www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Peter J Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/18/13 08:00 AM
Disclaimer: I feel I should start by acknowledging that most Orthodox disapprove of intercommunion and, in particular, of the Catholic policy of giving communion to an Orthodox Christian who requests it. Let's not turn this thread into a debate about that, alright?

I recently read an article titled When an Orthodox Joins the Catholic Church [ewtn.com]. Among numerous issues discussed, Father McNamara says that an Orthodox-becoming-Catholic can receive communion in the Catholic Church during the catechumenate. That, to my mind, is a little disturbing. (Actually, I don't encourage Orthodox to convert to Catholicism to begin with, but I don't have a problem with it if one wants to of his/her own accord, hence I wouldn't call that disturbing by itself.)

Apparently the thinking would be something along the lines of "I'm a Catholic catechumen, but I'm also Orthodox so I can receive communion."

I'd call that legalism.

I wonder what C.S. Lewis would think, recalling how he said that some Christians are "borderline people ... men [and women] not exactly obedient to any communion" and that "It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine."
An Orthodox Christian who is becoming a Catholic isn't really a catechumen at all. Indeed, he or she is regarded by the Catholic Church as having received already all the sacraments of initiation. The only thing lacking is the eucharistic fellowship itself. Pastorally, some sort of process of induction or instruction might be required, but that process really wouldn't be conferring anything sacramentally.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/18/13 09:03 AM
Thanks for that info, eastwardlean. I guess I shouldn't have used the word "catechumenate".

But you can see my point anyhow: that someone can be in the process of leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism, yet still consider himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving communion.
I would think that this person isn't thinking he or she is "leaving Orthodoxy for Rome" but becoming Orthodox in union with Rome.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/18/13 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
I would think that this person isn't thinking he or she is "leaving Orthodoxy for Rome"
That's fine, I didn't mean to imply that they are thinking that.

I'm sure there are also many people who don't think they are "leaving Catholicism" when they leave Catholicism.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Thanks for that info, eastwardlean. I guess I shouldn't have used the word "catechumenate".

But you can see my point anyhow: that someone can be in the process of leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism, yet still consider himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving communion.


Peter, I would think that an Orthodox Christian who was deciding to join the Catholic Church would have come to see himself pretty much the way the Catholic Church officially sees him, namely as a Catholic Christian within a genuine church that is genuinely identified as Catholic and which is sadly divided from it. That basic view might underwrite many different individual decisions with respect to the reality of the division. For that matter, it is also why I (as a Catholic) give the general advice to Orthodox and Catholic Christians to stay put.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/18/13 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Originally Posted by Peter J
Thanks for that info, eastwardlean. I guess I shouldn't have used the word "catechumenate".

But you can see my point anyhow: that someone can be in the process of leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism, yet still consider himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving communion.

Peter, I would think that an Orthodox Christian who was deciding to join the Catholic Church would have come to see himself pretty much the way the Catholic Church officially sees him, namely as a Catholic Christian within a genuine church that is genuinely identified as Catholic and which is sadly divided from it. That basic view might underwrite many different individual decisions with respect to the reality of the division. For that matter, it is also why I (as a Catholic) give the general advice to Orthodox and Catholic Christians to stay put.
I give that same advice; but that's the thing: Fr. McNamara was clearly talking about Orthodox who decide not to stay put. (He didn't say anything about Catholics who decide not to stay put, at least not in that particular article.)
Posted By: Lester S Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/18/13 11:59 AM
I pretty much have an OCA friend, who says the same thing: stay put. He went on to say, "I believe you're at St. Irene's for the salvation of your soul, like I am, at St. Nicholas."
One problem I have with such movement from one Church to another is the "convert mentality" when it happens.

There was a wonderfully funny account of a fellow who came into his Orthodox parish wearing "prayer ropes" (as if one wasn't enough) etc.

The convert mentality as such wants to also make hard and fast differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy where there really are none.

I attended a Western Rite Antiochian Orthodox conference here in Toronto way back where I saw RC's on the way to becoming Orthodox get up to actually denigrate Rome, Roman Catholicism and the Latin Rite, making fun of them all and saying how they couldn't believe it took them so long to leave etc.

The same can be said of Orthodox who become Catholics.

Is any of that really necessary? I stay away from both RC Trads and Orthodox Trads who have "Ex's" to grind.

I've often thought of what I would believe differently were I to become Orthodox.

I wouldn't believe much ver differently, really. I would still acknowledge the Pope as the ultimate first bishop in the Church; I would accept and glorify the Most Holy Theotokos as All-Sinless, taken up body and soul into Heaven - I would still venerate the Immaculate Conception as did the Orthodox Saints of the Kyivan Baroque era; If I felt the need to maintain a belief in Purgatory to simplify eschatological matters for me - I would have good company in the person of St Peter Mohyla who insisted on it in his Catechism; I would continue with my Latin devotions (which are all represented in Ukrainian and even Russian Orthodoxy, canonical or not, BTW).

But I'm content to stay where I am. If one day, the UGCC or the majority decides to unite within a canonical Orthodox patriarchate based at Kyiv and from there to search for canonical unity with other patriarchates, including Rome - I will be so very there!

Alex
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 02:54 PM
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
One problem I have with such movement from one Church to another is the "convert mentality" when it happens.
You remind me of something I was thinking recently: maybe instead of calling it "conversion" we could say "change of jurisdiction with extenuating circumstances". I say "with extenuating circumstances" in reference to the fact that he/she didn't receive permission from his/her former jurisdiction.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 05:17 PM
When thousands left the Greek Catholic church following St. Alexis to join the Russian Orthodox they were not treated as catachumens or rebaptised or reordained. They were received likewise in 1938 for Fr. Chornock and his followers by the Greeks. My father described it like this : "One Sunday we prayed for the Pope, the next week we didn't. No one held their breath while reciting anathemas in ancient Slavonic or Greek!"

Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.
Posted By: chadrook Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 05:59 PM
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.[/quote]

Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?
Posted By: theophan Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 07:34 PM
Quote
Quote
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?


chadrook:

Remember that this is an Eastern Christian forum, not exclusively Eastern Catholic despite our name. We respect each and every group that we try to understand and learn both from and about.

I have to ask why the situation described in the first post is such a problem. We Catholics are supposed to be beyond the idea that the Orthodox are not somehow part of us even though we are not visibly in communion. Vatican II hasn't sunk into many Catholic minds, apparently. It seems to me that the situation described is but the practical application of V2. If the Catholic Church routinely dispenses Catholic/Orthodox weddings in deference to the more strict requirements that the Orthodox Church has for its members in such situations, that must mean that Orthodox Christians somehow have status akin to those of us in communion with Rome. Then there is the routine practice of offering pastoral care to Orthodox Christians and others with the same Apostolic Faith as the Catholic Church in the form of Eucharist, if this is not in conflict with the discipline of their own Church.

IMHO, those who cling to extreme positions to keep us apart aren't really all that attached to the Lord Who willed that we be one (and find our way to it in and through Him). To me it's even more sad that these rigid postures are still alive and well in this time some 46 years after the mutual anathemas were lifted by our respective patriarchs. BTW, if memory serves, those anathemas were supposed to be PERSONAL and not applicable to the whole of each hierarch's Church. But to listen to some people I know, one would come away with the idea that each such action so many centuries ago was meant to apply to all of us. frown Dear Lord, why didn't You give those people cell phones a millenium ago and maybe we'd be brethren today rather than trying to remain enemies.

Bob
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 07:41 PM
Originally Posted by chadrook
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line? [/quote]

Sorry if I can across as flippant, that's a problem with the use of android devices, always in a hurry and too hard to correct. I usually try not to be snide and the "perfect world" remark was that.

I do refer to those Orthodox who hold that Catholic sacraments are without grace and who demand rebaptism, reordination etc..when a Catholic professes the Orthodox Faith. Likewise as to those of the Catholic world who hold beliefs ranging from sedvacantism to lessor forms of schism who typically hold the Orthodox in similar disdain.
Posted By: theophan Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 07:46 PM
Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

We've had this discussion here before and I recall a post where the poster mentioned Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory, of the Russian Church Abroad. His Eminence had been told of intercommunion in the Soviet gulag where Catholics and Orthodox had shared the Eucharist. The person His Eminence heard the story from told him that when everyone is facing the firing squad in the morning it suddenly becomes a rather moot point as to who gives a man absolution in confession and who gives him his last Holy Communion.

I thought that this profound lesson ought to be one we all meditate on, even as we are divided to this day. I came away wondering if the question the Lord will ask each of us on the Great Last Day is what we did to advance His prayer "that all may be one." It seems to me that it takes little on each of our parts to see the other as brother or sister, even as we are far removed from making full communion come into being. That small stepis demanded of us IMHO.

Bob
Posted By: chadrook Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 08:42 PM
Originally Posted by theophan
Quote
Quote
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?


chadrook:

Remember that this is an Eastern Christian forum, not exclusively Eastern Catholic despite our name. We respect each and every group that we try to understand and learn both from and about.

I have to ask why the situation described in the first post is such a problem. We Catholics are supposed to be beyond the idea that the Orthodox are not somehow part of us even though we are not visibly in communion. Vatican II hasn't sunk into many Catholic minds, apparently. It seems to me that the situation described is but the practical application of V2. If the Catholic Church routinely dispenses Catholic/Orthodox weddings in deference to the more strict requirements that the Orthodox Church has for its members in such situations, that must mean that Orthodox Christians somehow have status akin to those of us in communion with Rome. Then there is the routine practice of offering pastoral care to Orthodox Christians and others with the same Apostolic Faith as the Catholic Church in the form of Eucharist, if this is not in conflict with the discipline of their own Church.

IMHO, those who cling to extreme positions to keep us apart aren't really all that attached to the Lord Who willed that we be one (and find our way to it in and through Him). To me it's even more sad that these rigid postures are still alive and well in this time some 46 years after the mutual anathemas were lifted by our respective patriarchs. BTW, if memory serves, those anathemas were supposed to be PERSONAL and not applicable to the whole of each hierarch's Church. But to listen to some people I know, one would come away with the idea that each such action so many centuries ago was meant to apply to all of us. frown Dear Lord, why didn't You give those people cell phones a millenium ago and maybe we'd be brethren today rather than trying to remain enemies.

Bob

Exactly. So we will see the same respect given to the Traditional Orthodox?

I will also assume that everyone involved in this discussion understands the varying levels of ecumenism, so no need to bring that up.

But answer this, what is wrong with people believing in the faith that they hold? If you make the statement that they are incorrect, can they not make the same about you?

Abp. Alipy at Trapeza was approached by a convert several years ago with the same legalistic questions about salvation and where it could be found. He gave the answer that we know it can be found in the true Orthodox Church and as for anywhere else,"who are we to put limits on God." The convert followed up with the question of why we were in communion with the Serbs. His answer, "well there are Serbs and there are Serbs." The convert just stared at Vladyka while others who had been in the church for several years tried to explain the answer. Then Vladyka said to the convert, "see, after you have been in the church for five years then you can question your bishops."

It seems that the questions of division are always brought up. But could it be more of a question of compromise? Christ set the standard and in our sin we fail. Why must we compromise and lower the standards?
Posted By: chadrook Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by chadrook
Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


Do you have an example of this? Just who are these people you speak of? The ultra-small group of people on the web that profess traditional Orthodoxy, at arms length at best? The two crazy's that run NFTU and belong to nobody? Or are you speaking of the ROCOR crowd that now are so accepted.

What about the Old Believers who have a section dedicated to them on this very forum? Are they acceptable with their beliefs about the Catholic church where as some "ultra-trads," cross some arbitrary line?

Sorry if I can across as flippant, that's a problem with the use of android devices, always in a hurry and too hard to correct. I usually try not to be snide and the "perfect world" remark was that.

I do refer to those Orthodox who hold that Catholic sacraments are without grace and who demand rebaptism, reordination etc..when a Catholic professes the Orthodox Faith. Likewise as to those of the Catholic world who hold beliefs ranging from sedvacantism to lessor forms of schism who typically hold the Orthodox in similar disdain. [/quote]

It fine, but I welcome your belief that we are wrong. I am one of them! I was re-baptized when I left the Catholic church. Was there a question to the validity, of course. I was not triple immersed. So, that is what ABP. Alipy required. That is just one example of where there is contention between even the various jurisdictions of the Orthodox.

We dont have a supreme pontiff, we have synods. Even the "canonical" Orthodox. So several checks and balances. Antioch might be in communion with monophysites, but not ROCOR.Even the calender issue can be seen everywhere both sides believing they are correct. If you believe you are correct, and not just compromising for your own personal failings in sin, then you must trust in God that you are.

If we hold fast to the faith that was handed down to us...

Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by theophan
chadrook:

Remember that this is an Eastern Christian forum, not exclusively Eastern Catholic despite our name. We respect each and every group that we try to understand and learn both from and about.

I have to ask why the situation described in the first post is such a problem. We Catholics are supposed to be beyond the idea that the Orthodox are not somehow part of us even though we are not visibly in communion. Vatican II hasn't sunk into many Catholic minds, apparently. It seems to me that the situation described is but the practical application of V2. If the Catholic Church routinely dispenses Catholic/Orthodox weddings in deference to the more strict requirements that the Orthodox Church has for its members in such situations, that must mean that Orthodox Christians somehow have status akin to those of us in communion with Rome. Then there is the routine practice of offering pastoral care to Orthodox Christians and others with the same Apostolic Faith as the Catholic Church in the form of Eucharist, if this is not in conflict with the discipline of their own Church.

IMHO, those who cling to extreme positions to keep us apart aren't really all that attached to the Lord Who willed that we be one (and find our way to it in and through Him). To me it's even more sad that these rigid postures are still alive and well in this time some 46 years after the mutual anathemas were lifted by our respective patriarchs. BTW, if memory serves, those anathemas were supposed to be PERSONAL and not applicable to the whole of each hierarch's Church. But to listen to some people I know, one would come away with the idea that each such action so many centuries ago was meant to apply to all of us. frown Dear Lord, why didn't You give those people cell phones a millenium ago and maybe we'd be brethren today rather than trying to remain enemies.

Bob

Originally Posted by theophan
Peter J:

Christ is in our midst!!

We've had this discussion here before and I recall a post where the poster mentioned Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory, of the Russian Church Abroad. His Eminence had been told of intercommunion in the Soviet gulag where Catholics and Orthodox had shared the Eucharist. The person His Eminence heard the story from told him that when everyone is facing the firing squad in the morning it suddenly becomes a rather moot point as to who gives a man absolution in confession and who gives him his last Holy Communion.

I thought that this profound lesson ought to be one we all meditate on, even as we are divided to this day. I came away wondering if the question the Lord will ask each of us on the Great Last Day is what we did to advance His prayer "that all may be one." It seems to me that it takes little on each of our parts to see the other as brother or sister, even as we are far removed from making full communion come into being. That small stepis demanded of us IMHO.

Bob


Hi Bob. I'm afraid these ^^ two posts have left me extremely confused.

Certainly Catholic priests do give communion to Orthodox Christians; however, as I mentioned earlier there's an issue with Fr. McNamara's hypothetical person, because he/she is in the process of leaving the Orthodox Church, but considers himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving the Eucharist.

(Maybe I should have said "a question" rather than "an issue".)
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/20/13 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by chadrook
Exactly. So we will see the same respect given to the Traditional Orthodox?
It's hard for anyone to predict the future.

