www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Should Rome tell BC's to return to Orthodoxy?

Dear Tony,

BB!

Some time back, someone here posted that the "schismatic" Macedonian Orthodox Church had made overtures to Rome to come into union with it - and this was rejected by the Mother of all the Churches .

Alex

Alex,

I wonder how that is portrayed officially and if the recent (2001) establshment of a local Greek Catholic Apostolic Exarchate in Skopje has anything to so with it.

Tony

Dear Tony,

Perhaps - I don't know! (My boss is going to yell at me any time now for being here and not where I should be ).

The only Macedonian I am really familiar with is Alexander the Great .

But even the "uncanonical raskolnik" Patriarch Filaret of the UOC-KP not only made it a point to see the Pope during his "provocative visit with negative consequences for Orthodoxy" to "Kiev" in Ukraine.

He also, the "raskolnik" I mean, blessed ("as if he had the power to bless even a kolbassa!") members of his "so-called faithful" to actually attend the papal services in Ukraine.

On the basis of the papal meeting with the "raskolnik," His Beatitude "the uniate primate" Husar judged that he could now participate in services in common with the "raskolniky."

I've gotta stop reading Russian press reports . . .

So I don't see it as difficult to accept that the MOC saw in a possible communion with Rome a way to achieve canonical status and support from a strong Western ecclesial power.

This was, after all, the same thinking of the Orthodox bishops in the Polish Kingdom in 1596.

Alex

"Mother of all the churches"? What does this have to do with the Jerusalem Patriachate?

Priest Thomas

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Sorry!

In describing the Church of Rome, I should have added "Teacher of all the Churches" too!

I apologise for the confusion!

Alex

I thought that the pre-Schism East was known as "Orthodox" and the pre-Schism West was known as "Catholic", while remaining the very same Church? If this isn't the case, then I'll have to start referring to the pre-Schism East as "Eastern Catholic." :rolleyes:

Whoa, buddy! Sit back and relax!

I was referring to Mor Ephrem's rather sparse visits to the Forum of late. I did not imply that this forum is forgotten by large amounts of people; I was simply joking that it seemed to be forgotten by Mor Ephrem.

Carry on!

Logos Teen

I was referring to Mor Ephrem's rather sparse visits to the Forum of late. I did not imply that this forum is forgotten by large amounts of people; I was simply joking that it seemed to be forgotten by Mor Ephrem.

Christ is risen!

Logos Teen, thanks for the welcome.

He and I actually talk outside this forum, and so yesterday we were talking, and he mentioned this forum, and I had told him that, because of classes, papers, and exams, I hadn't really had time for any other forum but my own, and so I haven't been here in a while. Now I have some free time, and I couldn't resist telling him that Orthodoxy is Catholic, so I thought I'd step in. I hope I'm still welcome, Alex. :p

I hope everyone is enjoying the Paschal season. God bless!

Dear Qathuliqa,

Welcome back to the Forgotten Forum, Big Guy!

If I can speak on behalf of the Administrator and the Moderators here, and I know I can't, you are more than welcome anytime!

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

It's been a tough day at work . . .

But the term "Orthodox Catholic" was used on both sides in the first millennium.

"Orthodoxy" came into its own following the First Ecumenical Council when Arius' heresy was put down and the "Orthodox Faith" was proclaimed.

"Orthodox" usually refers to "faith" and "Catholic" to "Church."

The Pope himself, when he says Mass, prays for "all those who teach the Orthodox faith" (Fide Orthodoxa).

Believe me, he isn't referring to Brendan or Father Thomas!

Alex

And when the Patriarch of Constantinople serves the Divine Liturgy, during the Hymn to the Theotokos, he prays... "Again we offer unto Thee this reasonable worship: for the whole world, [and] for the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..."

Well, I won't go into who he's not talking about...

PT

I believe that Brendan's analysis was fully adequate in response to Alex's question except to the point of Rome's rebuff of the Macedonians.

I had some indirect dealings with the Macedonian Orthodox and was quite surprised to learn of this overture, but even more surprised at Rome's rebuff.

If Rome sees catholicity as residing most fully in the Churches in communion with herself (as Orthodoxy also does, but in reverse) and less so in "sister" Orthodox Church(es), why would Rome deny entrance into communion and the complete fullness of her catholicity to the Macedonians?

To me, it just doesn't make sense ecclesiologically, especially if one follows Brendan's brilliant explanation.

I do believe that the answer is "political," or perhaps better stated as "diplomatic." In light of ongoing and substantial dialogue with the Orthodox Churhes, Rome perhaps sees this as "not the right time" to offer this particular flock all the fullness of communion with her.

As an Orthodox, I'm quite thankful for this.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

I'm sure this is what Andrew was saying, and that it's obvious to everyone, but I think the idea coming from Rome was that, by dening the MOC entrance into the Catholic Communyion of Churches, it was really hastening the speed at which the Schism is being solved. So, I think this does fit in with Catholic ecclesiology, i.e. the Church will gain more members by temporarily denying the MOC entrance.

Logos Teen

Since Rome has already set a precedent in not accepting "new uniates," do you think it is time that it reject the "old uniates" too?

In the ideal world, if the schism East-West is gone and Orthodox and catholics are in full communion it is my understanding that the division between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox would no longer exist and they would unite in one Church (Church of Ukraine, Church of Romania, etc). This would be because we would be in full communion again.

