The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 325
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Peter J
Um ... I believe he was criticizing/insulting "the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant" and "Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics [who] want to sit with the cool kids". Though I could be wrong.

Maybe I'm having trouble interpreting, but what I was objecting to was the idea that Westerners only become Orthodox (or Eastern Catholic) in order to play pretend or as some sort of "schtick".

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 325
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 325
I'm not saying that it could never happen, and I'm sure it does, but I think that probably most people have genuine spiritual conversions.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Everybody had better get used to Westerners converting to Orthodoxy, because that's the future of Orthodoxy, if Orthodoxy has a future.

"The time is coming when no one will be an Orthodox Christian who does not consciously choose to be one"--Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocleia

An entire generation of Orthodox theologians is coming of age. Most of them are Westerners, who have lived their entire lives in the West. Many are converts, with no ethnic attachment to the Orthodox faith. Many are beginning to challenge the neo-patristic and neo-palamite consensus that developed between the World Wars in the theological schools of Paris and New York, broadening and rediscovering the varieties of theological expression that made the Byzantine Churches such fertile grounds for contemplation of the divine. It will undoubtedly be challenging, and could pose serious risks, but without risk, there is no spiritual growth at all.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Interesting. Are you sure he didn't say "The time is coming when no one will be an Anabaptist who does not consciously choose to be one."

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Sorry, Sergey, I have been out of this for so long that I missed it completely.

A belated welcome!

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Sergey,

Yes, they are not like the Uniate model as you say. But they are in the sense that Rome sees them as having submitted to it very much like the Uniates did. The issue of their not having valid Orders and the like is an important, although I believe, independent matter.

As for King Charles and other Anglican worthies, I know that the matter of their liturgical veneration is being pursued in Rome - I don't know what Rome will decide. Rome has ruled in favour of the veneration of certain Orthodox saints. You may say that that was because they had valid sacraments etc. But Rome did this at a time when being out of union with Rome meant that one could not hope to be saved. In fact, as you know, Rome has allowed the veneration of Eastern Saints in Churches coming into union with Rome, as long as they were not very vocal against Rome. Rome will decide what it will decide in the case of the proposed Anglican beati or whatever one would call them. The existence of their liturgical veneration is already a kind of "equipollent beatification" and we shall just have to see if this is how Rome will treat them.

No one is denying that the Anglican Rite is a Cranmerian rewrite. But I've had conversations with both Catholic and Orthodox former Anglicans who follow the provisions that their Churches allow and they appear to be saying that they are indeed interested in taking their liturgical Anglicanism back to the old rites of Sarum etc. As one put it to me, "The seeds of the old rites of Catholic England (within the Anglican traditions) appear to want to sprout full-blown Sarum."

Cheers,

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Stuart,

In your first lines you said that the Kyivan bishops seeking union with Rome did not seek to disown either Constantinople or Moscow.

In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Moscow was considered, at that time, to be, as the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitans referred to it, "Barbaric Muscovy" and its clergy to be illiterate and culturally inferior.

The Kyivan Orthodox bishops at that time saw Constantinople as exercising undue control over them, even to the extent of appointing Stauropeghial Brotherhoods as their overseers.

No, the Ruthenian bishops at the time wanted nothing to do with Constantinople (and Moscow was a distant, vulgar region).

They did see their union with Rome to be the same as their union with Constantinople. They simply transferred allegiance to the western patriarchate (and one could argue that this was their mistake).

The idea of the Union of Brest being a harbinger of communion with more than one patriarchate, even though those patriarchates were out of union with each other, (if that is how I read what you are saying) has no substantiation whatever.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by The young fogey
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.

Dear Sergey,

Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Ialmisry,

Major Archbishop Svyatoslav (have you Orthodox reverted to using your bishops' surnames now? Isn't that breaking with your tradition?) and Pope Francis have been and still are great friends, didn't you know.

Time and again, you are just trying to be vicious. Please stick to what you know.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
It has a seige mentality.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Ialmisry,

Major Archbishop Svyatoslav (have you Orthodox reverted to using your bishops' surnames now? Isn't that breaking with your tradition?) and Pope Francis have been and still are great friends, didn't you know.

