Perhaps, perhaps not. What's more important for me is that it isn't our mission to get Orthodox to switch sides:

Quote
Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other

and whom are you quoting?


Good point. I meant to say that's from the Balamand Statement.
Posted By: BenjaminRH

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 10:24 AM

I agree Peter; the difference between the Orthodox and Rome is not similar to that of Baptists and Rome. Baptists, Mormons, etc. must actually come over to the one Church of Christ.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear?

Perhaps, perhaps not. What's more important for me is that it isn't our mission to get Orthodox to switch sides:

Quote
Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other

and whom are you quoting?


Good point. I meant to say that's from the Balamand Statement.

'Nuf said.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by Peter J
Perhaps, perhaps not. What's more important for me is that it isn't our mission to get Orthodox to switch sides:

Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other
and whom are you quoting?
Good point. I meant to say that's from the Balamand Statement.
'Nuf said.


Thanks smile I try.
Posted By: desertman

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/17/13 08:19 PM

I just happened to notice that Fr. Taft's interview has now been published at pravoslavie.ru. They seem to have also edited out his comments on Orthodox traditionalists.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61580.htm

Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 07:47 AM

Catholicism and Orthodoxy: relativistic crap ecumenism.

Branch-theory nonsense, or no wonder 'ecumenist' is a fightin' word among online Orthodox.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Catholicism and Orthodoxy: relativistic crap ecumenism.

Branch-theory nonsense, or no wonder 'ecumenist' is a fightin' word among online Orthodox.


If Taft's views represent branch-theory nonsense, then I must say that the 'branch-theory' really is nonsense, that is it is meaningless as a descriptive or diagnostic term.

I do not mean to deny the danger of relativism, nor to embrace it myself, but this term is thrown around so indiscriminately that it sometimes seems to rule out any attempt to work for unity among divided Christians as relativism.

Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 11:56 AM


To be fair, I think it's an improvement over the Union of Brest. As a matter of fact, it's what the Union of Brest was going to be, supposedly.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 01:31 PM

Sergei long ago became reflexively reactionary, which is a shame. The world has quite enough Father Vasily Vasileviches as it is, and not nearly enough people who venerate Tradition as the living faith of the dead. The difference between Taft and his critics is Taft knows the history of the division, and thus has been liberated from the stultifying polemics of the past thousand years.
Posted By: Paul B

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?


Eventually, God willing, there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches which are out of Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But we aren't close to that point. It would be cruel and unwise to make them pawns; liquidation of the EC at this time should not be a discussion topic. The Communists tried liquidation and failed.
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Paul B
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?


Eventually, God willing, there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches which are out of Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But we aren't close to that point. It would be cruel and unwise to make them pawns; liquidation of the EC at this time should not be a discussion topic. The Communists tried liquidation and failed.
oh? any more than the various "unions" failed for Old Rome to liquidate the Orthodox?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 05:05 PM

It must be good to be able to wallow in one's own rectitude.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Paul B
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?

Eventually, God willing, there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches which are out of Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But we aren't close to that point. It would be cruel and unwise to make them pawns; liquidation of the EC at this time should not be a discussion topic.

Definitely. It's like I always say: if I had been born Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism ... but doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy either.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/18/13 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Paul B
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?
Eventually, God willing, there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches which are out of Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But we aren't close to that point. It would be cruel and unwise to make them pawns; liquidation of the EC at this time should not be a discussion topic. The Communists tried liquidation and failed.
oh? any more than the various "unions" failed for Old Rome to liquidate the Orthodox?
Why would it need to be more? (I could go into other problems with your comparison, but I won't.)
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Paul B
Originally Posted by BenjaminRH
Is it not the mission of the sui iuris Eastern churches to disappear? I don't mean that rudely, but won't the Eastern Catholic Churches "melt" into the Orthodox Church when there is true unity again?
Eventually, God willing, there will be no Eastern Catholic Churches which are out of Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But we aren't close to that point. It would be cruel and unwise to make them pawns; liquidation of the EC at this time should not be a discussion topic. The Communists tried liquidation and failed.
oh? any more than the various "unions" failed for Old Rome to liquidate the Orthodox?
Why would it need to be more? (I could go into other problems with your comparison, but I won't.)

The Communists gave up.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Sergei long ago became reflexively reactionary, which is a shame. The world has quite enough Father Vasily Vasileviches as it is, and not nearly enough people who venerate Tradition as the living faith of the dead. The difference between Taft and his critics is Taft knows the history of the division, and thus has been liberated from the stultifying polemics of the past thousand years.


From the doyen of Orthodox in communion with Rome. Gotta admire your tenacity; most OicwRs quickly get fed up and 'dox, because the OicwR position doesn't make sense. You've been at it for going on 20 years. The OicwR position: being a good Catholic or a good Orthodox, accepting the true-church claim (which doesn't necessarily mean being narrow or a jerk about it), is 'reflexiveley reactionary'; thinking you know better than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is cool. Whatever, Stu. Χριστός Ανέστη.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 03:50 PM

^reflexively
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
From the doyen of Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I guess Kudos are really due to Stuart if that title belongs to him -- considering some of the other contendors for it. grin

Originally Posted by + Gregory III Laham
I am an Orthodox, with a plus: I am in communion with Rome.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:20 PM

^contenders
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:21 PM

The difference between us, Sergei, is I know my history, and my history informs my ecclesiology. All you've got left is polemics.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
From the doyen of Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I guess Kudos are really due to Stuart if that title belongs to him -- considering some of the other contendors for it. grin

Originally Posted by + Gregory III Laham
I am an Orthodox, with a plus: I am in communion with Rome.


I can't think of any with his staying power.

'OicwR' like all cant needs to be explained to newcomers. Some well-meaning Greek Catholics, usually converts, call themselves that but mean something a little different, namely, exactly what Rome wants Greek Catholicism to be: liturgically all Orthodox, with no latinizations, while expressing all of Catholic doctrine, including of course the post-schism definitions, in Byzantine terms. (Which good Orthodox think is impossible, which is why they're Orthodox.) I sometimes call it high-church Greek Catholicism. Either this board's house position or pretty close to it. OicwRs look like that but dissent from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, siding with the Orthodox but remaining nominally Catholic. Basically Protestant private judgement that uses the Byzantine Rite.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
The difference between us, Sergei, is I know my history, and my history informs my ecclesiology. All you've got left is polemics.


So only you and those who agree with you understand the history; Catholicism and Orthodoxy are for idiots?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 04:55 PM

Dear Sergei,

Xpuctoc Bockpece!

If by "Protestant private judgment" you mean that EC's pick and choose what to believe and how to worship - then OK, I see your point.

I don't see how EC's who want to be faithful to Eastern Christian tradition are unfaithful to it when they compare the Western Immaculate Conception dogma and say that the East has different a priori's but that ultimately both sides come down to the same thing - that the Most Holy Theotokos is precisely that, Most Holy and without any stain of sin (understood in the Western Augustinian sense).

If EC's or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" see the papacy in less than a triumphalist view (which is not to say there are EC's who actually do prefer the triumphalist paradigm), Rome hasn't yet excommunicated us for it. And we've learned over the years, as Particular Churches, that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission when it comes to nominating our own bishops, having married priests etc.

It's not perfect, but then again, who said the "Unia structure" was meant to be a permanent thing? Certainly not Rome these days, as you well know.

I respect your uncompromising witness to the integrity of Eastern Orthodoxy.

And I included a thread with an interview about the possible canonization of Jan Hus here which you might find interesting or even annoying!

Good to hear from you sir!

Alex
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
From the doyen of Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I guess Kudos are really due to Stuart if that title belongs to him -- considering some of the other contendors for it. grin

Originally Posted by + Gregory III Laham
I am an Orthodox, with a plus: I am in communion with Rome.

I can't think of any with his staying power.

You mean Stuart or Pat. Gregory?

(For the record, I would have preferred if His Beatitude had said "Catholic with a plus" rather than "Orthodox with a plus", but for some reason he doesn't always take my advice. whistle )

Originally Posted by The young fogey
'OicwR' like all cant needs to be explained to newcomers. Some well-meaning Greek Catholics, usually converts, call themselves that but mean something a little different, namely, exactly what Rome wants Greek Catholicism to be: liturgically all Orthodox, with no latinizations, while expressing all of Catholic doctrine, including of course the post-schism definitions, in Byzantine terms. (Which good Orthodox think is impossible, which is why they're Orthodox.) I sometimes call it high-church Greek Catholicism. Either this board's house position or pretty close to it. OicwRs look like that but dissent from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, siding with the Orthodox but remaining nominally Catholic. Basically Protestant private judgement that uses the Byzantine Rite.

I feel the objections, from both sides, to those who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" almost work, but not quite. The objections from the Orthodox don't quite make it, because I never left Orthodoxy. (Like I said, if I had been born into Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have left it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to jump ships in the other direction. Although that may not matter to those Orthodox who seem to treat all ECs as if we were ex-Orthodox.) On the other hand, some Catholics like (or love) to criticize "OicwR" for staying in communion with Rome, which makes sense if they're willing to apply the same criticism to Rome for staying in communion with "OicwR". cool
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:11 PM

Воистинну воскресе!

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
If by "Protestant private judgment" you mean that EC's pick and choose what to believe and how to worship - then OK, I see your point.

I'm not saying all Greek Catholics pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to believe. That's neither the official Greek Catholic position nor the opinion of most Greek Catholics. I mean the 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' represented by Stuart do.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I don't see how EC's who want to be faithful to Eastern Christian tradition are unfaithful to it when they compare the Western Immaculate Conception dogma and say that the East has different a priori's but that ultimately both sides come down to the same thing - that the Most Holy Theotokos is precisely that, Most Holy and without any stain of sin (understood in the Western Augustinian sense).

That's not OicwR but good high-church Greek Catholicism: affirming Catholic doctrine but expressing it in Byzantinese, trying to reconcile the two churches. Exactly what Rome wants. OicwR side with Orthodox polemics and deny the Immaculate Conception.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
If EC's or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" see the papacy in less than a triumphalist view (which is not to say there are EC's who actually do prefer the triumphalist paradigm), Rome hasn't yet excommunicated us for it. And we've learned over the years, as Particular Churches, that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission when it comes to nominating our own bishops, having married priests etc.

Again, not a problem. Catholicism doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanism, and explaining that in Orthodox terms is part of Greek Catholics' apostolate.

