www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Bishop Basil on Brest

But you are thinking that all of this stuff is concerned with doctrine, most of these in and out of communion things are not doctrinal in nature. They are because one hierarch and another have a tiff. Like the deal between MP and EP over Estonia. Even the Old Calender problems really are not doctrinal. Most of the problems between the various Othodox jurisdictions and, if we were truly being honest, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, are politcal and not theological, so my analogy stands. Don

I would tend to agree with Don-in-K. Take the example of the "DisUniya" at Chalcedon. Not so much a theological problem as a problem in Imperialism, mistreatment by the political authorities, cultural insensitivties, etc.

Besides which, my point for our great Durak-in-Christ was that if we Orthodox in Communion with Rome one day [one day Soon, O Lord] get our act together and truly become ORTHODOX in Communion etc., then there would be absolutely No theological, liturgical, etc. differences between ourselves and our Orthodox Sister and Mother Churches. Thus they could be in Communion with us - despite having misgivings or problems with one of the Churches with whom we are in communion, viz. the Latin Church.

CT287, what I have some qualms about are those Orthodox who e.g. are in Communion with truly Orthodox Church A, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church B, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church C, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church D, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church E, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church F, which is in Communion with truly Orthodox Church G.

Then they find out that truly Orthodox Church G is in Communion with questionably Orthodox or questionably Orthopracticed Church X.

Then they break Communion, not just with questionable Church X but they also break Communion with truly Orthodox Church G because G is in communion with X, and they also break Communion with F because F is in Communion with G, and also E because of F, and D because of its commuion with E, etc. all the way down the line.

Maybe they are following God's Will, but, I'm alittle uneasy about it, at least for my self to take such a position.

And let us remember that for the Orthodox with whom we wish to re-affirm or re-establish Communion, the problematic Church we are talking about, I believe, is not the Greco-Catholic Church which has become fully and truly Orthodox, but the Roman Catholic Church!

So hopefully the Orthodox of Kyiv or Constantinople will not be like that. That is hopefully, they will NOT refrain from accepting with our re-affirmation/-establishment of inter-Communion just because we are in Communion with the Russian Greco-Catholic Church, which is in Communion with the Romanian , etc., etc. with is in communion with the Italo-Albanian Greco-Catholic Church which is in Communion with the Latin Church with whom it has problems theologically and ecclesially.

So CT, I presume you are not advocating we break communion with the Latin Church (plus all the Churches "in between" them and us), in order to re-affirm or re-establish Communion with the other Orthodox Churches.

herb

Besides, what really are the major doctrinal differences? The current Pope has on many occasions recited the Creed without the Filioque. On the issues of the Conception of St. Anne and the Dormition, the problems with the Orthodox are more of their proclamation by a Pope without a full ecumenical council rather than the dogmatic and liturgical origins of the doctrines themselves. The real issue is the matter of primacy and union.

It is kind of interesting that St. Thomas Aquinas could not rationalize the idea of an immaculate conception, while some Greek theologians of his era did not have any major problems with it based on the patristic and liturgical corpus surrounding the Theotokos.

I also agree with Don's analogy, a good one at its heart. I think the Kyivan Church did not see anything incongruous or anomalous between remaining in Orthodoxy and simultaneously remaining in communion with the primus inter pares in Rome.

Dear Diak:

Good Point!

However, in my model, one would not have even to argue that much - which could open a whole other kettle of fish. That is to say, we don't even need to argue that the Latin Church has no major doctrinal differences with the Orthodox.

Whether there are or are not, whether they are real or imagined, that is between the Latin Church (with whom we are "only" in Communion) and the particular Orthodox Church that has a problem with them. And they two can work it out as between themselves.

We, the Orthodox in Communion with Rome, would merely believe and hold what the Orthodox believe and hold - and express it in exactly the same language - such as there can not be any difference between us and the other Orthodox save and except we happen to be (and choose to be) in Communion with Rome [just as Antioch is in Communion with Coptic Alexandria, for instance].

Yes, exactly!

And further, I would wish to argue that the Kyivan Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome presently Does Not "see anything incongruous or anomalous between remaining in Orthodoxy and simultaneously remaining in communion with the primus inter pares in Rome."

Herb

My confusion here is that the Ukrainian Catholic might see ROme as "primus inter pares" but is this what Rome sees itself as, vis a vis, the Ukrainian Church? Or does Rome still see itself having Primacy of Jurisdiction over a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch in Kyiv? Could not the Pope still call the Patriarch to ROme and dismiss him like any other Cardinal for instance?