Time and again, you are just trying to be vicious. Please stick to what you know.
I know that the Vatican doesn't have enough room for two popes-hence why none of the three claimants (Melkite, Latin, Coptic) it put up to replace the Pope of Alexandria, the original Pope, don't have the title (unlike the usual Ostpolitik).

Similarly, it is not large enough to have another universal bishop, no matter the friendship of the former Abp. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Aux. Bp. Sviatoslav Shevchuk.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Well, that ringing endorsement is sure to set the Orthodox on fire with enthusiasm to submit. What did we need a supreme pontiff for again?
Well, if you "needed" the pope in the sense you mean, then we never would have renounced proselytizing your members (individually or otherwise). [Linked Image]
You perhaps have to ask someone who believes that the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith has given up proselytizing our members on that.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to.
One example each:
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/381927/1

The other I can't find the thread: it was the Vatican's synod of its Middle Eastern bishops 2 years ago now? that brought up the lack of movement on the promises in the Codex canones ecclesiarum orientalis for the power to ordain married men in the "diaspora."

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I guess you could call it "uncertainty" ... but I think I'd rather say "due caution", knowing how eager the Orthodox are to rake us over the coals. [Linked Image]
Rake you over the coals? No, just giving safe haven to those thus alienated.

Originally Posted by Peter J
P.S. Maybe the best description is this: I see you guys "needing" the pope in the same way that you (I presume, of course) see the Oriental Orthodox "needing" to be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.
We need to be in communion with the Oriental Orthodox because we confess the same Faith. Other than that, they have no need to be in communion with the EP in New Rome-indeed, nor do any of us. Something the Phanar keeps forgetting.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by desertman
Originally Posted by The young fogey
.. Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics want to sit with the cool kids, going to conferences to give talks on 'Women Deacons Would Be Neat' and 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong'. They don't want to be embarrassed by a bunch of conservative Catholics fleeing the abuses in the Novus Ordo by coming to their church. They can push all the right political-correctness buttons: anything but Rome and anything but '50s America. They're exotic (diversity coolness points; Westerners converting to Orthodoxy is a boutique religion like becoming a Buddhist) and can claim to have been oppressed (as sometimes Eastern Catholics were, as in the case of the Chornock schism).

I can see from your website that you obviously like 50's America, but I'm wondering what that has to do with any of this and when have any Easterners said anything bad about it?

The comment about Westerners becoming Orthodox is extremely offensive. You're insulting the entire population of Orthodox converts in the West, as well as Roman Catholics who cross over Eastern Catholicism and who have a similar conversion experience in that they feel called to the Eastern patrimony and spirituality. I would think most of these people feel it is a call from God. You seem to be calling them all frauds or so shallow as to be only wanting to be "cool" or different. I'm at a loss for words to describe how offensive and hurtful that is.

Um ... I believe he was criticizing/insulting "the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant" and "Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics [who] want to sit with the cool kids". Though I could be wrong.


Right.

Anti-Westernism from old-country Orthodox such as Mount Athos is hurtful, and blessedly rare from ethnic Orthodox in person and online (I think I understand and appreciate someone like Fr James Dutko, who seems honest about his Catholic heritage and somehow wanting to make things right with the church without leaving unsolved the problems that caused the 1930s schism).

That said, my main point is there is nothing as obnoxious as an anti-Western Orthodox or pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholic who is himself actually Western but has reinvented himself as something else. In other words, most of online Orthodoxy.

That's not a knock on the Eastern Christianity whose trappings these folks have adopted.

I brought up '50s America because of these folks' exoticism; yes, they pretend to be Eastern to look cool; '50s America is everything they're rebelling against. Just like the politically correct and their diversity fetish. Again, anti-Western Westerners.

I know of course that ethnic Orthodox and Greek Catholics were often part of '50s America and didn't fall into this (again, I wasn't knocking the culture the jerks have adopted); quite the opposite. They really appreciate this country.

IAlmisry, I tell it like it is; I won't lie to you that Catholic life is perfect. But there's only one church and I can't buy your side's view that my heritage isn't legitimate Christianity. So I'm where I am.

I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.