Of course the Unia structure is meant to be temporary. Catholicism's goal is to bring the whole Orthodox Church back. Claiming to be the true church, it can do no less.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I respect your uncompromising witness to the integrity of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Their hardliners are allowed, according to their doctrine. I'm trying to be fair as in any good debate. Not to present Orthodoxy as I or somebody else might want it, but as it is, without being nasty. Only fair to a church I'd like to see reteach traditionalism to the West.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
From the doyen of Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I guess Kudos are really due to Stuart if that title belongs to him -- considering some of the other contendors for it. grin

Originally Posted by + Gregory III Laham
I am an Orthodox, with a plus: I am in communion with Rome.

I can't think of any with his staying power.

You mean Stuart or Pat. Gregory?

(For the record, I would have preferred if His Beatitude had said "Catholic with a plus" rather than "Orthodox with a plus", but for some reason he doesn't always take my advice. whistle )

Originally Posted by The young fogey
'OicwR' like all cant needs to be explained to newcomers. Some well-meaning Greek Catholics, usually converts, call themselves that but mean something a little different, namely, exactly what Rome wants Greek Catholicism to be: liturgically all Orthodox, with no latinizations, while expressing all of Catholic doctrine, including of course the post-schism definitions, in Byzantine terms. (Which good Orthodox think is impossible, which is why they're Orthodox.) I sometimes call it high-church Greek Catholicism. Either this board's house position or pretty close to it. OicwRs look like that but dissent from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, siding with the Orthodox but remaining nominally Catholic. Basically Protestant private judgement that uses the Byzantine Rite.

I feel the objections, from both sides, to those who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" almost work, but not quite. The objections from the Orthodox don't quite make it, because I never left Orthodoxy. (Like I said, if I had been born into Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have left it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to jump ships in the other direction. Although that may not matter to those Orthodox who seem to treat all ECs as if we were ex-Orthodox.) On the other hand, some Catholics like (or love) to criticize "OicwR" for staying in communion with Rome, which makes sense if they're willing to apply the same criticism to Rome for staying in communion with "OicwR". cool

I mean Stuart. My guess is Patriarch Gregory wasn't an OicwR but a good high-church Greek Catholic: liturgically Orthodox, doctrinally Catholic.

The OicwRs are like the Anglo-Papalist Anglicans were. They are dissenters in their own church and hypocrites for staying outside the church they say they believe in. Catholicism doesn't go after dissenters unless they cause scandal (if they are in a position to know better, are in a position of authority and trust, and have been warned).

Originally Posted by Peter J
Like I said, if I had been born into Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have left it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to jump ships in the other direction.

Love it.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
That's not OicwR but good high-church Greek Catholicism: affirming Catholic doctrine but expressing it in Byzantinese, trying to reconcile the two churches. Exactly what Rome wants. OicwR side with Orthodox polemics and deny the Immaculate Conception.

Opinions will undoubtedly vary on this; but I'm thinking you'd be right if you changed "deny" to "not affirm".
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
The OicwRs are like the Anglo-Papalist Anglicans were.

Interesting. smile
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That's not OicwR but good high-church Greek Catholicism: affirming Catholic doctrine but expressing it in Byzantinese, trying to reconcile the two churches. Exactly what Rome wants. OicwR side with Orthodox polemics and deny the Immaculate Conception.

Opinions will undoubtedly vary on this; but I'm thinking you'd be right if you changed "deny" to "not affirm".


The same way Modernists in the Roman Rite get away with 'not affirming' Catholic teachings. They passively deny them at least by ignoring them. That's why I don't respect the OicwRs but I like the high-church Greek Catholics.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 06:20 PM

See, whenever people throw around terms that are semantically null, such as "modernist" (which, in intellectual history, has a real technical definition), I get the impression its real purpose is a placeholder for "people's whose positions I dislike".

So, in effect, you're saying you dislike Patriarch Gregorios III, Patriarch Sviatoslav, Bishop John Michael of Canton, and also the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council who wrote Orientalium Ecclesiarum. And, at the same stroke, you do manage to confirm Pelikan's definition of traditionalism. But, then, he was a "modernist", too, no doubt.
Posted By: desertman

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey

My guess is Patriarch Gregory wasn't an OicwR but a good high-church Greek Catholic: liturgically Orthodox, doctrinally Catholic.


I see what you're saying, but I think there's a lot more differences between Eastern and Western Catholics than just liturgical rubrics. It's the entire Eastern spiritual tradition that Byzantine Catholics are called to that the Orthodox also follow. The same spirituality and ascetical tradition is supposed to be common to both. "OicwR" isn't just about liturgy, but is a way of prayer, fasting, asceticism. It should be a complete way of life and an entire worldview based on the Eastern Patrimony.
I highly recommend checking out Abbot Nicholas' homily in the video recently posted in Church News. He illustrates some of the differences beautifully.

As for doctrine, I doubt if many Eastern Catholics are dissenting outright from doctrines or dogmas of the Catholic Church. There just may be one or two that don't really get brought up very often in their day to day life as an Eastern Catholic.

Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 06:34 PM

I think you're confusing apples and oranges, Stuart deliberately, desertman unintentionally.

I really don't believe Patriarch Sviatoslav et al. got promoted as high as they did in the Catholic Church while being dissenters like Stuart. They were and are high-church Greek Catholics, what Rome thinks 'Orthodoxy in communion with Rome' should be, not the OicwR dissent I'm talking about.

I've been saying all along on this thread that part of Greek Catholics' apostolate is not only to be liturgically Orthodox but to explain Catholic theology in Orthodox terms. And of course I agree that Byzantine and Latin theology have different emphases. And sure, lots of doctrines don't come up every day in the lives of Catholics, Roman or Byzantine and others.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 07:22 PM

Dear Sergei,

Well, it is always good to see the "Old Serge" and it does my heart good to read your balanced, yet clear and concise, writing.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 07:23 PM

Dear Sergei,

You've made yourself crystal clear - and I would agree with you.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 07:25 PM

The problem is, Stuart, that you couldn't ever really match the charisma of Sergei!

Alex
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 08:00 PM

That's Stuart's charm, that he doesn't try to be charming.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:14 PM

I will venture to say that our Teacher, Stuart, is charming in his own "Rite!"
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That's not OicwR but good high-church Greek Catholicism: affirming Catholic doctrine but expressing it in Byzantinese, trying to reconcile the two churches. Exactly what Rome wants. OicwR side with Orthodox polemics and deny the Immaculate Conception.

Opinions will undoubtedly vary on this; but I'm thinking you'd be right if you changed "deny" to "not affirm".


The same way Modernists in the Roman Rite get away with 'not affirming' Catholic teachings. They passively deny them at least by ignoring them. That's why I don't respect the OicwRs but I like the high-church Greek Catholics.


I do not regard myself as a Modernist but I think there are plenty of sound reasons to doubt that the Immaculate Conception or Assumption--as defined--require dogmatic assent. Chief among these reasons is that the Orthodox Churches don't recognize in those definitions the teaching of the faith that they hold. I do believe that (on its own terms)legitimate papal definitions of the faith will necessarily agree with the teaching of the Church in general. Let me stress that these are not radical or dissident views--they are much closer to Avery Dulles than to Hans Kung.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That's not OicwR but good high-church Greek Catholicism: affirming Catholic doctrine but expressing it in Byzantinese, trying to reconcile the two churches. Exactly what Rome wants. OicwR side with Orthodox polemics and deny the Immaculate Conception.

Opinions will undoubtedly vary on this; but I'm thinking you'd be right if you changed "deny" to "not affirm".


The same way Modernists in the Roman Rite get away with 'not affirming' Catholic teachings. They passively deny them at least by ignoring them. That's why I don't respect the OicwRs but I like the high-church Greek Catholics.


I do not regard myself as a Modernist but I think there are plenty of sound reasons to doubt that the Immaculate Conception or Assumption--as defined--require dogmatic assent. Chief among these reasons is that the Orthodox Churches don't recognize in those definitions the teaching of the faith that they hold. I do believe that (on its own terms)legitimate papal definitions of the faith will necessarily agree with the teaching of the Church in general. Let me stress that these are not radical or dissident views--they are much closer to Avery Dulles than to Hans Kung.

I wouldn't have lost sleep if they were never defined. I'm Christ-centered and Eucharist-centered, and the Council of Ephesus (hypostatic union; Mary is the Mother of God) arguably said it all. But Catholicism rightly sees those definitions as developments building on Ephesus; dissent from them is wrong.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:39 PM

fogey,

I think maybe you're drawing the line on dissent much more restrictively (or expanisively) than it needs to be drawn.

Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:43 PM

No sale.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:50 PM

Sergei's problem is his experience of Eastern Catholics is generally limited to tame, latinized, uniate-mineded Ruthenians.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:52 PM

Sergei also finds himself at odds with many of the leading lights of Orthodoxy--Metropolitan Kallistos, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Metropolitan Hilarion, David Bently Hart, Olivier Clement, and some old guy named Bartholomew--the list goes on and on. The "modernist" foxes seem to have run of the hen house. Even ROCOR seems to be looking more and more kindly upon us poor uniates.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
No sale.


And yet, no one excommunicated Fr. Dulles; they made him a cardinal.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:05 PM

I also point Sergei to this recent address by Patriarch Gregorios, whose spiritual leadership as head of the Melkite Church I not only support but endorse:

Ecclesiology and Ecumenism
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Sergei's problem is his experience of Eastern Catholics is generally limited to tame, latinized, uniate-mineded Ruthenians.

Being "latinized" doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with being in favor a uniatism. (If it did, then by extension wouldn't the pope be the most extreme pro-uniatism person you'd ever meet?)
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:35 PM

In fairness (hopefully) to Sergei's position, I would say that regardless of whether you see IC, PI, UOJ etc. as intrinsically dogma or not, they are the "law of the land" in the Roman Communion.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:43 PM

Most Eastern Catholics are Ukrainian Catholics; the first Eastern Christians I knew, 30 years ago, were refugees from the western Ukraine, from the war. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Uniates, or Roman Catholics; anything but Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.

I don't remember denying the likelihood that noted Orthodox bishops and professors hold an opinion of never-Orthodox Greek Catholics that mirrors Catholic doctrine regarding never-Catholic Orthodox. Like the late, great Archbishop Vsevolod did; nice man. So what am I at odds with?

Quote
I do believe that (on its own terms) legitimate papal definitions of the faith will necessarily agree with the teaching of the Church in general.


