The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
museofhistory, tommycheckmate, Michael_P, Deirdre Glasheen, JohnFromRuthenia
5,788 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (JohnFromRuthenia, 2 invisible), 97 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,078
Posts414,168
Members5,788
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11
#55088 11/03/03 11:14 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:

Orthoman,

Could a GO Christian receive the Eucharist in the RO Church or vice-versa? Even within the same Church the Orthodox faithful may not be able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Of course, because the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (as well as the Church of Greece) are in communion with each other, so there is no impediment to the reception of the Eucharist.

#55089 11/03/03 11:35 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
Could a GO Christian receive the Eucharist in the RO Church or vice-versa? Even within the same Church the Orthodox faithful may not be able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese.
This is absolutely not the case. Intercommunion between the various Orthodox Churches is defacto. Although canonicity *is* an issue with various groups (HOCNA, et al) even then the practical implications are not as clearly adhered to as one might think. Most of the adherants of these groups tend to stay to themselves and would not think of taking communion in the majority of Orthodox Churches.

Suffice it to say that nearly all of those who call themselves Orthodox Christians are in communion with one another. These various fringe groups are insignificant numerically, with the possible exception of the Old Calendarist Church of Greece.

Me thinks there is much too much made of these fringe groups on this board, and certain posters (not you, Deacon) like to play the "non-cannonical card" when pointing out what they see as Orthodoxy's weaknesses.

PT

#55090 11/03/03 11:50 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
Administrator:

I have read through your response and have compiled the following sentences which you have supplied:

" It is the larger body of Byzantine Orthodox Christians who are missing something (and that something being full communion with Rome)."

"Are we in communion with Rome? Yes."

"Are we under the authority of Rome? Yes."

"Rome can interfere with the election (universal jurisdiction) but should not do so
without just cause (say there was a fraudulent election)."

"This brings us back to the question �What does it mean to be under Rome?� For us
this means believing in and trusting that Rome always has authority to intervene (universal jurisdiction) but that she will do so only when absolutely necessary. In this sense we believe that all Christians should be �under Rome�."

"Catholicism (Rome, which is the real and final arbiter of Orthodoxy) believes that it has this immediate jurisdiction."

" I believe that Rome does have this authority and should have this authority and that one is not really Orthodox if one does not accept this. [Yes, I believe this even though we have oftentimes been mistreated by Rome.]"

Response:

And yet you take offense at being called either an 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholic' or more importantly, a 'Papal Catholic'.

I wish I could understand the logic and make sense out of that, but in all honesty, I cant. To me, it only shows a complete denial of your true identity.

You tell me that you agree that you are both 'in commnion' with Rome and also 'under its authority'. You go on to state that your so called Orthodoxy is more complete than mine because of that authority. You further tell me that my Orthodoxy is incomplete because I am not under Romes authority. And then go on to state being identified as a 'Papal Catholic' is insulting and derogatory. In all honesty, that even lacks common sense!

In your 400+ years from your mother you have completely lost touch with the reality about what she is all about! Because you center everything around Rome and then continue to be offended by being identified with her in any way, shape, or form.

OrthoMan

#55091 11/04/03 12:00 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Let's try this one Bob.

What is does it mean to be in communion with the EP, not to the Russian Orhtodox - who by history, geography, and demographics were always pretty much outside the reach of Constantinople - but to the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Serbian Patriarchates, for example.

Are you sufficiently in touch with you Mother to know what I am talking about?

#55092 11/04/03 12:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
[Let's try this one Bob.

What is does it mean to be in communion with the EP, not to the Russian Orhtodox - who by history, geography, and demographics were always pretty much outside the reach of Constantinople - but to the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Serbian Patriarchates, for example.]

I'm not sure what your point is or what your question is all about for that matter. To be in communion with the EP (or any other canonical automonous or autocephalous Church) means to be within canonical Orthodoxy!

What is your point about the MP being out of reach with Constantinople? The Russian Orthodox Church received their autocephally from Constantinople. I really don't know how answer your questions because they make no sense to me. Unless you are trying to make the EP out to be some kind of Orthodox Pope which he isn't and never was.

And my mother church is the MP which I am both in communion with and in touch with. However, I still don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Why don't you just make your point so it can be addressed?


OrthoMan

#55093 11/04/03 12:35 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 9
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 9
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
And yet you take offense at being called either an 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholic' or more importantly, a 'Papal Catholic'.

I wish I could understand the logic and make sense out of that, but in all honesty, I cant. To me, it only shows a complete denial of your true identity.
Bob,

I respect that you cannot see the logic. I also know that your understanding is incorrect. The use of a pejorative is always an insult. I�m sure that you disagree with this as you do not consider the term �Papal Catholic� to be insulting.

