OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 03:19:47 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 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Exclusion of Eastern Catholic Churches from the Ecumenical Dialogue  (Read 18220 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: November 17, 2007, 09:09:32 PM »

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?






Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2007, 09:13:57 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 09:24:32 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?
I'd say that the major problem is the Roman Catholic Church itself, its medieval structure (the papacy), its new dogmas and of course its creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Yet we engage her in dialogue.
Logged
Alexius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 180

Baptism of Poland


« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2007, 11:06:31 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church. Now I must certainly clarify: In a sense, the Catholic churches are unified through a common bishop (i.e. the Pope), but they are not through doctrine. Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed
Logged

"You cannot reason with those who do not..."

                Prayers and Petitions,
                        Alexius Cool
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2007, 11:26:19 PM »

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed
Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican. 

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue. police
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2007, 11:27:53 PM »

I wonder if we are reading too much into this. The requirement of autocephaly and exclusion of autonomy as criteria for engaging in the talks could be completely unrelated to the issue of the Eastern Rite Churches. In reality, the Orthodox Church has no choice but to include the autocephalous Churches since they can "speak for themselves", but if it includes the autonomous Churches, then there is a problem. For example, the Patriarchate of Antioch is a member of the WCC, yet the Autonomous Antiochian Archdiocese of America (which is granted autonomy under the Patriarchate) has withdrawn from the WCC- this effectively creates a double message coming from the Patriarchate of Antioch in regards to the WCC.
The exclusion of the Autonomous Churches from the talks may simply be an attempt to present a "unified voice" from each side.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2007, 12:23:21 AM »

The exclusion of the Autonomous Churches from the talks may simply be an attempt to present a "unified voice" from each side.

I think that

1.  The inclusion of the autonomous Orthodox Churches would not damage an Orthodox "unified voice" in any way

2.  The inclusion of the Catholic autonomous ritual Churches (as Catholic canon law terms them) has the potential to damage the Catholic unified voice as regards some major Roman Catholic dogma.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2007, 12:31:45 AM »

The inclusion of the Catholic autonomous ritual Churches (as Catholic canon law terms them) has the potential to damage the Catholic unified voice as regards some major Roman Catholic dogma.
I agree they have the potential but do you think they would risk doing so? I actually think that the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches would tow the Vatican line for fear of finding themselves out in the cold.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 12:32:10 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,144


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2007, 12:36:09 AM »

2.  The inclusion of the Catholic autonomous ritual Churches (as Catholic canon law terms them) has the potential to damage the Catholic unified voice as regards some major Roman Catholic dogma. 

While the potential exists, have the leaders of the Autonomous churches (EC's) shown any tendency to do such a public rank-breaking in the past?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2007, 12:48:07 AM »

I agree they have the potential but do you think they would risk doing so? I actually think that the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches would tow the Vatican line for fear of finding themselves out in the cold.
I think that the Melkites (and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to a lessor extent) have lost any fear of Rome.  Things such as the Zoghby Initiative have given them fresh heart.


The Melkite Initiative -

"They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."

Number one implies that the Melkites do not accept any of the doctrinal additions or changes that have been proclaimed by the RCC since the schism.

Number two implies that the Melkites accept the Pope as 'first amongst equals' rather than a Universal, Infallible, and Supreme Authority.

Since they are a sui juris church within the Roman Church , where is the global unity within the Roman Catholic Church?

-oOo-

You can find an outright denial of the ecumenicity of all the Roman Catholic Councils on the official website of the Melkites in the States!
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12

-oOo-

And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"

2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.

Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology. The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma.  
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2007, 01:00:49 AM »

While the potential exists, have the leaders of the Autonomous churches (EC's) shown any tendency to do such a public rank-breaking in the past?
Oh yes.

Here we have an instance of the Catholic Melkite Patriarch claiming equality with the Pope, both for himself and for other Catholic Patriarchs. This is from the Vatican website

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html
(close to the bottom of the webpage)

H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French]
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2007, 01:06:31 AM »

I see...Then perhaps we are not reading too much into this!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Magicsilence
CAF driftwood
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46

Maronite Catholic


« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2007, 07:38:05 AM »

I think that the Melkites (and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to a lessor extent) have lost any fear of Rome.  Things such as the Zoghby Initiative have given them fresh heart.


The Melkite Initiative -

"They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."

Number one implies that the Melkites do not accept any of the doctrinal additions or changes that have been proclaimed by the RCC since the schism.

Number two implies that the Melkites accept the Pope as 'first amongst equals' rather than a Universal, Infallible, and Supreme Authority.

Since they are a sui juris church within the Roman Church , where is the global unity within the Roman Catholic Church?

-oOo-

You can find an outright denial of the ecumenicity of all the Roman Catholic Councils on the official website of the Melkites in the States!
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12

-oOo-

And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"

2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.

Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology. The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma.  
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml


The outright denial of Catholic doctrine and belief shown here by the Melkites is really overwhelming. If any Catholic places himself outside of the Church through denial, it is not the fault of the faithful.

I am not sure why any Eastern Catholic would want to deny Catholic teaching for the sake of the patristic heritage from a church viewed as schismatic by the Catholic Church, though I know it is very real and present amongst Eastern Catholics. While Vatican II certainly encouraged Eastern Catholics to return to THEIR patristic tradition, I am not sure why all too many of them have looked to Eastern Orthodoxy as a representative of Catholic tradition. Shocked

The Eastern Catholics who tend to reject Catholic teaching normally have legitimate concerns, but their reaction is similar to that of the SSPX. And this further disunity in faith is certainly not helping spread the gospel.

Peace and God Bless!

« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 07:39:55 AM by Magicsilence » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,144


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2007, 08:06:51 AM »

Thank you, Father, for the references!

I can see where the Latin church would be a bit "skittish" when thinking about including the EC's in dialogue.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Catholig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 50


« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2007, 01:18:16 PM »

I think that the Melkites (and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics to a lessor extent) have lost any fear of Rome.  Things such as the Zoghby Initiative have given them fresh heart.


The Melkite Initiative -

"They offer special thanks to Archbishop Elias Zoghby whose 1995 Profession of Faith was the major force for reopening dialogue with the Orthodox brothers. Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation."

Number one implies that the Melkites do not accept any of the doctrinal additions or changes that have been proclaimed by the RCC since the schism.

Number two implies that the Melkites accept the Pope as 'first amongst equals' rather than a Universal, Infallible, and Supreme Authority.

Since they are a sui juris church within the Roman Church , where is the global unity within the Roman Catholic Church?

-oOo-

You can find an outright denial of the ecumenicity of all the Roman Catholic Councils on the official website of the Melkites in the States!
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12

-oOo-

And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"

2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.

Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology. The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma.  
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml


I think it might also be interesting to view Bishop John Elya Answers on the same melkite website. He seems to have a much more unified view with the Pope.

Catholig
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 01:18:37 PM by Catholig » Logged
collin_nunis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2007, 01:58:50 PM »

Bishop Elya is one of the more Latin-leaning bishops. Period.

In the case of Australia, the Melkites and the Ukrainians came out with a statement in 1998 stamping their authority to ordain married men to the priesthood without approval from their Latin-rite "superiors" and the Vatican of course. Legend has it that Bishop Peter Stasiuk was supposed to ordain a married man to the diaconate (and subsequently to the priesthood) in Australia. However, the day before the supposed ordination, the Latin archbishop steps in and interrupts an otherwise smooth-flowing plan to ordain this worthy individual. Bishop Peter abruptly sends the chap on that same day itself to Ukraine to be ordained. It was said that he warned the Latin-rite Archbishop to "not step on my toes." "Don't think I can't do this." This was the story behind the statement.

I am unsure of the exact dates and the period of time for the sequence of events, but I am sure that I am telling you what I heard. The sequence of events and what transpired is indeed true.
Logged
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2007, 02:15:27 PM »

I think it might also be interesting to view Bishop John Elya Answers on the same melkite website. He seems to have a much more unified view with the Pope.

Catholig
Looks like equal time given to opposing viewpoints...

Bishop John Elya was one of only two Melkite bishops in the synod to vote against the Zoghby initiative. Both of whom were appointed to their positions by the Pope, not the Melkite synod!

In other words, the Pope now (only since Vat II) has the power to name members to the Melkite synod, when those Sees are in the diaspora. I hate to state that bishop John's opinion can be discounted, clearly it cannot, but he is equally clearly out of step with his own synod and Patriarch, as well as (apparently) traditional Melkite belief.

He is also retired, and no longer occupies the See. I wonder if his successor was a bishop at the time, and if he signed the Zoghby Initiative? Can anyone here help us with that?

Nevertheless, the initiative passed overwhelmingly, and was heartily endorsed by the Patriarch. Bishop John does not speak for anyone but himself (and his Pope I guess, that counts for something), he is contradicting his church's Synod.

We see the Melkites saying one thing in the synod, and another in the diaspora. It's synodal integrity slowing eroding away as more and more Melkites leave the Middle east for places like Europe, Australia and North America and the Pope will have ever growing direct control over erecting new Eparchies and appointing new bishops.

Why is this important? Patriarchal churches in Communion with Rome must be absolutely free of coersion from, or subordination to the See of Rome, to set a good example for the Orthodox. Right now we see a synod with manacles on, making a lot of noise but ultimately unable: to even name all it's own bishops, manage it's own growth and teach it's own Truth to it's children abroad.