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by DMD
When thousands left the Greek Catholic church following St. Alexis to join the Russian Orthodox they were not treated as catachumens or rebaptised or reordained. They were received likewise in 1938 for Fr. Chornock and his followers by the Greeks. My father described it like this : "One Sunday we prayed for the Pope, the next week we didn't. No one held their breath while reciting anathemas in ancient Slavonic or Greek!"

Of course the ultra-trads would object, but they live in a "perfect world" or so they think.


I love these stories from America's golden era, even though the outcome is sad to Catholics. (Our fault: our idiots pushed you out for no good reason.) Fits what you've told me. Before both the schisms in America and Communist rule in the old country, po-nashomu church (Greek Catholic) didn't identify strongly as either Catholic or Orthodox even though it had gradually adopted many Latin Catholic things (which ACROD kept because that's how they'd always done things). So for Fr Chornock's and Monsignor Dutko's generations, leaving the Catholic Church wasn't as big a deal as it might seem to Catholics now. The anecdote is also one of many examples how, in practice, the Orthodox have mirrored Rome's recognition of their sacraments including orders.

The schisms and Communism hardened both sides. The OCA and ACROD now have a strong Orthodox identity, and the Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity, and self-latinized further; Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused. They don't identify with the Orthodox at all. (The Orthodoxification is from converts and Rome-trained priests, not from the cradle majority in the pews.) I'm talking about Slavs, which most Greek Catholics are.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic; you may call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates, or Roman Catholics, but never call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they're obviously related.)

Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 10:00 AM
It's a nice fantasy land in which you live, Sergei. How much is a projection of your own desires and preconceptions?
I know that was just pushy bait but anyway, that's rich coming from you. For 15 years you've been in a religious never-never-land, thumbing your nose at Catholic doctrine while expecting the Orthodox to kiss the great Stuart's hand for deigning to agree with them, but not joining them. On the surface it has its appeal: it's credally and liturgically conservative, fights hardline anti-Catholic Orthodox too, and seems an example of Rome's policy of making Greek Catholicism as Orthodox as possible. But it's really just Protestant private judgement in Orthodox drag; your own arrogance.

None. It's based on stories from people who lived it, such as the Ukrainians and Ruthenians I knew 20-30 years ago and the Dutkos.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I know that was just pushy bait but anyway, that's rich coming from you. For 15 years you've been in a religious never-never-land, thumbing your nose at Catholic doctrine while expecting the Orthodox to kiss the great Stuart's hand for deigning to agree with them, but not joining them. On the surface it has its appeal: it's credally and liturgically conservative, fights hardline anti-Catholic Orthodox too, and seems an example of Rome's policy of making Greek Catholicism as Orthodox as possible. But it's really just Protestant private judgement in Orthodox drag; your own arrogance.

None. It's based on stories from people who lived it, such as the Ukrainians and Ruthenians I knew 20-30 years ago and the Dutkos.

Maybe your protests are a manifestation of your own subconscious wish to be an honorary Orthodox.

[Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image] [Linked Image]



Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.
I actually don't have a problem with that. As I've said in other threads, we (Catholics) don't encourage Orthodox to convert (or should I say "transfer with extenuating circumstances") to Catholicism, but neither do we discourage it. Nor do I object to the simple-profession-of-faith form of reception.

I only take issue with Fr. McNamara's idea that someone in the process of leaving Orthodoxy should still consider himself/herself Orthodox for purposes of receiving communion.
Nah. Stuart's well-spoken so for others' sake you need to confront his errors head-on. Wanting to give the Orthodox a fair deal isn't the same as wanting to be an honorary one. If Pope Benedict's Tridentine renewal and other high-church reforms were taken away, and I lived in a heavily Greek Catholic region (are there still such, or have the old-timers all died or moved away?), I'd definitely take the Greek Catholic option, either high-church Orthodox-style as Rome likes or old-school semi-latinized Uke or po-nashomu, getting to use the Slavic and Byzantine Rite stuff I've learned. Guess that would be a sort of honorary Orthodoxness.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Back to the original post: I'll say a convert from Orthodoxy can be a Catholic from the get-go, just making a simple profession of faith, if even that, confessing and communing. Completely different from a Protestant coming in. Because the Orthodox have all the sacraments. The ex-Orthodox would then be just like a lapsed Catholic taking instruction, receiving the sacraments at the same time.
I actually don't have a problem with that. As I've said in other threads, we (Catholics) don't encourage Orthodox to convert (or should I say "transfer with extenuating circumstances") to Catholicism, but neither do we discourage it. Nor do I object to the simple-profession-of-faith form of reception.

I only take issue with Fr. McNamara's idea that someone in the process of leaving Orthodoxy should still consider himself/herself Orthodox for purposes of receiving communion.


We're on the same page here.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 10:57 AM
It's funny how Father James Dutko and I got on famously and agreed on just about everything, so I guess we both occupy the same fantasyland.
Originally Posted by StuartK
It's funny how Father James Dutko and I got on famously and agreed on just about everything, so I guess we both occupy the same fantasyland.
People and friendships aren't necessarily ideological, uncharitable anti-Catholic Orthodox don't hang out at Orientale Lumen, and theologically as a never-Orthodox you get the same benefit of the doubt from the Orthodox' true-church claim as Catholics give never-Catholic Orthodox. Plus you agree with the Orthodox on everything except actually belonging to their church.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Nah. Stuart's well-spoken so for others' sake you need to confront his errors head-on. Wanting to give the Orthodox a fair deal isn't the same as wanting to be an honorary one.
[Linked Image]

I thought I sensed a methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much scene. But who knows, I've been wrong before. [Linked Image]
Posted By: Chtec Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 11:33 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Before both the schisms in America and Communist rule in the old country, po-nashomu church (Greek Catholic) didn't identify strongly as either Catholic or Orthodox even though it had gradually adopted many Latin Catholic things (which ACROD kept because that's how they'd always done things). So for Fr Chornock's and Monsignor Dutko's generations, leaving the Catholic Church wasn't as big a deal as it might seem to Catholics now.

For many layfolk, the change from Catholic to Orthodox was not perceptible. I recall reading some of the court proceedings from Wilkes-Barre at the time of St. Alexis Toth. One layperson was asked whether the Pope or the Holy Synod was the head of his church. The man replied "Jesus Christ is the head of the church!" (Imagine that!)

But to say that leaving the Catholic Church "wasn't a big deal"--especially for the clergy--may be taking it too far. Then-Father Orestes, Fr. Varzaly and the others made several appeals to Rome. Their first choice was to be under Rome, but with Rome respecting their traditions. Would they have done that if it "wasn't a big deal"?

Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome. This fact shows that while some valued fidelity to Tradition and thus could justify breaking with Rome, others valued obedience to the Pope and the bishop he appointed.

Fr. David
Originally Posted by Chtec
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Before both the schisms in America and Communist rule in the old country, po-nashomu church (Greek Catholic) didn't identify strongly as either Catholic or Orthodox even though it had gradually adopted many Latin Catholic things (which ACROD kept because that's how they'd always done things). So for Fr Chornock's and Monsignor Dutko's generations, leaving the Catholic Church wasn't as big a deal as it might seem to Catholics now.

For many layfolk, the change from Catholic to Orthodox was not perceptible. I recall reading some of the court proceedings from Wilkes-Barre at the time of St. Alexis Toth. One layperson was asked whether the Pope or the Holy Synod was the head of his church. The man replied "Jesus Christ is the head of the church!" (Imagine that!)

But to say that leaving the Catholic Church "wasn't a big deal"--especially for the clergy--may be taking it too far. Then-Father Orestes, Fr. Varzaly and the others made several appeals to Rome. Their first choice was to be under Rome, but with Rome respecting their traditions. Would they have done that if it "wasn't a big deal"?

Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome. This fact shows that while some valued fidelity to Tradition and thus could justify breaking with Rome, others valued obedience to the Pope and the bishop he appointed.

Fr. David


Good point, Father; it was a big deal for the priests. And what you say proves something I've said before. Fr Chornock and the other priests didn't really want to leave. They wanted something perfectly good and doable, and were pushed out for no good reason.
Originally Posted by Chtec
Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome. This fact shows that while some valued fidelity to Tradition and thus could justify breaking with Rome, others valued obedience to the Pope and the bishop he appointed.

Interesting. So the decline in Greek Catholic numbers isn't because of the schisms but, my guess, the Second Vatican Council eroding Catholic identity, combined with pressure from our ex-Protestant host culture in America, now more hostile to the faith (the Sixties and their aftermath now), plus assimilation as the younger generations are less ethnic and move away. So for religion they go Roman Rite (blowback from reinforcing Catholic identity after the schisms?), Protestant or nowhere.

The Orthodox are losing people for almost all the same reasons and maybe at the same rate but of course the council and competition from the dominant Roman Rite aren't factors for them. (Married priests aren't a cure for the vocations drought. Whither the Slavic boys at Christ the Savior, St Tikhon's, etc.?)
Fr Chornock and his cohorts were kicked out unjustly over traditions, not Tradition.
No wonder po-nashomu didn't see itself as strongly Catholic or Orthodox, which is why the immigrants on the stand in the church lawsuits at the Toth schism sounded as they did. In the old country there wasn't freedom of religion or religious choice, unlike modern America where you can easily join, change, or drop a church because nobody cares what you do. You had your family, your village, and that village's only church, which happened to be Greek Catholic. The Pope was a distant figure you didn't think about much or at all. The priests knew they were Catholic and that was about it.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 12:51 PM
Quote
People and friendships aren't necessarily ideological, uncharitable anti-Catholic Orthodox don't hang out at Orientale Lumen

Father James is much more than "charitable", he is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, a co-author of their 2010 Agreed Statement, and a very vocal supporter of a more open communicatio in sacris, in recognition of that which happens on the ground every Sunday, in both directions. [url=][/url]
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 12:59 PM
Quote
Fr Chornock and his cohorts were kicked out unjustly over traditions, not Tradition.

If there was one thing at Orientale Lumen on which the Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in firm agreement, it was the restrictions on ordaining married men to the presbyterate in North America was a "Church dividing issue". The fury from both against the ban was palpable, and the Roman Catholics present were absolutely taken aback by what they obviously considered a tangential matter. They were wrong. The married priesthood is not small-t, but integral to the very fabric of the Eastern Churches, therefore a Big-T matter. Mutual respect for Traditions means just that: you accept the other as he is, not as you would like him to be.

In that regard, Archimandrite Robert Taft offered a comment on the Anglican Ordinariate and the way in which it treats married Anglican bishops: they are received as presbyters, but are allowed to wear episcopal insignia: "What is this? Halloween? When a community is received into the Catholic Church, it should be received as it is. Married bishops are their Tradition, and the Church should just learn to live with it" (as indeed, it must if it intends ever to reestablish communion with the Church of the East).
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 01:08 PM
Quote
Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome.

That would be a difficult proposition to prove, given the fuzziness of the numbers and the prolonged nature of the schism(s), which accelerated over a period of several decades. If there were, as some sources claim, about 625,0000 "Ruteni" (Ukrainians and Carpatho-Rusyn) in the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century, that number had fallen below 350,000 by mid-century. It is estimated that about 125,000 Ruthenians joined the Russian Orthodox North American Mission between 1896 and 1930, and that about 30,000 more joined the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese in the 1930s and 40s. How many more ended up in the various Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions, how many drifted to Roman Catholicism, and how many just dropped out altogether has never been calculated with any statistical rigor.

What we do know today is most of the Greek Catholic jurisdictions in the U.S. are bleeding members like a stuck pig. Where do they go? Many, of course, joint the Latin Church, and a substantial number become Orthodox--mainly joining the Orthodox Church parallel to their own. But the majority, I believe, simply drop out altogether, which certainly speaks volumes about the failure of the tertium quid.
Posted By: JBenedict Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 01:09 PM
Well there's a certain irony in that complaint from an honorary Archimandrite. He's not actually in charge of a group of monasteries, yet he is (at least entitled to) wear a mitre and carry a pastoral staff.

It seems that the west and the east both have this tradition of priests using elements of episcopal insignia.
Quote
Father James is much more than "charitable", he is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, a co-author of their 2010 Agreed Statement, and a very vocal supporter of a more open communicatio in sacris, in recognition of that which happens on the ground every Sunday, in both directions.
Not surprising for a born Orthodox who's a priest. Not by the book necessarily (not uncommon with ethnic Orthodox) but nice (ditto), which counts for a lot. His grandparents' generation's fight with the church isn't his. Good.

That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches. Either the Pope's what he says he is or he's not. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are parallel tracks an inch apart. Parallel lines of course never meet, even if they're thisclose like we are. I don't see one side giving in.

Quote
If there was one thing at Orientale Lumen on which the Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in firm agreement, it was the restrictions on ordaining married men to the presbyterate in North America was a "Church dividing issue". The fury from both against the ban was palpable, and the Roman Catholics present were absolutely taken aback by what they obviously considered a tangential matter.[quote]
And the Byzantines are right. That said, again, ordaining married men isn't a cure-all for our vocations drought.

[quote]The married priesthood is not small-t, but integral to the very fabric of the Eastern Churches, therefore a Big-T matter. Mutual respect for Traditions means just that: you accept the other as he is, not as you would like him to be.
Wrong. You know damn well what big-T Tradition is. To Kallistos (Ware)'s credit, he gets it right. The Protestants are dead wrong. Tradition came first; scripture is part of Tradition. (Mainline Protestants twist our position to support their fantasy of a fungible church that follows modern mores; unlike them, Tradition doesn't contradict itself including scripture.) Celibacy's not doctrine.

Quote
In that regard, Archimandrite Robert Taft offered a comment on the Anglican Ordinariate and the way in which it treats married Anglican bishops: they are received as presbyters, but are allowed to wear episcopal insignia: "What is this? Halloween? When a community is received into the Catholic Church, it should be received as it is. Married bishops are their Tradition, and the Church should just learn to live with it" (as indeed, it must if it intends ever to reestablish communion with the Church of the East).
Anglicans aren't a church. Taft knows that. Celibate bishops aren't big-T Tradition but awfully close. (The Catholic Church had Solomão Ferraz, an ex-Protestant minister turned ex-vagante bishop it received in his orders.)

Quote
What we do know today is most of the Greek Catholic jurisdictions in the U.S. are bleeding members like a stuck pig. Where do they go? Many, of course, joint the Latin Church, and a substantial number become Orthodox--mainly joining the Orthodox Church parallel to their own. But the majority, I believe, simply drop out altogether, which certainly speaks volumes about the failure of the tertium quid.
True except ethnics don't 'dox.

Quote
Well there's a certain irony in that complaint from an honorary Archimandrite. He's not actually in charge of a group of monasteries, yet he is (at least entitled to) wear a mitre and carry a pastoral staff.

It seems that the west and the east both have this tradition of priests using elements of episcopal insignia.
Touché.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 01:28 PM
I would say that Father Robert is more worthy of the mitre than most of the diocesan bishops I have encountered. The same would go for our own beloved Archimandrite Serge.

But the honorific of "Mitred Archimandrite" (and an archimandriate is not the head of a monastery, but merely a senior monastic, for which Father Robert as a member of the Society of Jesus qualifies) is quite a different thing from allowing an ordinary presbyter to wear full episcopal regalia. A mitred archimandrite does not wear the sakkos, nor the omophorion, nor carry the episcopal staff, nor wear a panacea--he just wears a crown. Only someone utterly unfamiliar with Byzantine vestments and customs would mistake a mitred archimandrite for a bishop.
Reposted for formatting.

