|
0 members (),
262
guests, and
26
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59 |
For the Orthodox Churches not in full communion with Rome... Are you implying that there are Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome? Does this mean that the issues that keep us from sharing the same Chalice are unimportant? No, of course they are important. Correct, and that is my point. But it does teach us that one cannot use an all or nothing approach. Try telling that to Rome. Would Rome ever accept a church that did not fall under her jurisdiction? Of course not. Both "sides" use an "all or nothing" approach. You can't compromise on dogma. A more realistic approach is to examine what we hold in common. Can you imagine Orthodox bishops being content with shared beliefs with Arians? Or Nestorians, etc, etc? It is great that we may share many things in common. But let us rather focus on those things that divide us so that we may have true communion one day. If you are fighting with your spouse, you don't discuss the things you have in common. Rather, you discuss those things you are fighting about and then reconcile. But to claim that we are not already united in many things is just silly. I am not saying that. I said we share certain truths, as well as sharing those with Protestant churches. But that does not mean we are united in One Faith. Faith cannot be divided. Even the Catholic Church teaches this. This is not a fundementalist, super-correct, Old Believer, whatever, understanding. This is Catholic teaching. It is Orthodox teaching. Let's be honest about these things, folks. The Churches grew apart from one another over the course of centuries. So, too, will they take time to grow back towards one another. Again, one Church has to return. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church did not divide in 1054. Once more this is Catholic and Orthodox teaching. Catholics believe that they are the One Church; Orthodox believe that they are the One Church. So, let us use this as our premise and have a fruitful discussion. Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Adam,
Well, "return" can mean a number of things.
For the UGCC to return to Orthodoxy today is a real possibility.
Estrangement from Rome over the current problem could take hold and affect broad sectors of our Church - it has been festering for a long time.
What has brought this to a head is the position of His Beatitude Lubomyr and his Synod - they are the ones who openly put the question to Rome: Will you recognize our patriarchate?
You say that we must continue to act independently as a patriarchate.
But, Adam, the point is that His Beatitude has expressly asked Rome to recognize our patriarchate and it is he himself who has made this recognition dependent on whether he will accept the title. He doesn't call himself "His Beatitude the Patriarch." Many of us do that - but he doesn't.
He put the patriarchal ball squarely in Rome's court - and Rome is about to officially kick it back into ours.
Once Rome does that whether by saying "not yet" or whatever - that will impact our relationship with Rome in a way that we have NOT seen in our history. Of this we can be certain!
His Beatitude has no other option now but to contradict Rome's negative decision in this matter.
And he will do so in the name of our Synod and Church - again something that has never happened before.
As for whether we are "Orthodox" or not - that is really an internal argument in our Church. I don't think many of our people would regard themselves as "Orthodox" at all, but Catholics - that's another argument.
A "return to Orthodoxy" for our Church in the wake of current events does NOT have to mean that we go into another Orthodox jurisdiction, canonical or not.
What this CAN mean is that we, over time, return to our Orthodox roots more and more.
It can mean that we ourselves one day become an Orthodox church - working to unite with other Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions within a canonical and patriarchal framework, independent of three Rome's.
I'm not saying this is the only venue open to us, but it is certainly one that is on the minds of many of our people - and not a few clergy.
We are, as you say, already in possession of an "Orthodox consciousness."
We didn't have that half a century ago.
Who knows what the next half century will bring?
You also know as well as I that many Ukies adhere to Rome because they feel it is an international ecclesial centre that is at least sympathetic to the plight and concerns of Ukrainians.
As His Beatitude said about matters being decided in Moscow, a significant part of this illusion is about to be dashed on the rocks.
I don't know what the result will be - we shall see.
But things will never be the same between our Church and Old Rome.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 429
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 429 |
Dear Alex,
You present, as always, some very good points in a lucid fashion.
You clearly have your ear closer to the ground than I do--that or I'm just not listening well enough, which may well be the case! For I have not yet heard or seen much of a groundswell--perhaps it is happening more in Ukraine proper than here?--of opposition to Rome and a desire to alter the terms of our relationship.
I should like to hear from you two specifics: first, what it means for us to return to our Orthodox roots without entering into the jurisdictional nightmare of contemporary Orthodoxy--in other words, how we practically go about doing this (some of us think we are doing that presently!); and second, how you think the changed relationship between us and Rome will manifest itself--again, perhaps you are hearing things I am not, and so I would be interested in knowing what the ideas floating about are. Perhaps while you are in this speculative mode, you might also give us your best informed opinion: is His Beatitude an adept soccer/football/volleyball/
tennis/golf player? Will he take the ball Rome has returned to him and wack it out of the field/court/course?
