www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West If reunion took place - Eastern Catholics

Not really because the Orthodox Church is a sui juris church so it should not be re absorbed into the Latin Church.
But both Latin and Orthodox Churches should be in communion with each other.
I really think you misunderstood my posting all together.
Stephanos I

Alex, Arthur seems to believe he has a lock on the truth.

To get back to the OP, for what it is worth, how we would be "re-integrated" into our Orthodox mother Churches as Greek Catholics would largely be a function of how the intercommunion agreement was achieved.

An intercommunion agreement that did not call for integration of Greek Catholics into the EO churches would leave us in a situation likely like what we have now.

An intercommunion agreement that set out terms for this that were agree on by both sides would.

I don't have strong opinions (one way or another) about the canonical arguments some EO have over American jurisdictions. But hammering out Moscow/Contaninople difficulties would seem to have to come first. Otherwise it could be a matter of arguing about who "gets us" (Ruthenians) between the OCA and the EP & his ACROD.

I expect to be long forgotten before any of this would be settled. And I expect that to be true even if I lived 100 years.

You are right Stephanos. While it is not really correct to call the EO churches sui juris as they are churches in schism, they could theoretically be incorporated into the sui juris EC churches. The EO churches now have about the same status as the PNCC or the Old Catholics or any other schismatic churches. They are bodies which exist outside the law.

John, well yes. As Rome is preserved by Christ from error as guaranteed in scripture, the Catholic Church does speak with assurance of its position.

As I have read in many places on this forum, we must speak frankly here and not engage in a false ecumenism. As the Orthodox on this board are accustomed to hurling charges of error at Rome, perhaps they ought to hear the Roman point of view. There is no dialogue without an honest presentation of our respective positions. However, the Roman position is based on the words of Christ himself which are eternally true.

Arthur,

Might I suggest that you strive to be both more accurate and less condescending?

Pope John Paul the Great said that 'schism is too strong a word' to describe the separation between Rome and Orthodoxy. The Catechism quotes Pope Paul VI as teaching that (the communion with the Orthodox Church is so profound) "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Eucharist." [838] It is not appropriate for you to present the differences in a way that is much stronger and far more negative then does the official Church.

The Orthodox on this Forum are not "accustomed to hurling charges of error at Rome". Most do a very good job at presenting the Orthodox position on East/West issues and they do so without the rancor that you are using. Sadly, many Roman Catholics like you seem to think that all disagreement by the Orthodox is nothing more than hurling false charges. Rome acknowledges the differences and seeks to work through them. You should, too.

The first rule of this Forum is charity. Your posts are lacking them. This needs to change in your very next post or your time here will be very short.

Admin John

PS: I ask posters not to post further on this thread until Arthur responds. All posts except his will be deleted.

I wasnt really aware of my being condescending, nor was I being.
I am perfectly aware of the Pope John Paul II of blessed memory, view about the so called schism and I am in complete agreement with him on that matter.
If people were aware of the past postings they would know my mind and spirit in the whole matter.
Stephanos I

Alex, my dear brother, I have thought about this post quite a bit. I disagree with many of your points, and rather see it "half full". First of all, the Union is historical fact and we can't make it go away.

Secondly, you have to start somewhere. And I believe it is a good start, actually, considering the times. It was the first major and lasting post-fall of Constantinople restoration of full communion between Rome and an Orthodox hierarchy. Was it perfect? Certainly not, nor was it without lots of political and clerical interference.

The first article especially is certainly not a rubber-stamp of Florence. Florence (nor Lyon) are mentioned even once. I very much doubt if Rome really believed we could not forge a statement of communion without an explicit, specific reference to those councils, especially Florence considering it was only a bit over a hundred years prior, it would have been kaiboshed. But it was ratified.

I think rather the opposite, that we need to return to those ideals of the Union rather than the accretions and latinizations both internally and externally applied especially in the last 200 years. I think rather it was because we got away from the spirit of the Union for a couple of hundred years that we got into trouble.