Quote
If there was one thing at Orientale Lumen on which the Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in firm agreement, it was the restrictions on ordaining married men to the presbyterate in North America was a "Church dividing issue". The fury from both against the ban was palpable, and the Roman Catholics present were absolutely taken aback by what they obviously considered a tangential matter.
And the Byzantines are right. That said, again, ordaining married men isn't a cure-all for our vocations drought.

Quote
The married priesthood is not small-t, but integral to the very fabric of the Eastern Churches, therefore a Big-T matter. Mutual respect for Traditions means just that: you accept the other as he is, not as you would like him to be.
Wrong. You know damn well what big-T Tradition is. To Kallistos (Ware)'s credit, he gets it right. The Protestants are dead wrong. Tradition came first; scripture is part of Tradition. (Mainline Protestants twist our position to support their fantasy of a fungible church that follows modern mores; unlike them, Tradition doesn't contradict itself including scripture.) Celibacy's not doctrine.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 01:30 PM
Quote
That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches. Either the Pope's what he says he is or he's not. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are parallel tracks an inch apart. Parallel lines of course never meet, even if they're thisclose like we are. I don't see one side giving in.

There is no limit to the inventiveness to which some people will not resort to maintain our separation. Beyond that, your statement reveals that you have not been following the course of the dialogue very closely. Maybe what you see would frighten you too much?
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches. Either the Pope's what he says he is or he's not. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are parallel tracks an inch apart. Parallel lines of course never meet, even if they're thisclose like we are. I don't see one side giving in.

There is no limit to the inventiveness to which some people will not resort to maintain our separation. Beyond that, your statement reveals that you have not been following the course of the dialogue very closely. Maybe what you see would frighten you too much?
Here we go again, ad infinitum. People who follow Catholic doctrine are stupid, unlike the great Stuart Koehl. (Following Catholic doctrine = 'maintain our separation'. Yadda.) We get it. You want to convert Catholicism to Orthodoxy from within. Not gonna happen.

The 'dialogue' isn't Catholic doctrine. If it doesn't speak from Catholic doctrine, it's not worth my attention.
That said, I'm on board with this site's main mission, to give born Orthodox the benefit of the doubt, acknowledging them as sister apostolic churches with real apostolic authority over their people, and thus to work for corporate reunion of the whole Orthodox communion with the Catholic Church rather than seek individual conversions. And to encourage Greek Catholics who, with that goal in mind, are making their practice as Orthodox as possible (while also respecting the longtime generational members' centuries-old latinizations). Just like Fr Serge did.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America are sisters, one fully in the church under Rome. The Catholic Church as a whole has no sisters.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
In that regard, Archimandrite Robert Taft offered a comment on the Anglican Ordinariate and the way in which it treats married Anglican bishops: they are received as presbyters, but are allowed to wear episcopal insignia: "What is this? Halloween? When a community is received into the Catholic Church, it should be received as it is. Married bishops are their Tradition, and the Church should just learn to live with it" (as indeed, it must if it intends ever to reestablish communion with the Church of the East).

I didn't go to OL, but I'll listen to the podcasts one of these days. Did someone remind the good Archimandrite that nobody forced them to become Catholic? (Cardinal Kasper even made a point of saying that we aren't "fishing in the Anglican pond".)
And the ex-Anglican clergy are received as laymen and, most of the time, ordained as priests. Apostolicae Curae.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
Father James is much more than "charitable", he is a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, a co-author of their 2010 Agreed Statement, and a very vocal supporter of a more open communicatio in sacris, in recognition of that which happens on the ground every Sunday, in both directions.
Not surprising for a born Orthodox who's a priest. Not by the book necessarily (not uncommon with ethnic Orthodox) but nice (ditto), which counts for a lot. His grandparents' generation's fight with the church isn't his. Good.

That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches.
If that were true then we should be way more aggressive in trying to poach Orthodox Christian. Basically an all-out war.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 05:00 PM
Quote
People who follow Catholic doctrine are stupid, unlike the great Stuart Koehl.

All I can say is, go do something anatomically improbable. I find your attitude snarky and insulting not merely to me, but to the many priests, hierarchs and faithful of the various Greek Catholic Churches whose beliefs are congruent with mine, and in turn are fully congruent with those of the Holy See. I won't even bother to mention those Orthodox hierarchs, theologians, monastics and faithful who have fully supported the Greek Catholics in their desire both to reclaim the fullness of their patrimony and to recover their communion with Orthodoxy. Many number among my friends, and several have been spiritual fathers to me.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 05:03 PM
By the way, Father Robert also coined a cliche for approaches like those followed by Sergei. He called it "theology by cliche". He also mentioned something about the Orthodox being completely unfamiliar with the concept of samokritika, but that's another story.
Dear Stuart,

And that is the issue - the Ordinariate is not about accepting the Anglican tradition as it is, but as the RC Church would like it to be based on its own standards. The Ordinariate "submitted" to Rome rather than established a relationship of communion based on ecclesial equality.

The Ordinariate is therefore very much like the Uniate model which Balamand condemned.

Can the members of the Ordinariate liturgically celebrate their own Anglican saints, such as King Charles the Martyr, and others? They continue to do so privately and continue to press this matter at Rome.

This shows that while Rome does talk a good ecumenical talk, it is often caught unawares when someone not in union with it actually speaks up and says, "OK, we would like to join you."

The Ordinariate makes provision for the Anglican ritual, which is really a form of the old rites of Sarum, Hereford and York combined in the Cranmerian way.

But Anglicans are called, by Rome, "Roman Catholics of the Anglican Usage." The term "English Catholics" was used by all the British Martyrs of the Reformation era and never "Roman Catholic" since the latter term indicated an ultramontanist affiliation which was both misunderstood and condemned by English and Scottish popular imagination at the time.

Alex
I like what you say, Sergey. Even though you don't trust anything I write . . . sniff . . . shocked

Alex
I wanted to compliment you on your insight here, JBenedict.

Lest you feel unappreciated in the midst of this exchange between Stuart and Sergey!

Alex
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
By the way, Father Robert also coined a cliche for approaches like those followed by Sergei. He called it "theology by cliche".

Well that's just silly. I'll admit that I take issue with some of Sergei's view, but he's far from cliche. If anything, I'd say he tends away from the "group think" that's so terribly common.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 07:50 PM
None of this is news, my good friend,Fr. Larry Barriger's history of the transformation of the KOVO into ACROD - "Good Victory" - makes this clear. Fr.David's dad and Father himself knew my dad for many years and they will affirm the truth that to my father's generation they neither "converted" nor "returned" , but rather "turned" to Orthodoxy as the only path to preserve their beloved patrimony. But I disagree with Fogey as to his representation of modern day Byzantine Catholics. His observations may have been true with regard to my parents' generation, but for those of my generation and younger,(in both ACROD and the BBC) they have come to understand that both sides were wrong in trying to preserve a false image of that beloved patrimony. The Latinizations, we both learned, ever so painfully and slowly I would add, were never legitimate. They were like a horse's head grafted unto a giraffe. They didn't fit the foundation. The foundation it turns out was made of the Hellenic influenced , pre Nikonian, pre 1453 "oddities" which somehow survived isolation, foreign domination and the Unia.

Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Chtec
Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome. This fact shows that while some valued fidelity to Tradition and thus could justify breaking with Rome, others valued obedience to the Pope and the bishop he appointed.

Interesting. So the decline in Greek Catholic numbers isn't because of the schisms but, my guess, the Second Vatican Council eroding Catholic identity, combined with pressure from our ex-Protestant host culture in America, now more hostile to the faith (the Sixties and their aftermath now), plus assimilation as the younger generations are less ethnic and move away. So for religion they go Roman Rite (blowback from reinforcing Catholic identity after the schisms?), Protestant or nowhere.

The Orthodox are losing people for almost all the same reasons and maybe at the same rate but of course the council and competition from the dominant Roman Rite aren't factors for them. (Married priests aren't a cure for the vocations drought. Whither the Slavic boys at Christ the Savior, St Tikhon's, etc.?)

Check your facts. There are eight Seminarians in Johnstown, all but ONE are of Rusyn or part Rusyn heritage, grew up in the ACROD and became friends through years attending and working at Camp Nazareth, participating in ACRY activities, OCF and other activities.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Moreover, in the US at least, more Greek Catholics remained with Rome then broke with Rome.

That would be a difficult proposition to prove, given the fuzziness of the numbers and the prolonged nature of the schism(s), which accelerated over a period of several decades. If there were, as some sources claim, about 625,0000 "Ruteni" (Ukrainians and Carpatho-Rusyn) in the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century, that number had fallen below 350,000 by mid-century. It is estimated that about 125,000 Ruthenians joined the Russian Orthodox North American Mission between 1896 and 1930, and that about 30,000 more joined the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese in the 1930s and 40s. How many more ended up in the various Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions, how many drifted to Roman Catholicism, and how many just dropped out altogether has never been calculated with any statistical rigor.

What we do know today is most of the Greek Catholic jurisdictions in the U.S. are bleeding members like a stuck pig. Where do they go? Many, of course, joint the Latin Church, and a substantial number become Orthodox--mainly joining the Orthodox Church parallel to their own. But the majority, I believe, simply drop out altogether, which certainly speaks volumes about the failure of the tertium quid.

If St. Michael's of Binghamton, NY' s metrical records are typical, and I suspect they are, they support Stuart's argument. In 1930 there were over 4000 souls registered. By 1960 2/3's were no longer affiliated. About 30 % remained Greek Catholic at the new church, Holy Spirit BCC, the balance were RCC, other, nothing or moved.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Reposted for formatting.

Quote
If there was one thing at Orientale Lumen on which the Orthodox and Greek Catholics were in firm agreement, it was the restrictions on ordaining married men to the presbyterate in North America was a "Church dividing issue". The fury from both against the ban was palpable, and the Roman Catholics present were absolutely taken aback by what they obviously considered a tangential matter.
And the Byzantines are right. That said, again, ordaining married men isn't a cure-all for our vocations drought.

Quote
The married priesthood is not small-t, but integral to the very fabric of the Eastern Churches, therefore a Big-T matter. Mutual respect for Traditions means just that: you accept the other as he is, not as you would like him to be.
Wrong. You know damn well what big-T Tradition is. To Kallistos (Ware)'s credit, he gets it right. The Protestants are dead wrong. Tradition came first; scripture is part of Tradition. (Mainline Protestants twist our position to support their fantasy of a fungible church that follows modern mores; unlike them, Tradition doesn't contradict itself including scripture.) Celibacy's not doctrine.


YOU, AND MOST RCC MISS THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT. It isn't that celibacy is big or small t. It has everything to do with Rome's attitude. Cum data and Ea Semper may have met the letter of the law but they missed the spirit of the Unions of Brest and Ungvar by a mile. Rome can't be trusted by all Easterners until she realizes this and any future proposed union will go the path of Florence until then. Gotta go,more later.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/21/13 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That said, I'm on board with this site's main mission, to give born Orthodox the benefit of the doubt, acknowledging them as sister apostolic churches with real apostolic authority over their people, and thus to work for corporate reunion of the whole Orthodox communion with the Catholic Church rather than seek individual conversions. And to encourage Greek Catholics who, with that goal in mind, are making their practice as Orthodox as possible (while also respecting the longtime generational members' centuries-old latinizations). Just like Fr Serge did.

It is pointless to engage in a debate with you. It seems that your view of the dialogue with the Orthodox is apparently akin to that of General Grant in his exchanges with General Lee. There is but one option - accept the supremacy of the Papacy as defined through Vatican I and you'll allow us to keep our cute costumes and funny hats. Sounds like Florence.

If that is actually that the position of your Church and its last six Popes, I can assure you that the Orthodox would have left the process forty-five years ago.

It's time for Isa and his maps.

Dear DMD,

Am I missing something here? The Young Fogey is an Orthodox Christian . . .

Have I completely misinterpreted your post?

Alex
Quote
None of this is news, my good friend; Fr. Larry Barriger's history of the transformation of the KOVO into ACROD - "Good Victory" - makes this clear.
I know it's not news to you. Just letting you know that I know.

Quote
The Latinizations, we both learned, ever so painfully and slowly I would add, were never legitimate. They were like a horse's head grafted unto a giraffe. They didn't fit the foundation. The foundation it turns out was made of the Hellenic influenced , pre Nikonian, pre 1453 "oddities" which somehow survived isolation, foreign domination and the Unia.
I'm as persnickety purist as the next church geek so I'm all for Rome's favoring the Greek Catholics being as Orthodox as possible. That said, the above goes too far. Just anti-Catholic anti-Westernism, revisionism, ex post facto rationalization for the schism, creating a super-Orthodox identity (maybe understandably), different from the old semi-latinized po-nashomu church.

Quote
Check your facts.
Just did. Thanks. That's great for you, but I'm thinking of numbers now compared to the '50s for example. How many men was Christ the Savior built for?

Quote
If St. Michael's of Binghamton, NY' s metrical records are typical, and I suspect they are, they support Stuart's argument. In 1930 there were over 4000 souls registered. By 1960 2/3's were no longer affiliated. About 30 % remained Greek Catholic at the new church, Holy Spirit BCC, the balance were RCC, other, nothing or moved.
Ouch. Thanks for being honest. Looks like schism wasn't the way to keep the patrimony going after all.

Quote
YOU, AND MOST RCC MISS THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT. It isn't that celibacy is big or small t. It has everything to do with Rome's attitude.
Mr. Koehl was arguing it is a big-T issue when it's not. How in this thread have I missed the point? I never make excuses for the morons who kicked your dad and grandparents out of the church for no good reason. You're right to stand up for your rights per Brest and Uzhorod. But schism is not objectively good.

Quote
It is pointless to engage in a debate with you. It seems that your view of the dialogue with the Orthodox is apparently akin to that of General Grant in his exchanges with General Lee. There is but one option - accept the supremacy of the Papacy as defined through Vatican I and you'll allow us to keep our cute costumes and funny hats. Sounds like Florence.

If that is actually that the position of your Church and its last six Popes, I can assure you that the Orthodox would have left the process forty-five years ago.
It's defined Catholic doctrine, a non-negotiable. Sorry you thought otherwise. That said, it's not what many think it is. Historically the church has always been grassroots and decentralized, thus phenomena like po-nashomu church. Papal infallibility is so rarely and cautiously used, and Popes can't invent or change doctrine. So getting upset about the Pope doesn't make sense.

Quote
Am I missing something here? The Young Fogey is an Orthodox Christian . . .
I'm a Catholic. [sergesblog.blogspot.com]
Quote
"What is this? Halloween? When a community is received into the Catholic Church, it should be received as it is. Married bishops are their Tradition, and the Church should just learn to live with it" (as indeed, it must if it intends ever to reestablish communion with the Church of the East).
From a friend:

The bishops of the Church of the East have had to be monks since the 12th/13th century, and so cannot either marry or be married. It is also worth noting that since the late Fifth Century (Synods of Seleucia of 484, 496) deacons and priests (and originally bishops) could marry both before and after ordination and, if widowed, without restriction on the number of times that they might remarry. But Rome has never, ever allowed such a practice in the Case of the Chaldean Catholic "uniates," imposing, rather, on them the discipline of the other eastern churches: celibate bishops; ordination of married men to the diaconate and presbyterate; no marriage or remarriage after ordination.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Stuart,

And that is the issue - the Ordinariate is not about accepting the Anglican tradition as it is, but as the RC Church would like it to be based on its own standards. The Ordinariate "submitted" to Rome rather than established a relationship of communion based on ecclesial equality.
Because unlike the Kievan metropolia at Brest-Litovsk, the Anglicans aren't a church. No real bishops, no Mass.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Ordinariate is therefore very much like the Uniate model which Balamand condemned.
Nope. See above.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Can the members of the Ordinariate liturgically celebrate their own Anglican saints, such as King Charles the Martyr, and others?
Absolutely not. First off, the Forward in Faithers in the UK who converted weren't interested in anything of the kind. They were would-be Catholics when they were still Anglicans. Second, they don't want that because the real history is King Charles, et al., were Protestants, far less Catholic than high Anglicans liked to think. They even persecuted Catholics.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
They continue to do so privately and continue to press this matter at Rome.
Privately you may venerate anyone. As for the second part, see above.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Ordinariate makes provision for the Anglican ritual, which is really a form of the old rites of Sarum, Hereford and York combined in the Cranmerian way.
Nope. A Cranmerian rewrite, not at all the medieval recensions of the the Roman Rite.

