I am on my way into the Ruthenian Church from a Roman Catholic background. In speaking on social media with traditional Roman Catholics about the Holy Father's recent motu proprio and his desire to eventually phase out the Traditional Latin Mass, in favor of the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo Mass, something came up that I'd never heard of. One gentlement accused the Ruthenian Church of being "modernists" and argued that they had somewhat recently changed their Divine Liturgy. The changes were not as extreme as going from the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo, but were big enough that he alleged it caused a big scandal in the Church. I tried a cursory search on google for information but haven't found anything. Has the Ruthenian Church altered their Liturgy since the Second Vatican Council?
For what it's worth, I am 100% content at the Divine Liturgy as it is celebrated now and have long since put liturgical civil wars behind me. But since it was a claim I'd never heard before, and couldn't find immediate information on, I've come to pick the minds of the wise ones.
Has the Ruthenian Church altered their Liturgy since the Second Vatican Council?
Officially as of 2007 in English translation in the BCC, i.e. the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, the answer is yes. The 2007 Liturgicon abridged and modified the 1965 Liturgicon (English trans.) that was a complete translation of the Divine Liturgy as give by the typical editions of the Ruthenian Recension (Rome ~1941-1955) in Slavonic. The 2007 translation made some improvements and corrections to the 1965 translation but other controversial changes and orientations were thoroughly discussed and debated on this forum; see The Revised Divine Liturgy, all threads. In an appraisal at the time (2008) I wrote in part of
Quote
... my increasing misgivings in general about the promulgations of that date. The chief and motivating reasons ... are the related issues of the translation of the Creed at, as it is now given “For us and for our salvation” [the word "men" translating anthrpous dropped] ..., and in particular the rendering of the various forms of the word Chelovikolubets/Philanthropos (Mankind changed to "us all"). It is my conviction, based on an objective consideration of meaning, that the present translation is flawed linguistically and, in the case of Philanthropos, also aesthetically. In addition, as clearly indicated in the DVD catechetical video (and other explanations I have gathered), the translation in these instances is intentionally motivated by a questionable priority: a desire, disproportionate and forced, to use a certain class and standard of inclusive language, and that this desire, as it is based on an agenda-driven motivation, is in these instances inappropriate and unwarranted. By this I mean that the motivation for the change from“Mankind” to “us all,” for instance, was not for linguistic or theological precision, a better conveyance of biblical allusions, accuracy, rigor, or an improvement in the vocabulary dealing with the classic interplay of the one and the many and the many who are one: the so-called collective or corporate person, the catholic person. Rather, that it simply, and admittedly, came from a desire/need to sound inclusive in conformity with a current fashion, and that at the expense of the more valid and significant considerations I have just noted.
Also, in my attempts to familiarize myself with the new liturgicons I have found that a close and detailed examination of the text only revealed, in addition to the gender-inclusive issue, other significant problems and questions for me about the translation and usages, their apparent motivation and perspective; and these have become numerous and substantial. In general, these issues can be characterized as a selective abandonment of the text, format, scope and rubrics of the Recensione Rutena (Rome: 1941 etc.); an inexplicable preference given to Greek rather than the Slavonic sources and expressions of the Recensione Rutena which is our unique heritage; and a now official abridgement of the liturgy for our Metropolitan Church that renders impossible the celebration of the liturgy in English as it would be in the Slavonic of the Recensione Rutena. Even with consideration given to pastoral necessities and organic adaptations and developments, I can not reconcile all too many of these innovations, and so I find that I am in conflict with the just demands of obedience ..., and the equally just demands of my conscience to responsibly question the current revisions, their underlying motivation, substance, vision and orientation.
It should be noted that the complete 1965 liturgicon was not the common form in use in practice, even though for some time it was the book present at/on the Holy Table.
Do individual Ruthenian priests have the ability to celebrate the other form of the Liturgy, before all these changes (the way Roman priests could choose to celebrate the Latin Mass in addition to the Novus Ordo-at least prior to the recent motu proprio)? Or are Ruthenians stuck with a problematic Liturgy for the foreseeable future?
