www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Lawrence A Question About Latinizations - 12/02/03 10:23 PM
I hear the term Latinization on here quite often, and I'am curious as to what exactly brings it about nowdays, and when I say nowdays I mean basically our lifetime.

In particular, I've wondered about things like Rosary devotionals, Crucifixes in Church vestibules, and other Western practices, and how they've found there way into Eastern Churches in recent years.
Posted By: incognitus Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/02/03 10:59 PM
Latinization is a term with two meanings:
1) [this is more common] the introduction of customs, ideas, symbols and so on from the Latin Church into one or another - or several - of the Eastern Churches.
2) the enticement of faithful of the Eastern Churches into the Latin Church.
Incognitus
Posted By: Mexican Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/02/03 11:11 PM
Dear friend:

From what I know, in the United States most Byzantine Catholic Ruthenian parishes in union with Rome are gradualy eliminating latinizations, so the rosaries and the stations of the cross are being replaced by more eastern elements, of the ruthenian tradition (not like the Russian Orthodox for example).

The Melkites are also very pure in their Eastern identity. About three years ago I had the chance to visit their church in Mexico city and I can say that it matched word by word that of the greek orthodox church.

Unfortunately it's not the same in Europe. I'm informed that in Romania the hierarchy is extremely latinized, you cn see the pictures of their Bishops often wearing Roman clerical vestments. Rosaries have replaced vespers in some parishes and there's a differenciation between Orthodox and Catholic parishes about the liturgy which is not good.

Of course this is nothing compared to other countries where the Greek Catholic Church has adopted some of the abuses of the modern western liturgy. About 5 years ago my mother was in Slovakia, and she saw guitars in the Kosice byzantine church.
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/03/03 12:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Lawrence:
I hear the term Latinization on here quite often, and I'am curious as to what exactly brings it about nowdays, and when I say nowdays I mean basically our lifetime.

In particular, I've wondered about things like Rosary devotionals, Crucifixes in Church vestibules, and other Western practices, and how they've found there way into Eastern Churches in recent years.
Lawrence,

I'm not sure your question has really been addressed. I understood you as asking what the present-day cause of latiniztion is. This was touched on, just within the last few days, on another thread here, but never delved into in depth. My personal opinion is that there are 4 principal factors:

1. A desire to be attractive to those whom the Eastern Churches hope to attract into their folds (former Latin Catholics - especially those from the traditional ranks, those formerly of other apostolic high church traditions, those coming from low church backgrounds, and even those from evangelical denominations). For the former (RCs and high church), it offers familiar devotions; for the latter, it gives some of the high church flavor that they may be seeking, but using devotions and sacramentals that are somewhat familiar to them thru prior exposure to "mainstream" Christianity - while being less "esoteric", "ethnic", "exotic", "foreign", than our own practices.

2. An effort to keep happy, maintain the peace, and assure the continued allegiance of those among our own who have wandered into the Latin Church at various times and become enamored of devotions encountered there.

3. A misguided attempt on our parts to be more "mainstream", less "ethnic", less "old world".

and,

4. In a few instances, to fill what we see as voids in our spiritual experience, e.g., the Rosary and other attractive devotionals, which speak to religious concepts that are already meaningful to us.

I think both some Eastern Catholic and some Eastern Orthodox Churches or churches are guilty of this.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/03/03 01:43 PM
Dear Lawrence,

An excellent question that brings up a plethora of issues!

For me, "Latinization" is something that involves an undue influence of the Latin Church over an Eastern Church.

That influence can be brought about either by some sort of force, such as Latin bishops imposing certain practices, or else Eastern bishops imposing certain practices due to a "Latin mentality" or else the laity themselves adopting certain Latin practices because of feeling that by doing this they somehow become "more Catholic" or mainstream as Neil said.

And certainly, the Orthodox Churches have adopted Latinizations at times because of the view that "everyone in Europe is doing it" and the like.

But what if an EC or Orthodox Church today decides to keep certain liturgical or ecclesial practices that originated with the Latin Church - or even adopt them?

Is that a "Latinization?" It could be, but it need not be.

People may genuinely like certain Latin practices and that is all the justification they require to hang onto them.

Latin practices such as the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration and the Stations of the Cross have developed a certain "right of citizenship" among a number of Eastern Catholic Churches, especially in Eastern Europe where these devotions did serve to give them an identity that was separate from, say, that of the Russian Church.

When the Russian Empire through its Church tried to religiously assimilate the "Uniates" back to Orthodoxy, such progammes almost always involved a "pruning" of certain Latin devotions that were seen to be keeping the Uniates in their loyalty to Rome.

By the same token, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, deathly afraid of Russification and its political ramifications, actually ordered the Metropolitan of Lviv and Halych to remove "overtly Eastern" commemorations from the Greek Catholic calendar of the 19th century - including the commemoration of the Kyivan Caves Saints and icons such as that of Kazan and the like!

And what is objectively understood as "Latinized practices" can take on a life of their own depending on the context.

Today there are Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe that have the Stations of the Cross and other practices.

There is also the element involved of defining something as a Latin practice that was really part of the universal heritage of the Church, East and West.

I mean especially the Rosary - the Rule of prayer of the Mother of God. But a Rosary by any other name . . . wink

The Old Believers have the Lestovka of the Mother of God, 150 small rungs divided every ten by a larger one, to pray what the West knows as the Rosary.

But when I asked for a Lestovka such as this from a certain Old Believer community, the people who make them could NOT obtain the required blessing from their bishop to make one for me. This was seen, by them, as a way by which the bishop was putting some distance between Orthodoxy and RCism . . .

I personally think that we Easterners tend to go off the deep end when it comes to Latinization, a term that is difficult to define objectively at the best of times.

We see a real bogeyman in that term. And when it comes to restoring our Eastern traditions, we often assume that what is "Eastern" is plain for everyone to see and what is "Western" is likewise plain - and it is all a matter of applying some spiritual pruning shears to the latter.

And that is a gross oversimplification.

The monks of Mt Athos itself today regularly use for their spiritual reading translations of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola and a number of other Western works that have been given other titles and have been augmented in a number of ways by such saints as St Nicodemos Aghioritis, St Macarios of Corinth and St Theophan the Recluse - who revised the Spiritual Combat whose original author was an Italian Catholic priest.

There are no clear lines of demarcation here.

And I think the attitude of some Easterners to be always trying to establish them is counterproductive in a number of ways.

I was amazed at the depth of prudence and spiritual wisdom exhibited here by Father Archimandrite Gregory when he commented on the devotion to the Sacred Heart and put to it the ultimate litmus test of all devotions: Does it draw us closer to Christ?

Alex
Posted By: Bonaventure Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 08:28 PM
Alex

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your post.....truly the litmus test of everything is whether it gets us closer to Christ....thats the bootom line.

I am all for Eastern Churches keeping or restoring their identity, but as we have seen from the past couples decades of Vatican 2 "reform", quick liturgical change is not good for the faithful. When things that people grew up with are suddenly and drastically changed, it usually isn't good for their faith....even if they are changed to the beautiful eastern traditions. Just for the record, I'm not comparing eastern traditions with any post-conciliar "reforms".....they are another thread.

Instead of "lets gid rid of this or that" I would recomend introducing some things like prayer ropes, eastern saints. and icons. The young (and others) will catch on and the Spirit will lead. I think it is strange how some people will (rightly) complain about certain practices being forced on people, then in the next sentence they are planning on how to take down Crucifixes and Stations of the Cross.

Throughout Church history it seems that fast and quick liturgical change has not usually had a good effect no matter how sincere was the intention.

IMHO the eatern Churches live in the west. You have the Holy Father's encyclical on the rosary everywhere and other western traditons are of course encouraged and recommended. I don't think that you can escape people wanting to practice western devotions, Show them the glory of the east too....people will of course be attracted to it. Many of my friends have joined our local Byzcath Church because they love it, but they still like many Latin devotions also. I'm not sure that this can totally be avoided in the west here.
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 08:52 PM
If I may ask...

What is the history of a crucifix being "un-Eastern"? I know the Orthodox use a cross without a corpus, but was the crucifix a post-schism addition to the Roman Catholicism, or does it belong to the universal church?

It seems to me that the crucifix is one of the things that separates Catholics from the Protestants. Why take it down because it's "too Latin"? We don't have to look like clones of the Orthodox any more than we should look like clones of the RC's.
Posted By: Brian Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 08:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tammy:

We don't have to look like clones of the Orthodox any more than we should look like clones of the RC's.
But with that thinking comes the situation of being "hybrids" which the Eastern Catholic Church has been trying to escape from at least since the Second Vatican Council. That feeling of being neither "one" or the "other" It is not a very comfortable place to be.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 09:12 PM
Dear Tammy,

The Eastern CHurches have crucifixes too!

Perhaps it is just that the East tends to display the brutal suffering of our Lord much less.

The icon crucifix of San Damiano is an excellent example of an Eastern Cross - Christ is depicted larger than anyone else and He is portrayed as the Master of the situation - which He always is.

Alex
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 09:19 PM
Quote
Tammy wrote:
What is the history of a crucifix being "un-Eastern"? I know the Orthodox use a cross without a corpus, but was the crucifix a post-schism addition to the Roman Catholicism, or does it belong to the universal church?
The crucifix is a statue of the crucified Christ on the Cross. The use of statues is not proper the Byzantine Church. An icon of the crucifixion is not the same as a three-dimensional crucifix.

Quote
Tammy wrote:
We don't have to look like clones of the Orthodox any more than we should look like clones of the RC's.
We are the Orthodox!

We are not a �Third Way�!

There should be no demonstrable difference between us Eastern Catholics and the rest of Orthodoxy. Where there is a difference we must change ourselves to conform with our mother Churches. When full communion is someday reestablished we will simply be reabsorbed into our mother Churches.
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 09:32 PM
Hmm as usual I'm late biggrin

However to me the Crucifix is emphasising Christ's Suffering and Death and this seems to me to be the Latin Influence.

Now as I understand it the East 's emphasis is more that of Christ Died and was raised for us - the emphasis is on the Resurrection - every Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection - an Easter in fact.

OK tin hat on - one of these days I'll learn to shut my big mouth.

Anhelyna
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 09:47 PM
Mr. Administrator -

I respectfully disagree. To use a familial metaphor, we are the child of a Catholic father and an Orthodox mother. The child enjoys the heritage of both parents but belongs to the Rite of the father. We have every right to the devotional practices of both our Catholic and Orthodox heritages, but we are Catholic. The Pope accepts us as part of his jurisdiction; the Orthodox do not.

I think Alex put it quite well:
Quote
But what if an EC or Orthodox Church today decides to keep certain liturgical or ecclesial practices that originated with the Latin Church - or even adopt them?

Is that a "Latinization?" It could be, but it need not be.

People may genuinely like certain Latin practices and that is all the justification they require to hang onto them.

Latin practices such as the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration and the Stations of the Cross have developed a certain "right of citizenship" among a number of Eastern Catholic Churches, especially in Eastern Europe where these devotions did serve to give them an identity that was separate from, say, that of the Russian Church.
I don't think it's so bad to be a hybrid. Hybrid flowers tend to be prettier and more disease-resistant than their purebred parents. Hybrid dogs ("mutts") tend to be healthier than purebreds, which are now coming up with genetic defects. When left alone, flowers cross-pollinate. When left alone, dogs will mate with any other dog, not caring about breed or pedigree. That is the way of nature, and God designed nature.

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but I will stand by this until my dying day.

Tammy
Posted By: Halychanyn Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 10:23 PM
Dear Tammy:

I am sure the pro's will be able to better explain this than I, but it seems to my humble self that when we freely "combine" devotions in the sence that you suggest, then we also lose the fullness that a particular Rite provides.

In other words, each Rite, it seems to me, is set up to fulfill one's spiritual needs in the fullest sence.

When we start "combining," it would seem that we start to lose the "fullness" of what our own Rites call us to be. By trying to combine devotions from different Rites, one inevitably loses something of one's own spiritual tradition which, in turn, leads to something being "missing."

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what you suggest appears to be a variant of "supermarket religion." Not, of course, in the sence that people openly and actively reject moral teachings but, rather, in the sence that one can freely pick between devotions that are particular to different Rites of the big-C Catholic church because we happen to be in communion with each other.

Purity of one's own Rite is, therefore, something for which one must strive. This is not to say that one should "diss" other Rites and not attempt to understand or appreciate them. This also does not mean that an individual cannot worship in another Rite.

However, if the sui juris Churches in communion with Rome begin to take the approach of "a little bit of this and a little bit of that," then we have truly lost something.

Yours,

hal
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 11:03 PM
Quote
Tammy wrote:
I respectfully disagree. To use a familial metaphor, we are the child of a Catholic father and an Orthodox mother. The child enjoys the heritage of both parents but belongs to the Rite of the father. We have every right to the devotional practices of both our Catholic and Orthodox heritages, but we are Catholic. The Pope accepts us as part of his jurisdiction; the Orthodox do not.
Hi Tammy!

With all due respect what you are advocating is in direct conflict with the directives of most recent popes, and especially those of Pope John Paul II. PJPII has been extremely clear that we are to witness Orthodoxy within Catholic communion. He has directed us to use the Orthodox Church as our model of Orthodoxy. Please study his writings on this topic.

Admin
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/05/03 11:17 PM
Mr. Administrator,

I doubt Pope John Paul II would say we are Orthodox and NOT Catholic!

Tammy
Dear Tammy;

I have to agree with Hal. Most Eastern Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) have a very limited liturgical experience, and therefore a very poor understanding of the whole of our tradition. If you could see how interrelated everything is, it would blow your mind. The cycle of readings, the cycle of feasts and holy days, the canons, troparia, kontakia, akathists, icons, prayers, practices and so on are each like individual tiles of a mosaic icon that extends without limit.

This is what the monastic, if he or she is lucky, gets to experience. This is what the monastic tries to share, even in a limited way, with us.

If we take "the presumed best" of each tradition, we end up with tiles from different icons that don't fit with each other. The result is an icon that does not enhance but actually obscures the beauty of the Image.

From one who is most appreciative of the glimpses that I get,

John

John
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 12:02 AM
I, for one, will continue to pray both the chotki and the rosary, to read both St. John Climacus and St. Teresa of Avila, to display icons on the Eastern walls and crucifixes on the Western walls of my home, etc. Assimilating Latin Rite traditions does not HAVE to mean discarding those of the Eastern Rite.

Respectfully,
Tammy
Posted By: Mexican Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 12:02 AM
As I posted in aprevious message on this thread. I have been told that there is some corruption of the Byzantine Rite in some Eastern European countries, that are consistent with some Western practices, that are not "latinizations" but abuses commonly spread in most roman parishes of our time. Among them the use of instruments (sometimes guitars) in the liturgy, poor vernacular translations, shortened prayers, etc.

Any comment?
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 12:08 AM
Quote
Tammy wrote:
Mr. Administrator,

I doubt Pope John Paul II would say we are Orthodox and NOT Catholic!