That's fine. Is that what you were attributing to Dulles? That's just assent to Catholic doctrine, exactly what Modernists and OicwRs don't do.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:51 PM

How to explain former Patriarch Lyubomir's statement (on EWTN, no less!), that "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences", not to mention Patriarch Sviatoslav's self-description as being and Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome?
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 10:55 PM

Easy: every positive doctrinal definition of the Orthodox is true. The post-schism Catholic definitions are developments of them; officially the jury's out in Orthodoxy on them. But while Catholicism teaches that the Orthodox have grace (real bishops, a real Mass), the Orthodox allow the opinion that post-schism Catholicism's a complete fraud.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey


Quote
I do believe that (on its own terms) legitimate papal definitions of the faith will necessarily agree with the teaching of the Church in general.


That's fine. Is that what you were attributing to Dulles? That's just assent to Catholic doctrine, exactly what Modernists and OicwRs don't do.


Those were the very grounds on which I was suggesting that there are good reasons for doubting that the assent required--to the authentic faith of the church--is required of the formulation of these two definitions.



Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:10 PM

In context, Sviatoslav must mean what Rome thinks 'Orthodoxy in communion with Rome' should - liturgically Orthodox, doctrinally Catholic but expressing it in Orthodox terms, all of which is foreign to most Greek Catholics, who are essentially Latin Catholics using the Greek Rite - rather than Stuart's longtime OicwR dissent game.

Oh, I see: you're claiming Dulles claimed those Catholic doctrines don't measure up. No sale.
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:25 PM

Dulles didn't say scrap those doctrines, and neither did I. Rather, he used them as an occasion to discuss some of the limits of papal infallibility and how far assent extends and how far it doesn't.

Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:36 PM

What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:41 PM

Dear Stuart,

Yes, Husar was simply repeating what Bl. Patriarch Josyf the Confessor said in that regard.

However, high-ranking members of his own Particular Church disagreed with both in that department.

In fact, Sergei's assessment of the UGCC members being essentially RC with Eastern liturgical forms is, for the most part, accurate.

Add to this that there are Eastern traditions that many Ukrainian Catholics would be repulsed by as they represent, to them, a form of Russification.

Finally, many of us well-meaning Ukrainian Catholics (myself included) go around saying things like that e.g. there are no differences between O's and GC's. But the Orthodox would be the first to disagree and to even be quite offended by the comment.

And the UGCC ecumenism in this regard seems to be running into the sand . . . The UGCC has relations with the UOC-KP and this has now led to bad feelings in the UOC-MP camp. As you will know, Met. Vladimir Sabodan of the UOC-MP was quite angry at Svyatoslav and expressed his anger at the recent MP Synod.

Thank you for referring to Svyatoslav as "Patriarch." Not everyone, even within the UGCC, does that, you know . . .

Alex
Posted By: Adam DeVille

Re: "Sister Churches": A Clarification - 05/19/13 11:44 PM

Nobody should cite the notoriously tendentious Adriano Garuti or listen to him. As I've shown elsewhere, and as numerous other historians, canonists, and theologians have all shown, he brazenly disregards inconvenient facts and invents ones he likes. Furthermore, his book on Roman primacy is a highly deceitful book, constantly blurring the boundaries between his own private, fallacious views, and the CDF for which he worked at the time--trying to use the latter to give the former a patina of respectability.
Posted By: Adam DeVille

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/19/13 11:52 PM

Who are these OicwR types you keep mentioning? Name six--real names of six people of even very modest prominence and influence. Have they significant publications, noteworthy journals, substantial websites, prominent positions of authority in the Church--bishops perhaps? Name six. Because otherwise they are starting to sound like a bunch of ciphers.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 12:08 AM

The western Ukraine is the home of Ukrainian nationalism and the Ukrainian Catholic Church. My friends 30 years ago, a family, gave me the impression the country was like them but it's not. Ukrainianism according to them: a few Russianisms to show they're not Polish; lots of Polishisms to show they're not Russian. (Like I said, they said don't call them Russian.) Most of the rest of the country's like Russia proper, mostly secular with a big Russian Orthodox (MP) minority. That, the KP and the UGCC are jockeying to be the country's state or at least national church, which is why the KP cozies up to the UGCC vs. the MP (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). The UGCC understandably is not interested in relations with the Orthodox other than pragmatically, living in an Orthodox country. That's why they made that aggressive move, against Catholic long-term strategy trying to reconcile the Orthodox to Catholicism, moving their HQ to Kiev. Understandable given the last 70 years, being banned by the Communists, who tried to force them into the then-state-controlled Russian Orthodox Church.

Adam, you're right that OicwRs are microscopic. For nearly 20 years online they've been consistently represented by byzcath's own StuartK. Other than him it's a small, high-turnover cast of converts from the Roman Rite or Protestantism who eventually get fed up with Greek Catholicism because of the latinizations and second-class treatment, eventually buying Orthodoxy's claims and converting.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 12:15 AM

P.S. American foreign policy is still anti-Russian, which I think is stupid. Russia's a great, old-fashioned Christian nationalist 'Nyet!' athwart Western European and American secularism and political correctness. It's still strong thanks to nukes and its size. Anyway, in the Ukraine about 10 years ago the US backed President Viktor Yushchenko, who belonged to the KP; I think the US backs the KP vs. the MP, an unacceptable meddling in the Orthodox Church. The American government obviously wants to attack Russia by keeping the Ukraine turned against Russia. It's as if California seceded and Russia or China meddled, trying to turn it against the US.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 08:28 AM

That's the Russia of your imagination, Sergei, not the Russia of reality, of Putin, of rampant corruption, of thugocracy, of spiritual malaise, a place where everyone and everything is for sale. You would be better off actually spending time in Russia than romanticizing it. As for your views on Ukraine, you're simply delusional.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:03 AM

I'm not saying Russia's perfect or that I'd necessarily want to live there. Putin's a badass, which has its good and bad. I mostly mean it's best for America and conservative Christians to support rather than hate Russia.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Anyway, in the Ukraine about 10 years ago ...

I believe you'd have to go significantly further back for it to be "the Ukraine".
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Most Eastern Catholics are Ukrainian Catholics;


Yes, if you define Eastern Catholic to mean only the ones that use the Byzantine Rite (UGCC, Melkites, etc., aka "Greek Catholics"), not including Maronites, Syro-Malabarese Catholics, etc.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
How to explain former Patriarch Lyubomir's statement (on EWTN, no less!), that "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences",

I'm sure the Orthodox would call it propaganda (assuming they were aware of it -- I don't know how many of them watch EWTN) . Personally I prefer to suspend judgment.

P.S. For the record, I don't automatically embrace everything that comes from EWTN.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:16 AM

That war-refugee/displaced-person family I knew 30 years ago coached me on 'Ukraine', not 'the Ukraine'. No, in English it's the Ukraine. The other makes me sound like I'm putting on a Boris-and-Natasha accent.

I know there's a non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic church comparable in size to the Ukrainian Catholic Church; I think it's one of the Indian ones. But I think the Ukrainian Catholic Church is still No. 1.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by StuartK
How to explain former Patriarch Lyubomir's statement (on EWTN, no less!), that "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences",

I'm sure the Orthodox would call it propaganda (assuming they were aware of it -- I don't know how many of them watch EWTN) . Personally I prefer to suspend judgment.

P.S. For the record, I don't automatically embrace everything that comes from EWTN.


If he said that, it takes a lot of spin to make it Catholic. It's doable. If he means 'all Orthodox defined doctrine is true', that's fine.

I can understand the Orthodox accusing him of lying, though, since the different beliefs about the nature and scope of the papacy are important.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:24 AM

Quote
I mostly mean it's best for America and conservative Christians to support rather than hate Russia.


What in the world makes you think I hate Russia? If I truly hated Russia, I would not care who governed it, nor about the oppression of its long-suffering people, nor the moral degradation of its society, nor of the compromised state of its Orthodox Church. In fact, I would rejoice in all of those, since they simply accelerate the pace of Russia's impending collapse. But I do not hate Russia--I love it, its culture and its people deeply. And unlike you, I am fully capable of looking at Russia with eyes wide open, without the Tolstoyan sentimentality and rose-colored nostalgia for a place which does not exist and actually never did. If you love something or someone, and you see it following a destructive path, you do and say what you can to correct it, you don't blithely accept it as the "last best hope of man" (nor do you call the vicious former Chekist who runs the country as a personal organized crime syndicate "a gift from God" just because he dons a three-bar cross and tosses breadcrumbs to the Church).
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.


It's so nice that you've come along to define for us who are not good Catholics and good Orthodox.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
That war-refugee/displaced-person family I knew 30 years ago coached me on 'Ukraine', not 'the Ukraine'. No, in English it's the Ukraine. The other makes me sound like I'm putting on a Boris-and-Natasha accent.

According to Wikipedia (not that Wikipedia is infallible) "Though the form "the Ukraine" was once the more common term in English,[24] it has become less accepted after the Ukrainian government officially requested that the article be dropped in 1993, shortly after independence.[25][26][27] Most sources have since dropped the article in favour of simply "Ukraine".[24]"

Originally Posted by The young fogey
I know there's a non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic church comparable in size to the Ukrainian Catholic Church; I think it's one of the Indian ones. But I think the Ukrainian Catholic Church is still No. 1.

Oh, I thought you were talking whether it's has more than 50%. Yes, I agree that it's the largest single EC Church.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:14 AM

I never said you hate Russia, Stuart, nor that Russia and Putin are perfect. Simply that American foreign policy and American public opinion (understandably, because of the Cold War) are still anti-Russian, which is wrong.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That war-refugee/displaced-person family I knew 30 years ago coached me on 'Ukraine', not 'the Ukraine'. No, in English it's the Ukraine. The other makes me sound like I'm putting on a Boris-and-Natasha accent.

According to Wikipedia (not that Wikipedia is infallible) "Though the form "the Ukraine" was once the more common term in English,[24] it has become less accepted after the Ukrainian government officially requested that the article be dropped in 1993, shortly after independence.[25][26][27] Most sources have since dropped the article in favour of simply "Ukraine".[24]"

I think that will go the way of the Irish government's serious attempt to rename Ireland 'Eire', the Gaelic name, in English.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by The young fogey
What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.


It's so nice that you've come along to define for us who are not good Catholics and good Orthodox.

Ha ha ha. It's not me; it's what each church teaches. If you know it, either you accept it or you don't. The few OicwRs think they know better than either. Gnostic really. The churches' teachings are for idiots; only a little circle knows the truth.
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by The young fogey
What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.


It's so nice that you've come along to define for us who are not good Catholics and good Orthodox.

Ha ha ha. It's not me; it's what each church teaches. If you know it, either you accept it or you don't. The few OicwRs think they know better than either. Gnostic really. The churches' teachings are for idiots; only a little circle knows the truth.