Do individual Ruthenian priests have the ability to celebrate the other form of the Liturgy, before all these changes (the way Roman priests could choose to celebrate the Latin Mass in addition to the Novus Ordo-at least prior to the recent motu proprio)? Or are Ruthenians stuck with a problematic Liturgy for the foreseeable future?
See the attached Promulgation 2007, especially the last paragraph. See also the thread Full Celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension. Whether the 2007 liturgical promulgation is "problematic" depends on opinions and facts. This Forum, on the RDL in particular, is an important resource documenting the various opinions and facts for which the owner, John Vernoski, should be acknowledged, and thanked for providing it for the benefit of the Church. Perhaps some student of the liturgy, someday, will write a thesis, having this resource available.
As to the exact wording of the Decree:
1. The approval of the Apostolic See was in 2001. 2. It was not promulgated until 2007. 3. If it is indeed the "only text," that would preclude the Slavonic. Thus, only English in the BCC ?!
Is the Apostolic See Rome? If so, why does Rome need to approve anything? Eastern Churches are self governing. Outside of Rome declaring a dogma we are not (or at least, "should not") be beholden to them for anything.
Is the Apostolic See Rome? If so, why does Rome need to approve anything? Eastern Churches are self governing. Outside of Rome declaring a dogma we are not (or at least, "should not") be beholden to them for anything.
The Apostolic See is the See of Rome. See Canon 657 [intratext.com]. Not all Eastern Catholic Churches are sui iuris. There's no harm in having texts reviewed and Rome's documents were invoked in discussions about the RDL; see e.g. General Summary of How the RDL Violates Vatican Directives. Rome produced the Ruthenian Recension at the request of the concerned Eastern chuches and I would hope has a legitimate interest for that reason too; it is the heritage of both the Ruthenian and Ukrainian churches.
In my understanding, Communion ecclesiology and sui iuris does not mean independent and autonomous, nor does it mean micromanagement.
Is the Apostolic See Rome? If so, why does Rome need to approve anything? Eastern Churches are self governing. Outside of Rome declaring a dogma we are not (or at least, "should not") be beholden to them for anything.
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
Wherever you got this information or impression, it is quite wrong. You have been listening to the wrong voices, ones that too easily equate power with identity, and territoriality with ecclesiology. The BCC needs to, and has it in its own self-determination, to finally get over the boogeyman of "latinizations." Is the abridgement of the liturgy in the 2007 liturgicon, for example, not a kind of "low Mass" mentality?
If you think it's an east-west issue, or make it that, then you have missed the real basis of the Communion ecclesiology -- the eucharistic ecclesiology -- that is embraced, at least in theory, by east and west, Orthodox and Catholic. That ecclesiology starts with each BISHOP as the monarchē of a catholic church in communion with others. See for example, Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unit... Bishop During the First Three Centuries [amazon.com].
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
And therein lies the problem. When I converted 20 years ago from Protestantism, I was told that the BCC is "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome." Not having a good understanding of history and the doctrinal differences between East and West, I accepted this.
What I have found out in the last 20 years of continued study is that we are NOT Orthodox. Not in any sense of the word. The Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, yet we were pressured into it here in America for a long time. The Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception, which takes away the glory of the Theotokos turning from sin to completely embrace hoiness. The Orthodox do not accept Purgatory, yet I constantly hear BCC pastors speak of it. The Orthodox do not accept the faux idea of Purgatory. Yet I am expected to bow in submission to these false theological ideas because I am in communion with Rome???
I have watched BCC pastors baptize by sprinkling instead of three-fold immersion. I have gone into Ruthenian parishes where the Rosary is being prayed.
Is it any wonder when BCC try to claim they are Orthodox the Orthodox snort and spit on the ground? These things are not Orthodox, and had I known what I know today, I would have never joined the BCC but would have become Orthodox instead.
In short, the Unia is a theological disaster and should be scrapped. One should make up one's mind to either be Orthodox or Roman Catholic and embrace fully what either side teaches.