Oh, what a joyous thread to read in this joyous week of the liturgical year. (I'm on the New Calendar.) Thank you for you comments!
:p

What older Rome sees itself as vis a vis the Church of Kyiv in Communion with it is currently still being worked out, cf. the dialogue initiated by His Beatitude Gregory III, Patriarch of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and all the East, Pontiff of Pontiffs and 13th Apostle ; His Beatitude Lubomyr, Patriarch of Kyiv, Halych and All Rus'; and His all-Holiness John Paul II, Pope of Rome re the relationship of Papacy and Patriachates, i.e. a further definition of the ministry of "Primus inter Pares" within the Catholic Communion.

The present Canon law for Eastern Church [considered by Orthodox in Communion with Rome (and certainly all theologians I know)] to be....very much a "work in progress" still, does indeed make provision for an emergency intervention of the Primus inter Pares - I would suppose for some dire emergency wherein the Holy Synod somehow became non-functional and was unable to depose the Patriarch.

Of course the Pope could dismiss His Beatitude Pat. Lubomyr from the College of Cardinals easily and simply, since a Cardinal is technically an office within the diocese of older Rome. (An office which was extended to the Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus' so that he could participate in the election of the next Pope and which His Beatitude accepted, I suspect, because he's a nice guy and didn't want to refuse - strange and anomalous canonical and ecclesiological consequences notwithstanding {according to our theologians}.)

Some Catholics might (I don't know) still hold an ecclesiology where the Pope is de facto the "ordinary" in every diocese and the local bishops are only his legates, but the Pope, who worked so hard for collegiality, would not be among these.

Neither Pope John Paul nor Patriarch Lubomyr sees the Patriarchate of Kyiv as merely a flunky of the Vatican. The Church is Kyiv (in Communion with it) is seen to be a real "Sister Church".

Herb

Dear Friends,

This is all so very nice!

But it is also a case in point showing how participants in an internet chat forum can engage in a lot of wishful thinking. I've done that too and I know it is fun!

But our first mistake or whatever you want to call it here is to assume that the Ukrainian CAtholic Church is a homogeneous mass of people who think like we do on this thread. They do not.

Terms such as "Kyivan Orthodox in communion with Rome" are what WE are comfortable with.

Many, I don't know how many, UC's would be afraid of even using the term "Orthodox" to define themselves, especially in the "Old Country" for obvious historical reasons.

Many would see all this talk about equality of the Churches etc. to be quite meaningless. Many UC's WANT to be UNDER Rome and see their relationship to the Pope as one of submission - especially in the aftermath of their submission to Moscow.

Otherwise, why be in union with Rome - if we have everything Rome's got . Why would we then need the "burden" of being under Rome, if we are equals etc. they might ask.

I'll ask the Patriarch, when he is here next month, about some of these issues to get a better sense of where he stands with them.

I'll tell him I won't quote him . . . in the press .

Alex

Wow! Here is a nice thread. All things are being put in the right perspective.

ruel

Just a question: what made the Orthodox bishops sign the Union of Brest? This act was seen by Orthodox as a betrayal and an assault of the Church of Rome against Orthodoxy by entering into small union instead of a general union.

ruel

Dear elexie, this a complicated question which took the eminent Father Borys Gudziak over 400 pages to eloquently explain. Anything less would be an oversimplification. There was much political upheaval and intrigue, as well as a great deal of simony amongst the Orthodox with respect to ecclesiastical offices. Often laymen (royalty) purchased churches, schools, monasteries, even the Pecherska Lavra. Eparchies, parishes, institutions, could go the highest bidder.

But some in the Kyivan Church never lost sight of the fact that dual communion was possible between Orthodoxy and Rome when approaching the issue of the Union.

Dear Elexeie,

You have to be careful when discussing the Union of Brest with Ukrainian Catholics as they sometimes respond with propagandistic replies .

But not me . . .

There was, first and foremost, a great attraction toward union with Rome among the Ukrainian/Belarus Orthodox hierarchs as a result of a gradually deteriorating relationship with the Patriarch of New Rome.

The Polish King was the one who appointed new Orthodox bishops in his Kingdom and his government tended to appoint the ones who were most sympathetic toward him . . .

The Patriarch of New Rome did not, therefore, trust these bishops and created Stauropeghial Brotherhoods to watch over them. Basically, laity could overrule their Orthodox bishops if the laity felt like it. . .

The Orthodox bishops looked with envy on their RC counterparts and on the way the laity had a "hands-off" policy toward them.

And the Orthodox bishops, rather naively, thought that the Union of Brest would simply involve a transfer of allegiances with everything else pertaining to their church and traditions remaining intact for all time etc.

Some of those bishops also had their own personal, material interests at steak . . .er. . .stake as well . . .

After the Union of Brest, of course, Latinization and Polonization of the aristocracy and episcopacy were the order of the day. But by the 1900's, the Greek Catholic Church had become the Church of the people of Galicia and other areas, and this was also thanks due to such incoming hierarchs as Andrew Sheptytsky.

Alex