Perhaps, given your greater age (said as a sign of respect!) and experience, you might also tell me, whose historical knowledge is full of gaps, whether you think the "estrangement from Rome" which has been "festering" for some time, is greater now than it has been in the past. My impression is that it is not: that the UGCC was really up in arms in the 1970s when Ostpolitik was at its height and we were getting shafted royally, whereas it has not yet reached those heights. Or am I completely wrong on this?
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Adam, Yes, this just in . . . I just read on the UOC-MP site ( www.orthodox.org.ua [ orthodox.org.ua]) that His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar has asked a delegation of Members of the Ukrainian Parliament to travel to Rome to ask the Pope to recognize the UGCC patriarchate! And the Members are beginning a nation-wide petition to this effect. I think you are right - the Ukies in the homeland are way ahead of us in the diaspora on this score and things are moving quickly. The Russian press (God bless it!) has called this delegation members of the "Uniate-Schismatic Block" in the Parliament. What a great show of Christian love and support from our Great Russian brothers! I see now why the Administrator took issue with me about my being "anti-Russian." I was clearly wrong about that. I think the problem is that we Ukies don't hug the Russians enough - unless, of course, we are married to one of them  . And this brings me back to your point about how we can become Orthodox without joining an Orthodox jurisdiction. As djs showed in referencing that poll yesterday, there are over 26 per cent of Ukies in Ukraine who say they are "Orthodox" but who don't formally belong to any Orthodox jurisdiction. That is certainly one way, but it is not the best way . . .  Ultimately, we COULD, if we wanted to, develop our "Orthodox consciousness" until the matter of our union with Rome became even more irrelevant than it is now. Perhaps we could unite with our "schismatic Orthodox" brothers and sisters in one church, declare a patriarchate and then sit tight as one family until another world Christian centre acknowledged us. Or we could just sit tight. We're in the beginning stages of a major backlash against Rome - clearly His Beatitude isn't waiting around for Rome to tell us to wait or "not yet, dear little Ukies, not yet . . ." This could go in any direction or in several. I used to think that we would take this lying down - and I told Lauro, Hritzko and Diak that. Well, Adam, I was wrong and I'm the first to admit it. I was wrong. Apparently, our Patriarch and his Synod, as well as our people have more courage and determination than anyone will give them credit for. Let us follow our Patriarch, I say, and go where he leads us. I am ready. Are you? I hope that petition comes our way. Or else we'll have to develop one of our own. If so, I just might ask Greg here to write the introductory remarks addressed to Rome . . . Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 522 |
Whatever the Patriarch does, I will follow... I hope that doesn't mean leavning communion with Rome, but if it does I will go with him. Don
P.S. Thanks Alex for your support! Your wannabe-Ukie brother. Don
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Bless, Father Don! So great to see you here - or anywhere, really . . . Yes, I hope Old Rome comes to its senses. Cardinal Kasper should realize he'll have less gas from Ukrainian pyrohy than he will from Russian kvas . . . Unless he is so full of hot air already that he won't notice! God bless and I promise you that I'll behave now that you are back! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712 |
Originally posted by Don in Kansas:
Whatever the Patriarch does, I will follow... I hope that doesn't mean leavning communion with Rome, but if it does I will go with him. Don
P.S. Thanks Alex for your support! Your wannabe-Ukie brother. Don If all Ukies were only like you, then Ukieland and the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Again, one Church has to return. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church did not divide in 1054. Once more this is Catholic and Orthodox teaching. Catholics believe that they are the One Church; Orthodox believe that they are the One Church.