No sale. Now you're bordering on slander.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by The young fogey
What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.


It's so nice that you've come along to define for us who are not good Catholics and good Orthodox.

Ha ha ha. It's not me; it's what each church teaches. If you know it, either you accept it or you don't. The few OicwRs think they know better than either. Gnostic really. The churches' teachings are for idiots; only a little circle knows the truth.


No sale. Now you're bordering on slander.

Fine, pal. Then refute it.
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 12:39 PM

Given who the historical Gnostics were, and what they actually believed, it is beyond absurd to call those who subscribe the OicwR position Gnostics, and you know it-unless you're an uninformed fool, which I'm sure is not the case.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Originally Posted by The young fogey
What does that have to do with OicwR dissent? OicwRs are like Protestants who happen to agree with the Orthodox, neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox.

It's so nice that you've come along to define for us who are not good Catholics and good Orthodox.

Ha ha ha. It's not me; it's what each church teaches. If you know it, either you accept it or you don't. The few OicwRs think they know better than either.

Well, the Orthodox think they know better than both ECs and LCs.

But seriously, it seems a little like you're criticizing a minority for being a minority.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 12:57 PM

I'm not saying Stuart and the few other OicwRs believe the same heresies as the Gnostics, only that their approach to church teaching/doctrine is the same. They think their set knows better than either the Catholics or the Orthodox.

Peter J: well, duh. That's the true-church claim. Catholics think they know better than the Orthodox.

I'm not criticizing a minority for being a minority. I'm criticizing it for not making sense, so well-meaning people interested in Byzantine Christianity don't get sucked into it. Be Catholic or be Orthodox. Stuart's well-spoken and assertive so it has to be done.
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
I'm not saying Stuart and the few other OicwRs believe the same heresies as the Gnostics, only that their approach to church teaching/doctrine is the same. They think their set knows better than either the Catholics or the Orthodox.


No sale. I knew you weren't saying that Stuart and other OicwRs believe the same particular heresies. However, the analogy is not appropriate. Gnostics basically sought to syncretize various mystery cults with Christianity (as I suspect you know), and they also held the elitist idea that their knowledge (gnosis) is secret, and available only to a few. Stuart's possession may be indeed be a position of dissent, but there's nothing secretive about it, nor is there anything about his beliefs that are difficult to understand. Calling his position a form of gnosticism is absurd, unless you are going to call every form of dissent gnosticism, in which case, the label would become entirely divorced from its actual meaning.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 01:52 PM

I consider myself an OicwR, but perhaps unlike many Byzantine OicwR's, I was not cradle Catholic, but translated to the Catholic communion from Oriental Orthodoxy. Perhaps that is why (I mean, since I translated INTO Catholicism, and because Oriental Orthodoxy does not have as much perceived theological differences with Latin Catholicism) I don't fit the mold of brother Young Fogey's understanding of OicwR (and I think his understanding of OicwR is valid as far as his experience is concerned).

I also agree with brother Athanasius L's criticism.

Blessings
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 01:57 PM

Yeah, if if it were a Gnostic church it would claim to be the true church like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do. It's like the Anglican branch theory, belonging really to neither church (here, nominally Catholic but dissenting) and holding itself above both. The notion that such a group would be right and the church (all ancient churches thought they were the true one) wrong was foreign to the church fathers.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 02:25 PM

I think "belonging really to neither church" is about right.

As a matter of fact, the whole Melkite Church (well, with some exceptions, like retired Bishop of Newton John Elya) would like to be in full communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy. But since neither side was good with that idea, the best choice seems to be to stay in communion with one side rather than not being in communion with either side ... but with "heart belonging to" Orthodoxy.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 05:44 PM

Here is a video of the UOC-KP Patriarch Filaret being received at St Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic Church in Toronto:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQkoQriHUsE

Please note that the parish priest, Fr. Tataryn, referred to him as "Your Holiness" and he was later awarded a medal by the Patriarch for his extensive community work. Many Ukrainian Orthodox (EP) came for this and the later banquet because their Metropolitan expressly forbade them from even being in the same neighbourhood as Patriarch Filaret. There are autocephalous and KP Orthodox parishes in Ukraine that share the same church building with Ukr. Greek Catholics as well. This is ecumenism Ukrainian style. As for the "uncanonical" label and "how dare EC's have anything to do with Filaret" stuff - many Ukrainians have come to realize that "uncanonical" really means "not in union with Moscow." There you have it.

Alex
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 06:41 PM

Dear brother Alex,

A clarification please: Are there UO in communion with the EP, but not in communion with the MP, distinct from UOC-KP?

How many apostolic Churches are in Ukraine?

Blessings,
Marduk

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Here is a video of the UOC-KP Patriarch Filaret being received at St Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic Church in Toronto:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQkoQriHUsE

Please note that the parish priest, Fr. Tataryn, referred to him as "Your Holiness" and he was later awarded a medal by the Patriarch for his extensive community work. Many Ukrainian Orthodox (EP) came for this and the later banquet because their Metropolitan expressly forbade them from even being in the same neighbourhood as Patriarch Filaret. There are autocephalous and KP Orthodox parishes in Ukraine that share the same church building with Ukr. Greek Catholics as well. This is ecumenism Ukrainian style. As for the "uncanonical" label and "how dare EC's have anything to do with Filaret" stuff - many Ukrainians have come to realize that "uncanonical" really means "not in union with Moscow." There you have it.

Alex
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 06:56 PM

Quote
A clarification please: Are there UO in communion with the EP, but not in communion with the MP, distinct from UOC-KP?


I think you are referring to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US, which is under the jurisdiction of the EP. They are in communion with the MP.

The UOC-KP, I believe was at one time in communion with Constantinople but I think it caused concern between Moscow and the EP and was ceased.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
A clarification please: Are there UO in communion with the EP, but not in communion with the MP, distinct from UOC-KP?

I think you are referring to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US, which is under the jurisdiction of the EP. They are in communion with the MP.

Right, I don't believe there are any UO (or anyone at all afaik) in full communion with Constantinople but not with the MP.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm
How many apostolic Churches are in Ukraine?

You mean, with apostolicity (Is that a word? blush) recognized by Rome? That would be hard to say, because I believe there are some about whom Rome hasn't said one way or the other.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/20/13 10:52 PM

Dear Brother Marduk,

The Ukrainian Orthodox in the Diaspora, such as in Canada, the U.S. and Europe are, for the most part, in union with Constantinople. They don't commemorate the Moscow Patriarchate but they are, de facto, in communion with it as they are in communion with worldwide Orthodoxy.

In Ukraine, there is a small Autocephalous Orthodox Church whose parishes and, as of last week, some UAOC bishops (i.e. Vladyka Ioann Shvets of the Sambirsk-Lviv Eparchy) who have joined the UOC-KP. There is the UOC-MP headed by His Beatitude, Vladyka Vladimir (Sabodan) which is recognized as canonical within world Orthodoxy and by Rome.

The UOC-KP is gaining in strength annually. When the Kyivan Patriarch visited Canada, some EP parishes, such as in Winnipeg, united with him, thereby breaking communion with the EP. There are Ukrainian Orthodox with the EP who wonder why they are not in communion with the Kyivan Patriarchate and these are the ones who came out to see him at our Ukrainian Catholic parish . . .

Perhaps if Ukrainians, en masse, united under the Kyivan Patriarch, even if it isn't recognized as uncanonical, they would be a force to be reckoned with. This would force the EP to recognize it eventually. And if the EP would do that, the united Particular Ukrainian Orthodox would embrace him as their own (and wouldn't ever let go of him).

All this is dreaming on my part . . . must have something to do with my health condition . . . grin

Alex
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Here is a video of the UOC-KP Patriarch Filaret being received at St Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic Church in Toronto:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQkoQriHUsE

Please note that the parish priest, Fr. Tataryn, referred to him as "Your Holiness" and he was later awarded a medal by the Patriarch for his extensive community work. Many Ukrainian Orthodox (EP) came for this and the later banquet because their Metropolitan expressly forbade them from even being in the same neighbourhood as Patriarch Filaret. There are autocephalous and KP Orthodox parishes in Ukraine that share the same church building with Ukr. Greek Catholics as well. This is ecumenism Ukrainian style. As for the "uncanonical" label and "how dare EC's have anything to do with Filaret" stuff - many Ukrainians have come to realize that "uncanonical" really means "not in union with Moscow the rest of Orthodoxy." There you have it.

fixed that for you.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The UOC-KP is gaining in strength annually. When the Kyivan Patriarch visited Canada, some EP parishes, such as in Winnipeg, united with him, thereby breaking communion with the EP.

Interesting. Do you know if the EP has made any statement about these losses?
Posted By: Administrator

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 08:46 AM

I think that this article is rather good, and fits in with this discussion: Are You Part of the Problem, or Are You Part of the Solution? An Interview with Fr. Robert Taft (February 2013). [It may be worthy of a new thread.]

Regarding the whole OicwR debate, I was taught when I was a kid that we Greek Catholics were "Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction". And I grew up in a fairly latinized parish!

Those who reject the OicwR description need to consider what Pope Pius IX told the Russian Catholics at the end of the 19th century: "Ne plus, ne minus, nec altera: add nothing, omit nothing, change nothing." That is all that OicwR means for the vast majority of us who use the term to describe ourselves.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Administrator
Those who reject the OicwR description need to consider what Pope Pius IX told the Russian Catholics at the end of the 19th century: "Ne plus, ne minus, nec altera: add nothing, omit nothing, change nothing."

I don't know when that was exactly, but given that he said "add nothing", I'm guessing it was after he had finished defining dogmas.
Posted By: JBenedict

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 10:33 AM

It was Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914), who did not define any dogmas ex cathedra, who said "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter," not Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).

However, I'd bet a lot of money that the whole point was largely that he didn't see Catholic dogmas, even those defined ex cathedra, as fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

I'm all in favor of the OicwR language, as long as it's not understood to mean that Latins are heretics (as I've heard it used.)
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by JBenedict
However, I'd bet a lot of money that the whole point was largely that he didn't see Catholic dogmas, even those defined ex cathedra, as fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Maybe, but I would have assumed he didn't, even without being told. He was the pope after all!
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 11:03 AM

Thank you sir!
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 11:08 AM

That's a very good point sir.

"Very Eastern Greek-Catholics" will make the case that Rome should return to certain things that Orthodox affirm as "objectionable" to say the least.

One example is the removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed or a return to the original text (in fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence did NOT insist the Latins repudiate the Filioque as a theological opinion - only that it be removed from the Nicene Creed.

