www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West RE: Western Rite Orthodoxy

Dear Subdeacon Borislav:


I did not attack Western Orthodox - I attacked the idiotic notion that there is some moral difference between Western Orthodox and Eastern Catholics which makes it correct to call the Eastern Catholics "Uniates" and incorrect to call the Western Orthodox "Uniates". Myself, I don't use that word for either group.



I have not asked you to prove the existence of some Roman Catholics who wished to do away with Eastern Catholicism. You have asserted very serious charges of grave misconduct of Roman Catholics towards Eastern Orthodox in the USA - I have asked for proof of that. Where in this do you find a contradiction?


Yes, I do think so!


If the Holy See had wanted to do that, the opportunity was offered in the mid-to-late nineteen-eighties, in the form of a proposal from the Soviets to permit a Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church with services in Ukrainian. Rome would not accept it.


Please send the link again; until I read the article I cannot comment on it.


This boils down to the statement that you cannot prove it, nor provide evidence for it. The instructions of your spiritual Father are obviously none of my business - but I would be quite surprised if a responsible spiritual Father gives a blessing to describe such an event whle forbidding the provision of evidence.

So I'm afraid that I have not contradicted myself in these matters. By the way, I suggested a medal made of fool's gold, and you abbreviated this to "fool's medal". It doesn't matter much, but do you know what fool's gold is?

Fr. Serge

Rather interesting how you constantly pass judgments on what people say. There is no point to argue with you if you think that my notion is idiotic. I do not think the same about you, that is why I am taking the time to answer your posts.


You took a very rude tone when speaking about the Western Rite in the beginning making taking shots at the Western Rite and its supporters, and in a later post you said that you actually support the Western Rite. Rather contradicting imo.



And I think you're just plain wrong.

I don't know of any such proposal, but even if there was one it only proves my point. Rome knew that the faithful would not attend a Latin Rite parish. Thus the changes needed to be implemented more slowly. But anyway, I was speaking about a much earlier period of time.

I did not send you the whole article but I did send you a small portion quoting from a Greek Catholic Ukrainian magazine, which you thanked me for in my private messages so you did get it.



I don't really care what you think about the "responsibility" of my spiritual Father. You are not Him, thank God, and you commenting on His competency should rather offend me, but thankfully it doesn't because I think you are just purposelessly trying to get me going

Still, it is rather PAINFULLY obvious that stating that an event happened, hurts no one, while naming specific people and the exact Parish which this had to do with may bring back very painful memories and even get some people into trouble.

And yes, I do know what fool's gold is and in the way that you used the expression it sounded rather mocking.

Father, I started this thread for people to share their experiences of going to Western Rite Orthodox Churches. I am sorry to say I feel that you're offensive comments in the beginning turned this thread into a "MY CHURCH IS BETTER THAN YOURS" argument.

Dear Subdeacon Borislav,


Anyone can come up with an idiotic notion from time to time (I still blush at one of mine from over forty years ago). But to call the notion idiotic is not to call the person an idiot. If I were to say that Mr. Jones uttered a feline snarl, that would not imply that Mr. Jones has four paws and a tail!


Your privilege! The same privilege applies to members of the Flat Earth Society.

You write that you are unaware of the proposal from the Soviets to permit a "Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church" towards the end. I gave substantiating details of this proposal in a book I published over a decade ago; it is now out of print twice over and I'm preparing a new edition.


[This refers to the accusation that a Greek-Catholic priest deliberately ripped up an Antimension.]

Stating that such an event happened and refusing to provide specifics can hurt a great many people, in that it gives the impression that such misbehavior is somehow typical of the Greek-Catholic priests [just for the record, I have never even considered ripping up an Antimension, nor am I aware of any other Greek-Catholic priest who has done such a thing - or any Orthodox priest, for that matter). To present such an allegation as the truth, and then seek to excuse the refusal to provide specifics, let alone proof, is a highly questionable mode of discourse.

My reference to a medal made of fool's gold was certainly not intended to praise the idea which I was, indeed, mocking. If someone tried to tell me that the moon is made of green cheese, my response would be similar.

