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 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Tammy,

I agree with you wholeheartedly in every point you made - and you certainly have touched off a series of issues in your one post. Congratulations on your insight!

That there is a mixing of traditions in both East and West should be obvious. It is less obvious to some Orthodox Christians (not in communion with Rome), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist among them.

In Galicia especially there were and are many Latin practices that have been adopted over the years and which exist even among the Orthodox there.

For our Eastern gurus wanting "purity of Rite," just try telling the people about it. And, whether we choose to accept it or not, the term "Orthodox" simply means "outside the communion with Rome" to many, many Eastern Catholics who would be HORRIFIED if someone called them "Orthodox."

In addition, the use of this term by Eastern Catholics constitutes a serious offense against Orthodox Christians themselves - this is why the UGCC Synod has referred the entire matter of the continued use of the term "Orthodox" (even in the liturgy) to Rome.

But if someone can show me how the rosary, stations of the Cross, and even adoration of the Eucharist and of the Sacred Hearts is somehow against Eastern spirituality - and that a campaign for the suppression of these should be ignited - then we might be able to move forward here.

The Pope certainly wishes the union of all Christians, especially the Catholics and the Orthodox.

And His Holiness is certainly well read in Eastern spirituality and history of the Eastern Churches.

But I fail to see how any of this would indicate that the Pope would see "Eastern spiritual purity" as constituting, for example, the cessation of the Rosary by those Eastern Catholics who practice it.

And I too am for liturgical purity in the UGCC Church on the basis of the traditions of the ancient Kyivan Church. The Orthodox St Peter Mohyla included Purgatory in his original Catechism. And although it was weeded out by the EO Patriarchs, Mohyla continued to insist on teaching about Purgatory within his own Metropolia.

And this is one reason why the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary and other devotions emanating from the West can be justified on that basis.

The notion that we EC's don't accept the later 14 Latin Councils is a novel one, nevertheless, and is a minority opinion. The UGCC, the largest Eastern Catholic Church by far, has yet to pronounce on that for its faithful. And every priest of ours I've ever consulted looks at me "funny-like" when I've put this matter to him (do we accept 7 Councils only).

But if there are those who know better - they should inform our hierarchs and show them the error of their ways.

(Tammy, O.K. I'm having a good time here going after our "More Orthodox than the Orthodox" but you wouldn't deny me that, would you? smile ).

The Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe, in its great pastoral wisdom, sees fit to allow certain local usages that have become part of the people's tradition.

And we EC's must also remember that our great New Martyrs, and especially the Ruthenian New Martyrs Bl. Basil Hopko, Bl. Paul Gojdich and Bl. Theodore Romzha all practiced "Latin" devotions.

These devotions did not weaken their resolve to work for their Eastern Church.

In fact, these devotions had a lot to do with their resolve to even give their lives for it and the flocks entrusted to them.

I truly believe that those who have spoken critically of what you said, Tammy, have created an ideal-type of a pure Eastern Church that does not exist in reality.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
Originally posted by Anam Cara:
Are you saying that we do not need to believe in the Immaculate conception, Purgatory, all the accepted Ecumenical Councils( not just those accepted by the Orthodox)? All these dogmatic statements are found in our Catechism of the Catholic faith as Dogmatic teachings. The very same Catechism which John Paul II calls "a sure norm for teaching the faith"....Orthodox Materials I've read have made these Dogmas into things you might believe if you want to believe them. As Catholics these are defined as Must be believed in Councils(ecumenical Councils). As to the Ritalin comment was made to say calm down. My wife was merely asking a question and you all ganged up on her and I'll not let anyone pick on her EVER. tHE IDEA THAT THE EASTERN CHURCHES CAN IGNORE OR PUT INTOA LESSER CATEGORY DOGMAS IS RIDICULOUS!!! I've asked my wife to not frequent the forum in this area anymore and I will stay in Town Hall and Prayer.

Mike disgruntled and poor sinner
Hi Michael!

Thanks for your post.