Rome has always affirmed the original text of that Creed to be legitimate. Why couldn't Rome officially say it is returning to the original text while leaving the Filioque as part of the Latin Triadological tradition?

Alex
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 11:40 AM

Semantics.

What Administrator describes is fine. (But I've never met an ethnic Greek Catholic who described himself that way, and have had one ask me not to!) What I would describe as high-church Greek Catholicism and what Alex just called very Eastern Greek Catholic. St Pius X simply repeated what Rome's wanted all along for the Greek Catholics: be liturgically Orthodox, unlatinized, and express Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms. Because of that, Rome has never told the Greek Catholics to add the filioque, which in my real-life experience has surprised Catholics, understandably since it seems to be about doctrine. It's a matter of knowing the history and context.

In this thread, by OicwR I mean something different from the high-church Greek Catholics who describe themselves, sometimes, as Orthodox: someone who doesn't accept the true-church claim as taught by either church; a Greek Catholic who dissents from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, rather than expressing them in Orthodox terms. In other words, he thinks he's smarter than both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and thinks the Orthodox ought to be kissing his hand for deigning to agree with them, yet remaining outside. Granted, the ecumenical Orthodox he knows give him the same recognition (true bishops, true sacraments) and benefit of the doubt, as a never-Orthodox Catholic, that Catholicism gives never-Catholic Orthodox. But, even though his theology happens to be conservative, which is great, the dissent is just as arrogant as that of Catholic liberals, or of Anglicans with their branch theory dismissing the teachings of 'the Romans' (a very Anglican way to referring to Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox while seeming nice by including them.

I know that Sviatoslav's official title is major archbishop but that such have been calling themselves patriarch since Joseph (Slipyj); not a real problem, Rome looks the other way, and I call him patriarch to be polite.

Of course the Greek Catholic pastor in Toronto would call Filaret by his title; whether canonical Orthodox or not, Orthodox are true bishops in Catholicism. Filaret was the Russian Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev who tried to parlay Ukrainian independence into a promotion, declaring church independence and himself patriarch. It's sort of like the split of the Bulgarian church from Constantinople in the 1800s, only the rest of the Orthodox communion isn't in communion with it right now. Also, many/most Ukrainian churchgoers are happy being Russian Orthodox, because most Ukrainians are Russian. The Greek Catholic far west isn't. Related, but not. Who knows? The KP has lots of members (such as former President Yushchenko); maybe after a long time it will get its wish and be the state or national church, and recognized by the Orthodox communion. (If one canonical church recognizes you, as the EP did the KP until recently, you're in the club.)
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 12:07 PM

^a very Anglican way to refer to Catholics
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
In this thread, by OicwR I mean something different from the high-church Greek Catholics who describe themselves, sometimes, as Orthodox: someone who doesn't accept the true-church claim as taught by either church; a Greek Catholic who dissents from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, rather than expressing them in Orthodox terms. In other words, he thinks he's smarter than both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and thinks the Orthodox ought to be kissing his hand for deigning to agree with them, yet remaining outside. Granted, the ecumenical Orthodox he knows give him the same recognition (true bishops, true sacraments) and benefit of the doubt, as a never-Orthodox Catholic, that Catholicism gives never-Catholic Orthodox. But, even though his theology happens to be conservative, which is great, the dissent is just as arrogant as that of Catholic liberals, or of Anglicans with their branch theory dismissing the teachings of 'the Romans' (a very Anglican way to referring to Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox while seeming nice by including them.


Well, I was basically intent on accepting your usage of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread); but after reading your last post I have to object or at least request clarification: are you including arrogant/triumphalistic attitudes as part of the definition?

If Yes, then I would say that I find that rhetoric problematic.
If No, then I guess I can accept your meaning of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread) ... and I can get to my actual point, that I don't believe that being OicwR as such is the problem. The problem is if an OicwR has an arrogant/triumphalistic attitude.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 12:16 PM

There is nothing in what Sergei has said about the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" issue that I wouldn't agree with.

Certainly, he is right about our pastor referring to Patriarch Filaret as such. One could go further to say that many UGC's feel close to the KP as do Ukrainian Orthodox of the EP jurisdiction. The divisions we have, EC or the various Orthodox jurisdictions, canonical or not, are beginning to be understood not as theological issues, but as geopolitical ones which make the theological/canonical issues of less significance.

How this will pale out is something we shall have to see.

Alex
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
In this thread, by OicwR I mean something different from the high-church Greek Catholics who describe themselves, sometimes, as Orthodox: someone who doesn't accept the true-church claim as taught by either church; a Greek Catholic who dissents from post-schism Catholic definitions of doctrine, rather than expressing them in Orthodox terms. In other words, he thinks he's smarter than both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches, and thinks the Orthodox ought to be kissing his hand for deigning to agree with them, yet remaining outside. Granted, the ecumenical Orthodox he knows give him the same recognition (true bishops, true sacraments) and benefit of the doubt, as a never-Orthodox Catholic, that Catholicism gives never-Catholic Orthodox. But, even though his theology happens to be conservative, which is great, the dissent is just as arrogant as that of Catholic liberals, or of Anglicans with their branch theory dismissing the teachings of 'the Romans' (a very Anglican way to referring to Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox while seeming nice by including them.


Well, I was basically intent on accepting your usage of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread); but after reading your last post I have to object or at least request clarification: are you including arrogant/triumphalistic attitudes as part of the definition?

If Yes, then I would say that I find that rhetoric problematic.
If No, then I guess I can accept your meaning of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread) ... and I can get to my actual point, that I don't believe that being OicwR as such is the problem. The problem is if an OicwR has an arrogant/triumphalistic attitude.


No. The true-church claim isn't sinful of course; it's Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. But arrogance and triumphalism often appear with it. Basically, that kind of arrogance is attributing a mark of the church to yourself. I object to the kind of arrogance that puts oneself above either church; the OicwRs think they're better than both good Catholics and good Orthodox.
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 01:09 PM

Quote
I'm all in favor of the OicwR language, as long as it's not understood to mean that Latins are heretics (as I've heard it used.)


As am I, but I have never heard any OicwR say Rome or Latins were Heretical. What would be the point of being in communion with someone that you believe to be a heretic?
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I'm all in favor of the OicwR language, as long as it's not understood to mean that Latins are heretics (as I've heard it used.)


As am I, but I have never heard any OicwR say Rome or Latins were Heretical. What would be the point of being in communion with someone that you believe to be a heretic?


They passively do by saying they don't assent to post-schism Catholic defined doctrines. (As opposed to expressing them in Orthodox terms, which is what Rome wants them to do.) Because of that, you're right; it doesn't make sense for them to remain Catholic.

OicwRs: Stuart, an occasional Melkite, maybe Bob Taft, and light, high-turnover traffic of converts who may start in Greek Catholicism as high-church but get fed up with the latinizations and second-class treatment, buy into Orthodoxy and convert.
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
One example is the removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed or a return to the original text (in fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence did NOT insist the Latins repudiate the Filioque as a theological opinion - only that it be removed from the Nicene Creed.


Not really. It is true that he made a remark that the Latisns should remove the filioque from the creed, then a union could take place, but the context of this was that the Greeks were at the time discussing what possible examples would be acceptable for union (Maximus' letter, Patriarch Tarasios' confession of procession through the Son, etc.) He quite vigorously opposed the doctrine itself.
Posted By: Cavaradossi

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 01:52 PM

^Latins
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I'm all in favor of the OicwR language, as long as it's not understood to mean that Latins are heretics (as I've heard it used.)

As am I, but I have never heard any OicwR say Rome or Latins were Heretical. What would be the point of being in communion with someone that you believe to be a heretic?

Good point. If a Catholic becomes convinced that the pope and the Latin Church are heretical, then staying Catholic really doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by The young fogey
They passively do by saying they don't assent to post-schism Catholic defined doctrines.

I think this is one of the few points where I have to completely disagree with you (not to be confused with the many points where I partially disagree ;)) : calling a teaching false isn't the same as calling it heretical.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Well, I was basically intent on accepting your usage of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread); but after reading your last post I have to object or at least request clarification: are you including arrogant/triumphalistic attitudes as part of the definition?

If Yes, then I would say that I find that rhetoric problematic.
If No, then I guess I can accept your meaning of OicwR (at least for purposes on this thread) ... and I can get to my actual point, that I don't believe that being OicwR as such is the problem. The problem is if an OicwR has an arrogant/triumphalistic attitude.

No. The true-church claim isn't sinful of course; it's Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. But arrogance and triumphalism often appear with it. Basically, that kind of arrogance is attributing a mark of the church to yourself. I object to the kind of arrogance that puts oneself above either church; the OicwRs think they're better than both good Catholics and good Orthodox.

I don't think it's as black-and-white as you're suggesting. Consider a couple of (admittedly inconclusive) points:
- Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy all disagree about how many of them have valid orders (2, 3, or 1 respectively). Does that mean that each of them "puts themselves above" the other two?
- In some ways OicwR disagree with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but in other ways they agree with each.
- (Undecided on adding more points.)
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 04:37 PM

Dear Cavaradossi,

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
One example is the removal of the Filioque from the Nicene Creed or a return to the original text (in fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence did NOT insist the Latins repudiate the Filioque as a theological opinion - only that it be removed from the Nicene Creed.


Not really. It is true that he made a remark that the Latisns should remove the filioque from the creed, then a union could take place, but the context of this was that the Greeks were at the time discussing what possible examples would be acceptable for union (Maximus' letter, Patriarch Tarasios' confession of procession through the Son, etc.) He quite vigorously opposed the doctrine itself.

He quite vigorously opposed it according to the Greek understanding of ekporeusai. This is evident when he accused the Latins of asserting that the Son is the "cause and source" of the Holy Spirit -- which is not true. While the Latins did indeed refer to the Son as "cause," they distinctly and explicitly did not refer to him as "source." This indicates that he misunderstood the Latin doctrine of filioque, and having misunderstood it, it cannot be stated that St. Mark of Ephesus actually opposed it.

But that is all I will say on the matter unless you want to start another thread on the Latin understanding of filioque. eek

Blessings
Posted By: eastwardlean?

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/21/13 05:30 PM


fogey,

Your conclusions might follow if you were right about where to mark assent and dissent. But I don't think you are; I've tried to explain why I don't think you are. You haven't really said much in reply except to assert that I am wrong.

I am not really sure where you are getting your view--at this point I am guessing that you don't argue it because you simply assume it's the truth that Catholics believe and so doesn't need argued.