Pleasse - it is entirely possible to distinguish a disagreement over ideas from a personal attack. That is usually essential in any rational discussion.

Fr. Serge

Dear Subdeacon Borislav,

Sorry to address you with two postings at once, so to speak, but my own technological incompetence has probably made this necessary. Anyway, you write that:



I didn't get into this thread until page 3, so I said nothing in the beginning. I wrote:


"the proper response to this piece of sophistry is a loud horse laugh."

A piece of sophistry is not a human being, so my suggestion of a loud horse laugh is not a personal attack. Nor was I referring to the idea of Western Rite Orthodoxy as a piece of sophistry - I was responding to the argument that Western Rite Orthodoxy is fine, but Eastern Catholicism simply won't do. If that isn't sophistry, I don't know what is.

As for "making taking shots at the Western Rite and its supporters", I've re-read all my postings and I have not succeeded in finding even one sentence in which I have criticized the idea or the practice of Western Rite Orthodoxy - unless you blame me for pointing out (truthfully) that there are Eastern Orthodox Christians who decline to recognize it. I have severely criticized one (1) idea which some (not all) supporters of Western Rite Orthodoxy sometimes adduce: that it is appropriate to call Eastern Catholics "Uniates" but inappropriate to use the same term for Western Rite Orthodox. Since, as stated above, I don't use the term for either community, I am at least consistent in the matter. I've already used the "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument twice, so this time I'll suggest quod licet Iovi, licet bovi!

Not once have I said or implied that "my Church is better than yours" - but you have done this repeatedly. If you are stating your religious conviction in the matter, I would respect it. But when it comes down to questions of historical fact, the discussion changes a bit.

Fr. Serge

Father says the subdeacon:


And the subdeacon immediately replies with this non-answer:



And Mary says:

Dear Subdeacon,

If you are going to retain any credibility in this discussion then you need to come out from behind the everyday fictions concerning eastern Catholics that you present in broad sweeping accusations, and offer some facts to support your right to fling what appear to be falsehoods all over this particular discussion.

Just because they are common ordinary falsehoods does not make them true.

Now Father is correct in pointing out to you that your accusations are not quite on target:

Father has said that it is laughable, equinely laughable, and false that there is no comparability between eastern Catholics and western Orthodox. That is all that he has said. That is not insulting to any person, for it directly addresses an idea.

You need to worry about whether or not he has made an accurate comparison point before you shoot him for the pictures that he paints in the process.

He has presented logical reasons for making his statements and for scoffing at the false idea that there is no comparability between eastern Catholics and western Orthodox.

Where he gave you fact, logic and reason, all you have done is duck his call for substantiation for your own clear false accusations.

Not very admirable. But highly predicatable from some quarters.

Mary

I am done with this thread.

I will leave you with a cut out quoting a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Publication Slove Bozhe.

http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hereitisxe1.jpg

Why don't you stay and stick with what is substance? No one here has said there are not two sides to the hurt...I mean, story.

Mary

Dear Friends,

Certainly, the Union of Brest is a very complex event!

That Poland had its own agenda with respect to western Ukraine is true - and it is also true that that agenda changed over time.

There is no question but that Rome had nothing to do with Poland's Latinization/Polonization agenda from the beginning. Rome had no reason, but Poland certainly did as we see from the various diaries of Polish magnates that even Met. Ilarion Ohienko, himself no friend of the Unia, discussed in his various works that touched on this subject.

If anyone is sceptical of this, they need only consider that Rome and Poland have a history of bad blood. After 1,000 years of Christianity in Poland, if we calculate the number of years that the Polish Kingdom was actually and formally EXCOMMUNICATED by the Roman Popes for this or that infraction, they total over 200 years - meaning that for 200 out of the 1,000 years of being a Catholic country, Poland was out of communion with Rome! This is discussed even in our Ukrainian Basilian church history books, much as they might wish not to mention it.

