www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall ACROD communion with Byzantines?

Can someone tell me what "the spirit of Vatican II" is?

Isn't this just some foggy notion that a lot of people use to push their agenda knowing that most of the laity have not read the documents?

Instead of using the term "the spirit of Vatican II" wouldn't it be a better idea to provide actual quotes and references to the documents of Vatican II?


Just some thoughts.

David

Dear David,

Probably . . .

Alex

Well, Andrew, I take it that as far as "official" orthodoxy outside Rome is concerned, such inter-communion will only be truly official when ----- freezes over. Established powers have a greater need to maintain their status quo.

Maybe unofficial approval is the only kind that can happen realistically. I heard it said once that reunification of orthodoxy itself within the United States can only happen from the ground up. You see just how far that has gotten as a result. Locally, unofficial unions occur, as well as voluntary ones, but nothing official.

The truth is, throughout the U.S. there are Byzantines taking communion in orthodox parishes, and vice versa. Some regularly attend an orthodox parish, because there is no Byzantine parish nearby, and vice versa, too. Some orthodox priests DO look the other way regarding this practice. It comes under the heading of "Don't sweat the small stuff" rather than "Don't ask, don't tell", I suppose.

God recognizes His own even if mankind doesn't. It's a good thing we remember those who are alone, or those known only to God, in our prayers.

Alas! The good Doctor mentions the other half of the Authority equation ... RESPONSIBILITY.

In management philosophy: AUTHORITY = RESPONSIBILITY.

What happens when: AUTHORITY > RESPONSIBILITY?

What happens when: AUTHORITY < RESPONSIBILITY?

We all know that when A > R, we have a dictatorship and/or totalitarian regime who owes no answer to their actions. Things are made to happen in order to prove a point: I AM THE AUTHORITY. Management becomes a power game, an adult's version of King of the Hill.

We all know that when A < R, we have a servile, non-critical, blind obedience that often reflects a very Lemming attitude in servitude.

When A = R, there follows RESPECT, another "R" word.

This economia, or management, also applies to the family, especially parents.

Ever hear of the old saying, "Do as I say and not as I do?" Doesn't work well in teaching the principles of responsibility.

I disagree that a bishop is solely responsible for the souls under his care. Individual souls are still in need of operating their conscience and striving to participate in God's divine nature, whether their bishop is a toad or saint.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

And if the bishop is a toad - is that why we keep kissing his hand, in hopes that he will transform into a saint?

O.K., O.K., back to work for me . . .

Alex

David,

I wasn't really that serious about the "spirit of Vatican II"; I just threw that in as a gross overgeneralization to point out in a subtle way the gross overgeneralizations being made by the other poster. That's also why I added "power to the people!" at the bottom. While I do support lay power, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek but didn't make that totally clear (it was like 2 am when I wrote that since I couldn't sleep!)

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Jim,

Beyond the matters of faith impacting upon intercommunion [Eastern & Western differences in ecclesiology as one relatively "benign" example], my concern is that the ACROD statements, if they are as I interpret them (an unofficial policy of intercommunion that contradicts an official policy of non-intercommunion) undermine the very instrument that we have toward administrative unity in the Americas: SCOBA.

I have been a strong supporter of SCOBA in that it reflects the vision of blessed St. Tikhon of an administratively unified Church that allows for a diocesan structure that reflects the realities of a coexisting immigrant and indigenous Church in the Americas. Making this a reality that conforms to the spirit of canonical norms will require all minds to be focused upon the issue of organization and ecclesiology.

Matters such as intercommunion may cloud this discussion, hijack the debate, and perhaps even lead to schism. The policies need to be clear and adhered to.

As I said above, if the purpose of Metropolitan's alleged position is purely pastoral and not an attempt to institute from the ground up what rightly must come as a conciliar decision of the the heads/bishops (plural) of the dioceses (plural), then I would find it easier to accept, while still perhaps not agreeing with it as the best course of action.

With prayers for the lonely and those known only to God,
Andrew

I very much appreciate the "authority" vs "responsiblity" paradigm. And I agree, that it is a balancing act.

But the Bishop, precisely because he is a bishop, must have the authority to act pastorally in the best interests of those committed to his care. (Of course, the faithful must also do their own part -- the bishop can't do it all himself.) My point was particularly in reference to both Metropolitan Nicholas and Bishop Vsevelod who have both shown themselves to be open to dealings with "the dreaded Uniates". There are those in Orthodoxy who would want nothing to do with Catholics in general, and with Eastern Catholics in particular. And they have made their positions clear.