But, the Catholic Church doesn't say--that I am aware of--that legitimate papal definitions require the assent of the faithful in their verbal formulation, or rather, that the required assent must extend to the verbal formulation. Nor am I aware of a truly binding list of which papal definitions qualify. To be sure, there is a pretty widely accepted list, with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption at the top of that list. All that said, there may be legitimate reasons either to doubt that a given definition 1) is really on the list or 2) that its formulation helpfully formulates anything much at all. In the case of the two Marian dogmas, my own doubts lie more with the latter than with the former.

The opposition to the Eastern Orthodox Churches is both significant and relevant on Catholic terms because--as we seemed to agree earlier--on Catholic terms, papally defined doctrine does not (and presumably cannot) disagree with the ordinary teaching of the Church. Your retreat to the 'true Church' stopping at the boundaries of the Roman communion won't work in this instance, since Rome regards the Eastern and Oriental Churches as real 'churches' where the Catholic Church is really present and built up, and whose faith is accepted--believers from these churches are even welcome to participate in the communion of the Catholic Church (though we also encourage them to follow their own authorities.) Moreover, I genuinely believe that the venerable observance of the Mother of God's Dormition in Eastern Christianity warranted (or was thought to warrant) the recognition that this doctrine really did pertain to the faith of the Church. For that very reason, it is not irrelevant that the Eastern Churches have mostly not recognized their faith in the definition of this doctrine.

Accordingly, it is not really clear to me that there is necessarily a necessary or intrinsic difference between what you describe as clearly opposite positions, namely 'expressing Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms' and 'passively rejecting' or 'non-affirming' them.

I am waiting on your 'no sale,' though I would appreciate a reply that actually engaged my argument.



Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?

fogey,

Your conclusions might follow if you were right about where to mark assent and dissent. But I don't think you are; I've tried to explain why I don't think you are. You haven't really said much in reply except to assert that I am wrong.


Guess I'm not smart enough to be a dissenter. I can live with that.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
I am not really sure where you are getting your view--at this point I am guessing that you don't argue it because you simply assume it's the truth that Catholics believe and so doesn't need argued.

But, the Catholic Church doesn't say--that I am aware of--that legitimate papal definitions require the assent of the faithful in their verbal formulation, or rather, that the required assent must extend to the verbal formulation. Nor am I aware of a truly binding list of which papal definitions qualify. To be sure, there is a pretty widely accepted list, with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption at the top of that list. All that said, there may be legitimate reasons either to doubt that a given definition 1) is really on the list or 2) that its formulation helpfully formulates anything much at all. In the case of the two Marian dogmas, my own doubts lie more with the latter than with the former.

Dissent from the substance of a defined doctrine. No sale. Good Catholics don't engage in that sophistry.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Your retreat to the 'true Church' stopping at the boundaries of the Roman communion won't work in this instance, since Rome regards the Eastern and Oriental Churches as real 'churches' where the Catholic Church is really present and built up, and whose faith is accepted--believers from these churches are even welcome to participate in the communion of the Catholic Church (though we also encourage them to follow their own authorities.)

You're trying to make me into a strawman version of Catholicism's true-church claim. A great thing about being Catholic is they don't tell you to regard the Orthodox as frauds. So, the Orthodox have real bishops, true definitions of doctrine (as opposed to post-schism opinion, which can regard Catholicism as a fraud), and a true Mass. Never-Catholic Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt regarding schism, so never-Catholic Orthodox bishops have apostolic authority over their own people as somehow part of the church. Local apostolic churches, even those in schism, are sisters, but the church as a whole, the Catholic Church, can have no sisters, contra the OicwRs' relativism.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Moreover, I genuinely believe that the venerable observance of the Mother of God's Dormition in Eastern Christianity warranted (or was thought to warrant) the recognition that this doctrine really did pertain to the faith of the Church. For that very reason, it is not irrelevant that the Eastern Churches have mostly not recognized their faith in the definition of this doctrine.

I think they reject it out of spite.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Accordingly, it is not really clear to me that there is necessarily a necessary or intrinsic difference between what you describe as clearly opposite positions, namely 'expressing Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms' and 'passively rejecting' or 'non-affirming' them.

The dissent game again. No, thanks.

Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
I am waiting on your 'no sale,' though I would appreciate a reply that actually engaged my argument.

Guess I'm too dumb. The magisterium's good enough for me.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 05:39 PM

Dear Sergei,

You didn't capitalize "Magisterium . . ."
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Sergei,

You didn't capitalize "Magisterium . . ."


lol
Posted By: IAlmisry

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
(If one canonical church recognizes you, as the EP did the KP until recently, you're in the club.)

Oh? When was that?
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 06:55 PM

The EP has never recognized the UOC-KP.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 07:07 PM

Regarding the Orthodox mess in Ukraine, I just want to state that with God ALL things are possible but on His timetable.

As a living example of this ,after 41 years in the priesthood, two once young seminary classmates, now older Orthodox priests, graduates of Christ the Savior Seminary, served the Divine Liturgy together for the first time at the funeral of Archpriest David Hritsko's (of the ROCOR) uncle at St. Michael's ACROD in Binghamton. (The other priest was of course the pastor, Father Jim Dutko.) Considering the bitter polemics and vitriol from all sides in years past, this was an emotionally important to both priests. Like most faithful and clergy, none of the nasty rhetoric ever came from either priest.

Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 11:21 PM

I don't think of it as an "Orthodox mess" - but as an ongoing struggle of Ukrainian Orthodox for their rights as a Particular Orthodox Church over and against the hegemony of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The "non-canonical Orthodox" are reuniting, parish by parish. Eastern Catholics are closer to their Orthodox brothers and sisters than ever before.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/22/13 11:25 PM

Yes, St Mark of Ephesus did oppose the doctrine of the Filioque itself, but felt that if the Latins removed it from the Creed, union could take place and, over time, the Latins would see the error of their ways with respect to the Filioque under the influence of Grace that was absent from them due to the break in communion with the (Orthodox) Church.

That was his true position. But he understood the Filioque as meaning two Sources within the Holy Trinity for the Holy Spirit - which is actually rejected as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. So St Mark and Rome agreed on this aspect of the Filioque debate without acknowledging that they did.

Alex
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 12:16 AM

From an Orthodox ecclesiology point of view, the canonical situation in Ukraine is indeed a "mess" which needs resolution consistent with Church law - as does the American "mess." An autocephaly accepted by the canonical churches is necessary in Ukraine and my point,based on my anecdote, is that through God ALL things are possible.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
(If one canonical church recognizes you ... you're in the club.)

I guess I had forgotten about this comment. I wonder if this is necessarily true (even without the part that I ellipsis'ed over). whistle (I would have put a raise-eyebrow or scratch-chin, but we have neither in this system.)
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I don't think of it as an "Orthodox mess"

Maybe we could make everyone happy by saying "messy Orthodoxy". cool wink
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 08:27 AM

I thought I read earlier in this thread that the EP used to be in communion with the KP, but of course that might not have been so. (Maybe it was that the Ukrainian Orthodox in the US, who are EP, used to recognize the KP.)

Right, I thought if one official Orthodox church recognizes you, you're Orthodox. The situation of the Bulgarian Orthodox when they declared independence from Constantinople, rather than Constantinople granting them autocephaly, the way it's supposed to work. Constantinople declared them schismatic, much as the MP has done to the KP, but the Russians remained in communion with their close Slavic cousins in the Balkans so no problem.

During ROCOR's fanatical phase, from the '60s through the '00s, when it took in a bunch of anti-ecumenical Greeks, ROCOR remained in Orthodoxy by a thread, being recognized by the Serbs. Otherwise it would have been the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Orthodoxy. But all those years, their priests couldn't concelebrate with other American Orthodox so it was as if they weren't Orthodox.

As far as I know, no canonical church recognizes the KP so they're in the uncomfortable position of being officially outside Orthodoxy, but they're obviously still in the family, not fakers.

I'd forgotten how bitter the jurisdictional wars in American Orthodoxy have been, namely the factions of Russian Orthodox in America during Soviet times. When ROCOR first had a real presence here, right after the war (displaced persons), the Metropolia parishes were told the newcomers were schismatics outside Orthodoxy so have nothing to do with them. (Then in the ’70s some ROCOR parishes picked up old Metropolia parishioners when the Metropolia-turned-OCA dioceses dumped Slavonic and the Julian calendar.) There was the Soviet church, the MP at the time, which a few Metropolia parishes joined, causing more acrimony and court cases. Parishes were congregationalist, unknown in European Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, jurisdiction-shopping and hopping. (Effectively, fire your bishop and hire another one; some parishes treated priests like that as the congregations jumped ships.) There's a Metropolia/OCA parish here, rare as it was founded by actual Russians (not Ruthenian ex-Catholics), that's legally still 'St Nicholas Independent Russian Orthodox Church'.

But unlike in the Ukraine, American messy Orthodoxy isn't a theological problem and not a big deal to American Orthodox because almost all of the players are in communion with at least one canonical Orthodox church so they're in communion with each other. That's why only the MP recognizing OCA autocephaly isn't a problem. (Exceptions: outliers such as the Old Calendarist Greek jurisdictions and the Byelorussian Orthodox Church in America; not in the club but in the family.)
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 08:57 AM

Thanks for the great explanation. The inherent "messiness" of the Orthodox model is a stark contrast to the Roman model. Yet reality is often at odds with plans or models. Ask any remodeling contractor.

We Orthodox argue that all bishops are equal, but we deceive others by not admitting that some are "more equal than others." (Heck, just whose administrative model do you think Moscow or the EP adopted?) Likewise, it often seems that the Holy Father is more akin to the great Oz than the maniacal tyrant anti-Catholic polemicists portray or the omnipotent ruler of Hollywood's Vatican.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 10:51 AM

Dear Fogey and DMD,

One problem in approaching the canonicity of the UOC-KP is how "canonicity" can and is being used to simply shut down the Ukrainian Orthodox movement for its own Patriarchate, independent of Moscow.

That is socio-political hegemony, plain and simple. To leave that issue out of the ecclesiological equation is wrong. It is a disturbing problem within Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy that has been used as a colonializing arm of Great Russian imperialism. This is for Orthodoxy to sort out in the future.

Sergei's use of "the Ukraine" is a linguistic expression of that hegemony (although I'm not saying it is intentional on his part, I just don't know if it is). "The Ukraine" is the Great Russian usage to describe what it considers to be a Little Russian province, rather than an independent country, which is what Ukraine is today. I'll leave it at that.

With respect to the recognition of Orthodox patriarchates, Russia, Serbia and Bulgaria each proclaimed their own patriarchates and maintained the titles until such time (in some cases, several hundred years) before world Orthodoxy gave canonical recognition to it.

