Dear Friends,
Having come late to this thread, I guess I should just shut up and mind my own business, don't you all think?
But, no . . .
I can well sympathise with Alice on the point that led to this heated exchange.
I've a few postings that were called into question by others here for a number of reasons.
One reason is that since those others never heard about the issue being raised before, and because it tended to contradict what they've always believed about certain things - then what I wrote must be: a) a concocted "factoid"; b) my overactive imagination; c) one more attempt at calling attention to myself on the Byzantine Forum. There were other explanations too . . .
But I can assure even the staunchest Orthodox Christian (and that even stauncher variety - the "Convert") that there are Orthodox bishops and priests around that will say things (often in private) that would scandalize many members of their flock and Church.
In a luncheon conversation with an Orthodox bishop some years ago, the question was put to me if I were willing to become Orthodox.
I replied by saying that I really wanted to remain in communion with Rome ("Uniated" or whatever).
He told me that the Orthodox also believe the Pope is "First among Equals" - even now (?).
He also gave me permission to approach Communion in his jurisdiction whenever I wished - I told him "thank you" but I couldn't, in conscience, do that either to my own Church or to Orthodoxy.
So I turned out to be a bigger stick in the mud than he!
And I remember the consternation caused here some time ago when the icons of New Skete that include Roman Catholic AND Episcopalian(s) were brought up for discussion.
A number of OCA's (Orthodox Convert Associates) were horrified and went into denial. When denial didn't work and actual pictures of the icons were available (
), then they said, "Well, New Skete was, after all, a former BC group."
In other words, they were suspect of still being tinged with the heresy of Catholic ecumenist darkening of their minds and hearts . . .
But one gets this sort of thing from Catholics as well.
The point is that our Alice did NOT deserve to be treated as she was here - a real outrage.
It has nothing to do with one's perspective on ecumenism.
I too believe that commemorating bishops who are still out of communion with one another does nothing to promote true ecumenism - call me a stick in the mud or whatever.
But that this does happen in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy on occasion - it does.
It could be an offense against the Canons as I'm sure it is - but it does happen.
Fr. Serge Keleher told me that he liturgically commemorated the EP on St Andrew's Day each year . . .
I also know a retired Anglican Canon who regularly commemorated the Pope ahead of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a rule. Anglicans I know STILL deny that he did this, even though I have a letter from him attesting to this - and of course I heard him commemorate the Pope when I was at his church for monarchist league events.
But perhaps I didn't hear correctly. Perhaps I was too pre-occupied with the issue of Anglican orders or the continuing churches to have paid full attention to what was being said during the services at that Anglican parish.
Perhaps because this was a "High" Anglican Church, what was really being said was a prefix to the commemoration of the Archbishop of Canterbury "There is no hope of a home in heaven" for the Archbishop of Canterbury . . .
Come to think of it, I'm beginning to understand how I could have misconstrued that.
Perhaps what Alice REALLY heard then was something like "hell for the Pope of Rome . . . er . . . For His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical . . ."
And no one has really raised the offensive use of "Uniated" by Matthew P. here.
How was he allowed to get away with that, eh?
I find it terribly offensive - especially when Eastern schismatics use such terminology
Alex
Kids - you have to love them - along with some of the members of this forum. Come on guys, lighten up. Life is too short for this.