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
And therein lies the problem. When I converted 20 years ago from Protestantism, I was told that the BCC is "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome." Not having a good understanding of history and the doctrinal differences between East and West, I accepted this.
What I have found out in the last 20 years of continued study is that we are NOT Orthodox. Not in any sense of the word. The Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, yet we were pressured into it here in America for a long time. The Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception, which takes away the glory of the Theotokos turning from sin to completely embrace hoiness. The Orthodox do not accept Purgatory, yet I constantly hear BCC pastors speak of it. The Orthodox do not accept the faux idea of Purgatory. Yet I am expected to bow in submission to these false theological ideas because I am in communion with Rome???
What you are experiencing is the inferiority complex of the BCC. You too have listened to the wrong people only a fortiori. We are not "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome." Who says the Orthodox are right about the IC, filioque, purgatory etc.. What you are seeing here in the Orthodox is a theological awareness that stalled somewhere between the 8th and 9th centuries.
And then there is the myth that the Orthodox way is the only correct way, the only eastern way. Just for example:
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
I have watched BCC pastors baptize by sprinkling instead of three-fold immersion.
Yes. As excavations have shown in early Greek churches the fonts were not deep enough for full immersion. The baptized stood in water up to their knees and had water poured on the heads or knelt and had their heads dunked.
Fr. Deacon Lance
Also, The Didache ca. AD 100 gives the priority :
Quote
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
What's most important is "running water." An insistence on "three-fold immersion" distorts the priorities and primitive practice.
Consider: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” ― John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua
As I see it, you have made every difficulty into a doubt. And I believe this is because we -- that is, in particular BCC clergy and theologians -- have failed you. As I posted initially in 2009:
A Failure of our Church: To effectively articulate why, as eastern, orthodox Christians we are, and why one should be Catholic – we, who are living (though perhaps rather imperfectly) the desired unity. I do think that in general an adequate Eastern Catholic articulation of the Catholic faith, which I profess to be orthodox, is lacking.
"What I have found out in the last 20 years of continued study is that we are NOT Orthodox. Not in any sense of the word. The Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, yet we were pressured into it here in America for a long time. The Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception, which takes away the glory of the Theotokos turning from sin to completely embrace hoiness. The Orthodox do not accept Purgatory, yet I constantly hear BCC pastors speak of it. The Orthodox do not accept the faux idea of Purgatory. Yet I am expected to bow in submission to these false theological ideas because I am in communion with Rome???"
As far as I'm concerned I'am a CATHOLIC first, then of the Byzantine Catholic Rite and what makes me CATHOLIC is that I believe in all CATHOLIC CHURCH DOGMA'S AND DOCTRINES including The IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, PURGATORY and as far as the FILIOQUE is concerned it is a MYSTERY and I believe in the TRINITY so it doesn't matter, it only matters to the Orthodox hierarchy.who for political and economic reasons want to remain separate from the Catholic Church.
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
And therein lies the problem. When I converted 20 years ago from Protestantism, I was told that the BCC is "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome." Not having a good understanding of history and the doctrinal differences between East and West, I accepted this.
What I have found out in the last 20 years of continued study is that we are NOT Orthodox. Not in any sense of the word. The Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, yet we were pressured into it here in America for a long time. The Orthodox do not accept the Immaculate Conception, which takes away the glory of the Theotokos turning from sin to completely embrace hoiness. The Orthodox do not accept Purgatory, yet I constantly hear BCC pastors speak of it. The Orthodox do not accept the faux idea of Purgatory. Yet I am expected to bow in submission to these false theological ideas because I am in communion with Rome???
What you are experiencing is the inferiority complex of the BCC. You too have listened to the wrong people only a fortiori. We are not "Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome." Who says the Orthodox are right about the IC, filioque, purgatory etc.. What you are seeing here in the Orthodox is a theological awareness that stalled somewhere between the 8th and 9th centuries.
And then there is the myth that the Orthodox way is the only correct way, the only eastern way. Just for example:
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
I have watched BCC pastors baptize by sprinkling instead of three-fold immersion.