DMD, I was alluding to some Catholic inside knowledge; sorry. The key to what I was saying is 'WWII exile Ukrainian Catholic', which was a lot like ACROD in the '40s, or in this case, a lot like an old Greek Catholic parish church in the old country. In this case (St John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church in Whippany, NJ by the way), it was a sweet little parish church (at the time), not at all latinized in its furnishings (beautiful wooden and gilt iconostasis), with a clean-shaven priest (common in American Orthodox history) doing a Low Mass (no music or incense; congregational responses). It was in English but Fr Panasiuk, from the Ukraine, did the whispered parts in the liturgical language. At the time I didn't know Slavonic from Ukrainian so I don't know which; I'm guessing because of his age it was Slavonic. The faithful received Communion kneeling in a row on the step in front of the iconostasis, and they passed down the priest's blessing cross to kiss (like the pax-brede in the Roman Rite) before receiving.

St Elias, Brampton – Orthodox practices – is the exception in Ukrainian Catholicism as far as I know. When you see it, it's usually convert Roman Riters and Rome-trained priests. Not the same as the anti-Western pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics, but Greek Catholicism exactly as Rome has wanted it to be. I've been to similar – the whole round of weekend services at St Michael's Russian Catholic Church in New York City, and Transfiguration Melkite Church in northern Virginia – and like it very much.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
Converts aren't American Orthodoxy's future. The convert boomlet 20 years ago is over. Becoming Orthodox isn't hip among evangelicals anymore. You'll keep seeing a few more Western white members including of course the convert clergy the Orthodox rely on more now, but you'll also keep seeing, as a Catholic friend has put it, stolid decline among them with most converts, as in the past, being marriage converts like Tom Hanks (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding). They will always be mostly part of ethnic identities; immigrant churches.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Sergey,

Yes, they are not like the Uniate model as you say. But they are in the sense that Rome sees them as having submitted to it very much like the Uniates did. The issue of their not having valid Orders and the like is an important, although I believe, independent matter.

As for King Charles and other Anglican worthies, I know that the matter of their liturgical veneration is being pursued in Rome - I don't know what Rome will decide. Rome has ruled in favour of the veneration of certain Orthodox saints. You may say that that was because they had valid sacraments etc. But Rome did this at a time when being out of union with Rome meant that one could not hope to be saved. In fact, as you know, Rome has allowed the veneration of Eastern Saints in Churches coming into union with Rome, as long as they were not very vocal against Rome. Rome will decide what it will decide in the case of the proposed Anglican beati or whatever one would call them. The existence of their liturgical veneration is already a kind of "equipollent beatification" and we shall just have to see if this is how Rome will treat them.

No one is denying that the Anglican Rite is a Cranmerian rewrite. But I've had conversations with both Catholic and Orthodox former Anglicans who follow the provisions that their Churches allow and they appear to be saying that they are indeed interested in taking their liturgical Anglicanism back to the old rites of Sarum etc. As one put it to me, "The seeds of the old rites of Catholic England (within the Anglican traditions) appear to want to sprout full-blown Sarum."

Cheers,

Alex


Here's some Anglican insider stuff. Anglican would-be Catholics weren't Sarum wannabes for the most part. Old-school English Anglo-Catholics mimicked Tridentine Catholicism (the really extreme did it in Latin); after the council they were Novus Ordo, neither interested in Sarum nor the Prayer Book. In other words, not liturgically conservative anymore, regrettably, but theologically sound. Pope Benedict's improved Novus fits them to a T. They're now the British ordinariate: basically Pope Benedict Novus with married priests.

American Anglo-Catholicism was a different brew. Not would-be papal but believing in what they thought was Anglicanism, what they imagined Hooker, the Carolines, and the Tractarians were, Prayer Booky with liturgical texts but like their British cousins used to be, often good pre-Vatican II Catholics ceremonially, birettas and all. You see this even today among the Episcopalians: unlike Catholic liberals, they love our stuff.

Sarum ceremonial revival only caught on among some English Anglicans, and not the would-be Catholics. It became the house style for public royal church services such as Prince William's wedding. Mostly it has been associated with Modernist mainline theology: liberal high church, essentially Episcopalianism. I think its early English advocate, Percy Dearmer, was fine with the idea of women priests.

(Sidebar: when the Catholic Church was legalized again in Britain, in the 1800s, I think someone in the hierarchy considered and asked Rome about reviving Sarum and was turned down. Sorry, the 'Reformation' killed it and the other medieval English recensions.)

Page 8 of 13 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5