So, let us use this as our premise and have a fruitful discussion. It might be illuminating to contrast the estrangement of the EO and Catholic churches with the divorce at Chalcedon. The latter involved an ecumenical decision on dogmatic positions of parties involved in incipient divorce, and a clean break with contemporaneous establishment of co-terminus parallel jurisdictions. The former did not. Yet it seems that healing the rift between EO's and OO's or for that matter Catholics and OO's seems more feasible than between Catholics and EO's. And without this rhetoric of "return" Why? I am not saying that. I said we share certain truths, as well as sharing those with Protestant churches. But that does not mean we are united in One Faith. Faith cannot be divided. What is the division of "Faith" that underlies breaks in communion between various Orthodox churches? UOC-KP vs UOC-MP; ROCOR vs OCA (?); Genuine OC's and the OCA etc. Do you elevate such disputes to entail matters of "Faith"? If so, who in your opinion is Orthodox, and what criteria inform this judgment? Or can you stipulate that broken communion does not necessarily imply different "Faiths"? Can you imagine Orthodox bishops being content with shared beliefs with Arians? Or Nestorians, etc, etc? Can you imagine Orthodox Bishops sharing the chalice with non-Chalcedonians, Eastern Catholics, RC's? Has such intercommuion not existed in the last century and even now? Can you imagine latitude on aspects of theology within Orthodoxy? Would Rome ever accept a church that did not fall under her jurisdiction? Of course not. Depends on what "under her juridiction" means in practice and in law. This point is open for discussion, as you probably know. Both "sides" use an "all or nothing" approach. You can't compromise on dogma. See first comment. Are you implying that there are Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome? Registered 2001? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 |
Welcome Back Don!!! Would that we all had that much faith in the direction of our church leadership. Yes, Alex, perhaps I too have been overly skeptical about the situation recently. I was thinking about applying Fr. Taft's recommendation of what or where to tell the MP to go (a four-letter word/place we won't mention for fear of censure ) to the Union itself and Rome. But we shall see. Disagreeing with Adam, I think rather this is precisely the time to act, not step back and view the forest. We have waited too long and have been disappointed too many times to let yet another outbreak of neo-Ostpolitik again stand in our way of a true Patriarchal Church. Sort of like an old MG with dual carbuerators. Once you get it running, you had better drive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712 |
Originally posted by Adam DeVille:
You clearly have your ear closer to the ground than I do--that or I'm just not listening well enough, which may well be the case! For I have not yet heard or seen much of a groundswell--
You know I could have a two dozen people on your front lawn on Saturday afternoon chanting: "TAK TAK PARTRIARHAT" Just dare me   Hritzko
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Telling the Moscow Patriarchate where to go should not pose any problem of courtesy. The Moscow Patriarchate belongs, obviously, in Moscow. Since it is there already and shows no signs of planning to leave, the supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate have no cause to be offended if one points this out!
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59 |
Yet it seems that healing the rift between EO's and OO's or for that matter Catholics and OO's seems more feasible than between Catholics and EO's. And without this rhetoric of "return" Why? Who is not using the rhetoric of "return"? If "they" aren't, "they" should be. BTW, the dogmatic differences between EO's and OO's are less than EO's and Catholics. What is the division of "Faith" that underlies breaks in communion between various Orthodox churches...Do you elevate such disputes to entail matters of "Faith"? No. Most apply to administrative/jurisdictional issues. I am not afraid to say that the jurisdictional issue in the USA is a mess. Can you imagine Orthodox Bishops sharing the chalice with non-Chalcedonians, Eastern Catholics, RC's? Has such intercommuion not existed in the last century and even now? No, I can't. It shouldn't happen, even if it happens here and there. It is not common practice by any stretch of the imagination. What good comes out of that anyway? I'm OK, you're OK? Can you imagine latitude on aspects of theology within Orthodoxy? What do you mean by "latitude"? Or, "aspects"? Sorry, dogma is dogma. The dogma of the Trinity is Orthodox; any variance on this is not Orthodox. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is not Orthodox. Depends on what "under her juridiction" means in practice and in law. This point is open for discussion, as you probably know. Actually, it is not open for discussion. Read Vatican I. Here are some excerpts from Session 4 of Vatican Council I: 6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.
7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.
Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. This is Catholic dogma which Vatican II does not contradict. It is not open...it is closed. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you implying that there are Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered 2001? Really? Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox. Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 564 |
I too will follow what Kyr Lubomyr says. He's a Studite by the way.
Lauro
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Lauro, I think you'll go along with anyone who isn't a Basilian! (The Administrator has been largely quiet with us Ukies here - perhaps he feels he's currently outnumbered and is quietly awaiting his chance . . . ). Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317 Likes: 21 |
Dear Diak, For some reason, Rome's impending "no" to us this time will rejuvenate our hope and strengthen us to move forward together. I didn't foresee that. Thanks to the Administrator for having us Ukies on this forum where we may channel our energy and sincere feelings toward the Rome's . . . I'm sure he's sitting back and shaking his head at us, but, by the same token, I think he appreciates all the interest we're generating here! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