Other than the quirk of claiming the historic episcopate, Anglicanism's roots are closer to Calvin and Zwingli than to the semi-Catholic Luther.
Yes, the Ordinariate like the Pastoral Provision before it has the option of some Prayer Book texts. I meant the Prayer Book isn't a form of the medieval services. That's an Anglican myth.
And there's more than one ordinariate: US, UK, Australia.
It's like a kind of gnosticism or freemasonry to believe that sophists like Mr. Koehl and Fr. Taft who hang out at the same academic conferences have some esoteric knowledge of the truth, thinking they're smarter than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Like the Anglican branch theory, looking down on both churches.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 07:19 AM
Surely there have been some good branch theorists, sometime in the many years that Branch Theory has existed.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 07:24 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
Am I missing something here? The Young Fogey is an Orthodox Christian . . .
I'm a Catholic. [sergesblog.blogspot.com]
I guess I can see some similarities with Orthodox Christians (even though I already knew you're Catholic).
It has a point, as high-church Anglicans envisioned it (trying to claim legitimacy for King Henry's schism, like the puppet Catholic church in Red China, turned Calvinist/Zwinglian heresy): that all the pre-'Reformation' churches have an overwhelming amount in common. Take St Vincent of Lérins' semper, ubique et ab omnibus and you pretty much get Catholicism, which is why by even non-papalist high churchmen were accused of 'aping Rome'.

But in itself it's wrong. As a friend learned in history points out, NONE of the pre-'Reformation' churches believe the true church is divisible. It's impossible. Catholicism has a nice attenuated version that actually recognizes orders outside it, the Augustinian vs. the Cyprianic view of hardline Orthodox: if you're credally orthodox (so easy the Nestorians pass the test), have bishops, and have sound teaching on the Eucharist, you're in the club (albeit estranged in the case of the Orthodox for example).

The trouble with branch theories, be they mainline Protestant denominationalism (where the Anglicans are now) or the elitism of Mr. Koehl, Archbishop Elias (Zoghby), or Fr. Taft, is they're relativistic. They're really saying there's no church, even if they don't realize it.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 07:34 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
If St. Michael's of Binghamton, NY' s metrical records are typical, and I suspect they are, they support Stuart's argument. In 1930 there were over 4000 souls registered. By 1960 2/3's were no longer affiliated. About 30 % remained Greek Catholic at the new church, Holy Spirit BCC, the balance were RCC, other, nothing or moved.
Ouch. Thanks for being honest. Looks like schism wasn't the way to keep the patrimony going after all.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether that's true or not. I quote it to point out that the wording reflects bias -- unless you also say "the Schism of Brest" instead of "the Union of Brest". [Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
Am I missing something here? The Young Fogey is an Orthodox Christian . . .
I'm a Catholic. [sergesblog.blogspot.com]
I guess I can see some similarities with Orthodox Christians (even though I already knew you're Catholic).

Thank you! The two obviously have tons in common; the church sees the Orthodox as an estranged Catholicism. Beyond that, to this day I say the Orthodox have lots to reteach the official church about the value of decentralized, traditional folk Catholicism, how the whole church has been for most of its history (because pre-modern communication and travel made it so). A great thing about being Catholic is it doesn't teach you to hate the Orthodox. And being Catholic doesn't mean you have to believe the Greek Catholic churches are perfect, nor must you make excuses for the idiots who pushed Toth and Chornock out.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
If St. Michael's of Binghamton, NY' s metrical records are typical, and I suspect they are, they support Stuart's argument. In 1930 there were over 4000 souls registered. By 1960 2/3's were no longer affiliated. About 30 % remained Greek Catholic at the new church, Holy Spirit BCC, the balance were RCC, other, nothing or moved.
Ouch. Thanks for being honest. Looks like schism wasn't the way to keep the patrimony going after all.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether that's true or not. I quote it to point out that the wording reflects bias -- unless you also say "the Schism of Brest" instead of "the Union of Brest". [Linked Image]

Damn straight, because as understandable as it was, and I think I do understand, that's exactly what it was to me as a Catholic. It saddens me no end when I'm in an old American industrial Northeast town like Binghamton or Perth Amboy and see its beautiful century-old Greek Catholic parish church has left the church. It never should have happened and was our own churchmen's fault.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 07:54 AM
^If my grandfathers were living, they would tell you the Church left them, they did not leave the Church.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:03 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
If St. Michael's of Binghamton, NY' s metrical records are typical, and I suspect they are, they support Stuart's argument. In 1930 there were over 4000 souls registered. By 1960 2/3's were no longer affiliated. About 30 % remained Greek Catholic at the new church, Holy Spirit BCC, the balance were RCC, other, nothing or moved.
Ouch. Thanks for being honest. Looks like schism wasn't the way to keep the patrimony going after all.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether that's true or not. I quote it to point out that the wording reflects bias -- unless you also say "the Schism of Brest" instead of "the Union of Brest". [Linked Image]
Damn straight, because as understandable as it was, and I think I do understand, that's exactly what it was to me as a Catholic.
But it was a union, too, or in other words it was side-switching. (Not that I want to beat a dead horse. But it seems an important point since we Catholics have a long history of classifying everyone as in-communion-with-Rome or not-in-communion-with-Rome, as if every person not-in-communion-with-Rome were an island.)

Originally Posted by The young fogey
It saddens me no end when I'm in an old American industrial Northeast town like Binghamton or Perth Amboy and see its beautiful century-old Greek Catholic parish church has left the church. It never should have happened and was our own churchmen's fault.
No argument there. eek
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:06 AM
To some extent, fogey and I are talking in circles. But it is clear that we the divide from opposite sides of the canyon while we debate the most efficacious manner in which to "bridge" the same.

FROM:"Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future,2010The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Georgetown University, Washington, DC"...

"The challenges of the Western Enlightenment to religious faith, and the threats of the new secular, absolutist forms of civil government that developed in nineteenth-century Europe, challenged the competence and even the right of Catholic institutions to teach and care for their own people. In this context, the emphasis of the First Vatican Council’s document Pastor Aeternus (1870) on the Catholic Church’s ability to speak the truth about God’s self-revelation in a free and unapologetic way, and to find the criteria for judging and formulating that truth within its own tradition, can be understood as a reaffirmation of the apostolic vision of a Church called by Christ to teach and judge through its own structures (see, e.g., Matt 16:18; 18.15-20; Lk 10.16). Yet Vatican I’s way of formulating the authority of Catholic Church officials -- particularly its definition of the Pope’s “true and proper primacy of jurisdiction” over each local Church and every Christian bishop (DS 3055, 3063), and its insistence that the Pope, “when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians... possesses… that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine” -- shocked critics of the Catholic Church, and has remained since then a focus of debate and further interpretation within the Catholic world. Despite the attempt of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 23-25 [1964]) to contextualize and refine this portrait of papal authority and Church structure, the Catholic Church’s vision of a teaching authority and a practical decision-making power vested in the Pope, who faces few wider institutional checks, has been a principal cause of division between it and the Churches outside its communion. ...
But while the Western Church went on to develop its own institutional independence in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages under the headship of the bishop of Rome, the Eastern Churches remained fully integrated into the religious and political fabric of the late Roman Empire, even as the Empire’s territory dwindled under the domination of Arab and Turkish peoples. The Church’s main doctrinal definitions remained imperial law; maintaining Christian unity was an important imperial priority. And when the Eastern Roman Empire finally fell before the Turkish invaders in 1453, the Churches of the eastern patriarchates shared the political and social role of unifying and protecting the Christian minorities in lands dominated by a variety of Muslim rulers. In the Slavic territories to the north and east, new metropolitan sees and new patriarchates continued to develop after the fall of Constantinople, carrying out the mission of unifying newly converted Christian peoples, who largely shared the same geographical, linguistic and ethnic characteristics. Primacy had a less supra-national character than it had acquired in the Latin Church; what we presently call autocephaly -- ecclesiastical independence correlative to the emerging nation-state -- had become the underlying pattern for ecclesiastical organization.

Custom and habit, in all human societies, tend to become law. Structures that had come into being gradually, under the pressures of changing cultural and political conditions, came to be seen in both Eastern and Western Christianity as normative for the life of the Church....

7. . The Role of the Papacy. In such a communion of Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

b) In accord with the teaching of both Vatican councils, the bishop of Rome would be understood by all as having authority only within a synodal/collegial context: as member as well as head of the college of bishops, as senior patriarch among the primates of the Churches, and as servant of universal communion. The “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction of every bishop within his particular Church, would be “affirmed, strengthened and vindicated” by the exercise of the bishop of Rome’s ministry (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 27; cf. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 3). In a reunited Church, this understanding of papal and episcopal authority, as complementary and mutually enhancing, would have to be expanded to include the much more complex patterns of local, primatial, and patriarchal leadership that have developed in the Eastern Churches since patristic times.

c) The fundamental worldwide ministry of the bishop of Rome would be to promote the communion of all the local Churches: to call on them to remain anchored in the unity of the Apostolic faith, and to observe the Church’s traditional canons. He would do this as a witness to the faith of Peter and Paul, a role inherited from his early predecessors who presided over the Church in that city where Peter and Paul gave their final witness.

d) His universal role would also be expressed in convoking and presiding over regular synods of patriarchs of all the Churches, and over ecumenical councils, when they should occur. In the Western Church, this same presiding function would include convoking and leading regular episcopal synods. In harmony with the Pope’s universal ecumenical ministry, the Roman curia’s relationship to local bishops and episcopal conferences in the Latin Church would become less centralized: bishops, for instance, would have more control over the agenda and the final documents of synods, and the selection of bishops would again normally become a local process.

e) In cases of conflict between bishops and their primates that cannot be resolved locally or regionally, the bishop of Rome would be expected to arrange for a juridical appeal process, perhaps to be implemented by local bishops, as provided for in canon 3 of the Synod of Sardica (343). In cases of dispute among primates, the bishop of Rome would be expected to mediate and to bring the crisis to brotherly resolution. And in crises of doctrine that might occasionally concern the whole Christian family, bishops throughout the world would have the right to appeal to him also for doctrinal guidance, much as Theodoret of Cyrus did to Pope Leo I in 449, during the controversy over the person of Christ that preceded the Council of Chalcedon (Ep. 113)"
http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:11 AM
I assume paragraph 7 is a non starter to Young Fogey? Should the Roman Catholic authors to this document be disciplined or discredited in some manner, from the Archbishop on down?

There are plenty of Orthodox who would agree as to the Orthodox involved, from Metropolitan Maximos (since retired) on down.

Or, as I suspect, are the issues finally being viewed in a less black and white manner, with honest attempts being made to find a Patristic basis around them?



The church can no more revoke papal infallibility than it can approve gay marriage; it's not mainline or Mormon; it can't revoke a doctrine. That said, I appreciate what Vatican II ostensibly was trying to do by balancing out/completing Vatican I by emphasizing local bishops. But it's still a non-starter in Orthodox theological opinion, so after a schism 75 years ago that never should have happened (in a way nothing to do with doctrine, you're right, DMD; the church did abandon your family; I can't tell you how sorry I am), DMD and I are talking about a canyon an inch wide but infinitely deep: the nature and scope of the papacy, the ONLY real difference IMO between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:22 AM
Quote
But it was a union, too, or in other words it was side-switching.

It was not conceived as such by the Kyivan bishops who initiated the push towards union. They believed it possible to be in communion both with Rome and with the Orthodox commonwealth; they did not seek to break communion with either Moscow or Constantinople, but felt only communion with Rome under terms similar to those of the Union of Florence, could ensure their survival at a time when they were under severe legal, social and economic pressure within the Kingdom of Poland. With Constantinople enfeebled under the Ottoman thumb, and Moscow actually hostile to Poland, Rome was the only Church that could provide them with protection.

Unfortunately for the Kyivan bishops, much had changed in the world since Florence, mainly the Reformation and the Council of Trent, whose exclusionary ecclesiology could not admit to the existence of other true Churches outside of the Church of Rome. Corporate reception of the "Ruteni" as an ecclesial entity was thus rejected, and in the end (per the Bull Magnus Dominus of 1598), they were received only as an aggregation of repentant schismatics, "Roman Catholics" who were allowed to retain their unique liturgical and disciplinary customs by "dispensation". Thus, the phenomenon of "uniatism" was born.

The Orthodox Churches responded to this development by breaking communion with the Uniates (though never completely, as any honest history of the region will acknowledge), and hardening their attitudes towards Rome. The real losers in all this were the Uniates themselves, who lost their ecclesial connection with their Mother Church, while at the same time being reduced to "spiritual helots" (Fr. Serge Kelleher's term) of the Church of Rome.

The emergence of the Unia is one of those areas in which, to use Fr. Robert Taft's expression, everybody--Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Orthodox--must take great pains to avoid swallowing the "Disneyland" view of their own history.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:23 AM
At what point, I wonder, will the Young Fogey disown Pope Francis I?
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
It has a point, as high-church Anglicans envisioned it (trying to claim legitimacy for King Henry's schism, like the puppet Catholic church in Red China, turned Calvinist/Zwinglian heresy): that all the pre-'Reformation' churches have an overwhelming amount in common. Take St Vincent of Lérins' semper, ubique et ab omnibus and you pretty much get Catholicism, which is why by even non-papalist high churchmen were accused of 'aping Rome'.

But in itself it's wrong. As a friend learned in history points out, NONE of the pre-'Reformation' churches believe the true church is divisible. It's impossible. Catholicism has a nice attenuated version that actually recognizes orders outside it, the Augustinian vs. the Cyprianic view of hardline Orthodox: if you're credally orthodox (so easy the Nestorians pass the test), have bishops, and have sound teaching on the Eucharist, you're in the club (albeit estranged in the case of the Orthodox for example).
Don't make me come over there. [Linked Image]

grin But seriously ...

Originally Posted by The young fogey
The trouble with branch theories, be they mainline Protestant denominationalism (where the Anglicans are now) or the elitism of Mr. Koehl, Archbishop Elias (Zoghby), or Fr. Taft, is they're relativistic. They're really saying there's no church, even if they don't realize it.
Not so fast. I agree with Branch Theory is wrong ... but I don't think it can be dismissed as easily as you (and, let's face it, most Catholics and Orthodox) think. After all, there were many times in the first millennium when Rome and Constantinople were not in communion.
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.