Tammy
Hi Tammy!

I suggest that you read the writings of the Holy Father on this topic. He is pretty clear on this. In order for us to be faithful Catholics we must first be faithful Orthodox!

Admin
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 12:30 AM
A couple of observations.

I think a difference should be made between what one does personally and what happens on a parish level. I know that I've benefitted from visits to Coptic parishes and from occasional use of the Agpeya even though this represents the Alexandrian usage and not Byzantine. Right now our family is part of a Roman parish since there is not an Eastern Catholic parish nearby and so, of course, we get a lot of Roman influence in many ways. I see no reason why Latins cannot read the Philokalia or why Easterners cannot read the Imitation of Christ. (In fact, I seem to recall a Greek Orthodox Archbishop who encouraged his flock to read the Imitation of Christ.) Certainly the spiritualities are different and it sometimes that requires a bit of extra work to not confuse things.

On a parish level, though, we are called to be faithful to our liturgical heritage. Too often, Western devotions (such as Stations of the Cross or the Rosary) have eclipsed our own liturgical services. ("Well, yes, we should have Matins before Liturgy but that would displace the Rosary." or "We should be doing the Presanctified but we've already scheduled Stations of the Cross.") Our Church is in dire need of restoring such services and other Byzantine traditions.

A few years ago a friend told us about an estate sale that had a lot of Eastern type items. From the books and religious items for sale I deduced the people had been involved with the OCA parish in Phoenix but had an Eastern Catholic background. There were several old Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic prayer books along with OCA materials though the years. I bought up all I could and one of the prize items I purchased was a metal Byzantine crucifix complete with a corpus. It now occupies a spot of honor in our icon corner in our home. I realize it's not what some would think traditionally Byzantine but I figured if it had survived all these years in the home of founding members of the OCA parish in Phoenix that it was "Orthodox" enough.

I would also say that we are Orthodox...not in the popular sense of being a member of a jurisdiction not in union with Rome. The term "Orthodox" is a badge of honor that pre-dates the Schism and is ours as well.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 12:48 AM
Thank you, Dave!
Posted By: Anam Cara Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 01:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
Hi Tammy!

I suggest that you read the writings of the Holy Father on this topic. He is pretty clear on this. In order for us to be faithful Catholics we must first be faithful Orthodox!

Admin
In Christ Our God,

What is this absurd notion that seems to be posted against what my wife Tammy has logically and insightfully. If you mean we are Orthodox in that we are Eastern I guess that term as Dave said is ours just as is for the Orthodox then there would be a point made. Yet if you, the administrator, and others are saying that dogmatically we are Orthodox, you need to take your Ritalin and calm down.

Read the Vatican II Documents, and you will find that the definition of the fullness of the Church is found in those Churches WHO ARE IN COMMUNION WITH ROME IN DOGMA!!!. 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.

Now if we are dealing with private devotionals or liturgical practices then yes Latin practices should not be replacing Eastern practices. By This I mean, WE should not remove Eastern Practices and replace them with Latin practices but adaptations have occured in the Universal Church throughout the centuries. Latins have adapted our prayer rope to create the rosary and I believe Gregory the Great adapted Eastern tones to create gregorian chant. It happens. Tammy was not stating we should remove Eastern practices only allow organic growth within them( I know , I live with her..if anyone knows her I do). I ,too, have been appalled and dismayed, as Tammy has, at the removal of authentic Eastern practices and their replacement by Latin devotional practices. Yet I think you all are attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the issues. You all need to ask for clarification from the person rather than jump into the fray without knowing the sides. I myself, pray to the Theotokos with a prayer that is the equivalent to the Ave, called The Angelic Salutation in our prayer book, when I pray the rosary I use this in place of the Ave because it is an Eastern equivalent. We have suffered alot in losing many of our traditions but their recovery should not be used as an attempt to remove helpful devotional Latin practices, insatead it should be aimed at RECOVERY. Particular Churches can adapt practices as did the Latins as long as we recover our Practices. Let us not get caught up in the letter of the law as much as the Spirit of the Law.

John Paul II, is aiming for us to recover our pracctices not to disinfranchize ourselves from our Latin Brothers.

In God's Mercy,

Mike, poor sinner and faithful husband

P.S. I defend my wife when I feel she is right not when she is wrong.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 03:02 AM
Hi Mike!

Thanks for your post.

There is nothing absurd about the idea that we are called to witness the fullness of Orthodoxy within Catholic communion. The only dogmatic and doctrinal elements of Orthodoxy that are unacceptable to Catholicism are those involving the authority of the Successor of Peter. To witness Orthodoxy within Catholicism means to embrace the authority of the Successor of Peter.

In Oritentale Lumen, Pope John Paul II teaches us that: �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 fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience. These elements are capable of giving a more complete Christian response to the expectations of the men and women of today. Indeed, in comparison to any other culture, the Christian East has a unique and privileged role as the original setting where the Church was born. The Christian tradition of the East implies a way of accepting, understanding and living faith in the Lord Jesus. In this sense it is extremely close to the Christian tradition of the West, which is born of and nourished by the same faith. Yet it is legitimately and admirably distinguished from the latter, since Eastern Christians have their own way of perceiving and understanding, and thus an original way of living their relationship with the Savior. Here, with respect and trepidation, I want to approach the act of worship which these Churches express, rather than to identify this or that specific theological point which has emerged down the centuries in the polemical debates between East and West."

Later the Holy Father goes on to encourage us in our faithfulness to our Orthodox roots by stating that: "It has been stressed several times that the full union of the Catholic Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome which has already been achieved must not imply a diminished awareness of their own authenticity and originality. Wherever this occurred, the Second Vatican Council has urged them to rediscover their full identity, because they have 'the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own special disciplines. For these are guaranteed by ancient tradition, and seem to be better suited to the customs of their faithful and to the good of their souls.'"

Time and time again the Holy Father has taught us that we must be faithful to Orthodoxy in all things in order to be faithful Catholics. He is speaking of the authentic and original Christian Way of Life that matured in Orthodoxy. He is not speaking of a Latin Way of Life with Eastern trappings. We are not called to be Roman Catholics with a special indult for a funny Mass. We are called to be Orthodox Christians who are in full communion with Rome.

Father Deacon John is correct in that the vast majority of us Eastern Christians (both in communion with Rome and not in communion with Rome) have a very limited liturgical experience and therefore a poor understanding of the whole of the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Tradition. It is an awesome thing to see that glimmer of light shine in someone�s face for the first time as they begin to see the real originality and authenticity of the Orthodox Way of Life

I request that you read what is written and strive to understand it before you come to this Forum with both guns blasting and make false accusations.

Admin
Posted By: Hesychios Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 04:10 AM
Quote

you need to take your Ritalin and calm down.
I find this extremely rude and uncalled for.

You owe the Administrator an apology

Michael
Posted By: Anam Cara Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 04:37 AM
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
Posted By: Halychanyn Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 05:23 AM
Quote
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)?
No we do not. By the way, the truly Ecumenical Councils are those where the whole of the universal church was represented. Those councils are accepted by both the big-O Orthodx and the big-C Catholics. The Vatican Councils, for example, should not be described as "Ecumencial."

Quote
All these dogmatic statements are found in our Catechism of the Catholic faith as Dogmatic teachings.
While they may be a part of Latin Rite teachings, they are certainly not part of the Byzantine tradition.

Quote
The very same Catechism which John Paul II calls "a sure norm for teaching the faith"....
..but he does not call it THE ONE AND ONLY sure norm, does he? No, he used the indefinite article. Think about it.

Yours,

hal
Posted By: C4C Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 05:24 AM
I was raised on the Catechism of the Eastern church and It says that we only follow the first 7 ecumenical councils and our Latin brothers have 14 or so more.

chad eek
Posted By: Hesychios Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 06:24 AM
Dear brother in Christ Michael,

There is no third way.

You and I most certainly have a right to mix our devotions, if that's what we want to do, but you cannot represent that as "our way" it would have to be your way (or my way). A little of that would be expected and the free flow of ideas and practices can be good, even enlightening, to be conversant in both theological perspectives would be something to be proud of, and useful in apologetics. But a totally mixed theological perspective and devotional life cannot be claimed as normative for Eastern Catholics.

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.

In Christ,
Michael
Posted By: incognitus Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:21 AM
Anam Chara asks the Administrator "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)?"
The easiest response concerns the Ecumenical Councils. The unofficial list maintained by the Holy See is precisely, as I have just termed it, an UNOFFICIAL list, and is notably missing the Double Council of 879. I know of nothing which would require anyone to give interior assent to the proposition that later general councils held in the West (if I may thus borrow a well-known phrase from Pope Paul VI) were "Ecumenical Councils" on a par with the Seven Councils.
Purgatory? Well, the term refers to a medieval construct. However, the Church certainly knows, from the earliest times, of prayers for the dead, the offering of the Eucharist for the dead, the offering of other sacrifices and suffrages for the dead, and the belief that such prayers and offerings are pleasing to God and of essential assistance to the dead. Anyone who is interested in this does well to read the liturgical and Patristic texts.
The Immaculate Conception? The problem here has to do with an insufficient dogmatic basis which makes it difficult to grasp the essence of what, precisely, Pius IX defined. It would be a long and rather dull discussion. The question I would pose can be stated simply: are you satisfied with the liturgical and Patristic teaching on the subject? If so, I see nothing much that requires disagreement.
Incognitus
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 02:04 PM
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
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 02:18 PM
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
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 02:44 PM
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
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 02:48 PM
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
Posted By: Anthony Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 03:50 PM
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
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 04:02 PM
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
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 04:37 PM
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
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 05:00 PM
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.
Posted By: Anam Cara Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 06:32 PM
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
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 07:51 PM
[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
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 08:04 PM
[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
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 08:23 PM
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
Posted By: Brian Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 08:33 PM
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!!!!!!
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 08:59 PM
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.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:05 PM
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?
Posted By: Anam Cara Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:25 PM
St. Josaphat Pray for Us PLEASE!!!!!!!
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:41 PM
[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.]

Take my word for it as an Orthodox Catholic. No we don't! We look at the terminology and just shake our heads in bewilderment. Because it shows us that your 400+ years under Romes authority have destroyed your whole concept of what it means to be Orthodox. You look at it through a purely western Roman Catholic mindset. As stated many times, you base an Orthodox identity on ritual and tradition and the concept that if I look Orthodox, sound Orthodox, I'll be Orthodox! No Orthodox who has any concept of his religion is going to buy that load of you know what!

You have bought hook, line, and sinker the original philosophy those who instituted the Unia that as long as everything looks the same, sounds the same, they'll never know the difference. And that's also what those of us who have studied the history of the Unia and how it all came about see - deception! Well, that was over 400 years ago and people are no longer illiterate to fall for that bunch of baloney!

Either are others from the outside buying it. Read the email from a Protestant looking into the eastern curch and how she sees some of the comments being made.

OrthoMan
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:48 PM
[Why is it so hard to respect us when we say that the fullness of Orthodoxy is found in communion with Rome?]

Because it shows us that you don't have the slightest clue about what Orthodoxy is! You, whose ancestors turned their backs on the Orthodox faith, are in here trying to tell we Orthodox what Orthodoxy is! That alone is a contradiction.

Orthodoc
Posted By: Brian Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[
]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? [/QB]
Because it is against the entire Ethos of Orthodoxy to be in Communion with a Rome that procliams infallibility to exist in the person of one HIerarch in the Church, a dogma that Byzantine Catholics must accept. Orthodoxy is the Church of the Councils not of Papal Infallibility. According to Orthodox teaching, Rome pulled away from union with the other Orthodox Patriarchs. The Orthodox that I know certainly respect Roman Catholics but they are perplexed at the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" amd see it as an oxymoron. They have no problem with "Eastern Catholic" They certainly do not see union with Rome as "adding" to Orthodoxy. This is just not the reality "on the ground"
A dear Eastern Catholic friend of mine who is more Orthodox in praxis then many I have known in the OCA, refrains from using the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" as he see it as offensive to the Orthodox. I make sure that Orthodox learn that the word "uniate" is similarly offensive to the Greek Catholics.
Posted By: djs Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 09:53 PM
I am too swamped with work to comment very much on this. But:

Quote
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.
ISTM that it's been amply established that you use verse, Orthoman, with extreme prejudice. There is a very low standard of "no divisions" and "same mind" when considering Orthodox, or even inter-communing Orthodox, and an enormously elevated one for us. I am not surprised by this anymore, but it's really a shame that you are unable to develop some understanding and some charity about these things.

Within Orthodoxy there as be differences of opinion on any number of elements of identity - ethnicity or not; enculturated or counter-cultural; supportive or wary of Western values; sisterly relations with Rome or Romophobia, with Pope as "witchdoctor". So what exaclty, Bob, is Orthodx "identity" such that all Orthodox are of one mind.


Quote
Where is Orthodoxy diverse in the dogma it proclaims is necesaary for salvation or to be identified as Orthodox?
I asked before where I could find the implicated list of dogma proclaimed within Orthodoxy as "necesaary for salvation". But have not obtained an answer. I am suprised that Orthodoxy would have such a list - so juridicial/Latin in outlook.
Posted By: djs Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 10:16 PM
Quote
... the entire Ethos of Orthodoxy ...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote
You, whose ancestors turned their backs on the Orthodox faith, are in here trying to tell we Orthodox what Orthodoxy is! That alone is a contradiction.
It is quite plausible that my distant ancestors, with my surname, received the Byzantine-Slavonic faith, de novo, from SS. C&M. We have always struggled to be allowed to pursue Christian salvation in the way we received it - with obstacles thrown at us from all directions. We are the same people, pursuing the same objective, by the same means - throughout all of the intervening history. We have not essentially, as a church changed our faith, our devotion, our ethos, our duch.

Bob, it is your ancestors not mine who turned their backs on their particular patrimony. And who have swallowed the line that Romophobia is essential to the Orthodox ethos, perhaps a defining aspect of Orthodoxy.

