www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News A Word to Roman Catholic Forum members

The only thing I can tell you to do is go back and re-read my posts, or better yet, read Ware's The Orthodox Church [holytrinitymission.org] . There is sufficent evidence in both places to answer your questions.

Priest Thomas

Thank you, Father.

ChristTeen28

P.S. to Mor: No, the Jerusalem Council is not counted as an ecumenical council by the Catholic Church. Like I said, just tossing it out there.

Hey I got it. If the Romans and the Orthodox played in the super bowl.What side would the Byzantines cheer for. Answer:We would sell the hotdogs.

No, the Pierogis!!!!!

Dear ChristTeen287,

Greetings on the Lord's Day!

Maybe I am wrong but I think you are either missing the point or someone is not communicating well, since that someone could be I, let me try to say it again, another way.

You said above "if these have ecumenical authority, why aren't they viewed as ecumenical councils?" The reason is because the term "Ecumenical Council" is a "technical term." Do you know what a technical term is? It is a term with a strict meaning, one that might not be obvious. An example is "to scandalize." In the language of the Church (from NT Greek if my memory does not betray me) scandalize does not mean "shock" as it does to most caual modern American listeners. Scandalize means to cause or induce to sin.

In like manner "Ecumenical Council" is a technical term. There are seven enumerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are other councils, synods, documents, etc., that are of similar (some say equal) authority (a link provided by someone spells it out nicely) but they are simply not called "Ecumenical Council."

I can't think of another analogy that might help. It is past my bed time.

If the above helps, good. If not, sorry for wasting cyber-time/space.

Tony

Dear Administrator,

I think what you did was fair and just. You drove no one off the forum, nor did you humiliate anyone. You simply asked its adherents to abide by the rules they agreed to when they signed on. If you gave such a person several warnings, what else could you do?

I think such guidelines as you have laid down are very reasonable and just. They must be inforced. Otherwise this forum would become a free-for-all and a mad-house of raging debate. Rather what it is is a bastion of Eastern Catholic faith and tradition. A safe harbor where we can discuss, upbuild and occasionaly quarrel but always with the aim of establilshing an authentic Eastern Christian understanding.

The idea of true Eastern Christian thought being established and manifested within the Catholic Communion is certainly in its infancy. As evidenced by those who enter this forum with the aim of re-Latinizing us, it is one which will conitue to meet great resistence. I think your guidelines are wise and should be enforced inorder to preserve the aim of the forum.

Btw, I received a very strong letter from a Roman Catholic friend about the views being expressed on this forum to the effect that they are "flirting with heresy" and unCatholic.

I've been inspired by what the Administrator has written and also by many on this thread (especially Alex and Djs). I agree with those who spoke of our need to present the Eastern Tradition in a constructive way to Roman Catholics who obviously have not much exposer to our Tradition. In order to demonstrate my appreciation for this forum and the members thereof, I wish to share a reply I sent, with you all.
---------------------------------------------

Dear [Friend],

I can't accept your analysis of the forum. I KNOW they respect Elder Rome and her traditions. I've seen them defend her against those Orthodox who really do harbor hate for her. Your last reply seems full of misunderstandings about what is being said on the forum and the reasons for them. Those in this forum, for the most part, respect Latin Catholicism. The fact that we don't follow, practice or teach it, does not mean we hate it or think it illegitimate. It only means that we have our own legitimate (as Vatican II said) "liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony." The forum is dedicated to precisely these: our unique litugical usages, theology and spiritual patrimony.

What you experienced was true contemporary Eastern Catholicism in all its glory. We make no apologies for our determination to maintain two objectives: 1. faithfullness to our Orthodox Tradition 2. Communion with the Catholic Church

I was shocked by the same things you were when I first experienced them. But after I looked into it and thought about it, the concept of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome began to make sense. There has been a revolution in the Eastern Catholic Churches, since Vatican II, at the promting of the Popes themselves.

You didn't need a Ukranian surname, just a little more willingness to hear out our positions. You exibited this on [one thread]. But on the [another] you seemed (to me) to be dictating to us what was our faith. You might not have meant to do this. But as a friend, I'm just letting you know, this is very much how you sounded.

I think you were making a good impression on several of the members of this forum. A few wrote me that they thought they had made a good impression with you. The only thing I think the Administrator was saying to you on [one thread] was that you shouldn't be surprised or alarmed that we don't use [Latin words]. Did he say more than this?

