www.byzcath.org

Orthodox - in union with Rome?

Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 03:04 PM

Dear Friends,

What does it mean to say that one is "Orthodox in union with Rome?" This is a term coined by our ancestors following the Union of Brest.

Is it legitimate?

Is it a matter of a mixture of clashing theologies, a hybrid of two exclusive perspectives when we take the Orthodox theological vine and graft onto it the papal doctrines?

Alex
Posted By: Columcille

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 03:23 PM

Alex-

Simply put, I'm not a big fan of the term. It confuses the real differences between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and theology. One is either Orthodox or Catholic; and if you are Orthodox, you ARE NOT in union with Rome. Eastern Catholics are a different entity altogether.

My 1 1/2 cents worth.

Columcille
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 03:42 PM

Alex:

It may have made more sense back in the 16th century when the only doctrine that separated the churches was the 'fillioque' which was taken care of as one of the articles of the 'Union' stipulating you weren't required to profess it. Which only leaves the issue of Papal Supremacy.

But things have changed since then and doctrines have been added to the Roman Catholic Church which you, as a part of, are required to believe. The doctrines of the RCC in 1596 and today are not the same. For many new doctrines have been added. We all already know what they are because they have been discussed here and elsewhere over and over again.

Today, based on the doctrines you are required to profess as members of a church who recognizes Papal authority, the 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' theory is an oxymoron to be sure.

As I have stated before, for me to say I am an Orthodox Catholic, is for me to say I still profess the same doctrines that were formulated in the first seven ecumenical councils. My Orthodox identity signifies that my church has neither added to those doctrines, (as the RCC), subtracted from those doctrines (as the Protestants), or changed those doctrines in any way (as both the RCC's & Protestants). That's what Orthodoxy is Alex. It is based on doctrinal beliefs. Not ritual. Because, as I have said many times before, the only similiarites we as Orthodox share with you as a Greek Catholic (I'll use that term from now on instead of Uniate) is ritual. And, even though the Orthodox Church considers ritual important, it does not take presence over doctrine.
The only thing we seem to have in common anymore is that too many of our people put nationalism over both doctrine and ritual. I think its an 'eastern european' thing.

OrthoMan
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 03:48 PM

Alex,

I do not think it is correct to call ourselves "Orthodox in union with Rome".

I base this opinion on the letter from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dated June 11, 1997, to His Beatitude Maximos V HAKIM
Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem.

In regards to the Zoghby Initiative.

The part that my opinion is based on is the response to "1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches."

To this the Congregation replied, "It is clear that this Patriarchate is an integral part of the Christian East whose patrimony it shares. As to the Greek-Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties. Besides, a correct formulation of the faith necessitates a reference not only to a particular Church, but to the whole Church of Christ, which knows no frontiers, neither in space nor in time."


Your brother in Christ,
David
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 04:03 PM

Dear Bob,

You da Ortoman!

Is this term offensive to Orthodox Christians?

And can there be a "Byzantine Catholic theology and spirituality" that while not Orthodox, is inspired by the Fathers etc.?

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 04:11 PM

Dear David,

That is a good reference and you make a very crucial point.

I can understand, and have argued, that a Catholic doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception that posits the total holiness and purity from sin of the Mother of God need not be accepted by Eastern Catholics - since the Eastern Church has always believed in the complete holiness of the Mother of God.

The IC doctrine addresses the western issue of Augustinian Original Sin that is not our theological jurisdiction.

I can understand the Melkite Hierarch's assertions in regards to these doctrines.

What I don't understand is the other assertion that accepts the Pope as first among equals only "as the Orthodox Church believes."

For that would make him Orthodox, not Catholic, as Orthoman rightly asserts.

And I know Eastern Catholic priests who think that way, that the only thing we are required to accept is the "Primacy of Honour" and not jurisdiction and infallibility.

These doctrines cannot be reconciled with what the historic Orthodox Church believes concerning the Patriarch of the West before 1054 AD but we accept them as Catholics.

I guess my question has to do with the idea of "organicity" and inner harmony/unity of doctrine.

We seem to talk as if we "take the train that says 'Orthodoxy' but get off where it says 'Papacy.'"

And my question is if we accept Orthodox theology, as we say we do, for all else, don't we betray it, or else graft onto it an unnatural appendage by accepting the papal doctrines?

Alex
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 04:37 PM

The late Metropolitan +Judson was fond of this term, although I remember that in a talk he once gave he used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”? Pope John Paul II has also called us to a more full Orthodox witness within Catholic communion. Back when the OCA was changing calendars, Archbishop Herman was interviewed on television and in print as stating that “Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction” (he was using us as an example of how we had smoothly changed calendars a decade earlier).

Is it legitimate? Yes. And originally the Orthodox thought so, too. At least until recent generations. The term they like to apply to us is “Uniate”, which means “union”. Who is in union with who? Are we Roman Catholics in communion with Roman Catholics? No. We are Orthodox Christians in communion with Peter and through that communion with Peter we are in communion with all Catholics. It would not make sense for the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome to call us “Uniates” if they believed us to be Roman Catholics.

Clashing theologies? Maybe. But since communion of Rome is really the crown of Orthodoxy the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Peter are lacking just as much as we are lacking by not being in full communion with them.

It is interesting that those who are Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) claim a wide elasticity of Orthodoxy yet deny the same elasticity to us.

I do find that some of the doctrinal expressions from the General Councils in the West need further definition. But it is unfair to state that the Roman Catholic Church had added doctrines. Using this logic one would have to state that the undivided Church added to the faith of the apostles by conduction the Seven Councils.

I do respect that the largest group generally gets to use their term of choice. Rome has generally used the term “Catholic” and the East “Orthodox”.

Do we still have anything in common? Yes. Almost everything. To deny this is to deny that we are formed as Christians primarily by our liturgical life of prayer.
Posted By: Tim Herman

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:00 PM

Personally, I hardly ever use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", simply because it is a long term. I generally prefer to use the terms "Greek Catholic", "Byzantine Catholic", or "Orthodox Catholic". Still, my Russian Catholic Church does seem to heavily use the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", stressing the adherance to Orthodox ritual and theology, while accepting the authority and primacy of the Pope of Rome. So I don't think there's anything really wrong with the term...I just am not quite fond of it because it is a mouthful...

+Тимофей, рабъ Божій
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:06 PM

Dear Moose,

Where have you been? We've missed you!

You bring such elasticity of thought to this subject!

Ultimately, "Orthodoxy" is a term once used by both East AND West. The West still uses it as does the Pope when he prays, in his Mass, for those who teach the "Orthodox Faith."

And it goes without saying that there are separating differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

But the Pre-Chalcedonians consider themselves to be Orthodox and don't accept the later four Councils.

If "Orthodox" is a generic term, which is what I'm getting at, then it might be used and is used liturgically by others not in communion with the historic mainstream Orthodox Churches in union with the four Patriarchates that parted ways with Rome in 1054.

There is also a sense of "Easternness" that is communicated by the term "Orthodoxy." Those Byzantine Catholic parishes that are most Eastern today are also those with a strong "Orthodoxy" identity with all that entails by way of a specific Orthodox/Byzantine spiritual culture.

For us, communion with Rome is indeed the crown of Orthodoxy. It is not so for the Eastern Orthodox.

The term "Catholic" is likewise used by one and all. A Presbyterian acquaintance referred to his church as "Apostolic Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic."

And if Orthodox can use "Catholic" and this is a term that is an official part of the Orthodox Church's full title, then what does it mean to be "Catholic?" There are also subspecies involved here.

Doctrinal development is truly admitted by both East and West, as you have correctly pointed out - it is just a question of doctrinal development that is accepted as valid or not by the East.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:09 PM

Dear Timothy,

Yes, the Russian Catholic Church is a good example of this.

I am just wondering how it justifies adhering to Orthodoxy in everything save the papal doctrines, whose jurisdictional and infallible aspects are widely seen as inorganic to Orthodox ecclesiology.

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:37 PM

[Is this term offensive to Orthodox Christians?]

Alex my friend. Once again I will give you a very honest answer which is YES! In fact, some of us find it almost as offensive as the term 'Uniate'.
Especially to those of us like myself whose grandparents returned to Holy Orthodoxy when they left their villages in the old country and came to America. Even before the latinizations began. The question is WHY? Its because we perceive it to be purposely deceptive to, once again prey on those who still have a strong Orthodox identity but were deprived of any religious education by the communists. Ask those people in the Ukraine that are now part of the Greek Catholic Church what they are and the vast majority will still probably say 'Pravoslavnie'! So, to tell them they are still Orthodox but 'in communion' with Rome rather than 'under Romes authority' is deception to enable them to keep that 'Orthodox' identity which is still so important to them. And, don't give me the sui juris bit until you can prove to me that the administrative structure of the Vatican has changed where one can be 'in communion with it' but not under its authority. Either directly or indirectly. Or your church gets to a point where it just informs the Vatican on what it has done or is doing rather than ask for its permission and await a reply that will be honored even if it is the opposite of what is being proposed.
When I was a kid I used to love to talk to the 'older people'. All long since gone. You would be surprised how many of them from both my home town parish as well as my current parish told me they had no idea they were not Orthodox but part of a church which recognized the Pope until they came to this country. They still heard the word 'Pravoslavnie' in the Liturgy so they never questioned it any further. Many of them had a hatred for the RCC and the Pope because they connected it all with Polish aggression.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Tim Bullard

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:44 PM

Like it or not, in popular usage, "Orthodox" (big "O") has come to mean those of us not in communion with Rome, and "Catholic" (big "C") means you guys in communion with Rome, even though we certainly think of ourselves as catholic, and you certainly think of yourselves as orthodox, even more fully orthodox than us.

"Orthodox in union with Rome" makes it sound as if you could be in union with Rome and NOT Orthodox. From your point of view, I don't think that's what you mean to convey...

I think you're using "Orthodox" (big "O") as a synonym for Byzantine. Isn't "Byzantine in union with Rome" the most exact term? Granted, it's cumbesome...

:-) And just to be mischievous, I have to point out there are canonical Orthodox parishes (under the Patriarch of Antioch) using the Western Rite. What do you call them?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:46 PM

Dear Orthoman,

I was just asking . . .

As for the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia, no, the 'pravoslavnie' to them are the Russians, the oppressors.

I have an uncle who was a Russian Orthodox priest with a doctorate in Orthodox theology from Moscow over there.

His parents were Greek Catholics. The fact is Greek Catholic identity and Ukrainian identity in western Ukraine are today closely linked.

When Orthodox bishops came to visit at St George's Cathedral in L'viv, he and all others began to sing "Many Years" to the . . . Pope!

The Russian bishops said, "What are you doing?"

Soon the entire city was singing that song.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had come back to life, not through the underground wing, but through the very priests trained in Orthodoxy a generation after it was suppressed.

I met one on tour here and asked him if he considered himself "Orthodox."

I thought he would say, "Not any more" or something like that.

Instead, he said "Please don't even mention that word."

And he also held a doctorate from Moscow.

It would seem that Byzantine Catholics hold stock in using the term "Orthodox" here.

For others "over there," the term "Catholic" is just fine.

Alex
Posted By: Lemko Rusyn

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 05:53 PM

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
When I was a kid I used to love to talk to the 'older people'. All long since gone. You would be surprised how many of them from both my home town parish as well as my current parish told me they had no idea they were not Orthodox but part of a church which recognized the Pope until they came to this country.


Are these the same people whose experience of church and Liturgy was standing outside having a smoke while everyone else was praying?

Because I guarantee you if they were inside and paying attention to the Liturgy, they would have heard the Pope of Rome commemorated at least once if not three or more times. And his commemoration is in all the Greek Catholic prayerbooks from Europe that I own or have ever seen. Granted, many of our people were illiterate and prayerbooks were not thus useful for them, but who exactly did they think "...archijereja nasheho Pija, Papa rimskaho" was?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 06:03 PM

Dear Tim,

I just love you Orthodox with ethnic sounding names! smile

You are right, "Orthodox" is used as a synonym for "Byzantine" and, for us, refers more to the idea of a spiritual culture, than a "deposit of faith" (if I have your permission to use a Latin phrase).