Regarding the use of the term �Eastern Rite Roman Catholic� the term itself doesn�t make sense. What is a Roman Catholic? A Roman Catholic is one (or a Church) that uses the theology and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. Our theology and liturgy is not that of the Roman Church but that of the Byzantine Church. There is no way that the term �Roman Catholic� would apply to us. I know that many Orthodox believe that because we acknowledge the Latin Catholic doctrines as legitimate and Orthodox and believe that Rome is the ultimate arbiter of Orthodoxy that there is no possible way that we can remain Orthodox. I respect such a position but I know it to be an incorrect one.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
You tell me that you agree that you are both 'in commnion' with Rome and also 'under its authority'. You go on to state that your so called Orthodoxy is more complete than mine because of that authority. You further tell me that my Orthodoxy is incomplete because I am not under Romes authority. And then go on to state being identified as a 'Papal Catholic' is insulting and derogatory. In all honesty, that even lacks common sense!
No. It makes perfect sense. Any term that was invented as a pejorative is always offensive. I don�t know why you can�t understand this. Use of the term �Papal Catholic� is no different than the use of the term �papist�. �Papist� may be recognized by everyone worldwide as a term for Catholics but it is considered offensive because it is always used disparagingly. Charitable people simply choose not to use terminology that is offensive. It is always best to use the terminology that people use to describe themselves. Since you find the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� to be distasteful why not simply refer to us as �Byzantine Catholics� since that is our chosen title?

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
In your 400+ years from your mother you have completely lost touch with the reality about what she is all about! Because you center everything around Rome and then continue to be offended by being identified with her in any way, shape, or form.
No! Nice try but it really doesn�t work. Actually, in our 400 years as Orthodox in communion with Rome we have seen from a unique vantage point just how wounded both East and West have become because of their separation from one another.


Admin

#55094 11/04/03 12:44 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:

I hardly think this is the norm in the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Could a GO Christian receive the Eucharist in the RO Church or vice-versa? Even within the same Church the Orthodox faithful may not be able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese.
Where do ideas like these come from?

Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too?

Or was that meant to be some joke?

(Never, never think you have heard it all...just check on byzcath.org to hear somthing crazier than you ever imagined!)

#55095 11/04/03 01:57 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
The bottom line, and the only one that matters to this old warrior, is this: "For the first 1,000 years the Church East and West was in communion. It wasn't perfect. Some things, many things, were overlooked. Live and let live was the rule of the day as long as it wasn't a dogma. Even the Liturgy was quite different. Still we were in communion with each other.

Now the union between East and West Catholicism isn't perfect. The East has too often allowed itself to be intimidated by the West, but we are coming out of that period. But we are in communion. We are working through our differences.

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not in communion. Most of the time the arguments are over non-dogmatic matters.

Given that none of these situations is perfect let me ask this: "Which situation is closer to Christ's prayer in John 17?"

I know how I've answered that and no amount of polemic will convince me otherwise.

Dan Lauffer

#55096 11/04/03 02:02 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Yes Dan that is lovely and to the point. But, spurious statments such as the one above really do nothing helpful and on the contrary harm what unity there is. The statement I quoted above is simply false, bottom line.

#55097 11/04/03 02:34 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 9
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 9
Quote
Tony wrote:
Where do ideas like these come from?
Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too?
Or was that meant to be some joke?
(Never, never think you have heard it all...just check on byzcath.org to hear somthing crazier than you ever imagined!)
First, the comments about putting the blood of Christians in matzos is uncalled for.

Second, the conclusion made by Father Deacon John is understandable, even if inaccurate. I have several Orthodox friends who will not communicate in a parish that is not their own because of the real expectation that they will be refused the chalice because they had not first approached the priest to either go to confession or to ask his permission to receive. Back in the 1980�s a very good friend of mine (who is OCA) and I often used to take whatever weekend special the airlines offered (they were extremely cheap back then). Oftentimes we attended both an Orthodox and a Byzantine Catholic parish on a Sunday for their respective Divine Liturgies. The only time I remember my friend communicating was in parishes where he had already established a relationship with the priest. I know that this has changed very much over the past 20 years but there are still many people who hold this practice and to people not �in the know� it does appear as if they are not welcome to receive in another jurisdiction.

#55098 11/04/03 02:43 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Quote
Me thinks there is much too much made of these fringe groups on this board, and certain posters (not you, Deacon) like to play the "non-cannonical card" when pointing out what they see as Orthodoxy's weaknesses.
Dear Father Thomas,
Sorry if my references earlier in this thread caused offense. I also made such reference in one other thread, when I asked if "mainline" Orthodox have a similar objection to the use of the "Orthodox" by non-canonical groups (or Oriental Orthodox) as they do with our use of the word. I don't make such reference to point out any "weakness" of Orthodoxy; I have no interest in that at all.

My criticism of Orthoman's posts is simple. He posts with some pretense as a great illuminator of perceived weaknesses of my church. Sometimes his facts are just plain wrong. More often, however, he make a very tendentious interpretation of the facts. I like to point out to him, that the same difficulties apply within Orthodoxy, and if he would take the trouble to get the log out of his own eyes, he might be better able to see and comment thoughfully on ours.