I think we are just now, after VII, the strong statements of the late Holy Father about the Union on the centenary, Orientale Lumen , etc. just starting to get back to those ideals and getting the "sand" that Metropolitan Mikhail and the other Kyivan hierarchs had in those days.

Certainly Fr. Dr. Borys Gudziak, Patriarch Lubomyr (with Metropolitan Andrey and Patriarch Josyp for that matter) have spoken about the need to more fully realize our Kyivan Byzantine spirit that we had at the time of the Union. All of the above have stated positive aspects about the Union and the restoration of full communion with Rome.

I also do not think even with a united Kyivan hierarchy that we would have been able to withstand the political tide, being in the geopolitical sandwich between the Tsars, the Polish and Lithuanians, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the later dissolution before the Soviet onslaught.

As John Zonaras has wisely pointed out, disunity in Orthodoxy is a way of life. Even a very centralized Muscovite hierarchy was not enough to keep the OCA and the ROCOR from forming. Constantinople and other churches have continued to have jurisdictional battles over diasporal churches.

Even in our nearby two Serbian parishes, one New Gracanica and the other Patriarchal, while the priests occasionally talk none of the parishoners will have anything to do with the parishoners of the other parish, even though technically they have restored full Eucharistic communion.

I think that the first article of the Union of Brest, in full orthodox agreement with St. Basil, is still a good foundation for our own identity as Greek Catholics and a starting point for larger Orthodox-Catholic dialogue:

FDRLB

What I said there was unity in our disunity and it has worked for us since the beginning! I have no desire to destroy the unity. It seems to work far better than imposition of control from the center does in the west. Sure, it is messy, but the mess dates back to the apostolic church. Constantine wished to impose an forced unity on the church and he did not succeed and we are left with the mess he created today. I want to revoke his sainthood! :-)Oh oh I better head for my bunker!!!!

It has been noted, "As John Zonaras has wisely pointed out, disunity in Orthodoxy is a way of life. Even a very centralized Muscovite hierarchy was not enough to keep the OCA and the ROCOR from forming. Constantinople and other churches have continued to have jurisdictional battles over diasporal churches"


The OCA was formed with the MP's permission; the Russian church in exile was formed during the years when the MP was at its lowest ebb during the aftermath of the Russian Revolution. The statement about the so-called centralized Moscow hierarchy is a real reach and does not really apply in either case.

Dear Father DIAKone,

Yes, I agree with all you said . . . I presented the negative side only.

But it is a side that UGCCers don't always want to face up to. In fact, on the score of unity, every parish up here that I've been to appears to have its own take on EC spirituality and liturgics . . .

That is also part and parcel of who we are as Ukrainians - historically, our middle class condition has created a fiercely independent, democratic side to us that can be taken to the extreme and so, as Dr. Dontsov commented, we "preferred to be under a foreign despot, rather than our own."

Ultimately, the Union of Brest cannot be separated from the Latinization and other problems that came in its wake. Certainly, the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia was also Latinized without the Unia. And certainly there was such a strong tide of admiration for the western European cultural achievement that things would have happened the same way with or without the Unia.

And we must blame ourselves for our lack of unity and for our lack of will to follow our Patriarch (I do blame the Basilians and related Latin Orders too, mind you!).

Right now, with things the way they are in our parish, I can tell you truthfully that if we lived in a town that had just this one UGCC parish and a Ukrainian Orthodox one, we'd be going to the latter this Sunday!

Alex

Alex - ya znayu, ya znayu. All true.

John - I would disagree. The well documented statements of Moscow being the Third Rome, exerting its influence way beyond its borders (Estonia and Ukraine are cases in point) shows it does indeed see itself as the holder of a primacy of sorts.

I don't think the formation of the OCA was as peaceful as some would like to believe. Autocephaly was only granted by Moscow in 1970 or 1971, I don't exactly remember, but the statement of self-governing of 1924 was loudly denounced by Moscow and then essentially ignored for almost 50 years. And more recently the Sourozh controversy - Alexei apparently wrote to Bishop Basil and told him no bishop of the MP had any authority to even write to the Patriarch of Constantinople without his blessing. And Alexei later refused Basil's canonical argument that Constantinople be an arbitrator between their differences, although according to Basil it is well established in the canons. Sounds pretty centralized to me.