First, please note that there are dogmatic and doctrinal elements in the Church�s teachings on the topics you mentioned. Byzantine Catholics � who are Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome � believe that these dogmatic and doctrinal definitions are true. We are not obliged in any way, however, to replace our Byzantine dogmatic and doctrinal definitions with Latin ones.

Second, for the differences between the Eastern and Western definitions on topics like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory please spend some time reading what has been written on this Forum in the past (use the search engine). In short, we share the same dogmatic elements which are the root of our respective doctrines. But each of the Particular Churches brings to the entire Catholic Church a unique and living way of expressing theology. Easterners share the same �must believes� about things like what the West calls purgatory (which is that there is a purifying journey of the soul after death) but the doctrine to express this is constructed quite differently. Byzantines simply do not utilize the Western doctrine elements of purgatory or indulgences. Regarding the Immaculate Conception the West has a different definition of Original Sin then we do in the East. Therefore the Western theology doesn�t work for us and we have our own. The problem here is that most Latin Catholics mistakenly believe that the Latin definitions equate to the Catholic definitions and are the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. This simply isn�t true. Even Pope Paul VI acknowledged the difference between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the �Later General Councils in the West�.

Regarding your comment on Ritalin I will suggest that it is you and your wife that both need to calm down. Not a single person participating in this thread has even suggested that that any dogmas can be ignored or put into a lesser category. It is necessary, however, to understand the dogmatic elements are the bones and the doctrinal elements are the meat of our respective theologies. Too often Roman Catholics think that everything Latin is automatically dogmatic. That simply isn�t correct. You and your wife have made a whole bunch of false accusations based on false assumptions. To put it very simply, Eastern Catholics are under no obligation to use Western recipes for theology. Our own Eastern Christian theological cookbooks are just fine and totally equal to the Latin ones.

Admin

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
Alex wrote:
Dear Administrator,

With your permission, I would disagree with your statement that a crucifixion is a statue of Christ on the Cross.

The crucifix is a depiction of Christ on the Cross - period.

And the Orthodox tradition does indeed depict Christ on the Cross in a way that closely resembles the Western tradition on pectoral and other Crosses.

The East prefers the iconic form, as in the Crucifix of San Damiano, to underscore Christ's Divinity and Resurrection.

Alex
Alex,

I disagree. A crucifix is a statue that is attached to a cross. As such it is one of the wonderful gifts of the Latin Tradition to the universal Church. It is not, however, Eastern. The use of statues is not proper the Byzantine Church. An icon of the crucifixion is not the same as a three-dimensional crucifix.

Admin

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 392
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 392
Likes: 1
Dear Alex,

I have read somewhere (I forget where) that St Peter Mohyla was woking toward communion with Rome before he died. Is there any truth to this?

In Christ,
Anthony

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Dear Alex,

Sigh. You seem to have misinterpreted almost everything I have written.

No one has suggested that there can be purity in any Particular Church, Western or Eastern. What we have stated is there should not be an imitation of the West by the East. We have our own doctrinal and liturgical Tradition that we must restore, understand and witness fully before we can allow any changes to it. Everything from the Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Churches forward is explicitly clear about this.

Are many Eastern Catholics offended by the use of the term �Orthodox�? Definitely. This is perfectly understandable given how they were treated by the Orthodox. For the Ukrainians the term �Russian Orthodox� speaks of communist oppression and not the Christian Faith. Nevertheless, the sins of the Orthodox do not in any way diminish the beauty and wealth of the Byzantine Orthodox Tradition � something which we co-inherit. Nor do the sins of the Orthodox in any way diminish the term �Orthodox� or detract from its splendor. In 1968 � 35 years ago � upon the occasion of the publication of the wonderful liturgical book �Byzantine Daily Worship� the Patriarch Maximos V Hakim, Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East of Alexandria and of Jerusalem wrote to the editors: �In the spirit of Ecumenism promoted by the recent [Vatican II] Council, you have restored to honor among our people the terms Orthodox and Orthodoxy, thus sharing with our brethren of the Orthodox Churches the fullness of the True Doctrine.� The answer to the dislike of the term �Orthodox� by some or even all Eastern Catholics is not prohibit its use but to educate people why this term is important to our identity and to use every means of restoring it.