The UOC-MP is also faced with what can turn out to be a messy situation. It unites both Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Christians under His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) who has managed to keep both sides in a kind of equilibrium.

Those Ukrainian Orthodox who are in the UOC-MP remain there because they want to be part of world Orthodoxy and believe that their goals of church autonomy etc. can be achieved in time. Moscow does not appear anxious to move toward those directions any time soon however.

But as long as Metropolitan Vladimir is the Primate, everyone in the UOC-MP is happy - for now. He has to deal with strong forces within his jurisdiction that are for greater Russification, beginning with a change to the title of the church back to simply "Russkaya Pravoslavna Tserkva." There are openly Russophile Hierarchs in the UOC-MP and there is a real fear among the UOC-MP leadership that with the death of Metropolitan Vladimir (who now suffers from the same condition that afflicted Pope John Paul II), the church will experience a schism which could go in favour of the UOC-KP.

Time will tell. But there is no stopping the UOC-KP in terms of growth and influence. And every time the Moscow Patriarch visits Kyiv, he annoys more and more Ukrainian Orthodox who see Metropolitan Vladimir as the immediate head of their Church without looking over him to Moscow.

The divisions in Ukraine are rather simple then - those in favour of a Ukrainian Church (which includes those in the UOC-MP) and those in favour of the continuing domination of the ROC in Ukraine. Given the historical issues involved, the situation won't go away any time soon nor are "canonical" considerations sufficient to put them away.

Also, mention was made of the nationalism in western Ukraine. This idea is also part of Great Russian hegemony. From that perspective, for Ukrainians to want their own Church (just as Russians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks etc. have) means that they must be "nationalists" or else otherwise be inspired by nationalist political movements.

While there are such movements (and Russia is not stranger to its own nationalist movements), most Ukrainians are not Banderites etc. They have their own cultural/national self-awareness within their own independent country and want their own autocephalous Church, independent of Moscow. There are Ukrainians who are of that same view even though they speak only Russian - I've met many such myself.

Social and political issues are part and parcel of religious/ecclesiological considerations.

The way "canonicity" is applied in this situation is what is the true source of the "messiness" involved.

I don't expect agreement on this issue. I'm content to support our Ukrainian Orthodox people, of whatever jurisdiction, EP, MP or KP, in their legitimate aspirations.

Alex
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:02 AM

You're welcome and thanks. Sure, C'ople, because of its history, and Moscow, because Russia's the world's most powerful Orthodox country, think they're Pope-like. You're right that the Pope isn't the menacing figure in Catholic life that Catholic liberals and non-Catholics make him out to be. Traditionalists are actually papal minimalists. The liberals want the Pope to use authority he doesn't have, in order to give them what they want.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
Right, I thought if one official Orthodox church recognizes you, you're Orthodox. The situation of the Bulgarian Orthodox when they declared independence from Constantinople, rather than Constantinople granting them autocephaly, the way it's supposed to work. Constantinople declared them schismatic, much as the MP has done to the KP, but the Russians remained in communion with their close Slavic cousins in the Balkans so no problem.

That -- I mean the original action of the Bulgarian Orthodox declaring independence, not the later events -- sounds to me to be similar, not as much to the KP's endeavors to be [recognized as] a canonical Orthodox church, but more to the UGCC declaring itself to be a patriarchate.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:08 AM

P.S. Funny that, with 11 pages about Fr. Taft, nobody has mentioned his proposal (10 years ago?) that the UGCC should put "Return to Sender" on any mail addressed to "Major Archbishop ..."

whistle smile
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:17 AM

In English it's 'the Ukraine', and I'm pro-Russian without apology, so that meaning of 'the Ukraine' is part of what I mean, but of course as an American looking at how a Christian, nationalist Russia (yes, a badass gangster state I wouldn't necessarily want to live in) can help conservative American values (a check against liberal American and liberal European power and political correctness).

I think in the older cases of national churches declaring independence, it was like Bulgaria in the 1800s. World Orthodoxy didn't go out of communion with them.

Regarding Russian-speaking Ukrainians (namely, most Ukrainians) being nationalists, that could well be. Like how Dutch-speaking Flanders in Belgium doesn’t want to be part of the Netherlands. Several countries speaking the same language isn’t unusual historically in Europe.

Russian: Русская Православная Церковь.
Ukrainian: Російська Православна Церква.

As you can see, like Spanish and Portuguese, very mutually intelligible. With my smattering of Russian I've talked to Ukrainian speakers.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
I thought I read earlier in this thread that...
(Maybe it was that the Ukrainian Orthodox in the US, who are EP, used to recognize the KP.)

I don't know if that was said on this thread, but I recall seeing, on the KP website, a lament about many parishes in the US leaving them and going to the EP, about 20 years ago.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The UOC-MP is also faced with what can turn out to be a messy situation. It unites both Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Christians under His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) who has managed to keep both sides in a kind of equilibrium.

Those Ukrainian Orthodox who are in the UOC-MP remain there because they want to be part of world Orthodoxy and believe that their goals of church autonomy etc. can be achieved in time. Moscow does not appear anxious to move toward those directions any time soon however.

But as long as Metropolitan Vladimir is the Primate, everyone in the UOC-MP is happy - for now. He has to deal with strong forces within his jurisdiction that are for greater Russification, beginning with a change to the title of the church back to simply "Russkaya Pravoslavna Tserkva." There are openly Russophile Hierarchs in the UOC-MP and there is a real fear among the UOC-MP leadership that with the death of Metropolitan Vladimir (who now suffers from the same condition that afflicted Pope John Paul II), the church will experience a schism which could go in favour of the UOC-KP.

Wouldn't want to be in his shoes. (Hey, I never said I was cut out to be heroic. blush) It would feel like having bites taken out you from two sides. eek frown
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 02:15 PM

Dear Sergei,

Well, we will agree to disagree. "The Ukraine" is not "English" for Ukrayina. I also speak English and did my doctorate in the sociology of Ukrainian cultural identity in English as well. Here is an article on this by Prof. Andrew Gregorovich:

www.torugg.org/ukraine_or_the_ukraine.html

I've no problem with you being pro-Russian. Being pro-imperialist Russian is another thing. But I'm all for the conservative, even Old Believer style, Russian spirituality.

It's all a matter of courtesy and I'm not saying you are intentionally being discourteous in your use of "the Ukraine."

The government of Ukraine and its embassies do not use "The Ukraine" and will speak up when it is used by others who should know better. I'm doing the same here.

And again, I question your use of "nationalist" for those Ukrainians or Russians who are simply "cultural pride" or who have a basic national identity.

To be a nationalist is to espouse a particular political ideology based on one's view of a nation-state. There are, at last count, 17 different types of nationalism and some versions don't really need to refer to culture at all.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 02:16 PM

Dear Peter,

You Rock! biggrin

That's exactly it in a nutshell. See, I told you you were wasted at CAF . . . grin

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 02:20 PM

Well, when Bl. Pope John Paul the Great was in Ukraine, he was present at a Divine Liturgy where there was an explicit commemoration of "Patriarch Lubomyr . . ." and the Pope said nothing.

Don't you Latins have a rule that says "silence gives consent?" (Qui tacet consentire)

So the UGCC patriarchate now has papal approval, if only tacit . . grin

Love you Latins!

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 02:21 PM

Dear Sergey,

Please forgive my earlier post on "the Ukraine" business.

I should just learn to keep my mouth shut.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 02:47 PM

Dear Sergey,

Just one more question - when you wrote that one should not rely on anything "Alex Roman wrote" - what was your meaning?

Was it because I'm not pro-Russian that I'm not trustworthy? biggrin

I was deeply offended by that.

Alex
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
In English it's 'the Ukraine', and I'm pro-Russian without apology, so that meaning of 'the Ukraine' is part of what I mean, but of course as an American looking at how a Christian, nationalist Russia (yes, a badass gangster state I wouldn't necessarily want to live in) can help conservative American values (a check against liberal American and liberal European power and political correctness).

I think in the older cases of national churches declaring independence, it was like Bulgaria in the 1800s. World Orthodoxy didn't go out of communion with them.

Regarding Russian-speaking Ukrainians (namely, most Ukrainians) being nationalists, that could well be. Like how Dutch-speaking Flanders in Belgium doesn’t want to be part of the Netherlands. Several countries speaking the same language isn’t unusual historically in Europe.

Russian: Русская Православная Церковь.
Ukrainian: Російська Православна Церква.

As you can see, like Spanish and Portuguese, very mutually intelligible. With my smattering of Russian I've talked to Ukrainian speakers.


Like most Rusyn Americans of my era,who remain either in the BCC or ACROD, I was brought up with the emphatic cultural teaching that we were most emphatically NOT Russians,referred to in a derogatory fashion as "katzaps" and while we were not Ukrainian, our language, religious, musical, dance and folk lore were far closer to that of Ukraine than that of the Muscovites. We believed that our people were betrayed by the Russian Orthodox in the early 20th century in America when they were welcomed unto Orthodoxy by the Tsarist regime not with love and affection but with the same imperialist condescension which the Rusyn Greek Catholics faced from the American Roman hierarchy.

What you wrote is simply more of the same Russian chauvinist pablum which infected so many immigrants here in the last century.

As to language I shall relate a Pennsylvania "Russian" story from world war two. John and George left their small Northeast Pennsylvania hamlet to join the army. They were told they were good "Ruskyj" boys by their Baba all their young lives. They had a going away party at the Russian Club and they were fluent in "ponashemu", the language spoken by most at their Church, it didn't matter if it was Greek Catholic or Orthodox. They served with Patton's Army and were part of the US Army group which met up with the Red Army at the Elbe.

When they came home Baba, their priest and all of the neighbors wanted to know about the Russian soldiers they met.

John looked at George and said, "Those Russians were the dumbest SOB's we ever met. We didn't understand more than a word or two of what they said and whenever we tried to talk to them they would laugh until their sides split."

Yes, there are many Russians in Ukraine, especially the closer you get to Great Russia. But to assert that they are nothing more than "little Russians" is to parrot the discredited panslavism of the past.

Your argument is as shallow as if a German came to Ontario and argued that Canadians were really the same as Americans because of superficial cultural, historical and linguistic similarities.

Good luck with that.



Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:39 PM

Dear DMD,

Thank you for your enriching post which moved me deeply.

Coming to know my brother Rusyns has been an eye-opening experience for me.