By the way, Dean John Erickson of SVS gave a nice talk at Columbia recently that argues that this anti-sisterly perspective is a very recent invention, spawned by Orthodox dispersed in the West.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/HI/j_erickson.pdf
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 10:30 PM
Brian wrote:

Quote
I make sure that Orthodox learn that the word "uniate" is similarly offensive to the Greek Catholics.
Surely, an uphill battle for you Brian! Perhaps you can start with Bob (OrthoMan):

Quote
You have bought hook, line, and sinker the original philosophy those who instituted the Unia that as long as everything looks the same, sounds the same, they'll never know the difference. And that's also what those of us who have studied the history of the Unia and how it all came about see - deception! Well, that was over 400 years ago and people are no longer illiterate to fall for that bunch of baloney!
For a very literate wink reply to the type of stuff Bob's espousing see:

http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm

I do not understand why our use of the term "Orthodox" is an oxymoron. "Orthodox" is claimed by Assyrians and Non-Chalcedonians, too. Do you similarly protest when they use it? I've yet to read such a protest from Eastern Orthodox. Catholics do not protest when all the above and you guys also use the term "Catholic." The term "Orthodox" pre-dates the Schism by centuries and is not the sole possession of those Churches in communion with Constantinople and Moscow.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: Brian Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 10:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DTBrown:
Brian wrote:

Quote
I make sure that Orthodox learn that the word "uniate" is similarly offensive to the Greek Catholics.
Surely, an uphill battle for you Brian! Perhaps you can start with Bob (OrthoMan):

DTBrown@aol.com
Oh David, I have tried and failed there!!! smile

I have found in Orthodoxy however, that the loudest of those who rail against the "Uniates" really know nothing of the Eastern Catholic communities as they exist today and more importantly, do not know live Eastern Catholics as friends in real life. But I do know plenty of Orthodox who have Eastern Cath friends and socialize with them and love them. Although they would be perplexed at the use of the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" (as I said to the Admin), they have no hesitation in procliaming their affection for their Eastern or Greek Catholic friends.
Posted By: spdundas Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 10:54 PM
It is TRUE...how UNFORTUNATE....is it for Byzantine Catholics in the past have turn backs on the true Orthodox faith.

The Latinization of the Byz Church was a statement...by the Byz Caths...that they are in communion with Rome...to differentiate from the Orthodox Church that they are not in "communion" with.

What these Byz Caths have failed to realized...at the time...that one can be TRULY Orthodox and still maintain communion with Rome.

As my priest always says (former Orthodox priest, mind you), "There's nothing more Orthodox than to be in communion with Rome!"

It's sad, indeed, that Byz Cath have lost some of the key elements of Orthodoxy.

But the good news is, that Byz Cath is now returning to the roots of Orthodoxy. Of course, Byz Cath needs the Orthodox's help. And of course...the Orthodox needs help to learn what it means to be in communion with Rome.

But helping each other won't do any good if we keep spewing hateful words and thoughts against each other. So, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, STOP IT!!!

God is NOT going to judge us based on how Orthodox we are...How Latin we are...etc. That's soo CHILDISH! So Prideful!

We NEED to be ONE Church...ONE SPIRIT...in Christ...be ONE as Christ is ONE with the Father. Don't you all want that??? I have a strong feeling that the Orthodox doesn't want that!

Don't let the devil win this game!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine


"We must be Orthodox in FAITH...but Catholic in LOVE." ---John Paul the Great
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 10:55 PM
Brian wrote:

Quote
But I do know plenty of Orthodox who have Eastern Cath friends and socialize with them and love them. Although they would be perplexed at the use of the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" (as I said to the Admin), they have no hesitation in procliaming their affection for their Eastern or Greek Catholic friends.
Well, that's good news. I think we ought to have a Byzantine Forum weekend where all of us could get together. Locales, anyone? I think many a quarrel here would quickly be over and we'd all have a jolly good time. How about a Byzantine Forum retreat at the Antiochian Village? Or, better yet---Disney World? smile

Anyway, Brian, why is the use of "Orthodox" by us any different than its use by Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox or Assyrians? The Assyrians aren't real loud about it but it's there. The Copts and the Armenians do not soft-pedal its use. If you can accept their use of "Orthodox" to describe themselves, why can't you accept our use of the term?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 11:05 PM
Dear Administrator,

I am late for my Godmother's panakhida.

I don't think I've misunderstood you. But I have no wish to go over ground where the grass has stopped growing for all the trampling.

I think we know where we stand - and that is enough.

As for the crucifix, you don't agree with me?

And so what else is new? smile

Bye!

Alex
Posted By: C4C Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/06/03 11:22 PM
You know its sad that we get it from both sides. frown
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 12:56 AM
[For a very literate reply to the type of stuff Bob's espousing see:

http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm]

David: Thanks for the source. Have you read it? It seems like Fr Robert F. Taft seems to thnk that if he puts the word "uniate" in bracets he can use it as much and wherever he wants. Contrary to what the administrator states the word 'Uniate' is a latin word and was given to you by the latin Church whose authority you are under, not the Orthodox Poles!

The Latin church still uses the term very freely to discribe you as Fr Tafts article proves. Read footnotes [2] and [3].

As far as the article itself I got as far as the third paragraph under the subject "UNIATISM" (Note I put it in quotes) so it's OK. Where Fr Taft says the following -

[ For at Florence the Latin West and the Byzantine East tried to face and deal with each other directly as equals.]

As equals! He's gotta be kidding me! Is this another Roman Catholic rewrite of history? Is he aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch refused to leave the ship he was on because the Pope demanded that when they finally met he was to bow down before him and kiss his foot. That's equality?

Never mind how the Orthodox delegation was treated in regards to housing and food. Everything possible was done to undermine the morale and Fr Taft calls that 'equal footing'. Gimme a break!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:27 AM
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Take my word for it as an Orthodox Catholic. No we don't! We look at the terminology and just shake our heads in bewilderment. Because it shows us that your 400+ years under Romes authority have destroyed your whole concept of what it means to be Orthodox. You look at it through a purely western Roman Catholic mindset. As stated many times, you base an Orthodox identity on ritual and tradition and the concept that if I look Orthodox, sound Orthodox, I'll be Orthodox! No Orthodox who has any concept of his religion is going to buy that load of you know what!
Well, Bob, you have just labeled our entire Byzantine Catholic Church to be nothing more than a load of crap. At the same time you state quite clearly that you do not believe that Orthodoxy is not transmitted through prayer and liturgy. I�m not really sure how to respond to someone who is so uncharitable. None of my Russian or Greek Orthodox friends act or speak as uncharitably as you do. We respect one another and have a sense of Christian brotherhood even in our disagreements.

Do we look at things through a purely western Roman Catholic mindset? Certainly some do but this is true of even people in your jurisdiction. Some of us do strive to live the Orthodox Faith and do so quite well despite your choice not to accept this.

Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
You have bought hook, line, and sinker the original philosophy those who instituted the Unia that as long as everything looks the same, sounds the same, they'll never know the difference. And that's also what those of us who have studied the history of the Unia and how it all came about see - deception! Well, that was over 400 years ago and people are no longer illiterate to fall for that bunch of baloney!
Ah, yes! More nonsense on your part. You are not the only one who has studied the history of the Unia. You trumpet only part of the truth. It is certainly correct that the means used by the Romans to obtain the union were less than desirable. Yet you always seem to forget there were many people who truly desired communion with Rome and saw it as something vitally important. You always conveniently forget that the union was entered into by the Orthodox in order to preserve Orthodoxy (it was quite possible that �our people� would have been forced to become either Roman Catholic or Protestant). There are many sides to this history and one needs to acknowledge them and realize the Unia was very complex mixture of faith issues, political issues and survival issues.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:31 AM
Quote
[Why is it so hard to respect us when we say that the fullness of Orthodoxy is found in communion with Rome?]

OrthoMan wrote:
Because it shows us that you don't have the slightest clue about what Orthodoxy is! You, whose ancestors turned their backs on the Orthodox faith, are in here trying to tell we Orthodox what Orthodoxy is! That alone is a contradiction.
I disagree. Our spiritual ancestors entered into union with Rome because they believed communion with Rome was necessary and they saw it as a way to preserve their Orthodoxy. As I stated above the reasons were a mix of faith issues, political issues and survival issues. To reduce this to a deliberate turning one�s back on the rest of Orthodoxy is silly.
Posted By: Alice Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:33 AM
Dear OrthoMan,

I am confused. Are you Eastern Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic?

Thankyou.

Alice
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:37 AM
Alice,

I can speak for OrthoMan. His reply will be "Orthodox Catholic" (he is Eastern Orthodox).

Logos Teen
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:50 AM
Quote
Brian wrote:
Because it is against the entire Ethos of Orthodoxy to be in Communion with a Rome that procliams infallibility to exist in the person of one HIerarch in the Church, a dogma that Byzantine Catholics must accept.
I disagree. The ethos of Orthodoxy exists as much in the Roman Catholic Church as it does in the Byzantine Orthodox Church as much as it does in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Quote
Brian wrote:
Orthodoxy is the Church of the Councils not of Papal Infallibility. According to Orthodox teaching, Rome pulled away from union with the other Orthodox Patriarchs.
Hmmm�. So all of the Orthodox theologians who state that the Churches separated from one another are rally lying to us? The fault is all on the part of Rome and Constantinople and the other patriarchates have no responsibility to ensure �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.�

Quote
Brian wrote:
The Orthodox that I know certainly respect Roman Catholics but they are perplexed at the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" amd see it as an oxymoron. They have no problem with "Eastern Catholic" They certainly do not see union with Rome as "adding" to Orthodoxy. This is just not the reality "on the ground"
A year or two back I was at the picnic at the Greek Orthodox parish in my town and sat on the church tour. I admit some amazement when one of the people taking the tour asked the deacon: �What is the difference between this church and the Byzantine Catholic one in Annandale?� The deacon responded �None�. Later someone asked him a more detailed question about Orthodox, Byzantine Catholics and the pope. He responded that the two churches were essentially the same but that they were Greek and that we were Slavic, that we were under the pope and that they were not.

Most of the Orthodox I know are not perplexed with the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome�. The term �uniate� comes from the Polish term �uniat� (which is where the Russians got it from). It was originally used to term �those Christians who are like us but who are in union with Rome�. [Keep in mind that while the Church certainly used the term �Orthodox� to define its theology at this point in history it did not use the term �Orthodox� to refer to �the Orthodox Church� or �St. Mary Orthodox Church�. In the 16th century it was still simply �the Church�.

I do agree with Brian that most of my Orthodox friends (not in communion with Rome) do not see union with Rome as �adding� anything to Orthodoxy. I have not suggested they did. I have only suggested that they respect our use of the term even while they disagree with how the term is defined.

I do acknowledge that some find the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� to be offensive. I know a few (not many) Roman Catholics who find it distasteful when the term �Catholic� is applied to Orthodoxy. I believe that both perspectives are incorrect. These terms are the property of both Churches and cannot be used exclusively.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 02:54 AM
Quote
David Ignatius wrote:
Well, that's good news. I think we ought to have a Byzantine Forum weekend where all of us could get together. Locales, anyone? I think many a quarrel here would quickly be over and we'd all have a jolly good time. How about a Byzantine Forum retreat at the Antiochian Village? Or, better yet---Disney World?
Antiochian Village is a wonderful place. But� but� if we are meeting in the winter and some of us will be flying I suggest that we choose a warmer place. There is a beautiful Greek Orthodox parish in the Bahamas. biggrin
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Administrator,

I am late for my Godmother's panakhida.

I don't think I've misunderstood you. But I have no wish to go over ground where the grass has stopped growing for all the trampling.

I think we know where we stand - and that is enough.

As for the crucifix, you don't agree with me?

And so what else is new? smile

Bye!

Alex
Alex,

Please know that your godmother and your family being raised up in prayer this evening.

Yes, I realize that we disagree on many things. Nevertheless I will continue to prod you because I think you are capable of being a great leader in your Church.

Admin
Posted By: Brian Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:

]I disagree. Our spiritual ancestors entered into union with Rome because they believed communion with Rome was necessary and they saw it as a way to preserve their Orthodoxy. As I stated above the reasons were a mix of faith issues, political issues and survival issues. To reduce this to a deliberate turning one�s back on the rest of Orthodoxy is silly. [/QB]
Although I hesitate to agree with Ortho man, i don't think one can ignore the political pressures for the Union that came from Poland and the Counter-Reformation which sought to save the "schismatics" and "dissidents" I am not saying that is all the Union was about but like with all events like this, political factors abounded. Also, the Roman Church procliams that such a model of union cannot be viable today.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:32 AM
Dear Administrator,

The Panakhyda service and everything was all wonderful.

I read the psalms over my aunt and Godmother for over half an hour prior - they really do help and bring one into a state of prayer and comfort!

I spoke with the priest afterwards - a priest I've never met before.

God intended, I believe, for me to meet him and he's opened up new vistas for me smile .

I thank you for your confidence in me being a leader - but I don't think that is necessarily the direction for me.

Suffice it to say that my eyes are rolling and I now have an inner contentment and calmness as a result of the events of tonight.

I will never waste time arguing over the definition of a crucifix ( smile ) or devotions again.

I've got a lot to think over. But, oh, the sense of inner peace and contentment. Let it stay forever!

A Happy Christmas to you and everyone on the Byzantine Forum!

Alex
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:35 AM
Quote
OrthoMan wrote:
Contrary to what the administrator states the word 'Uniate' is a latin word and was given to you by the latin Church whose authority you are under, not the Orthodox Poles!
Bob, please consult a linguist. The term �uniate� comes from the Polish term �uniat� or �unia� (which is where the Russians got �униат� from). It was originally used to term �those Christians who are like us but who are in union with Rome�. I have a friend who is a Roman Catholic priest and a Latin scholar who has researched this.

The term �union� comes to us through Middle English from the Old French from the Latin Latin �unio� from the earlier Latin �unus� (which means �one�).

I cannot get to the link that David posted to re-read the article. I will have to comment on it tomorrow. I seem to remember that Fr. Taft uses the term "Uniatism" on purpose and to refer in a very judgmental way that the method the Roman Catholics used to establish the unions and to condemn that model. This is something that Rome has since done.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:39 AM
Quote
Brian wrote:
Although I hesitate to agree with Ortho man, i don't think one can ignore the political pressures for the Union that came from Poland and the Counter-Reformation which sought to save the "schismatics" and "dissidents" I am not saying that is all the Union was about but like with all events like this, political factors abounded. Also, the Roman Church procliams that such a model of union cannot be viable today.
Brian,

I have not ignored the political pressures. As I stated above the reasons were a mix of faith issues, political issues and survival issues. No one here comes out smelling like a rose. All involved made mistakes. Bob�s reduction of the whole complex history to a deliberate and purposeful turning of one�s back on the rest of Orthodoxy is just plain silly.

Admin
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:44 AM
Alex,

I am happy you had the opportunity to pray the psalms over your aunt / godmother.

I am also happy that you have the sense of peace.

Please keep in mind that a leader is not always an activist. Sometimes being a leader means being willing to speak out in a crowd rather than go with the crowd mentality.

Admin
Posted By: Halychanyn Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 04:24 AM
Dear OrthoMan:

I humbly agree with the Administrator that you have raised several good issues. Still, I have never really understood (1) what does it mean to be "Orthodox" in your book; (2) why the Eastern Catholic churches are not among those "who rightly glorify"; and (3) what we should do about it.

I, for one, would appreciate you explaining yourself on these issues.

Yours,

hal
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 05:31 AM
OrthoMan wrote:

Quote
David: Thanks for the source. Have you read it? It seems like Fr Robert F. Taft seems to thnk that if he puts the word "uniate" in bracets he can use it as much and wherever he wants. Contrary to what the administrator states the word 'Uniate' is a latin word and was given to you by the latin Church whose authority you are under, not the Orthodox Poles!
Bob,

Why do you insist on being rude here? I once wrote Bishop Tikhon on this very subject. A former Romanian Catholic (now OCA) insisted on calling us "Uniates" and said that Orthodoxy required him to do so. I asked Bishop Tikhon if that was required and got a firm "No."