But it certainly does refer to "faith" as well.

Those who are "Orthodox in union with Rome" would omit the Filioque and say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, following St John Damscene and St Peter Mohyla.

They would accept the Epiclesis, keep silent on Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, and tend to give a collegial interpretation of papal authority.

The fact is when the Pope canonizes a new saint, unless he or she crossed themselves with three fingers, we aren't concerned. Most of what the Pope does as Patriarch of the West is treated as a "that's nice" by us in fact.

There are bad sides to this like bishops' appointments and that married clergy thing.

And I'm not going to say I have an answer to those, because I don't.

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was also under the thumb of the Moscow Patriarchate for years, and Met. Sabodan in Kyiv, a scholar and a great churchman, still is.

I'm not justifying the one with the other, only saying that "go Orthodox" is not the panacea for liberation - if by that one means Moscow Patriarchate.

Of course, a lot of this is totally irrelevent to those for whom ethnocultural identification is no longer a factor.

As for the Western Rite of the Antioch Archdiocese, I have one Ukrainian priest friend, of Ukrainian Jewish parents, who is a member and a convert from Anglicanism.

When I asked him what he was, he simply said, "Antiochian Orthodox."

God bless,

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 06:05 PM

Dear Lemko,

My family were Boykos - "good Boykos" I call them! smile

My grandfather served among Lemkos and Hutsuls as well. He said the Lemko language was . . . remarkable.

Is St Maxim Sandovich a saint who would be venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox Lemkos?

Alex
Posted By: Lemko Rusyn

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 06:11 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Is St Maxim Sandovich a saint who would be venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox Lemkos?


Yes: by the latter, because of his martyrdom for Orthodoxy; by the former, because of his nationality. Since the Ukrainian orientation is more common in Poland among Greek Catholic Lemkos (whereas the Orthodox Lemkos are Lemko "separatists" and/or Rusynophiles), it must be problematic to justify the veneration of a man whose dying words were "Naj z~yje s'vjata Rus' i s'vjate Pravoslavije" (Long live Holy Rus' and Holy Orthodoxy).

Of course, I am very happy to venerate him for all the above reasons even though I am happily Greek Catholic. smile
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 06:21 PM

Dear Lemko,

Well, Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians venerated St Athanasius of Brest for a time, the former as a national hero who stood up to Poland.

The Jesuits actually established the feast of St Josaphat two days before his (Sept. 16) to try and work the cult of Athanasius out of their new Eastern Catholic charges.

I guess things are never quite so black and white, and in the case of saints' cults, moreso.

God bless,

Alex
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 07:05 PM

I just do not see how you can use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" when one of the tests of Orthodoxy are whether or not you are in communion with Rome.

I guess I am just having a problem seeing how the two can be one. Isn't it either/or? not both?

How can we use this term when one of the tenets of Orthodox is that the Pope is not infallible, that the Catholic Church has it wrong, that he only is First among Equals, but the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.

It just doesn't compute. confused


David
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 07:38 PM

Dear David,

You are right, of course.

But the term "Orthodox" was and still is used by both Churches, East and West to describe themselves.

"Orthodox Faith" is how the Fathers called Pope St Leo's refutation of Arianism at the famous Council ("This is the Orthodox Faith! Peter has spoken through Leo!").

"Catholic" was applied to "Church." The Pope still prays for "All those who teach the Orthodox Faith." And he's not being ecumenical at that point in the Liturgy at all!

And, as I said, my Prebyterian friends also refer to themselves as "Catholics."

I guess what I'm saying is that a term like this can only have its true meaning discovered in how a given community uses it.

We have parishes who have deleted "Orthodox Christians" from their Divine Liturgy. Most of us would never consider doing so, however. The more "Byzantine" some of our parishes become, the more they use that term "Orthodox in union with Rome." Russian Catholic parishes are notorious for using it smile .

If "Orthodoxy" means "right believing, right worshipping," which it does, BTW, then it is only a community's definition of what constitutes that believing and worshipping that gives it shape.

A Russian ROCOR priest once told me to "continue the traditions of your forefathers." And I said, "You mean practice Orthodoxy even while in union with Rome?"

I saw him grit his teeth as he spilled out, "YES!"

Alex

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:05 PM

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
Alex:

As I have stated before, for me to say I am an Orthodox Catholic, is for me to say I still profess the same doctrines that were formulated in the first seven ecumenical councils.



Without being a nitpicker, because Lord knows I have said many things myself that were worded wrong even though I knew better, but...

The Seven Ecumenical Synods did not formulate anything, they simply stated what was always believed.

And may I add one thing, the theology of a pope above a bishop is an attack on scripture, Holy Tradition, and the will of God - from an Orthodox perspective; so that alone is enough to make a statement such as "Orthodox in union with Rome" an oxymoron.

Might I know humbly point point out, as if I am going to resolve the age old issue with one paragraph...

If the authority of Peter was so clear, then it is shocking to know that on the very eve before the death of Christ, they were all ignorant that Christ had chosen Peter to be the first among them, and the foundation-stone of the Church. Christ took part in the discussion. This would have been an excellent opportunity for Him to proclaim the power of Peter-moreover, it was time that it should be done, for on the next day He was to be put to death. Did He do it? Not only did the Savior not recognize the superiority He is said to have promised Peter, but He gave altogether a contrary lesson to his apostles, saying to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." (Luke 9:46~48)

And with that, I will bow out of this conversation gracefully smile
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:06 PM

[then what does it mean to be "Catholic?" There are also subspecies involved here.]

Why not use the definition of St Vincent of Lerins (5th century) which is a saint of both churches -

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that
is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall
observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church
throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors
and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

To an orthodox that definition fits Orthodoxy to a 'T'.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:16 PM

Dear Orthoman,

I love St Vincent!!

And this definition would apply to "us" as well.

For by the theological reasoning of BOTH Catholics and Orthodox, the deposit of faith has been delivered once and for all.

To add anything new to them, would be, by the judgement of BOTH Churches, truly heretical.

The Orthodox side believes the RC Church did in fact add "new things" to the faith delivered once and for all (and in this OrthodoxyorDeath is right in his correction of your terminology).

The Catholic side, however, believes that the doctrines define what the Church has always believed, if at least seminally to begin with.

And that I'll let my bishop decide those things over coffee with your bishop, or perhaps at an Ecumenical Council.

But the Seven Ecumenical Councils defined the faith held seminally, but did so introducing terminology that was NEVER in the Scriptures to a large extent.

This point is often used by evangelicals to beat both of us over the head with.

Some even deny the use of the Apostles Creed for that same reason.

And don't get them started on icons . . .

Alex

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:18 PM

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Well put and good point to da Ortoman!

But some patriarchs just couldn't help but be like absolute monarchs and this would SEEM to contradict the teaching of Christ as you've quoted - it doesn't only apply to the Pope of Rome.

The Pope of Alexandria, the very first "Pope" was a colossal figure of power and wealth, called the "New Pharaoh" and who had immediate jurisdiction over all of Africa.

So too did the Ecumenical Patriarch at the zenith of the power of the Byzantine Empire.

Then there is the Moscow Patriarch . . .

Caesaropapism isn't limited only to the Roman Caesars and Popes.

Alex
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:19 PM

This is an issue where people will have to agree to disagree.

OrthoMan is correct in that we put up with a lot because of our communion with Rome. But sometimes one needs to submit to one's bishop even when he is wrong about some things. It is certainly true that Rome would have preferred to convert us to Roman Catholicism. It is also true that had there not been a union in 1595/1646 there possibly would be no OCA because the Greek Catholic Church of that era could have been abolished. But that is another issue.

In Ukraine today most Greek Catholics do not currently use the term “Orthodox” / “Pravoslavnje”. This is for political, not religious reasons. For many Ukrainians who were brutally persecuted by the Communists the term “Orthodox” meant the same thing as the Communists since the Orthodox Church of that era collaborated with the Communists to persecute Greek Catholics. Rome has insisted that they maintain the term “Orthodox Christian” in the liturgical texts because that is the correct and traditional term. Some Greek Catholics there are good Orthodox Christians in that they do what they want.

One of the ironic things about the Toth schism is that Toth (now St. Alexis) changed absolutely nothing in the liturgy when he switched allegiance from Rome to Moscow. The filioque was purposely retained for many years so as to make the transition as easy as possible. The same thing occurred with the Johnstown break. The Johnstown parish in my hometown used the filioque until the 1970's when they published their own editions of the Slavonic and English liturgicons.

--

Quote
Tim wrote:
"Orthodox in union with Rome" makes it sound as if you could be in union with Rome and NOT Orthodox. From your point of view, I don't think that's what you mean to convey...


An interesting observation. Perhaps a more accurate phrasing of this for an American ear would be “Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

Quote
Tim wrote:
:-) And just to be mischievous, I have to point out there are canonical Orthodox parishes (under the Patriarch of Antioch) using the Western Rite. What do you call them?


“Roman Catholics in communion with the Orthodox Church of Antioch” would be appropriate (though I would not want to say that three times fast). These people would be catechized primarily by a liturgical tradition that is Roman Catholic (even if there have been a few changes to make it acceptable to their patriarch).

Quote
David wrote:
I just do not see how you can use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" when one of the tests of Orthodoxy are whether or not you are in communion with Rome.


Orthodox can refer to the entire liturgical and doctrinal approach of the Christian Church that matured in Constantinople. I now of no Orthodox who defines his Orthodoxy based upon NOT being in communion with Peter. People like to have everything in a nice, neat, package that is simple to understand. The Church doesn't work that way. biggrin
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:23 PM

Dear Moose,

You are right - obedience truly is a virtue.

I submit to my wife even when I think she might be a bit harsh and overbearing, expecting too much.

That doesn't mean I want to end my being "in union with her."

Whenever I get a direct order from her, I take solace in muttering "Rome has spoken, the matter is finished." smile

Now, as for you Orthodox Christians, don't tell me you have it any easier? smile

Alex
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 08:59 PM

I think I have a headache.

Maybe I'm reverting back to being a devotee of Ste. Therese of Lisieux (as a fifth grader, I read her life and it made great sense to me), but for her, the whole package is simplicity. So, echoing the sainted consumptive: keep it simple.

For me, if someone is baptized, recognizes the body and blood of Christ in communion, loves God and loves one's neighbor, then I'm going to pray with them. What the potentates decide to do is their concern.

(And who dreamed up all this business of jurisdictions and hierarchies, anyways?! Doesn't sound like something Jesus would do. It came and got developed into this whole byzantine structure which we humans now conveniently use to beat the daylights out of each other in the name of Jesus. Isn't this stupid?)

Blessings!
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 09:30 PM

To one and all:

It is extremely satisfying for me, as a Roman Caholic, to be able to witness this on-going civil discussion between Byzantines as it has resulted apparently in relegating the offensive terms "Uniates" and "Uniatism" into the dustbin of history.

As to the propriety of Eastern Catholics, as a group, calling themselves "Orthodox in union with Rome," it seems the Orthodox Forum members likewise find it offensive to their tradition.

So, we are left with the following choices:

1. Greek Catholics;
2. Eastern Catholics;
3. Byzantine Catholics; and
4. Orthodox Catholics.

Nos. 3 and 4 have a nice ring to both and vivify the patrimony of all the East.

But I personally prefer "Orthodox Catholics." (I know I'll be clobbered by Orthoman for this.)

It at once tells who you are and who you have been since antiquity!

(And this exercise, I beg your pardon Dr. John, is not at all stupid.)

AmdG

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 10:09 PM

[But I personally prefer "Orthodox Catholics." (I know I'll be clobbered by Orthoman for this.)]

