www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Evangelical Orthodox

We are in full communion. Big difference. We won't deny communion to our Christian brothers who pray as we do because of turf battles in Estonia, divisions between ROCOR/ROCA/Greek Old Calendarists or whatever other divisions exist between jurisdictions who exclude each other from what +Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory referred to as the Sacrament of the Church, even though they theoretically worship the same.

There is a difference between jurisdictions and jurisdictionalism. I am not against ecclesiological diversity. I am against uncharitable behavior by members of churches toward each other who are descended from the same liturgical heritage.

Such as the MP physically abusing members and clergy of the KP and UAOC in Ukraine. And the protests of the Antiochian Archdiocese about the conditions of Arabs in the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem while they simultaneously publicly support the stance of the Moscow Patriarchate.

As Metropolitan Philip Saliba said himself, "...our system does not work".

[We are in full communion. Big difference.]

What difference? All the CANONICAL Orthodox jurisdictions within the U.S. are in communion with each other. With the exception of ROCOR (who by there own choice) all are members or represented in SCOBA.
During the problems between the EP and the MP that Communion was never broken nor were the SCOBA meetings affected. I personally was in both EP & MP parishes where I saw each jurisdiction mentioned receive Communion from the other.
Is there a similiar Synod of bishops like SCOBA within the various Eastern Byzantine Rite Catholic jurisdictions here in North America? I don't think so. Which means that even though we are separated we interact amongst each other a hellava lot more than the separated jurisdictions do within the Unia. We have the IOCC (International Orthodox Christian Charities) that does humanitarian work to Orthodox and non Orthodox alike all over the world. And we also have the OCMC which does missionary work throughout the world. Both are JOINT VENTURES by the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions represented in SCOBA.
Seems to me we both have problems with jurisdictionalism. However, we Orthodox are at least trying to do something about it.
What are you people doing that gives you the right to either criticize or condemn us for what you also suffer from? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[We won't deny communion to our Christian brothers who pray as we do because of turf battles in Estonia, divisions between ROCOR/ROCA/Greek Old Calendarists or whatever other divisions exist between jurisdictions who exclude each other from what +Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory referred to as the Sacrament of the Church, even though they theoretically worship the same.]

So you are telling me that your priests will give Communion to anyone who theoretically worships like you without regard to whether the church considers them canonical or not? Any self proclaimed jurisdiction that proclaims itself Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, etc. will be given Communion by your priests?

There is a bogus self proclaimd jurisdiction that calls itself 'The Byzantine Catholic Church Inc. See the following websites -

http://members.tripod.com/~Mark1x1/

http://members.tripod.com/~BCCPatriarchate/

So your priests will offer them Communion because theoretically you worship the same and share the same identity?

I DON"T THINK SO!

Maybe the problem is you can't see the forest because of the trees.

OrthoMan

[PS: I'd like everyones opinion on this site.
Thanks]

How about right from the horses mouths themselves?
Replies to the web site from some of these former Protestants -

============

Replies to the website mentioned by Protestants who chose Orthdoxy instead of Roman Catholicism -

My own wife was raised Presbyterian and joined the Orthodox Church
because she was, throughout her life, amazed by the constancy of the
Russian people faced with Mongol, Communist, and Nazi horror, and
wondered what spiritual source molded their history and gave that nation
the awesome role of providing so many martyrs for the Faith as we have
seen especially this past century. Her search for, and finding of, the
Orthodox Church had absolutely nothing to do with the Pope of Rome and
the silly arguments this author has set forth.

===================

I read some excerpts off of the URL. Apparently, this RC isn't
impressed (or so it seems to me anyways) with Fr. Peter Gilquist's
discovery.
Oh by the way, I copied this remark:

"Writing in the last century, the French scholar Joseph de Maistre
declared that "every non-Catholic church is `Protestant.'" The
distinction often made between heretical groups (Protestants) and
schismatic groups (Eastern Churches) is only verbal: "Every Christian
who rejects <communion> with the Holy Father is a Protestant or soon
will be."
So apparently, this RC would view Fr. Peter and the rest of us
as "schismatic," and "Protestants."
Once again (and I've been BOTH RC and Protestant) I WILL ALWAYS
CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A CATHOLIC BUT NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC.
Do I hate Roman Catholics? No. Did I have a bad experience being an
RC by the time I reached ten years old and became Protestant?
Technically, I don't recall ever having a "bad expeirence" with Rome,
in fact if I was to point to bad experiences, the next 11 years after
the age of ten when I became Protestant were my bad experiences. I
would say for myself, what turned me off about the RC was two
things: The history of the Papal system and certain theological
issues that evolved over the centuries from such system.
What is my current opinion of Rome? Here, I would probably have some
Orthodox who would agree with me and others who would disagree with
me. When I read Bp. Kallistos Ware's book, "The Orthodox Church," he
likes to make reference from time to time about how the Orthodox view
Rome and basically, he seems to divide Orthodox into two categories:
You have the HAWKS who are more critical of Rome and then you have
the DOVES.
I would say for myself, that I lean more towards the HAWKS. Based on
both of my experiences in the RC and as a Protestant, I am of the
opinion that "Western Christinaity," has been in Apostasy now for a
very long time and it is only getting worse, not better.
However..sometimes I can be dove too: After all, I have never say
said nor have I ever passed the judgement that just because I think
there is apostasy that there aren't Christians in Rome or
Protestantism. I believe Christians can be wrong and can still be
Christians.
Again, just my opinions and I know not all will agree but its' what I
sense in my heart. And I follow my heart for my heart has lead me to
the 2,000 year old church: The Eastern Orthodox. And personally, I
am NOT amused that this RC writer refers to me and the church that I
wish to represent and follow with my whole heart as "schismatic,"
and "protestant." I am neither. I am (especially after my
chrismation) and do consider myself to be a "catholic of the seven
Ecumenical Councils who WILL never accept the damaging, scandalious
and historically divisive papal system." Thanks to that system,
Christianity has forever been, and chances are will be until the Lord
returns, divided and confused.

Sinner Joseph

===================

Oh, goody...
The sad thing was that the first part was fairly convincing (after
all, this sounds like something I would say). But then when it was
decided that Orthodoxy is acceptable because it's not Rome, then it
was hellfire (so to speak).
Although I'm still interested in joining the Orthodox Church as
opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and although I have my own
issues with the latter, I will not use this conversion as a way to
spite the Roman See. They are to me a brother misguided...
that's all. And I do pray for them for guidance and direction and
yes I do pray the Rosary on occasion with some of my Catholic
colleagues from W&M (William and Mary).
I hope that the former Evangelical will be at peace in his heart with
Rome but that's for him to decide and work on.

CHRISTOS ANESTI!

=================

Sounds like a classic rationalization. You hear it all the time: "They don't
like me because I'm too smart."
It makes it easy to discount our real issues.

Jan B.

About 6 or 7 years ago I had the privilege of visiting SS. Peter & Paul Church in Ben Lomand, California and joining the parish for the Sunday Divine Liturgy. It was a wonderful experience. I can testify that I was warmly received as a Byzantine Catholic and treated as "one of the family". After the Divine Liturgy several of the people were full of questions as to life in the Byzantine Catholic Church. They knew of the Byzantine Catholic Church, that we were "Orthodox under the pope" but were more interested in the fact that I was a cradle Byzantine than anything else. Those I met had no ill will towards Catholicism.

Having said all this I can state that I have met a few Protestant converts to Orthodoxy with anti-Catholic baggage. But I have also met a few converts from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism with the same amount of anti-Orthodox feeling. Since each individual makes his or her own spiritual journey this is to be expected. I believe that the vast majority of people converting from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, Byzantine Catholicism or Roman Catholicism do so because the Spirit leads them and they find a home.

I have not had the time to do a detailed review of the article on Evangelical Orthodoxy linked in the original post. If anyone would like to do a detailed analysis of that article (with documentation) and post it here for review and comment I would be happy to forward it to Fr. Ryland and the EWTN website with a request from me in my position as webmaster that the article be either removed or edited. One can respect Fr. Ryland's disagreement with the Evangelical Orthodox but he should base that respect upon accurate information.

Regarding OrthoMan's post, while he makes some good points I can point out that there is a functioning "USCECB - The United States Conference of Eastern Catholic Bishops" that makes common policy for administrative concerns regarding our Churches. It is, however, not yet a full governing synod of bishops. I daresay that the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church is ready to merge into a single non-ethnic American jurisdiction but the immigration in the Ukrainian, Melkite and Romanian Churches is still too recent for this to be a pastoral move. Hopefully this will happen during the next 20 years as I expect it will among the various Orthodox jurisdictions.