The OCA Website is much more charitable:

http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Uniate.html

For example, the recent news article about the Monastery in Florida which entered the OCA refers to us as "Byzantine Catholic" or "Byzantine Rite Catholic," not "Uniate." I doubt you can find "Uniate" used on the OCA website.

The article referred to by Professor Ericksen (from St Vladimir's) earlier in this thread also makes the same point about the term "Uniate."

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: KO63AP Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 06:45 AM
Dear OrthoMan,

Allow me to rephrase, in part, a message I directed to you in a post back in August:

There was a pub I used to visit. After a while I decided I didn't like the clientele, so I stopped going. If Eastern Catholics [or whatever you *really* want to call them - perhaps Eastern Rite Romans?] are so deluded and hopelessly confused and you find their thoughts of Orthodoxy offensive, then avoid places where they congregate, such as this Forum. I highly doubt someone is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this site.

Or perhaps you enjoy descending from your throne of Orthodox righteouness and blessing us with your enlightenment on your personal mission to shepherd all these poor lost souls back to Orthodoxy [whatever the definition happens to be at the moment].

Andrij
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:00 PM
[So what exaclty, Bob, is an Orthodox "identity" such that all Orthodox are of one mind.]

Once again, it has to do with the canons, doctinres, and dogmas of the Church that gives one their Orthodox identity. Yes, we Orthodox Catholics argue over earthly domains but you would never hear us argue over whether we have to believe in the IC, Purgatory, or other doctrines to be true Orthodox Christians.

Perhaps the best way and the quickest way to answer would be to quote St Vincent of Lerins on what also makes the Orthodox Church Catholic. Which is to adhere to those doctrines that were formulated and believed everywhere, always, by all. Those doctrines that were formulated when the church was undivided and still entirely Orthodox. We have neither added, subtracted, or changed them in any way as the See of Rome whose authority you are now under has.

My suggestion would for you to read the history of the undivided Christian Church up until the time the Roman Patriarch separated himself from the other four Patriarchates and there you will find what it means to be an Orthodox Catholic.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Alice Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 03:29 PM
Posted By: Alice Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 04:53 PM
Dear Brother OrthoMan,

Just because we are not audibly arguing, does not mean that there is not ALOT of confusion about the 'after life' in Orthodoxy...much more than there is about Purgatory in Catholicism.

I have uncovered four theoria.

For instance, the GOA calls the Monastic theory 'heresy', and the Monastic theory (toll houses) claims it is the one and only truth...

then there is the liberal theory, espoused by a certain Archbishop that basically grants 'indulgences' of heaven to anyone who has lots of money to give to the Church...and for the others, well, 'basically let's not think about hell, anyway'....

then there is the process of 'theosis' continuing until the 'final theosis'...or 'beatific vision' as the RC would call it.

Ofcourse, we both pray for the dead, and except in the case of the liberal, modernist example I gave above, we both feel that praying for the dead is quite efficacious...

I don't mean to scandalize, but let's not be so triumphalistic. We have enough 'room for interpretation' in Orthodoxy too.

I won't even get into the Assumption of our Theotokos or other doctrinal beliefs that have changed, over the centuries, or that are even presently changing as we speak.

I am not putting down my beloved Orthodoxy, but I also would not put down Catholicism.

In the end, our sins will be accountable before God, and it will not matter if we believed this or that, as long as we believed in our Lord as Saviour and followed HIS tenets. Whatever avenue takes us there, and whether that avenue is in the sacramental fullness of the East or the sacramental fullness of the West, is secondary.

There is no schism in Heaven.

God bless.

Alice
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 04:54 PM
[Bob,

Why do you insist on being rude here? I once wrote Bishop Tikhon on this very subject. A former Romanian Catholic (now OCA) insisted on calling us "Uniates" and said that Orthodoxy required him to do so. I asked Bishop Tikhon if that was required and got a firm "No."]

Of course it's not required and if you reread some of my posts you will see that I have gone out of my way not to use it when dealing with certain issues, or to distinguish my 'Catholicity' from yours. But it seems that every ident I come up with that reminds you of the reality of the fact that you are both part of the Roman Catholic Church and still under it's authority is insulting to you. You have been searching for an identity for over 400 years and still haven't come up with one. In just my life time you have gone from 'Greek Catholic', to either 'Byzantine Catholic' or Ukranian Catholic' (depending on the ethnic identity you wanted), to now 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'. It seems that every twenty years are so you try and reinvent yourselves.

It has been discussed here many times, and even Alex had agreed that when the Union took place your average church goer had no idea his church had become part of the RCC by its incorporation into it. Because he based everything on what he saw and heard when he went to church. And he was fiercely and devoutly Orthodox in his identity. The Popes name was only commerated in the diocesan cathedrals. The local bishop was commerated in the village churches. Those that questioned why the Pope was being commerated were told that the Pope had BECOME ORTHODOX (which in itself shows they didn't consider the RCC Orthodox). It was a deceptive device then and it remains so now. If it was, and still is, so important for you all to be in comunion with the so called 'see of Peter' then you should be proud to proclaim that union. Not try and hide it by reinventing an identity every twenty or so years. If I was a member of your church and believed my Orthodoxy could only be complete within unity with the pope like the Administrator does, then I would have no problem being called either a 'Papal Catholic' or more precise an 'Eastern Rite Papal Catholic'. But I am forbidden to use either ident in place of the 'Uniate' id here.

Though I disagree with them, I have more respect with Roman Catholics like LatinTrad that come in here and not only understand what and who they are but defend it. They fully understand that to be 'in communion with the Pope' not only requires allegiance but belief in what he proclaims and upholds.

You all, on the other hand, complain that you get it from boths sides. Ever ask yourselves why? It's because you have loyality to neither church. Nor are you willing to follow the teachings fully of either side.

If you all are so insecure about what and who you are it's not my fault.

[I humbly agree with the Administrator that you have raised several good issues. Still, I have never really understood (1) what does it mean to be "Orthodox" in your book; (2) why the Eastern Catholic churches are not among those "who rightly glorify"; and (3) what we should do about it.]

For the answer to (1) read my previous post.

(2) Because as a sui juris church within the Roman fold you are required to accept (with the exception of the (Filioque) all the the RCC teaches, believes, and upholds. [Read the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches] some of which I will quote below [Marked (*)]. To be 'in communion with Rome' means to accept their leader as the ultimate authority over the church on earth and accept the doctrines he proclaims, protects, and upholds. Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Papal Surpemacy, etc. must be accepted by you by that very communion you proclaim.

(*) CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES: [Caps are mine to emphasize]

The Supreme Authority Of The Church -

Can 43: The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and PASTOR OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH ON EARTH. BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE HE POSSESSES SUPREME, FULL, IMMEDIATE AND UNIVERASL POWER IN THE CHURCH WHICH HE IS ALWAAYS ABLE TO EXERCISE FREELY.

Can 45: By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only POSSESSES POWER OVER THE ENTIRE CHURCH BUT ALSO OBTAINS THE PRIMACY OF POWER OVER ALL THE EPARCHIES AND THEIR GROUPINGS. <SNIPE>

Can 46 (2): THE PARTICIPATION OF PATRIARCHS AND OF ALL THE OTHER HIERACHS WHO PRESIDE OVER CHURCHES SUI JURIS IN THE SYNOD OF BISHOPSIS REGULATED BY SPECIAL NORMS ESTABLISHED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF.

Metropolitan Churches And Other Churches Sui Juris -

Can 155 (2): IT IS SOLELY FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH TO ERECT, MODIFY, AND SUPRESS METROPOLITAN CHURCHES sui juris AS WELL AS TO DEFINE THEIR TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.

The Patrairchal Chruches -

Can 57: The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches ARE RESERVED FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Note; The Pope)

(3) What you should do about it? If you follow the sister church analogy (which I don't because its like having two sisters without a mother), and believe both churches have valid sacraments and provide salvation as the RCC now teaches, then you should decide what things are most important to you and fully incorporate yourself into that church which provides them. It's a simple as that. I would rather see you as a devout RC like LatinTrad than a confused christian with an identity crisis!

[ I doubt you can find "Uniate" used on the OCA website.]

You are probably right. The only place I seem to see it used with any regularity is on Roman Catholic websites like the one that was recommended along with the one below -

https://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=1543

OrthoMan
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 05:10 PM
Alice:

From my files, regarding Orthodoxy an 'Purgatory' -

In 'The Complete Book of Orthodoxy' by George W. Grube the following
sentence appears within the explaination of PURGATORY -

"If there is, any suffering in the after life, some Orthodox Catholic
theologians teach, it is of a purifying nature and not punitive."

I find this to be confusing because, isn't this exactly what the Roman
Catholic teaches in regards to Purgatory? Can someone explain this sentence
and its meaning from an Orthodox Catholic viewpoint?

Reply:

Out of the post I have read, it seems there is some confusion about this
issue. So, I will try to give the general differences between RC purgatory
and Orthodox understanding of the soul's purification in the next life.
There are similarities and differences.

First, one must stop and think what the word "punishment" really means. It
is essentially, a corrective measure that is used upon someone for their
ultimate benefit. Originally, the concept of "punishment" had a very
redemptive and healing aspect to it. However, as it tends to be used today
(at least in theological talk), it tends to refer to arbitrary dishing out
of misery, often to "pay back" some wrong or injustice. We see this in our
own laws, one can see a paying back and a hope of it bringing healing when
we send someone to jail. In strict law sense, however, I think the intent is
to ultimate reform the person, or at least keep them out of society so that
they do not harm others. Revenge is more the emotional side of it from the
victim's standpoint.

Due to the above, the concept of punishment has taken on more of a "paying
back" or retribution, and is then a word that people who focus on the
healing aspect like to stay away from. This probably comes from the concept
of satisfaction atonement, where the whole idea of Jesus dying on the cross
was to pay back to the Father a debt of sin that we could not. That is also
why the RC idea sounds so much like they are saying (to a Protestant) that
Christ's forgiveness wasn't good enough, since it didn't entirely pay the
debt, that we by suffering punishment still had something left to pay off
for our sins. Thus, while the RC held to some degree of the satisfaction
theory, and while that did predominate at certain times, they still had the
context of healing, even if it was buried at times and forgotten. The
understanding of "punishment" can be interpreted in either direction.
However, I would tend to stay away from it now if just because its common
connotation does not lend itself to really expressing the reality of what we
believe, and will automatically put forth a picture of God that is
incompatible with Orthodoxy's.

That said, Orthodoxy does understand a purifying to take place in the next
life, which St. Paul also speaks about (and RC uses to support Purgatory as
well), that all our works will be put through the fire, the stone, gold,
etc. will remain while all that is of hay, straw, etc. will be burned away.
Even if it is all burned away, however, if the foundation which has been
laid is Jesus Christ, that person will be saved as through the fire.

Since this is scripture, and the Fathers also speak about the purifying of
the soul in this life and the next, this is something we cannot just toss
aside. However, there are some significant differences between what I have
understood of the RC's concept and Orthodoxy's on this purifying in the next
life.

One of the biggest differences is when this purifying takes place, and the
purpose and reason of the purifying. RC teaches that one must be purified
*before* approaching God. Orthodoxy tends to teach that one is purified
*upon* approaching God.

First, one must understand the need for purification. Keep in mind that this
is a journey. Our movement is towards the likeness of God being instilled in
our life and a growing relationship with Him. The closer we move towards
God-likeness, it basically means the less of this temporal world that we
hold onto and the more of the Spirit that we have. (Read St. Seraphim of
Sarov on acquiring the Holy Spirit as an example of this.) Some folks have
attained to the angelic life in this life. My own patron saint, the Apostle
Timothy, disciple of St. Paul, was said to have been such a person.
Incidentally he was martyred for preaching against the pagan worship in
Ephesus, where he was a bishop of the Church. A mob came and beat him with
stones and clubs. Anyway, most of us will not get there in this life time.
We hold onto too much of this world's treasures. We don't go and "sell all
that we have" to follow Christ. Thus our sins build hay and straw structures
in our lives. We are forgiven for the sins through repentance and
confession, and the relationship to God is kept whole, but we still have
that straw hut over there that we have a hard time tearing down and building
it with something of the virtues. We struggle with that in many areas. We
wish to build things in our lives with our passions instead of the virtues.

Thus, what happens for many is they leave this life with some of our life
built out of gold, silver and other sturdy materials, but we also have some
of our life built out of the straw and hay. What we are doing on this
journey is working on tearing down the straw and hay structures and
replacing them with the stones of virtues.

The need is the same in either communion, that these areas of our life built
by the passions cannot remain in the presence of God. However, the solution
to how those are dealt with varies. RC says that they must be burned away
before entering God's presence. Therefore, there is a place, or time, or
some existence that one has that one goes through this fire and is purified
of these things. Naturally this is not going to be pleasant and does feel
like a "punishment" even though it is for our benefit. When I got punished
as a child for playing in the street, it was to protect my life, not to
cause me pain for the heck of it. Yet, the concept here is that God's
holiness cannot allow any impurity and will automatically be rejected.
Therefore, if one comes into God's presence with some impurity, the idea is
that person will be rejected except that the impurity is cleansed
beforehand.

In Orthodoxy, God is understood as an "All Consuming Fire" that we are
either lighted with or heated by. This fiery presence is in Orthodoxy what
purifies us. Upon coming to God, His very presence burns away all
impurities. All that remains will be the gold, silver and other virtues of
our life, and at that point we will be freed from all that once weighted us
down in this life, and freed to ascend in greater ways to God. For those who
have progressed far with eradicating the passions from their lives and have
attained a great God-likeness through the Spirit, there will be little to
burn away, if any, and their transition into God's presence will be fully
like the three holy Children in Daniel, who when the king threw them into
the furnace heated 7 times greater than normal, all experienced it as a
"dewy cool breeze" instead of a burning fire. There will be many, however,
that will experience this entry to God's presence with some pain and
suffering. Not due to God inflicting punishment on them, but due to the
reaction of bringing impurity into God's holiness. The two cannot mix. It is
like mixing two chemicals together that produce an explosion. Neither
chemical "caused" it to happen, it simply happened by bringing them
together. Thus it will be with the consequences of sin in our lives that we
have yet to clean out in this life, it will get cleaned out in the next for
us.

Therefore, there are two different understandings at work here, one which
says that we cannot come into God's presence without being purified first
because God will reject us as a person otherwise, and one which says that in
coming into His presence, He doesn't reject all those in Christ, but He does
"reject" and burns away all that is incompatible with His presence in us.
Yet, if we have Christ, we hold onto that relationship and the burning is
only temporary (whatever temporary means there), whereas those who do not
have Christ, upon coming into God's presence, experience the second death,
total and unending fire of His presence. That is "hell".