But now, under the presents circunstances when some Orthodox churches do not see Catholics as part of the Church or accept their sacraments and are hostile to them sometimes, encourageing them to join the Orthodox would be a betrayal against those martyrs who died because of their loyalty to the Catholic Church and who suffered persecutions in the hands of some Orthodox during Communism. Like in Romania, where Rome decided not to support Eastern Catholics and the Pope's visit gave legitimacy to Patriarch Teoctist who was seen as ilegitimate by a lot of Orthodox Christians there.

From this observers position, the so-called Western Rite Orthodox churches (what few of them there are) are just that, reverse uniatism.

At least Eastern Catholic Churches in spite of their limited or non-existent autonomy, have their Bishops, own priests and their liturgical byzantine traditions (in spite of latinization). Western Orthodox are just mere "indult" rites, they're forced to baptize by triple inmersion, give communion to babies and under both species, and sometimes with leavened bread.

It would be much better for Orthodoxy to restore ancient, indiginous Orthodox rites (like the Sarum Rite) than to call warmed over Anglicanism and Catholicism "Western Rite Orthodoxy." Then no one could complain of uniatism, on either side.

Dear Father, but wouldn't this be like a liturgical fiction?

I don't mean that those rites never existed or something like that, but they would be like an exotic oddity in our times, and it would cause confusion (vagantes already have do-it-yourself rites with nice names).

What do you think?

Dear All,

I hope that you, especially the Eastern and Oriental Catholics, and the Orthodox here, too, will permit a member of the Church of Rome to add a couple of thoughts to this discussion.

It is hard for old ways of looking at things and old ways of describing things to change. This is especially true, it seems to me in the case of religious institutions which tend to focus on canons and jurisdiction.

The efforts of the members of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches to recapture and live to their own traditional ways and to be true to what helped them to survive is a major challenge fraught with hardship and ripe for misunderstanding. Coming to terms with who we are is difficult for anyone. It is especially true of groups like Churches.

I've said it and others have said it before. The Spirit is stirring the waters in our times in a special way. I believe that Vatican II is one example and that the growth of ecumenicism is another. I believe that He has chosen the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches to play a pivotal and leading role in the life of the Churches.

The process in which they are engaged has ramifications for all of us in Churches both East and West. It seems to me that as they share their ever clearer identity with us, we will, in turn find it necessary to refine ours, too.

Brendan is right on the mark when he pointed out that, "One thing that Rome could do fruitfully with the Eastern Catholic Churches would be to restore true fraternal communion as the basis of relations, rather than direct universal jurisdiction. If that were to happen, muh credibility could be restored, I think, and it could be very good for both Eastern and Latin Catholics"

I think so, too. The only thing that I'd change in his comments is a bit of emphasis. I think that it is appropriate to recognize their equal status among the Churches in Communion with Rome by saying that one thing that the Eastern Catholic Churches could do with Rome would be to teach her, from within, how to restore true fraternal communion as the basis of relations.

I also think that it would be good for the Orthodox Communion of Churches, too, to see the lesson in progress. They might find it worthwhile, then, to actively engage in discussions that could restore the role of the Pope to be what it should be among all of the Patriarchates.

Fr. Mark is right on the money also, in my opinion. If I understood him correctly, he said it is proper for the Hierarchs and people of the Eastern Catholic Churches to decide who they are and where they need to be. I'm learning a lot here, but one thing that is crystal clear is that he is right! I'd be surprised if the Pope disagreed with him.

It seems to me that the question that this thread addresses is built on a supposition. If I might be so bold, with no offense to Alex, I'd like to rephrase the question.

When I read it, the question came across to me as should Rome tell BC's to return home? I don't think that Rome or any other Church should should determine where home is for Byzantine Catholics with their unique and God given history and life.

That's the job of the Byzantine Catholics. Their home is where they are. Fr. Mark has said it well. Anything else would be religious "imperialism and spiritual piracy."

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Well, I think fiction is a strong word, unless we deny that we had this rite at all. I think we would, in principle, reject liturgical archeology to simply "have" a rite. However, in view of the fact that there is a tremendous desire of Western Christians to be united to the Orthodox faith, I think this would be one solution: to restore an ancient, and fully legitimate, but now in disuse (in Orthodoxy) rite. It would certainly be controversial.

However, if we have to look at the lesser of two evils, I certainly think that this is a superior solution to what is done now: using a liturgical rite which, for much of its life, developed outside of the living Orthodox faith.

I suppose I feel this way from my life experiences. For instance, as a musician (I hold a BS in Music Education and a Master's in Music Theory from Duquesne Univeristy) I am a firm believer, when approaching a choir that was previously not under my direction, in not trying to fix what the previous director has badly taught, or that the choir is simply not singing well. Sometimes there is hope to salvage it, but more often then not it's better to leave it die and try something new.

So is my view with the Western Rite. Using Anglican Liturgy is just not good, IMHO. Although Alex mentioned that this may, in fact, just be a path to restoring ancient, truly Orthodox, rites, I think that they need to just take the training wheels off and use a fully Orthodox Western rite, or use the Byzantine rite.

But I'll admit that that's very controversial and only my opinion.

Priest Thomas