As far as Latin doctrines coming from Eastern ones, I recognize this is true. Yet it is a fact and you can not blame the East if the Latins developed them into doctrines which the East never did. We must remain faithful to our own developements of these as Rome has requested.

If Rome really believed what she taught truly took into account equally the teachings of East and West it would make little sense for the modern day call to once again theologically breath with both lungs of the Church. The Pope has wrote much to this end of the usefullness and insights of Eastern theology which, again, would make littles sense if what you say is true, namely that the Catholic Church teachings already equally represent East and West. No, we have been called to manifest the Apostolic Tradition of the East and we are stepping up to the plate to do just this in humble obedience the Apostolic Roman See. This will have great ecumencial effect, we and the Pope believe, with the Apostolic Eastern Sees. As the Administrator stated (maybe a little too harshly) we all invite you to study the Pope's teaching on the East. I have many documents on my web-site that manifest this teaching. Here are a few:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/EC_Links.html

The spirit you encountered was not "schismatic" nor "violent" against "anything Latin." If you would've gave it a little time in dialogue you would've seen that we have the utmost respect for the Latin Church and for the Patriarch of the West. But we have to make a distinction between the Latin Tradition and our own. This is all they were saying. We have been a willing victim of Latinization for so long it had got to the point that we had almost totally severed all connection with our authentic Tradition. Now we are in a process of de-latinization at the command of Elder Rome. Hence the attempt to differentiate our theology from that of the West. As a faithful Catholic you must not object to such a process.

As for the issue of what Pope Paul VI referred to as "the General Councils of the West" differentiating them from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the only official Eastern Catholic Catechim in the United States affirms that Byzantine Catholics hold to the first Seven only. Again, this is a return to their authentic Orthodox tradition. While we respect these latter "General Councils of the West" it is an undeniable fact that they manifest the Tradition maintained by the Latin Church, developed by Latin Fathers and Theologians which were proclaimed in these Latin Councils. We have our own developed Tradition which must be made manifest too.

As for your charge of "flirting with heresy," all I can say is that I think you are behind the Ecumenical curve. You are representing the unecumenical approach Elder Rome manifested in centuries past, not the one she manifests today. Read the Balamand Agreement (endorsed by the Pope), Orientale Lumen, The "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and the other documents to get caught up on the Churches modern approach to Ecumenism with the East. The forum was Catholic, just Eastern Catholic. I hope you give it and Eastern Catholicism a second look, because it is real, authentic and will conitnue to be a growing voice in the Church universal, per the call of the Roman Pontiff.

We Eastern Catholics realize that many of you apologetically minded Roman Catholics equate the "Latin" Tradition with the "Catholic" Tradition. This was the problem that was attempted to be addressed in the forum. We do not believe this view is faithful to the call of Pope John Paul II who said:

"I would like to convey a cordial greeting to those Eastern Churches who live in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, while still preserving their ancient liturgical, disciplinary and spiritual traditions. They offer a special witness to that diversity in unity which adds to the beauty of Christ's Church. Today more than ever, the mission entrusted to them is one of service to the unity Christ desired for his Church, by sharing 'in the dialogue of love and in the theological dialogue at both the local and international levels, and those contributing to mutual understanding ...' (Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, n. 60)."

and again:

"Pondering over the questions, aspirations and experiences I have mentioned, my thoughts turn to the Christian heritage of the East. I do not intend to describe that heritage or to interpret it: I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for a fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience." (Orientale Lumen, #5)

In other words, we believe in our unique Eastern theology and tradition not in spite of Elder Rome but rather because of her. This is the difference between us and our Mother Churches in the non-Catholic Orthodox East. Both of us recognize the real differences between Latin and Eastern theology. Yet, we in Communion with Elder Rome see this difference as legitimate and complimentary (as even the Catechism endorses, cf. CCC #248) whereas they see it as unacceptable and an impediment to full Communion.

We are committed to being Orthodox in Communion with Rome. As far as "secretly [feeling] more kinship with the Byzantine dissidents than with Latin Catholics" you are right, except this is not a "secret." You must read pastoral provisions made by Elder Rome about inter-marriage and inter-communion between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. They manifest that Elder Rome is quite aware and quite sensitive about the FACT that Eastern Catholics feel more kinship with what those you hurtfully title "dissidents" than with Latins. I almost can't understand why you would be surprised by this. Elder Rome finds it to be what it is: quite natural and profitable. I guess for you to understand why, you would have to experience the relations we have with our brothers and sisters of our Orthodox Mother Churches in the East. Most times we are either relatives to them (as I am), or have family inter-married with them (as we do), or simply share the identical spiritual patrimony and culture they have. Infact we are like the Orthodox in EVERY WAY except we are in Communion with Elder Rome. On the flip side, we are unlike the Latins in nearly EVERY WAY except that we are in Communion with them. And that's all right with us, we still love our Latin brethren and seek a mutual exchange of faith in equality as their own Patriarch has commanded.

This accusation of our being "Photian Schismatics" is very hurtful and unnecessary. First off, Photios is a canonized Saint in the East. He has been returned to some Eastern Catholic Calendars after they dropped him due to latinization years ago. Eventually he'll be returned to all our calendars as we follow the call of Elder Rome to return to our authentic tradition. Their are good arguments on why we should consider St. Photios thus, his reconcilliation with Elder Rome, and the honor she herself bestowed on him, etc. There is a thread, regarding him, on the Byzantine forum you can read and join in if interested. But the difference between us and those you have accused of being "schismatics" and "dissidents" is that we aren't manifesting our faith in a spirit of division but rather in a spirit of ecumenism. We are returning to and manifesting our faith because Elder Rome has called us to.

I'm familiar with your analysis of the East, ala Soloviev, and find that very hurtful too. Reading between the lines, you have told me that I -and others like me- have chosen to be Armenian rather than Christian. Not only do I find this hurtful statement to be a false dichotomy, I don't think the Pope of Old Rome would say such a thing to the East as you (and Soloviev) do. I don't put much stock in the teachings of Soloviev, anyways, because the Orthodox say he repented and returned to Orthodoxy on his death bed. Besides his views are not consistent with the ecumenical call of the Apostolic Roman See. I'm not sure exactly why you have such anger towards the East. I've wondered about this for some time. Perhaps they have done to you some harm or wrong, perhaps its from your reading of history, I don't know.

I'm sorry that I, and my fellow Eastern Catholics, don't meet your criteria of what it means to be Catholic. Yet I must believe as my informed conscience tells me. And my conscience is clear:

I believe that the Apostolic Tradition received and maintained by the Eastern Churches is true. I believe that this truth is different yet complimentary to the Tradition maintained by the Latin Church, developed by Latin Fathers and Theologians and proclaimed in Latin Councils by Latin Popes. I believe the Pope believes this too and teaches it. I believe in being an Orthodox in Communion with Rome and will continue to do so until the Apostolic Roman See tells me I should leave (which is far from the case today).

The web-site I am building is a testament to my commitment to the concept of being true Orthodox in Communion with Rome. And as I wrote on my page dedicated to this very issue:

Originally it was believed that the mission of Eastern Catholics would be to bring our non-Catholic Eastern brethren "back into the fold" of the Catholic Church. But now it is becoming increasingly obvious that our true service to unity is by familiarizing our Latin brethren with the authentic theology and traditions of the East. http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Who_are_we.html

This is our call. With God's help, this is what we will do.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

-----------------------------------------------

note
[I've deleted a few specifics inorder to avoid clear references to identity.]

Ghazar,

Thank you for your excellent post. One of the most difficult ideas for many of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters to grasp is that we really cannot be faithful Catholics unless we are first faithful Orthodox. Your post demonstrates not only that you understand this but also that you have embraced it. With prayer and patience all of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (as well as our own people!) will someday also understand.

There are several points I might have expressed a bit differently but there is only one correction I need to offer. The Byzantine Forum is an Eastern Christian forum, not an Eastern Catholic forum. This is the only way our forum can exist because we are one family in Christ.

Admin

Dear djs,

Thanks for the questions.

Regarding Ferrara-Florence, I believe several other posts went far beyond my expertise in this. AQlso, I believe that this forum has carried extensive threads regardings the same Council. There is an excellent book that I reviewed while in seminary, but can't remember the name or author this morning. I'll try to find the resultant review paper later on and let you know.

My point regarding consent from the worshipping Church has to do with "the faithful."

A council may pronounce and define a doctrine, really a divining of that which has already been given to the apostles (paratheke), which is the foundation, and then later was handed down (paradhosis) or built upon as a superstructure by their successors. However, if the faithful don't understand the doctrine, or worse, if it causes confusion, argument, and even division or schism, it MAY WELL BE counterproductive. For this reason, the early Church only defined what needed to be defined in order to protect the flock from subversives.