Administrator

Administrator:

Glad to hear that there is an organization of Bishops within the Greek Catholic Churh. It's a start.
Sorry to be so abrupt with Diak but I did find his remarks about disunity within the Orthodox jurisdictions offensive. Especially since the same problem exists within the Greek Catholic Churches itself which is what I was trying to point out to him.
Point I was trying to make is that it is not primarily an Orthodox thing per se. Its not even a Slavic thing. It seems to be an eastern european thing because nationalism is so tied up within the church structure it can't be separated. To them, to try and change the religion of an eastern european country is to try and change their whole culture. Most western countries don't understand that.
Nationalism may be all well and good in eastern europe but it ain't no good here in the good ole U.S. of A. If we are to survive as churches be they Orthodox, Greek Catholic, or even Roman Catholic.
Nationalism may be OK for the first or second generation. But for the third or forth it becomes the spring board that pole-vaults them from the Church.
Unless we build a Church that is centered around both Christ and doctrine, we will both lose out.

OrthoMan

Dear Tim,

Just a point about the anti-Catholic references in Orthodox liturgy.

They are not numerous, but they are there, such as in the service to St Athanasius of Brest (natural, I suppose, considering he was killed by RC's!), the service to St Job of Pochaiv (never heard of Pochaiv? Are you sure you're Orthodox? )
and some others.

Eastern Catholics too sometimes refer to Orthodox as "loves of division" etc.

Then there are our common services in which we refer to Oriental Orthodox teachers as, for example, the "headless Severus" et alia.

Even the Akathist to St. Vladimir has one reference describing Western Catholics in a not too friendly tone. This Akathist is also used by the Eastern Catholics and changed that tone to one more Rome-friendly . . .

The usual term in some Orthodox liturgical usage for Catholics is "heretics."

All I'm saying is that that makes it difficult for us Eastern Catholics to use such a service in our parishes . . .

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Your points are excellent!

With respect to your point about the melting pot of ethnic jurisdictions to the eventual situation where only one jurisdiction will exist, that could very well be the case, especially in the U.S.

But the loss of language and other cultural externalities does not necessarily dictate the loss of a cultural identity that a given Church may wish to maintain distinct within its own Particular organization.

One "hypothesis" I'll be working on eventually is to see if a Church's self-definition and roots that are in the ethnic homeland is a sufficient cause for the continuation of distinctiveness in North America, even without language and other ties, although this is hypothetical as the Ukrainian language is still going strong among the young here.

And I think it would be wrong to understand "national culture" and "nationalism" as one and the same thing. They are clearly not, but the North American knee-jerk is to assume they are.

The fact that Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have become so inculturated with the values of the peoples they have served so faithfully over the centuries and whom they have defended as well is a most positive thing.

Yes, there are people for whom church affiliation is primarily dictated by their ethnic and/or mainstream cultural identity.

I would say most are like that, unless one has no strong cultural identity either way.

Alex

My take on this, mainly regarding the Ben Lomand, California, case is that these protestant converts did bring along a bias with them, but not the one talked about here.

That is, I do not think that they really were all that anti-catholic, it appears more that they were anti-hierarchy.

Where I get this from is that when the Antiochian Hierarchy ruled in a way that they, a large number of them anyways, did not like, they did what all good protestants do.

They left and found a new hierarchy that would side with them.

I believe that this is one of the reasons they did not go with the Catholic Church, either the Roman or one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches, because when it is said and done, their is ultimatly one Head of the Catholic Hierarchy, where with the Orthodox there are many jurisdictions that are not really answerable to each other.


David

[ 06-17-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

[Where I get this from is that when the Antiochian Hierarchy ruled in a way that they, a large number of them anyways, did not like, they did what all good protestants do. They left and found a new hierarchy that would side with them.]

As did one of their priests who was originally from a Ukrainian Catholic background which he returned to after defying the edicts of not one, but three different Orthodox Bishops.

OrthoMan

[PS: I'd like everyones opinion on this site.
Thanks]

At the time the vast majority of the former 'Evangelical Orthodox' were accepted into canonical Orthodoxy through the Antiochian Archdiocese, the was a small group from within them that decided not to join Orthodoxy at that time but continue their search. This they have been doing, and continue to do. Most are studying the faith through the OCA and in the past two years Bishop Job of the OCA has received three of their parishes into canonical Orthodoxy and the OCA.
The following is a reply to the website you mentioned by one of them that is still within the Evangelical Orthodox Church and is still studying the Orthodox faith. He was also one of the major researchers in the 20 year search that Fr Gillquest mentions in his book 'Becoming Orthodox'. -

