OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 01:35:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Catholics Who Confess Eastern Orthdoxy?  (Read 3365 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: February 28, 2007, 11:49:03 AM »

I have met many Eastern CATHOLICS who believe that Rome is in error with regard to its teachings. These Eastern Catholics, instead of adhere to the same confession as their Latin Breatheren, confess the Eastern Orthodox faith. My question to such Catholics is this: Why do you remain in communion with Rome who you believe to be in error rather than enter into communion with the Eastern Orthodx who you believe to be orthodox?
I recognize that not all Eastern Catholics fall under this category, but for those who do, I am certainly interested in your replies.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stosh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 66


« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2007, 12:06:54 PM »

I guess they want to be both. Orthodox for all intents and purposes, in Rite and appearance, but still Catholic. I don't get that train of thought. You're either one or the other.

One can not be Orthodox, and in communion with Rome at the same time.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,095


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2007, 08:00:19 PM »

I guess they want to be both. Orthodox for all intents and purposes, in Rite and appearance, but still Catholic. I don't get that train of thought. You're either one or the other.

One can not be Orthodox, and in communion with Rome at the same time.

As Eastern Orthodox we still maintain our catholicity.  This is something that was not lost as the result of the Great Schism.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2007, 09:23:43 PM »

As Eastern Orthodox we still maintain our catholicity.  This is something that was not lost as the result of the Great Schism.
I understand the Eastern Orthodox position on this. I disagree; however, that is not the point of the thread. When I refer to the Catholic Church, I refer to all those Churches in communion with Rome. When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I refer to all those Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Let us not debate semantics, please. Rather, I would to hear some Eastern Catholics, if there are any on this forum, who would be willing to respond to my original post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2007, 12:40:11 AM »

Their reasoning is this: Christ instituted the Petrine office, and therefore it is best to be in communion with Rome, depsite the fact that Latins have erred on some non-essential points.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2007, 02:29:47 PM »

Their reasoning is this: Christ instituted the Petrine office, and therefore it is best to be in communion with Rome, depsite the fact that Latins have erred on some non-essential points.


Some of them do not even believe in the Petrine of office of the Pope. Like I said, the ECs that I am talking about, when it comes to theology, confess the Eastern Orthodox faith, not the Catholic faith.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 02:30:59 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2007, 03:49:21 PM »

Why do any dissenting Catholics stay in the church?  I doubt the reasons usually have much to do with religion.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2007, 08:15:07 PM »

Some of them do not even believe in the Petrine of office of the Pope. Like I said, the ECs that I am talking about, when it comes to theology, confess the Eastern Orthodox faith, not the Catholic faith.

Wasn't that what the late Pope John Paul II wanted?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2007, 09:08:42 PM »

Wasn't that what the late Pope John Paul II wanted?
I doubt that that is accurate.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2007, 12:13:43 AM »

I really don't think you're going to get anyone to answer this question. 

I can say I grew up with, went to school with, dated, work with and am friends with a number of people who are Roman Catholic (I also went to a Catholic college).  I don't think I have ever spoken in person with one, and I mean not a single one, who didn't in some way or another explicitly deny some key components of the Catholic faith.  The Papacy in particular seems to be one where they always have something that they don't accept.  A common view as far as I can tell is to view the Pope as the leader of the church and a father figure, but someone they want kept at arm's length and without a lot of power to enforce the things they don't agree with.  These are people who are not way out there dissenters or activists, just your average mainstream Catholics.

Why they stay, as I have stated I don't know.  Maybe it's a cultural thing, their family and their tradition is there, or they view it as their church even if they disagree with it or whatever.  They remain Catholic though.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2011, 11:33:11 AM »

I'd be interested in hearing an answer to this too, as I've run across this.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,945



« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2011, 11:39:39 AM »

Perhaps you'd best get answers from a Catholic forum which has probably a greater number of EAstern Catholics there.  I don't think you're going to be able to get a great number of answers.

Why do any dissenting Catholics stay in the church?  I doubt the reasons usually have much to do with religion.

And this is a very valid argument.  Why do dissenting Orthodox stay in the Church?  Why do dissenting Jews still practice Judaism?  It has to be more than about the statements of the faith.  You have to consider cultural, ethnic, familial ties as well.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,922


"My god is greater."


« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2011, 11:41:16 AM »

If you want to get a representative answer (usually full of dishonesty, confusion, and incoherence) I would recommend hopping over to byzcath.org.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Dave in McKinney
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic but loving Byzantine Catholicism
Posts: 85



« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2011, 03:13:21 PM »

If you want to get a representative answer (usually full of dishonesty, confusion, and incoherence) I would recommend hopping over to byzcath.org.

Why do you say that?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,922


"My god is greater."


« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2011, 03:16:54 PM »

If you want to get a representative answer (usually full of dishonesty, confusion, and incoherence) I would recommend hopping over to byzcath.org.

Why do you say that?


Because most of the posters there are "Byzantine Catholic" and many of them borrow Orthodox positions vis-a-vis Vatican doctrine.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 03:17:52 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,837


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2011, 04:26:28 PM »

Would it be accurate to say that Eastern Catholics are bound to accept all dogmatic Latin definitions of faith (that is, not believe they are wrong) and thus, all particularly "Eastern" views in the EC are essentially theologoumena?

Making the EC Latin Dogmatics + Eastern beliefs as Theologumena?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 04:27:10 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,454



« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2011, 09:03:17 PM »

If you want to get a representative answer (usually full of dishonesty, confusion, and incoherence) I would recommend hopping over to byzcath.org.
LOL. I'd have to agree.

If you want to get a reasoned position (though one I can't fathom for the life of me, but I can't argue against its sincerity), you will have to get Apotheum or Irish Melkite or their like to answer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Dave in McKinney
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic but loving Byzantine Catholicism
Posts: 85



« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2011, 01:03:33 PM »

I have heard some EC's describe themselves as "hybrids" between east and west...  if EC's don't hold all the fasts and perhaps finesse some RC doctrines... doesn't that necessarily mean they're a hybrid?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2011, 01:17:56 PM »

I have heard some EC's describe themselves as "hybrids" between east and west...  if EC's don't hold all the fasts and perhaps finesse some RC doctrines... doesn't that necessarily mean they're a hybrid?

That entire analogy fails.  Nectarines are hybrids.  They are neither peaches nor are they plumbs.

A canonical eastern Catholic is a canonical eastern Catholic no matter what else they say about themselves and they will remain so until 1. The remove themselves from communion or 2. They are removed from communion.  Neither of which is likely to happen under most ordinary circumstances.
Logged

Dave in McKinney
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic but loving Byzantine Catholicism
Posts: 85



« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2011, 02:09:28 PM »

I have heard some EC's describe themselves as "hybrids" between east and west...  if EC's don't hold all the fasts and perhaps finesse some RC doctrines... doesn't that necessarily mean they're a hybrid?

That entire analogy fails.  Nectarines are hybrids.  They are neither peaches nor are they plumbs.

A canonical eastern Catholic is a canonical eastern Catholic no matter what else they say about themselves and they will remain so until 1. The remove themselves from communion or 2. They are removed from communion.  Neither of which is likely to happen under most ordinary circumstances.

What is the appropriate analogy / description?
I mean this in the very best way.  I'm an RC who is visiting Byz Cath churches and discerning my eastward spiritual direction.... thanks.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 02:16:26 PM by Dave in McKinney » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2011, 02:22:53 PM »

What is the appropriate analogy / description?
I like the two lungs analogy myself.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 02:23:08 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,555



« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2011, 08:37:42 PM »

I have heard some EC's describe themselves as "hybrids" between east and west...  if EC's don't hold all the fasts and perhaps finesse some RC doctrines... doesn't that necessarily mean they're a hybrid?

That entire analogy fails.  Nectarines are hybrids.  They are neither peaches nor are they plumbs.

A canonical eastern Catholic is a canonical eastern Catholic no matter what else they say about themselves and they will remain so until 1. The remove themselves from communion or 2. They are removed from communion.  Neither of which is likely to happen under most ordinary circumstances.

Your analogy fails... Nectarines are not hybrids, but simply hairless peaches.  Undecided
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 971


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2011, 01:48:55 AM »

If you want to get a reasoned position (though one I can't fathom for the life of me, but I can't argue against its sincerity), you will have to get Apotheum or Irish Melkite or their like to answer.

I thank my friend and brother, Isa, for his acknowledgement of my sincerity on this point - an acknowledgement that he has made more than once and of which I am most appreciative.

The question Papist poses is not exactly new Cheesy ; in fact, the last time I posted this was in reply to similar comments/questions/observations by he and Wyatt back in January - although the specific focus back then was on Melkites. I drew then on a response I made to a 2008 post here by PJ.

Quote
I am no theologian, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. If they stop and think about it, those who have read my posts over the years will realize that they likely can't recollect seeing me participate in much that would be considered theological or apologetic debate. It's not my thing.

I'll fiercely defend the right of any EC/EO or OC/OO to believe and charitably/civilly express their beliefs and their agreement or disagreement with their opposite number, but I'm here primarily to celebrate, share, and educate my brethren, and those who honestly inquire, about the beauty of our spirituality, praxis, and ecclesio-cultural identities - even our pirohi or fatayah  Cheesy  That's what I do and I try my best to do it well. Sound like a cop-out? It's not intended to be; hopefully God doesn't find it such.

... Ours (the Melkite Church) is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them.

I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"   Huh

- a variant on that would be "Are they with you?" - to which one can imagine the response, "With us? We thought they were with you!  Shocked  "   

I can't explain it better. You'll note that I don't describe myself as 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' or as an 'Orthodox Catholic'.

My long-time friend and brother, Bob Tallick/Orthodoc, once posted here to define the term 'Orthodox Catholic' as "An Orthodox Catholic is a member of what some people refer to as the Eastern Orthodox Church."

That is certainly accurate although, IMHO, it is a somewhat uncommon choice of descriptor. My objection to it is that the usage is so infrequent as to be confusing to the average person encountering it (keep in mind that, to much of the world, Eastern Christians - be they Orthodox or Catholic, are a puzzle).

ACROD, I believe, retains the styling in its legal corporate name (but no longer uses it on webpage, letterhead, publications, etc.) and a few ACROD parishes (e.g., St. Michael's in Binghamton, NY) actively employ it; few other Eastern Orthodox Churches or canonical jurisdictions routinely style themselves as such (note, I said 'routinely, so please don't pepper the thread with a thousand examples - we all know there are some that do; it's not the point of the thread).  

The terminology is also used, although I believe inaccurately, by some Eastern Catholics to describe the combination of their Catholicity (in regards to communion with Rome) and their liturgical and (incomplete) theological adherence to the praxis and tenets of Orthodoxy. In a variant that is encountered among some Eastern Catholics (particularly Russian Greek Catholics), it takes on the extended form that is usually expressed as "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

I used to find the latter to be more acceptable, however over the years I've come to consider the usage objectionable in that it promotes as much confusion among non-Eastern and non-Oriental Christians as does 'Orthodox Catholic'.

Four decades ago (and even much more recently), as one who had recently moved from the Latin Catholic to the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, I was regularly frustrated by the ignorance of those who couldn't/wouldn't distinguish between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I think, in looking at these various alternative combinations of "Orthodox" and "Catholic", that they invite a return to those days, something I see as not serving the best interests of either Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicity vis-a-vis their unique ecclesial identities.

Not as relevant to the discussion here, but worth noticing, especially if you post to any of the Latin Catholic boards, is that "orthodox Catholic" (note the lower case "o") is frequently employed by  conservative Latin Catholics (which includes some, but not all of those who would describe themselves as "traditional"). In that usage, it is intended to convey the adherence of the Catholic to "true" Catholic practice, doctrine, and dogma (usually intending to mean that which existed pre-Vatican II).  With all due respect to any of my Catholic brethren here who would style themselves as such, my desire to not be confused with that body of my co-religionists furthers my avoidance of the term in that form.

If this answer has helped anyone to understand from where I (and some of my fellow Eastern Catholics) are coming, I'm glad. If it has only confused the issue more, I apologize. It's not my intention to debate it. I wasn't born an Eastern Catholic, but I will repose as one.

I didn't flee from the Latin Church (my eastward trek began before most folks had any notion what the outcome of VII would be). Yet, after 45 years as a Melkite Catholic, I remain to some degree spiritually unfulfilled, as I would be were I Melkite Orthodox (as the Antiochian Orthodox were styled until late in the 19th century).  My prayer is that, in the lifetime of my descendents, unity will be achieved among the Apostolic Churches. Only then - in whatever form it takes - do I believe that the Church will be complete and fully pleasing to God.

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 01:53:13 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,230


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2011, 07:04:45 AM »

If you want to get a reasoned position (though one I can't fathom for the life of me, but I can't argue against its sincerity), you will have to get Apotheum or Irish Melkite or their like to answer.

I thank my friend and brother, Isa, for his acknowledgement of my sincerity on this point - an acknowledgement that he has made more than once and of which I am most appreciative.

The question Papist poses is not exactly new Cheesy ; in fact, the last time I posted this was in reply to similar comments/questions/observations by he and Wyatt back in January - although the specific focus back then was on Melkites. I drew then on a response I made to a 2008 post here by PJ.

Quote
I am no theologian, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. If they stop and think about it, those who have read my posts over the years will realize that they likely can't recollect seeing me participate in much that would be considered theological or apologetic debate. It's not my thing.

I'll fiercely defend the right of any EC/EO or OC/OO to believe and charitably/civilly express their beliefs and their agreement or disagreement with their opposite number, but I'm here primarily to celebrate, share, and educate my brethren, and those who honestly inquire, about the beauty of our spirituality, praxis, and ecclesio-cultural identities - even our pirohi or fatayah  Cheesy  That's what I do and I try my best to do it well. Sound like a cop-out? It's not intended to be; hopefully God doesn't find it such.

... Ours (the Melkite Church) is a conflicted Church but we cannot and will not stand around, wringing our hands, and waiting for the moment at which the Holy Spirit decides to illumne all concerned and bring a millenium or more of separation to an end. So, we celebrate every aspect of the religious beliefs that we share either with both Rome and Constantinople or with only one of them.

I can't ask that anyone fully understand; I'm not sure we always do. It's not beyond imagining that, when the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Commission meets, and our Church name is mentioned, those on both sides look across the table and say - simultaneously - "what is with those Melkites?" - to which the simultaneous replies from both parties are shrugged shoulders and mumbled "who knows"   Huh

- a variant on that would be "Are they with you?" - to which one can imagine the response, "With us? We thought they were with you!  Shocked  "  

I can't explain it better. You'll note that I don't describe myself as 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' or as an 'Orthodox Catholic'.

My long-time friend and brother, Bob Tallick/Orthodoc, once posted here to define the term 'Orthodox Catholic' as "An Orthodox Catholic is a member of what some people refer to as the Eastern Orthodox Church."

That is certainly accurate although, IMHO, it is a somewhat uncommon choice of descriptor. My objection to it is that the usage is so infrequent as to be confusing to the average person encountering it (keep in mind that, to much of the world, Eastern Christians - be they Orthodox or Catholic, are a puzzle).

ACROD, I believe, retains the styling in its legal corporate name (but no longer uses it on webpage, letterhead, publications, etc.) and a few ACROD parishes (e.g., St. Michael's in Binghamton, NY) actively employ it; few other Eastern Orthodox Churches or canonical jurisdictions routinely style themselves as such (note, I said 'routinely, so please don't pepper the thread with a thousand examples - we all know there are some that do; it's not the point of the thread).  

The terminology is also used, although I believe inaccurately, by some Eastern Catholics to describe the combination of their Catholicity (in regards to communion with Rome) and their liturgical and (incomplete) theological adherence to the praxis and tenets of Orthodoxy. In a variant that is encountered among some Eastern Catholics (particularly Russian Greek Catholics), it takes on the extended form that is usually expressed as "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

I used to find the latter to be more acceptable, however over the years I've come to consider the usage objectionable in that it promotes as much confusion among non-Eastern and non-Oriental Christians as does 'Orthodox Catholic'.

Four decades ago (and even much more recently), as one who had recently moved from the Latin Catholic to the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, I was regularly frustrated by the ignorance of those who couldn't/wouldn't distinguish between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I think, in looking at these various alternative combinations of "Orthodox" and "Catholic", that they invite a return to those days, something I see as not serving the best interests of either Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicity vis-a-vis their unique ecclesial identities.

Not as relevant to the discussion here, but worth noticing, especially if you post to any of the Latin Catholic boards, is that "orthodox Catholic" (note the lower case "o") is frequently employed by  conservative Latin Catholics (which includes some, but not all of those who would describe themselves as "traditional"). In that usage, it is intended to convey the adherence of the Catholic to "true" Catholic practice, doctrine, and dogma (usually intending to mean that which existed pre-Vatican II).  With all due respect to any of my Catholic brethren here who would style themselves as such, my desire to not be confused with that body of my co-religionists furthers my avoidance of the term in that form.

If this answer has helped anyone to understand from where I (and some of my fellow Eastern Catholics) are coming, I'm glad. If it has only confused the issue more, I apologize. It's not my intention to debate it. I wasn't born an Eastern Catholic, but I will repose as one.

I didn't flee from the Latin Church (my eastward trek began before most folks had any notion what the outcome of VII would be). Yet, after 45 years as a Melkite Catholic, I remain to some degree spiritually unfulfilled, as I would be were I Melkite Orthodox (as the Antiochian Orthodox were styled until late in the 19th century).  My prayer is that, in the lifetime of my descendents, unity will be achieved among the Apostolic Churches. Only then - in whatever form it takes - do I believe that the Church will be complete and fully pleasing to God.

Many years,

Neil

Well, I doubt that Isa would be surprised were I to say that I both appreciate Neil's sincerity AND I understand where he is coming from.  Smiley

If you are into boring historical anecdotes, it should be noted that the hundreds of old-line Metropolia parishes which formed the backbone of the OCA in 1970 were for the most part chartered as St. So and So Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Likewise in the 1930's the parishes which split from the BCC chartered for the most part as St. Such and Such Carpatho-Russsian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. While they may be legally 'doing business as' (DBA) St. So and So Orthodox Church, most still retain the old legal charter name. (I think that there are a number of Ukrainian parishes using the term Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic in their charters as well, but that is not as common as with the Rusyns and Lemkos.)

What's in a name? It was explained to me in a lecture I attended some years back that the retention of the term 'Greek Catholic Church' following the word Orthodox in the titles was a carry-over from Austro-Hungarian days in order to distinguish 'native' churches which were returning to Orthodoxy from churches affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church per se in order to attempt to not be viewed by the authorities as a Russian 'fifth' column and to signal to that the ritual and traditions were distinct from the 'high' Russians as we used to call them back in the day. That didn't really work out too well in terms of the Hungarians or the Poles being tolerant, but the practice followed the people to the new world.

As to St. Michael's and several other parishes which retain the old usage, this has to do with specific language in court decisions from the mid-twentieth century in which the parishioners retained legal title and were able to leave the Greek Catholic eparchy and join the Orthodox Church. Most, like St. John's Orthodox Church in Ambridge, PA now simply refer to themselves as St. So and So Orthodox Church, but legally they are still St. John's Greek Catholic Church. That particular parish issues checks for example  stating St. John's Greek Catholic Church d/b/a/ St. John's Orthodox Church.

Since Rome changed the name of the Pittsburgh eparchy of the BCC to Byzantine Catholic from Greek Catholic in the early 1950's following a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which held they did not have exclusive rights to the term 'Greek Catholic', there are no true Greek Catholic parishes in the USA.

I always found that decision to be odd, to be charitable, as the peoples in the BCC parishes are hardly 'Byzantine'. They suffer from the same ethnic identity crisis as do the peoples of many ACROD and OCA parishes in that their ancestors lacked their own homeland in Europe and the events of the 20th century did little to end the confusion. Like the members of my ACROD parish at home, the members of the next-door BCC church tend to think of themselves as Russian or even worse - Slavish!

« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 07:07:48 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2011, 08:29:45 AM »

Quote
there are no true Greek Catholic parishes in the USA.

I could argue that we Orthodox have the right to that appellation as well.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2011, 09:36:10 AM »

Quote
there are no true Greek Catholic parishes in the USA.

I could argue that we Orthodox have the right to that appellation as well.


Me too! Here in Finland the Orthodox used to be called as kreikkalaiskatolinen i.e Greek Catholic within a hundred year or so. It's a shame that we lost that title.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2011, 11:16:38 AM »

I think my background may help you understand my current position:

1. I was born and raised in Missouri, which was a Border State (half Union, half Confederate).

2.  My dad was a convert to the RC from Methodism, so I grew up with an extended family that was half Protestant and half Catholic.

3. My grandfather was an old-style newspaper reporter who instilled in us the absolute necessity of digging into both sides of every story,  a habit I'm proud to have but which sometimes makes it hard to make a life-altering decision like choosing the One True Church.

4. In conclusion: I am a lifelong fence sitter! So the EC seems a perfect fit! Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,230


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2011, 12:14:45 PM »

Quote
there are no true Greek Catholic parishes in the USA.

I could argue that we Orthodox have the right to that appellation as well.


That is exactly what was argued in numerous court cases across Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other states during the two periods of schism within the Ruthenian Greek Catholic community in the early to mid twentieth centuries and why Rome had to change the name in the 1950's. The last great case was resolved in the 1970's when the beautiful church of St. John from Ruska Dolina Pittsburgh (the Andy Warhol family church) was finally adjudicated to be a Greek Catholic parish united with Rome. 

When the first immigrants arrived there was no Greek Catholic diocese or Bishop or administrator united with Rome in America prior to 1915 or so to seek permission from to incorporate a church. As we know, in MOST situations approaching the Latin Ordinary didn't work out very well, although St. John's Greek Catholic Church of Bridgeport, CT (now split into at least four sub-parishes, all with the same patron...St. John's BCC of Trumbull, Ct, St. John's ACROD of Bridgeport, Stratford and Stratford, Ct)  did have the blessing of the Latin bishop of Hartford if my memory serves me right.The independents under Bishop Chornock lost their last appeal in 1942 and they had to vacate.

In those days there were priests, laity and even a bishop who played 'both sides of the street' between the Greek Catholics united with Rome and the Orthodox! In many small coal towns, it was common for one child to be baptized as a Greek Catholic and another sibling as Orthodox - often in the same church by the same priest!

My parish of St. Michael's is an example of a congregationally chartered parish which was not incorporated under any New York law governing Catholic churches or religious societies or organizations. The lawyer in 1904 testified at trial in the 1940's that as an Irish Catholic he had no idea how to deal with these people and he received no help from the Ordinary in Syracuse, NY. He developed a charter which essentially was a non-profit religious club rather that for a church and the independent faction prevailed in spite of the Uniate Greek Catholic Bishop Soter Ortynsky consecrating the current building in 1918 and Bishop Basil Takach presiding at the Silver Jubilee in 1929!

The appellate court decision in the Binghamton case was one of the cases which held that the term Greek Catholic was NOT proprietary to those in union with Rome.

Many Metropolia parishes reincorporated after the establishment of the OCA in the 1970's  to ensure proper canonical control over the real property. However, not all parishes went along and some joined ROCOR, a few returned to ACROD (one of the aforementioned St. John's of Bridgeport.) and some just rode along with the OCA without change.

In most states, in order to incorporate a Catholic parish united with the Pope, a legitimate Bishop (or apostolic administrator in the case of Rome) appointed by Rome must be the incorporator (For that matter, the same holds that a canonical Orthodox parish requires a Bishop as incorporator under most state's modern laws.)

In the absence of a Bishop during those early years, the disparate congregations found themselves incorporated under any number of laws, mostly intended to incorporate independent Protestant churches. Some in what was to become the Metropolia were incorporated as Orthodox churches with the Bishop as the incorporator, but those were the exception rather than the rule. To say that the entire situation was fluid and chaotic is an understatment of monumental proportions!
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2011, 12:16:51 PM »

I think my background may help you understand my current position:

1. I was born and raised in Missouri, which was a Border State (half Union, half Confederate).

2.  My dad was a convert to the RC from Methodism, so I grew up with an extended family that was half Protestant and half Catholic.

3. My grandfather was an old-style newspaper reporter who instilled in us the absolute necessity of digging into both sides of every story,  a habit I'm proud to have but which sometimes makes it hard to make a life-altering decision like choosing the One True Church.

4. In conclusion: I am a lifelong fence sitter! So the EC seems a perfect fit! Cheesy
So what made you come to choose Eastern Catholicism rather than Western Orthodoxy? Just curious.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2011, 09:23:36 PM »

I think my background may help you understand my current position:

1. I was born and raised in Missouri, which was a Border State (half Union, half Confederate).

2.  My dad was a convert to the RC from Methodism, so I grew up with an extended family that was half Protestant and half Catholic.

3. My grandfather was an old-style newspaper reporter who instilled in us the absolute necessity of digging into both sides of every story,  a habit I'm proud to have but which sometimes makes it hard to make a life-altering decision like choosing the One True Church.

4. In conclusion: I am a lifelong fence sitter! So the EC seems a perfect fit! Cheesy
So what made you come to choose Eastern Catholicism rather than Western Orthodoxy? Just curious.

I married an Eastern Catholic.  And the only W.O. church i'm aware of is a long way from where we live.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 971


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2011, 02:12:58 AM »

I thank my good friend and brother, podkarpatska, for his complimentary words and for an excellent and thorough presentation of the historical nuances and legal considerations that played into and were played out among our peoples, both Orthodox and Catholic, in the last century.

Many years,

Neil 
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2011, 08:48:56 PM »

I have met many Eastern CATHOLICS who believe that Rome is in error with regard to its teachings. These Eastern Catholics, instead of adhere to the same confession as their Latin Breatheren, confess the Eastern Orthodox faith. My question to such Catholics is this: Why do you remain in communion with Rome who you believe to be in error rather than enter into communion with the Eastern Orthodx who you believe to be orthodox?
I recognize that not all Eastern Catholics fall under this category, but for those who do, I am certainly interested in your replies.

I don't believe there's any one simple answer to that question, but here are a few ideas that I've heard:

1. It's seems very unlikely that any of the 22 sui iuris EC Churches will break off communion with Rome. Hence, ECs who want to break off communion with Rome would need to also leave their particular churches.

2. An EC who believes that the Pope is wrong on some issue, does not necessarily believe that the Pope is in heresy on that issue.

3. Eastern Orthodoxy isn't "defined by what it isn't" as it were. Thus, saying to someone “You don't believe in the Immaculate Conception? You should be Orthodox” makes no more sense than saying to someone “You do believe in the Immaculate Conception? You should be Catholic.”

I won't say too much in terms of evaluating these ideas, just that none of them pertain to all cases. (For example, #3 wouldn't apply to someone who agree with the Orthodox on every point of disagreement with Rome.)

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2011, 08:50:07 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2011, 09:26:52 AM »



For eight years, I remained in the Eastern (Ruthenian) Catholic Church.  With each passing year, the identity crisis within the Eastern Catholic Church became more apparent to me and my conflict kept increasing.  Utimately, because of doctrinal and liturgical issues, my conscience could no longer allow me to remain in communion with Rome.
Logged
Dave in McKinney
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic but loving Byzantine Catholicism
Posts: 85



« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2011, 10:59:43 AM »



For eight years, I remained in the Eastern (Ruthenian) Catholic Church.  With each passing year, the identity crisis within the Eastern Catholic Church became more apparent to me and my conflict kept increasing.  Utimately, because of doctrinal and liturgical issues, my conscience could no longer allow me to remain in communion with Rome.

Were the liturgical issues because of latinizations?
Were the doctrinal issues with the Roman side or Eastern side?
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2011, 11:21:18 AM »

Were the liturgical issues because of latinizations?

Lainizations, Liturgical abuses, gender neutral language

Were the doctrinal issues with the Roman side or Eastern side?

I am now at home in the Holy Orthodox Church---so it is obvious that my issues were with Roman doctrine.

It seemed that the Eastern Catholics tried to play the fence by stating that they submitted to Latin definitions while using Eastern interpretations.  Huh
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 11:23:26 AM by Mickey » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 62 queries.