He's not interested in the Eastern churches either. Much has been made in parts of the Catholic press of his role in Argentina as the default ordinary of Eastern Catholics there but that was just part of his job due to circumstances (no Eastern Catholic bishops there).
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:36 AM
Or, as I suspect, are the issues finally being viewed in a less black and white manner, with honest attempts being made to find a Patristic basis around them?

What is happening, at last, is we are beginning to examine the issues through the lens of ecumenical scholarship, the development of which owes much to Archimandrite Robert Taft, who not only coined the term, but defined many of its guiding principles, as shown below:

Ecumenical scholarship

Let us begin with ecumenical scholarship. All scholarship worthy of the name is historico-critical, objective, fair, and representatively comprehensive. But ecumenical scholarship is not content with these purely natural virtues of honesty and fairness that one should be able to expect from any true scholar. Ecumenical scholarship takes things along step further. I consider ecumenical scholarship a new and specifically Christian way of studying Christian tradition in order to reconcile and unite, rather than to confute and dominate. Its deliberate intention is to emphasize the common tradition underlying differences which, though real, may be the accidental product of history, culture, language, rather than essential differences in the doctrine of the apostolic faith. Of course to remain scholarly, this effort must be carried out realistically, without in any way glossing over real differences. But even in recognizing differences, ecumenical scholarship seeks to describe the beliefs, traditions, and usages of other confessions in ways their own objective spokespersons would recognize as reliable and fair.

So ecumenical scholarship seeks not confrontation but agreement and understanding. It strives to enter into the other’s point of view, to understand it insofar as possible with sympathy and agreement. It is a contest in reverse, a contest of love, one in which the parties seek to understand and justify not their own point of view, but that of their interlocutor. Such an effort and method, far from being baseless romanticism, is rooted in generally accepted evangelical and Catholic theological principles:

1. The theological foundation for this method is our faith that the Holy Spirit is with God’s Church, protecting the integrity of its witness, above all in the centuries of its undivided unity. Since some of the issues that divide us go right back to those centuries, one must ineluctably conclude that these differences do not affect the substance of the apostolic faith. For if they did, then contrary to Jesus’ promise (Mt 16:18), the “gates of hell” would indeed have prevailed against the Church.

2. Secondly, the Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern Churches to be the historic apostolic Christianity of the East, and Sister Churches of the Catholic Church. Consequently, no view of Christian tradition can be considered anything but partial that does not take full account of the age-old, traditional teaching of these Sister Churches. Any theology must be measured not only against the common tradition of the undivided Church, but also against the ongoing witness of the Spirit-guided apostolic christendom of the East. That does not mean that East or West has never been wrong. It does mean that neither can be ignored.

3. An authentic magisterium cannot contradict itself. Therefore, without denying the legitimate development of doctrine, in the case of apparently conflicting traditions of East and West, preferential consideration must be given to the witness of the undivided Church. This is especially true with respect to later polemics resulting from unilateral departures from or developments out of the common tradition during the period of divided christendom.

3. Those who have unilaterally modified a commonly accepted tradition of the undivided Church bear the principal responsibility for any divisions caused thereby. So it is incumbent first of all on them to seek an acceptable solution to that problem. This is especially true when those developments, albeit legitimate, maybe perceived by others as a narrowing of the tradition, or have been forged in the crucible of polemics, never a reliable pedagogue.

4. Within a single Church, any legitimate view of its own particular tradition must encompass the complete spectrum of its witnesses throughout the whole continuum of its history, and not just its most recent or currently popular expression.

5. Finally, doctrinal formulations produced in the heat of polemics must be construed narrowly, within the strict compass of the errors they were meant to confute.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:41 AM
Quote
He's not interested in the Eastern churches either. Much has been made in parts of the Catholic press of his role in Argentina as the default ordinary of Eastern Catholics there but that was just part of his job due to circumstances (no Eastern Catholic bishops there).

Someone is whistling past the graveyard. Someone who has no clue as to what's actually happening in the Catholic Church these days. Someone who wants desperately to cling to both a Disneyland view of Church history and the convenience of theology by cliche.

By the way, there ARE Eastern Catholic exarchs and eparchs throughout Latin America, and right now there are far more Melkites down there (300,000 according to Fr. Ron Roberson's survey from the Annuario Pontifico) than there are Eastern Catholics in the whole of the United States (by about a factor of three).
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches. Either the Pope's what he says he is or he's not. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are parallel tracks an inch apart. Parallel lines of course never meet, even if they're thisclose like we are. I don't see one side giving in.

There is no limit to the inventiveness to which some people will not resort to maintain our separation. Beyond that, your statement reveals that you have not been following the course of the dialogue very closely. Maybe what you see would frighten you too much?
Here we go again, ad infinitum. People who follow Catholic doctrine are stupid, unlike the great Stuart Koehl. (Following Catholic doctrine = 'maintain our separation'. Yadda.) We get it. You want to convert Catholicism to Orthodoxy from within. Not gonna happen.

The 'dialogue' isn't Catholic doctrine. If it doesn't speak from Catholic doctrine, it's not worth my attention.

fogey,

The real 'ad infinitum' here is your endless move to crown your own positions with the name 'Catholic doctrine' and dismiss your interlocutors by miscasting them as strawmen heretics and dissenters.

I do not regard your positions as 'Catholic doctrine,' nor do I understand the ease with which you seem to have appointed yourself as the arbiter of it.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:46 AM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
But it was a union, too, or in other words it was side-switching.
It was not conceived as such by the Kyivan bishops who initiated the push towards union. They believed it possible to be in communion both with Rome and with the Orthodox commonwealth; they did not seek to break communion with either Moscow or Constantinople, but felt only communion with Rome under terms similar to those of the Union of Florence, could ensure their survival at a time when they were under severe legal, social and economic pressure within the Kingdom of Poland. With Constantinople enfeebled under the Ottoman thumb, and Moscow actually hostile to Poland, Rome was the only Church that could provide them with protection.

Unfortunately for the Kyivan bishops, much had changed in the world since Florence, mainly the Reformation and the Council of Trent, whose exclusionary ecclesiology could not admit to the existence of other true Churches outside of the Church of Rome. Corporate reception of the "Ruteni" as an ecclesial entity was thus rejected, and in the end (per the Bull Magnus Dominus of 1598), they were received only as an aggregation of repentant schismatics, "Roman Catholics" who were allowed to retain their unique liturgical and disciplinary customs by "dispensation". Thus, the phenomenon of "uniatism" was born.

The Orthodox Churches responded to this development by breaking communion with the Uniates (though never completely, as any honest history of the region will acknowledge), and hardening their attitudes towards Rome. The real losers in all this were the Uniates themselves, who lost their ecclesial connection with their Mother Church, while at the same time being reduced to "spiritual helots" (Fr. Serge Kelleher's term) of the Church of Rome.

The emergence of the Unia is one of those areas in which, to use Fr. Robert Taft's expression, everybody--Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Orthodox--must take great pains to avoid swallowing the "Disneyland" view of their own history.
Actually, the "it" in the sentence you quoted didn't refer to the UoBL. But regardless, I basically agree ... I only wonder that you didn't go a step further and point out who appointed those bishops in the first place.
Taft's a dissenter, a sophist. I work for a living and go to Mass; I don't follow the cool academic conferences on clever ways to subvert church teaching. Seriously, this is National Catholic Reporter liberalism in Orthodox drag. I think Jorge Bergoglio was default ordinary because the people in question didn't have a bishop in Buenos Aires, his archdiocese.
Originally Posted by eastwardlean?
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
That said, ecumenism's still zero-sum even with sister apostolic churches. Either the Pope's what he says he is or he's not. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are parallel tracks an inch apart. Parallel lines of course never meet, even if they're thisclose like we are. I don't see one side giving in.

There is no limit to the inventiveness to which some people will not resort to maintain our separation. Beyond that, your statement reveals that you have not been following the course of the dialogue very closely. Maybe what you see would frighten you too much?
Here we go again, ad infinitum. People who follow Catholic doctrine are stupid, unlike the great Stuart Koehl. (Following Catholic doctrine = 'maintain our separation'. Yadda.) We get it. You want to convert Catholicism to Orthodoxy from within. Not gonna happen.

The 'dialogue' isn't Catholic doctrine. If it doesn't speak from Catholic doctrine, it's not worth my attention.

fogey,

The real 'ad infinitum' here is your endless move to crown your own positions with the name 'Catholic doctrine' and dismiss your interlocutors by miscasting them as strawmen heretics and dissenters.

I do not regard your positions as 'Catholic doctrine,' nor do I understand the ease with which you seem to have appointed yourself as the arbiter of it.

'The Catholic Church is only a branch of the church' and 'I don't have to believe anything it has defined as doctrine since 1054' so 'the Pope is fallible' are dissent from Catholic teaching, even from conservatives who love the Eastern churches. Not arrogant of me to point out. Just fact.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 08:52 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.
Fair enough.

On a side note, I think it's just sad how web-forums (actually, I have a particular one in mind, but I won't name it) always seem to pit "traditionalist" Catholics and EC/EO against each other. In my own life, it was really exposure to ECism/EOism that helped me to appreciate traditional Catholicism.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.
Fair enough.

On a side note, I think it's just sad how web-forums (actually, I have a particular one in mind, but I won't name it) always seem to pit "traditionalist" Catholics and EC/EO against each other.

I don't know the forum you're referring to but know what you mean. Lots to talk about here. I think both Orthodox anti-Westernism/anti-Catholicism and our Protestant-turned-politically correct host culture's anti-Catholicism feed the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant. Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics want to sit with the cool kids, going to conferences to give talks on 'Women Deacons Would Be Neat' and 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong'. They don't want to be embarrassed by a bunch of conservative Catholics fleeing the abuses in the Novus Ordo by coming to their church. They can push all the right political-correctness buttons: anything but Rome and anything but '50s America. They're exotic (diversity coolness points; Westerners converting to Orthodoxy is a boutique religion like becoming a Buddhist) and can claim to have been oppressed (as sometimes Eastern Catholics were, as in the case of the Chornock schism).

Originally Posted by Peter J
In my own life, it was really exposure to ECism/EOism that helped me to appreciate traditional Catholicism.
Same here. The first traditional Catholic liturgy I went to (not counting high and highish Anglican services) was a WWII-refugee Ukrainian Catholic one 30 years ago.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 09:40 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.
Fair enough.

On a side note, I think it's just sad how web-forums (actually, I have a particular one in mind, but I won't name it) always seem to pit "traditionalist" Catholics and EC/EO against each other.

I don't know the forum you're referring to but know what you mean.
I would bet you've been there at some point. It's probably the best-known Catholic web-forum, and it has an Eastern Catholic section (that Eastern Catholics don't like) and a Traditional Catholic section (that traditional Catholics don't like).

smile cool
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.
Fair enough.

On a side note, I think it's just sad how web-forums (actually, I have a particular one in mind, but I won't name it) always seem to pit "traditionalist" Catholics and EC/EO against each other.

I don't know the forum you're referring to but know what you mean.
I would bet you've been there at some point. It's probably the best-known Catholic web-forum, and it has an Eastern Catholic section (that Eastern Catholics don't like) and a Traditional Catholic section (that traditional Catholics don't like).

smile cool

Gotcha. I never go there but I don't consciously avoid it. Just never get around to it.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
The church can no more revoke papal infallibility than it can approve gay marriage; it's not mainline or Mormon; it can't revoke a doctrine.
All the more proving the fallibility of the Vatican in proclaiming it.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That said, I appreciate what Vatican II ostensibly was trying to do by balancing out/completing Vatican I by emphasizing local bishops. But it's still a non-starter in Orthodox theological opinion, so after a schism 75 years ago that never should have happened (in a way nothing to do with doctrine, you're right, DMD; the church did abandon your family; I can't tell you how sorry I am)
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
DMD and I are talking about a canyon an inch wide but infinitely deep: the nature and scope of the papacy, the ONLY real difference IMO between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
LOL, that is, the only real difference IMHO between the Vatican and Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

Of course, that chasm has no bottom in large part because, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the alleged infallibility/supremacy of the papacy has no definition. When does the "Supreme Pontiff" speak ex cathedra? The Vatican's theologians spend their days reading tea leaves, because His Holiness isn't saying. What charism does a bishop have not given him from his "supreme pontiff"? On that Vatican ecclesiology makes pronouncements as devoid of meaning as a Communist Bill of Rights.
Let's see what the Pope has defined ex cathedra: Mary's all-holy and was assumed into heaven. Filtering out the anti-Catholic sophistry from Orthodox apologists, all pious Greeks and Russians believe some form of both (Mary is Panagia/пресвятая). So what's the problem?
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 09:56 AM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
But it was a union, too, or in other words it was side-switching.

It was not conceived as such by the Kyivan bishops who initiated the push towards union. They believed it possible to be in communion both with Rome and with the Orthodox commonwealth; they did not seek to break communion with either Moscow or Constantinople, but felt only communion with Rome under terms similar to those of the Union of Florence, could ensure their survival at a time when they were under severe legal, social and economic pressure within the Kingdom of Poland. With Constantinople enfeebled under the Ottoman thumb, and Moscow actually hostile to Poland

Now be fair: the Commonwealth of Poland, in the process of pushing Lithuania aside, was quite hostile to Moscow. And Orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by StuartK
Rome was the only Church that could provide them with protection.
Well, that proved hope well misplaced.

Originally Posted by StuartK
Unfortunately for the Kyivan bishops, much had changed in the world since Florence, mainly the Reformation and the Council of Trent, whose exclusionary ecclesiology could not admit to the existence of other true Churches outside of the Church of Rome. Corporate reception of the "Ruteni" as an ecclesial entity was thus rejected, and in the end (per the Bull Magnus Dominus of 1598), they were received only as an aggregation of repentant schismatics, "Roman Catholics" who were allowed to retain their unique liturgical and disciplinary customs by "dispensation". Thus, the phenomenon of "uniatism" was born.

The Orthodox Churches responded to this development by breaking communion with the Uniates (though never completely, as any honest history of the region will acknowledge), and hardening their attitudes towards Rome. The real losers in all this were the Uniates themselves, who lost their ecclesial connection with their Mother Church, while at the same time being reduced to "spiritual helots" (Fr. Serge Kelleher's term) of the Church of Rome.
Good analogy.

Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 10:03 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Let's see what the Pope has defined ex cathedra: Mary's all-holy and was assumed into heaven. Filtering out the anti-Catholic sophistry from Orthodox apologists, all pious Greeks and Russians believe some form of both (Mary is Panagia/пресвятая). So what's the problem?
Munificentissimus Deus stands alone as the only pronouncement ALL of the Vatican's theologians are agreed on. Beyond that, they are all over the map (Fr. Ambrose has posted a running count here and there). The definition needs definition. Or rather, scrapping.

Ineffibilis Deus consists of nothing but an apology of anti-Catholic sophistry.

Btw, don't leave out قدوسة
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 10:04 AM
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That said, I appreciate what Vatican II ostensibly was trying to do by balancing out/completing Vatican I by emphasizing local bishops. But it's still a non-starter in Orthodox theological opinion, so after a schism 75 years ago that never should have happened (in a way nothing to do with doctrine, you're right, DMD; the church did abandon your family; I can't tell you how sorry I am)
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 10:08 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.
You mean, like the Australians over The Dismissal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975

So your Supreme Pontiff only occasionally uses his power to set the seal on heresy. Once is one time too many.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 10:13 AM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.