The next difference comes in our prayers for these people. Somehow over time
the RC concept mutated from what we understand as Orthodox to this whole
system of merits and the applying them from one to another. Initially, the
understanding of "merits" simply meant that a particular saint who was close
to God due to their humility and love of God in their life, who had
eradicated much of the passions and established the virtues, had by that
reason acquired the life that has faith which can move mountains. This is of
God's doing, not the saints, and the saint continually keeps this in mind if
he/she does not with to fall. However, Christ says we will be able to do
that, and like the demon that the disciples could not cast out because they
had not fasted and prayed as they should have, one's acquiring the Holy
Spirit in humility does have something to do with how well one is able to
help others with a gift God has given them, whether that is healing,
hospitality, etc. Thus, there are some that have more "merit" in their lives
than others. Doesn't mean one has earned salvation, but simply that one has
acquired a certain relationship with God which allows them to transmit to us
more of God's mercy and grace within our lives. That is why we ask people to
pray for us, in hopes that they have a relationship with God that will aid
us. So one sees the Fathers speaking of merits at times, and some current
Orthodoxy material will also speak of them as well.

However, somehow in the RC circles, this grew into some sort of "thing" that
one can almost measure. So if one did such and such a thing, it would give
them X number of merits from a saints abundant storehouse of merits (he/she
had more than they needed for themselves). I think one can find examples
where this has gone to extremes such as the selling of them (as if the
Church owned them), and the more legalistic "pray this prayer and get 2000
merits" which I read something similar to that in some Catholic literature
once.

In Orthodox understanding, such prayers and gifts of the saints cannot be
moved around like that, nor can you store up a saints merits for when you
get to "purgatory" yourself. All that a saint can help you with in that
regard is to pray for you and help guide you to acquiring the "merits" for
yourself so that when you get to God, you will experience the least amount
of burning possible. Nor are they quantified as something measurable. Yet,
we deem the prayers of the saints as powerful and a great help in time of
need, and they work towards our salvation and redemption of our whole life.
Consequently, Orthodoxy has never built us such a system of merits as the RC
has.

Those are the two main differences between our views of this purifying in
the next life as I have understood things. May others correct my mistakes.
Perhaps there are others, but my post has gone on long enough as it is.
Posted By: Turlough Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 08:10 PM
Dear OrthoMan,

Thank you for your last post. This is a post I can sink my teeth into and contemplate. It has offered much food for thought and expresses many ideas which I have been moving toward concerning the purification that happens after death. Please continue with these type of informative messages.

Terry
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 08:22 PM
Bob,

The R C website you directed us to had this to say about "Uniate" (in the glossary):

Quote
The latter term is generally used by Orthodox critics, and not always appreciated by Eastern-rite Catholics.
I have no problem in proclaiming my union with the pope. I think we have a great pope and I applaud what he's done. I am proud to be a part of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for posting the explanation of the differences on Purgatory. Actually, the writer of that piece is under a false assumption that the developed explanation of some Roman theologians is required belief of the entire Catholic Church. Just as the Toll House view is one view among Orthodox--so the view cited by your writer is just one view in the Catholic Church. For example, see this article by a Catholic theologian:

http://cte.rockhurst.edu/stramarad/th1course/th1reading/readings/purg.html

I cite this article only to show there are a variety of views of purification even in the Western Church. As for myself, I would hold essentially to the positive presentation of the writer you cited. All that is required belief for Catholics is that there exists such a purification after death.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 08:33 PM
[This is a post I can sink my teeth into and contemplate. It has offered much food for thought and expresses many ideas which I have been moving toward concerning the purification that happens after death. Please continue with these type of informative messages.]

You are welcome. In all honesty, it is the only explaination I ever had that was explained in a way that I could comprehend it.

It was written by a former Nazarine minister who converted to Orthodoxy a few years back. He started out in an AOL Orthodox Discussion group studying both Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism. He ended up Orthodox which is certainly to our advantage. He continues to study Orthodoxy today and as you can see, has a better handle on it than most Orthodox.

OrthoMan
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 09:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tammy:
I don't think it's so bad to be a hybrid. Hybrid flowers tend to be prettier and more disease-resistant than their purebred parents. Hybrid dogs ("mutts") tend to be healthier than purebreds, which are now coming up with genetic defects. When left alone, flowers cross-pollinate. When left alone, dogs will mate with any other dog, not caring about breed or pedigree. That is the way of nature, and God designed nature.

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but I will stand by this until my dying day.

Tammy
I think Tammy makes something of a point here. Why is it necessarily a bad thing (if God is One, and Truth is One, and the Church is One) for Easterners to adopt some "western" devotions, or for Westerners to adopt seom "eastern" devotions. I'm sure that if I confessed to praying Akathists no one on this forum would tell me not to!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the dissolution of the various traditions into one big mish-mash. But nevertheless it seems that the Eastern tradition is already in trouble if it has to make artificial rules like "No Rosary Praying Here" or "Check your Miraculous Medals At The Door."

God bless.

LatinTrad
Posted By: djs Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 10:10 PM
Orthoman on Orthodox "identity"

Quote
Yes, we Orthodox Catholics argue over earthly domains but you would never hear us argue over whether we have to believe in the IC, Purgatory, or other doctrines to be true
Orthodox Christians.

Perhaps the best way and the quickest way to answer would be to quote St Vincent of Lerins on what also makes the Orthodox Church Catholic. Which is to adhere to those doctrines that were formulated and believed everywhere, always, by all. Those doctrines that were formulated when the church was undivided and still entirely Orthodox. We have neither added, subtracted, or changed them in any way as the See of Rome whose authority you are now under has
Alice has already responded with a devastating critique of the ideas presented in the first paragraph. And Orthoman's post, ostensibly in response misses the point entirely; it examines differences between Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, rather than differences among Orthodox perspectives. (It also makes the usual tiresome error in elevating certain theological paradigms to the level of dogma. As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. :rolleyes: )

The second paragraph contains a nice slogan, but it hardly elucidates an identity. Where, when, and whom are involved in the "everywhere, always, by all"? Evidently not pre-chalcedonian Christians, to take but one example.

Would you like to try again?
Posted By: Lawrence Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/07/03 10:39 PM
Some Easterners are concerned with ways of getting rid of the Rosary, Crucifixes, Stations of the Cross etc. Don't feel so bad if you're unsuccessful. Some of us Westerners are praying for ways to jettison the guitar mass, congas, rhythmic clapping, handholding, and the Gay and Lesbian group that meets in the church basement.
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 01:09 AM
Hi, OrthoMan,

Thanks for the complements!

Now, warning--I think I'm going to upset some people here. It is not my intent. These are personal difficulties of mine and I invite comment:

I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are awesome--all the Eastern Patriarchates used to be Eastern Catholic after all (AFAWC!). wink And I love the Divine Liturgies of Chrysostom, Basil, Thomas, etc.

Nevertheless I am troubled by the fact that many rank-and-file Eastern Catholics feel obliged by their Eastern identity to basically deny the Orthodoxy of Rome. The very term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" seems to indicate that Rome itself is not Orthodox. Then, when you learn that many of these "Orthodox in communion with Rome" actually

-deny the ecumenical character of Councils that Rome considers ecumenical,
-declare that certain dogmas-solemnly-defined (like the Immaculate Conception, whose feast we celebrate tomorrow) are are not binding on their Churches, and
-reject the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy in principle,

it is even more upsetting.

Could someone help me out?


LatinTrad
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 01:17 AM
[It also makes the usual tiresome error in elevating certain theological paradigms to the level of dogma. As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. ) ]

You seem to be trying to mix apples and oranges to make a point. The Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility & Supremacy, Purgatory are dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church according the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia -

{Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and THE DELIBERATE DENIAL OF ONE OF THESE DOGMAS CERTAINLY INVOLVES THE SIN OF HERESY.}

What Alice was talking about is the Orthodox belief regarding the soul after death. I think my post gave a pretty good explaination of the Orthodox belief as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief in the soul after death and Purgatory.

Alice brings up the subject of 'toll houses' which in neither a doctrine or an official dogma of the Orthodox Catholic Church any more than Mary as Co-redemterix is an official doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are doctrines and and dogmas that are binding to both the RC & OC churches. And there are theological opinions by both churches which we Orthodox refer to as theologoumenia [opinions or ideas expressed which may be true but are not binding on the Orthodox faithful or defined by synods of the Church].

What I gave as examples were Roman Catholic dogma. What Alice came back with is theologumenia. Big difference!

[The second paragraph contains a nice slogan, but it hardly elucidates an identity. Where, when, and whom are involved in the "everywhere, always, by all"? ]

Exactly what it says. Those that believe in the doctrines, Canons, and Creeds that were formulated during the first seven Ecumenical Councils when the Church was still BASICALLY one and still Orthodox. The councils that were represented by all five Christian Patriarchates at the time.

[As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. ) ]

The examples Alice gives are not doctrine within the Orthodox Catholic Church and never have been. As stated earlier, they are theologoumenia. Are you really telling me that the IC, Purgatory, Papal Infalliblity and Supremacy are not RCC dogma but (Roman) Catholic perspectives?

[Evidently not pre-chalcedonian Christians, to take but one example.]

This one is still up in the air. They are not as far away from their Byzantine Orthodox broters and sisters as previously believed.


OrthoMan
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 01:41 AM
[I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).]

So do I LatinTrad, so do I! I agree with 100% on this!

[I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are awesome--all the Eastern Patriarchates used to be Eastern Catholic after all (AFAWC!).]

All the original Eastern Patriarchs are still Catholic LatinTrad. Contrary to what you are taught they never left that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed. They are still it, in its original form. But that's something you and I will have to agree to disagree on!

[The very term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" seems to indicate that Rome itself is not Orthodox. Then, when you learn that many of these "Orthodox in communion with Rome" actually

-deny the ecumenical character of Councils that Rome considers ecumenical,
-declare that certain dogmas-solemnly-defined (like the Immaculate Conception, whose feast we celebrate tomorrow) are are not binding on their Churches, and
-reject the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy in principle, it is even more upsetting.]

So the terminology seems to p--- off both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Catholics! Then they wonder why they get it from both sides. And it will contine that way until they decide to be loyal to one or the other. I think that we can both agree that the way things stand now they can't be loyal to both. The very fact that they seem to be put dogma as secndary in importance to ritual and tradition is also unacceptable to both our churches.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 02:30 AM
Quote
LatinTrad wrote:
I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).
LT, Who are you applying this to?

If you are applying this to the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome it doesn�t quite work because the Catholic Church teaches that their ecclesiology has it�s own �authenticity and originality� (to quote PJPII from Orientale Lumen).

If you are applying this to the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome it doesn�t work either because the Catholic Church teaches the same thing about our ecclesiology. No one has ever stated that Catholic ecclesiology is broken into three or more fragments. It is the Catholic Church herself that teaches that each Particular Catholic Church brings to the universal Church a particular way of doing ecclesiology.

What you seem not to understand is that each Particular Catholic Church is a living and breathing organism. Each Church brings to the universal Church a unique way of witnessing Christ. The Church at Rome is alive and speaks in one doctrinal language. The Church at Jerusalem is also alive and speaks in a different doctrinal language. The Church at Antioch is also alive and speaks in yet another doctrinal language. When a man and woman become husband and wife they become one body. Yet they remain two individuals. They see though two different eyes, they process things with two different brains, they speak with two different voices. Likewise each local Church is a product of its own experience. Each contributes something slightly different but equally magnificant to the entire Church.

Quote
LatinTrad wrote:
Nevertheless I am troubled by the fact that many rank-and-file Eastern Catholics feel obliged by their Eastern identity to basically deny the Orthodoxy of Rome. The very term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" seems to indicate that Rome itself is not Orthodox. Then, when you learn that many of these "Orthodox in communion with Rome" actually

-deny the ecumenical character of Councils that Rome considers ecumenical,
-declare that certain dogmas-solemnly-defined (like the Immaculate Conception, whose feast we celebrate tomorrow) are are not binding on their Churches, and
-reject the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy in principle,

it is even more upsetting.
OK. The fact that you are setting up a straw man and attempting to knock it down only shows that you do not have a good grasp on Catholic theology.

First, are you aware that the Catholic Church places the Seven Great Councils in a different category than the �General Councils in the West� (as termed by Pope Paul VI? If not please get yourself to a library and look up the letter of Paul VI to Cardinal Willebrands of October 1974 is found in "Information Service" of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 25 (1974/III) pages 8-10. Also check out the homily Cardinal Willebrands preached in Lyons for the 7th centenary of the Second Council of Lyons which directly follows.

Second, let�s use the Council of Trent as an example. This Council was a response to the heresies of the Protestants. How exactly did Trent affect the Eastern Churches? Did the Eastern Churches have theologies that were heretical and in need of reform by Trent? No! Trent did not affect the way Eastern Christians expressed doctrine. They kept on living the Christian Life they always lived. Why in heavens name do you expect Eastern Christians to re-write their theology based upon the problems the Church had in another part of the world? Trent is not a council at the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. All Eastern Catholics are expected to do about Trent is to acknowledge that the teachings expressed there are true. They are not expected to chuck the Christian Life they have lived and go and memorize the recipes for being Catholic that were issued at Trent.

Regarding �certain dogmas-solemnly-defined� that are or are not binding, you really miss the boat on this. You make it sound like every time there is an issue that is dealt with in the Latin Church the other Catholic Churches must tear down their houses and rebuild their lives to incorporate the way the Latin Church has responded to a problem in her own house. Why such arrogance? All that the Catholic Church asks is that all Catholics acknowledge that these things are true. They do not expect each Christian to chuck their own doctrinal and liturgical lives to adopt those of the Latin.

I think the problem here is that you are insisting that each Catholic Church give up its unique life experience and imitate the experience of only one of the Church. This simply isn�t what the Catholic Church teaches and is nothing more than Latin conceit.

BTW, the link to the article by Fr. Taft worked for me today and I read the article. It is wonderful. Check out his examples that show Latin ecclesiological exclusivism and Roman pretentions. I recommend that everyone interested in this conversation read it straight through three times on three successive days.

Admin
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 02:30 AM
Orthoman,

You cited an article on Purgatory which supposedly put forth the authoritative Catholic belief on Purgatory. Problem is: it didn't. It put forth one view. It is false to claim that Catholics are bound to hold to that interpretation of Purgatory. As djs has said: that is a "straw man."

All that Catholics are required to believe is that there is a purification after death for some. That's it. The other stuff is one theological view. The other stuff is not dogma.

I've mentioned this earlier in this thread but you've ignored what I said and you continue to misrepresent our faith. Why? A few weeks ago you came to this Forum with a "News" item about Fatima which was shown to be false. Did you apologize for introducing this here? What is your purpose for being here?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 03:58 AM
Hello Mr. Administrator,

Please don't get so upset. frown I was just asking. Maybe I don't have a good grasp on Catholic theology. I'm just a simple layman who is trying to understand. I also respect very much most of what you have written in response to brother OrthoMan's attacks. Now I know you're getting broadsides on both bows here and maybe that's why you're a little bit excitable . . . wink

But as far as I can tell, Paul VI's letter His Eminence does not overturn the fact that the official titles of all the "General Councils of the West" are "CONCILIVM OECVMENICALE -----". Even VATICAN II, everybody's favorite Council, was called Ecumenical.