Yes. As excavations have shown in early Greek churches the fonts were not deep enough for full immersion. The baptized stood in water up to their knees and had water poured on the heads or knelt and had their heads dunked.
Fr. Deacon Lance
Also, The Didache ca. AD 100 gives the priority :
Quote
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
What's most important is "running water." An insistence on "three-fold immersion" distorts the priorities and primitive practice.
Consider: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” ― John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua
As I see it, you have made every difficulty into a doubt. And I believe this is because we -- that is, in particular BCC clergy and theologians -- have failed you. As I posted initially in 2009:
A Failure of our Church: To effectively articulate why, as eastern, orthodox Christians we are, and why one should be Catholic – we, who are living (though perhaps rather imperfectly) the desired unity. I do think that in general an adequate Eastern Catholic articulation of the Catholic faith, which I profess to be orthodox, is lacking.
So what you are saying is two-fold: first that the early fathers of the church would have no problem with the inventions of the Latin West. Secondly, that the fathers of the church in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh century were being disingenous to object to the invention of the Filioque, the use of "dead bread" in the Liturgy, and the papal intrusions by the Frankish run Western church. In other words, they made a mountain out of what essentially are molehills.
So does truth really matter? Or is it just enough to believe in the Trinity and that Christ alone is Savior?
So what you are saying is two-fold: first that the early fathers of the church would have no problem with the inventions of the Latin West. Secondly, that the fathers of the church in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh century were being disingenous to object to the invention of the Filioque, the use of "dead bread" in the Liturgy, and the papal intrusions by the Frankish run Western church. In other words, they made a mountain out of what essentially are molehills.
So does truth really matter? Or is it just enough to believe in the Trinity and that Christ alone is Savior?
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
... "inventions of the Latin West" ... " invention of the Filioque."
I was hoping for a dialog. Your mind is already set, it seems, and the theological chip on your shoulder may prevent you from hearing what I say. The voice of "the early fathers of the church" is hardly monolithic. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you not include the 'use of "dead bread" in the Liturgy'; it is a sad and tired and stupid polemic. The fliioque has been discussed thoroughly, periodically on this forum. Of course the Orthodox don't like it, they had no say in it. Though they argue against it, and the IC, and purgatory etc. on the basis of theology -- and they have valid points to be addressed -- I think their real issue is church authority. Consider at least St. Maximus the Confessor, a 7th c. witness:
Quote
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.
“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’
“The other has to do with the divine incarnation, because he has written, ‘The Lord, as man, is without original sin.’
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….
“The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them...
There are still disputes about his meaning and even the legitimacy of the text but it is a difficulty that need not be a doubt. However as the commentator says:
Quote
What then about the claim that the Latin-speaking Church has not made the Son into a cause of the Spirit when it asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? How can that claim be squared with the decree of the Second Council of Lyons, that the Holy Spirit “æternaliter ex Patre & Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit,” i.e., he “proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as though from two principles, but as though from a single principle; not with two spirations, but with a single spiration”? Some Orthodox claim that St. Maximus cannot really be defending the filioque in the sense in which that doctrine was understood in the medieval West, because Maximus explicitly affirms that the Father is the only cause in the Trinity; to speak of Father and Son together as constituting a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, as the Council of Lyons does, seems to take away the Father’s position as sole cause.
Do you understand the "as though from a single principle"? What does that convey? I think it and the filioque are a correct understanding because the Catholic Church:
1. says the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father 2. does say (single principle) from the Father and the Son: filioque or ex Patre & Filio 3. but does NOT say the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son
@Irish_Ruthenian Out of curiosity, are you still a Ruthenian Catholic, or have you gone to the Orthodox Church? It sounded like you were convinced of Orthodoxy.
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.
“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’
“The other has to do with the divine incarnation, because he has written, ‘The Lord, as man, is without original sin.’
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….
“The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them...
Something that people don't seem to realize when the quote the early fathers. They do not carry the same authority as an ecumenical council. The ecumenical council is the final word. And the sixth and seventh ecumenical councils pronounced anathema on anyone who would change or tamper with the canons of previous councils. Thus, the Roman Church is under that anathema. The early fathers were men and therefore, they are subject to producing theologumenon. The councils are to be obeyed.