You are right about that! To me thats like a Roman Catholic turning its back on the RCC & the Pope to become a 'Liberal Catholic' or Polish National Catholic and insisting that they are still Roman Catholic. Even though they don't accept all the teachings of the RCC and are not in communion with its earthly ruler..

In my book, if you acknowledge the Pope of Rome as the head of the Christian Church, are in communion with him, and accept and profess the doctrine he upholds and protects, you are a Roman Catholic. It as plain as that.

As long as the Pope still says JUMP and you still say HOW HIGH you are a Roman Catholic in my book!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Axios

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 10:28 PM

I'm Orthodox, your Catholic. I think it is just rude that we can't use the names a particular community has adopted without hyper-analyzing it. I call my sister Irene even when she is not peaceful. I call my cousin Sophia even when she is not wise. I call my boyfriend Christian even when he is not devout.

My faith community goes by the term Orthodox. I am not asking anyone to profess their personal acceptance that we and only we are "orthodox", I just think courtesy starts with addressing indivuduals and communties by their given and accepted name. If we can't do this, I don't think we can say we have any real committment to ecumenism.

Axios
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 10:30 PM

OrthoMan,

So are you suggesting that the Byzantine (and other Eastern Christian) liturgical and doctrinal tradition does not make up the primary core of Orthodoxy? Is Orthodoxy simply a static thing, defined once and for all by the Seven Councils with no way to face the challenges of presenting the Gospel in the modern world?

Moose
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/16/02 11:09 PM

Alex, you are most correct.

It was once decided by the flock who would be their bishop, but not anymore.

All of these exalted titles: Archbishops, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, Super Monk, Metropolitan, Over-exhalted Metropolitan, ect, are titles invented by men to distinguish unique roles. But they have been somewhat twisted and have become vested with some of the the same papal intrigues.

In addition, and along the same lines, are the Patriarchates. Most of them fall in the same category which the Orthodox account the history of old Rome - that is, they have lost their importance and splendor, and are just honorary. Honorary in the same way like humor them.

The Lord vested the offices of High Priest and Priest with Holy Charisma and never gave it to a city.
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:23 AM

Personally, I do not understand why so many Eastern Catholics consider the term Uniate offensive? After all, were we not brought back to the Catholic Church through the unia, should we be ashamed of the unia as something bad (Which, in turn, would actually mean that we are ashamed of being Greek Catholics) Or should we rejoice in the fact that we are in union with the Pope and Rome through this very unia?

Let us also remember that the term "Christian" was originally developed as a derogitory slander towards followers of Christ in the first century. Yes, I admit that I am a Uniate and proud f it regardless of the fact that Orthodox deem to use it in a degrading manner. I know that such pride in the Unia will cause the revisionist historians and ecumaniacs of our age to cringe in both disgust and anger. But
This name, I feel, should be born proudly as it was by our ancestors in faith who proclaimed themselves as Greco-Uniates.

AS to the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" being decieving, so what I ask? That is what we Uniates consider ourselves to be and it is our buisness as to what we choose to define ourselves as. Besides, I think the Orthodox have topped us in the past with such names as that belonging to the OCA before 1979, "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church". Talk about a deceptive name, How can a person be both Russian Orthodox as well as Greek Catholic?

Could this name have just been used to make former Uniates feel more comfortable in Orthodoxy by making them think that they were still somehow Greek Catholics?

Robert K.
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:48 AM

[So are you suggesting that the Byzantine (and other Eastern Christian) liturgical and doctrinal tradition does not make up the primary core of Orthodoxy?]

You apparently missed my whole point. Reread what I said. Orthodoxy is made up of both DOCTRINAL and Liturgical tradition. IN THAT ORDER. It is through our Liturgical traditions that we express out doctrinal traditions.
Your doctrinal tradition as a Greek Catholic is no longer purely Byzantine. It is now a mixture of Byzantine and Latin Roman Catholicism. Your Liturgical traditions are some what similiar to ours but have been modified some what. You are now the off spring of a mixed union. You are no longer one nor the other. You are a mixture of both. Example: Having more than one Liturgy a day on the same Altar. Being able to eat up to an hour before receiving Communion, etc. But you still recognize the Pope as your earthly father. But, for some reason, refuse to accept the identity (last name) he is known by.

In most cultures you take your fathers last name even though you may be the off spring of a multinational union.

My background is of Lemko, Polish, and Croation grandparents. Since I am a mixture I identify my nationality thru the ruling authority I recognize and uphold. Which is the American government and its highest authority...the president. That makes me an American.

As far as religion is concerned I have already, on many occassions explained why I classify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.

That is why I have a hard time understanding how you can recognize the Pope as your religious father and highest authority in your church and then refuse to take his last name or the identity he is most known by.

OrthoMan
Posted By: defreitas

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 03:52 AM

Dear Orthoman:

Most people in the world just refer to the Pope as "Catholic".

They also refer to his followers as just "Catholic".

Even when wrong-hearted people wish to defame the Roman Church, they still just refer to it as "Catholic".

Just my 2 cents.


defreitas
Posted By: Thomas

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 03:52 AM

Christ is Risen!


Actually some Eastern Orthodox Christians might take offense at the term Orthodox Catholics because the full name of the Orthodox Church translated into English Is:

The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church

the various ancient Patriarchates of the East also used similar forms in their formal names:

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Jesrualem

The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria


Your brother in Christ,
Thomas
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 04:42 AM

OrthoMan writes above: "In my book, if you acknowledge the Pope of Rome as the head of the Christian Church, are in communion with him, and accept and profess the doctrine he upholds and protects, you are a Roman Catholic. It as plain as that."

I've got a problem with that because it presupposes that the Church is a top-down entity. Where did this come from? Christ always talked about feeding His sheep, and he was always working with the ordinary folks and not the mucky-mucks. I always start with the people, the simple ordinary good folks who ARE the Church.

It is my contention that if the members of the various Catholic, Byzantine and Orthodox (and Oriental) parishes spent time with each other, engaging in the so-called corporal and spiritual works of mercy, all the hierarchical stuff would fade into obscurity. Is this not what we oftentimes hear from Orthodoxy: it is the local parishes and their bishops that are the essence of Orthodoxy? It is not some "Pope-topped" religious entity, but rather a type of federation of those with the same faith heritage (somewhat broadly interpreted - Greek-Ukrainian-Serbian-Arab, etc.) and sharing the same liturgical/sacramental life.

Yet, it appears that in terms of Byzantines (Eastern in heritage and mindset -- including the much maligned correlation with nationalism/ethnicity), we are not allowed to be considered as "Orthodox", because we are tarred with the Roman brush of hierarchization. I.e., the "Roman Model" of Pope at the top and everybody else being subservient is being placed on Byzantine (and other Eastern Catholics), and whether we like it (or LIVE it) or not, or are in the process of re-discovering and re-claiming our identity, we are being told by some Orthodoxes that because we are "in communion with Rome" we are automatically Roman Catholics (and are told that because of our 'status', we are obligated to this, that or the other thing.)

I find this both a cutesy cow-towing to the New York TIMES' understanding of Byzantines (i.e., "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite" that's it - no questions!) as well as an irrational and total failure to attempt to understand what we, by right, are, even when we ask for understanding.

These Orthodoxes are not bothering to listen to US Eastern Catholics, especially as we recover from the misinterpretation of our identity, and attempt to recover what we truly should be. It is as if we are climbing out of a hole of past pain and subjugation; and some in our Orthodox family, rather than reaching out to grab our hands and help us out, stomp their feet upon our handholds and kick us back into the hole.

And, --I'll be more than blunt here -- this treatment is oftentimes more likely to happen from newcomers to Orthodoxy than from our blood/marriage relatives. Why is it that the most "Orthodox" and anti-Catholic or anti-Byzantine internet boards are primarily populated by the non-cradles? Is this a mere coincidence? While the cradles are more likely to consider the 'nashi' component and are willing to just "be" with their brethren, some of the newly-converted seem to revel so much in their new-found faith, that they go into attack mode against anybody and everybody else who is not in their particular mind-set. It drives me crazy.)


Let's face it: the neo-HyperOrthodox have already abandoned their heritages. They've got nothing else to lose. The cradles have a lot more to 'lose' in engaging in interjurisdictional strife: one could lose one's family if one were being hyper-jurisdictional. Some choose this route; most do not.

Sometimes I wish that we were still speaking Greek, Ukrainian, 'po nashemu', or Arabic so that we didn't have to deal with this neo-hyper-Orthodoxy. We'd be dealing with people who didn't "assume an Orthodox role", but rather have an innate understanding - in their bones! - of what "belonging" to Orthodoxy means.

I know that this would doom our churches to miniscule 'ethnic' entities, but at least it would save us from the lunacy of the neo-hyperOrthodox.

OrthoMan notes that it is both doctrinal and liturgical elements that constitute Orthodoxy. I will agree, but I would subordinate BOTH of these elements to the sense of 'ekklesia' which is the true touchstone of the Church. One can doctrine and liturgize out the ears, but it is the self-incorporation into the ongoing apostolic community that constitutes membership in Orthodoxy (or REAL Catholicism).

Byzantine Catholics, familially and organically evolved from the heritage of Constantinople, are closer to the true Orthodox 'ekklesia' than the wanna-bees who have all the books and who assume the roles but who don't have the "dushij" that the true Orthodox have. And when someone (especially a newbie) castigates another part of the family, then it demonstrates that he/she does NOT share the faith that is at the familial and ecclesial core of Orthodox Christianity.

Lord, have mercy upon us all.

Blessings!

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 01:17 PM

Quote
And, --I'll be more than blunt here -- this treatment is oftentimes more likely to happen from newcomers to Orthodoxy than from our blood/marriage relatives. Why is it that the most "Orthodox" and anti-Catholic or anti-Byzantine internet boards are primarily populated by the non-cradles? Is this a mere coincidence? While the cradles are more likely to consider the 'nashi' component and are willing to just "be" with their brethren, some of the newly-converted seem to revel so much in their new-found faith, that they go into attack mode against anybody and everybody else who is not in their particular mind-set. It drives me crazy.)


It seems to me that all of the Traditionalist Orthodox groups came from the old country, not from here. And the ones that are here are filled with mostly "cradles", at least the Greek Traditionalists.

It is groups like the OCA who are filled with converts, in fact, half of the heirarchy are converts.

But if one wants to start stereotyping new converts as being zealous for the faith or that most who are zealous for the faith are converts, that is a strawman in it's most raw form.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:00 PM

Dear Friends,

How wonderful we're keeping this discussion on a civil level without sacrificing anything of the passionate aspects!!

Officially, Eastern Catholic Churches have indeed taken the name "Orthodox Catholic" in the sense used by St Peter Mohyla, especially in his Catechism.

Mohyla's Catechism was considered a statement of Byzantine Catholicism as well and so was often used by our forefathers.

The term "Roman Catholic," like "Orthodoxy" can mean different things at different times to different people, including Roman Catholics.

In England, for example, during the time of the Catholic persecutions, "Roman Catholic" was never used but "English Catholic" and this latter term is still used by their College at Rome.

"Roman Catholic" is really an invention of the Protestant Reformation since the Protestants insisted on being originally called "Reformed Catholics."

Add to this the fact that the West was NEVER a homogeneous monolith, but had other Churches and Rites and we are left with a "Johnny come lately" with respect to this term. (No offense Dr. John smile ).

The fact is that both East and West have used BOTH terms - and still do.

I would argue that the fact that the Latin West used "Orthodox" for years before the Schism and that it was first coined in response to the teaching of a Pope of Rome, Leo, that this means the West is entitled to use it as well.

Even if one could argue, and one could, that Eastern Catholics have "gone over" to the Latin West with its innovations etc., the fact that the Latin Church maintains a tradition of using the term "Orthodox" could also justify Eastern Catholics using it as well, and not only based on their Byzantine patrimony.