Now, I wrote:


I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).


The Admin wrote:
LT, Who are you applying this to?

Meanwhile, the Admin himself wrote on this very thread:
The ethos of Orthodoxy exists as much in the Roman Catholic Church as it does in the Byzantine Orthodox Church as much as it does in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

and:
Hmmm�. So all of the Orthodox theologians who state that the Churches separated from one another are really lying to us? The fault is all on the part of Rome and Constantinople and the other patriarchates have no responsibility to ensure �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.�

These statements indicated to me that differing groups, who have different hierarchies and beliefs, can all equally be the Church of Christ. Which is impossible.

MAYBE I AM MISREADING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S WORDS. THIS IS QUITE POSSIBLE. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO KNOCK ANYTHING DOWN, STRAW OR OTHERWISE.

God bless,

LatinTrad
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
[ I doubt you can find "Uniate" used on the OCA website.]

You are probably right. The only place I seem to see it used with any regularity is on Roman Catholic websites like the one that was recommended along with the one below -

https://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=1543
Bob,

An irony of its use on the cwnews site is that if you click the link for "uniate" in the site's glossary, you get:

"Definition:
The Eastern Catholic churches are those Eastern Christian bodies which sought and obtained a restoration of full communion with the Holy See after having been identified for some period of time with the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches. These Eastern churches are also sometimes identified as "Eastern-rite Catholics" or as "Uniates." The latter term is generally used by Orthodox critics, and not always appreciated by Eastern-rite Catholics.". (emphasis mine)

The fact that the term is "not always appreciated" doesn't seem to have stopped cwnews from using it.

Just a side observation.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:26 AM
[You cited an article on Purgatory which supposedly put forth the authoritative Catholic belief on Purgatory. Problem is: it didn't. It put forth one view. It is false to claim that Catholics are bound to hold to that interpretation of Purgatory. As djs has said: that is a "straw man."]

[All that Catholics are required to believe is that there is a purification after death for some. That's it. The other stuff is one theological view. The other stuff is not dogma.]


The Roman Catholic Encylopedia lists Purgatory as a Catholic Doctrine not a theological view -

I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING PURGATORY IS CLEARLY EXPRESS IN THE DECREE OF UNION The faith of the Church drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) THAT THERE IS A PURGATORY, AND THAT THE SOULS THERIN ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

It does not list it as what we Orthodox Catholics call a theologumenia. It is not an opinion of the RCC, it is a doctrine. And as such, you are reguired to believe it based on both the Canons of your church and the fact that you are in communion with the RCC.

[A few weeks ago you came to this Forum with a "News" item about Fatima which was shown to be false. Did you apologize for introducing this here?]

I simply posted a news item from a Portuguese Newpaper. I made no comments on its validity. It was posted to generate discussion. And only time will tell if its true or not. It wouldn't be the first time the Vatican denied something that was later found to be true! Only time will tell.

OrthoMan


[The Church at Rome is alive and speaks in one doctrinal language. The Church at Jerusalem is also alive and speaks in a different doctrinal language. The Church at Antioch is also alive and speaks in yet another doctrinal language. When a man and woman become husband and wife they become one body. Yet they remain two individuals. They see though two different eyes, they process things with two different brains, they speak with two different voices. Likewise each local Church is a product of its own experience. Each contributes something slightly different but equally magnificant to the entire Church.]

The Protestant Churches could also make the same claim to try and justify that they are in fact one church rather than thousands of separate entities. They are one Protestant church that just speaks different doctrinal languages! Talk about strawmen!

OrthoMan
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:29 AM
[You cited an article on Purgatory which supposedly put forth the authoritative Catholic belief on Purgatory. Problem is: it didn't. It put forth one view. It is false to claim that Catholics are bound to hold to that interpretation of Purgatory. As djs has said: that is a "straw man."]

[All that Catholics are required to believe is that there is a purification after death for some. That's it. The other stuff is one theological view. The other stuff is not dogma.]


The Roman Catholic Encylopedia lists Purgatory as a Catholic Doctrine not a theological view -

I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CATHOLIC TEACHING is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH CONCERNING PURGATORY IS CLEARLY EXPRESS IN THE DECREE OF UNION The faith of the Church drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) THAT THERE IS A PURGATORY, AND THAT THE SOULS THERIN ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

It does not list it as what we Orthodox Catholics call a theologumenia. It is not an opinion of the RCC, it is a doctrine. And as such, you are reguired to believe it based on both the Canons of your church and the fact that you are in communion with the RCC.

[A few weeks ago you came to this Forum with a "News" item about Fatima which was shown to be false. Did you apologize for introducing this here?]

I simply posted a news item from a Portuguese Newpaper. I made no comments on its validity. It was posted to generate discussion. And only time will tell if its true or not. It wouldn't be the first time the Vatican denied something that was later found to be true! Only time will tell.

OrthoMan


[The Church at Rome is alive and speaks in one doctrinal language. The Church at Jerusalem is also alive and speaks in a different doctrinal language. The Church at Antioch is also alive and speaks in yet another doctrinal language. When a man and woman become husband and wife they become one body. Yet they remain two individuals. They see though two different eyes, they process things with two different brains, they speak with two different voices. Likewise each local Church is a product of its own experience. Each contributes something slightly different but equally magnificant to the entire Church.]

The Protestant Churches could also make the same claim to try and justify that they are in fact one church rather than thousands of separate entities. They are one Protestant church that just speaks different doctrinal languages! Talk about strawmen!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DTBrown:
A few weeks ago you came to this Forum with a "News" item about Fatima which was shown to be false. Did you apologize for introducing this here?
David,

Bob was not the only one to introduce the Fatima "news" item, nor is there any reason to suggest that he did so maliciously. That item, as you can see by the postings in response to it, appeared in any number of publications, all of which drew the same erroneous conclusions based on it, since the material in it was "reported" as "fact". It took 2 weeks or so before the Vatican bothered to get a press release out correcting the misperceptions/misconstruals.

IMHO, you owe him an apology for what was, essentially, a cheap shot.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:32 AM
[The fact that the term is "not always appreciated" doesn't seem to have stopped cwnews from using it.

Just a side observation.]

My point exactly!

OrthoMan
Posted By: DTBrown Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:23 AM
Neil,

You're right. I do owe Bob an apology.

Bob,

I apologize for bringing up the Fatima thread. It was a cheap shot.

Quote
And only time will tell if its true or not. It wouldn't be the first time the Vatican denied something that was later found to be true! Only time will tell.
I think it's been pretty well discredited.

Quote
THAT THERE IS A PURGATORY, AND THAT THE SOULS THERIN ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL,
So, Bob, Catholics believe there is a purification after death (we call it purgatory) and the souls undergoing that purification are helped by our prayers (which is what "suffrages" means). That's all that is required of Catholics to believe. So, you've proved my point.

Where is the proof that we are required to believe a Latin theological explanation of Purgatory?

Note to the Administrator: This thread has really gotten off-topic. But, please leave it open so that Bob can post the proof that we Byzantine Catholics must believe anything other than that there is a purification after death for some.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 03:21 PM
Neil,

You are farily new here, but Dave is not. He owes Bob no apology. Bob is quite well known here for making much of the worst of the Catholic Church and ignoring the same of the Orthodox Church. The Fatima article is a case in point. Only a few months ago Bob was greatly offended by the posting of an article that related how a Russian Orthodox priest in Russia performed a pseudo-marriage for a homosexual couple. He triumphantly pronounced the article a lie and product of a tabloid and evidence of how willing we are to slander the Orthodox Church. However, a few weeks later it turns out the article was indeed true, but Bob issued no apology or retraction. He then does the same thing he railed against, and posts an unsubstantiated article to show how bad the Catholic Church is. The only difference being the one about the priest was true, the Fatima article has been disproved. Fatima is doing exactly what Lourdes and Guadalupe has done, build a large modern Church (one can question the beauty of said building) to accomodate the large number of pilgrims.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 03:46 PM
[Where is the proof that we are required to believe a Latin theological explanation of Purgatory? ]

Dave, what word in the first five words of the quote below do you not understand?

quote:

THAT THERE IS A PURGATORY, AND THAT THE SOULS THERIN ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL,


OrthoMan
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:

THAT THERE IS A PURGATORY, AND THAT THE SOULS THERIN ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL,


Amen, Amen, Amen. smile

Anathema to all who believe otherwise. smile

I think part of the reason why the Catholic Church has always shied away from using the word "heretical" to describe the EO Churches--even though some and perhaps most of their faithful would deny things like Purgatory--is because those Orthodox who deny Purgatory are condemned by their own ancient lex orandi. OrthoMan, you guys pray for the dead all the time. If the dead are not helped by the suffrages of the faithful, why bother? The only possible conclusion, from the ancient lex orandi and orthopraxis of your Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, is that THERE IS A PURGATORY AND THAT THE SOULS THERE ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL.

In Christ,

LatinTrad
Posted By: Halychanyn Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:15 PM
[To be 'in communion with Rome' means to accept their leader as the ultimate authority over the church on earth and accept the doctrines he proclaims, protects, and upholds. Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Papal Surpemacy, etc. must be accepted by you by that very communion you proclaim.]

So, if I hear you right, you are saying that doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are so "off the chart bad" that the RC's cannot even describe themselves as small-o "orthodox"?

Why can't we just chalk these up to differences in theological approaches between East and West and agree that both are "right," based upon their particular traditions?

This would also suggest that you take the position that ecumenism is a romantic notion that will never come about until the Roman church gets rid of these teachings. Am I correct in this assumption?

Yours,

hal

P.S. IMHO, your approach has more proverbial "honey" and less "vinegar" these days. I, for one, appreciate this. Thanks! smile
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
Amen, Amen, Amen. smile

Anathema to all who believe otherwise. smile
Well, LT has just anathematized Pope John Paul II! Both he and Bob take the prize for conceit and rudeness. I ask both of them to at least learn something about Catholic theology. Disagreeing with something you don't understand helps no one.
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:32 PM
Wait, wait, wait!!!

How/when/where/why did John Paul II deny Latin Trad's comment on Purgatory??? This is a doctrine of the Church! Perhaps, if this claim is substantiated, it might be time to employ St. Robert Bellarmine's tactics concerning heretical pontiffs? confused eek :rolleyes:

Logos Teen
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:53 PM
Admin, with all due respect, please go and read my post again, and then come back and justify your comment that POPE JOHN PAUL II DOES NOT BELIEVE IN PURGATORY.'

That is an outrageous and outlandish claim.

I think you are being overly defensive here and you are not reading my posts in the spirit in which they are written.

LatinTrad
Posted By: Tammy Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 05:55 PM
Admin,

The Catholic Church DOES teach Purgatory, in the Catechism:
Quote
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
I highly doubt PPJII does not believe something in the Catechism HE has propagated throughout the Catholic Church!
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:00 PM
Thanks, Tammy.
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:14 PM
[Why can't we just chalk these up to differences in theological approaches between East and West and agree that both are "right," based upon their particular traditions?]

Because they are proclaimed doctines or dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church whose earthly authority you recognize and whose Bishop you also recognize as being the 'Supreme Pontiff', 'Universal Bishop', and earthly head of the church! Haven't you been reading the discussions? As doctrines or dogmas of said church they are required to be believed in order to be considered as part of that Church and to retain your communion with him and his church. That is the way the RCC is set up. It's what both myself and LatinTrad have been trying to get across to you.

Why don't we all become Protestants so we can truly believe whatever we want and list it as theological approaches? Either you believe what the ultimate Bishop whose authority you have placed yourself under proclaims, upholds, and protects or you don't. If you don't you then you severe your communion with him or are admitting that you are under the ultimate authority of a Bishop who expounds what you consider heterodox teachings!

[This would also suggest that you take the position that ecumenism is a romantic notion that will never come about until the Roman church gets rid of these teachings. Am I correct in this assumption?]

Not exactly! In order for a reunion to take place we have to go back to the time when our churches were still BASICALLY one and undivided and shared the same faith. And once again, as a reunited church, build from there.. I believe the Orthodox Catholic Church is already there since it has not added, subtracted, or changed any of those doctrines that were shared by both our churches. The Roman Catholic on the other hand has. So yes, in a way I do believe the RCC either has to get rid of these teaching so the can be discussed within the context of a truly Ecumenical Council and either be accepted or rejected BY THE ENTIRE REUNITED CATHOLIC CHURCH.

We Orthodox Catholics have nothing to negiotate because everything we believe was aso believed by the Roman Catholic Church before the schism. First issue to be resolved is Papal Supremacy. Once that issue is agreed upon what I have posted will take place.

OrthoMan
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:21 PM
I think a few definitions are in order:

Dogma � A truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed authoritatively by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.

Doctrine - That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge. Synonymous are catechesis and catechism.

Theologumen � A theological opinion that may be given great weight by individual members of Church but is neither doctrinal nor dogmatic. Theologumen are not binding upon the faithful unless its verified by the Church, based upon Holy Tradition.

---

Dogmas are those theological precepts that have been authoritatively defined by the Church and are binding upon the faithful (�must believe�).

Doctrines are an explanation of dogmas. Doctrines may develop over time just as a person may mature with age. Think of an acorn growing into an oak tree. The seeds within the acorn are the dogmatic elements. The tree at various stages in its life equates to doctrinal development. Each oak tree is the same thing but each is unique and different. Each Particular Church brings to the universal Church a unique method of teaching the faithful (doctrine). Each Particular Church (Latin, Chaldean, Byzantine, etc.) recognizes the doctrine of the other Particular Churches (Latin, Chaldean, Byzantine, etc.) as true. But each Particular Church does not replace its method of catechesis (teaching doctrine) with that of another Church. The doctrinal expressions of each of the Particular Catholic Churches are equal. None is ranked above another.

Theologumenia are theological opinions that the Christian faithful may adopt but are not taught as either an authoritative dogma or doctrine.

---

Limiting the discussion to purgatory for the moment, the dogmatic elements of the Church�s teaching on purgatory are that 1) there is a purifying journey of the souls of the elect upon death and 2) that prayers for those on this journey are good and helpful. The entire imagery of the �purgatorial fire� or �cleansing fire� and the theology of indulgences are part of the doctrine of the Latin Church. Other Catholics must acknowledge this doctrine as true but other Catholics are not bound to use this doctrine exclusively. Byzantine Catholic doctrine keeps its doctrine of the journey of the soul after death in an elemental form but describes it as a purifying journey of ascent to the Father. It does not use an imagery of a fire nor does it attempt to measure forgiveness through the doctrine of indulgences.
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:22 PM
[The only possible conclusion, from the ancient lex orandi and orthopraxis of your Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, is that THERE IS A PURGATORY AND THAT THE SOULS THERE ARE HELPED BY THE SUFFRAGES OF THE FAITHFUL.]