Does the use of the term �Orthodox� by Eastern Catholics constitute a serious offense against those Orthodox Christians who are not in communion with Rome? Certainly it does to some � mostly those who are extremely anti-Catholic and say things in internet forums that they would not say in person. These are quite often the same people who believe that the term �Catholic� belongs exclusively to the Orthodox Church not in communion with Rome and who refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the �Roman Rite Religious Organization� and Pope John Paul II as the �chief arch-heretic in need of Orthodox baptism to get to heaven�. Luckily they are few in number even if they are very vocal. I know many Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians who are not offended by the term. Even the term "uniate" (which comes to us from the Orthodox Poles) means "Orthodox united with Rome". Most Orthodox � although they certainly reject the whole idea of uniatism (and rightly so) � watch us to see if we really can manage to be actually Orthodox and in communion with Rome. Our relationship with Rome is the example of what their relationship to Rome when full communion is re-established. Our example is getting better but it is far from acceptable.

Has anyone actually suggested that the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, Eucharistic Adoration and devotion to the Sacred Heart be forbidden as personal practices among Eastern Catholics? I certainly have not. I have been quite clear in advocating that where these customs exist in our parishes that they be given less prominence and that our own liturgical traditions be given more prominence (as in the restoration of Vespers, Matins and the Divine Hours). The problem is not a cross-pollination between East and West. The problem is with a poor self-identity among Easterners who adopt Western customs in a wholesale fashion in hopes of becoming first-class Catholics.

The last 14 Councils? No one has suggested that were not valid Councils or do not contain sound Latin theology. What I, for one, have suggested is that these Councils are not at the same level as the Seven Councils and that much of what they teach � although true � does not cause us to rewrite our Orthodox theology because they dealt with mostly issues facing only the Latin Church. Our offical Byzantine Catholic catechism states this rather clearly.

Do many of priests � and even hierarchs � not understand the need for us to be faithful to our Eastern Orthodox inheritance? Yes. They are quite wrong and out of step with the many teachings of the recent Holy Fathers on our need to be authentically Eastern. There are many examples of Eastern Catholic hierarchs and priests who have imitated Latin theologies and devotions in direct violation of papal directives.

If one takes seriously the need to for us to be faithful Eastern Catholics then one must also take seriously the need to restore and actually live an authentic Eastern Christian patrimony. This means becoming as Orthodox as the Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome in all things possible. It is a difficult task given the suffering Eastern Catholics have endured at the hands of the Russian (and other) Orthodox (and the suffering we have inflicted upon them). It is doubly difficult when many of "our people" see Eastern Christianity as nothing more than an ethnic supper club or embrace the idea that we are nothing more than Roman Catholics with a special indult to use a funny Mass.

Being faithful to our Eastern Catholic Church means finding ways to evangelize the entire world and bring everyone to Jesus Christ. It means teaching �our people� that Eastern Catholicism needs to be identical to Eastern Orthodoxy and that it is not just a club restricted to certain ethnicities. It means striving to restore the balance in the Catholic Church which is currently tilted to the Latins.

Admin

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
Quotes from this discussion;

"If we are truly Orthodox we would deny Petrine Primacy and infallibility. I believe The Orthodox ,in that sense, are opposed to these Dogmas. We cannot, therefore , in this sense call ourselves Orthodox. It would be ridiculous to assume that PJPII would mean that we are Orthodox or should be Orthodox in that sense. No Pope can be that inane as to request His flock to deny Catholic Dogma, especially Infallibility of the Papacy."

"Are you saying that we do not need to believe in the Immaculate conception, Purgatory, all the accepted Ecumenical Councils( not just those accepted by the Orthodox)? All these dogmatic statements are found in our Catechism of the Catholic faith as Dogmatic teachings. The very same Catechism which John Paul II calls "a sure norm for teaching the faith"...."