You may not like this, and you may wish to "dialogue" all you want. Dialogue always seems to be the last resort of those who are backed into a corner by facts.
And I ask again --- does truth matter? Or do we get to believe any old thing we want to be cause of "tradition" and other agendas we have?
Quote
What then about the claim that the Latin-speaking Church has not made the Son into a cause of the Spirit when it asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? How can that claim be squared with the decree of the Second Council of Lyons, that the Holy Spirit “æternaliter ex Patre & Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit,” i.e., he “proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as though from two principles, but as though from a single principle; not with two spirations, but with a single spiration”? Some Orthodox claim that St. Maximus cannot really be defending the filioque in the sense in which that doctrine was understood in the medieval West, because Maximus explicitly affirms that the Father is the only cause in the Trinity; to speak of Father and Son together as constituting a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, as the Council of Lyons does, seems to take away the Father’s position as sole cause.
Someone is not thinking this through. If you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds as from a "single principle," then you are muddling the personhood and distinctives of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.[/b][/color]
Do you understand the "as though from a single principle"? What does that convey? I think it and the filioque are a correct understanding because the Catholic Church:
1. says the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father 2. does say (single principle) from the Father and the Son: filioque or ex Patre & Filio 3. but does NOT say the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son
[b][color:#CC0000]The natural condition of man is spiritual darkness. I don't go to pagans for my theology because they are in spiritual darkness, and this is shown by their behavior when they bow down to a garishly overdecorated elephant-god and worship it. Jesus said we can tell the condition of a tree by its fruit. What has been the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church since the Franks took it over?
This one sentence describes perfectly the spiritual and moral darkness in which they acted: “In the time of Pippin of Herestal (697-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans.” Baptism does not automatically make you a saint on earth. In the case of the Franks, it apparently did nothing, as they and their successors followed a bloody and murderous trail of behavior right up into the 20th century when their Croatian spiritual progeny were caught killing Serbian Orthodox during WWII. Yet I am supposed to accept their theological ideas?
I DON'T THINK SO
Of course, if you could just show me where Jesus said to kill your enemies and persecute those who disagee with your theology, well, that would really go a long way to helping me believe in the Roman Catholic distinctives that they created after the schism.
@Irish_Ruthenian Out of curiosity, are you still a Ruthenian Catholic, or have you gone to the Orthodox Church? It sounded like you were convinced of Orthodoxy.
After the way I was treated by the Ruthenian metropolia, no, I am not in any way, nor ever interested again, in anything to do with the Ruthenians. FYI - I pray regularly for the men who abused me, as our Lord ordered us to do, but I am not interested at all in their eclessia or their friendship.
As for going to the Orthdox Church - I wish. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the Lord sent me to a small UCC parish where I am currently acting as cantor. I have prayed about it and the answer I get is still "No."
And unlike some people, I strive to be obedient. Don't always succeed at it, but when I get a clear and distinct order from God - well, I would be a fool to go against it.
When the Council declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, it is my understanding that "single principle" refers to Their shared divinity, not their personhood which is distinct, of course, and not to be confused. You might think of the "filioque" this way: The Father, the source and origin of Trinitarian life, in eternally begetting the Son eternally brought forth the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both as to Their shared divinity. Our words about God are always analogous, and I shudder to even think of, what are ultimately, infinite and eternal concepts.
As to your sour feelings toward Latin Catholicism, I would just say that the barbarism displayed by the Nordic hoards that descended upon southern Europe in times past was not easily displaced by the Christianity they embraced. That barbarism was on display even among some of their warrior kings, princes, and yes, even lower and higher clergy. You might recall how Old Believers were fiercely persecuted in Moscow in the 17th century. Dostoyevsky might have singled that out as he did the Grand Inquisitor of Catholic Spain. Bad fruit is displayed on both sides in many epochs; it's the good fruit that has always insured the Church's survival.