Since, as has been already stated, we have gotten off the subject matter I will answer by opening up a new subject regarding the Orthodox Catholic view of Purgatory and praying for the dead.

OrthoMan
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:24 PM
When I wrote this post, the thread was farther back.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:24 PM
Quote
LT wrote:
Admin, with all due respect, please go and read my post again, and then come back and justify your comment that POPE JOHN PAUL II DOES NOT BELIEVE IN PURGATORY.'

That is an outrageous and outlandish claim.

I think you are being overly defensive here and you are not reading my posts in the spirit in which they are written.
LT is making false accusations. I suggest to him that he learn something about Catholic theology and the differences between dogma and doctrine. He keeps raising the doctrinal elements of the Latin Church to dogmatic levels.
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 06:31 PM
I ask all to read the thread and judge.

I cannot imagine what the Admin is so upset about.

In my post on page 7, I stated EXACTLY the same thing that the Admin stated on page 8! Namely that the belief of the whole Church was that there is purification after death and that acts of the faithful can help the souls who are undergoing said purification. And "anathema to all who believe otherwise" was my humorous way of stating that THIS is dogma and not opinion.

I said NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING about "fire" or any other theological explanations. READ MY POSTS, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FIRE.

Then it was the Admin who got mad. I didn't get mad. He got mad because he THOUGHT I was implying that Latin explanations were part of the dogma, when I never said so. Then he came on and implied that the Pope does not believe in Purgatory. Read his post, that's what he implied on page 7. Not only I, but Logos and Tammy took it that way.

I have no idea how to calm him down now. I feel like he has me pegged and will not actually read the words that I am typing.

I am done with this foolishness.


LatinTrad
Posted By: Dave Wells Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 08:07 PM
In reading through this entire thread (gasp!), I am reminded of the words of our Blessed Lord:

East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

What's that you say? Oh, silly me, those weren't Our Lord's words, those were Kipling's. Now what was it Our Lord said? Oh yes, here it is:

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

Kyrie eleison! Christe eleison! Kyrie eleison!
Posted By: OrthoMan Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 08:08 PM
In accordance with a private email I have received from the Administrator, I will be signing off the Forum. Doubt very much that I will be back after the one month sanction that has been imposed upon me.

I wish you all Christ's Blessing and a Happy life!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Anthony Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/08/03 08:14 PM
God bless you Bob.

In Christ,
Anthony

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
In accordance with a private email I have received from the Administrator, I will be signing off the Forum. Doubt very much that I will be back after the one month sanction that has been imposed upon me.

I wish you all Christ's Blessing and a Happy life!

OrthoMan
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 02:44 AM
Dear LT,

The whole thread has become rather tiresome as arguments focus on notions that are certainly not clear-cut in Eastern Catholic thinking and tradition by far.

I think the Administrator should be less strident and accusatory.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 02:47 AM
Dear Orthoman

I'm sorry, Sir!

While you know I would disagree with you on some points and agree with you on others, we have come to respect each other in Christ.

I don't argue the Administrator's decisions (or attitudes).

But it doesn't mean I have to like them, either.

God bless always!

Alex
Posted By: Lawrence Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 05:48 AM
I'am almost sorry I started this thread, after seeing how it deteriorated into an array of personal attacks. All I wanted to know was how certain Latin practices and devotions had found there way into the Eastern Rite Churches in recent years, not start a series of polemics over whether or not the Byzantine Rite is a heterodox church. I have to agree with the Administrator, if anyone were to go on a Baptist forum for the sole purpose of telling them how there church has got it wrong, I don't think they'd be very welcome for long.
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 10:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Neil,

You are farily new here, but Dave is not. He owes Bob no apology. Bob is quite well known here for making much of the worst of the Catholic Church and ignoring the same of the Orthodox Church. The Fatima article is a case in point. Only a few months ago Bob was greatly offended by the posting of an article that related how a Russian Orthodox priest in Russia performed a pseudo-marriage for a homosexual couple. He triumphantly pronounced the article a lie and product of a tabloid and evidence of how willing we are to slander the Orthodox Church. However, a few weeks later it turns out the article was indeed true, but Bob issued no apology or retraction. He then does the same thing he railed against, and posts an unsubstantiated article to show how bad the Catholic Church is. The only difference being the one about the priest was true, the Fatima article has been disproved. Fatima is doing exactly what Lourdes and Guadalupe has done, build a large modern Church (one can question the beauty of said building) to accomodate the large number of pilgrims.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Lance,

I read your post a couple times now and have decided that its presumptiousness merits a response. Nowhere in the guidelines of this forum do I find that newness is a measure of the appropriateness of one's post. So, your opinion aside, I stand by mine that Dave owed Bob an apology; an assessment with which Dave agreed, as you may have noticed.

I didn't, and won't, judge whether Bob has a history of finding fault with Catholicism and ignoring the possibility of the same with regard to Orthodoxy. Why? Because to do so would presume a longer familiarity with his postings than I have (i.e., that 'newness' which so concerns you). My post related to a specific comment that Dave made with respect to a single topic and my observation was in that context.

Your comparison of Bob's comments on the two articles (i.e., the 'interfaith shrine' at Fatima and the same-sex Russian Orthodox 'marriage'), besides employing a tit-for-tat mentality that is unworthy of one in Holy Orders, lacks any substantive basis for comparison, and is contradicted by the facts.

Review of Bob's initial post of the Fatima article

Fatima To Become INTERFAITH SHRINE!

would show that he posted it verbatim and without comment.

David subsequently asked Bob:

Quote
Originally posted by DTBrown:
Since you've introduced this piece here could you perhaps find out some more background on this? My gut feeling is this is one of those cases where the whole thing is twisted out of proportion.
To which Bob replied:

Quote
Originally posted by Orthoman:
All I know is that it appeared in a Portugese Newspaper called 'Publico'.

Here is the story in Portugese. Now, if someone can translate Portugese we may find out additional info -
Unsubstantiated article? Sure, I guess you could call it that. But, how would you have a poster substantiate a "news" article that appeared on-line, in a national tabloid, or even in his/her local newspaper? Few of us have the resources at hand to independently verify what we read, nor should we need to do so. We offer articles (and other, less concrete, statements propounded as fact) in forums such as this for one or more reasons, sometimes self-serving, sometimes altruistic, sometimes nothing more than mundane. Such reasons include: to seek verification or repudiation of its content from others more knowledgeable; for the edification of others; to elicit commentary that will help us understand its significance; to rally support for or against a proposition; and, to support our own stance on an issue.

In the case at hand, Bob offered no comment. Alex, on the other hand, threw out a comment invoking the relationship between Fatima and the conversion of Russia, to which Bob replied. In a leap of consciousness, for which there was no nexus, Alex reproved Bob on virtually the identical basis that you offered.

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Actually, I set a trap for you - and you fell for it!

I ended my post with an invocation that you ASSUMED meant that I agreed with a particular understanding of Fatima where Russia's conversion to Catholicism is the goal.

As in the tendentious journalistic article you brought forward here, one could draw a certain conclusion based on what was said in it.

But that is not the only conclusion we may draw - it is just one and in the absence of other articles etc.

The same is true for the invocation I used: Our Lady of Fatima, pray for the continuing conversion of Russia.

To what? To Orthodox Christianity. Why just Russia? Because Russia, and only Russia, was ever mentioned at Fatima (and Medjugorje). Why "continuing?" Because there are many Russians who have yet to return to full participation in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Mysteries etc.

You assumed, wrongly, on the basis of information that was not complete.

You should not have jumped to such a conclusion (what you wish to believe, you will believe). we cannot believe what the article you brought forward here says verbatim because we need more information.

You yourself attacked other articles that portrayed the Russian Orthodox church in a bad light.

And you were right.

But what I do find fault with you in this case, Bob, is that you didn't give the same consideration, the same balance to this case by presenting one article and an article that framed this matter in the worse possible way.
Bob's reply to Alex's (much longer) post focused on issues related to the Fatima apparition, referencing the article only in the final paragraph:

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
Regarding the article. I just printed it as it appeared in a Portuguese Newspaper with out any comments. Time will tell if it has any merit or is just more bad journalism.
Bob's only other comment relative to the article was to post a link to a seemingly confirmatory news item from Daily Catholic News. Do I consider DCN a source on which to hang my hat? Nope - but many do - and all Bob did was what was asked - provide another source, more than he needed to do - and he again did so without comment; you can impugn his motives, but you do so at the risk of presumptiousness.

In the week following, a second thread was opened and Lawrence posted two citations seemingly substantiating the original news article. The credibility of some of those quoted in the articles was disputed, but no one - you included - offered any documentation to deny the original article. Actually, many of us bemoaned what was, apparently, "fact" in the absence of any clarification or denial of same by the Vatican.

Ultimately, on 22 November, I posted that I had been told that the Vatican had issued a denial, but that I was unable to find a news release to substantiate that the denial was made. Anthony Dragani subsequently posted a link to the denial, dated 21 November; note that it took the Vatican 5 weeks to get around to issuing it (the date on the article in Portuguese was 12 October, I believe).

Now, having beat that subject to death, let's look at Bob's postings on the same-sex marriage in a Russian Orthodox church.

Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
This is the second bogus piece of trash that was put out by a Russian Gossip tabloid and picked up by the western press that Bishop Tikhon speaks about.
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:

I'm saying that according to info Vladyka Tikhon received from Russia, both stories appeared in a Russian tabloid akin to our 'National Enquirer' and was picked up by the western press.

As Bishop Tikhon said many of the former communist newspapers are now nothing more than gossip sheets and still very anti religion.
Quote
Originally posted by OrthoMan:
official statement of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding this piece of trash -

"Viktor Malukhin, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, said yesterday: 'Nothing of this kind has happened during the 1,000-year
history of the Russian Church.'

'According to Christian teachings, marriage is a free union of a man and a woman blessed by God while homosexuality is a sign of human nature
obscured by sin.'"
He reported the assessment of it by a respected hierarch, gave his personal opinion in this instance, and quoted an official denial (admittedly, later proven to be erroneous). Bob's assessment of the Russian 'tabloid' press was seconded by Diak:

Quote
Originally posted by Diak:
Bob is right on this issue. These type of rags are becoming very popular in Eastern Europe, at least in Ukraine and Russia, and have an often anti-religious character. You can regularly read about ..., all kinds of moral excesses, all sorts of crazy stuff
I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling Bob's comments with your assessment.

"Bob was greatly offended by the posting of an article ..."

Yes, he was offended by the article - I see no reference by him as being offended by its posting.

He triumphantly pronounced the article a lie and product of a tabloid

"triumphantly" ????

and evidence of how willing we are to slander the Orthodox Church.

And where do you see that comment?

a few weeks later it turns out the article was indeed true, but Bob issued no apology or retraction.

Nor did he need to. Did any of the multitude of forum members who thought (and feared) that the Fatima article had credence retract or apologize for their posts? In retrospect, shall we call those posts "gullible"? And, even though the same-sex 'marriage' proved to be fact, can we truthfully say, in retrospect, that such a happening didn't seem far-fetched and unlikely when first posted. Remember,this transpired in the jurisdiction of the MP, not exactly a hotbed of counter-cultural happenings!

Lance, I hold no brief for Bob and I decry the "bashing" of any religious group by its own adherents, let alone by the faithful of another Church who are 'guests' in its house, as it were. But, I have a perhaps stronger aversion to misrepresentation of someone's position, which - in the instance at hand - is what, in my opinion, you have done. I suggest that you, more so than Dave, owe Bob an apology.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 12:53 PM
Dear Neil,

I think you can be a bit caustic in your defence of your own positions which is entirely unnecessary.

As for the "nexus" issue you raise, Bob and I have been discussing the entire Fatima issue for about two years now.

It is precisely, as Deacon Lance said, your "newness" here that does not, and cannot, give you the complete picture of the ideas exchanged here by members who have been posting here for years.

Your (much longer) "analysis" of Lance's point really misses the point of his argument - that point being that Bob had earlier protested against an article that appeared as an attack against Orthodoxy. But the same could be said against the Fatima article with respect to the Catholic Church. However, either actually turned out in reality was NOT the point. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

It is also not up to you to decide who should apologise to which other poster here (you used the term "longer" to describe a post of mine when yours can be the length of short stories).

That is the job of the Administrator/Moderators.

If you would like any of these jobs, you are free to apply.

You can come across as a "know-it-all" where you assume another's position is wrong because you yourself hadn't considered it previously.

I find your disrespect toward Deacon Lance, one of our most senior, deeply spiritual and committed servants of the Church of Christ that we have here (and in our Church) to be rather boorish and unbecoming.

Alex
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 01:17 PM
Neil,

Bob's tactics and abrassiveness are well known to us who have been on this forum for any amount of time. I have been on this forum since 1998 and have seen his antics time and again. My article comparison was but one example and may not have been the best and I do admit I may have confused Bob's post on those subjects here with those on another forum. However, I know I have not misrepresented Bob's position or behavior as those who know both of us will attest to. You will also notice it is Bob, not Dave or I, that got banned for a month, nor is it the first time. And a question, is it now the custom to refer to clergy by the their first name alone? Last time I checked it was not. I would appreciate being addressed as Deacon Lance, as I am in Holy Orders as you duly note.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Posted By: Anthony Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 02:27 PM
Maybe it would be beneficial for us all if this thread were locked. smile

In Christ,
Anthony
Posted By: Lawrence Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 02:56 PM
Don't know what good locking the thread will do, as the confrontations will no doubt just surface somewhere else. There was nothing controversial in the original topic.
Posted By: C4C Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 03:21 PM
Can I join your Club?
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 06:49 PM
Thanks to everyone for your comments � both here and via PM/e-mail.

Since there seems to be some confusion as to why I requested of OrthoMan that he take a 30 day break from posting it seems appropriate to state it publicly.

OrthoMan�s posts are mostly uncharitable. His posts resort to name-calling. There is no way that the references to Catholic theology as a �load of you know what�, �baloney� and �mumbo jumbo� (to give just three examples) can be interpreted as proper to a Christian Forum. No one should speak of the theology of any Church that way. Further, OrthoMan has developed a habit in his posts of incorrectly summarizing Catholic teaching and then attacking it. His posts apply a black-and-white standard to Latin theology that he would never apply to the theology of the Eastern Church. There are enough real issues that can be discussed without creating factious ones.

This is an Eastern Christian forum (not a Byzantine Catholic forum) and all views are welcome. Participants must always strive to compose their posts in the spirit of charity. Agreement on the issues is not necessary but civil discourse is. Those who do not adhere to the spirit of charity will be asked not to participate here. OrthoMan is welcome to return in the future to post about Orthodoxy but he must do so in the spirit of charity.