"tHE IDEA THAT THE EASTERN CHURCHES CAN IGNORE OR PUT INTOA LESSER CATEGORY DOGMAS IS RIDICULOUS!!!"

Reply: Ah! Finally a voice of reason and common sense amongst the confusion of one's identitiy!

Quote:

"Eastern Catholics are representatives of the Orthodox churches in communion with Rome. With God's help and our good example some day there may be many more Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but you can understand their misgivings about the prospect if we ourselves are confused as to our own identity, they wouldn't want that to happen to their children, and our predecessors didn't want that to happen to us."

Your statement is both contradictory and invalid. The Unia is no longer considered as the bridge between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism as it once was by the RCC.

As an Orthodox Catholic reading this entire thread, I have to comment on some of the statements that are being made. For instance, if the Unia is no longer considered a bridge between both churches, we are now considered 'sister churches', the Orthodox Sacraments are considered valid, and salvation can be obtained in either church.....then why do you all have to wait until full unity is obtained between the two churches to return to your mothers? Why not come back now?

Unless of course the idea of unity has not really changed from the Roman Catholic perspective at all. And it still means to come under the authority of Rome and call in 'in communion with'. All that has changed is the surgar coated words. And what it really means is that you will all return to your mother Orthodox Churches when they become Uniate! Ain't gonna happen folks! Ain't gonna happen!

Your confused identity, though a factor, is at the bottom of the list of things which have to be resolved before union AMONGST both churches is accomplished.

OrthoMan

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
As an Orthodox Catholic reading this entire thread, I have to comment on some of the statements that are being made. For instance, if the Unia is no longer considered a bridge between both churches, we are now considered 'sister churches', the Orthodox Sacraments are considered valid, and salvation can be obtained in either church.....then why do you all have to wait until full unity is obtained between the two churches to return to your mothers? Why not come back now?
Bob raises some reasonable points.

Until full Eucharistic communion is re-established we must live with the painful wound of being separated from either Rome or our Mother Orthodox Churches. Is it really appropriate to ask us to open a fresh wound in order to heal a festering wound? Would it not be better to insist that our relationship with Rome be an example of what the proper relationship between East and West should be when full communion is re-established?

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Unless of course the idea of unity has not really changed from the Roman Catholic perspective at all. And it still means to come under the authority of Rome and call in 'in communion with'. All that has changed is the surgar coated words. And what it really means is that you will all return to your mother Orthodox Churches when they become Uniate! Ain't gonna happen folks! Ain't gonna happen!
It depends upon what one means by �communion�. My communion with Jesus Christ means that I submit to Him in all things. I am under his authority. I submit to my bishop because he stands in the place of Christ and has been given by Christ as my shepherd. Orthodox do not reject the idea of papal primacy. The difference lies in the definition of what constitutes papal primacy and what authority the pope has because of his papal primacy.

If it is the will of Christ that all may be one then it will happen. I disagree strongly with Bob on this issue.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Your confused identity, though a factor, is at the bottom of the list of things which have to be resolved before union AMONGST both churches is accomplished.
I agree. Our self-identity is not an obstacle to the re-establishment of full communion between East and West. It is, however, important to us.

Let us keep in mind that it took the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Chruch (now the Orthodox Church in America) several generations to return to a more authentic Orthodox patrimony and that the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (Johnstown) is still in the midst of this process. I have several friends and acquaintances (mostly older) that belong to either the OCA or the CROGCC who continue to use the term �Greek Catholic� (and not "Orthodox") to identify themselves. There are even more who use the term �Orthodox Greek Catholic�. This shows only that there is always room for growth and the job of becoming Orthodox is never-ending, even for the Orthodox. There is much work to be done.