I'm a little confused, I'm afraid. My understanding is that the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous regarding their internal business affairs with two exceptions: a.) elected bishops have to be confirmed by the Holy See (which is really only a formality that is soon to be done away with entirely), excluding the Melkites who have never had to do this; and b.) any irreconcilable disputes can be submitted to the Holy See for arbitration or appeal.

Does the Holy See (at present) interfere in ways that I am not aware of? (Obviously I know about situations in the past, and left over from the past, like mandatory clerical celibacy in America &c.)

John,

While I agree that Constantine sought to make the Church an imperial tool, I don't quite see where he was wrong in seeking to eliminate the horrible infighting that was going on in the Church at the time, especially over the issue of Arianism.

(Having said that, though, I would like to hear some of your thoughts on this matter, since I have often thought the affair could have been handled better than it was ...)

I believe that this perspective will have to be weighed very carefully before any kind of reunion can take place. Compared to the familiar "tight ship" of the RCC (which is more a perception than a reality, anyway), it may seem like foolishness to allow so much freedom that different jurisdictions end up going their own way and doing their own thing--to the detriment of the Church's witness to the world--but I think the "foolishness" may actually lie in the hierarchs' being less than willing to find a real resolution to issues that affect the Church as a whole.

I can certainly see where the strong, centralized government of the RCC has both advantages and disadvantages, and I wonder whether with God's help the Church can't come up with something better than what we've seen in the past 2000 years.

Perhaps what's needed is a decentralized form of government, based on the Orthodox model, coupled with more of an open commitment to resolving issues that threaten the unity of the Church and her witness to the world.

What I'm talking about here is seeking to know the mind of God in these matters. We have Our Lord's promise that "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (Jn. 14:26)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Richard, you have made my case for me. The unity in our disunity goes all the way back to the early church. As I have noted in another thread, "The concept of church unity is an artificial construct of the Emperor Constantine to to have one unified, state religion to replace paganism. In fact, disunion and dislike between various Christian sects was the norm during antiquity. In fact, Julian II, Constantine's nephew, encouraged disunity. The great fourth century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus notes, "Utque dsipositorum robaret effectum, dissidentes Christianorum antistites cum plebe discissa in palatium intromissis, menebat civilius, ut discordiis consopitis, quisque nullo vetante, religioni suae serviret intrepidus. Quod agebat ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia, non timeret unianimantem postea plebem, nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum expertus." (22.5.3-4) "[Julian]...summoned to the palace the bishop of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, and the people, who also were at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one. another." Ammianus could be speaking of today's Church including all sects. Nothing has changed in my judgment.... The last sentence in Ammianus says it all.

Earlier today in another thread I noted, " There is unity in our {Orthodox} disunity. Disunity was the norm before Constantine unwisely in my opinion attempted to impose conformity on the church. If we were otherwise, we would be stuck with the centralized system used by Rome and I ran away from Rome precisely for that reason. let us rejoice in our differences and realize that it is a healthy part of being CHRISTIAN and Orthodox.!.

John,

I don't see how I have made your case for you. I recall saying: Although I agree both that his motives were (very likely) less than pure, and his idea of imposing unity by imperial edict was likewise wrong, I cannot see where the fighting among Christians was (or is) a good thing!

Furthermore, as I see it, your quote from Ammianus regarding Julian II's attitude toward the Christians comes nowhere near proving that it was a good thing that they were fiercely divided at that time. Rather, the quotation you give from Ammianus states very clearly that Julian's motive for encouraging disunity among Christians was: In other words, he knew he had much to fear from a united Christian populace, which would be able to stand against him and jeopardize his position as a pagan emperor.

On the other hand, it was the Master Himself who said: This does not mean that I stand in favor of a strongly centralized Church government, following the RC model (which I contend has not been as effective as it appears to be). I do like the idea of a looser organization, which is set up to rely less on its own authority and more on the Holy Spirit. However, I do not see how infighting and mutual denouncement have anything to do with the Gospel.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Richard, check your in box for my response.