These two bishops do not distance themselves from Eastern Catholics; they feel free enough to be present at celebrations and public EC events, and I'm surmising that sometimes there's a quiet dinner shared with their episcopal brethren. And when one of them (or one of our bishops) determines that something needs to be done for the well-being of the churches of God, and it involves "intermingling", then they will allow it. And as a bishop, each man has that right.

If every bishop waited for a consensus among all his colleagues, nothing would ever change. And converts would still be "abjuring the heretical evils of Rome" instead of being received into Orthodoxy as a step towards salvation. Bishops have made that change. Because pastorally it is a good thing.

I applaud bishops (and support their efforts) when they don't recoil in horror at having to deal with "them" (whoever "them" might be), and when they reach out with Christian kindness to any soul whom they meet.

Blessings! (Especially to the Episcopacy!)

What about the agreement reached between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church regarding intercommunion and other steps to full communion in the future.

Isn't this agreement a good model, for a future agreement between Orthodox and Catholics?

One important thing was that it was not an agreement between the Assyrian Diocese in the USA and the Chaldean Catholic Church, but that the Church of Rome and the Assyrian Patriarchate were fully involved (the Catholic Church as a comunion). Intercommunion rules on Eucharist and Sacraments were established not only between Chaldeans and Assyrians as a matter of ethnic tides but between the whole Assyrian Church and the Catholic Communion, even if it has little impact among Western Catholics and the majority of Eastern Christians.

The situation between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches is in this case more complex, because the eastern Orthodox Church is not a single body like the CIRED, and other Patriarchates would oppose if one of the Churches accepts an agreement of intercommunion. But it is my understanding that if the agreement does not compromise the Orthodox faith and is made up of clear rules, an autocephalous Patriarchate cannot be questioned about this decission. It is unfortunate that the dialogues between Antiochians and Melkites did not receive the support it needed from Catholics and Orthodox commited with Ecumenism and Church unity, including members of other jurisdictions.

Anastasios wrote:
I had posted on this subject on another thread in response to a similar assertion:
So are you asking us to remember something that actually happened or some revisionist history - in Bishop Tikhon's words a "legend began in around
the 17 century"?

I prefer to think that the ACROD position, if stated correctly in the first place, would be solely a pastoral one, as you suggest, Andrew.

As for SCOBA and the vision of St. Tikhon, all I can say is that the track record of U.S. orthodox jurisdictions with regard to reunification is mixed at best.

It is also not easy for mainstream Americans to see ANY ethnic-oriented jurisdiction as truly a mainstream American church. Orthodoxy has been in the new world since the late 1700s (Alaska), but retains its old world ethnic identity, possibly at the expense of an indigenous american orthodox church. The 2 focuses, indigenous versus old world ethnic, do not co-exist very well, and may even obstruct reunification efforts.

Dear Jim,

In my meaner moments in seminary (I had one or two ) I would bait my fellow seminarians of the "non-ethnic" type. I would ask:

So you want only English used in the Church? "Yes, yes!" they'd reply.

And you want music written here in the Americas by local church musicians? "Absolutely!", they'd reply.

The clergy should be native-born, no more imports?
"Of course, oh Andrew, you understand us!" They'd exclaim.

At this point I would congratulate them on having established another "ethnic Church," the American Orthodox Church. Such is here already in many parishes. Such is needed. And I support such.

But let's be serious, it works both ways. When 50% of the worshippers speak a non-English language as their native one, as in my home parish, insistence upon English-only is equally exclusive and contrary to the Gospel (1 Cor 14). I know several American Orthodox who are just as "bad" in this regard as their Greek, Russian, or Albanian "cousins."

SCOBA is a start toward this ideal. The canons insist that the bishops in each land sit together in the same council/synod, so we are obligated to work toward this model of administrative unity. [I can't stand it when Orthodox use the word unity without an appropriate adjective, as if we are not in communion with each other]. Ideally, their dioceses wouldn't overlap each other, but out of pastoral needs (ministering to the various ethnicities), we'll have that for at least another 50 years after the last Orthodox immigrant arrives. So, we need Orthodoxy in all of its forms and languages, incorporating all, excluding none.

Ideally, parishes would be organized along lines of language. Each parish would have its primary and possibly secondary language. A bi-lingual parish might split in order to create two communities, each worshiping in its native language. But these lines could never be considered permanent.

I once upset our parish council by insisting that if five Haitians were to sit each week in the last pew of our Albanian Orthodox Church and express an interest in our faith, we would be obligated to offer a prayer or two in Haitian Creole. That would be the true Church!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Well, Andrew, I have several observations to make that are less optimistic with regard to eventual hierarchical unity within orthodoxy.