If we can restore our self-identity as Orthodox Christians and learn to witness Orthodoxy within Catholic communion in a way that is acceptable to the rest of Orthodoxy (not in communion with Rome) then we will have accomplished something great.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 23
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 23
Hi All,

First, I'm not saying that we have to use non-Eastern definitions of the Immaculate Conception and other doctrines I'm saying we cannot deny them. Which leads me to point out that if we were to truly Orthodox the way Orthodoxy is today we would not have a Magisterium. While Orthodoxy may have individual synods to settle matters within their autocephelus Churches there is no Universal Body (currently) that defines these matters especially for the whole of Orethodoxy. So if we are to be Orthodox as they are, our opinions can be quite diverse not just in definition alone but in dogma.
Secondly, I NEVER said we were to replace our traditions with Latin traditions. Nor was I implying we do not have our own complimentary understanding of these dogmas. I was simply saying that they cannot contradict the latin definitions of these dogmas. We believe the same faith and contradictions are contrary to truth. Complimentary views augment each other and supply more not less to truth. Replacement of our traditions are not an option but but a total divesting of Latin traditions without having our own traditions to replacement will cause a vacuum that sets us up for schism with Rome. We SHOULD keep our traditions but not at the expense of organic growth.

Thirdly , if we say that the re-establishment of our traditions means complete denial of any beneficial Latin tradition that can be added to our spiritual life WITHOUT losing our own traditions is good we are mistaken. Orthodoxy has Western Rite Liturgical services and as pointed out by others has adapted Western RiteCatholic materials to their spiritual repertoire. UNSEEN WARFARE used by Mt.Athos was originally written by Lorenzo Scupoli, a sixteenth Century ROMAN RITE priest. Our Orthodoxy brothers had no problem adapting these writings to their own theological motif. Others on the board have pointed out that a Greek Orthodox priest has recommended to his parish that they read the Imitiation of Christ, A ROMAN RITE spiritual book.

With the Latin Rite adapting Eastern Practices such as our prayer rope to the rosary and gregorian chant from our Tones, and the Orthodox adapting our spiritual books to their needs, it 's clear one can accept different spiritual practices without losing our own. Both the Latin Rite and the Orthodox are good examples for us as well. Our traditions SHOULD BE PRESERVED yet it can be done without losing anything and gaining substancial benefit from our Latin Rite practices.

The idea of that purity of rite means no addition to that rite from the outside is not consistent with organic growth. I believe even within Vatican II or other letters that our preservation of Rite is imperative provided it does not inhibit organic growth ,i'll look that up.

When we preserve our tradition, as Orthodox in Communion with Rome,perhaps we SHOULD folow our Orthodox brethren and start adapting Latin material and practices to an Eastern Version as Niccodemos and Theophan have done.

We should not let fear rule us and couch it in polemics to rationalize our fears. Our Rite will survive, yet also grow. WE SHOULD NOT FEAR ADDITION TO OUR EASTERN WAY OF LIFE, RATHER WE SHOULD BEMOAN SUBTRACTIONS.
If the Administrator and others are right, then we should follow our Orthodox brothers and gladly accept those beneficial latin practices( as long as their not substitions) into our Particulasr Churches. If we do not learn this lesson we are party to creating a Third Way, a "Uniate" Church.

This is because both the Latin Rite and the Orthodox not in communion with Rome, have shown us to adapt without losing their spiritual heritage. If we show that we WONT do the same WE ARE MAKING OURSELVES UNIATES, a third way.

Mike , poor tired sinner


Michael
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
[Would it not be better to insist that our relationship with Rome be an example of what the proper relationship between East and West should be when full communion is re-established? ]

After reading this sequence, along with many others on your website, it's apparent to those of us who are Orthodox Catholics... that after 400+ years you still have no concrete idea of what your relationship with Rome really is or is supposed to be. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be searching for an identity. And wouldn't be having conversations amongst yourselves regarding the subject matter of this thread!

[Is it really appropriate to ask us to open a fresh wound in order to heal a festering wound?]

Perhaps a more careful study on how that festering wound was inflicted in the first place would be the catalyst needed to heal it?