As someone still in the Evangelical Orthodox Church, I found the article
interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, it is written in response to things said by Father Gilquist as the
former "leader" of this Church. A small quibble: he was the presiding bishop
and generally the most visible of our bishops. There was never a hierarchy
of bishops in our Church. He presided over the meetings when the bishops
met. His views are not synonymous with what all the bishops thought on every
issue. He was a leader not "the" leader. Since the article is written around
his writings it does not cover the entire spectrum of discussions among our
Church and various Orthodox and Roman Catholic people. I don't remember many
details of who was spoken to in those early years, but the possiblities of
union with the Roman Catholics was discussed. It was not acted on for a
couple of reasons; none having to do with Protestant hatred of Catholicism.
I read Catholic writings on many things and was often blessed by what I read
and others among us did, also. But our studies of the Patristics convinced
us that the Filioque was at least a wrong direction and could lead to
serious error and confusion about the Trinity. The issue of the
understanding of original sin was also a major problem. In other words, it
was the doctrinal issues which caused us to consider ourselves Orthodox
rather than Catholic in the way those words are now used. I never heard
anything close to "hatred" talk about Catholics. Just as those of us who did
not enter "canonical" Orthodoxy do not speak with hatred of her. Only a
certain sadness that they do not, in an official sense, recognize us as
Orthodox. Many of her individuals do, both clergy and laity, and will
sometimes say so privately. They see no chance of that being formally
recognized as things now exist. The fact that we both then and now more
often dialogue with Orthodox is the natural one that our beliefs about every
doctrine we see as essential is in line with the Orthodox belief more than
the Catholic belief. That's not surprising, nor does it have anything to do
with hatred. East and West is not the issue. Truth is the issue. The author
tries to gives psychological reasons for an event with a more
straightforward, unhidden basis. These are just a few first reaction
thoughts to the article; nothing systematic.

The Lord bless you all,
Keith

Jesus Christ is Risen!

All:

Thank you all for responding, all your input has been greatly appreciated. Here is another site I found by the same Catholic priest who wrote about the Evangelical Orthodox. It is;
Article Link [catholic-pages.com]

God Bless,

ProCatholico

If, as Father Ryland states, the "Orthodox ethos is foreign to Americans," then the same must apply to Byzantine Catholicism. What a shame.

On a humorous note, Father Ryland, while claiming that the Orthodox ethos is foreign to Americans, tripped over the obvious: the Evangelical Orthodox/Antiochian Orthodox converts are as American as apple pie and baseball. The same applies to my aunt's Greek parish and our local Antiochian parish, which is almost exclusively comprised of American converts.

It is both charitable and honest to say that Father Ryland is not an expert on contemporary American Orthodoxy. He needs to do his homework.

Salaam in Jesus,

Abdur

Orthoman, if SCOBA works so great how come it was powerless to assist in the interjurisdictional squabble that ensued with Ben Lomond, since we are discussing that issue...some left the Antiochians for the OCA, some of the Antiochian priests were deposed by Metropolitan Philip Saliba, etc. etc. which eventually led Father David Anderson to the Ukrainian Catholic Church I think partly because of these interjurisdictional battles.

To be fair, we certainly are not free from a sense of provincialism in the Greek Catholic Church either. And all of the Eastern Catholic bishops could certainly act more synodally and collegially in mutual collaboration, I agree 100%...I hope we will see more of that in the future. I didn't mean to be offensive in my previous posts, I was probably way too blunt and could have elucidated the position far better. I apoligize for any percieved triumphantilism...neither myself nor the Greek Catholic churches are free from sin and problems.

By the way, there are also more jurisdictions than the ROCOR who don't belong to SCOBA. From my perspective we have the larger One, Holy, and Catholic CHurch to look to when we do find ourselves in a canonical or jurisdictional conundrum, and we are often able to solve these problems ourselves. Metropolitan Philip Saliba of the Antiochian Archdiocese said it publicly in the "Word", (not me), "our system doesn't work"...And I'm sorry, eucharistic communion was broken in Estonia, there were those who were refused communion by MP priests if they were known persons who had gone to the Ecumenical Patriarchate parishes.

One thing, though, I'm very surprised and somewhat scandalized to see the public reading of the Diptychs taken so lightly by an Orthodox...it simply can't be dismissed in the way you propose. The fact is, publicly, the Patriarch of Constantinople was exluded from the Diptychs by the Patriarch of Moscow. Perhaps you are not familiar with the implications of the Diptychs in the Liturgy ? As an Eastern Catholic I take this very seriously, even though it was apparently temporary. Another point in case, now two jurisdictions in a small country essentially celebrating the same liturgy with questionable communion at worst and unease at best between them.

Not to throw stones in a glass house, these are sad divisions which not only hamper local Orthodox communion but affect larger unity amongst Christians of the Constantinopolitan tradition, of which I am a member. And as such I share in the guilt and pain of the fractious relationships within the Church, Catholic and Orthodox.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos, through whom Divinity was united to humanity, may God have mercy on us and inspire us to abide in love and Christian unity.