First, the Greek hierarchy does not appear to share this view. If anything, they appear to be further consolidating authority offshore.

Second, I would ask how unity played into the creation of ACROD in the 1930s. Instead of their joining the Russian metropolia the way so many did under the influence of St. Alexis Toth 30 or so years earlier, they opted to ally themselves with the Ecumenical Patriarch. I can only speculate that they decided to try to preserve their culture in tact rather than being absorbed, since to date they remain a seperate group.

SCOBA seems more of an economic concern than a hierarchical one. They appear to be somewhat successful in coordinating aid to the old country and some educational programs. They appear to be slower on focusing on needs in America itself.

Language is not all there is when it come to acculturation in America. The perpetuation of foreign language and mores at the expense of local language and mores is a barrier for many immigrants who want to become Americans instead of remaining whatever they were in the old country. They often perceive their old world identity as keeping them from advancing in mainstream America. Some churches are better at working these issues than others. And some parishes, too. It's when a congregation decides to basically close itself off from the world around it that concerns me. Where is the missionary appeal in that? And that is what I usually see in Orthodox parishes outside Rome where I live, despite the good intentions of some clergy from time to time.

Dear Jim,

I share most of your observations, but fewer of you conclusions.

I wouldn't look at the formation of ACROD or any other canonical jurisdiction as necessarily bad. Like many of those under the EP, part of their desire was to keep the Church unspotted from communist influence. As an old cold warrior myself, I wholeheartedly assert that their reasoning was sound.

Are all of the Slavs or those who use Slavonic supposed to be dumped into one jurisdiction? Aren't Serbs and Russians substantially different in liturgical and non-liturgical traditions? Is the Church necessarily supposed to be a melting pot? The Church has always embraced cultural attributes that are in keeping with the Church's tradition and fought/rejected those that are not.

Should we, as Church, necessarily place a greater value on being American as opposed to Greek-American or Mexican-American. Are we (the hyphenated ones) any less entitled to preserve our cultural heritage in the context of the Church's holy worship than the non-hyphenated ones?

Are the hyphenated ones any less American? In my parish, started in 1930, we lost five men in WWII out of 100 parishioners. They included the priest's son and another combat hero whose parents received the letter of condolence from General McArthur himself. Our ethnic parishes are filled with patriotic, loyal citizens and immigrants. We have Captains of Police, a Chief of Homicide, I spent seven years in the USNR (active and reserve), and we've sent two of our best Orthodox immigrants off to the USAF & USMC, God protect them!

My point is that America is a scary land for any newcomer (I've worked with immigrants for more than ten years and am even married to one). Pastorally, one may not deny the need for organizing the Orthodox jurisdictions along ethnic lines. And the "American" ethnicity is just one more of them. For example, our parish offered English as a Second Language. I myself took a job in a Lutheran social service agency and serviced more than 500 Albanian families (Orthodox and Muslim) over five years. I don't like the word acculturation, so I use the word adaptation. Culturally, I'm Albanian Orthodox and I'd like our immigrants to have the opprtunity to preserve that. Is there a problem with that? All will undoubtedly have to adapt to their new context in the USA.

What the Greeks and other jurisdictions in SCOBA under the Pat. of Constantinople are doing is maneuvering so that they can direct the granting of an autocephaly that will be recognized universally, instead of the current stalemate. They are not a synod, but quietly aspire to become one. IOCC and OCMC are just the start of good works. There are also nursing homes and schools, not SCOBA-affiliated. We are way behind, but at least we know it.

Enjoying the excellent exchanges! May you have a blessed feast of the Annunciation!

In Christ,
Andrew

I look for synergy and commonality in the Faith. I believe that Rome does it better nowadays in America than the churches outside Rome do, even when it comes to eastern catholicism. The churches outside Rome are constantly paying a price for their resistance to the culture around them, but they apparently think it is worthwhile to do so. Unfortunately, they also offer some interesting, but unlikely, prognostications- like, "this century will be the century of Orthodoxy in America", according to a local OCA priest. What's going to change in middle America to make THAT happen? In order to grow, Orthodox parishes will have to offer something to non-Orthodox initially that the casual visitor can easily relate to and find spiritual comfort in. Once they become interested, the Church still has to help by meeting them on their terms much of the time, less often as they become more devoted to the Faith. If the Church sets a bar too high or is too exclusive or indifferent, it will not grow, which is what is happening in the OCA parish here. 50 years and still only 70 to 80 members, versus 2 Ruthenian parishes with about 400-500 members total, and a Ukrainian Catholic parish as well. Apparently, the local OCA parish has yet to find the right approach, but isn't likely to look for advice elsewhere either. Kind of a Catch 22. Go figure.