Well, that ringing endorsement is sure to set the Orthodox on fire with enthusiasm to submit. What did we need a supreme pontiff for again?
Originally Posted by The young fogey
He's not interested in the Eastern churches either. Much has been made in parts of the Catholic press of his role in Argentina as the default ordinary of Eastern Catholics there but that was just part of his job due to circumstances (no Eastern Catholic bishops there).
If he wants to keep it that way, it is going to be interesting to see Major Archbishop Shevchuk curtail his own agenda.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 10:36 AM
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That said, I appreciate what Vatican II ostensibly was trying to do by balancing out/completing Vatican I by emphasizing local bishops. But it's still a non-starter in Orthodox theological opinion, so after a schism 75 years ago that never should have happened (in a way nothing to do with doctrine, you're right, DMD; the church did abandon your family; I can't tell you how sorry I am)
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to.
One example each:
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/381927/1

The other I can't find the thread: it was the Vatican's synod of its Middle Eastern bishops 2 years ago now? that brought up the lack of movement on the promises in the Codex canones ecclesiarum orientalis for the power to ordain married men in the "diaspora."
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.

Well, that ringing endorsement is sure to set the Orthodox on fire with enthusiasm to submit. What did we need a supreme pontiff for again?
Well, if you "needed" the pope in the sense you mean, then we never would have renounced proselytizing your members (individually or otherwise). [Linked Image]

Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by The young fogey
That said, I appreciate what Vatican II ostensibly was trying to do by balancing out/completing Vatican I by emphasizing local bishops. But it's still a non-starter in Orthodox theological opinion, so after a schism 75 years ago that never should have happened (in a way nothing to do with doctrine, you're right, DMD; the church did abandon your family; I can't tell you how sorry I am)
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to.
One example each:
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/381927/1

The other I can't find the thread: it was the Vatican's synod of its Middle Eastern bishops 2 years ago now? that brought up the lack of movement on the promises in the Codex canones ecclesiarum orientalis for the power to ordain married men in the "diaspora."

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I guess you could call it "uncertainty" ... but I think I'd rather say "due caution", knowing how eager the Orthodox are to rake us over the coals. [Linked Image]
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 11:15 AM
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by The young fogey
While I miss Pope Benedict, and realize Francis probably isn't a friend, so what? The nature of his office is he can't teach heresy. So I'm not leaving the church because of him or declaring him an antipope (sedevacantism). But I'm realistic. He's not high-church traditionalist and not interested in that. So I hope he leaves us alone.

Well, that ringing endorsement is sure to set the Orthodox on fire with enthusiasm to submit. What did we need a supreme pontiff for again?
Well, if you "needed" the pope in the sense you mean, then we never would have renounced proselytizing your members (individually or otherwise). [Linked Image]

P.S. Maybe the best description is this: I see you guys "needing" the pope in the same way that you (I presume, of course) see the Oriental Orthodox "needing" to be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
.. Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics want to sit with the cool kids, going to conferences to give talks on 'Women Deacons Would Be Neat' and 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong'. They don't want to be embarrassed by a bunch of conservative Catholics fleeing the abuses in the Novus Ordo by coming to their church. They can push all the right political-correctness buttons: anything but Rome and anything but '50s America. They're exotic (diversity coolness points; Westerners converting to Orthodoxy is a boutique religion like becoming a Buddhist) and can claim to have been oppressed (as sometimes Eastern Catholics were, as in the case of the Chornock schism).

I can see from your website that you obviously like 50's America, but I'm wondering what that has to do with any of this and when have any Easterners said anything bad about it?

The comment about Westerners becoming Orthodox is extremely offensive. You're insulting the entire population of Orthodox converts in the West, as well as Roman Catholics who cross over Eastern Catholicism and who have a similar conversion experience in that they feel called to the Eastern patrimony and spirituality. I would think most of these people feel it is a call from God. You seem to be calling them all frauds or so shallow as to be only wanting to be "cool" or different. I'm at a loss for words to describe how offensive and hurtful that is.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by desertman
Originally Posted by The young fogey
.. Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics want to sit with the cool kids, going to conferences to give talks on 'Women Deacons Would Be Neat' and 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong'. They don't want to be embarrassed by a bunch of conservative Catholics fleeing the abuses in the Novus Ordo by coming to their church. They can push all the right political-correctness buttons: anything but Rome and anything but '50s America. They're exotic (diversity coolness points; Westerners converting to Orthodoxy is a boutique religion like becoming a Buddhist) and can claim to have been oppressed (as sometimes Eastern Catholics were, as in the case of the Chornock schism).

I can see from your website that you obviously like 50's America, but I'm wondering what that has to do with any of this and when have any Easterners said anything bad about it?

The comment about Westerners becoming Orthodox is extremely offensive. You're insulting the entire population of Orthodox converts in the West, as well as Roman Catholics who cross over Eastern Catholicism and who have a similar conversion experience in that they feel called to the Eastern patrimony and spirituality. I would think most of these people feel it is a call from God. You seem to be calling them all frauds or so shallow as to be only wanting to be "cool" or different. I'm at a loss for words to describe how offensive and hurtful that is.

Um ... I believe he was criticizing/insulting "the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant" and "Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics [who] want to sit with the cool kids". Though I could be wrong.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 12:41 PM
A question for "fogey". "The first traditional Catholic liturgy I went to (not counting high and highish Anglican services) was a WWII-refugee Ukrainian Catholic one 30 years ago."

Was that traditional UGCC service you reference akin to a "Low Mass" at Philadelphia's Ukrainian Cathedral, or was it like Fr. Galazda's Divine Liturgy following the Orthos at St. Elias UGCC in Brampton, Ont?


Just wondering....
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Peter J
Um ... I believe he was criticizing/insulting "the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant" and "Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics [who] want to sit with the cool kids". Though I could be wrong.

Maybe I'm having trouble interpreting, but what I was objecting to was the idea that Westerners only become Orthodox (or Eastern Catholic) in order to play pretend or as some sort of "schtick".
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 01:40 PM
I'm not saying that it could never happen, and I'm sure it does, but I think that probably most people have genuine spiritual conversions.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 11:06 PM
Everybody had better get used to Westerners converting to Orthodoxy, because that's the future of Orthodoxy, if Orthodoxy has a future.

"The time is coming when no one will be an Orthodox Christian who does not consciously choose to be one"--Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocleia

An entire generation of Orthodox theologians is coming of age. Most of them are Westerners, who have lived their entire lives in the West. Many are converts, with no ethnic attachment to the Orthodox faith. Many are beginning to challenge the neo-patristic and neo-palamite consensus that developed between the World Wars in the theological schools of Paris and New York, broadening and rediscovering the varieties of theological expression that made the Byzantine Churches such fertile grounds for contemplation of the divine. It will undoubtedly be challenging, and could pose serious risks, but without risk, there is no spiritual growth at all.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/22/13 11:13 PM
Interesting. Are you sure he didn't say "The time is coming when no one will be an Anabaptist who does not consciously choose to be one."
Sorry, Sergey, I have been out of this for so long that I missed it completely.

A belated welcome!

Alex
Dear Sergey,

Yes, they are not like the Uniate model as you say. But they are in the sense that Rome sees them as having submitted to it very much like the Uniates did. The issue of their not having valid Orders and the like is an important, although I believe, independent matter.

As for King Charles and other Anglican worthies, I know that the matter of their liturgical veneration is being pursued in Rome - I don't know what Rome will decide. Rome has ruled in favour of the veneration of certain Orthodox saints. You may say that that was because they had valid sacraments etc. But Rome did this at a time when being out of union with Rome meant that one could not hope to be saved. In fact, as you know, Rome has allowed the veneration of Eastern Saints in Churches coming into union with Rome, as long as they were not very vocal against Rome. Rome will decide what it will decide in the case of the proposed Anglican beati or whatever one would call them. The existence of their liturgical veneration is already a kind of "equipollent beatification" and we shall just have to see if this is how Rome will treat them.

No one is denying that the Anglican Rite is a Cranmerian rewrite. But I've had conversations with both Catholic and Orthodox former Anglicans who follow the provisions that their Churches allow and they appear to be saying that they are indeed interested in taking their liturgical Anglicanism back to the old rites of Sarum etc. As one put it to me, "The seeds of the old rites of Catholic England (within the Anglican traditions) appear to want to sprout full-blown Sarum."

Cheers,

Alex
Dear Stuart,

In your first lines you said that the Kyivan bishops seeking union with Rome did not seek to disown either Constantinople or Moscow.

In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Moscow was considered, at that time, to be, as the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitans referred to it, "Barbaric Muscovy" and its clergy to be illiterate and culturally inferior.

The Kyivan Orthodox bishops at that time saw Constantinople as exercising undue control over them, even to the extent of appointing Stauropeghial Brotherhoods as their overseers.

No, the Ruthenian bishops at the time wanted nothing to do with Constantinople (and Moscow was a distant, vulgar region).

They did see their union with Rome to be the same as their union with Constantinople. They simply transferred allegiance to the western patriarchate (and one could argue that this was their mistake).

The idea of the Union of Brest being a harbinger of communion with more than one patriarchate, even though those patriarchates were out of union with each other, (if that is how I read what you are saying) has no substantiation whatever.

Alex
Originally Posted by The young fogey
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.

Dear Sergey,

Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

Alex
Dear Ialmisry,

Major Archbishop Svyatoslav (have you Orthodox reverted to using your bishops' surnames now? Isn't that breaking with your tradition?) and Pope Francis have been and still are great friends, didn't you know.

Time and again, you are just trying to be vicious. Please stick to what you know.

Alex
It has a seige mentality.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Ialmisry,

Major Archbishop Svyatoslav (have you Orthodox reverted to using your bishops' surnames now? Isn't that breaking with your tradition?) and Pope Francis have been and still are great friends, didn't you know.

Time and again, you are just trying to be vicious. Please stick to what you know.
I know that the Vatican doesn't have enough room for two popes-hence why none of the three claimants (Melkite, Latin, Coptic) it put up to replace the Pope of Alexandria, the original Pope, don't have the title (unlike the usual Ostpolitik).

Similarly, it is not large enough to have another universal bishop, no matter the friendship of the former Abp. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Aux. Bp. Sviatoslav Shevchuk.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Well, that ringing endorsement is sure to set the Orthodox on fire with enthusiasm to submit. What did we need a supreme pontiff for again?
Well, if you "needed" the pope in the sense you mean, then we never would have renounced proselytizing your members (individually or otherwise). [Linked Image]
You perhaps have to ask someone who believes that the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith has given up proselytizing our members on that.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Not quite. Recent actions/statements of the Vatican on the issue (and also the absence of actions/statements when not only warranted, but requested) reveal either uncertainty or duplicity-but definitely not certitude of the Faith.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to.
One example each:
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/381927/1

The other I can't find the thread: it was the Vatican's synod of its Middle Eastern bishops 2 years ago now? that brought up the lack of movement on the promises in the Codex canones ecclesiarum orientalis for the power to ordain married men in the "diaspora."

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I guess you could call it "uncertainty" ... but I think I'd rather say "due caution", knowing how eager the Orthodox are to rake us over the coals. [Linked Image]
Rake you over the coals? No, just giving safe haven to those thus alienated.

Originally Posted by Peter J
P.S. Maybe the best description is this: I see you guys "needing" the pope in the same way that you (I presume, of course) see the Oriental Orthodox "needing" to be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.
We need to be in communion with the Oriental Orthodox because we confess the same Faith. Other than that, they have no need to be in communion with the EP in New Rome-indeed, nor do any of us. Something the Phanar keeps forgetting.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by desertman
Originally Posted by The young fogey
.. Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics want to sit with the cool kids, going to conferences to give talks on 'Women Deacons Would Be Neat' and 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong'. They don't want to be embarrassed by a bunch of conservative Catholics fleeing the abuses in the Novus Ordo by coming to their church. They can push all the right political-correctness buttons: anything but Rome and anything but '50s America. They're exotic (diversity coolness points; Westerners converting to Orthodoxy is a boutique religion like becoming a Buddhist) and can claim to have been oppressed (as sometimes Eastern Catholics were, as in the case of the Chornock schism).

I can see from your website that you obviously like 50's America, but I'm wondering what that has to do with any of this and when have any Easterners said anything bad about it?

The comment about Westerners becoming Orthodox is extremely offensive. You're insulting the entire population of Orthodox converts in the West, as well as Roman Catholics who cross over Eastern Catholicism and who have a similar conversion experience in that they feel called to the Eastern patrimony and spirituality. I would think most of these people feel it is a call from God. You seem to be calling them all frauds or so shallow as to be only wanting to be "cool" or different. I'm at a loss for words to describe how offensive and hurtful that is.

Um ... I believe he was criticizing/insulting "the phenomenon of fora like these snottily maligning trads as idiots and/or ignorant" and "Liberal academic Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics [who] want to sit with the cool kids". Though I could be wrong.


Right.

Anti-Westernism from old-country Orthodox such as Mount Athos is hurtful, and blessedly rare from ethnic Orthodox in person and online (I think I understand and appreciate someone like Fr James Dutko, who seems honest about his Catholic heritage and somehow wanting to make things right with the church without leaving unsolved the problems that caused the 1930s schism).

That said, my main point is there is nothing as obnoxious as an anti-Western Orthodox or pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholic who is himself actually Western but has reinvented himself as something else. In other words, most of online Orthodoxy.

That's not a knock on the Eastern Christianity whose trappings these folks have adopted.

I brought up '50s America because of these folks' exoticism; yes, they pretend to be Eastern to look cool; '50s America is everything they're rebelling against. Just like the politically correct and their diversity fetish. Again, anti-Western Westerners.

I know of course that ethnic Orthodox and Greek Catholics were often part of '50s America and didn't fall into this (again, I wasn't knocking the culture the jerks have adopted); quite the opposite. They really appreciate this country.

IAlmisry, I tell it like it is; I won't lie to you that Catholic life is perfect. But there's only one church and I can't buy your side's view that my heritage isn't legitimate Christianity. So I'm where I am.

I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.

DMD, I was alluding to some Catholic inside knowledge; sorry. The key to what I was saying is 'WWII exile Ukrainian Catholic', which was a lot like ACROD in the '40s, or in this case, a lot like an old Greek Catholic parish church in the old country. In this case (St John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church in Whippany, NJ by the way), it was a sweet little parish church (at the time), not at all latinized in its furnishings (beautiful wooden and gilt iconostasis), with a clean-shaven priest (common in American Orthodox history) doing a Low Mass (no music or incense; congregational responses). It was in English but Fr Panasiuk, from the Ukraine, did the whispered parts in the liturgical language. At the time I didn't know Slavonic from Ukrainian so I don't know which; I'm guessing because of his age it was Slavonic. The faithful received Communion kneeling in a row on the step in front of the iconostasis, and they passed down the priest's blessing cross to kiss (like the pax-brede in the Roman Rite) before receiving.

St Elias, Brampton – Orthodox practices – is the exception in Ukrainian Catholicism as far as I know. When you see it, it's usually convert Roman Riters and Rome-trained priests. Not the same as the anti-Western pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics, but Greek Catholicism exactly as Rome has wanted it to be. I've been to similar – the whole round of weekend services at St Michael's Russian Catholic Church in New York City, and Transfiguration Melkite Church in northern Virginia – and like it very much.
Converts aren't American Orthodoxy's future. The convert boomlet 20 years ago is over. Becoming Orthodox isn't hip among evangelicals anymore. You'll keep seeing a few more Western white members including of course the convert clergy the Orthodox rely on more now, but you'll also keep seeing, as a Catholic friend has put it, stolid decline among them with most converts, as in the past, being marriage converts like Tom Hanks (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding). They will always be mostly part of ethnic identities; immigrant churches.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Sergey,

Yes, they are not like the Uniate model as you say. But they are in the sense that Rome sees them as having submitted to it very much like the Uniates did. The issue of their not having valid Orders and the like is an important, although I believe, independent matter.