I will state that it is possible that OrthoMan truly doesn�t realize how caustic his posts are to many participants (and readers). He has also contributed some excellent information regarding the common elements of our theology. I hope that in the future he can alter his style of posting to be more charitable because I think has something worthwhile to offer.

Admin
Posted By: incognitus Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/09/03 09:09 PM
On addressing the clergy - even when addressing close personal friends, if they are clergy, it is discourteous to use unadorned first names, let alone nicknames, in public. However I was amused that Fr. Deacon Lance signed himself in that fashion but then said that he is "Deacon Lance" a line or so earlier (excuse my proleptic writing this evening!). Father Deacon has got it backwards - the rest of us should all address him in precisely that fashion (unless one or another of us is privileged to do otherwise in private), while he correctly refers to himself as "Deacon Lance" - unless, as is often the case, he finds it necessary to emphasize as courteously as possible that calling somebody "Deacon" is also a bit strange. In other words, if someone is "Archpriest George", we correctly say "Father Archpriest, may I have your blessing?" or whatever - we do not just use "Deacon" or "Archpriest" in the unaccompanied vocative.
My apologies to those who may find these niceties boring! And my sympathy to Father Deacon Lance. Incognitus
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 12:31 PM
Admin,

Your post addresses the 30 day ban imposed on Orthoman. From an aside by LatinTrad in the Prayer Forum, I deduce that he too may have been banned. May I inquire whether that is indeed the case?

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Theist Gal Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 07:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
This is an Eastern Christian forum (not a Byzantine Catholic forum)
confused Okay, I am a little confused. This is the "Byzantine Forum", accessed through the Byzantine Catholic website - so how is it "not a Byzantine Catholic forum"?
Posted By: Amadeus Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 07:56 PM
Dear Dolly:

Things do get more exciting when you are around! wink

AmdG
Posted By: Theist Gal Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 07:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Amado Guerrero:
Dear Dolly:

Things do get more exciting when you are around! wink

AmdG
Well ... thanks!

But seriously, if this isn't a Byzantine Catholic forum, I need to know where to find one. After all, that's the primary reason I started visiting this site, to learn more about the Byzantine Catholic Church. cool

Not trying to start anything, honest!
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 08:18 PM
Dolly,

This forum is meant to focus on all Byzantine Christians, Catholic or Orthodox and the beliefs of both are required to be respected here. In otherwords, one cannot say be uncharitable to the Orthodox or their beliefs and then say this is a Catholic forum tough and vice versa for the Orthodox. There are already Catholic and Orthodox sites where one can do this. One can disagree with Orthodox or Catholic theology but one must do so respectfully.

Yes, the forum is run by a Byzantine Catholic and all the moderators are Byzantine Catholic (although this was not always so, Fr. Kyril where are you?)and you can learn quite a bit about the Byzantine Catholic Church here.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Posted By: Mikey Stilts Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 08:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Theist Gal:
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[b]This is an Eastern Christian forum (not a Byzantine Catholic forum)
confused Okay, I am a little confused. This is the "Byzantine Forum", accessed through the Byzantine Catholic website - so how is it "not a Byzantine Catholic forum"? [/b]
Slava Isusu Christu!

Dolly,

I believe our esteemed Admin means this is "not only a Byzantine Catholic" forum. Don't let the titles fool you. It may be primarily one, but that is not its only function.

In Christ,
mikey.
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 08:38 PM
Quote
Theist Gal wrote:
Okay, I am a little confused. This is the "Byzantine Forum", accessed through the Byzantine Catholic website - so how is it "not a Byzantine Catholic forum"?
Thanks, Father Deacon and Mikey for your comments.

In Orientale Lumen Pope John Paul II stated: �The echo of the Gospel - the words that do not disappoint - continues to resound with force, weakened only by our separation: Christ cries out but man finds it hard to hear his voice because we fail to speak with one accord. We listen together to the cry of those who want to hear God's entire Word. The words of the West need the words of the East, so that God's word may ever more clearly reveal its unfathomable riches. Our words will meet for ever in the heavenly Jerusalem, but we ask and wish that this meeting be anticipated in the holy Church which is still on her way towards the fullness of the Kingdom.�

Back in 1998 when I discussed with others the possibility of adding a message board to this website one of the questions we kept coming back to was �Wouldn�t it be great if there was a forum where all Eastern Christians could participate as equals?� After much thought those I consulted with (lay and priest, Catholic and Orthodox) agreed that it would be best if the Forum would be equal in its treatment of all Eastern Christians so that it could be a home to all Eastern Christians. Without this equality non-Byzantine Catholics could never find the Forum to be an internet home. This precept seems to be working since we probably have the best and brightest mix of Catholic and Orthodox participants on the internet.

Since the creation of The Byzantine Forum a number of people have pointed out that the title itself seems to exclude non-Byzantine Eastern Christians. This is a point that has great merit and if I had thought of it before naming the Forum I might have picked a different name. Since The Byzantine Forum is widely known at this time it does not seem appropriate to select a new name.

Now, before someone objects and says this should be a �Catholic� home, or at least should be equally a home for Roman Catholics, I will quickly state that we also welcome all Catholics � Roman and otherwise � to make their home here. But we must be first and foremost an Eastern Christian household in order to live up to the wise counsel that the Holy Father has given us.

Now� will someone please pass the hummis? biggrin
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 08:49 PM
Support your Administrator. He is a good Administrator.

I am posting one more time merely because the question has been asked publicly by several people whether I have been banned.

It is true that the Administrator has asked me to take a permanent vacation.

This was a decision made in light of the fact that my posts cause a lot of consternation.

God bless all.

In Christ,

LatinTrad
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 09:18 PM
Quote
Latin Trad wrote:
I am posting one more time merely because the question has been asked publicly by several people whether I have been banned.

It is true that the Administrator has asked me to take a permanent vacation.

This was a decision made in light of the fact that my posts cause a lot of consternation.
LT�s post is accurate but incomplete. I have previously asked him - in posts dealing with theology - to be very careful to distinguish between dogmatic and doctrinal elements. The usual fault of our Roman Catholic participants is that they tend to present the Latin Catholic doctrinal formulas as the standard by which all other Catholics must be judged. Reading through Orientale Lumen several times should be enough to underscore the importance of this. My request was that he please refrain from participation since he could not respect this.

Also, for the sake of completeness, I have asked LT to pick up the discussion with one of the moderators (in the hope that the moderator could explain to LT why some of his posts are so offensive to Eastern Christians). I hope LT pursues this issue with the moderator so that he can again participate in good standing. No matter what, I wish him only the best as he prepares for formal entry into the Church.

Admin
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 09:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
I wish him only the best as he prepares for formal entry into the Church.
??? confused ???

What Church?

Are you confusing me with Logos Teen?


Thanks for the post, Admin. I have begun discussing things with Hieromonk Elias re: my participation.

God bless.

In Christ,

LatinTrad (not Teen of the Incarnate Logos who is a completely different guy from the South who has never met me and even though we are now quite friendly sometimes similar in outlook wink I am already Catholic)
Posted By: Administrator Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 09:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
I wish him only the best as he prepares for formal entry into the Church.
??? confused ???

What Church?

Are you confusing me with Logos Teen?
Yes, for a moment there I thought that you were he. Your names and posting styles are very similar. Plus, I had just that thread. I apologize for the confusion.

Unless, of course, you are secretly preparing to make a change of Particular Church? biggrin
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 09:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:

Unless, of course, you are secretly preparing to make a change of Particular Church? biggrin
You guys would hate me! biggrin

Then again . . . Seraphim Reeves would love to baptize me . . . wink

LT
Posted By: Our Lady's slave Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 09:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[b]
Unless, of course, you are secretly preparing to make a change of Particular Church? biggrin
You guys would hate me! biggrin

Then again . . . Seraphim Reeves would love to baptize me . . . wink

LT [/b]
Don't even dare think that !!!!!
Posted By: LatinTrad Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 10:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Our Lady's slave of love:
Quote
Originally posted by LatinTrad:
[b]
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
[b]
Unless, of course, you are secretly preparing to make a change of Particular Church? biggrin
Then again . . . Seraphim Reeves would love to baptize me . . . wink

LT [/b]
Don't even dare think that !!!!! [/b]
Don't worry, I wouldn't let him do that. wink
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 10:52 PM
Wait a sec, Admin! So, my posts are offensive to Eastern Christians as well?? frown (Well, maybe if Moe represented all of Eastern Christendom)...heh heh...

Logos Teen
Posted By: Theist Gal Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/10/03 11:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Teen Of The Incarnate Logos:
Well, maybe if Moe represented all of Eastern Christendom)...heh heh...

Logos Teen
Moe's opinions are strictly his own, unless they're joined by Larry and Curly. wink
Posted By: djs Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/11/03 12:08 AM
I offer suffrages on behalf of Orthoman and LT, so that the duration of their temporal punishment is reduced.

cool
Posted By: Hesychios Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/11/03 07:35 AM
Me too!! biggrin

...er...whatever that means
Posted By: moe Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/11/03 04:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Teen Of The Incarnate Logos:
Wait a sec, Admin! So, my posts are offensive to Eastern Christians as well?? frown (Well, maybe if Moe represented all of Eastern Christendom)...heh heh...

Logos Teen
Yes, they frequently are offensive to Eastern Christians and what you inappropriately call "Novus Ordo" Catholics (there is no such animal). I just have the nerve to say publicly what many think in private (and in private messages to me). Moe
Posted By: Theist Gal Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/11/03 06:05 PM
(shrug) Well, I'm one of those "Novus Ordo" Catholis (in the sense that I attend that particular rite of the Mass on weekdays) and I'm not offended by Teen.

So don't worry about us, Moe, we're cool. biggrin
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/12/03 06:54 PM
Moe,

Please, go ahead. I am begging you.

No, I'm honestly not trying to taunt you. I'd appreciate your honesty, if nothing else.

I think it's pretty immature to try and make yourself look like "the better person" by not voicing your malicious opinions about my person. But, ya know what, I don't care to pull the wool over anyone's eyes about me. If some people on this forum don't like me, I can deal with that. You can't please everybody, and I readily admit I have my opinions about other posters as well.

But I'm sure they could care less what I think of them (be it good or bad), and I am also fairly disinterested in those who wish to correspond with you via PMs about me.

So, if you really feel the need to publically express your dislike for me, go right ahead.

Logos Teen
Posted By: iconophile Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 03:19 AM
hey Moe: Will you give the kid a break, already? I mean, whatever his errors, they are the innocent errors of youth. Just think of what other teens are spending their time at and appreciate his heart for God and Truth and have a little mercy!
Posted By: paromer Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 06:24 PM
ooops!
Posted By: paromer Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 06:33 PM
Dear Friends,

"Novus Ordo" is not found in the Roman Missal.

The name of Mass in the missal is "Ordo Missae"
(Order of Mass)

In my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong) people who don't accept V2 use "Novus Ordo" as a slur against the Council and Papal authority to regulate the liturgy.

The Mass of Pope Paul VI or The Missal of Pope Paul VI are better descriptions of the Mass of the Roman Church.

Paul
Posted By: Irish Melkite Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 09:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by paromer:
In my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong) people who don't accept V2 use "Novus Ordo" as a slur against the Council and Papal authority to regulate the liturgy.
Paul,

I agree it doesn't appear and I long held the same opinion as you. I'm not sure where NO derives from - but, based on my experiences on another forum with a number of folks who would qualify as very liberal post-VII RCs, they seem to comfortably - even enthusiastically - employ the term NO.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 10:52 PM
Paul,

Thanks for the information. I knew that "Novus Ordo" wasn't an official term. I think people (many people, not just Trads) use the term "NO" or "Novus Ordo" just because typing/saying "The Mass of Paul VI" takes a long time. Additionally, other rites and services outside of the Mass were revised as well, from the Rite of Baptism to the rite of reception for converts. So, in general terms, saying "The Mass of Paul VI" is only covering one part of the revisions.

I certainly don't use the term "Novus Ordo" in a derogatory fashion. Heck, 90% of my Sundays are spent going to a Mass of Paul VI (the other 10% the Tridentine Mass).

Logos Teen
Posted By: paromer Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/13/03 11:30 PM
Dear Logos Teen,

I know that you and others on this forum don't use Novus Ordo in a derogatory way. NO has become the popular term and as you said, an abreviation for the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

I don't like "Novus Ordo" because to me it implies that the current Eucharistic Liturgy in the Latin Church is "new" when it is the same as the ancient form, albeit, renewed according to the directives of V2.

The other objection I have to NO is that it sounds a lot like "New Age" which is completeley at odds with the Catholic Faith.

Paul
Posted By: incognitus Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/14/03 09:34 AM
Presumably one could refer to the Missale Paulinum or something similar. But "Novus Ordo" is a convenient term for the whole complex of services produced after Vatican II - not just the Mass. Incognitus
Posted By: Logos - Alexis Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/14/03 02:57 PM
Quote
Presumably one could refer to the Missale Paulinum or something similar. But "Novus Ordo" is a convenient term for the whole complex of services produced after Vatican II - not just the Mass. Incognitus
Yes, I suppose people could say "Missale Paulinum," but then it'd be abbreviated "MP" and then people might confuse it with that uppity patriarchate, ohhh what's its name??! wink

Logos Teen
A suggestion:
Always simply say "Mass" or "Holy Mass" when referring to the "Novus Ordo" and when you wish to talk about the "Old" or "Tridentine" or "Old Latin Mass" use one of those terms, like "The Traditional Latin Rite" or some such, and people will know what you mean. Just like they'll also know just what you mean when you refer to a church that has the "Mass" as a "Roman Catholic church" - isn't that simple? There is really no need to refer to it as "Novus Ordo" unless you are in a conversation where you're constantly comparing rites and so on.....
a long paragraph for a small suggestion! Sorry!
C of S smile
Posted By: Father Deacon Ed Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/15/03 12:32 AM
Although this has absolutely nothing to do with an Eastern Christian forum, the term Novus ordo was the title of the working draft of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI. For those who say it is often used as a pejorative, that is correct. It is, of course, a meaningless term today since "the Mass of Paul VI" is the official title of that Mass.

Edward, deacon and sinner
Posted By: paromer Re: A Question About Latinizations - 12/15/03 02:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Communion of Saints:
A suggestion:
Always simply say "Mass" or "Holy Mass" when referring to the "Novus Ordo" and when you wish to talk about the "Old" or "Tridentine" or "Old Latin Mass" use one of those terms, like "The Traditional Latin Rite" or some such, and people will know what you mean. Just like they'll also know just what you mean when you refer to a church that has the "Mass" as a "Roman Catholic church" - isn't that simple? There is really no need to refer to it as "Novus Ordo" unless you are in a conversation where you're constantly comparing rites and so on.....
a long paragraph for a small suggestion! Sorry!
C of S smile
C of S,

I agree with you. I call Mass, Mass, or Holy Mass.
This other stuff is when people get technical about it.

KISS = Keep it short and simple.

Like FrDeaconEd said, we are off topic.

Paul
© The Byzantine Forum