Most recently, a legislator I knew very well and who was a Rusyn (he used to recit Rusyn poetry in the legislative cafeteria as we waited in line . . .), reposed in the Lord suddenly (Mr. Peter Kormos who at the time was a municipal councillor, having resigned his seat at the provincial legislature).

He loved his Rusyn heritage, but his language was, well, let me say that it was a purer "Ukrainian" than the dialect I originally learned at home. I gave him an icon of Bl. Theodore Romzha which he hung in his office and later took with him.

Your post reminded me of him just now and I'm somewhat in tears remembering him. He once stood in the legislature and told my then boss that he was "jealous" that my boss had me rather than he himself grin

Kormos was a great public servant who always defended the underdog. He is missed by many.

My salutations to you, sir.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/23/13 11:42 PM

And please forgive my spelling errors - my right eye is failing me and I don't know how to edit a post.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 02:09 AM

By pointing out Russian power and good points I'm not trying to put down related Slavic groups.
Posted By: Pavloosh

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 06:55 AM

Very interesting post DMD.
I'm still stumped as to why ACRC refers to itself as
Carpatho-Russian rather than Carpatho-Rusyn.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 09:16 AM

My father said that back then the Rusyn reawakening movement was yet to flourish, that translating "Karpatska-Rus" and "Rusynyj" into English was often wrong, people knew in Rusyn and Ukrainian the differences between "rossia", "Rusyn" etc... but screwed it up in English and sadly, some equated Rusyn with Greek Catholicism - a fallacy still perpetuated by some Russian minded folks.

Look, I have much admiration for and appreciate common religious and cultural bonds with the Russian people. Their churches, their music etc... always stirs my heart. I am not "anti" Russian so much as I am proud of my heritage, and more so of the great country my grandparents embraced!
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 09:21 AM

I was going to pm Orthodox Catholic but he is over his limit.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 10:25 AM

Actually, my PM privileges are disabled as I've not been here for a long time.

You could send me a message through the "Ukrainian Orthodoxy" website, if you like.

Alex
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 10:47 AM

Again, DMD, I'm the last person to put down Rusyns. (And not just because this is a Rusyn-based board.) Met Rusyn-Americans over 20 years ago, dated a Rusyn-American, and even got to talk to that rarity in America, a Rusyn immigrant, shortly before she passed away. (Rusyn immigration mostly ended with World War I and 1920s immigration restrictions. So in America Rusyns are very American.)

Most Rusyns, like most Galician Ukrainians, are Greek Catholics, but noticing that is not necessarily a putdown. Certainly not from me.

I understand reasons what became ACROD went under Constantinople were they didn't want the Metropolia russifying them as it did its convert Rusyn majority earlier (well known here: about 60% of American Russian Orthodox aren't Russian), C'ople was understandably seen as the Orthodox equivalent of the Pope, and Moscow by then was Soviet thus untrustworthy.

Pan-Slavism and Russian missionizing among Greek Catholic immigrants in America 100 years ago were imperial Russian propaganda. But to be fair, back then it was often mutual. Among Rusyn intelligentsia, identifying with Russia and Orthodoxy, the level varying by person, were far commoner than now. There were a very few 19th-century Greek Catholic churchmen who were fine byzantinizers in the letter and spirit of what Rome wants, and of this board, and were hounded out of Greek Catholicism for it, got fed up and went to the Russian Orthodox, forced to do what their latinizing church enemies had long accused them of, being disloyal. The Soviets inadvertently ended all that by invading and persecuting Rusyns and other closely related Slavic groups.

ACROD's story is of people kicked out of the Catholic Church for no good reason: they weren't heretics or liberals, they just wanted to keep the rules they lived under in the old country, and they knew the local Roman Riters didn't want them so they owned their church property as protection. The Roman Riters responsible, just like John Ireland, will have a deservedly rough Judgement Day. It's obvious looking at ACROD historically (monsignori, First Communions, etc.) that they didn't want to leave; the positions against the Pope, etc., are ex post facto rationalizations.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 10:53 AM

'Ani do Rimu, ani do Moskvi' as your founder said.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
And please forgive my spelling errors - my right eye is failing me and I don't know how to edit a post.

The edit feature is gone for the time being, but possibly it will return at some point. I hope so.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 11:09 AM

To traditional American Catholics, a lot of the charm of Northeastern and Midwestern po-nashomu Orthodox, both Metropolia and ACROD, is they are so similar to traditional American Catholics. But the OCA ones sing the same music as Moscow/ROCOR and likely call themselves Russian; an exception: I've been to a parish that kept a lot of its prostopinije.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 11:11 AM

For the newbs: Metropolia = OCA.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 12:27 PM

Quote
There were a very few 19th-century Greek Catholic churchmen who were fine byzantinizers in the letter and spirit of what Rome wants, and of this board, and were hounded out of Greek Catholicism for it, got fed up and went to the Russian Orthodox, forced to do what their latinizing church enemies had long accused them of, being disloyal.


Joseph Siemaszko for example.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/24/13 11:26 PM

Caught between the devil (the Austrian-Hungarians) and the deep blue sea (the Russians),the Rusyns,Lemkos,Galicians and all of the peoples along along the fault line between east and west were torn between the two dominant world powers which overshadowed them. Duchnovych himself found much to admire in the Russians.

I would point out that the retention of strictly Uniate customs was not limited to ACROD. Well into the 1960's many Rusyn founded Metropolia (now the OCA) retained customs like First Communion, baptism by aspersion and so on. As a more eastern orientation developed parish by parish things changed. ACROD entered Orthodoxy without the rose colored glasses that earlier converts possessed, but by 2000 most of the distinction between now OCA or ACROD Rusyn founded parishes had blurred. (It has to be conceded that post Vatican 2 de-Latinizations had a parallel impact on the former Greek Catholic communities as well.)

But, as I have pointed out on prior occasions, the existing liturgical practices of the Eparchy of Muchachevo are both inherently eastern and uniquely Rusyn. If this was what was similar to what was practiced there and in the Eparchy of Presov in the 19th century during the formative years of St. Alexis Toth, +Bishop Chornock and others it is no wonder that the chipping away over time of various promises made in the Unia became too much to bear. I would argue that integration of the Greek Catholics into the Roman Rite in the Americans might have succeeded have Rome not overreached by too quickly mandating celibacy and property control. It is even conceivable that had European history taken a different turn in the aftermath of the first war, the same fate might have awaited the ever loyal Greek Catholics of what is now Slovakia and Ukraine. (I mean no disrespect, but the same fierce desire to be honest to their heritage, to cherish the rights they held under the unions and to preserve their faith MIGHT have driven many of those who were martyred in defense of their faith by the Communists to have acted just like Toth and Chornock were the circumstances reversed had Rome acted in Europe as she had in the New World. )



However, all of this is mere speculation and far afield from the original subject.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by DMD
Caught between the devil (the Austrian-Hungarians) ...

I wouldn't want to say that on CAF. blush wink (I sometimes even wonder if I'll get in trouble for criticizing people who think the Union of Brest, Union of Uzhorod, etc. were a good idea! whistle)
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 08:51 AM

I know, DMD: I used to know an OCA priest who had Solemn First Communion as a kid, the way ACROD and Greek Catholics who have rebyzantinized now do it.

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by DMD
Caught between the devil (the Austrian-Hungarians) ...

I wouldn't want to say that on CAF. blush wink (I sometimes even wonder if I'll get in trouble for criticizing people who think the Union of Brest, Union of Uzhorod, etc. were a good idea! whistle)

That upsetment makes sense given the true-church claim. The legitimate difference of opinion among Catholics is whether convert-making like that or, the favored view now, concentrating on persuading the whole Orthodox Church to come back is better.

I think Austria-Hungary treated Greek Catholics far better than Irish-American churchmen did, which explains many Rusyns' shock at being treated badly by the latter.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 08:55 AM

Solemn First Communion in the old Metropolia = First Confession now in ACROD, Greek Catholic parishes that have rebyzantinized, and maybe the OCA too. Babies commune so the First Communion ceremony and party are now for the first Communion after the 7-year-olds make their first Confessions. Nice.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
That upsetment makes sense given the true-church claim. The legitimate difference of opinion among Catholics is whether convert-making like that or, the favored view now, concentrating on persuading the whole Orthodox Church to come back is better.

I think Austria-Hungary treated Greek Catholics far better than Irish-American churchmen did, which explains many Rusyns' shock at being treated badly by the latter.

I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant of the Austrian-Hungarian side of things (excepting that I know that back-in-the-day Transylvania was part of the Austrian-Hungarian kingdom, which played a major role in the existence of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church), but I can believe what you say there.
Posted By: Peter J

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Peter J
(excepting that I know that back-in-the-day Transylvania was part of the Austrian-Hungarian kingdom, which played a major role in the existence of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church)

I mean Kingdom of Hungary.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/25/13 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by The young fogey
I know, DMD: I used to know an OCA priest who had Solemn First Communion as a kid, the way ACROD and Greek Catholics who have rebyzantinized now do it.

Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by DMD
Caught between the devil (the Austrian-Hungarians) ...

I wouldn't want to say that on CAF. blush wink (I sometimes even wonder if I'll get in trouble for criticizing people who think the Union of Brest, Union of Uzhorod, etc. were a good idea! whistle)

That upsetment makes sense given the true-church claim. The legitimate difference of opinion among Catholics is whether convert-making like that or, the favored view now, concentrating on persuading the whole Orthodox Church to come back is better.

I think Austria-Hungary treated Greek Catholics far better than Irish-American churchmen did, which explains many Rusyns' shock at being treated badly by the latter.


Benign neglect is more like loo e it for fear of galvanizing a pro-Russian "fifth element" along the eastern borderlands. Classic "real politik" in action. It also explains why the Greek Catholic hierarchy in Presov and Ungvar ignored Rome and continued to send married priests to America as quickly as Moscow could mint New ones. There was much non-faith based, pragmatic "flip flopping" back before 1920. My grandparents' worldview, and that of their peers was very insular. Their religion was "nas virnyj" - our Faith - not viewed in terms of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The clergy knew, but the average Joe or Mary didn't care until "nas virnyj" was challenged. My parents generation was somewhat more aware of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as they were, for the most part, more worldly unless they grew up in a "patch" by a mine or a mill.
Posted By: The young fogey

Re: Recent interview with Fr. Taft - 05/26/13 06:24 PM

Makes sense...

Quote
...given the regionalism in much of the church’s history and especially in the East: grassroots folk traditional Catholicism... Po-našomu church as its own thing, both, and neither exclusively, Catholic and/nor Orthodox, like the Melkites in Syria and Lebanon now... Can anybody confirm that about East Slavic immigrants last century?
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum