www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

Rusnak: Sorry for offending you.

Here is a peace offering:

www.up.net/~jolove/Sounds_Folder/ave_maria.mid [up.net]

Comehome,
You need to stop reading polemical writings which blind people to the truth. I believe you went off on a tangent when you accused theOrthodox that we have spiritual problems. Does this imply that you don't? When your are ready to stop dissecting the Ecumenical Councils from Orthodoxy and quit telling us that we don't know better because you do you are in error if not in heresy. Please show us the word ONLY in reference to St. Peter given the Keys even though Scriptures do not directly but indirectly state that the rest of the Apostles did receive the authority to bind and loosen from Christ. You speak like the Protestants when they play Sola Scriptura. Your play is Sola Petras. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not one and the same. Catholicism and Protestantism are one and the same.

LazarusDos,
You certainly sound like a Latinized Greek that is far from Orthodoxy. There is no such thing as Greek Catholicism or a "unique Third Way". If you want to speak of Mother Churches Jerusalem would be your Mother before Rome. You Greek Catholic Church will most likely never become autocephalous. Have any of your bishops been granted as such? The origins of uniatism are a sad historical affair and a dissapointment to Orthodoxy. You claim to have been born of Orthodoxy and found your mother is of Rome! You need to find your true Mother and come back to Her as did the Prodigal Son to HIs Father.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Robert: I like you. You are like me: you have no interest in being "politically correct" on issues of faith.

Yes, I am a Latinized Greek. When you take into consideration the historical fact that the early and undivided Church was Latin and Greek, I consider myself to be blessed and to be whole. I hope I will soon meet Hellenized Latins!

Third Way? There is theory. Of course, there is also practice. Robert, like it or not, "by our practice ye shall know" that, yes, Greek Catholics are practioners of the Third Way. This is what we are in fact, not in fantasy. This bothers both the Orthodox and the strongly Orthodox theorists of our Greek Catholic Church; I have a low tolerance for delusion. Therefore, I prefer to be what I practice- a Byzantine Christian of the Third Way. I know how controversial this concept is, but we are all adults. We can "handle it," can't we?

In Christ our True God who was raised Lazarus from the dead.



[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-31-2000).]

>>>Yes, I am a Latinized Greek. When you take into consideration the historical fact that the early and undivided
Church was Latin and Greek, I consider myself to be blessed and to be whole. I hope I will soon meet
Hellenized Latins!<<<

I am curious, Lazarus, how you reconcile your "latinized hellenism" with the instructions which have been issued to the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome to bring their liturgical and spiritual practices and understanding into line with that of their Orthodox counterparts. As Father Robert Taft has noted, it is one of the proud claims of the uniates that they are ever faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church; why then do they refuse to obey said magisterium in this issue? Could it be the desire for a distinct identity (tertium quid) trumps even the notion of centralized universal authority for them? Truth be told, who is more "obedient": someone like me, who endevors to live as an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome, in accordance with the mandates of the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches, and with the Liturgical Instruction? Or the person like you, who insists on maintaining an artificially corrupted Tradition which is neither fish nor fowl, but rather reflects the spiritual, theoligical and ecclesiological errors and confusion which are at the heart of uniatism, a model for the Church which the Catholic Church has vehemently rejected?

Friend: Your dichotomous mindset is more Latin than Greek. Some of those who share your views are almost "fundamentalist' in their rejection of the past and the present. You are well aware that in the world of science all theories are approximations. I believe the same applies to theoloy and ecclesiology:there is a rough edge, something marginal about the contents of the relevant documents because they are working documents. Addendums might very well be added along the way as the pastoral needs of the Greek Catholic people become apparent. I do not believe the Fathers of the Church who crafted the contents understood the content to be set in stone. The pastoral needs of the Greek Catholic people cannot be cavalierly cast aside in the quest to attain the ideal standard or even to placate the more fundamentalist minded Orthodox. The personal and communal piety of the Greek Catholic people, of our day, must be respected and the changes that are inevitable must be implemented with sensitivity, respect, and a "personal touch." Our people have suffered too often and for too long from the machinations of ideologues from both sides of the Byzantine/Roman divide and I refuse to sit back and remain silent as they become, to my great dismay and once again, guinea pigs. I do not advocate rebellion or disobedience. But, I do insist on holy wisdom and a personal touch predicated on this standard: do no harm. I hope the zealots of reform will not insist on sending ushers into the congregations to rip the Latin rosaries out of the hands of our grandmothers and grandfathers. Some fanatics with megalomaniacal personalities would do just that. That luncacy is what I insist we avoid. This is, of course, an extreme example, but you understand the point. And let us avoid at all cost the tendency of some Byzantine reformers to look upon the Latin Church as inferior. The very thing they hate in Latins, they have now become. Lunacy all around!

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-31-2000).]

>>>Your dichotomous mindset is more Latin than Greek.<<<

Yadda, yadda, Lazarus. You dodged the question. At the center of Latin ecclesiology and even Latin theology there lies the matter of the Petrine primacy. Greek Catholics claim to recognize that primacy in accordance with "Catholic" dogmas. They insist that Catholic dogmas apply to themselves and to all in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Obedience to the Bishop of Rome is an essential aspect fo the Latin Catholic (and, by their own admission, the Greek Catholic) identity.

The Bishop of Rome has issued certain instructions in connection with the Decree on the Oriental Churches of the Second Vatican Council (a Council which good Greek Catholics insist is ecumenical). Why, then, do you, as a good Greek Catholic, reject the teachings contained in the Decree and the Instructions?

Specifically, the Decree and the Instruction reject the notion that there is a unique "Greek Catholic" theology or identity. They rejects the notion of a "third way". They reject the notion of ritual and spiritual syncretism which you espouse. The reasons are covered with clarity and power. They should be convincing on their own merit. But assuming that for some reason, they are not, there remains the appeal to authority. You, as a good Greek Catholic, have made obedience to the magisterium of the Catholic Church a cornerstone of your ecclesiology, spirituality and identity. How, then, can you reject what that magisterium has consistently directed you to do?

You exaggerate my position. What have I rejected? The authority of the Pope? The core dogmas of the Christian faith? No. My concern is pastoral. We cannot interpret the documents so literally that we become unimaginative clones of the Orthodox. I do not believe any Pope would expect that of us. There must be some "bleeding of one tradition into the other,"because it is the product of our lives together. It is inevitable.


You do not know the mind of the Fathers who produced these documents and I believe all of them have one personality trait pseudo-Orthodox theorists lack - the heart of a pastor. The reforms are reformable. Your position seems to be that of a fundamentalist; a view of the Church that I must reject. You seem to have forgotten that the Church has often recognized the popular piety of the people of God. You cannot compress the life of the people of God and their praxis of the faith between the pages of books! The relevant documents are working documents.


To close: There is one issue here that you have missed entirely. Even if we, like good little pharisees, transform ourselves into "Orthodox more Orthodox than the Orthodox," and we remain in union with the Pope and the Orthodox refuse to join our "happy family" we will still be the children of the Third Way! Everything would have changed. Nothing would have changed. And your Orthodox soulmates shall never let us forget it.

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-31-2000).]

If I might weigh in for a moment, I believe that the real issue is that of extremism.

Latin extremism leads to the ultra-monatist heresy, and Orthodox extremism leads to the nationalistic and ethnic heresies.

I don't mean to stir up the fires any more than they are, but if people would just sit down and discuss the issues calmly and rationally without so much emotionalism and extremism I believe that an acceptable compromise between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches could come about.

I'm a perpertual optimist. I don't see Rome as an enemy of the Byzantine Rite Churches, but rather as a shepherd who has delegated much of his authority to others.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Roman Curia is largely responsible for the denial of our full rights within the Church. And what lies at the root of their denial? I think it's the same old problem - The sin of absolutism and mistrust. Face it, we just aren't trusted, no fault to us, and the Roman Curia is perhaps interested more in the status quo than in facing the uncomfortable changes our full assertion of our inalienable rights would entail.

I rarely post replys on the ByzCath forums. Imostly enjoy reading people argue back and forth. It is just like politics. Obviously from my "sign-on name" I am a Roman Catholic--and a convert none the less. Something I am very proud of. I have a few questions.(This whole post is going to be "bits-n-pieces" of many thoughts I've had on the subject)

1. Are BC's *required* by their agreements with Rome to recognize Papal Authority in its entirity?

As it seems from many of the posts BC's are not. I, as a RC, am required to accept the authority of the Pope in its entirity. So, hypothetically speaking, say I reject some of the tenets that I am suposed to hold as a RC and I'm excomunicated, yet I my school of thought is in conformity with the BCC, are they going to open wide their arms? If so, their seems to be one of those situations where "If daddy says no, go to mom". It wouldn't seem that their is true unity.

Next...

2. It is possible that a BC could become Pope...Does the hypothetical situation of a BC Pope change anyone's opnion? Thoughts?

In the not so distant past we had a Pope not of RC descent--Paul VI--he was of the ambrosian rite--granted it is a western rite. Did everybody know that the Pope can celebrate mass in any rite?

3. Do BC's have to profess 21 ecumenical councils or just 7? Do they have to adhere to 21 or 7?

Again, if I as a RC have to profess and adhere to 21 while BC's only have to profess and adhere to 7, isn't there a contradiction within OUR catholic church?

4. Why would someone say they are "Orthodox in communion w/ Rome"? (I'm assuming 'orthodox" used in this particular phrase is like Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox,etc.)
Do they just not like the word catholic? This brings me to another point--What exactly do BC's and eastern rites for that matter base their communion with Rome on? If you don't like/adhere/believe that which has been taught by the bishop of Rome, what do you have to base your communion on? To me it seems that it is cafeteria catholicism. I have a very humble knowledge of eastern catholics and most of it comes from the forums on this site--you BC's don't seem to like us RC's very much.

At the time I was converting I didn't much care whether I was Roman Catholic, BC, ambrosian, coptic, antichion, etc. I chose RC because where I live in Michigan there are at most 1 eastern rite church, the person I choce as sponsor was RC, and the local student parish was RC and they had a wonderful priest that taught me much. I have since grown to love everything about my rite. Let me pose this hypothetical situation. Let's say the BC's outnumber the RC's the way the RC's outnumber the BC's in reality. Would you all hold the same disdain for the institution that church currently is? Is a BC's problem with the Pope and RC's, in general, due to the fact that we have a virtual monopoply going on here?

That is enough rambling for now. I hope not to have been confrontational and apologize to anyone who thought I was so. I hope to get some good responses because I truly want to understand all the facets of our Lord's one, true, united, not uniformed, catholic church.

Peace

M

[This message has been edited by latin-cath (edited 08-04-2000).]

Dear Latin Catholic,

Don't let some of the people on this forum influence your opinion about all Byzantine Catholics. Internet forums such as these always attract more argumentative types. That's the nature of the beast.

I, for one, have great love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church. I have even more love and respect for Pope John Paul II, whom I consider to be a living saint.

I confidently speak for almost all of the Byzantine Catholics here when I say that we are thankful to be in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Concerning some of your questions, I will address just a couple of them to the best of my ability. You ask why we call ourselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Why isn't "Catholic" good enough for us? Well, that's because we really are Orthodox Christians. You see, the term "Orthodox" traditionally referred to the Eastern Christian Churches - long before the schism of 1054. In the united Christian world, Orthodox and Catholic were interchangable terms. But the Western Church usually preferred the term Catholic, and the Eastern Church always preferred the term Orthodox. This was before the schism. So "Orthodox" is another way of denoting the rich patrimony of Eastern Christianity. As Eastern Catholics, we are heirs of this patrimony, and have not forsaken our Orthodox identity by coming into communion with Rome.

I guess that's the main reason why we refer to ourselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome." To remind others, and especially ourselves, that we carry on the legacy of the Eastern Church, was has always been known as the Orthodox Church.

Secondly, why do many of us have hard feelings concerning Roman Catholicism? That is because the Roman Church is the largest, and is generally astonishingly ignorant about us. We have made many sacrifices to be in communion with Rome, and it deeply saddens us that our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters don't usually know that we even exist. It hurts us even more when this ignorance leads to direct action against us, which happens more often than you would guess. For instance, there was a period of 14 years during which the Byzantine bishop of Pittsburgh had to leave the city of Pittsburgh because the Roman bishop of that period didn't want a Byzantine bishop in "his" city. That's the kind of thing that still goes on sometimes, and it hurts really bad. It isn't fun to be treated in such a way by our fellow Catholics.

That having been said, holding on to resentment doesn't help. Resentment eats away at a person, and causes us to become distorted. It is not healthy for us to be resentful towards the Roman Catholics, and that only serves to drive people away. We must learn to forgive and love one another.

God bless,
Anthony

Dear Dragani-
I remember you from the EWTN message board.
You and I share one thing in common besides the faith- a tendency to argue very emotionally. I can just picture you getting angry over the westerners on here like I get mad over protestants and (in this case) easterners who are displeased with Il Papa.

The Pope, if I recall, (as you didn't mention in your post) then insisted that the Byzantines can and indeed should continue with married priests. You should print the whole story if you're going to print the parts that make the easterners mad, and the unknowing westerners feel guilty.

I should stress also that (to remind you) Pro-papacy is NOT a heresy, nor is it intended to bully the East. If we agree that the Papacy was established by Christ Himself, Who said, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven...", etc., then why do you see the Pope as a monarch instead of a sheperd? The centralization is necessary to keep East and West inline doctrinally, I think.

In Him,
Mike

Dear Mike,
I am going to let you have it. Pro-papacy is a heresy. Christ did not establish the papacy. Christ established the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. The confession of St. Peter that Christ is the Son Of God is the same confession proclaimed by the rest of the other Apostles. Sola Petros is a lie and needs to be recanted. If you study and learn Orthodoxy you might understand where I am coming from. I mean no offense to you but your remarks are offensive and will never be accepted within Orthodoxy. You have yourself a blessed night.

Dear Robert,
Read Matthew 16. Peter confessed (or rather, blurted out with confidence) Christ's divinity long before the others did.

Remember the term "petra" or "kaephas", the title Christ gave to Peter, AND NOT the other apostles. it works in both latin AND greek- maybe that should be a hint to you.

Christ called Peter the rock on which He would build His Church- He never said this to St. Andrew. Pro-Papacy is therefore NOT heretical, but Christ-like. I do not recall any other heresies being instituted by Christ Himself, do you?

In Him,
Mike

Dear Mike,
I don't know the countless times I have refuted this misunderstood and misapplied Mat 16:18 by mislead Roman Catholics. Yes, Peter was the first Apostles recorded in Scripture to make the Confession in Christ BUT he was not the only Apostle to do so. Wake up! Christ established the Church based on the Confession not soley on the person of St. Peter. Why is the Church known in the Nicene Creed as the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church and not the Petros Church? The Primacy of St. Peter is acknowledged and applied in Orthodoxy. It is not disputed. What is disputed is Rome's application of Primacy. It really is known as the Papacy. There is a fine distinction between the Primacy and the papacy. St. Peter would have acknowledged his appointed title by the Apostolic Church but not a papacy. Roman Catholics believe they own a monopoly on our great Saint which should not entitle us Orthodox to him. Is this not heresy? This is Rome's choice and not God's will. I recommend you read my other posts on this topic lest I repeat what was writen over again.

Mr.Sweiss: Actually, Roman Catholics do not have a monopolistic claim on the Rock--St.Peter. Just the opposite is true. All Catholics believe that the successor of St.Peter is the Supreme Pontiff and he exercises universal jurisdiction over the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff is a gift from God to all of Christendom, not just the Western Church.

[This message has been edited by Franz (edited 09-04-2000).]