As for King Charles and other Anglican worthies, I know that the matter of their liturgical veneration is being pursued in Rome - I don't know what Rome will decide. Rome has ruled in favour of the veneration of certain Orthodox saints. You may say that that was because they had valid sacraments etc. But Rome did this at a time when being out of union with Rome meant that one could not hope to be saved. In fact, as you know, Rome has allowed the veneration of Eastern Saints in Churches coming into union with Rome, as long as they were not very vocal against Rome. Rome will decide what it will decide in the case of the proposed Anglican beati or whatever one would call them. The existence of their liturgical veneration is already a kind of "equipollent beatification" and we shall just have to see if this is how Rome will treat them.

No one is denying that the Anglican Rite is a Cranmerian rewrite. But I've had conversations with both Catholic and Orthodox former Anglicans who follow the provisions that their Churches allow and they appear to be saying that they are indeed interested in taking their liturgical Anglicanism back to the old rites of Sarum etc. As one put it to me, "The seeds of the old rites of Catholic England (within the Anglican traditions) appear to want to sprout full-blown Sarum."

Cheers,

Alex


Here's some Anglican insider stuff. Anglican would-be Catholics weren't Sarum wannabes for the most part. Old-school English Anglo-Catholics mimicked Tridentine Catholicism (the really extreme did it in Latin); after the council they were Novus Ordo, neither interested in Sarum nor the Prayer Book. In other words, not liturgically conservative anymore, regrettably, but theologically sound. Pope Benedict's improved Novus fits them to a T. They're now the British ordinariate: basically Pope Benedict Novus with married priests.

American Anglo-Catholicism was a different brew. Not would-be papal but believing in what they thought was Anglicanism, what they imagined Hooker, the Carolines, and the Tractarians were, Prayer Booky with liturgical texts but like their British cousins used to be, often good pre-Vatican II Catholics ceremonially, birettas and all. You see this even today among the Episcopalians: unlike Catholic liberals, they love our stuff.

Sarum ceremonial revival only caught on among some English Anglicans, and not the would-be Catholics. It became the house style for public royal church services such as Prince William's wedding. Mostly it has been associated with Modernist mainline theology: liberal high church, essentially Episcopalianism. I think its early English advocate, Percy Dearmer, was fine with the idea of women priests.

(Sidebar: when the Catholic Church was legalized again in Britain, in the 1800s, I think someone in the hierarchy considered and asked Rome about reviving Sarum and was turned down. Sorry, the 'Reformation' killed it and the other medieval English recensions.)
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Originally Posted by The young fogey
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.

Dear Sergey,

Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

Alex


Yeah, I'm serious. I know of the kind of Catholic you mean, but that's not me nor the ethnic cultural Catholics I know (such as Italian-Americans).

Like good po-nashomu folk, I have my Mass as it's been done for centuries, I send the Pope my Peter's Pence offering money, he leaves me alone, and I leave him alone.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
(Sidebar: when the Catholic Church was legalized again in Britain, in the 1800s, I think someone in the hierarchy considered and asked Rome about reviving Sarum and was turned down. Sorry, the 'Reformation' killed it and the other medieval English recensions.)

A friend writes that actually I got it backwards:

The idea was to revive Sarum as (solely and exclusively) the rite of Westminster Cathedral. Rome was, apparently, quite open to the idea; it was the (then ultramontane) English Catholic bishops who turned the idea down. Since the cathedral was built between 1885 ans 1903, it must have been at that time that the Sarum suggestion was mooted.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:19 AM
In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Moscow was considered, at that time, to be, as the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolitans referred to it, "Barbaric Muscovy" and its clergy to be illiterate and culturally inferior.

Bishop (then-Professor) Borys Gudziak's book, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metr...le and the Origins of the Union of Brest [amazon.com] is extensively documented and is considered definitive.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:20 AM
Quote
Major Archbishop Svyatoslav

That's Patriarch Svyatoslav, bub.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:23 AM
Quote
Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

The typical Roman Catholic knows more about the Pope than about his diocesan bishop--assuming he knows the name of his bishop at all. One of Pope Francis' objectives seems to be the dismantling of the cult of personality that has grown up around modern Popes. Both he and Pope Benedict were more than a little dismayed by the phenomenon of "John Paul II Superstar".
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:26 AM
Quote
I brought up '50s America because of these folks' exoticism; yes, they pretend to be Eastern to look cool; '50s America is everything they're rebelling against. Just like the politically correct and their diversity fetish. Again, anti-Western Westerners.

Now you're just being an ass. You aren't even old enough to remember the fifties, so what you really miss is the Ozzy & Harriet caricature of the fifties. Try to remember that there are no golden ages, and that any time described as one had as many real problems as the present day.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Originally Posted by The young fogey
By the way, Catholic doesn't necessarily mean ultramontanist. As a traditionalist I'm actually a papal minimalist, more interested in organic immemorial custom just like the Orthodox. The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics; he's rarely used his office's infallibility; in 200 years he's used it twice, and to define things Catholics already believed. So it doesn't make sense to us when non-Catholics get upset over papal power.
Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

Alex

Yeah, I'm serious. I know of the kind of Catholic you mean, but that's not me nor the ethnic cultural Catholics I know (such as Italian-Americans).

Like good po-nashomu folk, I have my Mass as it's been done for centuries, I send the Pope my Peter's Pence offering money, he leaves me alone, and I leave him alone.
"The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics". Are you speaking just of how things are now (since Vatican II), or are you saying that's been true for a while?

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Are you serious? A "distant figure?" Sorry, you are way off here. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis are anything but "distant" to many Catholics.

The typical Roman Catholic knows more about the Pope than about his diocesan bishop--assuming he knows the name of his bishop at all.
grin
Originally Posted by StuartK
One of Pope Francis' objectives seems to be the dismantling of the cult of personality that has grown up around modern Popes. Both he and Pope Benedict were more than a little dismayed by the phenomenon of "John Paul II Superstar".
Frankly, I could never understand why tickets for "John Paul II Superstar" always sold out. ("Joseph Ratizinger and the Coat of Many Colors" was pretty good though.)
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.
That's a tough one, that is. One the hand, far be it from me to think that we should flat-out disregard the sentiments of the Orthodox ... but on the other hand, sometimes it seems like we're inviting the Orthodox to put a finger in our pie, so to speak.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 12:47 PM
Quote
("Joseph Ratizinger and the Coat of Many Colors" was pretty good though.)

I think you meant "Joseph Ratzinger and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Surplice".
Quote
"The Pope is a distant figure to most Catholics". Are you speaking just of how things are now (since Vatican II), or are you saying that's been true for a while?
I'm saying that's been true for a long time. The church isn't a cult; the Pope couldn't micromanage you now even if he wanted to. Certainly true in the centuries of poor means of communication and travel. Again, we're puzzled when non-Catholics go on about the Pope being a tyrant. How it really works, including in the wonderful big tent of pre-conciliar Catholicism: there are lots of nominal and ignorant Catholics who don't agree with the church. The church doesn't go after them. It only bothers to excommunicate you for heresy if you're educated enough to know better, are in a position of trust such as a bishop or a professor, and have been warned (the church's version of due process).

Pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics who preach on the Internet are a modern equivalent of a pro-abortion Catholic politician or a theologian spreading his error in the high levels of academia. Arguably worse because the Internet is a global mass medium, a powerful pulpit. Unlike the legions of ornery lapsed Catholics, they cause scandal, so they should be excommunicated.

The Pope as modern media star is shallow and a Novus Ordo conservative thing, not a trad or ethnic one. Interestingly, that wasn't Benedict, the high-church, shy German professor happy with playing Mozart on his piano and playing with his cats. He was never ultramontane. Although I wish he stayed, it fits his views that his last lesson as Pope, the act of stepping down, was about the limits of the man holding the office.

Again I'm all for good relations with the Orthodox with the goal of bringing all of them in. That said, I have no problem calling Svyatoslav a patriarch out of courtesy nor his becoming one in name as well as fact.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
("Joseph Ratizinger and the Coat of Many Colors" was pretty good though.)
I think you meant "Joseph Ratzinger and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Surplice".
Oh right. (I didn't have the playbill in front of me, and apparently my memory isn't as sharp as it once was.)
DMD, this [sergesblog.blogspot.com] is what I was talking about: my first traditional Catholic Mass, first Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy, and first experience of East Slavic Christianity, all the same service.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics who preach on the Internet are a modern equivalent of a pro-abortion Catholic politician or a theologian spreading his error in the high levels of academia. Arguably worse because the Internet is a global mass medium, a powerful pulpit. Unlike the legions of ornery lapsed Catholics, they cause scandal, so they should be excommunicated.

You really expect to be taken seriously putting out such trash as this?
There's the calling of Greek Catholics, according to Rome, to bear witness to the one Catholic faith in an Orthodox way, which I think is the mission of this board, and then there's dissent. If you are Catholic and preaching against church teaching online, you deserve the same scrutiny as a ranking churchman, professor, or politician, including, when deserved, excommunication.
The comparison to the promotion of abortion is absurd. Stuart wad right in a recent post--you're just being an ass.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics who preach on the Internet are a modern equivalent of a pro-abortion Catholic politician or a theologian spreading his error in the high levels of academia. Arguably worse because the Internet is a global mass medium, a powerful pulpit. Unlike the legions of ornery lapsed Catholics, they cause scandal, so they should be excommunicated.
I don't agree with calling this statement "trash" (and I'm not just being polite; in fact in the last month I've complained 3 or 4 times about Catholics posting "garbage" on the internet); but I think it's a little silly.

Maybe it's been too long since you had a vacation from the internet. (Not that I'm one to talk. [Linked Image])
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Pseudo-Orthodox dissenter Catholics who preach on the Internet are a modern equivalent of a pro-abortion Catholic politician or a theologian spreading his error in the high levels of academia. Arguably worse because the Internet is a global mass medium, a powerful pulpit. Unlike the legions of ornery lapsed Catholics, they cause scandal, so they should be excommunicated.
I don't agree with calling this statement "trash" (and I'm not just being polite; in fact in the last month I've complained 3 or 4 times about Catholics posting "garbage" on the internet); but I think it's a little silly.

Maybe it's been too long since you had a vacation from the internet. (Not that I'm one to talk. [Linked Image])

"Trash" is the polite term for what he's putting out in this thread.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
There's the calling of Greek Catholics, according to Rome, to bear witness to the one Catholic faith in an Orthodox way, which I think is the mission of this board, and then there's dissent. If you are Catholic and preaching against church teaching online, you deserve the same scrutiny as a ranking churchman, professor, or politician, including, when deserved, excommunication.

Here, you're hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Stuart, Fr. Robert Taft, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.
'Here, you're (sic) hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Vice President Biden, Secretary Sebelius, Congresswoman Pelosi, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.'

Got it. You've betrayed the faith to sit at the cool kids' table, only you dress it up in Orthodox trappings.

It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
'Here, you're (sic) hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Vice President Biden, Secretary Sebelius, Congresswoman Pelosi, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.'

Got it. You've betrayed the faith to sit at the cool kids' table, only you dress it up in Orthodox trappings.

It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. As for the rest of it, thank you for making abundantly clear to everyone the absurdity of the comparison you're drawing. As for telling me to go somewhere else, you can do that when you become my bishop. Until then, my Church affiliation is none of your business.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Major Archbishop Svyatoslav

That's Patriarch Svyatoslav, bub.
No, it is not. Read your Codex Canones Ecclesiarum Orientalis.

Btw, today I just read a rather bizarre "history" of the Church in Ukraine by his predecessor at the time of the Millenium of the Baptism of Rus'. He labeled himself a patriarch and a cardinal (the latter which he was).
Thank God that, for all their foibles, rank-and-file Greek Catholics, most of the ethnics born into it, aren't like the dissenters online.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
, and then there's dissent. If you are Catholic and preaching against church teaching online, you deserve the same scrutiny as a ranking churchman, professor, or politician, including, when deserved, excommunication.

Well, a very weak comparison can be made between the typical blogger and "a ranking churchman, professor, or politician". But even supposing that a strong comparison could be made ... well, you just can't get around the lack-of-excommunication-issuance ... unless you want to resort to the rather weaselly tactic of Fr. J. Steele, namely making it their responsibility to excommunicate the pope, rather than the other way around.
Thank God that most rank-and-file Catholics, Roman or Greek, aren't like the scribes and Pharisees online.
There are bloggers and then there are public fora such as this where Catholics and inquirers look for Catholic answers. I don't take on that responsibility as a blogger and a Catholic layman; it's not a 'Catholic blog'. That said, if somebody is preaching dissent on a blog and has a big following – if Mark Shea, for example, changed his mind and started preaching Mr. Koehl's line – then yes, he ought to be held responsible.
And this is not a Catholic forum.
So the disclaimer in tiny point-size text at the bottom of this page says. Gotcha.
Moderators have pointed out to participants numerous times that this is not a Catholic forum.
Originally Posted by The young fogey
It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.

I believe that I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church and I believe that you have sometimes miscontrued it.

Whenever I have tried to engage you in a conversation about it, however, you have simply dismissed me, declaring (snidely and uncharitably) that the truth of Catholic doctrine is good enough for you and that you are happy to be too dull for dissent and heresy. This does not vindicate your point of view in the matter of disagreement, whatever it happens to be.

More importantly, brother, it does not in any way at all serve the truth. For if I am erring, then you don't help me, and if you are, you should care. I fear it can also serve to build up a kind of self-righteousness, which can extinguish charity. The Lord commanded us to love one another, and this really can't be smirked aside as some low flying point. If we are to seek(together) the One Who is the Truth, then we won't get there so long as we substitute sneering for mercy. I assure you that I desire to get there (to Him) more than I desire to be right. There is a pride that apes humility. Surely we should all want to avoid it.
The Catholic faith: believing all the doctrines Rome has defined since the schism, but Greek Catholics' calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, which of course the Orthodox don't think is possible.

Pseudo-Orthodox dissent by some Catholics: Catholic doctrine since the split is optional; Catholic councils since the split are only general councils of the West I don't have to obey; neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is by itself the true church.

So which one will it be? So far nobody can prove the first is not what the church teaches. Trying to bait me doesn't answer the question.
Posted By: DMD Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
'Here, you're (sic) hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Vice President Biden, Secretary Sebelius, Congresswoman Pelosi, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.'

Got it. You've betrayed the faith to sit at the cool kids' table, only you dress it up in Orthodox trappings.

It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.

The last I heard was that Fr. Taft retired from the Orientale after a long and distinguished academic career. The Russicom, more Orthodox in appearance than most Orthodox places of worship, is a hotbed of poseurs and wanne-be heretics? Who would have thought? Where's the Inquisition when you need it?
Posted By: StuartK Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 07:46 PM
Sergei, some day you are going to find yourself in room with Catholic clergy and theologians who are both informed and in positions of authority, and you are going to spout off some piece of arrant nonsense. I pray I live to be in that room at that time, so that I might find out just how you prefer your crow to be prepared.
Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by The young fogey
'Here, you're (sic) hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Vice President Biden, Secretary Sebelius, Congresswoman Pelosi, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.'

Got it. You've betrayed the faith to sit at the cool kids' table, only you dress it up in Orthodox trappings.

It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.
The last I heard was that Fr. Taft retired from the Orientale after a long and distinguished academic career. The Russicum, more Orthodox in appearance than most Orthodox places of worship, is a hotbed of poseurs and wanne-be heretics? Who would have thought? Where's the Inquisition when you need it?

All I can say is there is plenty of crap people get away with in the church, and he seems to be one of those non sequiturs.

I've always hoped that the Russicum and its Church of St Anthony Abbot, like the rest of the little Russian Catholic Church, are a showplace of what Rome always wanted Greek Catholicism to be: 100% Catholic in doctrine, nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter (Pope St Pius X when commissioning the Russian Catholic Church) compared to Orthodox practice. If the first is not so, I'm very sorry to hear it, but it wouldn't refute Catholic doctrine.

'Inquisition'? Please. I expect crap like that from pro-abortion and gay activists, not the son of an Orthodox priest.
So the great Stuart Koehl doesn't like me. I'm gonna go cry now.

Meanwhile, would your self-styled holiness deign to answer the question?

Quote
The Catholic faith: believing all the doctrines Rome has defined since the schism, but Greek Catholics' calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, which of course the Orthodox don't think is possible.

Pseudo-Orthodox dissent by some Catholics: Catholic doctrine since the split is optional; Catholic councils since the split are only general councils of the West I don't have to obey; neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is by itself the true church.

So which one will it be?
Quote
Catholic clergy and theologians who are both informed and in positions of authority

I think I can translate: the ones who agree with Mr. Koehl, who go to the same academic conferences to preach the same dissent as him, so they have no business being trusted with authority. The same freemasonry that thinks the magisterium is for morons.
I am not trying to bait you. I meant completely everything I said to you. I believe that the Church takes a much less hard line than you claim it does, on the points you offer.

I can believe that THE Church is genuinely present in the Orthodox Churches (as the Catholic Church DOES actually teach) without claiming that 'neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church is really the Church,' nor as you also put it recently, that 'the Catholic Church is only a part.' It is not impermissible for me to make use of Orthodox theology nor is it wrong of me to include Orthodox teaching in the 'ordinary magisterium of the Church' if I want to make sense of a purported papally defined doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception. You claim this is dissent...(or at least you did when I tried talking about it with you a few weeks back)...I am not aware that any bishops do.

You insist on a much starker distinction--namely, 'the faith' vs. 'dissent--between these two sets of propositions than the Church does, and yet you brand as a dissenter anybody who raises any question at all about your insistence. Is this disingenuous? Do you really believe that when then Cardinal Ratzinger offered the private theological opinion that union with the Orthodox East could require from the Orthodox no more than the first millennium that he was actually expressing 'dissent' of the sort for which you've just urged excommunication? I believe Pope Paul was the first (though not the last, I think) pope to call them 'general councils of the West.' Also dissent?






I've explained myself in this thread.

So what'll it be?
Repeating an assertion is not explanation.
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
The Catholic faith: believing all the doctrines Rome has defined since the schism, but Greek Catholics' calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, which of course the Orthodox don't think is possible.

Pseudo-Orthodox dissent by some Catholics: Catholic doctrine since the split is optional; Catholic councils since the split are only general councils of the West I don't have to obey; neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy is by itself the true church.

So which one will it be?

The answer is "a", but I think that because everything is still such an ongoing process and that there are so many grey areas in how Eastern Catholics are supposed to be both Catholic and Orthodox, things haven't been articulated enough yet.
So far, Rome has not chastised any of the Eastern clergy for dissent, and I don't think i've ever seen anyone openly preaching dissent on byzcath either, so where are you seeing this huge problem?
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 08:39 PM
For instance, some of those "councils of the West" you mentioned don't make sense in Orthodox terms, but there hasn't been a clarification or a consensus on how exactly Eastern Catholics are to interpret those councils from an Orthodox perspective.
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 08:46 PM
And asking honest questions about how to implement Roman dogma in an Eastern way isn't nearly the same thing as shouting out "I will not obey!" or "Orthodoxy or death!"
smile
Posted By: desertman Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by The young fogey
Quote
Catholic clergy and theologians who are both informed and in positions of authority

I think I can translate: the ones who agree with Mr. Koehl, who go to the same academic conferences to preach the same dissent as him, so they have no business being trusted with authority. The same freemasonry that thinks the magisterium is for morons.

If those academic conferences you keep mentioning refers to Orientale Lumen, those are not some hotbed of dissent. I've never been myself, but it's been attended by the likes of Cardinal Weurl of Washington and Cardinal George of Chicago. Two highly orthodox prelates. Not to mention the highly respected and orthodox monks of Holy Resurrection monastery.

Not exactly the "women priests" or "Catholics for Choice" crowd.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:01 PM
Originally Posted by DMD
Originally Posted by The young fogey
'Here, you're (sic) hypocrisy is exposed. You accuse those who think like Vice President Biden, Secretary Sebelius, Congresswoman Pelosi, me, and others of placing ourselves above the Church and being worthy of excommunication for our dissent. Yet you place yourself in a position above the Church by taking it upon yourself to judge us as deserving of excommunication, given the fact that the Church herself chooses to take no action against us.'

Got it. You've betrayed the faith to sit at the cool kids' table, only you dress it up in Orthodox trappings.

It's simple. If you arrogate to yourself the teaching job of a pastor or professor, you take on the responsibility and consequences of the same. If you don't accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, go somewhere else.

The last I heard was that Fr. Taft retired from the Orientale after a long and distinguished academic career. The Russicom, more Orthodox in appearance than most Orthodox places of worship, is a hotbed of poseurs and wanne-be heretics? Who would have thought? Where's the Inquisition when you need it?
I wasn't aware of the new department of the Curia "The Congregation of More Catholic than the Pope."
I get the nuances well enough. Again, in Greek Catholicism it's about Orthodox expression of Catholic doctrine. Then there's out-and-out dissent.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 06/23/13 09:22 PM
Ha! cool I knew the firestorm would burn itself out if I wait long enough. (And even if it hasn't I don't want to wait any longer. wink )

Originally Posted by The young fogey
There are bloggers and then there are public fora such as this where Catholics and inquirers look for Catholic answers.
Hoo ... don't get me started on catholic answers.

Originally Posted by The young fogey
The Catholic faith: believing all the doctrines Rome has defined since the schism, but Greek Catholics' calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, which of course the Orthodox don't think is possible.
Meh, I've kind of given up on the idea of being an honorary Orthodox.
Originally Posted by Peter J
Ha! cool I knew the firestorm would burn itself out if I wait long enough. (And even if it hasn't I don't want to wait any longer. wink )

Originally Posted by The young fogey
There are bloggers and then there are public fora such as this where Catholics and inquirers look for Catholic answers.
Hoo ... don't get me started on catholic answers.

Originally Posted by The young fogey
The Catholic faith: believing all the doctrines Rome has defined since the schism, but Greek Catholics' calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, which of course the Orthodox don't think is possible.
Meh, I've kind of given up on the idea of being an honorary Orthodox.

'Catholic answers.' Haha; just a coincidence. Like I said, I never read it.

So that's what you meant by honorary Orthodox. Gotcha.
Amen!

I was born Roman Catholic, My parents became Protestant in my teens, came back to the RC in my late 20s, was active into my mid 30s, but did not feel my local parish offered the spiritual growth that I felt I needed, but I wanted to remain Catholic. While Visiting Russia, I discovered the Orthodox side of Catholicism. (my grandmother had escaped the 1917 revolution, moved to France where she became a devout RC).

Through a family crisis, in my early 40s I embraced Orthodoxy. I know this is my home , but along the way I found the hand of Christ at work in all the various churches.

Before I became Orthodox, I always thought that the first split of the church was the reformation with Martin Luther. Now I see it was within the Catholic church itself. We as Christians suffer from so much dissent. I pray that with Christ's help we can overcome the divisions within the catholic faith.
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/10/13 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.
That's a tough one, that is. One the hand, far be it from me to think that we should flat-out disregard the sentiments of the Orthodox ... but on the other hand, sometimes it seems like we're inviting the Orthodox to put a finger in our pie, so to speak.

Why shouldn't Ukrainian Catholics move where their capital is?
Not to annoy Moscow?
They can be annoyed as much as they wish.
And I do not think any Ukrainians will appreciate Canadians and Americans reasoning in what they should or shouldn't do in order "not to annoy Moscow" - you guys are way overstepping your authority even in theory.
In fact, it was the Orthodox Metropolitan of KIEV (there, is everyone happy? smile ), who signed the Union of Brest.

And that city is the capital of Ukraine (formerly known as "Little Russia," "southwest Russia," etc.).

The only ones upset by the move is the Russian Orthodox Church which has renamed itself as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate."

The Ukrainians themselves don't seem to mind at all.

Alex
Well, the agenda of not annoying Moscow is certainly that of Rome's ostpolitik, wouldn't you say?

Alex
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
In fact, it was the Orthodox Metropolitan of KIEV (there, is everyone happy? smile ), who signed the Union of Brest.
He was in Navahrudak and Vilnius, and got deposed for it by the same authority who had deposed his predecessor and put him in office. Is it verified that he ever set foot in Kiev?
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
And that city is the capital of Ukraine (formerly known as "Little Russia," "southwest Russia," etc.).
You forgot "Southern Lithuania" and "Southeast Poland."
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The only ones upset by the move is the Russian Orthodox Church which has renamed itself as the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate."
No, it is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Others tag on "Moscow Patriarchate" to distinguish it from the so called "Kiev Patriarchate" who is also not so keen on the move.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Ukrainians themselves don't seem to mind at all.
I hear differently.
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 11:31 AM
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.
That's a tough one, that is. One the hand, far be it from me to think that we should flat-out disregard the sentiments of the Orthodox ... but on the other hand, sometimes it seems like we're inviting the Orthodox to put a finger in our pie, so to speak.

Why shouldn't Ukrainian Catholics move where their capital is?
You meant the UGCC? Same reasons the "Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church" cannot have their Metropolitan in Rome, plus the canonical issue.
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
[
Not to annoy Moscow?
They can be annoyed as much as they wish.
And I do not think any Ukrainians will appreciate Canadians and Americans reasoning in what they should or shouldn't do in order "not to annoy Moscow" - you guys are way overstepping your authority even in theory.
The Orthodox are not.
[quote]
You meant the UGCC? Same reasons the "Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church" cannot have their Metropolitan in Rome, plus the canonical issue.
Am I missing something, ain't "their Metropolitan" the canonical Catholic Bishop of Rome HH Francis?
Isa,

Did the Orthodox Metropolitans of Kiev living in Moscow ever set foot in Kiev? I've read that that Metropolitan who signed the Unia of Brest did set foot in Kiev, but how does that change anything concerning his title?

Yes, thank you for the other titles given Ukraine by those who overran it. Coptic Christians have a similar view of the Arabs who overran them.

The UOC-MP is a concocted title, concocted when Ukraine broke away from the Russian yoke. The Baltic countries, I believe, didn't allow the ROC there to do something similar.

As for the non-canonical Orthodox, you are simply wrong and have been hearing the wrong things. I know you are wrong because I've spoken directly with the leadership of the UOC-KP on this very matter as well as numerous priests and lay parish leaders in Ukraine. Perhaps you've also heard there are UOC-KP parishes who use the same building as UGCC parish communities?

The UOC-KP patriarch came to Canada and visited one of our UGCC parishes where he even gave an award to our parish priest for his services to seniors. All the UGCC priests there kissed the patriarch's hand - I saw that and it is on Youtube.

Many Orthodox Ukrainians of the UOCC came out to see him and they were, in turn, very upset that their Metropolitan forbade them from having anything to do with Patriarch Filaret - I would take him as my patriarch too. I've also sent funds to their publishing house for the printing of their "Passia" and other texts. They were pleasantly surprised to hear I'm UGCC but no cries of "Uniate!" and the like.

Judging from your views, I think you've been listening to very narrow-minded crowd, Big Guy.

Alex
Posted By: IAlmisry Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
[quote]
You meant the UGCC? Same reasons the "Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church" cannot have their Metropolitan in Rome, plus the canonical issue.
Am I missing something, ain't "their Metropolitan" the canonical Catholic Bishop of Rome HH Francis?
Like his Ruthenians.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
You meant the UGCC? Same reasons the "Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church" cannot have their Metropolitan in Rome, plus the canonical issue.
Am I missing something, ain't "their Metropolitan" the canonical Catholic Bishop of Rome HH Francis?
Good point, he is.
Posted By: Peter J Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Isa,

Did the Orthodox Metropolitans of Kiev living in Moscow ever set foot in Kiev? I've read that that Metropolitan who signed the Unia of Brest did set foot in Kiev, but how does that change anything concerning his title?
[Linked Image]

Indeed, the original topic (i.e. that someone who is in the process of leaving Orthodoxy should still consider himself/herself Orthodox with respect to receiving communion) was only about 20% of this thread. blush I can't really complain, it's been a very interesting thread.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Many Orthodox Ukrainians of the UOCC came out to see him and they were, in turn, very upset that their Metropolitan forbade them from having anything to do with Patriarch Filaret - I would take him as my patriarch too.
But he isn't your patriarch.
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Well, the agenda of not annoying Moscow is certainly that of Rome's ostpolitik, wouldn't you say?

Alex

It is but the best policy is to ignore them. We, being a 5 mln member Church have more power than illusory ecumenism wink
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by The young fogey
I don't like the Ukrainian Catholics moving their HQ to Kiev either; goes against Catholic policy of pursuing corporate reunion and thus good relations with the Orthodox. But it's not heresy and frankly, after all they've been through (the Soviet occupation banning their church, stealing their church buildings, and trying to force them into the Soviet-controlled Russian Orthodox Church), it's understandable.
That's a tough one, that is. One the hand, far be it from me to think that we should flat-out disregard the sentiments of the Orthodox ... but on the other hand, sometimes it seems like we're inviting the Orthodox to put a finger in our pie, so to speak.

Why shouldn't Ukrainian Catholics move where their capital is?
You meant the UGCC? Same reasons the "Italo-Albanian/Greek Catholic Church" cannot have their Metropolitan in Rome, plus the canonical issue.
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
[
Not to annoy Moscow?
They can be annoyed as much as they wish.
And I do not think any Ukrainians will appreciate Canadians and Americans reasoning in what they should or shouldn't do in order "not to annoy Moscow" - you guys are way overstepping your authority even in theory.
The Orthodox are not.

I could not care less about Italo-whatever.
Ukrainian capital IS Kyiv and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is going to have their center there. Period.
Even if all the Orthodox in Russia and abroad are going to hate.
It's none of their business.
You are right sir!
You are right as well sir!
Ignore . . . Moscow or Rome? Which Rome are you referring to, sir?

I get confused . . .

Alex
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 09:23 PM
[quote=Orthodox Catholic]Ignore . . . Moscow or Rome? Which Rome are you referring to, sir?

I get confused . . .

Alex [/quote]

Moscow - for sure, Rome to the degree of their ostpolitik.

Moneys come not form ostpolitik ;)
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 09:24 PM
Ignore in the reference to Rome is not to get too upset or exited about "ostpolitik"- нам своє робить
Posted By: Vox Populi Re: Intercommunion taken to an extreme? - 07/11/13 09:24 PM
Ignore in the reference to Rome is not to get too upset or exited about "ostpolitik"- нам своє робить
© The Byzantine Forum