@Irish_Ruthenian That perplexes me. If you are convinced that Orthodoxy is true and Eastern Catholicism is false, why on Earth would you remain? Obedience is important, yes. But if Eastern Catholicism is false, how do you honor God by remaining obedient to false clerics?
I don't seek to challenge or debate with you, only to understand.
@Irish_Ruthenian That perplexes me. If you are convinced that Orthodoxy is true and Eastern Catholicism is false, why on Earth would you remain? Obedience is important, yes. But if Eastern Catholicism is false, how do you honor God by remaining obedient to false clerics?
I don't seek to challenge or debate with you, only to understand.
I am as confused as you are. Quite frankly, had it not been for a couple of very clear answers to prayer in which I was directed to where I am now, I would have "doxxed" a long time ago, along with a dozen of my friends who formerly attended the Ruthenian parish I went to.
Honestly, I am at the point right now that I am trying to figure this one out. In reading your last response, I think that the word "false" is too harsh. Just like the Roman church, 90% of what is there is true and faithful to the apostolic deposit of faith. Can we just say in charity that there are errors in their theology and praxis? So this is what I am trying to figure out - do errors necessarily constitute heresy? I remember reading a priest who said that heresy involves Christ, not eclessial practice. In other words, to say that Christ is not God is heresy. To say that He has one will only (Monothelitism) is heresy. But to not baptize by three-fold immersion or to keep the Eucharist from your infant children is an error of eclessiology.
The other question for me, which I am still pondering and asking folks about, is this: where is the Church and what constitutes it? Traddydox and RadTradLatins both claim that the Church is constituted in them alone, and everyone else gets a free ticket to hell. Yet neither side appears willing to acknowledge that miracles in the name of Christ by trinitarian bodies have occurred outside their fold. Padre Pio and St. Paisios come to my immediate mind. Seeing this, I have to wonder if the Church is much wider and broader than either side allows for.
I am Orthodox in my theology and praxis. I have replaced the Rosary with the Jesus Prayer. I do the fasts as best I can. I reject as erroneous all that the Latin church invented after the schism of 1054. Yet the Orthodox will not allow that I am Orthodox for the one little sticking point of being "in communion with Rome." And the Roman Catholics get their hair set on fire when they find out that I don't accept the Immaculate Conception (which diminishes the glory of Mary) nor Indulgences.
It's a bizarre place to be in, believe me! As I said, i am as perplexed as you are and am trying to find out how to get a grip on this. I think the next thing I will read is Zogby and his take on being "in communion with Rome" and being Orthodox.
I think the one thing that is most discouraging to me in where I am at now is that the clergy and the laity don't seem to take Orthodoxy seriously. When I hear prayers for "our universal bishop, Francis Pope of Rome," my hair stands on end as I remember what Pope Gregory the Great said to Patriarch John the Faster regarding the use of the title "universal (ecumenical) bishop." He was not pleased - at all! Yet we casually use it as if it is nothing. Same thing with belief in Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. We seem to have forgotten who we are supposed to be. The men who signed the Union of Brest must be spinning in their graves.
I wouldn't say that Eastern Catholicism is false as much as what Pope Francis said about it recently - it is no longer needed. Make up your mind, Either be Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
I don't know if that helps at all. Like I said - confused.
... But to not baptize by three-fold immersion or to keep the Eucharist from your infant children is an error of eclessiology...
I think the next thing I will read is Zogby and his take on being "in communion with Rome" and being Orthodox...
When I hear prayers for "our universal bishop, Francis Pope of Rome," my hair stands on end as I remember what Pope Gregory the Great said to Patriarch John the Faster regarding the use of the title "universal (ecumenical) bishop." He was not pleased - at all! Yet we casually use it as if it is nothing...
I wouldn't say that Eastern Catholicism is false as much as what Pope Francis said about it recently - it is no longer needed. Make up your mind, Either be Orthodox or Roman Catholic...