Again, this term is also used by the Pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox.

It is used by some competing Orthodox jurisdictions who regard themselves as "Orthodox" but not other "Orthodox" jurisdictions.

And the Pope regularly prays for all Catholics who "teach the Orthodox Faith."

There is not one usage of "Orthodox" within Orthodoxy as there is not one usage of "Catholic" given all the Protestant groups who use this term as well.

I also know a number of Orthodox who would NEVER call themselves Catholics or use "Orthodox" in conjunction with a term they regard as a reference to Western Catholics only.

And the Assyrian Church of the East always refers to itself as "Catholic" but not "Orthodox."

And I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the popular interpretation of "Orthodox Catholic" would be, more times than not, "An Eastern Christian who believes in the Pope."

Even my Orthodox friends interpreted this term in that way yesterday during a straw poll!

But for me, an important contribution to this discussion is made by the late Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan, Hilarion Ohienko, no friend to Eastern Catholics.

He wrote about a number of great Ukrainian Orthodox leaders, some of whom came back to the Orthodox Church from "Uniatism."

He wrote that the "Uniates" were always "Orthodox" in heart and maintained, for the most part, their ancient traditions. This is why large numbers, when the time was ripe, returned to their ancestral home.

Latinization, he said, destroyd their sense of Eastern Christian, East Slavic identity ("Rusin") and so led to catastrophe for our Church and people.

And this happened, according to him, when the "Uniates" forgot that, underneath it all, they were Orthodox in spirituality and outlook.

When they forgot that, all hope of their reconciliation with the Orthodox Church was lost.

Alex
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:11 PM

Alex, Moose,

I understand what you are saying, this goes with the Bible Study aids too.

I guess it is just the last vestiges of my Roman mindset clinging on for dear life.

I'd like to think that I have come a long way as a Byzantine (Orthodox) Catholic, but I am not all the way there yet.


Your brother in Christ,
David
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:22 PM

Dear David,

Just remember your patron, St David, King and Prophet.

You should consider your rosary your "sling" by which you destroy the spiritual Goliath!!

And what did that have to do with what we were talking about . . .

Who cares? I was moved to say that! smile

Alex
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 02:59 PM

Subdeacon Thomas hits the proverbial nail on the head. The issue is that both Churches claim the used of the terms “Catholic” and “Orthodox”. I don't have a problem with this because I think this is correct since there is very little which separates the two Churches. If the Eastern Orthodox Church at Antioch” chooses the term “The Holy Greek Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch” then it should not be surprised when their brothers and sisters in the West insist on the correctness of the title: “The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchate of Rome”. It's just one of those things we have to live with and respectfully allow each Church to choose the name it wants to go by.

--

Just for fun!

In my part of the world there are dozens of parishes that identify themselves as “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic”. The title indicates that they were Greek Catholics who entered communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. They maintain the historic liturgy and theology of the Greek Catholic Church (which is that of the Great Church at Constantinople with a little cabbage thrown in for good taste).

I have many friends and relatives who belong to these parishes and without exception the people over 50 identify themselves as either “Greek Catholic” or “Orthodox Greek Catholic”.

biggrin
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 03:08 PM

I do understand what Dr. John is saying. I don't think it is the zealousness of converts that he has issue with (they often put us cradles to shame). It is the need of some converts to convince themselves not only that their new-found faith is true that the was absolutely no truth in their old faith. Protestant converts to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy sometimes become so anti-Protestant that they forget that they should concentrating on living their new faith rather than condemning their old one. One can also see it in some converts from Protestantism or Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Just look at some of the Orthodox lists in which people use their hatred of Rome as a way of proving their Orthodoxy. [The motto of one of those lists could actually be “Shoot a Uniate for Christ”]. My guess is that the most rabid anti-Catholic among them will eventually become Catholic.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 03:11 PM

Dear Moose,

Good points!

But when did the Roman Patriarchate ever take the title you suggest? Just wondering, never heard of it before.

Yes, "Orthodox Greek Catholic."

However, at the time, "Greek Catholic" actually meant that one was "Orthodox!"

This term had two meanings, one that one was an Eastern Catholic of the "Greek Rite" as you said, and the other that one was Orthodox, at least at the beginning of this century.

The Ukrainians up here were "Greek Catholics" when they arrived in Canada, but became "Greek Orthodox" when they became Orthodox - although initially not in canonical unity with Orthodoxy until they came into union with Constantinople some years back.

During the arguments over the Unia in the 17th century, documents showed that "Latin Rule" meant "Roman Catholic" and "Greek Rule" meant "Orthodox."

Again, what this all shows is how fluid the usages and meanings of terms really are over history and according to what one is intending to say.

I can tell you that most Ukie Catholics would be unwilling to use "Orthodox" as this term, for them, means "descendants of former Catholics who are in schism from the one True Church."

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 07:54 PM

He wrote about a number of great Ukrainian Orthodox leaders, some of whom came
back to the Orthodox Church from "Uniatism."

He wrote that the "Uniates" were always "Orthodox" in heart and maintained, for the
most part, their ancient traditions. This is why large numbers, when the time was ripe,
returned to their ancestral home.
[Latinization, he said, destroyd their sense of Eastern Christian, East Slavic identity ("Rusin") and so led to catastrophe for our Church and people.
And this happened, according to him, when the "Uniates" forgot that, underneath it all, they were Orthodox in spirituality and outlook.]

Hey Alex:

I thought we were going to us the 'U' word anymore! Even if it contained within a quote.
Please modify your post accordingly.

OrthoMan
(the self appointed Orthodox Catholic moderator)
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 08:05 PM

Dear Orthoman,

You are right!

But I was quoting from another source!

Cut me some slack, will you? smile

Political correctness, political correctness!

That's all I get from people here! smile

Do those Eastern Catholics who don't like the "U" term have something against people like you and I? smile

If they do, I think we're agreed on what we'd say to them!

(Now you know why people wish me "Many Years" and "Z Praznikom" on the Sunday of the Pharisee, as if that were my Namesday smile ).

Have a great week-end, Big Guy!

Your humble servant,

Alex
Posted By: Administrator

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 08:37 PM

If someone is quoting a specific text that uses the term “Uniate” then it is appropriate to use it as part of the quote. It is when it is used as pejorative that it becomes a problem. The same policy of good taste would apply to the terms “papist”, “heretic” and etc. Thanks, OrthoMan for politely pointing the lack of clarity in this request. smile

Admin
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/17/02 08:41 PM

The Moose has interpreted my post about converts and zeal more accurately than I posted. I do not malign converts (going to or from wherever) but I have a problem with those who take pot-shots at their former brethren, or in some cases, who go from Protestantism to Orthodox and carry their former Protestant anti-Papist rhetoric with them since it appears to be acceptable (among some) in Orthodoxy.

As for the traditionalist groups that OrthodoxyOrDeath has mentioned: true enough, most of their adherents are 'old country' based. But except for a very small number of parishes in the Metro New York area (with small numbers of congregants), the overwhelmingly vast numbers of U.S. Greeks belong to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America. When these jurisdictions are mentioned in conversation, most Greeks I know just shrug their shoulders, raise their eyes heavenward, and change the topic of conversation.

I am still convinced that we have allowed ourselves to be somewhat brainwashed into thinking that the manmade structures of dioceses, patriarchates, synods, etc. are critical elements in working out one's salvation. When left to their own devices, God's people just seem to get along very well when not pressed about these structure issues. (My evidence for this is that there are all sorts of 'jurisdictions' represented at our parish festival - eating, dancing, talking, sipping coffee, etc. The same is true at the local Greek parish. I regularly see at least a half dozen of our Byzantine Catholic parish there, eating, drinking, listening to the music, buying icons and cassettes, etc. during the two hours that I am present. How many others come, over the two day festival, well, I don't know, but..... Same with the OCA parish festival near us in Maryland.)

I just think that if we didn't press this administrative/jurisdictional stuff, God's baptized people would just have a great time with each other. Even praying.

[Just an anthropological/theological thought: when you have good food, good drink and good music, people just have a good, loving time with each other. Is it just a coincidence that the Lord chose a common meal to provide the primary unification ceremony for His servants? Did Jesus know something that we don't? Hmm. It's spring; summer is coming and time for parish festivals. Get out there and spend some money with our brethren!!! The parish festivals are a surrogate Eu-charist ["good grace"]. To quote Homer Simpson: "Haaaaaammmm-buuurrrr-gerrrrrrs".)

Blessings!

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/22/02 02:59 PM

Dear Administrator,

Yes, I cannot say enough about Orthoman either! smile

Did you ask him to join the Forum or did he come voluntarily? smile

Either way, we are all the better for having him here!

Alex
Posted By: OrthoMan

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/22/02 03:42 PM

[Yes, I cannot say enough about Orthoman either!]

Thank you Alex. You may not like what I have to say at times but you will always know it is my honest opinion or analysis. Which, may or may not be correct.

[Did you ask him to join the Forum or did he come voluntarily?]

I'll answer that myself. No, I was not invited to join. I found the site quite by accident when I was searching out web sites I thought would give me a copy of the Union of Brest/Litovsk. So I did a search on Byzantine Catholic and followed thru to this portion. Have never regreted my decision to join the group.


[If someone is quoting a specific text that uses the term “Uniate” then it is appropriate to use it as part of the quote.]

Thanks administratior for pointing this out. My priest just gave me a book entitled "UNIATISM - Definition, Causes, Effects, Scope, Dangers, Remedies." Written by Fr Cyril Korolevsky & translated by Fr Serge Keleher both of which are 'Greek Catholic' priests.
In just glancing through the book, I thought to myself - "How can I ever discuss this on the Byzantine Forum when every page either has the word 'uniate' or 'uniatism through out the book. And it's written by they themselves!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/22/02 04:42 PM

Dear Orthoman,

Actually, I would love it if you would discuss that book.

Don't worry about the "Uniatism" stuff as you would be quoting from another source.

We all know YOU don't agree with that nomenclature! smile

Half my mother's family is Orthodox, the other half Eastern Catholic.

The Orthodox side calls the others "Uniates."

Quite by accident, during a family gathering when I was a small boy (actually I was pretty tall for my age), I was asked to describe the religious affiliation of those present.

I then named off uncle and aunt so and so, and said they were "United."

Then I said the rest were "Disunited."

I didn't get any extra cake for my trouble that afternoon, let me tell you! smile

But, please, present that book by all means.

Alex
Posted By: jporthodox

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/22/02 07:11 PM

Interesting going back and forth. I always thought that this was a little merky myself. From being in this chat, I see some of the Catholics describe themselves as more Western, others are more Eastern in their outlots. However, the Orthodox Church is not, has never been and will never be under the control of Rome. End of story. We are "catholic" in the sense that the truth of Orthodoxcy applies to all people.

The Pope can visit Orthodox nations and the Catholic press can say what bad guys we are because we don't attend his "mass" and kiss his ring, but we are not and will never cave. The Pope is needed in America a lot more than in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian priests are not abusing children.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/22/02 07:20 PM

Dear JP,

(The letters of the current Pope, no less!)

Now, now, no one is suggesting that the Orthodox bend before the Pope.

It would be sufficient if the Orthodox would acknowledge their own rightful Patriarchs and Primates!

A future relationship with Rome, if it can be worked out, would involve a much more fraternal and "first among equals" kind of thing.

I remember reading about the life of Pope St John I.

He was sent to Greece by the Arian Visigothic King Alaric (?) to convey a very political message to it.

Instead, he ignored the order and conducted a pastoral visitation.

The Greeks greeted him with cheers, processions of lit candles, dancing and joyful singing.

Pope John then returned to Rome where he was unceremoniously martyred by the king while still on the docks.

May we experience such heroism and such unity based on freedom and truth once again!

Alex
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 12:30 AM

jp notes above: "We are "catholic" in the sense that the truth of Orthodoxcy applies to all people."

Agreed, with no question.