Dear Diak,

Easy there with Orthoman, Friend!

He's a good man, very pious and he'll even say a nice thing about us "Uniates" once in a while, as I've read elsewhere .

And did you see his reserve with OrthodoxyorDeath?

He normally doesn't extend such reserve to other Orthodox out of sync with mainstream Orthodoxy, such as those nationalist uncanonicals in the Kyivan "patriarchate."

He should be up for a medal, I say!

Alex

[Orthoman, if SCOBA works so great how come it was powerless to assist in the interjurisdictional squabble that ensued with Ben Lomond, since we are discussing that issue...some left the Antiochians for the OCA, some of the Antiochian priests were
deposed by Metropolitan Philip Saliba, etc. etc. which eventually led Father David
Anderson to the Ukrainian Catholic Church I think partly because of these
interjurisdictional battles.]

Part of the problem was that at the time Metropoliatan Phillip reacted by deposing said priests. In doing so he tied the hands of other Orthodox jurisdictions in accepting them wihtout breaking the Canons of the church -

The Apostolic Canons:

Canon XXXII (XXXIII): If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop, HE MY NOT BE RECEIVED INTO COMMUNION AGAIN BY ANY OTHER THAN BY HIM WHO EXCOMMUNICATED HIM, unless it happen that the bishop who excommunicated him be dead.

I. Nice A.D. 325

Canon V: Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops SHALL NOT BE RESTORED BY OTHERS, unless the excommunication was the result of pusillanimility. or strife, or some other similiar cause. And that this may be duly attended to, there shall be in each year two synods in every province - the one before lent, and the other before autumn.


Arabic canons attributed to the Council of Nice

Canon VI: That those excommunicated by one bishop ARE NOT TO BE RECEIVED BY ANOTHER; and that those whose excommunication has been shown to have been unjust should be absolved by the archbishop or patriarch.

Council of Antioch A.D. 341

Part of Canon II; And whoso communicates with one excommunicated, shall be excommunicated, and whoso prays with him who prays not with the Church is guilty, and even whoso receivs him who does not attend the services of the Church is not without guilt.

Sardica A.D. 343 oe 344

Canon XIII: If any deacon or presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another bishop who knows him and is aware that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion. And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: "This decision will assure peace at all times and preserve the concord of all.

African Code A.D. 419

Ancient Epitome of Canon CXXXVIII: Those excommunicated by us, ye are not to be willing to admit afterwards to communion, according to the decree of the Nicene Synod.

===================

So you can see, there is not one but many canons which restrict a bishop from accepting into his fold any clergy that or under edict by another canonical bishop. The success or effectiveness of SCOBA has nothing to do with it. As long as Metropolitan Phillip refused to lift the edicts against those clergy the rest of the SCOBA hands were tied. They would be breaking not one, but many canons by doing so.
There was only one of the deposed priests that came BACK into the OCA. And that is the Father Anderson you speak of.
Father Anderson was given 'on loan' to the Antiochian Archdiocese to teach these new converts liturgics. Because he was originally OCA and 'on loan' Metropolitan Theodosius personally went to Metropolitan Phillip to intercede for him to have the edict against him lifted so he could be brought back into the OCA. The edict was lifted against him and he was brought into the OCA under the direct authority of Metropolitan Theodosius who went to bat for him. In the mean time, one of the deacons still under edict died. Father Anderson wanted to serve at his funeral but Metropolitan Theodosius refused because the canons forbid it (reread the above canons). He was told he could attend the funeral but not serve. Father Andersons reaction was to defy yet another Orthodox bishop (the thrid) and served at the funeral. Once, again, Father Anderson decided to defy yet another Orthodox bishop when he served at the funeral. As stated in doing so, Father Anderson defied not one but three canonical Orthodox bishops (Bishop Joseph, Metropolitan Phillip, and now Metropolitan Theodosius who personally intervened for him). Two of the Orthodox bishops he defied were jurisdictional heads. With such a record no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction would take him! So what was left for him? Either to go to a noncanonical Orthodox Jurisdiction or the Ukrainian Catholic Church which seems to have no problem with his record of defying bishops to do what he wants.
Some of these priests are now part of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I'm not sure how that came about but I would be willing to bet the negioations were between the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem without Metropolitan phillips input!
You may not like what I have written but they are the facts.

OrthoMan

P.S. Alex, I wish I had a dollar for everytime you annouced you were leaving this site and were back in less than 24 hours. I'd go out and buy me the biggest and most expensive TBone steak I could find.