[Orthodox do not reject the idea of papal primacy. The difference lies in the definition of what constitutes papal primacy and what authority the pope has because of his papal primacy.]

Which is exactly why I asked that the subject matter be changed from 'Papal Primacy' to 'Papal Supremacy' on another thread. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic concepts of even the word 'primacy' are completely different. So as long as we choose to use nice words like 'primacy' when we in fact mean 'supremacy' we will continue to talk past one another. Which is exactly why I chose to stay out of the other conversation. Because, in my honesty, I'm preceived to be bold and arrogant! I only know how to deal in cold hard facts as I see them. Flowery words are not me! Guess maybe I should start every sentence in here with.... "I love ya all (which I do) BUT' and go on from there!

[If it is the will of Christ that all may be one then it will happen. I disagree strongly with Bob on this issue.]

I don't disagree with what you say. But first Scripture tells us that in order for this to happen -

I Corinthians 1:10 - Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.

In reading this thread as well as others, it becomes apparent that you all can't even agree on what you are required to believe regarding dogmas proclaimed by the RCC and taught by them to be necessary for a so called 'Catholic' identity!

An example of how this conversation is being perceived by an outsider (Protestant) trying to decide between the BCC and the OCA who has been lurking and reading this same subject because I have recommended your site to her as well as the 'other' website. [Yes, I do recommend your site in spite of our disagreements because it is still tops]. Her latest email to me regarding this thread says -

"If BCs dont have to belive and accept the Roman dogmas of purgatory,IC,etc...how can they be in communion with Rome? If so,they dont express nor profess,nor confess the same Faith as the RC Church! and they're in communion????"

That's exactly how you all come off to those who are searching!

[There are even more who use the term �Orthodox Greek Catholic�. This shows only that there is always room for growth and the job of becoming Orthodox is never-ending, even for the Orthodox. There is much work to be done.]

The term 'Greek Catholic' was originally used in the title of many churches which left the Unia for legal purposes. It's still used in the official title of the church I was baptised and raised in. Though the sign outside says - 'St Mary's Russian Orthodox Church'. People in the parish don't use the term Greek Catholic in their identity. They are too busy being third generation American born 'Russians' and still identify everything as 'Russian' rather than 'Orthodox'.

Not to side step the issue but an example of that is in my own family. When I tell these stories I really don't know if I should laugh or cry. But perhaps in telling them, you all will better understand why and where I am coming from.. Especially when I get on all the Ukie backs for their fierce nationalism and ethnicism where the church is concerned.

True story number one:

I have only one sister who is four years older than me. We were both raised in the fifties when there was no Sunday School. Only 'Russian School'. She married a Lutheran and got married in the Orthodox Church because she wanted a 'Russian Wedding' (bridal dance and all). When the children came she became a Lutheran because 'it's all the same'. 'We all pray to the same God'. Though until this day she will never take off her 'Orthodox baptismal Cross'. Even when she showers!

She's a nurse and many years later came into a hospital room to administer to a patient. A Protestant minister was there and saw her cross. He said to her, "Oh I see you are wearing an Orthodox baptismal Cross. Are you Orthodox? " To which my sister replied, 'Yes I am!" Even though she had been going to the Lutheran Church for over forty years! Since it was Great Lent, as she was leaving the minister said to her - "I hope you have a wonderful Pascha!" And do you know what my lovable sister replied? Are you ready for this? She said, "OH YES, I JUST LOVE THAT BREAD!" Because to her Pascha is a round loaf of RUSSIAN braided bread with a RUSSIAN CROSS, to be put in a RUSSIAN Easter basket, to be taken to a RUSSIAN Church, to be blessed by a RUSSIAN priest, on RUSSIAN Easter! Change the ethnic identity and I bet every one of you knows someone like my sister! So much for her concept of the religion she was brought up in.

Say anything about the 'Russian Chruch' in front of my sister and she'll still defend it for all she's worth. Call it the 'orthodox Church' and I'm not so sure she'll figure out its one and the same!