But: "The Pope can visit Orthodox nations and the Catholic press can say what bad guys we are because we don't attend his "mass" and kiss his ring, but we are not and will never cave. The Pope is needed in America a lot more than in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian priests are not abusing children."

When the words: "will never cave" occur, it seems to me that something else than the love of God and neighbor is operative. Unless and until ALL of us Christians can get beyond this "us"/"them" perspective, we are not fulfilling the command of our Savior to love one another and to forgive one another "not seven times, but seventy times seven".

I pray that we all gain the perspective of the "not painted by human hands" icon and gain the "True Humility" that our Lord showed to us by His suffering and death on the Cross.

Blessings to All!!
Posted By: Axios

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 02:20 AM

Okay, okay, boys and girls (not too many girls here, though I looked at Byzantines.org which is sure an "all-male" board).

If you Byzantine Catholics are OICWR, is it equally true that Orthodox are "Byzantine Episcopalians"?

Axios
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 04:49 AM

Scuzi, but why Byzantine Episcopalians? I don't see the parallel or analogy at all. (But, it's late here and I'm tired and .........)

Blessings!
Posted By: Axios

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 01:02 PM

We Orthodox are neither papal nor congregational. We are an episcopal church -- a church lead by bishops. And we are of the Byzantine/Greek patrimony. Right? Hence Byzantine Episcopal.

Dr. John, I am hurt a wise and scholarly person like you did not see this smile

Axios
Posted By: Tim Bullard

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 01:27 PM

:-) Again, just to be a bit mischievous, I have to ask, what do you call Western Rite Orthodox? "Romans Not in Union"?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 01:54 PM

Dear Tim,

The Western Rite Orthodox I am privileged to know call themselves "Antiochian Orthodox."

They love being in union with a Patriarchate also founded by St Peter and where "Christian" first came to be used.

Alex
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 02:20 PM

Quote
Tim wrote:
:-) Again, just to be a bit mischievous, I have to ask, what do you call Western Rite Orthodox? "Romans Not in Union"?


"Roman Catholics in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch" would be correct, appropriate and acceptable (even if quite a mouthful). In general, however, I tend to respect the descriptions Churches choose for themselves.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 05/23/02 05:31 PM

Dear Friends,

How's about we let the Western Rite Orthodox call themselves what THEY wish, eh?

We don't like it when others concoct names for us e.g. Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite or "Uniate."

Alex
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/01/02 04:59 AM

JPOrthodox,
I wouldn't boast of that too loudly the Bulgars are widely known for their sexual diviant behavior.
Stephanos I
Posted By: Diak

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/02/02 04:17 AM

If you really believe in that famous maxim of Prosper of Aquitane lex orandi, lex credendi, then we are Orthodox in communion with Rome. We use Orthodox prayers, liturgies and Divine Praises. We commemorate the Pope of Rome in our litanies.
Posted By: Fr Mark

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 02:56 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Tim,

I just love you Orthodox with ethnic sounding names! smile

You are right, "Orthodox" is used as a synonym for "Byzantine" and, for us, refers more to the idea of a spiritual culture, than a "deposit of faith" (if I have your permission to use a Latin phrase).

But it certainly does refer to "faith" as well.

Those who are "Orthodox in union with Rome" would omit the Filioque and say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, following St John Damscene and St Peter Mohyla.

They would accept the Epiclesis, keep silent on Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, and tend to give a collegial interpretation of papal authority.

The fact is when the Pope canonizes a new saint, unless he or she crossed themselves with three fingers, we aren't concerned. Most of what the Pope does as Patriarch of the West is treated as a "that's nice" by us in fact.

There are bad sides to this like bishops' appointments and that married clergy thing.

And I'm not going to say I have an answer to those, because I don't.

But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was also under the thumb of the Moscow Patriarchate for years, and Met. Sabodan in Kyiv, a scholar and a great churchman, still is.

I'm not justifying the one with the other, only saying that "go Orthodox" is not the panacea for liberation - if by that one means Moscow Patriarchate.

Of course, a lot of this is totally irrelevent to those for whom ethnocultural identification is no longer a factor.

As for the Western Rite of the Antioch Archdiocese, I have one Ukrainian priest friend, of Ukrainian Jewish parents, who is a member and a convert from Anglicanism.

When I asked him what he was, he simply said, "Antiochian Orthodox."

God bless,

Alex
Posted By: Fr Mark

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 02:59 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[Those who are "Orthodox in union with Rome" would omit the Filioque and say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, following St John Damscene and St Peter Mohyla.

This is not so. The Byzantine Catholic Service books I have seen include the Filioque in the creed.

In Christ,
Mark, monk and sinner
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 03:04 PM

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

How can I leave here when there are posts such as yours? smile

You make it very difficult . . .

Yes, Byzantine Catholic service books often have the Filioque.

When I used the expression, "Orthodox in union with Rome" I am referring to a particular group of Eastern Catholics who are highly developed in terms of their Eastern spirituality so as NOT to include the Filioque and who follow through with other aspects of Easternized tradition and spirituality.

Many Byzantine Catholics I know would resist being called "Orthodox in union with Rome" as they consider the Orthodox to be in schism etc.

Kissing your right monastic hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 04:10 PM

It is true that there are some Byzantine Catholic parishes that still use the filioque. In the United States the Conference of Eastern Catholic Bishops agreed some 15 years ago to remove it and restore the Symbol of Faith to its original form. Among Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics its use is banned in the Eparchies of Passaic, Parma and Van Nuys. In the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh the use of the filioque is not used at archeparchial liturgical celebrations but Metropolitan +Jusdon (of blessed memory) did not issue a decree banning it (he seemed to want the parishes to remove it on their own rather than to issue a decree). None of the Byzantine-Melkite parishes I have visited have used the filioque. I cannot speak to its use in the Byzantine-Ukrainian and Byzantine-Romanian parishes.

Oddly, the filioque was used in many Johnstown Orthodox (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church) parishes right up until the 1970's. It was only when the English language texts were published that the filioque disappeared.

Hopefully, within the next few years the filioque will not be used in any Byzantine Catholic parish anywhere in the world.
Posted By: lpreima

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 05:58 PM

I heard that the Roman Catholic church in Greece does not use the Filioque in respect for the Greeks. Now, does this make The Roman Catholic Church in Greece Orthodox?
I'm Ukrainian Greek Catholic, but I consider myself very much Orthodox and I love and respect very much my Orthodox brothers and sisters who are not in communion with Rome.
I wonder what the late Patriarch Josef Slipey would say about this issue.
May God bless all,
Lauro
Posted By: Lemko Rusyn

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 06:16 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Moose:

Oddly, the filioque was used in many Johnstown Orthodox (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church) parishes right up until the 1970's. It was only when the English language texts were published that the filioque disappeared.


Moose, can you do a little better to back up this claim? (Perhaps you could name somebody from such a parish who could verify it? Especially a cantor or altar boy who would have led the singing of the creed back then?) I have several prayerbooks that were published and in use in that Diocese "up until the 1970s" and none of them includes "i Syna" (or "and the Son", for that matter) in the Symbol of Faith.

Now, I realize that there were many of the Grigassy prayerbooks in the possession of the faithful of the ACROGC Diocese, where "i Syna" was certainly to be found. (Go into any one of their churches, look in the pews or choir loft and you are sure to find some.) But I doubt very much that the Diocese's historians would corroborate this claim. In fact, I think you are the only one I've ever seen or heard make such a claim.

It might interest people here to know that there is a raging debate over on the "Indiana list" which started because a frequent poster (who also posts here) quoted a Byzantine Catholic at the recent Orientale Lumen conference who claimed that Metropolitan Nicholas of the ACROGC Diocese acknowledges that many Greek Catholics are members of Diocesan parishes and that they freely receive Holy Communion there. I wonder what this claim about "filioque" in that Diocese would bring about?
Posted By: Moose

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/18/02 06:52 PM

LR,

I would suggest you contact Metropolitan Nicholas in Johnstown and ask him. He is a wonderful man, will probably chuckle at the question and settle down for a long chat. I do know that when this group was accepted by the EP the EP did not ask them to make any changes to the liturgy (with the implicit expectation that they would de-latinize over many generations). I not only heard the filioque used in a Slavonic liturgy (they sung it from the Blue Sokol just like us) I also have had conversations with several priests who remember singing it. The Carpatho-Russian people were and remain very independent and it took a long time for any type of change to take place - even changes directed by the hierarchy. I know of one parish in that diocese only this year dropped the very latinized custom of reserving the Eucharist over the tomb on Holy Friday.

Beware of diocesan historians. They usually write history with a spin as they wish it were rather than as it was. There are some in the Johnstown Diocese who will tell you that they broke with the Greek Catholic Church (Pittsburgh) because they had a desire to return to Orthodoxy. While there were undoubtedly some who had this view the vast majority simply wanted to be "Independent Greek Catholics" where they could maintain their Greek Catholic liturgy and practices.

I cannot speak to what Metropolitan Nicholas did or did not say. I do know from my own experience that many people do indeed float between parishes and jurisdictions. My own Byzantine Catholic parish had a number of Orthodox with Easter Baskets on Pascha (they simply didn't want to wait five more weeks) and many of our parishes have numerous Orthodox families. It is not at all surprising that Greek Catholics also float to Johnstown and other Orthodox parishes. I suggest that the people on the Indiana list also like to present life within Orthodoxy as they wish it to be and not as it really is. It is a very human quality.

Moose
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/19/02 12:59 AM

At Lenten dinners in our parish, there is oftentimes a substantial number of OCA parish folks present. I'm sure a part of their presence is due to the food, but I also think that a goodly number are there because it's a "Carpatho-thing", and their sense of identity with other Carpathos is really important, regardless of jurisdiction. (Same goes with the parish picnic/festival.)

What intrigues me is the fact that (apparently) none of the traditionalist RC pilgrims in our parish attend either of these events. I'm wondering if its the 'ethnicity' thing that makes them uncomfortable or whether their strictness in their religious life makes it uncomfortable for them to be outside a non-liturgical and 'disciplined' environment? (Lord knows, our dinners and festivals are quasi-organized chaos! But incredibly fun!!)

Is a puzzlement. (To quote the 'King and I')

Blessings!
Posted By: Altar Boy

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/19/02 03:15 AM

Okay. A thought comes to me. Suppose that by the end of the year, the Lord pulls off what seems completely impossible to us and reunites the Church as it was prior to 1054. No schism, somehow everyone is on the same page and we can all inter-commune because we are in blessed unity.

What will that make us Orthodox Catholics? (Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, etc. damn, what a nuisance it is to select the proper tag!!)

Will we suddenly go from being the "goats" of Orthodoxy to "heroes" who were correct all along? Will we suddenly be seen as noble?

Oh, and will we even continue to exist or will we be entered into union with the ethnic parishes of our Orthodox brothers?

I still have this sense that there are elements of worship, theological understanding, and mysticism which are incomplete in both East and West and that the most rounded way to understand Christianity would be a unity of both understandings into one distinct spirituality. I am not talking about Liturgy here, I am talking about a personal spirituality which can understand the Faith like one sees a fine diamond -- from all sides and all facets. It would be the ability to both experience (Eastern)and explain (Western).

One of the criticizms I heard of Orthodoxy when I was considering leaving Protestantism was that Orthodoxy hasn't developed theologically for the last 1000 years. (Remember, I came from a tradition which was, as most Western forms, BIG on the explanitive living out of the Christian life). I was warned that there was a dearth of theological books out by Orthodox writers, as opposed to a cornicopia of books by Latin Catholics.

This statement was partially true. There is a wealth of books on mysticism and personal piety from Orthodoxy, and a wealth of writings of a more explanatory nature from the Western writers. If Orthodox and Catholics are ever going to be evangelical in the most effective sense to Protestants, we better be ready to explain the Faith from both sides of the aisle, both the mystical theology of "theosis" and the practical theology of Biblical explanation such as Scott Hahn's beautiful explanation of covenantal relationship within the kingdom family. I find in his explanation as a Roman Catholic a perfect understanding of that unity which is theosis. He's Western, he doesn't call it that, but it is there if one is looking for it.