Your writing is at best idiotic or are you internationally flaming/trolling. Zogby was WRONG. You do not understand, probably through lack of sufficient study, the term "universal." The Archbishop of Constantinople claims the title Ecumenical Patriarch, so what then of your objection. You have not understood the ramifications of the information provided to you in this thread about baptism and the clear non-necessity of three-fold immersion. When and where did Pope Francis say " Eastern Catholicism... is no longer needed"?
Your own errors in just parroting polemics devoid of substance and truth is worse than all the alleged errors you have attributed to others.
After the way I was treated by the Ruthenian metropolia, no, I am not in any way, nor ever interested again, in anything to do with the Ruthenians. FYI - I pray regularly for the men who abused me, as our Lord ordered us to do, but I am not interested at all in their eclessia or their friendship.
Then I suggest you message the Admin so you can change your username.
The 2 point profession of faith by Archbishop Zoghby may have been rejected by Rome (rejected, not condemned from what I can find), that does not make the position wrong. To me, it seems the only rational way forward for Byzantine Catholics. We are, or ought to be, fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome. Anything less than this and we are not fully one or the other, and our existence is an accident of history waiting to be corrected. I think in time, as Rome slowly returns to an authentic understanding of the papacy, the Zoghby view will be vindicated.
The 2 point profession of faith by Archbishop Zoghby may have been rejected by Rome (rejected, not condemned from what I can find), that does not make the position wrong. To me, it seems the only rational way forward for Byzantine Catholics. We are, or ought to be, fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome. Anything less than this and we are not fully one or the other, and our existence is an accident of history waiting to be corrected. I think in time, as Rome slowly returns to an authentic understanding of the papacy, the Zoghby view will be vindicated.
Archbishop Zoghby's well-meaning proposal needs a time-machine to a Church-past and we are the Church-present; the Church is not a museum. His proposal:
Quote
In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:
I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
It leads to the distorted conclusions and opinions exhibited, for example, in the previous posts of Irish_Ruthenian in this thread.
The problem with it, though addressing a different but related initiative, is identified by Pope Benedict/Ratzinger:
Quote
A kind of ecumenical dogma seems to be developing here that needs some attention. Quite likely it began with this train of thought: For intercommunion with the Orthodox, the Catholic Church does not necessarily have to insist on acceptance of the dogmas of the second millennium. It was presumed that the Eastern Churches have remained in the traditional form of the first millennium, which in itself is legitimate and, if rightly understood, contains no contradiction to further developments. After all, the latter only unfolded what was already there in principle at the time of the undivided Church. I myself have already taken part in attempts to think things out like this [See Principles of Catholic Theology, 103-200 (written in 1976).] but meanwhile they have grown out of hand to the point where councils and dogmatic definitions of the second millennium are supposed to be regarded, not as ecumenical, but as particular developments in the Latin Church, constituting her private property in the sense of "our two traditions". But this distorts the initial attempt to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences. For this way of looking at it actually implies denial of the existence of the universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving entity is frozen at the end of the first. This strikes at the very heart of the idea of Church and tradition, because ultimately such an age test replaces the full authority of the Church, which is then left without a voice at the present day. Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people's con sciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom. The claim to truth that had hitherto been upheld would thus be disqualified as an abuse. All this means that a far-reaching thesis, the principles and consequences of which have not been thought out, has been raised to the status of a self-evident axiom.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Church, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecciesiology, Ignatius Press San Francisco. 83-84
[emphasis added]
In brief, as I wrote just over 10 years ago on this forum,
Quote
What's wrong with the Zoghby proposal, for instance: "... an [implicit;added ajk] denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first."
@ajk The problem with the Pope Emeritus' thinking in your last post is that it suggests, in a second hand sort of way, that Rome is the deciding factor of the universal church. That we all exist in a Roman vaccuum and that whatever Rome dictates in her local councils must be accepted as dogma by the East, otherwise he seems to think it implies the universal church cannot exist or function. Rome cannot act unilaterally against any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. Outside of declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors, Rome has no real authority over the East (other than what we wrongly concede to them out of some weak show of solidarity and "unity"). And I'd note, for the Pope to exercise his magisterial authority, necessitates an ecumenical council in concert with all his brother bishops. Without having this consensus, a council cannot be ecumenical.