True story number two:

Last year my sisters Lutheran minister announced to the parish he was leaving because he was converting to the Orthodox Church. He and his entire family converted and joined an Antiochian parish which my sister is well aware of. He is now studying to become and Orthodox priest. Just a few months ago we were talking on the phone and my sister was telling me how much she missed Pastor ****** SINCE HE LEFT TO BECOME A RUSSIAN PRIEST! I didn't even bother to correct her.

Everything I learned about my beautiful Orthodox faith was on my own. Because I was awed by the beauty I saw and heard while I was in Church. And I wanted to know how and what created such beauty! So I read an I'm still reading. I've learned that in order to respect something you have to understand it first. And you can't fully love or respect something you don't fully understand.

[If we can restore our self-identity as Orthodox Christians and learn to witness Orthodoxy within Catholic communion in a way that is acceptable to the rest of Orthodoxy (not in communion with Rome) then we will have accomplished something great.]

But first you have to learn (like my sister) that Orthodoxy is not all about ritual and traditions. Orthodoxy is about doctrines that were defined while the church was still basically one. Orthodoxy is about being of 'one mind' and speaking the same thing before we can share Communion (Common Union) with each other.

OrthoMan

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
[While Orthodoxy may have individual synods to settle matters within their autocephelus Churches there is no Universal Body (currently) that defines these matters especially for the whole of Orethodoxy. So if we are to be Orthodox as they are, our opinions can be quite diverse not just in definition alone but in dogma.]

HUH? Your opinions are already quite diverse now within the confines of theat magisterium you speak of. Just read the replies on this subject alone.

Where is Orthodoxy diverse in the dogma it proclaims is necesaary for salvation or to be identified as Orthodox?

orthoMan

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Hi Mike,

Thanks for your post. I disagree on a number of points. To be truly and completely Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. The vast majority of Orthodox are lacking on this issue.

It is not a matter of being �as Orthodox as they are� for they are not completely Orthodox either!

Thank you for your clarification regarding organic growth. I�m not sure how you came up with the understanding that anyone was arguing against it. Latinization is not organic growth. It is the wholesale imitation of the doctrines and liturgical customs of the Latin Church. Further, no one has suggested that real Orthodoxy is anti-Latin. The organic growth of the Eastern Catholic Churches must come alongside and together with the organic growth of the Orthodox Church. We are not called to a Christian identity or witness that is different from the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. The obstacles that keep West and East apart are major ones but they are not so major that we cannot be true witness of Orthodoxy.

I must recommend that you spend some time reading the posts on this Forum. You seem to be responding forcefully to lots of things that no one has proposed.

Admin

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:


. To be truly and completely Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. The vast majority of Orthodox are lacking on this issue.

Well, that is an extremely debatable point to start with!!!!!!

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
After reading this sequence, along with many others on your website, it's apparent to those of us who are Orthodox Catholics... that after 400+ years you still have no concrete idea of what your relationship with Rome really is or is supposed to be. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be searching for an identity. And wouldn't be having conversations amongst yourselves regarding the subject matter of this thread!
I agree. The wound of separation from our mother Orthodox Churches is a painful one. Still, we follow Jesus Christ as best we can while we pray for healing of the separation of East and West.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Perhaps a more careful study on how that festering wound was inflicted in the first place would be the catalyst needed to heal it?
I agree. We live with a festering wound. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy each live with the wound of separation, one that has developed a scab on the surface that has become accepted as normal, but one that still festers underneath the surface. The cause of the wound is the sin of separation. It is one that we are all guilty of.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Which is exactly why I asked that the subject matter be changed from 'Papal Primacy' to 'Papal Supremacy' on another thread. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic concepts of even the word 'primacy' are completely different.
And I asked you to participate according to the style of the wonderful theologians of your own OCA (the late Father Schmemann and Meyendorff). They spoke to the issues involved and did not resort to setting up straw men like you usually do. You are not perceived to be bold and arrogant. You are bold and arrogant. Schmemann and Meyendorff never spoke the hatred you sometimes speak with.