The scriptures themselves tell us all that we need to know. If one just followed them in simplicity and sicerity, all would be well. But there are wolves in among the sheep who like to twist things. Thus Judaizers, Arianism, etc, etc. So the Church was forced to define certain points, make a Creed, add to the Creed (in the West), all for the purpose of protecting the faithful.

Remember that most of the business of the councils dealt with disciplinary matters, not theological, christological, or soteriological ones.

So reluctantly, the councils issued formulations of faith. The Oriental/Eastern Orthodox split shows how an undercurrent of geopolitical and ecclesiatical competition/tension caused the two sides to believe that each other were formulating christological definitions in error, when in fact, they both now agree that they both were correct but defined their terms differently.

This sort of "hijacking" of matters of faith, causing great damage [a shameful one thousand year five hundred year split!] are what councils are meant to prevent, not cause.

I hope that this is helpful.

In Christ.

Dear Tony,

In your last post, you wondered whether ChristTeen was either missing the point or else "someone" wasn't communicating it well to him.

Since Fr. Thomas Soroka and I agree perfectly on the Ecumenical Councils question (and Fr. Thomas even did me the great honour of praising me for my understanding of the issue ), it stands to reason that ChristTeen is missing the point . . .

Alex

Dear Ghazar,

I second the Administrator's motion concerning the in depth understanding demonstrated by your excellent post!

At the same time, I must say that this is all an ongoing education for me with respect to the point of view of traditional Catholics.

But what is fascinating for me is how, for example, one Father, St Augustine, had his significance so inflated in the West so as to give the unquestioned impression that he is "IT" and there can be no other Father that can hold a candle to him - no pun intended.

It would seem that certain (later) Latin liturgical and theological forms became so entrenched among RC's that they now judge all other Particular Churches by this peculiar "universal" yardstick.

It isn't the first time the West has demonstrated this kind of what I'll call "pretension."

At Florence, when asked by the Greeks to give evidence with respect to the doctrine of purgatory, the Latins quoted extensively from the later pronouncements of their own popes - even though that was precisely the point in contention.

Nor would it be fair to suggest that only Tradlats fall prey to this kind of perspective.

Easterners can be religious chauvinists in their own Rite . . .

I just finished reading a brief bio of the Holy Ruthenian Hieromartyr St Paul Gojdich.

I wonder what our Ruthenian and Ukrainian "Orthodox in communion with Rome" would say of him when confronted with the fact that he said the Rosary daily, practiced adoration of the Holy Eucharist and promoted devotion to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary?

It is a very interesting question to me, keeping ourselves true to our heritage, when are we not etc.

I've yet to find a comprehensive answer.

Alex

Thank you Adminstrator for your comments and most of all for this excellent forum.

I stand corrected, I can appreciate the imporatnce of this being an Eastern Christian forum rather than just an Eastern Catholic one.
Thanks again.

In Chirst's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Thank you, Tony. Yes, I know what a "technical term" is.

Alex,

Perhaps both you and venerable Fr. Thomas are both wrong?

Maybe someday...

ChristTeen287

reply: Good question.

reply: You don't have to tell this to an Armenian. We've suffered much at the hands of the Imperial Church. But that's behind us now. I thank God for the great Ecumenical progress between EO's and OO's.

reply: Well, I can't offer a comprehensive answer but if you want my insignificant opinion I would say this: The crime is not in Eastern Christians using Western forms of devotions. The crime is when this becomes part of the "measuring stick" of what it means to be a member of the Catholic Church. I know many Roman Catholics who think it blasphemous to the "Asdvadzadzneen" (Theotokos) to say one does not pray the Rosary. This is absolutizing of Latin devotions is what must be considered unacceptable.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Dear ChristTeen,

Yes, one day Fr. Thomas and I may be wrong at the same time.

Although I will still maintain that he is right . . .

And one day, in a few years' time, you'll understand what I mean

Alex

Dear Ghazarian,

Yes, while I am certainly in favour of the Rosary of the Most Holy Asdvadzadzneen, it cannot be a measure of one's Catholicism etc.

But never mind the Tradlats - we had a priest in our parish who actually used his sermon-time to establish a "yard-stick" to measure one's fidelity to Catholicism.

Kneeling for Communion etc. were among them!

And then we come here and find Anhelyna and Khrystyna, two lovely Latin ladies, defending Eastern tradition!

You just can't tell who are our allies any more!

Most Holy Asdvadzadzneen, save us!

Alex