He likes to quote Cor.1:10 to us. But it is clear that the text cannot be taken at face value, in light the range of expression within Orthodoxy. So it really is a discussion over discerning core dogma against expression and illustration of the core. Here I'd like to invoke a corrollary to Ghazar's principle: Orthoman should be more restrained about telling Catholics what is and what is not Catholic dogma.

Orthoman likes to point out the grave differences between "in communion with" and "under". It would be nice if such distinctions were, however, grounded in reality. If Orthoman had a better idea, from historical facts, just how very much "in communion with" the EP, during his millenium as first among equals, has actually meant "under", then he would be more circumspect about harping on our relationship to Rome.

#55099 11/04/03 02:52 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your post here.
I know that the phrase I used arose a hyperbolic extension of your words by someone else on the Dormition thread. I am very glad that that is a view that you would not assert yourself.

#55100 11/04/03 03:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
Quote
Tony wrote:
Where do ideas like these come from?
Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too?
Or was that meant to be some joke?
(Never, never think you have heard it all...just check on byzcath.org to hear somthing crazier than you ever imagined!)
First, the comments about putting the blood of Christians in matzos is uncalled for.

Second, the conclusion made by Father Deacon John is understandable, even if inaccurate. I have several Orthodox friends who will not communicate in a parish that is not their own because of the real expectation that they will be refused the chalice because they had not first approached the priest to either go to confession or to ask his permission to receive. Back in the 1980�s a very good friend of mine (who is OCA) and I often used to take whatever weekend special the airlines offered (they were extremely cheap back then). Oftentimes we attended both an Orthodox and a Byzantine Catholic parish on a Sunday for their respective Divine Liturgies. The only time I remember my friend communicating was in parishes where he had already established a relationship with the priest. I know that this has changed very much over the past 20 years but there are still many people who hold this practice and to people not �in the know� it does appear as if they are not welcome to receive in another jurisdiction.
Administrator,

Yes, it was absurd? Good, that is my point. Which is why I allowed the option of it being a joke, albeit in poor taste.

Thanks for the lessons on the issues of communicating in Orthodoxy, I am somewhat aware of them, I had hoped you could imagine. I undersand the matter of etiquette and the issue of being refused (much greater among some than others) but the point is how his post was presented.

Perhaps it was phrased poorly, it is hard to tell. Since the word used when referring to the Catholic Church was "ability" I took it as that. If I call ahead and speak to the priest in another parish I am certainly ABLE to communicate there, in some I can just walk up. I know that...I think most Orthodx do as well, not all especially if they have not left their own parish much. But, the issue is they CAN, they are able to.

The original post (responded to by Fr. Thomas in the same understanding I ascribed to it) could only be read by me (perhaps my small mind) as saying that they cannot since the words "ability" and "could" are used.

I try to read carefully, call it what you like. I can't read the mind of the posters, only the posts.

Tony

#55101 11/04/03 04:08 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:

Second, the conclusion made by Father Deacon John is understandable, even if inaccurate. I have several Orthodox friends who will not communicate in a parish that is not their own because of the real expectation that they will be refused the chalice because they had not first approached the priest to either go to confession or to ask his permission to receive. Back in the 1980's a very good friend of mine (who is OCA) and I often used to take whatever weekend special the airlines offered (they were extremely cheap back then). Oftentimes we attended both an Orthodox and a Byzantine Catholic parish on a Sunday for their respective Divine Liturgies.
[/QB]
It is common practice to contact the priest before going to a different parish and introducing yourself and telling of your intention to receive the Mysteries. A priest at his ordination is told to guard the Mysteries as he will have to render an account before GOd in behalf of those he has communicated. It is a Sacred trust.

#55102 11/04/03 04:40 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
djs writes:

[If Orthoman had a better idea, from historical facts, just how very much "in communion with" the EP, during his millenium as first among equals, has actually meant "under", then he would be more circumspect about harping on our relationship to Rome.]

Being 'in communion' with the EP HAS NEVER meant being "under" the EP's authority. First amongst equals means just that and nothing more. It gives the EP the authority to call a council and preside over that council as a kind of CEO. But HE ONLY HAS ONE VOTE ON ANY DECISIONS MADE. THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER BISHOPS PRESENT. NOR DOES HE HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE OR VETO AND DECISION MADE.

HE IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN THE EASTERN VERSION OF THE POPE AMONGST ORTHODOXY.

For some one who accuses me of trying to tell Catholics what Catholic dogma is, aren't you doing the same thing in the above statement?

[My criticism of Orthoman's posts is simple. He posts with some pretense as a great illuminator of perceived weaknesses of my church. Sometimes his facts are just plain wrong.]

Care to elaborate?

[He likes to quote Cor.1:10 to us. But it is clear that the text cannot be taken at face value, in light the range of expression within Orthodoxy. So it really is a discussion over discerning core dogma against expression and illustration of the core. Here I'd like to invoke a corrollary to Ghazar's principle: Orthoman should be more restrained about telling Catholics what is and what is not Catholic dogma.]

And just what particular Catholic dogma are we speaking of?

OrthoMan

Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

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 - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5