At the same time, let's remember that by the time of St Josaphat of Polotsk (aka in Orthodox circles as the "Soul Snatcher" etc. ) the Polish kings were tired of the Unia seeing that the "Uniate" priests continued to maintain their strong Eastern Slavic identity, following to the letter Eastern Orthodox liturgical traditions etc.

In the book on Kyivan and Galician Metropolitans by Fr. Ireney Nazarko OSBM, published by the Basilian Press of course, there is reference made to a Local Council of the Polish Bishops during which a strong CONDEMNATION of the "Uniates" was affirmed, to wit, that what upset the Bishops was how Latin seminarians began imitating them by growing beards, wearing long-sleeved robes and, in some cases, crossing themselves to the right with three fingers! (CAN YOU IMAGINE!? )

The Latinization and Westernization of the Orthodox aristocracy was already occurring due to a strong cultural pull to the "sophisticated West and the Jesuit schools" and this occurred equally among EC and Orthodox. In other words, the Polish kings understood that they did not need the Unia to Polonize their "Little Polish" subjects . . .

And the fact that the Unia divided the Ruthenians and caused general unrest (the case of Melety Smotritsky is a case in point that has, to this day, not been resolved, the EC's honouring him as one of their own and the Orthodox honouring him as one of THEIR own!), this was "not on" with the Polish kings who thought the Unia would result in the Little Poles simply rolling over and dying culturally to be reborn as Poles. It didn't happen and this historical process was also commented on by Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky who praised the way the "Uniates" maintained their Orthodox traditions over time and that it wouldn't "take much" to tip the scales to get them to return to Orthodoxy etc.

Also, when Bohdan Khmelnitsky made his (what Ukrainians including Shevchenko agree was treacherous) union of Pereiaslavl with Moscow, this was not, as Russophile historians like to say, a "union based on equality" but a full submission of the Ukrainian Church and people under Moscow.

No? Just look at how the Orthodox Met. of Kyiv at the time took that "union." He refused to sign and was forced to sign by being brought out on a stretcher to the desk . . . This is all written up by Met. Ilarion and the historian Vadim Scherbakivsky - in fact, I've never seen a UGCC historian touch this with a ten foot pole.

Orthodox histories of the Union of Brest are, as a whole, heavily biased and contain deliberate inaccuracies (For example, take a look at how Vadim Scherbakivsky treats it, as well as Dr. Doroshenko in their respective and monumental historical researches - both of whom were Orthodox).

Alex

Dear Friends,

What Fr. Archimandrite Sergius has said about the Unia's independence from Polish/Latin pressure is more than correct.

It is absolutely true that the capital of western Ukrainian Orthodoxy, Lviv, did not, in fact, accept the Union of Brest until 1700 or over 100 years since the formal union was signed with Ruthenian Orthodox bishops. This is an uncontrovertible FACT.

It is also true that the Orthodox Met. Peter Mohyla was on very good terms with both the Polish King (as Peter was himself of royal blood, with blood connections all over the place, and an heir to the throne of Moldavia)and with the Catholic Church (which goes without saying). Yes, St Athanasius of Brest was martyred by the Latins - in fact, his anti-union stance had NO sympathy from the Orthodox Met. of Kyiv who had told Athanasius to "calm down" etc.

A lot of the "pressure" to become Catholic came primarily from the "pull" of the sophisticated West itself - aristocrats sent their children to the Jesuit schools and this had its influence, the Orthodox bishops were not happy with how the EP treated them and they looked with jealousy at the privileged status of the RC bishops etc.

In addition, one more point about the Western Orthodox - there truly ARE Eastern Orthodox pressures exerted on them to become Easternized AND fully Eastern.

Of that there can be no doubt and I was there at the Antiochian Orthodox Conference where this was discussed ad nauseam (as I've indicated on more than one occasion when discussing that conference).

The Western Orthodox noted with concern the various attempts made by EO priests to "grab" their clergy. One delegate said that he was told by EO priests that he might as well come over to the EO side since the days of the Western Rite were numbered, it was never intended as anything but a temporary way of getting Western Christians "used" to the "real thing" that is Eastern Orthodoxy etc.