Orthodox thought, books and writings challenge me to EXPERIENCE the Christian life through experiencing Christ. Catholic thought, books, and writings give me more of doctrinal EXPLANATION of the Faith to those who have not experienced it yet and wonder why I "jumped ship".

I think I have the best of both worlds.

Just some thoughts. Ramblin' a bit when I probably should be in bed catchin' zzzzzzzzzzz's

Brother Ed

PS. As a convert, I see so much which is similar in the two Faiths, even in the convoluted "Novus ordo" of post Vatican II, that I keep thinking that this is a tempest in a teapot which has been kept boiling far too long. Of course, I oversimplify, for there are things I am not aware of as a convert and cannot really understand from an Orthodox or Catholic position as do those who have been born to their respective understandings. But to Protestant eyes, which I am only slowly getting rid of, this separation is hard to understand.
Posted By: Diak

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/19/02 03:57 AM

In regards to the previous post, what's convoluted about an accepted liturgical rite of the Catholic Church? I'm having real trouble with that one...it's not the Mass that's the problem, it's the diocesan liturgical conferences that set the rules...true enough, there have been some serious liturgical abuses with the NO. On a positive note, check with the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska if you want to see the NO celebrated well and with dignity...

Ipreima, getting to your point about Patriarch Josyp...he certainly celebrated liturgies without the Filoque in Rome, especially with the Studites and at St. Sophia's. And it was Metropolitan Konstantin Bohachevsky that directed it be put in parenthesis to reduce its usage back in the 1950s...I have an old My Divine Friend Redemptorist prayer book from 1958 with the blessing of Metropolitan Bohachevsky with the Filioque in parenthesis in both Slavonic and English. It was therefore optional and not officially required for recitation of the Creed even at that time in the Ukrainian Catholic eparchies in the U.S.

I don't know why "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is such a difficult concept for many...our bishops in Brest in 1596, Metropolitan Isidore at Florence, and others certainly understood the concept of dual communion. Orthodox in worship, Catholic in spirit.
Posted By: FAW

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/19/02 07:51 AM

I once worshipped at a NO Mass in Gaming, Austria at the TU there and had tears in my eyes, it was so beautiful.

It is not the NO which is the problem. the American Catholic Church in California has much to learn about how to worship, at least in SAC
Posted By: Medved

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/19/02 11:09 AM

cool
SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
SLAVA NA VIKI BOHU!

Dr. John wrote:"...What intrigues me is the fact that (apparently) none of the traditionalist RC pilgrims in our parish attend either of these events..."

In my parish, our TRC's didn't attend Divine Liturgy on Paska because one of the local RC parishes had a Tridentine Easter Liturgy.

I find it amazing....

the least servant of the servants
mark
cool
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/27/02 02:49 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert K.:
[QB]Personally, I do not understand why so many Eastern Catholics consider the term Uniate offensive?

Originally, the term was applied by those Orthodox bishops who supported the terms of the Union of Florence, and it was adopted by the Ukrainian bishops who signed the Treaty of Brest. The term became perjorative through the meaning applied to it as a result of the failure of Rome to abide by the terms of the Treaty, so that the Uniates became nothing more than ritual appendages of the Church of Rome, without a distinct ecclesial identity, and with their authentic patrimony corrupted by the forced or ill-considered syncretistic adoption of elements of Latin theology, liturgy and spirituality that did not conform well to the Eastern Traditions. It also came to characterize a deliberate policy on the part of the Church of Rome to attempt to seduce individual Orthodox believers from their legitimate ecclesial affiliation through the establishment of parallel hierachies and ecclesial structures. In most cases, these deliberate attempts to disaffect individual Orthodox Christians failed miserably, but it did create tremendous ill will. Hence the Catholic Church itself has repudiated Uniatism as a model for reconciliation, and as a policy of evangelization. With Uniatism considered illegitimate, the use of the term "Uniates" likewise should be repudiated. And with it, of course, the sense of ecclesial inferiority that the policy of uniatism was intended to instill in Eastern Christians. Those who wish to learn more about uniatism as a policy and a mindset should read Fr. Cyril Korolevsky's seminal essay "Uniatism", which is available in English through Eastern Christian Publications.


>>>After all, were we not brought back to the Catholic Church through the unia, should we be ashamed of the unia as something bad (Which, in turn, would actually mean that we are ashamed of being Greek Catholics).<<<

We were not brought "back" into the Catholic Church by the Unia, for the Orthodox Churches have always been part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to say otherwise is to insinuate either that the Orthodox Churches are not true Churches, or that somehow there can be more than one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, possessing the fullness of the Apostolic faith, fully sufficient for the salvation of their adherents, so that no conversion from one Church to the other is required as a prerequisite for salvation. Therefore, true Churches they are, and since the Church of Christ is One, as Christ is One, they are part of the Church and always have been. Hence, there can be no question of "return", for they never left. And you would do well to remember that.

As to the mechanism by which union was established between certain elements of the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, we should start by recognizing that the bishops who entered into these agreements did not consider them to be "submissions", nor did they consider them to be "returns". For better or for worse, they saw these unions as attempts at restoring communion between two Churches, each equal in grace and dignity to the other. It is not their fault that Rome, due to the ecclesiology it adopted in response to the Protestant Reformation, could not conceive of the idea of the Church as a communion of Churches, and so reneged on its solemn agreements and instead absorbed the Uniates into the Church of Rome as a mere "rite", without an ecclesial identity, and with its Tradition permitted as a dispensation, to be altered or abrogated according to the whims of the Church of Rome. If Muslims did this to a Christian Church, it would be considered "dhimmitude". And so we were--dhimmis of the Church of Rome. The Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches marked therefore a fundamental change in our relationship with the Church of Rome, and a return to an older ecclesiology of communion among Churches. Unfortunately, old habits of mind die hard, and many Latins still treat us as dhimmis. Worse still, many Greek Catholics act like dhimmis--or uniates, as the case may be. Those Greek Catholics who choose to do so should remember that they, who swear their allegience to the Bishop of Rome and declare their undying fidelity to him, are acting in a manner distinctly contrary to his consistently stated desires--and those of every other Pope for the last century.

>>>Or should we rejoice in the fact that we are in union with the Pope and Rome through this very unia?<<<

Our communion with the Bishop of Rome is indeed important, but only to the extent that we are able to live authentically the fullness of the liturgical, spiritual, theological, doctrinal and disciplinary patrimony that comprises our unique Traditions. As Fr. Robert Taft has said, an Eastern Catholic Church that is not fully and authentically Eastern is of no use to anybody. And that means that we must be true to ourselves at all times, and not merely when it is convenient for the Church of Rome. Our vocation to unity requires us to demonstrate to our Orthodox bretheren that we can indeed be fully Orthodox and in communion with the Church of Rome. Any Eastern Catholic who cannot bring himself to do that ought to consider why he belongs to an Eastern Catholic Church.

>>>Let us also remember that the term "Christian" was originally developed as a derogitory slander towards followers of Christ in the first century.<<<

The Christians had done nothing of which to be ashamed, and so could wear the badge of Christian with pride. Uniatism, however, was a grave sin against Christian unity, for one does not heal schism by creating further schisms, nor does one Christian Church attempt to seduce the members of another Christian Church away from their affiliation. Sister Churches do not treat themselves in such a manner. And they do not cease to be sisters because they are not on speaking terms.

>>>Yes, I admit that I am a Uniate and proud f it<<<

It is nothing of which to be proud, I do assure you. To insist that it is can only be regarded either as a misunderstanding of the term, or a rejection of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. So which is it?

>>>regardless of the fact that Orthodox deem to use it in a degrading manner.<<<

So do many Eastern Catholics. You may be an "Oreo Cookie", or worse, a Roman Catholic with a cabaret license, but I for one stand with Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytsky, Patriarch Josef Slipyji, Patriarch Maximos IV, Patriarch Maximos V, and Patriarch Gregory III. As the latter said only a few weeks ago, "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome.

>>>I know that such pride in the Unia will cause the revisionist historians and ecumaniacs of our age to cringe in both disgust and anger.<<<

Pride goeth before a fall, and is usually a result of ignorance. And it is not a matter of "revisionist history", but of a cutting through the polemical smog that has enveloped both sides, to see the truth in an unvarnished manner. Some of the unions were indigenous movements; others were the result of factinalism within certain Orthodox jurisdictions, but a significant number were conceived by Latin missionary orders for the express purpose of converting the Orthodox one at a time by establishing parallel hierarchies and exploiting Orthodox weakness under Turkish or Ottoman rule. The situation has been written about at length not only by Korolevsky, but by Boris Gudziak, Joseph Raya, Elias Zoghby, and Maximos V--all of whom are or were Greek Catholics. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts before you boast of your uniatism.

>>>But<<<

No buts about it.


>>>This name, I feel, should be born proudly as it was by our ancestors in faith who proclaimed themselves as Greco-Uniates.<<<

Sure thing, Step-N-Fetchit.

>>>AS to the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" being decieving, so what I ask?<<<

It is only deceiving if it is not true. It cannot be true if you insist on being a uniate.

>>>That is what we Uniates consider ourselves to be and it is our buisness as to what we choose to define ourselves as.<<<

The privilege of calling one's self an Orthodox Christian should be earned by living as an Orthodox Christian. Ask yourself if you qualify.

>>>Besides, I think the Orthodox have topped us in the past with such names as that belonging to the OCA before 1979, "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church".<<<

Every last word in that title is true.

>>>Talk about a deceptive name, How can a person be both Russian Orthodox as well as Greek Catholic?<<<

Ask the thousands of Greek Catholics who are presently the backbone of the OCA.

>>>Could this name have just been used to make former Uniates feel more comfortable in Orthodoxy by making them think that they were still somehow Greek Catholics?<<<

They felt entirely comfortable in Orthodoxy already, because they always felt themselves to be Orthodox. You seem not to comprehend how thoroughly intermixed Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in other parts of the world prior to 1948 (and still are in the Middle East). Nobody at the level of the common people really cared much about the schism, and people went indifferently from one jurisdiction to the other as marriage or other exigencies dictated. The important thing for them was the reality of the lived faith, not the name of the bishop celebrated in the Diptyches, or the name board on the parish door.

It was only when they came to this country that the Greek Catholics were made to feel uncomfortable--and then by their Latin Catholic confreres--of whom the less said the better. Let us just note that it was not Alexis Toth who was the father of the Orthodox Church in America, but rather Bishop John Ireland of Minneapolis.

You really need to consider, Robert, why you became Catholic, and what you are doing in an Eastern Catholic Church. There can be no "tertium quid", so you are bound to be disappointed.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/27/02 03:16 AM

>>>Orthodoxy is made up of both DOCTRINAL and Liturgical tradition. IN THAT ORDER.<<<

Sorry, but that's incorrect, and a very Latin notion to boot. it is interesting that the most vociferous of Orthodox "traditionalists" seem to know the least about the authentic Orthodox Tradition, and insist upon elevating recent innovations, usually Western, to salient places in their belief system.

None of the Greek Fathers, none of the great churchmen of Byzantium, not Basil the Great nor Gregory of Nyssa, nor Gregory the Theologian, nor Maximos Confessor nor John Damascene nor Nicholas Kabasilas, would ever accept your proposition. The Orthodox faith is grounded in the liturgy fo the Church, which serves both as source and touchstone for all theology. Authentic Byzantine Orthodox theology is always liturgically based, never reduced to a series of abstract propositions. That is why Orthodoxy survived 1400 years of Muslim oppression and seventy years of Communist enslavement, deprived of books, of schools, of monasteries and seminaries--deprived of everything except the liturgy, which nourishes and informs the faith.