And yes, you quote from 1 Corinthians 1:10 but you always neglect to state that the Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome) bears an equal responsibility as any other organization bearing the name Christian to work to speak the same things about Christ and heal the divisions. This from an individual who purposely misstates what others believe so that he can knock down a straw man!

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
An example of how this conversation is being perceived by an outsider (Protestant) trying to decide between the BCC and the OCA who has been lurking and reading this same subject because I have recommended your site to her as well as the 'other' website. [Yes, I do recommend your site in spite of our disagreements because it is still tops].
I do thank you for recommending this site to others. It truly is the best Orthodox forum on the internet!

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Her latest email to me regarding this thread says - "If BCs dont have to belive and accept the Roman dogmas of purgatory,IC,etc...how can they be in communion with Rome? If so,they dont express nor profess,nor confess the same Faith as the RC Church! and they're in communion????"
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this again.

All Catholics share the same essential dogmas. Look at these dogmas as the ingredients for creating a Church. Roman Catholics have taken these ingredients and created a wonderful Church, one that is vibrant and living, one that is true. Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) also taken these same ingredients and created a wonderful Church, one that is vibrant and living, one that is true.

Now look at the dogmatic essentials of the journey of the soul upon death (which the Latins term �purgatory�). The dogmatic ingredients are that there is a journey of the soul when we die and that prayer for those in that stat is good. The Latin Church takes this ingredient, kneads it and bakes it into the wonderful Latin explanation (doctrine) of purgatory and indulgences. The Byzantine Church starts with the same ingredients, kneads them according to the Eastern recipe, and bakes it into the wonderful but elemental theology of the purifying ascent to the Father.

The problem, of course, is that most people � especially Latin Catholics � are ignorant of any recipe book other than the Latin one. They fail to discern between the dogmatic building blocks and the doctrinal theologies that are build from them. They see any suggestion that a different recipe could be equally Catholic as heresy. For their part, there are also many Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) who believe the same things about Latin theology. The fact is that each Particular Church is alive and brings to the entire Catholic Church a unique and wonderful witness of Christ.

And Bob is correct. We don�t know how to speak clearly and come off looking like fools!

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
The term 'Greek Catholic' was originally used in the title of many churches which left the Unia for legal purposes. It's still used in the official title of the church I was baptised and raised in. Though the sign outside says - 'St Mary's Russian Orthodox Church'. People in the parish don't use the term Greek Catholic in their identity. They are too busy being third generation American born 'Russians' and still identify everything as 'Russian' rather than 'Orthodox'.

Not to side step the issue but an example of that is in my own family. When I tell these stories I really don't know if I should laugh or cry. But perhaps in telling them, you all will better understand why and where I am coming from.
I understand completely. The trend in both our Churches is to see them more as ethnic supper clubs than as places of salvation.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
But first you have to learn (like my sister) that Orthodoxy is not all about ritual and traditions. Orthodoxy is about doctrines that were defined while the church was still basically one. Orthodoxy is about being of 'one mind' and speaking the same thing before we can share Communion (Common Union) with each other.
I agree. Orthodoxy is far more than just a set of rituals (or even worse, ethnic food!). It is a Way of Life. West and East have allowed this sinful separation and must pray and work together to heal the wounds so that we can again drink from the same Chalice.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
Originally posted by Brian:
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[b]

. To be truly and completely Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. The vast majority of Orthodox are lacking on this issue.

Well, that is an extremely debatable point to start with!!!!!! [/b]
Is it really? Most Orthodox I know respect Byzantine Catholics for believing that the fullness of the faith is found in communion with Rome. They obviously disagree with this position but they respect it. I respect my Greek Orthodox friend�s claim that the fullness of the Catholic Faith is found in the Orthodox Church united to Constantinople. I disagree with that position but I respect it. Why is it so hard to respect us when we say that the fullness of Orthodoxy is found in communion with Rome?

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 23
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 23
St. Josaphat Pray for Us PLEASE!!!!!!!


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

Moderated by  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 - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5