Again, I'm not fully sure what the definition of "Uniate" really is - but if pressure is part of the equation then, yes, the Western Orthodox truly are "Uniates."

Alex

Dear Bill,

In fact, the influence of the Western Rite Orthodox movement over Anglicans and RC's is rather exaggerated.

There is a tiny minority of Anglicans who join the Western Rite Orthodox and a handful of individual RC's who so do.

In fact, when I was at the Western Rite section of the Antiochian Conference - there was only ONE RC in the entire hall who was thinking of joining Orthodoxy. Usually, those who do are Anglicans who don't like gay and female bishops and Old Catholics of various types who are just confused and when prodded will agree to become WO.

In fact, throughout the years, I've met Roman Catholics who wanted to join Orthodoxy simply because they were under the impression that Orthodoxy is morally relaxed, that they can practise artificial birth control, get divorced and remarried no problem and the like. In short, they think of Orthodoxy as "Catholic morality lite."

Alex

Semper Deo Gratias et Mariae!

Thanks for the quote - now I do remember you sending it. I wrote at once to L'viv, asking for information about the publication, which I've not previously heard of and which doesn't seem to be listed in the books I have here. So far I've heard nothing back, but I shall renew my request.

Meanwhile, though, the author is complaining - with justice, be it said - about the misconduct of some Polish priests. To decide that this is all Rome's fault requires a misconception of how the Catholic Church functions.

Fr. Serge

And I have found them to be, on not-so-rare occasion, particularly noxious in their interaction with Catholics.

Are we to determine then that ALL of Orthodoxy has the same attitude toward those who are in communion with Rome?

Do we judge the worth or truth of authority, and by authority I mean Aposotolic witness, based on those who abuse that authority?

Ahhh...I didn't think so.

Mary

Dear Borislav,

I need to edit this with an apology to you because it appears that I have indicated that all you say about Catholic behaviors is false.

No. That is not what I had intended and I am sorry to have not seen it before this.

What I mean by falsehood is either the bald faced statement or implication that the negative behaviors are the majority position or that the Catholic Church can be held causitively responsible for the bad behavior of her members. For those kinds of general conclusions, one would have to provide serious evidence.

I don't think there is a Catholic in this discussion who does not know that Catholic priests and bishops are capable of some rather bad, or at least faulty, behaviors.

The question is how far we can condemn the Body for the actions of the parts.

Sometimes it is better to make generic accusations than to offer a very specific accusation that one cannot divulge fully. I am sure that Father would not have pressed you so hard if you had confined your remarks to the general idea that Catholic priests and bishops have shown scorn toward Orthodoxy over time, and perhaps on occasion behaved in an evil way as well. That sort of thing is much more difficult to argue, you see.

And it is something that all of us need to repent on behalf of one another and be even more tender in our actions with one another on account. As we have discussed privately, the hurt and the harm accrue to both sides and are not to be dismissed lightly on either count. But we dare not re-live it, or even re-inact it without even greater harm being done.

Mary

As one whose blog is referenced at the beginning of this thread, let me note I've posted four reasons why The Western Rite is not "Reverse Uniatism."[/b] [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Among them: socio-economic-political considerations inspired neither our founding nor any conversion; we do not use the RCC Mass (the Novus Ordo, nor even the [1962 Missal); and none of us would ever describe himself as a "Roman Catholic in union with Orthodoxy."

I would be gratified if you might drop by the post. That might at least inform the specific lettering you wish to put on my Fool's Gold medal.

-------------------------------------
[b]Western Orthodoxy blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Dear Western Orthodox,

Are you suggesting that Eastern Catholic "Unions with Rome" are all based on socio-economic-political considerations?

If so, can you elaborate for poor, ignorant people like myself here?

Also, how can a "Roman Catholic" who is by definition already "with Rome" be in communion with "Orthodoxy?"

One difference I do notice is that EC's prefer not to be identified by their Rite, but by their sui iuris Church.

Are there any Western Orthodox Particular Churches comparable to these?

Thank you!

Alex