>>>It is through our Liturgical traditions that we express out doctrinal traditions.>>>

Precisely backwards. It is through the liturgy that we know what doctrines are true and which are false. The Councils and the Fathers, the later synods, all of them relied upon the liturgical aspect of Tradition to test doctrinal propositions. Lex orandi est lex credendi, NOT the other way around (which is how the Latin Church treated theology for most of the second millennium. Alexander Schmemman would be appalled a the notion that liturgy serves as a vehicle for the expression of Orthodox doctrine. He would tell you, as I just have, that liturgy is the SOURCE of Orthodox doctrine. Once one understands this, it becomes clear that the restoration of the liturgy of the Eastern Catholic Churches to their authentic state is the essential prerequisite for the restoration of the rest of the Eastern patrimony. Conversely, one might comment on the lamentable state of liturgical understanding in many Orthodox jurisdictions as one reason why one can hear an ostensibly Orthodox Christian spouting such utter nonsense about his own Tradition.

>>>Your doctrinal tradition as a Greek Catholic is no longer purely Byzantine.<<<

That is an accident of history which is being reversed. Liturgically, most Eastern Catholic Churches, in accordance with the 1996 Liturgical Instruction, are well along in restoring their authentic liturgical practices. And that in turn is leading a restoration and renewal of authentic Byzantine spirituality, doctrine, theology and discipline. The fact that in Ukraine the Lviv Theological Academy trains candidates for the priesthood and diaconate from ALL jurisdictions, Greek Catholic and Orthodox alike, and that in this country many Greek Catholic seminarians are trained at St. Vladimir's, St. Tikhon's and Holy Cross, shows the progress made in that regard. I can safely say that in some places, Greek Catholic liturgical practices and doctrinal teachings are more purely Orthodox than one finds at most Orthodox churches today.

>>>It is now a mixture of Byzantine and Latin Roman Catholicism.<<<

Actually, you are a day late and a dollar short in that regard. Had you said this, say, thirty years ago, one would have no choice but to agree. Today, your assertion is incorrect. Your Liturgical traditions are some what similiar to ours but have been modified some what. You are now the off spring of a mixed union. You are no longer one nor the other. You are a mixture of both. Example: Having more than one Liturgy a day on the same Altar. Being able to eat up to an hour before receiving Communion, etc. But you still recognize the Pope as your earthly father. But, for some reason, refuse to accept the identity (last name) he is known by.

>>>In most cultures you take your fathers last name even though you may be the off spring of a multinational union.<<<

Poor analogy. Rome is not our Father.

>>>My background is of Lemko, Polish, and Croation grandparents. Since I am a mixture I identify my nationality thru the ruling authority I recognize and uphold. Which is the American government and its highest authority...the president. That makes me an American.<<<

Poor analogy, again.

>>>As far as religion is concerned I have already, on many occassions explained why I classify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.<<<

I have no problem with that label. I do have a problem with your understanding of Orthodoxy, and of Eastern Catholicism, which I find to be a mix of ignorance and misinformation.

>>>That is why I have a hard time understanding how you can recognize the Pope as your religious father and highest authority in your church and then refuse to take his last name or the identity he is most known by.<<<

An increasing number of Orthodox theologians are beinning to realize that the current ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, centered on the concept of the "autocephalous Church", is both uncanonical and unsustainable, incapable of holding the Orthodox commonwealth together in the face of centrifugal forces such as nationalism and modernity. They recognize the need for primacy, at all levels, including the universal. And there is a consensus that this universal primacy historically and canonically to the Church of Rome and to its bishop. All attempts to erect a substitute have failed. Ultimately, primacy is needed for the survival of Orthodoxy and Catholicism alike. But it most certainly is not going to be the kind of primacy described in Pastor Aeternus. The Pope himself recognizes that his person is the greatest obstacle to Christian unity, which is why he has asked all Christians, and the Orthodox Churches in particular, to assist him in defining new understandings and modalities for the Petrine ministry that will be acceptable to all. I find it sad and more than a little pathetic that Orthodoxy is intellectually amd emotionally incapable at this point of participating in this dialogue. After all, Orthodoxy has been demanding for a thousand years that primacy be placed on the table for discussion, and now that it is, nobody on the Orthodox side wants to touch it. The reason is quite simple--Orthodoxy is too comfortable with its own narrow, ecclesiological status quo, blithely pretending that it has not proven disasterous to the Orthodox Church, particularly since the fall of the Soviet empire.

Eastern Catholics have been participating in this dialogue for years. In fact, Eastern Catholics, in the form of the Melkite Synod, initiated this dialogue at the Second Vatican Council, where Patriarch Maximos V was the "voice of the missing bretheren". Not for nothing did all the Orthodox observers to the council stand and uncover their heads whenever Patriarch Maximos spoke. Not for nothing did Patriarch Athenegoras later say to him, "You spoke for us". Our job, as Eastern Catholics, is to insist on a primacy that is consistent with the historical understanding of the Petrine ministry as it was understood and practiced in the first millennium. It is incumbent upon us to become Orthodox Christians in every respect, AND to be in communion with the Church of Rome. This requires us to have the courage to be our Eastern selves, not some ungainly hybrid; and to insist upon our right to practice our own Tradition at all times, and not just at the convenience of Rome. If we live that way, then we will be the catalyst for a new modality of primacy, and thus lay the groundwork for the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. At which point, having fulfilled our telos, and being utterly redundant, we shall gladly merge ourselves back into the Mother Churches whence we originally came.

As I said, I am back.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/27/02 03:23 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
[QB]OrthoMan writes above: "In my book, if you acknowledge the Pope of Rome as the head of the Christian Church, are in communion with him, and accept and profess the doctrine he upholds and protects, you are a Roman Catholic. It as plain as that."

>>>I've got a problem with that because it presupposes that the Church is a top-down entity. Where did this come from? Christ always talked about feeding His sheep, and he was always working with the ordinary folks and not the mucky-mucks. I always start with the people, the simple ordinary good folks who ARE the Church.<<<

Well, I noted elsewhere that much of OrthoMan's understanding of Orthodoxy is very Western in its orientation. In some ways, the latinization of the Orthodox mind was far more insidious than that of the Eastern Catholic mind.

>>>It is my contention that if the members of the various Catholic, Byzantine and Orthodox (and Oriental) parishes spent time with each other, engaging in the so-called corporal and spiritual works of mercy, all the hierarchical stuff would fade into obscurity.<<<

As it does in those parts of the world where Orthodox and Greek Catholics live side-by-side. In Ukraine, in the Carpathians, in the Middle East, relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics at the parish level are extremely good, almost back to the point they had reached before World War II. The squabbles of Archbishops and Patriarchs who live far away is of little consequence to them. With intercommunion as common as dirt (something freely admitted by most Orthodox and Greek Catholic clergy) as a result of intermarriage and comingling of peoples, the schism is noticeable only by the failure of the clergy to engage in sacramental sharing. And the greatest ire against uniatism comes precisely in those countries that have no significant uniate populations--specifically, in Greece and in Russia.

>>>Is this not what we oftentimes hear from Orthodoxy: it is the local parishes and their bishops that are the essence of Orthodoxy?<<<

In this country, bishops take a second seat to parish councils, which treat priests like employees. Or as one Russian Orthodox bishop put it, "In America, every priest acts like a bishop, and every parish council acts like a patriarch".
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/27/02 03:26 AM

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/27/02 03:30 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axios:
[qb]We Orthodox are neither papal nor congregational. We are an episcopal church -- a church lead by bishops. And we are of the Byzantine/Greek patrimony. Right? Hence Byzantine Episcopal.<<<

Nice theory, but in this country it would be more correct to say that most Orthodox parishes use a neo-congregationalist model, which is to say they are run by parish councils which take little heed of the local bishop and which treat the priest as an employee of the parish. Extending the metaphor, the center of Orthodox life in America is the parish, and because of low densities, each parish has subsumed to itself roles which canonically belong to dioceses or eparchies. So, on both the adminstrative and ecclesiological levels, Orthodoxy in America is quite uncanonical and closer in many regards to Protestant congregationalism than it is to Orthodox sobornicity. This was pointed out by Alexander Schmemman and John Meyendorff in a number of essays, but hey, what did they know? "Paris School" innovators, the lot of them.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]
Posted By: Double_Eagle

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/28/02 07:35 PM

StuartK,

You mentioned that Patriarch Gregory III made a statement a few weeks ago, about being an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome.

Could you please give me more information on where and when that statement was made? I assume it was during his recent visit here to the States. If it was a speech or public address, might there be a searchable transcript? Any info for documentation would be appreciated. Thanks.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/28/02 10:03 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Double_Eagle:
StuartK,

You mentioned that Patriarch Gregory III made a statement a few weeks ago, about being an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome.

Could you please give me more information on where and when that statement was made? I assume it was during his recent visit here to the States. If it was a speech or public address, might there be a searchable transcript? Any info for documentation would be appreciated. Thanks.


The statement was made on Tuesday, 4 June 2002, at about 8:00 PM in the Crypt Church of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where His Beatitude was delivering an address to the Sixth Orientale Lumen Conference. The Proceedings of the Conference will be published as soon as the last of the papers come in. The Patriarch's speech is probably on the Melkite Eparchy web site, and it will also be published in a future issue of Eastern Churches Journal.
Posted By: Double_Eagle

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 03:06 AM

Thanks StuartK. I didn't see it on the Eparchy web site yet, but will keep looking.
Posted By: Deacon Peter UGCC

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 08:33 AM

GLORY BE TO JESUS CHRIST!

Dear Stuart,

Who did tell you that the LTA trained candidates
to the priesthood and/or diaconate from "all
jurisdictions", including Orthodox? What
would be, in your opinion, the purpose of Orthodox
seminaries (of all jurisdictions smile ) existing
there?

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 11:25 AM

Quote
Originally posted by Piotr Siwicki:
GLORY BE TO JESUS CHRIST!

Dear Stuart,

Who did tell you that the LTA trained candidates
to the priesthood and/or diaconate from "all
jurisdictions", including Orthodox? What
would be, in your opinion, the purpose of Orthodox
seminaries (of all jurisdictions smile ) existing
there?<<<

Fr. Boris Gudziak, the Rector of the Lviv Theological Institute. And they have a very long waiting list to get in, too. They train members of all jurisdictions because the Kyivan Church is one entity, albeit sinfully divided, and there is but one Byzantine Tradition that they all share.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter
Posted By: Axios

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 03:09 PM

Quote
Nice theory, but in this country it would be more correct to say that most Orthodox parishes use a neo-congregationalist model...


Yes, Stuart, but as you brillently point out, this is a deviation from Orthodox practice. Therefore, in principle, we might rightly be called "Byzantine Episcopalian", right?

Axios
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 04:20 PM

StuartK,

You are obviously well read but certainly an intellectual product of your selection of books. History is nothing more than a collection of biased opinions and overlooked facts.

For truth, one can only look to the Orthodox Church and for knowledge, one must taste, smell, and live Orthodoxy before he can speak of it.

Orthoman is quite right in the statement you pointed out above. It is not enough for you to label him as having a "westernized" opinion to discredit him.

If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same, and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.
Posted By: Fr. Joe

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 07:01 PM

Just a comment on the former name of the OCA - the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia" known often simply as the "Mitropolia."

According to how it has often been explained to me by those who were in the jurisdiction at that time, the choice of the name had much to do with legal purposes. Since many parishes were coming over to the Russian Church from the Greek Catholic Exarchates, there were naturally legalities involved as to the legitimate ownership of the property. By keeping the name "Greek Catholic" in the title of the jurisdiction, the leadership hoped to circumvent possible complications and losses, in an attempt to show that these congregations continued to be as they had been before - "Greek Catholics."

That the people themselves often placed little importance on jurisdictional realities, but rather, were most concerned to worship God according to their heritage and continue parochial life as they best saw fit (with married clergy and parish councils) is also a given fact in many communities.