@ajk Rome "does" need to be put in its rightful place, as centuries of persecution and forced latinizations have proven throughout history. And it's not about "reducing" Rome. It's about helping Rome grasp her authoritative role properly, without all the excess and innovation she attached for herself over the millennia. What Pastor Aeturnus describes at Vatican I is absolutely alien to the Patristic Church and entire first millennium (and arguably some, maybe even most, of the second). Roman Catholics continue to live and operate under these false assumptions that the Pope is the head of the Church and can do whatever he likes, irrespective of canonical boundaries. That is not true and he cannot act in such ways (the imposition of the eastern code of canon law being a prime example, or how Rome appoints Eastern Bishops outside of their native territories). Rome cannot call on us to reclaim our rightful patrimony and then continue to meddle in our affairs, taking the lawful authority of Eastern patriarchs and adding its own made up powers and authority in the process.
My only priority is for the Byzantine Catholic Churches to shake off everything and anything Roman and fully reclaim their Orthodox heritage and patrimony.
@ajk Rome "does" need to be put in its rightful place, as centuries of persecution and forced latinizations have proven throughout history. And it's not about "reducing" Rome. It's about helping Rome grasp her authoritative role properly, without all the excess and innovation she attached for herself over the millennia. What Pastor Aeturnus describes at Vatican I is absolutely alien to the Patristic Church and entire first millennium (and arguably some, maybe even most, of the second). Roman Catholics continue to live and operate under these false assumptions that the Pope is the head of the Church and can do whatever he likes, irrespective of canonical boundaries. That is not true and he cannot act in such ways (the imposition of the eastern code of canon law being a prime example, or how Rome appoints Eastern Bishops outside of their native territories). Rome cannot call on us to reclaim our rightful patrimony and then continue to meddle in our affairs, taking the lawful authority of Eastern patriarchs and adding its own made up powers and authority in the process.
My only priority is for the Byzantine Catholic Churches to shake off everything and anything Roman and fully reclaim their Orthodox heritage and patrimony.
Then your priority is an affront to the BCC, its history, its own path and those who walked it, and the communion ecclesiology of the Church catholic. The BCC needs to be itself, not some concocted version of being eastern or Orthodox, as though that is its obvious role in becoming true. Your way of thinking promotes an inferiority complex, that the BCC must strive to be like others in order to be legitimate. There's plenty of blame to be placed on Rome but there's plenty to go around to others too, a part of the whole truth that you neglect.
What Eastern Church is objecting -- has objected -- to the CCEO? Provide a link to some official or significant objection -- not some priest's opinion.
You have not grasped the absurdity of your position that is an argument for power and autonomy as the measure of legitimacy. So I repeat it:
Originally Posted by ajk
Poor old Rome, now put in its rightful place, reduced to just "declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors."
I suggest you rethink your priorities.
So you say, Rome, declare dogmas and condemn errors about the most sublime spiritual truths since that is your God-given right -- but don't think for a minute you can name our bishop!
This thread has wandered greatly from its original topic. I don’t have the time right now, but it needs to be broken into two threads.
I am feeling the drift too. On topic
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Ruthenian1988
Well we're "supposed" to be self governing. Outside of declaring a dogma, the Pope has no authority over the Eastern Churches, other than what they voluntarily cede to him (which itself is an abuse, and one that Vatican II addressed when it called on the Eastern Churches to shake off latinizations and reclaim their Eastern patrimony).
Wherever you got this information or impression, it is quite wrong. You have been listening to the wrong voices, ones that too easily equate power with identity, and territoriality with ecclesiology. The BCC needs to, and has it in its own self-determination, to finally get over the boogeyman of "latinizations." Is the abridgement of the liturgy in the 2007 liturgicon, for example, not a kind of "low Mass" mentality?
So, Ruthenian1988, what about the your initial post A change in the Divine Liturgy? and my direct "low Mass" question about it, the liturgy, and not whether 'we're "supposed" to be self governing'?
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 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