No Orthodox church wants to be trapped in a vortex like that one, enticed by promises then slowly constrained into absoption, and with that Orthodox Truth disappears.

Michael
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2007, 02:37:22 PM »

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church. Now I must certainly clarify: In a sense, the Catholic churches are unified through a common bishop (i.e. the Pope), but they are not through doctrine. Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed

Let me see if I can help you here.
If one reads
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
one sees the 'return to tradition' request by Rome to the Eastern Catholic churches. So far so good, until one questions (as the Melkite Patriarch seems to do) exactly what this entails. Hence, Rome is blunt in its meaning here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
wherein one reads that no matter what expression a church may be allowed to use (no filioque, for example) ultimately ALL dogma and doctrine of the Church of Rome MUST be believed.

Little wonder that the ECs are not included in ecumenical talks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2007, 03:16:57 PM »

Little wonder that the ECs are not included in ecumenical talks.
Little wonder indeed!

They do not all speak with one voice.

But quite honestly, the Melkites were always much more independent of Rome theologically. It did not start with Vatican II. In fact, the Melkites probably had a lot to do with that Vat II document, they brought the idea with them from Damascus and pushed it, or lobbied it.

That's what I think.

The  current practice of excluding the Eastern Catholic Autonomous Ritual Churches from talks contradicts the Balamand agreement, so obviously Rome is not taking that agreement any more seriously than many of the Orthodox are. But the policy is perfectly in keeping with the older, pre-Vat II ecclesiology of the church, which did not see them as Sui Iuris churches at all, but subsidiary parts of the one church under the bishop of Rome.

Rome is really uncomfortable wiith the idea of these ARC's speaking for themselves, or engaging in talks directly with their counterparts unsupervised. If that became a regular event I am sure that we would see some organic growth and change in the Eastern Catholic churches. I am of the opinion that true Autocephaly for the Eastern Catholic churches is the only way through the dreadful effects of division between East and West.

Let them negotiate their own agreements with Holy Orthodoxy, the Papal prerogatives will evolve new understandings accordingly.

Michael
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,416


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2007, 03:49:19 PM »

I am a Ruthenian Catholic and I support the various Melkite initiatives.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Magicsilence
CAF driftwood
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46

Maronite Catholic


« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2007, 04:04:35 PM »

Let me see if I can help you here.
If one reads
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
one sees the 'return to tradition' request by Rome to the Eastern Catholic churches. So far so good, until one questions (as the Melkite Patriarch seems to do) exactly what this entails. Hence, Rome is blunt in its meaning here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
wherein one reads that no matter what expression a church may be allowed to use (no filioque, for example) ultimately ALL dogma and doctrine of the Church of Rome MUST be believed.


Of course. Dropping parts of the Catholic faith is not congruent with returning to tradition.

Why does this cause controversy amongst the Orthodox?
Logged
Magicsilence
CAF driftwood
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46

Maronite Catholic


« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2007, 04:10:35 PM »

Amen for this Canon:
Quote
Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

Any Eastern Catholic who denies a truth of the Catholic faith (such as the Immaculate Conception) is to be punished!

I know this sounds harsh, but it is the teaching of the Church.

Peace and God Bless!
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2007, 04:35:21 PM »

...
Any Eastern Catholic who denies a truth of the Catholic faith (such as the Immaculate Conception) is to be punished!
...

Oh, my!

Would Thomas Aquinas would be punished, or he didn't fulfill the requirements - he wasn't Eastern?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2007, 06:48:03 PM »

Any Eastern Catholic who denies a truth of the Catholic faith (such as the Immaculate Conception) is to be punished!
Seems to me they are punished preemptively- by being excluded from Dialogues.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2007, 06:53:59 PM »

Quote
Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.


Amen for this Canon:
Any Eastern Catholic who denies a truth of the Catholic faith (such as the Immaculate Conception) is to be punished!

I know this sounds harsh, but it is the teaching of the Church.
Dear Magic,

The question is:  why are the Eastern Catholics not punished with a major excommunication?   What prevents Rome expelling the heretics who disrupt its unity of faith, whether it be denial of papal infallibility or the ecumenicity of Catholic Councils or whatever?

Here is another example of heresy from the Eastern Catholics. 

1. Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical' Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"
~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how he is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2007, 07:46:22 PM »


He is also retired, and no longer occupies the See. I wonder if his successor was a bishop at the time, and if he signed the Zoghby Initiative? Can anyone here help us with that?
Wikipedia can.  Smiley

The successor to Bishop Elya is Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros.  He was consecrated bishop in 1988 and succeeded Archbp Elias Zoghby in the Diocese of Baalbek.  He transferred to the United States in 2004.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Salim_Bustros
Logged
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2007, 07:55:55 PM »

The question is:  why are the Eastern Catholics not punished with a major excommunication? 
"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"
~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how he is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion.
What the heck is going on here?

Is someone in Rome asleep at the switch?  Shocked

The referenced canon is in the CCEO, the person in question is in an Eastern Catholic church that falls under the CCEO.

Perhaps the problem is...the Archbishop is in Lebanon, the synod and Patriarch of the church involved (responsible for enforcing these canons) also does not see the Papal doctrines as mandated dogma which applies to them, and therefore Archbishop Elias is not considered guilty of anything  Roll Eyes

I have a feeling that he would not get away with that if he were in the diaspora.
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2007, 08:02:30 PM »

Wikipedia can.  Smiley

The successor to Bishop Elya is Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros.  He was consecrated bishop in 1988 and succeeded Archbp Elias Zoghby in the Diocese of Baalbek.  He transferred to the United States in 2004.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Salim_Bustros
Hello father,

 Interesting.

The Zoghby Initiative was from 1995, so the Archbishop was already retired. The successor of Bishop John Elya is an Archbishop from Lebanon who was in place in the synod at the time of the Zoghby Initiative. I assume that if he was present and voted, he supported the initiative because everything I have heard up until now stated the dissenters were in the diaspora.

I am sure Irish Melkite can clean up this story for us, if he sees this.  Wink
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Catholig
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 50


« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2007, 12:54:11 AM »

Statement about the Melkites issued by a large Catholic Broadcasting Network:
Other sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Pugatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extend remarriage after divorce; in short all the matters that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.
Response by Father John Mowatt
The author mentions "other sources of disagreement" but this seems to be a figment of a flawed imagination.   There are no disagreements in matters of faith and morals. How could there be?   There are, however, different legitimate ways of explanation or interpretation.

http://www.melkite.org/misunder.htm
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2007, 02:13:28 AM »

Statement about the Melkites issued by a large Catholic Broadcasting Network:
Other sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Pugatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extend remarriage after divorce; in short all the matters that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.
The above is taken from EWTN's assessment of the various Eastern Catholic Churches
http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT
Quote
Response by Father John Mowatt
The author mentions "other sources of disagreement" but this seems to be a figment of a flawed imagination.   There are no disagreements in matters of faith and morals. How could there be?   There are, however, different legitimate ways of explanation or interpretation.

http://www.melkite.org/misunder.htm
Father Mowatt seems out of touch with the (dissident) thinking of the Melkite Synod of bishops.  Even Bishop John Elya has written about this and he contrasts it with his own personal unswerving loyalty to Rome.
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2007, 02:51:44 AM »

Do the Eastern Catholics really deny papal infallibility and don't recognize the authority of some Catholic councils? doesn't that make them sort of like the Old Catholics?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2007, 04:46:18 AM »

Do the Eastern Catholics really deny papal infallibility and don't recognize the authority of some Catholic councils? doesn't that make them sort of like the Old Catholics?
It varies. As Fr. Ambrose points out, there are many "Sui Juris" churches.  Seven of them are the "Byzantine Catholic Churches" (Churches which correspond to Orthodox Churches). It seems the Bishops of one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (the Melkites) are particularly resistant to some Catholic dogmas (eg: Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception.)
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 05:49:47 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2007, 06:36:54 AM »

Hello father,

 Interesting.

The Zoghby Initiative was from 1995, so the Archbishop was already retired. The successor of Bishop John Elya is an Archbishop from Lebanon who was in place in the synod at the time of the Zoghby Initiative. I assume that if he was present and voted, he supported the initiative because everything I have heard up until now stated the dissenters were in the diaspora.

I am sure Irish Melkite can clean up this story for us, if he sees this.  Wink

Michael,

In a review of "Tous Schismatiques?", Sayednha Elias' book, written by then-Father (now Archbishop) Cyril Salim Boustros, Archbishop Cyril concludes:

Quote
1- There is no doubt that the situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in their relation to Rome, especially from the administrative point of view is not the ideal situation expected to exist between the Apostolic Eastern Sees and the Apostolic See of Rome. However, we could not conclude that our forefathers committed a mistake by proclaiming their union to Rome, and that it would have been better if they stayed as they were. Who knows what would have happened if union didn't take place? No one can judge of possible things which might have happened. All we can do is to study in an objective way its positive and negative results.

2 - It is not allowed in any way to affirm that the Orthodox Patriarchs and bishops are the only legitimate successors of the Apostles over the Eastern sees under the claim that they represent the authentic Eastern tradition. The true Eastern tradition, according to the assertion of His Excellency (Archbishop Zoghby), supposes communion with the see of Rome. This is why His Excellency did not break the communion with Rome when he reestablished communion with the Antiochian Orthodox see and through it with the whole Orthodoxy.

We support the position of His Excellency and we deduce from it that the Greek Orthodox, because of their refusal of communion with Rome, -- regardless of the reasons for this refusal -- do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially; because the complete Eastern tradition requires absolutely the communion with Rome, although in a special way as it was in the first millennium. On the other hand, the Greek Catholics, by keeping their union with the see of Rome, have kept a fundamental principle of Eastern tradition, especially the Antiochian tradition. However this principle has been exposed in its application to different things which deformed it, so that communion almost became absorption. Therefore, the Greek Catholics also do not represent the Eastern tradition but partially. Consequently, we can affirm that neither the Greek Orthodox nor the Greek Catholic represent fully the Eastern tradition, although both churches have kept it partially.

Archbishop Zoghby declared individually his reunion with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch without cutting out his communion with the Catholic See of Rome. Now the question is addressed to both Churches: Does the Roman Catholic Church accept an Eastern Catholic bishop who proclaims his communion with the Orthodox Church? And does the Orthodox Church accept communion with  a bishop who is still in communion with the Catholic See of Rome? As we wait for the answer from East and West, we offer our supplications to God and we join our prayer to the prayer of Jesus Christ the only head of the Church: "Father, let them all be one, so that the world will believe that You sent me." (John 17:21)

http://www.melkite.org/Questions/T-5.htm

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 06:38:27 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
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2007, 06:39:41 AM »

It varies. As Fr. Ambrose points out, there are many "Sui Juris" churches.  Seven of them are the "Byzantine Catholic Churches" (Churches which correspond to Orthodox Churches). It seems the Bishops of one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (the Melkites) are particularly resistant to some Catholic dogmas (eg: Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception.)

George,

Actually, 14 of the 23 are Byzantine.

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
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2007, 06:52:16 AM »

The above is taken from EWTN's assessment of the various Eastern Catholic Churches
http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

Father Mowatt seems out of touch with the (dissident) thinking of the Melkite Synod of bishops.  Even Bishop John Elya has written about this and he contrasts it with his own personal unswerving loyalty to Rome.

Bless Father,

That EWTN piece is particularly bad - even for them.

Mitred Archimandrite John Mowatt, of blessed memory, was a priest of the Russian Greek-Catholic Church, very close to the US Melkite community (in fact, he was buried from our Cathedral), and particularly dear to my own heart (he served the first Divine Liturgy that I ever had the joy to attend). Remembering him, and his deep devotion to the Melkite hierarchy and patriarchate, I can well imagine his distress at what he'd have seen as calumny directed at them. A reading of his full comments at the link provided by the OP in quoting him will show the emotional nature of his response - and suggests that he wasn't unaware of the independent streak among the Melkites.

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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2007, 07:15:56 AM »

Actually, 14 of the 23 are Byzantine.
I thought the "Byzantine Catholics" were the ones which correspond to the Orthodox Churches in Communion with New Rome:
Melkites (Antioch),
Greek Catholics (Greece),
Georgian Catholics (Georgian),
Ruthenians (Russian),
Bulgarian Catholics (Bulgaria),
Romanian Catholics (Romania), and
Italo-Greek Catholics.

Is this list incomplete or is the interpretation "Byzantine Catholic" something else?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2007, 07:27:27 AM »

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 07:29:24 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2007, 07:29:42 AM »

Remembering him, and his deep devotion to the Melkite hierarchy and patriarchate, I can well imagine his distress at what he'd have seen as calumny directed at them.
*
Yet, similar things, and perhaps of a deeper and more serious nature, are presented by Bishop John Elya, at least against his brother Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby.


http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm

"What is your view of Archbishop Elias Zoghby's book, "We are All Schismatics"?"

Bishop John's Answer: ......

Here is an answer copied from my course "Melkite Perspectives" as given to our deacon candidates in 1997:

The book is written with sincere love to both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches. Archbishop Zoghby asserts that the faith is essentially the same both of the Church of Rome and of Orthodoxy.

He asserts that the Councils held by the West alone cannot be considered "ecumenical", because they did not include the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates.

He disdains the claim of the Eastern Catholic Churches united to Rome as being apostolic.

He criticizes the present Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Church.

He claims that the union which took place between some Eastern Churches with Rome in the past three centuries was a great mistake.

He recognizes the primacy but only of honor to the Church of Rome.

He thinks it is a matter of conscience to face the division of the churches. He asserts that "To prolong the schism is to remain in sin." He calls for the double communion of the Melkite Church both with Rome and with the Orthodox Churches.

His initiative led to the Declaration of 1995 which was signed individually by the greatest majority of bishops present (25 out of 28) and to the subsequent statement approved unanimously by the Fathers of the Synod of 1996.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 07:31:06 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2007, 07:31:01 AM »

Ah! Incomplete list! Thanks Aristokles!

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we had a complete list.
Care to oblige, Irish Melkite?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2007, 07:32:43 AM »

Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).
I thought they were not called a "Byzantine Catholic Church". Am I wrong again?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2007, 08:10:35 AM »

I thought they were not called a "Byzantine Catholic Church". Am I wrong again?
Wrong? Perhaps not. But I'm unsure exactly to which church this one is the counter church.

Note: the above list shows Italo-Greek Catholic. It should show them as Italo-Albanian Catholics as being a counter church, I think. The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Joab Anias
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 145


« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2007, 10:13:06 AM »

He thinks it is a matter of conscience to face the division of the churches. He asserts that "To prolong the schism is to remain in sin." He calls for the double communion of the Melkite Church both with Rome and with the Orthodox Churches.

Ah, Peace.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 10:15:11 AM by Joab Anias » Logged
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2007, 11:27:14 AM »

Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).
I thought they were not called a "Byzantine Catholic Church". Am I wrong again?
They are not (Byzantine, that is).  Smiley

The 'Byzantine' Catholics of Alexandria, Egypt (or all Africa, I guess) are consolidated into the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Their Patriarch has a combined title of "Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem". A seemingly awesome responsibility. I suppose if the church adherents were more numerous the title would have to be split between three prelates.

The Coptic Catholic Church was established primarily by Latin missionaries (Franciscan? Jesuit? not sure) working in Egypt, ministering specifically to Copts. One account I read long ago was that they began to appear in the 19th century (or before?) setting up in abandoned old Coptic temples, mostly in rural upper Egypt. If that is the case they might be credited at least for resisting (if not reversing) the collapse of Christianity in some rural areas. It appears that (if the story is true) it is less a result of internal schism within the Coptic church than an attempt to proselytise among underserved Copts by Latin missionaries, who adopted Coptic liturgy and vestments.

Eventually one Coptic bishop was briefly attracted to the movement, and I think that he established an episcopal 'line'. The church was elevated to a Patriarchate by a Pope of Rome, but that Patriarch does not claim to be a 'Pope' for some reason.

The church is small by anyone's standards. I don't know much more on this subject, but there was an article recently (intended for a Catholic audience) interviewing the Coptic Catholic Patriarch...emphasizing the perilous state of some Eastern Catholic churches and the need for financial assistance from outside to keep them operating properly.

Michael
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2007, 03:26:25 PM »

Ah! Incomplete list! Thanks Aristokles!

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we had a complete list.
Care to oblige, Irish Melkite?

George,

I'll be happy to do so tonight.

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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2007, 04:16:10 PM »

Ah, Peace.
*
A beautiful word for your first post in the Forum.

Peace to you too, dear Joab.

Fr Ambrose (aka Irish Hermit)
Logged
Alexius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 180

Baptism of Poland


« Reply #45 on: November 20, 2007, 02:44:35 AM »

I have attended several Ukrainian Catholic parishes and get mixed feelings. One parish is the most Latinized parish I have ever been to complete with Rosary and no iconostasis, yet in the service books, the filioque was scribbled over in blue ink! At the major cathedral for the UGCC in Philadelphia, the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (apparently some still accept this dogma), their bookstore utilizes many Orthodox printings and doctrinal manuals, so I'm not sure what to think...it seems the customs and teachings vary from parish to parish and this needs to be straightened up somehow.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 02:46:30 AM by Alexius » Logged

"You cannot reason with those who do not..."

                Prayers and Petitions,
                        Alexius Cool
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2007, 08:04:34 AM »

George,

I started a thread to answer your request for a list of EC Churches - it's likely more than anyone wants to know, but past experience has convinced me that posting tidbits generates questions that can often be answered more readily and in a more logical format up-front. The formating slowed me down a bit, so I didn't get to finish - will do so tonight. But, there should be enough there to answer your basic question.

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 08:05:31 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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2007, 08:15:10 AM »

George,

I started a thread to answer your request for a list of EC Churches - it's likely more than anyone wants to know, but past experience has convinced me that posting tidbits generates questions that can often be answered more readily and in a more logical format up-front. The formating slowed me down a bit, so I didn't get to finish - will do so tonight. But, there should be enough there to answer your basic question.

Many years,

Neil
Thanks Neil! I was actually reading them as you posted them!
That thread is a wonderful effort, and a valuable resource! I have taken the liberty of tagging it (see *this thread* about tags.)
George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2007, 12:00:19 PM »

Dear Father Ambrose,

And here is an interesting take on this Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent"

2) declare that the Immaculate Concdeption makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

It seems to me that Melkites sometimes understand a defined dogma in a very different way than the typical Latin Catholic understands it.

For example, here's the way I see number 2: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary had no "stain of original sin". Melkites, however, believe that no one has a "stain of original sin" (i.e. that original sin isn't a "stain") -- so for them, what's the point of defining that Mary didn't have one? (If I'm oversimplifying this, I hope that Irish Melkite or another Melkite poster will correct me.)

With regard to number 3 and the "Melkite denial of Papal infallibility" (which has mentioned in a number of posts on this thread) ... well, I haven't actually seen any explanatory statements by Archbishop Zoghby or any other Melkite representative; but please permit me to share a few thoughts of my own.

In his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk Cardinal Newman said (among other things -- he was very prolific on the subject of papal infallibility):

Quote
I will not pass from this question of History without a word about Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is certainly a strong primâ facie argument against the Pope's doctrinal infallibility.
...

Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedrâ , and that, in order to speak ex cathedrâ , he must at least speak "as exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church" {316} (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrâ "), from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ , and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility.

I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the question about the Sacraments; external and positive acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis , and mainly a question of intention.


Whatever else Catholics are required to agree with, we can be sure that they are not required to agree with Cardinal Newman's understanding of infallibility.

I agree (of course) with Newman's statement that Pope Honorius was not speaking ex cathedra. But I am not at all convinced by Newman's claim that, in general, a pope cannot act in "the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" without intending to do so, and that it is "mainly a question of intention". Hence, I think it possible that a pope could make an ex cathedra statement without realizing he was doing so.

Conversely, I see no reason why a pope couldn't think he was "exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians" when he in fact was not, and thus think he was making an infallible statement when he in fact was not.

I hope this helps,
Peter.


P.S. Going back to number 1 (Melkites labeling Pius IX' s declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception "imprudent") it is worth noting that even Cardinal Newman, although he believed in papal infallibility prior to Vatican I, nevertheless opposed its being defined as a dogma. In one letter, in fact, he said "A heavy retribution still may await the perpetrators of this act.”
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 12:04:27 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2007, 12:22:36 PM »


For example, here's the way I see number 2: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary had no "stain of original sin". Melkites, however, believe that no one has a "stain of original sin" (i.e. that original sin isn't a "stain") -- so for them, what's the point of defining that Mary didn't have one? (If I'm oversimplifying this, I hope that Irish Melkite or another Melkite poster will correct me.)

This pretty much parallels Eastern Orthodoxy as well. This "stain" is foreign to us also.

JoeS
Logged
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2007, 07:02:23 AM »

Thanks Neil! I was actually reading them as you posted them!
That thread is a wonderful effort, and a valuable resource! I have taken the liberty of tagging it (see *this thread* about tags.)
George

George,

Thanks for the kind words. I was hoping to get through the Rites tonight, but the Byzantine wore me out by the time I managed to get the formatting in place. With luck, I'll finish up tomorrow night. The Chaldean and Maronite Rites are fairly straightforward, so the formatting will be easier. The pieces beyond that are primarily straight text - need to update an odd or end, here or there, but it should be fairly straightforward.

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
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2007, 08:00:19 AM »

George,

Unless there's anything anyone would like to suggest be added or questions that anyone has, I think I've about exhausted the topic of all the trivia one might care to know about the EC/OC sui iuris Churches

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
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,766



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2009, 05:39:25 AM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2009, 06:03:04 AM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:
Quote
Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2009, 07:27:50 AM »

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

Isn't the number of the autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA) 14?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2009, 08:48:33 AM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:
Quote
Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

Yes, I am always amused how the Vatican's partisans always are worried about our Caesaro-papist speck, while bagging us over the head with their log.

Remember: the filioque was introduced by the Visigoth king, and the Frankish emperor forced its insertion at Rome (after Rome had spent several centuries condemning it).

Why don't they consider Constantinople IV 879 as Ecumenical, as it had representatives of the patriarchs. Btw, Constantinople I had no representative from Rome, and no bishop in the West.  Just bishops from Greece (at the time under Rome's jurisdiction).

Of course, the deeper problem that our friends have,and you pointed out, is the Orthodox Church as a whole accepted the Councils.  The bishops do not have the power to sell us out.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2009, 10:11:10 AM »

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican. 

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

A bigger issue would be the presence of married priest:

On a similar note (maybe deserving of its own the thread), the Ukrainains are coming out with their answer to the CCC (which btw, goes out of its way to include stuff from Eastern Liturgies.  I don't recall if it uses anything from the non-Roman Western rites (Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican, etc.)

Quote
The first worldwide catechism for the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is set to transform catechesis throughout the rite. Six years in the making, the historic book is almost finished and will be published in 2010.

Sister Luiza Ciupa, whose work at the Catechetical Institute in Lviv, western Ukraine, has been vital in the Church’s recovery from 70 years of communist atheism, told Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) that the catechism was intended for Ukrainian Greek Catholics around the world. “Because this will be the book of our faith for our Church and will unify our faith it will be translated into at least six languages,” she said.

As well as Ukrainian, the catechism is due to be published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Polish, with versions in other languages possible.
http://www.churchinneed.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5875&news_iv_ctrl=1001

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2009, 10:16:14 AM »

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2009, 05:28:27 AM »

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer. I do think, however, that Melkite means EO outright (Greek Orthodox) in Egypt and an EO counter church in Syria. Confusing? Yep, but we didn't label ourselves thus.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2009, 07:45:16 AM »

Russian Catholic Church?

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?


Related:
Coptic Catholic Church (unsure which --EO or OO-- church this is counter to, unless both).

LOL.  Actually both, but a member, Mardukm, will argue against the EO.

Technically, it is "counterpart" to the OO.  The EO "counterpart" is the Melkites.

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer. I do think, however, that Melkite means EO outright (Greek Orthodox) in Egypt and an EO counter church in Syria. Confusing? Yep, but we didn't label ourselves thus.

Yes: the clearest way to determine the "counterpart" is which Eastern branch one would belong according to the Vatican's canon should an Orthodox, God Forbid!, submit to the Vatican.  Mardukm went to the "Coptic Catholic."  Any EO in the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem would be put in the "Melkite Catholic."  The latter, btw, has very little in the acrimony of these usual "unions."
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2011, 05:00:47 PM »

Chuckle...nothing like waiting a couple of years for an answer.

Yeah, what's up with that?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2011, 05:07:09 PM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #62 on: May 25, 2011, 06:39:04 PM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2011, 08:57:54 PM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council). Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.

I wonder if there were other statements that shed light on Pope Eugenius' thinking.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #64 on: May 25, 2011, 09:39:09 PM »

I think it was just recognition of a sign that we weren't truly in one mind and one accord, which is necessary if there is going to be true unity.

I believe nothing good came from it because it was nothing more than a big political mess. There was no unity of faith, there was distrust on both sides, the Byzantine Empire fell, and whatever political goals the west had fell through.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
countertenor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #65 on: May 26, 2011, 12:47:34 AM »

I think that the Orthodox should insist on the ECs taking part in these talks, because it might just give the ECs the gumption and/or backing they need to take an Orthodox stance, which could lead to them getting much more vocal and demanding to/against the Rome, and the current Eastern Code of Canon Law, and the poor treatment that Rome has given them, and that the ECs have allowed.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2011, 03:40:33 AM »


That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council). Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.



I see (and understand) that there is some continuing confusion about what made any council "ecumenical" - a discussion for another thread.

As to the single bishop, that is why he is Saint Mark of Ephesus.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2011, 04:45:35 AM »

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed
Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue. police

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 04:49:18 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2011, 09:07:12 AM »

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed
Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue. police

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.

Do you have a print source for that story? I am not doubting its veracity as nothing coming from that Cardinal would surprise me.  I would truly like to share it with several friends involved in the dialog for their comments. If accurate, it would support my point that the reality of the status of the Eastern Catholics here in the United States has changed little in the minds of some of their Latin rite counterparts since the days of Archbishop Ireland.

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity. Even under Roman canon law, what would give the Cardinal such authority other than a personal desire to engage in bullying? Could there be some aspect of this story that has acquired the status of urban legend?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2011, 11:38:34 AM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2011, 12:11:53 PM »

Irish Hermit: I was under the impression that the Eastern Orthodox generally regard the Eastern Catholic Churches with disdain as 'unia' and don't want them involved in the dialogue?

Also, I don't understand your argument. First you complained that within the Catholic Church only the Latin rite has autocephaly status (the notion of autocephaly really just can't be applied to the Roman Catholic Church at all of course - the Church in France and the Church in Germany, for example, would not regard themselves as autocephalous either from Rome or one another), then you suggested that the Eastern Catholics might show that they are often times closer to the Orthodox than the Catholic position on matters of dispute (this is certainly true from time to time). If the Eastern Catholics are getting away with denying dogmatic definitions of Rome, that seems pretty autocephalous to me.

Anyways, the situation with the Eastern Catholics is certainly a mess.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:33:57 PM by Alcuin » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2011, 02:53:34 PM »

I think I know what you're getting at and I would say you're on to something. In my opinion, the controversy caused by the Eastern Catholic churches is the main reason they are absent (this is especially true in central and eastern Europe). I think the secondary issue is the lack of unity within the Catholic Church.........  Are the Eastern Catholic churches supposed to accept ALL dogmas proclaimed by Rome, or just those that fit into their own traditions? I can't get a single answer to this question and I am Catholic! Embarrassed
Yes, I think you have a good point.

We are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches (btw, the forbidden "U" word here is not seen as so barbaric outside the States.  One can find it in the contemporary writings of Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Polish theologians, Catholic ecumenists, etc.)  -anyway we are accustomed to seeing the EC Churches as red rag to a bull for the Orthodox at ecumenical events.

But we forget that they could be a major embarrassment to the Roman Catholics at such events because they would highlight the lack of unity in the Catholic Church on key doctrines.  The Melkites or the Ukrainians could proclaim, as is their wont, that they accept nothing beyond the faith which they professed at the time of their union with Rome.  This is a right guaranteed to them by their Agreements of Union with the Vatican.  

In other words they could deny papal infallibility, papal supremacy, purgatory, the RC Councils after the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.     Imagine the publicity that this lack of unity would grab in the religious press if it were brought to light at a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical meeting!

So it becomes a little clearer why Rome may be jittery about them and excludes them from the ecumenical dialogue. police

True story:

A devout Roman Catholic woman was tired of driving to the one Latin Mass allowed every Sunday which was one to two hours away as the gas mileage was eating into her weekly food allowance since she had many mouths to feed. As a result, she started to attend the Byzantine and Melkite Catholic churches which were less than 30 minutes away from where she lived. However, she became alarmed when the Byzantine Catholic priest announced that there would be no more First Holy Communions because the babies are receiving the three sacraments of initiation at Baptism. Furthermore, she was horrified to learn that Melkites and Ruthenians had beliefs in common with the Orthodox, for example, they did not keep the six holy days of obligation which included the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and had 12 feast days instead of six. So she wrote a letter to Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. The Cardinal then made a surprise visit to the Melkite Church in 1994 where he proclaimed that the Eastern Catholic Churches were under the Pope of Rome because all Catholics had to believe in the doctrines of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. That sermon caused serious problems with several Melkites converting to Orthodoxy because they could not accept Papal Infallibility. I was one of them.

How many other Catholic laity and clergy are misinformed? Surely, this causes problems as Father mentioned.

Do you have a print source for that story? I am not doubting its veracity as nothing coming from that Cardinal would surprise me.  I would truly like to share it with several friends involved in the dialog for their comments. If accurate, it would support my point that the reality of the status of the Eastern Catholics here in the United States has changed little in the minds of some of their Latin rite counterparts since the days of Archbishop Ireland.

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity. Even under Roman canon law, what would give the Cardinal such authority other than a personal desire to engage in bullying? Could there be some aspect of this story that has acquired the status of urban legend?


Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 02:57:55 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2011, 02:55:10 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?

It also struck Bishop JOHN as very odd. In fact, he was quite red in the face: embarrassed for his parishioners and fuming that the parishioners would be treated as second class citizens. I will not repeat his comments made in private to a few of us.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 02:56:36 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2011, 03:13:43 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2011, 03:18:56 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council).

The Vatican considers both of them ecumenical.  Of course, the Catholic Church does not.
Also, it seems strange that he would say that based on the fact that one single bishop didn't sign.
Not all Orthodox bishops were present, btw, only those whom the Emperor could strong arm.
I wonder if there were other statements that shed light on Pope Eugenius' thinking.
Somewhere here I had the citation that St. Mark was the only theologian who impressed the Latins, and whom they respected.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2011, 03:24:52 PM »

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

The standard answer:
Quote
Second Council of Lyons Failed 'reunion Council', 1274 AD
    Motivated by a desire of popes to gain recognition of primacy and by a desire of emperors to receive material and martial aide. Emperor Michael basically compelled the few Orthodox bishops in attendance to rubber-stamp papal claims. Rejected throughout the East and regarded as meaningless. Emperor Michael's sister stated: 'Better my brother's empire should perish than the purity of the Orthodox faith.' Repudiated by Michael's successor.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

Yes, I am always amused how the Vatican's partisans always are worried about our Caesaro-papist speck, while bagging us over the head with their log.

Remember: the filioque was introduced by the Visigoth king, and the Frankish emperor forced its insertion at Rome (after Rome had spent several centuries condemning it).

Why don't they consider Constantinople IV 879 as Ecumenical, as it had representatives of the patriarchs. Btw, Constantinople I had no representative from Rome, and no bishop in the West.  Just bishops from Greece (at the time under Rome's jurisdiction).

Of course, the deeper problem that our friends have,and you pointed out, is the Orthodox Church as a whole had not accepted the Councils.  The bishops do not have the power to sell us out.
had to make that clear.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2011, 04:18:09 PM »

The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

A Latin bishop can't forbid a Melkite bishop from celebrating anywhere but his own Latin parishes.  Archbishop Joseph once forbade Sunday Liturgy in his Eparchy in protest of Israeli occupation of two Christian villages.  As for Atlanta, Archbishop Joseph appealed to the Patriarch who intervened, as well as the Pope, and English Liturgies continued.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2011, 04:22:24 PM »

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2011, 08:29:14 PM »

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Indeed, this continues to be one of the more intriguing stories that have been recounted here.

It would seem to me that a call by the Melkite Bishop to the Nuncio should have cleared this up in the first place, if not before the visit, certainly afterwards. What the Cardinal supposedly said was an affront to all of the Eastern Catholics and in clear violation of the directives regarding the Eastern churches that came out of Vatican 2. It is more curious in that Cardinal Mahoney was surely not the favorite American of the late Pope. Perhaps there was a certain amount of fear on the part of the Bishop should this story  have gotten 'legs' as they say. As I think about it, I can clearly hear the voice of my late grandfather telling his sisters, who remained Greek Catholic, ' I told you so.'

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 08:29:55 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2011, 11:43:50 PM »

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Cardinal Mahony rarely ever visited the Melkite Parish, and I think Bishop JOHN was hoping that his parishioners would help educate the Cardinal during his "canonical" visit (as the Cardinal called it). Oh, by the way, when giving a reason for his canonical visit, the Cardinal said that he had a last minute cancellation, so he was able to fit us in for this special canonical visit. Thus, Bishop JOHN"s red face ... obviously we were second class citizens, and the Cardinal had no reason to consider us as part of his Latin diocese. And then for the finale: Father Deacon Rimmer had to stand away from the Cardinal during the clergy picture as the Deacon's height was so imposing and made the Cardinal look short. We were all aghast at the Cardinal's directive to the Deacon and the camera man.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 11:51:38 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 27, 2011, 03:47:46 PM »

Unfortunately, when Cardinal Mahony visited St. Anne's Melkite Catholic Church, it was an unplanned visit (the Cardinal gave His Grace Bishop JOHN three days notice, so the news media was not given the standard News Release with a two week "heads up" notice. Bishop JOHN had to cancel his other appointments and fly to Los Angeles to honor Cardinal Mahony with a last minute parish dinner. Not cool as Bishop JOHN was not even under Cardinal Mahony. I was an eye witness to the events if that counts for anything, and I personally knew the very devout Catholic woman who blew the whistle. I could have shot her. However, the retired Melkite Bishop His Grace JOHN might be willing to corroborate my story.

The real question is why did Bishop John give in to him?  The Cardinal didn't have a canonical leg to stand on and Bishop John could have given him notice their will be no visit.

Cardinal Mahony rarely ever visited the Melkite Parish, and I think Bishop JOHN was hoping that his parishioners would help educate the Cardinal during his "canonical" visit (as the Cardinal called it). Oh, by the way, when giving a reason for his canonical visit, the Cardinal said that he had a last minute cancellation, so he was able to fit us in for this special canonical visit. Thus, Bishop JOHN"s red face ... obviously we were second class citizens, and the Cardinal had no reason to consider us as part of his Latin diocese. And then for the finale: Father Deacon Rimmer had to stand away from the Cardinal during the clergy picture as the Deacon's height was so imposing and made the Cardinal look short. We were all aghast at the Cardinal's directive to the Deacon and the camera man.

I've been watching the Borgias on Showtime and it sounds like Cardinal Mahoney would have been at home with the preening, posturing bunch of Cardinals depicted in the screenplay!   Wink
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #81 on: May 27, 2011, 10:18:09 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox Church rejects these councils for two basic reasons. First, they were political in nature, held for the primary purpose of opening the door for military alliances to be held between eastern and wesern political powers. Second, becuase of the political nature of these cuncils, the bishops present were pressured into signing the acts and decrees, even when they did not truly accept them. The large majority of bishops that signed the council of Florence renounced the council as they were stepping off the boat when they got back to the east. Even Pope Eugenius, when he saw that Mark of Ephesus did not sign the council, said "And so, we have accomplished nothing."

That is interesting, because unlike the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence was considered to be an ecumenical council (not just a general council).

The Vatican considers both of them ecumenical.  Of course, the Catholic Church does not.

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils". Hence, 8 councils (4 at the Lateran, 2 in Lyons, 1 in Constance, and 1 in Vienne) were added en masse to their list of ecumenical councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #82 on: May 28, 2011, 12:18:13 PM »

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils".

If this distinction was there at one time and then thrown out, could this distinction be put back into use?

Also, what exactly was the difference in the distinction between a "general" and an "ecumenical" council?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2011, 02:25:10 AM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2011, 01:03:51 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2011, 01:31:34 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2011, 01:35:50 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.
Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #87 on: September 18, 2011, 05:21:51 PM »


To return to their patristic heritage would mean believing in those things pre schism.  To do this and stay under the pope would create a parallel theological universe which in itself is not a true union of dogma.  Its like straddling  both sides of a chasm and hoping the chasm doesnt get any wider.

JoeS
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 05:23:04 PM by JoeS » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #88 on: September 18, 2011, 05:50:53 PM »


To return to their patristic heritage would mean believing in those things pre schism.  To do this and stay under the pope would create a parallel theological universe which in itself is not a true union of dogma.  Its like straddling  both sides of a chasm and hoping the chasm doesnt get any wider.

JoeS

Father John Mangels once said that trying to be Eastern Catholic in union with Rome is schizophrenia.
Roman Catholic theology is so dissimilar to Orthodoxy.

I used to attend the Melkite Church. In 1993, when the Eparch died, Bishop John was placed as the administrator until Rome could approve a new Eparch. It took a couple of years. This would not be the case in a Roman Catholic Diocese.

If the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had not been implemented, then the Traditional way of electing bishops would have been followed:

According to Ancient Church Tradition, the way of electing a bishop is as follows:

After a bishop dies or is disposed, then members and priests of the diocese would gather together in prayer to select three names.
These three names would be submitted to the three nearby dioceses for approval.
If one or more names were approved by the three bishops, then these three bishops would consecrate the candidate(s).
Rome and/or the other dioceses would be notified AFTER THE FACT.

With the implementation of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy, this all changed, and required the diocese to submit their three names directly to the Vatican who does not know each priest. Local control is thereby eliminated and the Vatican bureaucracy has been growing in power. If the Vatican does not approve at least one candidate, then the diocese must submit another list of three names until the Vatican approves a candidate. With Vatican-mandated approval, the process takes longer. In the above case, Rome sent a Latin-Rite Bishop to visit various Melkite parishes unannounced to talk with the parishioners about the candidates. It was very awkward when this Bishop visited the parish where Bishop John was staying. It went against all protocols as there was no announcement that he was coming.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #89 on: September 18, 2011, 07:23:27 PM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.
Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.
I know that the Vatican counts it a virtue to reprimand inconvenient truths, but that isn't the Orthodox way.

For example, see how the Vatican (and by that I mean its supreme pontiff, as he got himself personally invovled) dealt with the Hnylychky Treason Trial (treason, because "Greek Catholics" returned to Orthodoxy), ending in the forced resignation of the primate of the UGCC.

Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka
http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA73&dq=religion+west+ukraine+Hnylychky&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

And this forum is very much on facts.  That you do not like them and their incovenience doesn't change that. Facts are stubborn things.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #90 on: January 12, 2012, 10:36:36 AM »

Father John Mangels once said that trying to be Eastern Catholic in union with Rome is schizophrenia.
Roman Catholic theology is so dissimilar to Orthodoxy.

I used to attend the Melkite Church. In 1993, when the Eparch died, Bishop John was placed as the administrator until Rome could approve a new Eparch. It took a couple of years. This would not be the case in a Roman Catholic Diocese.

If the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had not been implemented, then the Traditional way of electing bishops would have been followed:

According to Ancient Church Tradition, the way of electing a bishop is as follows:

After a bishop dies or is disposed, then members and priests of the diocese would gather together in prayer to select three names.
These three names would be submitted to the three nearby dioceses for approval.
If one or more names were approved by the three bishops, then these three bishops would consecrate the candidate(s).
Rome and/or the other dioceses would be notified AFTER THE FACT.

With the implementation of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy, this all changed, and required the diocese to submit their three names directly to the Vatican who does not know each priest. Local control is thereby eliminated and the Vatican bureaucracy has been growing in power. If the Vatican does not approve at least one candidate, then the diocese must submit another list of three names until the Vatican approves a candidate. With Vatican-mandated approval, the process takes longer. In the above case, Rome sent a Latin-Rite Bishop to visit various Melkite parishes unannounced to talk with the parishioners about the candidates. It was very awkward when this Bishop visited the parish where Bishop John was staying. It went against all protocols as there was no announcement that he was coming.

I'm reminded of another conversation. (The entire thread can be found here: Melkite commemoration ... a possible compromise? )


Me:
At the parish I usually attend (Melkite) the priest commemorates Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch Gregory, and Pope Benedict.

Now, I don't remember where, but somewhere I've heard that the traditional practice is actually for the parish priest to commemorate only his own bishop. I.e. only the bishop commemorates other bishops. (Can anyone confirm this?)

I don't think we are ready to return to that traditional (assuming it is) practice. However, I wonder if a compromise would be possible: Namely, to commemorate not only the Melkite Patriarch and the Roman Patriarch, but all the Catholic Patriarches. It seems like that would make a lot more sense than commemorating some but not others.

-

Nelson Chase:
quote: According to Metropolitan Georges Khodre of Mount Lebanon (Patriarchate of Antioch) - "In mentioning the Pope of Rome in the Eastern liturgies we are inviting the Churches to a practice the East has never known."

If this is the case, I am sure it is, then our Eastern Catholic Churches should return to the Orthodox practice. But I can already see the reaction from some, "they are not Catholic because they don't commemorate the Pope."

-

Me:
Yes, that's pretty much my thinking as well: in principle we should follow the traditional method, but that probably wouldn't work out too well in practice. So some sort of compromise seems to be in order.

-

ConstantineTG:
The commemoration is about the hierarchy which also represents the communion of the people with the Church. So we the people are in communion with the Church through our Bishop, who is in communion with the Metropolitan, who is in communion with the Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.

-

Nelson Chase:
quote: There's no point to commemorate the other Bishops including other Patriarchs.

And really the Pope in our liturgies. We are in communion with the Pope only through our communion with our Bishop, (through our parish under his rep- the Priest) who is in communion with his Metropolitan, who is communion with his Patriarch, who is in communion with the Pope. Now a Metropolitan Church is different in that case the Metropolitan commemorates the Pope.

I think Eastern Catholics can stress the point of "we are in communion with the Pope" to a fault. Really, we should follow the pattern laid out above (which is the Orthodox Practice) but we don't because we don't want to be accused of not being Catholic. Returning to the Orthodox Practice is part of the courage to be ourselves.

-

Fr. Deacon Lance:
What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.

-

Me:
Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?

-

Fr. Deacon Lance:
Exactly.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2012, 10:41:54 AM »

Welcome back, Peter  Smiley
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #92 on: January 12, 2012, 10:05:54 PM »

Thanks, FormerReformer.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #93 on: January 12, 2012, 10:21:34 PM »

Thanks, FormerReformer.

Welcome back, Peter!
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
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: 1,636



« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2012, 10:36:41 PM »

Good to see you back, Peter. Hope you'll be staying. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 10:37:02 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #95 on: January 24, 2012, 09:07:00 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

Apologies in advance, if what I'm about to say has already been discussed. Today I got to thinking, we've had this thread going for the last 4+ years about Eastern Catholics being excluded from dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but what about other ecumenical dialogues?

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to. (I've never heard any prediction that Anglicans would boycott the talks if Eastern Catholics were present.)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 09:09:26 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 1,636



« Reply #96 on: January 24, 2012, 09:18:35 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?

Apologies in advance, if what I'm about to say has already been discussed. Today I got to thinking, we've had this thread going for the last 4+ years about Eastern Catholics being excluded from dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, but what about other ecumenical dialogues?

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to. (I've never heard any prediction that Anglicans would boycott the talks if Eastern Catholics were present.)

Not to be cynical, but I wonder if Rome believes that they should have such autonomy in the first place. The Melkites seem occasionally to be at odds with Rome over this very issue.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #97 on: February 02, 2012, 11:11:13 PM »

For example, are Eastern Catholics included in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues? There doesn't seem to be any reason not to.

I should say, there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.

I can think of some not-so-good reasons, e.g. the worry that the Anglicans might get "ideas".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 03, 2012, 04:11:39 AM »

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)? I suppose in the case of the Anglican Ordinariate ECs could give some good advice about what to expect, but whether what the ECs have to say in that regard is good or bad has much to do with what side of the Atlantic you're on. American history in general, and American Orthodox history in particular, does not paint the whole reunification with Rome idea in the best light.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Orest
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,005


« Reply #99 on: February 03, 2012, 12:49:36 PM »

Can part of the problem be part of the solution?
I guess not according to Patriarch Kyrill (MP):
"In order for such a meeting to be really useful for further development of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, we need to work together to radically improve the atmosphere of these relations by resolving the problems that exist between us," the Patriarch said.

Speaking about the seizure of Orthodox churches in Ukraine by Greek Catholics, the Patriarch pointed out that the Russian Church has recently suggested reviving the four-party commission comprising the Vatican, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

"However, the Catholic Church was not very enthusiastic about our offer," he said.

The issue of the situation with Orthodox churches in Western Ukraine has been regularly raised during meetings with representatives of the Catholic Church in the Moscow Patriarchate, the Patriarch said.

"The Pope and the heads of the Vatican congregations are expressing an understanding about our concerns, but the problem remains unresolved," Patriarch Kirill said."
This is from a Jan. 31,2012 article:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=9020
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 03, 2012, 01:07:01 PM »

My Reply #1 to Patriarch Kirill (MP) - Meeting with the Pope is Not Yet Possible merits reposting here regarding this issue, since the property disputes were brought up by the previous poster.

"Here is the sticking point and it is one that those of us who either personally, or through our family narratives, were involved in property disputes here in North America can understand:

"Speaking about the seizure of Orthodox churches in Ukraine by Greek Catholics, the Patriarch pointed out that the Russian Church has recently suggested reviving the four-party commission comprising the Vatican, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church."

To those who retained their Greek Catholic faith during the periods of state enforced persecution, the property transfers in western Ukraine are not 'seizures' but legitimate 'recoveries.' For example, the Greek Catholic Cathedrals in Uzhorod and Muchachevo were both built in the post-Unia era in the 18th and 19th centuries, so to the Greek Catholics they were unlawfully 'seized' as a result of state actions in 1947.

To those who legitimately professed Orthodoxy both prior to and following 1947, their views on the subject are obviously different and need to be respected by the Greek Catholic community as well before any meaningful progress can be achieved.

As to those who sit in places like Moscow, Athens or in comfortable places in the west who abstractly pine about the historical wrongs caused by the unia in the first instance, I can only say that it is far easier to pontificate on a subject than to understand it from first hand experience.

...Of course the Ukrainian problems are compounded by the fractures within the Orthodox communities in Ukraine and the relationships, and lack thereof, which the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are developing with some of the Orthodox on purely nationalistic grounds."
Logged
Orest
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,005


« Reply #101 on: February 03, 2012, 02:32:03 PM »

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #102 on: February 03, 2012, 03:05:06 PM »

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)?

That's a good point. But I wasn't thinking of regional dialogue so much. I was thinking of, like, ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 03, 2012, 05:43:09 PM »

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting.  

This is true, that just as in America, the folks affected within Ukraine (and Slovakia for that matter)  have had to learn to live with the consequences of the 'split' between those who are Greek Catholic and those who are not. Like I've observed repeatedly, the unia seems to loom larger in the minds of those who have not had to live with its consequences than it is in the LONG RUN consciousness - not the short spurts of hot-headedness as in the 1930's here and the 1990's in Europe - of those of us who have had to deal with it directly.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 05:44:16 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 03, 2012, 11:29:44 PM »

When you visit western Ukraine now in 2012, the topic of church property is not on people's minds.  It took 20 years but it is over as far as most people there are concerned.  People have decided to which church they want to belong and the MP is not popular.  Can't imagine why the MP even bothers bringing it up but it does show why the MP would not welcome Eastern Catholics at any ecumenical dialogue.

An interesting article to read is "Orthodoxy and Autocephaly in Galicia" by Prof. Harald H. Jepsen of the Slavonic Institute of Odense University in Denmark.  It is Chapter 5 in a book entitled "Galicia A Multicultured Land."  edited by that famous Rusyn and president of the World Council of Rusyns Paul Magocsi.  What is most interesting about the article is the background history of the turmoil in Galicia in the late 19th century when the Basilians were latinizing the area.  The authors comments on Fr. Havriil Kostelnyk, who was pro-Orthodox before 1946 Council of Lviv and his good friend Fr. Dmitriy Yarema who was active in the 1946 Council and also in the August 1989 founding of the UAOC in Lviv are very interesting.  

This is true, that just as in America, the folks affected within Ukraine (and Slovakia for that matter)  have had to learn to live with the consequences of the 'split' between those who are Greek Catholic and those who are not. Like I've observed repeatedly, the unia seems to loom larger in the minds of those who have not had to live with its consequences than it is in the LONG RUN consciousness - not the short spurts of hot-headedness as in the 1930's here and the 1990's in Europe - of those of us who have had to deal with it directly.

Perhaps they are a rebuke to those who wish to perpetuate the fight. 
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #105 on: May 31, 2012, 09:33:30 AM »

At the risk of offending some Eastern Catholics- are there enough in Anglican areas to warrant inclusion in the Catholic-Anglican dialogues (I ask seriously, I have no idea how the demographics work out here)?

There seems to be an assumption here that only those who live in the other side's areas should be involved in dialogue. Is this a common Orthodox assumption? I find it a bit puzzling.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #106 on: May 31, 2012, 09:35:38 AM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.
Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.

I would like to suggest a thesis here, which I hope will get a decent hearing on this forum. (What can I say, I'm a hopeless optimist. Grin)

I think the big problem is not, strictly speaking, that the Orthodox are too hard on Eastern Catholics or that they are too hard on Latin Catholics; rather I'd say the big problem is a lack of consistency. Depending on the situation, Orthodox can either discredit Eastern Catholics by making them out to be worse than Latin Catholics ("uni***") or discredit Latin Catholics by making them out to be worse than Eastern Catholics ("not one of us Eastern Christians").
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #107 on: May 31, 2012, 09:36:16 AM »

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #108 on: May 31, 2012, 09:57:15 AM »

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).

Which phrase?  That you're a hopeless optimist?  (Giggle, giggle. Grin)  And here I thought you were merely a "nay-sayer"!  Wink.  Isn't the term "hopeless optimist" somewhat oxymoronic?  Doesn't optimism, by definition, embody hope?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


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


« Reply #109 on: May 31, 2012, 10:03:21 AM »

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?







As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #110 on: May 31, 2012, 10:38:14 AM »

The possibility of any ultimate east west reunion certainly has cold water thrown upon it if a totally non-traditional Catholic prelate like Cardinal Mahoney would be so exorcised and ignorant of Roman canon law as it relates to the Eastern Churches as to step outside of the legal boundaries of his Diocese and presume to lecture the faithful of another Catholic bishop, i.e. the Melkite Bishop of the particular diocese in question as to their Catholicity.
That part struck me as odd too. It would be inappropriate for a Latin Cardinal to show up at an Eastern Catholic parish like that because he doesn't have any authority there, does he?
The Latin Archbishop in Palestine once forbade the Melkite Archbishop of All Galilee Joseph Raya from celebrating in Akko/Haifa.  I don't know what the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem had to say about it. As a priest in Mobile, the Latin Archbishop there banned him from celebrating in English, after inviting Abp. Fulton Sheen to use his "bi-faculties" to celebrate a pontifical DL in English on TV at the 1958 Melkite Convention.

Given that the Latin bishops are seen as the "ordinary" everywhere, I don't find this terribly odd at all.

At the time that then-Archimandrite Joseph (Raya) was forbidden to serve the Divine Liturgy in English by the Latin Archbishop of Mobile, there was not yet a Melkite canonical jurisdiction in the US and the Melkites were canonically subject to the local Latin ordinary. As Deacon Lance has noted, the interdict was short-lived.

Many years,

Neil
There you go presenting facts when ialmisry is trying to portray Rome as the big, evil monster who constantly abuses and bosses around the Eastern Catholic Churches. Don't you know by now that this forum isn't about facts? It's about who can scream their Romaphobic trash the loudest.  Cheesy

Wyatt, unless you have walked a mile in your Eastern Catholic brothers' and sisters shoes', you really do not know what you are talking about regarding their experiences or about their status in relation to the Roman Rite, particularly in places where they are in a minority. Those of us who left the Eastern Catholic church and those who stayed are in a far better place to understand the difficulty remaining loyal to the concepts expressed in the Unions has been over the centuries.
Has ialmisry walked in the Eastern Catholic's shoes? I would hope so since he comments on it without reprimand from his coreligionists.
you assUme that there is something to reprimand.  Your persecution complex/paranoia is not my concern.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13428.msg640229.html#msg640229
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:41:19 AM by ialmisry » 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #111 on: May 31, 2012, 10:57:35 AM »

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 Huh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #112 on: May 31, 2012, 10:58:49 AM »

P.S. Yes, I realize that a phrase in my last post may give some people the giggles (just like when someone else used the phrase in a recent thread title).

Which phrase?  That you're a hopeless optimist? 

Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 31, 2012, 12:10:07 PM »

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at least in North America, the Eastern Catholics have been represented on the Joint Commission for some years. Among the current representatives from the Catholic Church are at least three Eastern Catholic priests, Fr. Peter Galazda from the UGCC in Canada, Father David Petras from the BCC in the US as well as a Maronite priest.   http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-113.shtml
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


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


« Reply #114 on: May 31, 2012, 12:12:52 PM »

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 Huh

Huh: If you noticed the OCA is not present at this Dialogue, but we know that our interests will be properly represented.  One the other  hand since you belong to Rome, Rome, I am sure, will be speaking on behalf of Eastern Catholics and thus will be properly represented.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #115 on: May 31, 2012, 12:23:44 PM »

As an OCA'r I know that my interests are already represented.  As an EC I would also say that the Vatican represents me. No need to have the EC'rs there

 Huh

Huh: If you noticed the OCA is not present at this Dialogue, but we know that our interests will be properly represented.  One the other  hand since you belong to Rome, Rome, I am sure, will be speaking on behalf of Eastern Catholics and thus will be properly represented.

I'm familiar with the OCA not being included (actually, that was mentioned in a talk I just listened to from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware) but I was confused by "As an EC I would ...". I guess that means "If I were an EC I would ..." right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 31, 2012, 01:09:14 PM »

Actually, again on the North American consultation, the OCA is, and has been represented by Father John Erickson and by Dr. Paul Myendorff of St. Vladimir's along with Bishop Alexander of the OCA's Bulgarian diocese.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


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


« Reply #117 on: May 31, 2012, 04:11:30 PM »




[/quote]

I'm familiar with the OCA not being included (actually, that was mentioned in a talk I just listened to from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware) but I was confused by "As an EC I would ...". I guess that means "If I were an EC I would ..." right?
[/quote]

There are some Orthodox Jurisditions that dont recognize our Autocephaly from the MP in 1970 but do accept that we are canonical. I dont feel put out by the fact that we as OCA'rs have not been officially included in the Dialogue just the same I know that whatever decisions that are made we will go along with.

I hope that I can properly convey my opinion here:

If I were an Eastern Catholic it would not bother me much that we were not represented in with the Roman Catholic delegates. I would be assured that whatever transpires at the Dialogue it would be of benefit to the ECC.   I cant imagine, in the present atmosphere of talks, the Roman church working to ECC's  detriment.   So, I wouldnt worry over what the Vatican delegation may adopt, after all you are all one with Rome.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #118 on: August 05, 2012, 10:29:07 PM »

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?

Hi everyone. I don't wish to rehash this whole thread, but there's something I don't understand. Until recently I had no doubt that the statements in the OP (quoted above) were factual (and not just because I read it on OCnet of course  Grin); however, I've just come across an article from Fr. Ronald G. Roberson that says something different:

Quote
It should be mentioned at this point that among the Greek Catholics there has been a strong sense of unease about the progress of this dialogue.To many, it seems that Rome and the Orthodox have been negotiating about their future when they were not at the table. True, there are Eastern Catholics who participate individually as Catholic members, and in numbers larger than their percentage of the Catholic faithful would require. But still there is a feeling, expressed with the most vigor by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, that they should be represented as churches on the international dialogue, at least as long as the status or even the fate of their churches are being discussed.
- The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: A Brief History

I'm hoping someone can help me out. Have I simply been misunderstanding all this time? Is it accurate to say the issue is that Eastern Catholics only participate in the dialogue individually, without being represented as churches?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #119 on: August 05, 2012, 11:09:33 PM »

A few priests there as consultors/interpreters/translators is not representation. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #120 on: August 05, 2012, 11:29:08 PM »

A few priests there as consultors/interpreters/translators is not representation. 

Thanks for that reply, Deacon Lance; I was feeling pretty puzzled by Fr. Ron's statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #121 on: August 06, 2012, 01:10:06 AM »

Those who have followed the International Meeting in early October in Ravenna between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches may have noted that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not involved.  This has been true all the way since these series of Meetings commenced in the 1980s and it was true at Belgrade in September 2006 and at Ravenna in October 2007.

The decision was made in the beginning that the Churches would send delegates from autocephalous Churches (NOT autonomous Churches.)

This has resulted in 30 Orthodox delegates - two from each of the 15 autocephalous Churches (minus the OCA.)

To balance the Orthodox numbers there are 30 delegates from the Roman Catholic Church.  

The Roman Catholic Church is the *only* Church of autocephalous status in the Catholic world of 23 sui juris Chuches.  All the Eastern Catholic Churches have simply autonomous status and are not qualified to participate in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

WHY has the ecumenical dialogue been so structured as to exclude the Eastern Catholics?

Hi everyone. I don't wish to rehash this whole thread, but there's something I don't understand. Until recently I had no doubt that the statements in the OP (quoted above) were factual (and not just because I read it on OCnet of course  Grin); however, I've just come across an article from Fr. Ronald G. Roberson that says something different:

Quote
It should be mentioned at this point that among the Greek Catholics there has been a strong sense of unease about the progress of this dialogue.To many, it seems that Rome and the Orthodox have been negotiating about their future when they were not at the table. True, there are Eastern Catholics who participate individually as Catholic members, and in numbers larger than their percentage of the Catholic faithful would require. But still there is a feeling, expressed with the most vigor by Ukrainian Greek Catholics, that they should be represented as churches on the international dialogue, at least as long as the status or even the fate of their churches are being discussed.
- The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: A Brief History

I'm hoping someone can help me out. Have I simply been misunderstanding all this time? Is it accurate to say the issue is that Eastern Catholics only participate in the dialogue individually, without being represented as churches?
Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 01:12:58 AM by ialmisry » 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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #122 on: August 06, 2012, 02:26:12 AM »

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #123 on: August 06, 2012, 08:36:15 AM »

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?
No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #124 on: August 06, 2012, 08:37:44 AM »

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?

I generally try not to guess what ialmisry is going to say (Wink) but I would point out that his profile says he's Orthodox.

Edit: I see he's answered while I was typing.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #125 on: August 06, 2012, 08:39:06 AM »

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

And the Anglican Ordinariates?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,958



« Reply #126 on: August 06, 2012, 09:10:30 AM »

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #127 on: August 06, 2012, 09:18:31 AM »

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #128 on: August 06, 2012, 09:27:35 AM »

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct.  At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.
Barely.  Kiev was only recently returned to Constantinople's jurisdiction, and the EP actually put in office the Metropolitan who apostacized.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 
No.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #129 on: August 06, 2012, 09:28:45 AM »

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.
Complain to the Vatican.  For one, they insist that if a Orthodox apostacizes, he has to go to the schismatic sui juris.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #130 on: August 06, 2012, 09:43:09 AM »

The Italo-Greek church (of Calabria), like the Maronites, has no Orthodox complement.
There is a metropolis of Venice and Italy under Constantinople.

Also, the UGCC never considered Moscow to be its mother church, but only Constantinople, which is historically correct. At the time Greek Catholicism began in Ukraine, no Orthodox diocese on the right side of the Dnipro was under Moscow, but all under Constantinople.

In fact, wouldnt it be cool if the UGCC were to return to Orthodoxy as an autonomous church under Constantinople? 

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it seems to me that the Orthodox need to "get over themselves" with regard to all the we're-the-mother-churches-of-ECs-and-they-should-return-to-us talk.
Complain to the Vatican.  For one, they insist that if a Orthodox apostacizes, he has to go to the schismatic sui juris.
Okay, that was a pretty good comeback (even if it wasn't much of flame Grin).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #131 on: August 06, 2012, 02:52:37 PM »

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #132 on: August 06, 2012, 03:22:29 PM »

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.


But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

^ +1
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,531


« Reply #133 on: August 06, 2012, 03:26:29 PM »

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

And they are heresies. It is as simple as that.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2012, 03:41:20 PM »

No.  Things like its acceptance of Pastor Aeternus (which, given the present stance of their supreme pontiff, shows that their claim to be a patriarchate is non-canonical), Ineffibilis Deus etc.

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

That makes sense, but it doesn't have much bearing on this particular discussion. If it's heretical for a Latin Catholic (or, as people say on this forum a "Roman Catholic") to say that the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction, then it is just as heretical for an Eastern Catholic to say it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #135 on: August 06, 2012, 03:56:19 PM »

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

And they are heresies. It is as simple as that.

And it is the opposite for Catholics.  That is why I said Eastern Catholics shouldn't believe what the Orthodox do about the Papacy, otherwise they would be heretics from the Catholic point of view.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,531


« Reply #136 on: August 06, 2012, 03:57:35 PM »

So why are you asking such questions?

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually.  For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow.  On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with.  On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC?  Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #137 on: August 06, 2012, 05:20:03 PM »

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all.  This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this.  We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox).  But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts.  If we don't, then we should be Orthodox.  It is as simple as that.

Or one can believe that neither the Latin nor the Orthodox have it quite right about the Papacy.  Not so simple.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #138 on: August 06, 2012, 05:22:02 PM »

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

Yes, but there is a seperate dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #139 on: August 06, 2012, 05:25:35 PM »

Complain to the Vatican.  For one, they insist that if a Orthodox apostacizes, he has to go to the schismatic sui juris.

On paper, in practice if an Orthodox wants to attend a Latin Catholic parish there is nothing stopping them and most do just that.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #140 on: August 06, 2012, 05:33:17 PM »

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

Yes, but there is a seperate dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.

Good point. The Byzantine Catholics have just as much right to be at the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox, as the Armenian Catholics et al have to be at the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #141 on: August 06, 2012, 05:36:12 PM »

Or one can believe that neither the Latin [Brad Pitt?] nor the Orthodox have it quite right about the Papacy.  Not so simple.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #142 on: August 06, 2012, 08:08:22 PM »

So why are you asking such questions?

Because I want to know.  Currently I am a practicing member of the UGCC and I'd like to learn about the issues other people see in the Church.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


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


« Reply #143 on: September 26, 2012, 01:08:09 AM »

Ah, Peace.
*
A beautiful word for your first post in the Forum.

Peace to you too, dear Joab.

Fr Ambrose (aka Irish Hermit)

Dear Fathers,  Has anything happened in the Eastern Christian Dialogue that would be newsworthy?
Logged
Tags: ecumenism Eastern Rite Catholic Oriental Rite Catholic sui juris sui iuris 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   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 0.46 seconds with 171 queries.