Where the Russian Metropolia (OCA) allowed parishes to continue with their Ruthenian Greek Catholic customs - mainly in chant and recension of liturgy, they were successful. In those places where there was pressure to adopt Russian Muscovite practices, things were not always complacent. Some parishes did make this adaptation, especially when services were switched to English. Others, not willing to be yet again forced to adopt foreign styles and customs, either returned to the Catholic Church or, after 1938, found a more suitable jurisdiction in the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the USA."

An interesting example of the outcome of movements of Russification is in the parish of St. John the Baptist in Minneapolis, MN. This church was founded in 1907, after attempts by the then archbishop and later patriarch Tikhon, to enforce the "obikhod" or Russian chant at St. Mary Church (the parish of Fr. Alexis Toth). Most will remember that at the turn of the 20th. century, St. Mary Church and Fr. Toth joined the Russian jurisdiction after the hostile reception they received from the Latin Archbishop Ireland. They continued more or less as before, with the Ruthenian style of worship. With the new demands of the Russian bishop regarding chant and custom, some of the Carpatho-Rusyn people, wishing to be faithful to their authentic traditions, as once guaranteed them when joining the Russian Church under Fr. Toth, decided to return to the Greek Catholic Church from which they originally came. It can historically be said that the founder of St. John Church in Minneapolis was not Bishop Ortynskyj or the Pope, but rather, Patriarch Tikhon. An irony, to be sure.

It is telling that many of the controversies, break-ups of parishes and eparchies, and even the continual jurisdictional changes that characterized the last century, centered around the importance of preserving one's particular historical traditions. It shows that the Ruthenian recension (both Ukrainian and Subcarpathian) is a legitimate, vital and living expression of the Byzantine liturgy. It also identifies the great attachment that our people have had for their beautiful heritage, music, custom and tradition. Were our practices seen by others for the rich historical and aesetical value that they have, for their legitimate canonical and spiritual place in the universal church that they deserve, and not been placed in a "second best" position in relation to either the Muscovite or even the Latin styles, or worse, looked on with contempt by those with a pejorative outlook for their own traditions, much of the disunity that we are the inheritants of today could have been avoided.

We can only imagine what things would have turned out to be like, were our churches been allowed to develop organically on their own, not employing any changes in practice or tradition, maintaining all of our rights as guaranteed by the original "unias" and with a strong evangelical zeal to grow and prosper. Very possibly, if the above had been the case, we would not be looking out on an Byzantine Slavonic Christian America with a variety of jurisdictions all striving to survive on their own and maintain the "status quo" in a sense of competition with each other. Quite likely, there would be no OCA as we know it today (because without the conversion of the Galician and Rusyn Greek Catholics, the Russian Metropolia would have been limited to ethnic Russians and whatever American converts the church had gained), no Johnstown, maybe not even the parallel Metropolias of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and even not many of the ROCOR parishes that owe their existence to the unia. What a different church we would be speaking about had our own been seen for what it is.

Fr. Joe
Posted By: RayK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 08:15 PM

Quote
Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:
You are obviously well read but certainly an intellectual product of your selection of books. History is nothing more than a collection of biased opinions and overlooked facts.


Your take on history is a simple dismissal of everything but your own opinion. You are your own measure.

If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same

Many of us pray that the faith in all the particular churches of Christ, and under all the bishops around the world, would be the same. We join Christ himself in that prayer. It seems very simple to me that those who speak division are for division and maintain the human division of the one church.

If we speak “Them” and “Us” in the way of “I am not like them and you are not like us.“ don’t we get very close to what Paul warned us not to do? “I am of Orthodoxy and - you are of Roman Catholic” sounds very much to me like “I am of Paul and -you are of Cephas”. Did Orthodox baptize you? Or did Christ baptize you? Is Christ’s body divided in Christ’s mind or men’s minds?

Of the Orthodox, I am very familiar with the ROC here in America - I have nothing against the Orthodox Church and I admire and participate in her beauty, but just as there are Roman Catholic members that I do have something against - I dislike some Orthodox members also (what they preach to maintain the division). Among those who are in communion with Roman and confess that Jesus appointed the office of Peter to be the mouth by which the gospel is preached to us gentiles (we are not Jews) - among them there is practiced the Latin Rite and several Eastern rites. Can you tell me of one Orthodox church in which it is permissible to practice the Latin rite of Mass? In those of the communion with Rome it is permissible to grant the sacraments to an Orthodox - but it is never permissible for the Orthodox to grant any of the sacraments (not even confession) to anyone of the communion with Rome.

Then who is the divider?

It is easy for those who do not have something to lose - to see where the spirit of the divider shows itself. Just as it is easy for someone watching two people fighting to see that they fight because of foolishness and self pride injured. - yet the fighters can not see how foolish they look to everyone else.

The Orthodox churches have and maintain the riches of the Orthodox faith - and the western churches in communion with the Papacy share that faith. Should we call Christ a liar - that his Church is not One Holy Catholic Church? And that his priests in the particular churches do not have the same linage back to the apostles and originating with the hand of to Christ himself?

The division is purely human. It was human sin on both sides. Just as Paul equates any division within the early Church to human sin. Those sinners are dead - every one of them. And the division should have died with them because it is artificial. It exists only in the minds of men who have not yet risen to the mind of Christ. It seems to me that of all the people who profess to be disciples of Chirst it is those who seek unity and an end to division and seek the unity Christ prayed for - are those who are saying "Thy will be done Oh Christ Our Lord and God." and set themselves about to doing it!


and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.


Re-read what you wrote. You said that faith is not a reconcilable measure of communion (faith is not a measure of communion) but yet before that you said that Stuart has the same faith as a Roman Catholic and therefore is a Roman Catholic. May God speed the day that the Roman Catholic can have the same faith as the Orthodox and say “I too - am an Orthodox” and the Orthodox say “I too - am a Roman Catholic” ! ! because on that day the unity of the church which does exists in Christ - shall exist in men’s hearts also. (And it seems to me that the Byzantines were there first).

We should all look at the real mission of Paul.

It is a Protestant belief that the mission of Paul was to go about making converts. And if we read the book of Acts it is worded that way several times that Paul went about converting. But if we read Paul’s own letters it is clear (and he says it several times) that Paul converted no one. That was not his mission. His mission was to unify the church. When the Judasissors almost had the church divided into “us and them - and they must be like us in look and speech and ritual” - Paul spoke up against this. At every turn - Paul healed divisions, united the church in the essentials that matters - spoke tolerance between groups - and in the midst of the diversity of culture and society of the differing gentiles - and Jews - Paul was a catalyst of unity dismissing the externals in order to concentrate upon a unity of faith between the separated and particular churches he came upon.

So it would seem to me.

Have I said anything in which you could agree?

-ray

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: RayK ]
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 08:33 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Axios:


Yes, Stuart, but as you brillently point out, this is a deviation from Orthodox practice. Therefore, in principle, we might rightly be called "Byzantine Episcopalian", right?

Axios


Only if the Episcopalians agree to be called High Church Congregationalists.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 08:41 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:
[QB]StuartK,

>>>History is nothing more than a collection of biased opinions and overlooked facts.<<<

Actually, history is just one thing after another.

>>>For truth, one can only look to the Orthodox Church and for knowledge, one must taste, smell, and live Orthodoxy before he can speak of it.<<<

And what makes you think that I have not?

>>>Orthoman is quite right in the statement you pointed out above. It is not enough for you to label him as having a "westernized" opinion to discredit him.<<<

I am sorry, but the leading Orthodox theologians of the last 100 years are pretty unanimous in rejecting that argument, pointing out that it reflects nothing more than Orthodox mirror imaging of the Western theological arguments and methods used against them. This situation, which arose from the lack of Orthodox theological institutes after the fall of Constantinople required the training of priests and theologians in the West, has been called the "Intellectual Captivity of the Orthodox Church", and more tellingly, the "Pseudomorphia". Only from the middle of the 19th century does Orthodox theology begin to reclaim its own authentic voice, and then against the "immobilism" of the Orthodox establishment. Lossky, Meyendorff, Schmemman, Afanasiev, even Kyr Kallistos--all of them have been attacked at one time or another for "betraying" authentic Orthodoxy, when in fact, it was they who were espousing the true Orthodox Tradition, and the so-called traditionalists who were parroting relatively recent innovations imported from the West. The most insidious latinizations occur between one's ears.

>>>If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same, and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.<<<

But, as you may have noticed, I do not agree with current definitions of primacy as espoused by the Church of Rome. And I do not believe that these definitions are central to the faith, but represent disagreements on the administration and organization of the Church. That the dialogue has been put into theological terms is one of the things that must change in order for both sides to recognize the disagreement for what it is.
Posted By: Father Serafim

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/29/02 10:22 PM

Dear Stuart,
Could you please elaborate on your comment:

<<the so-called traditionalists who were parroting relatively recent innovations imported from the West. The most insidious latinizations occur between one's ears.>>

I am currently studying the theological situation in Russia in the early 1900s, especially the sobor of 1905. There was a movement to detoxify the Russian Church from the influences of scholasticism, pietism and theosophy, for example.
My main sources are martyred Archbishop Feodor Pozdeevsky and Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim
Posted By: Diak

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 06/30/02 01:52 AM

Afanasiev, Schmemann, and Meyendorff have all written about the need for primacy and the need first of all for a better understanding of primacy in the Orthodox Churches, since they are, as Schmemann himself used the phrase, "crippled by jurisdictionalism". I hardly think of any of these three as Papist, in fact, in especially Schmemann's case, he made a valiant effort to counter the effects of Western scholasticism in his writings.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 07/02/02 02:38 PM

Dear Friends,

Stuart's learned discussion of the role of primacy in the Church is one that will help preserve the spiritual and cultural diversity of the local Churches, not submerge them.

Schmemann, as has been mentioned, discussed the problem of jurisdictionalism from this vantage point, as did Meyendorff.

Meyendorff even discussed the phenomenon of cultural pride/patriotism within the historical parameters of the spiritual experience of Particular Churches as a valid expression of their ontological identity and praxis within the context of the historical cultural communities in which they continue to exist.

There appears to be a polarity on this issue within Orthodoxy in North America.

As a result of the fact, as Stuart notes, that no one wants to touch the issue of Primacy, some Orthodox want to maintain their cultural enclaves that their Churches wittingly or unwittingly continue to support.

Others want jurisdictional unity of some sort and imply that a cultural uniformity is its foundation.

A return to a discussion of Primacy within Orthodoxy and its role could unite both polarities, at least in theory.

We can have a composite ecclesial/cultural identity, one that unites all that is best about our local tradition, but also relates it to a more universal context.

The Papacy does this for me and for millions.

As for adaptations of the role of the Petrine Primacy, they are always going on and there is no reason why they shouldn't continue until an accommodation is reached that is acceptable for the world-wide Apostolic Churches.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Orthodox - in union with Rome? - 07/02/02 02:44 PM

Dear Stuart,

Your point on Orthoman's alleged Latinized perspective is one that I think is a bit too hard on your part.

Orthodox have used Latin terms of reference, as you know, for years, to defend themselves against a most insidious western enemy bent on taking them over.

In many cases in the past, the assumption of Latin terms of reference was done by Orthodox scholars deliberately, rather than as a result of succumbing to western influence, although there was plenty of the latter.

The ultimate resurrection of Orthodoxy in terms of being freed of Latin assumptions comes not so much in the wake of a realization of their existence in Orthopraxis, but through, I believe, an understanding of the compelling nature of true Patristic and Orthodox theology without reference to outside paradigmatic models of argument (Scholastic and otherwise).

Orthoman is someone who is a dynamic Christian, always eager and ready to learn and share with others of whatever persuasion.

He defends Orthodoxy as he knows how because he loves it.

As Someone once said, much can be forgiven to those who love.

Alex
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum