Author Topic: Unia as a Model of False Unity  (Read 13125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,262
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2010, 09:56:02 PM »
So far I don't find your argument to be particularly compelling.

The fact that Orthodox bishops are not racing the process of discussing reunion does not indicate that they are against reunion or that they encourage their priests to raise barriers to developing understanding between Orthodox and Catholics.

I find your argument just as lacking.  Suffice it to say, whatever you have determined from your "research" into others' opinions, whether they are priests or laity of the EO, they are still opinions and do not reflect the teaching of the church that the RCs are heretics and need to repent of the heresies they have adopted. 

The Unia are dangerous because they look Orthodox in outwardly forms but still stand as bulwarks for the heresies that the EOs cannot and will not accept such as the filioque (though the Byz Catholics don't confess it in the creed, they defend its theology) and papal supremacy.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2010, 10:36:41 PM »
So why can't our priests in the U.S. be married?

I think the real question is "Was the imposition of celibacy, on the part of the Latin rite bishops and Rome, on eastern Catholic bishops and priests an exercise of legitimate authority, or was it and exercise of legitimate authority?"  

Had all the eastern Catholic bishops in the New World continued to ordain married priests, we would not have the difficulty today.  The Ukranians in Canada are a case in point.   Sure it was a rough patch, but there have been married priests in Canada for a long time.

So whose "fault" is really?

Mary
The Vatican's, who issued the ban, and forbade the Easterners in submission to have a bishop in the new world. Until the return to Orthodoxy became a flood.  The same one who now has the stipulation that any lifting of the ban of Cum data fuerit will have to be unanimous.   As for those in Canada, I've been told they are laundered back in Ukraine.

Btw, it was an exercise of illegitimate authority, as St. Paphnoutios stated at Nicea I.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 10:44:00 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2010, 11:16:56 PM »
So far I don't find your argument to be particularly compelling.

The fact that Orthodox bishops are not racing the process of discussing reunion does not indicate that they are against reunion or that they encourage their priests to raise barriers to developing understanding between Orthodox and Catholics.

I find your argument just as lacking.  Suffice it to say, whatever you have determined from your "research" into others' opinions, whether they are priests or laity of the EO, they are still opinions and do not reflect the teaching of the church that the RCs are heretics and need to repent of the heresies they have adopted. 

The Unia are dangerous because they look Orthodox in outwardly forms but still stand as bulwarks for the heresies that the EOs cannot and will not accept such as the filioque (though the Byz Catholics don't confess it in the creed, they defend its theology) and papal supremacy.

This is assertion...nothing more.  There is no formal teaching in universal Orthodoxy that confirms what you are saying here.  Just doesn't exist in such a way that would indicate that we are in formal schism.

The very fact that the bi-lateral discussions are addressing these so-called heresies, in good faith,  indicates that there's no formal teeth in what you are saying here.  There is NO indication that the Orthodox have come to the table to "correct" Catholic teaching.  You don't see it from the documents and you don't hear it from the Patriarchates.

That's what all the collateral fuss is about in any event.  There are NO firm statements coming out of the majority of Orthodox hierarchs against the Catholic "heresies."

M.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 896
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR-WR
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #48 on: July 20, 2010, 11:35:45 PM »
Well I guess that enough has already been said about their heresies via the statements of the Eastern Patriarchs, the statements form Mt Athos, and of course there was recently the affair in Cyprus where several members of the Synod refused to meet the heterodox lay monarch of the vatican.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,595
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #49 on: July 20, 2010, 11:52:02 PM »
Quote
heterodox lay monarch of the vatican.
I cant help but notice how stupid this sounds.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 896
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR-WR
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #50 on: July 20, 2010, 11:58:30 PM »
Which part is factually incorrect?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #51 on: July 20, 2010, 11:58:54 PM »
Mary,

The last formal notifications to the Vatican of its heresies were made in two hard-hitting Patriarchal documents to the Popes in 1848 and 1895.


1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

There has been NO retraction of these heresies.  No Orthodox authority has said that they are now acceptable dogma.  They remain Catholic heresies in the eyes of the Orthodox.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2010, 12:21:16 AM »
So far I don't find your argument to be particularly compelling.

The fact that Orthodox bishops are not racing the process of discussing reunion does not indicate that they are against reunion or that they encourage their priests to raise barriers to developing understanding between Orthodox and Catholics.

I find your argument just as lacking.  Suffice it to say, whatever you have determined from your "research" into others' opinions, whether they are priests or laity of the EO, they are still opinions and do not reflect the teaching of the church that the RCs are heretics and need to repent of the heresies they have adopted. 

The Unia are dangerous because they look Orthodox in outwardly forms but still stand as bulwarks for the heresies that the EOs cannot and will not accept such as the filioque (though the Byz Catholics don't confess it in the creed, they defend its theology) and papal supremacy.

This is assertion...nothing more.  There is no formal teaching in universal Orthodoxy that confirms what you are saying here.  Just doesn't exist in such a way that would indicate that we are in formal schism.

The very fact that the bi-lateral discussions are addressing these so-called heresies, in good faith,  indicates that there's no formal teeth in what you are saying here.  There is NO indication that the Orthodox have come to the table to "correct" Catholic teaching.  You don't see it from the documents and you don't hear it from the Patriarchates.

That's what all the collateral fuss is about in any event.  There are NO firm statements coming out of the majority of Orthodox hierarchs against the Catholic "heresies."

M.
not a single Orthodox hierarch has the Vatican in their diptychs.

Your schism is real, and recognized, by ALL the Orthodox hierarchs.

As to your heresies, besides the canons on the Creed and Constantinople IV, the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jassy/Iasi adopted the "Orthodox Confession" of St. Peter Movila, in the form purged of "Latin heresies," and the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem affirmed that.
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

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,595
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2010, 01:05:54 AM »
So, we can make use of Iasi and Jerusalem when it's convenient to do so. Otherwise we can discard them as "Latinized". ::)
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #54 on: July 21, 2010, 01:29:11 AM »
So, we can make use of Iasi and Jerusalem when it's convenient to do so. Otherwise we can discard them as "Latinized". ::)
LOL. That is, after all, what Iasi and Jerusalem did to St. Peter's catechism.
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

Offline visitor

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #55 on: July 21, 2010, 08:26:24 AM »
Hmm. Yes, this is an interesting topic.

How much of "Byzantine Catholicism" is deeply Romish though.... I wonder. I mean, there are going to be a few fanatics out there--and I do have the highest respect for the Basilians, they've got gumption and a long history too. Considering their history in particular, there is something very, very Byzantine about their order. (...Alright. So there's the disclaimer.)


Maybe some of you know the story of St. Alexis Toth. If not I encourage you to learn more about him, and especially the backstory of, and details of his fateful interview with the (in)famous Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul.

There are many intricacies to the story, which I shall not recount here. But I think that I can give a couple of details to support my own conclusion about the Unia.

One upon a time....

Originally, the Eastern Rite in America was vastly Uniate. But America's powerful coterie of Irish Bishops did their utmost to suppress the Eastern Rite. St. Alexis Toth came to America as a Uniate priest, his passage paid for by the Silesian community in St. Paul. But when Archbishop Ireland more or less denied the validity of the Council of Brest and commanded that the Silesians attend a Polish Catholic Church where they knew neither the language (Latin, Polish), nor the ritual (still Tridentine Rite at the time), that concluded things between St. Paul's first Eastern Rite community and the entire Papal Church. St. Alexis very shortly thereafter acquired the blessing of a Russian bishop in California and then set out on a mission to bring Byz Catholics to the light that they need not be forced into Western Rite churches. They say he converted 20,000 to Orthodoxy (i.e. chrismated them and transferred, if you will, their communion to the Russian jurisdiction).

What the Silesians wanted was a religion that they could recognise. A ritual that they knew, loved, and understood. Some of you may already know that most of the older parishes of the OCA actually began life in America as Uniate communities from Eastern Europe...

In conclusion, there is some weighty historical evidence that Uniate Catholics, when pushed, will retain their Rite over their communion with Rome. Obviously, American bishops soon realized this fact following the advent of St. Alexis... Archbishop Ireland himself did condescend to bless the next E. Rite community that petitioned him, and every one thereafter too.

So there you have it, I guess. Our "Byzantine Catholics" really are, in all likelyhood, more Byzantine than Catholic when it comes to the showdown. God sees their hearts either way.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 08:31:23 AM by visitor »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #56 on: July 21, 2010, 10:06:39 AM »
Mary, I'm a little confused by your last post (so much so that I had to get out of the pool and off my Palm Centro so I could answer more fully!  ;D ).

Are you saying it is the Eastern Catholic bishops' fault that they were forbidden to ordain married men to the priesthood?   ???  If so, are you familiar with Saint Alexis Toth?

Also, another problem with the way Rome treats the Eastern church, which I've seen firsthand, as a cantor, is the crackdown on the use of Church Slavonic in our Byzantine Catholic Church.  Even though the majority of the people in our church still love it and want it, we can't have it, because the "top down" authority structure of the Catholic Church means the laity's opinion is irrelevant.

I once asked a Greek Orthodox priest what would happen if he announced to his congregation that from this moment they were forbidden to use Greek in their Liturgy.  He laughed, and drew his finger across his throat!   :D

Do you think the EO laity would have put up with the imposition of the Novus Ordo back in '69 ... much less all the liturgical abuses which followed?  :o

(Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to the pool and await your response.  8) )

I don't see a problem here. Latins have have to submitt to the authority of Rome. Why shouldn't Byzantines? If we excluded  you from this then that would mean that Rome did not respect you enough to hold your Church to Catholic ecclesiology, that is, you would not be held to the same standard. Such a sad situation would mean that Byzantines would be seen as second class Catholics, which we don't want to see.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline visitor

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #57 on: July 21, 2010, 10:29:39 AM »
Quote

I don't see a problem here. Latins have have to submitt to the authority of Rome. Why shouldn't Byzantines? If we excluded  you from this then that would mean that Rome did not respect you enough to hold your Church to Catholic ecclesiology, that is, you would not be held to the same standard. Such a sad situation would mean that Byzantines would be seen as second class Catholics, which we don't want to see.

You should take that on the road. You're hilarious. Really, any measured response to this borrage of one-liners would be heckling.   :laugh:  Hey, maybe you could incorporate props in your act. Like maybe you could have giant foam rock that you pretend to live under. You could comment on current events, trends in agriculture, talk about the weather on Jupiter.  :laugh:  I was wrong about you, Papist. There's no way you could be a bad guy.  ::) Keep at it. We shall all meet again by and by.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 10:30:37 AM by visitor »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #58 on: July 21, 2010, 10:34:09 AM »
Quote

I don't see a problem here. Latins have have to submitt to the authority of Rome. Why shouldn't Byzantines? If we excluded  you from this then that would mean that Rome did not respect you enough to hold your Church to Catholic ecclesiology, that is, you would not be held to the same standard. Such a sad situation would mean that Byzantines would be seen as second class Catholics, which we don't want to see.

You should take that on the road. You're hilarious. Really, any measured response to this borrage of one-liners would be heckling.   :laugh:  Hey, maybe you could incorporate props in your act. Like maybe you could have giant foam rock that you pretend to live under. You could comment on current events, trends in agriculture, talk about the weather on Jupiter.  :laugh:  I was wrong about you, Papist. There's no way you could be a bad guy.  ::) Keep at it. We shall all meet again by and by.

Ok
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #59 on: July 21, 2010, 11:32:11 AM »
Hmm. Yes, this is an interesting topic.

How much of "Byzantine Catholicism" is deeply Romish though.... I wonder. I mean, there are going to be a few fanatics out there--and I do have the highest respect for the Basilians, they've got gumption and a long history too. Considering their history in particular, there is something very, very Byzantine about their order. (...Alright. So there's the disclaimer.)


Maybe some of you know the story of St. Alexis Toth. If not I encourage you to learn more about him, and especially the backstory of, and details of his fateful interview with the (in)famous Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul.

There are many intricacies to the story, which I shall not recount here. But I think that I can give a couple of details to support my own conclusion about the Unia.

One upon a time....

Originally, the Eastern Rite in America was vastly Uniate. But America's powerful coterie of Irish Bishops did their utmost to suppress the Eastern Rite. St. Alexis Toth came to America as a Uniate priest, his passage paid for by the Silesian community in St. Paul. But when Archbishop Ireland more or less denied the validity of the Council of Brest and commanded that the Silesians attend a Polish Catholic Church where they knew neither the language (Latin, Polish), nor the ritual (still Tridentine Rite at the time), that concluded things between St. Paul's first Eastern Rite community and the entire Papal Church. St. Alexis very shortly thereafter acquired the blessing of a Russian bishop in California and then set out on a mission to bring Byz Catholics to the light that they need not be forced into Western Rite churches. They say he converted 20,000 to Orthodoxy (i.e. chrismated them and transferred, if you will, their communion to the Russian jurisdiction).

What the Silesians wanted was a religion that they could recognise. A ritual that they knew, loved, and understood. Some of you may already know that most of the older parishes of the OCA actually began life in America as Uniate communities from Eastern Europe...

In conclusion, there is some weighty historical evidence that Uniate Catholics, when pushed, will retain their Rite over their communion with Rome. Obviously, American bishops soon realized this fact following the advent of St. Alexis... Archbishop Ireland himself did condescend to bless the next E. Rite community that petitioned him, and every one thereafter too.

So there you have it, I guess. Our "Byzantine Catholics" really are, in all likelyhood, more Byzantine than Catholic when it comes to the showdown. God sees their hearts either way.

Thank you.  This supports my contention that if we had a few more Archbishops and Archbishop Metropolitans in the 20th century, with a tad more spine with regard to the Roman curia, many things might have been different much sooner. 

The east did have friends in Rome but they suffered on account of it.  It would not have been easy.

And there were two world wars to contend with and the second one hit to heart of Orthodox/Catholic relations so I suppose everyone was busy for a while. 

I have often wondered if the Second World War would even have been able to happen had the Orthodox and Catholics been in communion.  Which, I believe, is a very practical reason for getting our respective and mutual acts together sooner rather than later.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #60 on: July 21, 2010, 11:32:12 AM »
Mary,

The last formal notifications to the Vatican of its heresies were made in two hard-hitting Patriarchal documents to the Popes in 1848 and 1895.


1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

There has been NO retraction of these heresies.  No Orthodox authority has said that they are now acceptable dogma.  They remain Catholic heresies in the eyes of the Orthodox.

De facto...things have changed.

And as I said in my previous note, IF these letters represented a formal condition of schism rather than a material state of schism, the Orthodox patriarchates would be coming to the table to teach rather than to discuss.    There would be councils called and heresies addressed.   That is not happening and has not happened.

So the fact that there are SOME Orthodox bishops who insist that Catholics are arch heretics does not make a formal schism.  It makes a mess in Orthodoxy though....Cyprus, as you say, for example.

Mary

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #61 on: July 21, 2010, 11:58:18 AM »
Hmm. Yes, this is an interesting topic.

How much of "Byzantine Catholicism" is deeply Romish though.... I wonder. I mean, there are going to be a few fanatics out there--and I do have the highest respect for the Basilians, they've got gumption and a long history too. Considering their history in particular, there is something very, very Byzantine about their order. (...Alright. So there's the disclaimer.)


Maybe some of you know the story of St. Alexis Toth. If not I encourage you to learn more about him, and especially the backstory of, and details of his fateful interview with the (in)famous Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul.

There are many intricacies to the story, which I shall not recount here. But I think that I can give a couple of details to support my own conclusion about the Unia.

One upon a time....

Originally, the Eastern Rite in America was vastly Uniate. But America's powerful coterie of Irish Bishops did their utmost to suppress the Eastern Rite. St. Alexis Toth came to America as a Uniate priest, his passage paid for by the Silesian community in St. Paul. But when Archbishop Ireland more or less denied the validity of the Council of Brest and commanded that the Silesians attend a Polish Catholic Church where they knew neither the language (Latin, Polish), nor the ritual (still Tridentine Rite at the time), that concluded things between St. Paul's first Eastern Rite community and the entire Papal Church. St. Alexis very shortly thereafter acquired the blessing of a Russian bishop in California and then set out on a mission to bring Byz Catholics to the light that they need not be forced into Western Rite churches. They say he converted 20,000 to Orthodoxy (i.e. chrismated them and transferred, if you will, their communion to the Russian jurisdiction).

What the Silesians wanted was a religion that they could recognise. A ritual that they knew, loved, and understood. Some of you may already know that most of the older parishes of the OCA actually began life in America as Uniate communities from Eastern Europe...

In conclusion, there is some weighty historical evidence that Uniate Catholics, when pushed, will retain their Rite over their communion with Rome. Obviously, American bishops soon realized this fact following the advent of St. Alexis... Archbishop Ireland himself did condescend to bless the next E. Rite community that petitioned him, and every one thereafter too.

So there you have it, I guess. Our "Byzantine Catholics" really are, in all likelyhood, more Byzantine than Catholic when it comes to the showdown. God sees their hearts either way.

Thank you.  This supports my contention that if we had a few more Archbishops and Archbishop Metropolitans in the 20th century, with a tad more spine with regard to the Roman curia, many things might have been different much sooner. 

The east did have friends in Rome but they suffered on account of it.  It would not have been easy.

And there were two world wars to contend with and the second one hit to heart of Orthodox/Catholic relations so I suppose everyone was busy for a while. 

I have often wondered if the Second World War would even have been able to happen had the Orthodox and Catholics been in communion.  Which, I believe, is a very practical reason for getting our respective and mutual acts together sooner rather than later.

Mary
Mussolini and Hitler were in communion with the Vatican, and Tojo wasn't in communion with either the Vatican (although it did recognize Manchukuo, the puppet state the Japanese set up in China) nor the Orthodox. So what connection to us are you "seeing?"
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #62 on: July 21, 2010, 12:09:19 PM »
Mary,

The last formal notifications to the Vatican of its heresies were made in two hard-hitting Patriarchal documents to the Popes in 1848 and 1895.


1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

There has been NO retraction of these heresies.  No Orthodox authority has said that they are now acceptable dogma.  They remain Catholic heresies in the eyes of the Orthodox.

De facto...things have changed.

No, the Vatican has changed, of course, but not always for the best.  We haven't, except that a proper Patriarch now runs the Russian Church.

Quote
And as I said in my previous note, IF these letters represented a formal condition of schism rather than a material state of schism,

formal/material....LOL...the Latin mind never tires of splitting hairs.

Quote
the Orthodox patriarchates would be coming to the table to teach rather than to discuss.

IIRC the whole Orthodox delegation walked off for some reason at one of these meetings.  I know the Vatican walked out when we refused to OK unconditionally its baptism.

And if you weren't in schism, we wouldn't coming to the table: we would be meeting in synod.

Quote
There would be councils called and heresies addressed.

Like the Protestants?

After your initial heresy and schism, your heresies are yours to address.

Quote
   That is not happening and has not happened.

Intercommunion isn't happening either.  I don't even think we recognize the Vatican's marriages.

So the fact that there are SOME Orthodox bishops who insist that Catholics are arch heretics does not make a formal schism.[/quote]

No, the fact that the Vatican teaches heresy and is therefore absent from the diptychs does.


Quote
  It makes a mess in Orthodoxy though....Cyprus, as you say, for example.
No, despite the Vatican's desire to stick its nose in our business, divide and conquor etc. , we're quite fine.
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

Offline visitor

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #63 on: July 21, 2010, 12:22:54 PM »
Mary,

The last formal notifications to the Vatican of its heresies were made in two hard-hitting Patriarchal documents to the Popes in 1848 and 1895.


1. 1848.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to a letter from Pope Pius IX

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


2.  1895.  Greek Patriarchs' reply to an encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

There has been NO retraction of these heresies.  No Orthodox authority has said that they are now acceptable dogma.  They remain Catholic heresies in the eyes of the Orthodox.

De facto...things have changed.

And as I said in my previous note, IF these letters represented a formal condition of schism rather than a material state of schism, the Orthodox patriarchates would be coming to the table to teach rather than to discuss.    There would be councils called and heresies addressed.   That is not happening and has not happened.

So the fact that there are SOME Orthodox bishops who insist that Catholics are arch heretics does not make a formal schism.  It makes a mess in Orthodoxy though....Cyprus, as you say, for example.

Mary

Do you like rhetorical questions?

... It seems to me that you feel some very strong if conflicted kinship with your Orthodox neighbors, else you would not be so active on this board. Do you talk to the Novus Ordites very often? If no, then why not?

Respectfully,
visitor

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,077
  • don't even go there!
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #64 on: July 21, 2010, 01:27:07 PM »
I am getting ready to go out for the day (*without* my handy-dandy Palm Centro!) so wanted to further clarify what I wrote above.

IMHO all the problems stem from the difference in the power structure between RC and EO.  (I know this will be oversimplifying, but that's me, simple minded!  :D )

While both the RC and EO are "top-down" models of authority, the fact that the RC has only one "top" (the Pope) means it's a lot easier for one man to make changes - good or bad - to the liturgy, to devotions, and to doctrine - than in the EO, where the "top" is diffused among the 5 patriarchs.  (EO's please correct me if I'm wrong - there are 5, right? I'm a little muddled today!)

These Patriarchs can issue orders but they all have to agree before the laity is required to follow their orders.  If only one Patriarch issues an order and the other Patriarchs don't agree, it's only binding on those in that particular Patriarchate (correct word?) and those who disagree can (if circumstances permit) shift to a different Patriarchate.

Again, I know I'm oversimplifying and probably making mistakes - but the main point is I think the EO power structure is *much* less likely to result in the kind of ridiculous abuses we've seen in the RC over the past 40-50 years.

Now - off for a day at the bookstore & the beach!  C ya later!  :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2010, 04:50:58 PM »
So far I don't find your argument to be particularly compelling.

The fact that Orthodox bishops are not racing the process of discussing reunion does not indicate that they are against reunion or that they encourage their priests to raise barriers to developing understanding between Orthodox and Catholics.

I find your argument just as lacking.  Suffice it to say, whatever you have determined from your "research" into others' opinions, whether they are priests or laity of the EO, they are still opinions and do not reflect the teaching of the church that the RCs are heretics and need to repent of the heresies they have adopted. 

The Unia are dangerous because they look Orthodox in outwardly forms but still stand as bulwarks for the heresies that the EOs cannot and will not accept such as the filioque (though the Byz Catholics don't confess it in the creed, they defend its theology) and papal supremacy.

This is assertion...nothing more.  There is no formal teaching in universal Orthodoxy that confirms what you are saying here.  Just doesn't exist in such a way that would indicate that we are in formal schism.

The very fact that the bi-lateral discussions are addressing these so-called heresies, in good faith,  indicates that there's no formal teeth in what you are saying here.  There is NO indication that the Orthodox have come to the table to "correct" Catholic teaching.  You don't see it from the documents and you don't hear it from the Patriarchates.

That's what all the collateral fuss is about in any event.  There are NO firm statements coming out of the majority of Orthodox hierarchs against the Catholic "heresies."

M.

O ye Latins, always looking for some "formal" statement. When will you understand: we're just not like you! Lol :)
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #66 on: July 21, 2010, 05:13:15 PM »

O ye Latins, always looking for some "formal" statement. When will you understand: we're just not like you! Lol :)


As I said, the way that the Orthodox are representing themselves at the bilateral table is not the posture of a Church that sees the other Church as an heretical Church.  They are moving together even at this early date as co-equals.   That is more indicative than any other assertion here, including any of my own.

Proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'...and so far...well...so far so good.

Mary

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #67 on: July 21, 2010, 05:28:13 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #68 on: July 21, 2010, 05:36:16 PM »
Mary, could you please mention the "Union of Florence"? I would much appreciate it, as I am in the mood. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Right lung alveolus
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 05:38:33 PM by JLatimer »
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline JLatimer

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #69 on: July 21, 2010, 05:40:45 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your vessel. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #70 on: July 21, 2010, 06:09:36 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #71 on: July 21, 2010, 06:09:37 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your vessel. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

I do hope you are all keeping your bishops informed.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #72 on: July 21, 2010, 06:15:17 PM »

De facto...things have changed.

And as I said in my previous note, IF these letters represented a formal condition of schism rather than a material state of schism, the Orthodox patriarchates would be coming to the table to teach rather than to discuss.    There would be councils called and heresies addressed.   That is not happening and has not happened.


The big boys lack the gumption to tackle the real issues.... even with the talks on the place of the pope in the Church, at Ravenna and on Cyprus, they are still skirting the edges.

Look at the upset over Catholic baptism at the 1980s meeting when the talks unexpectedly moved out of the academic and into the real world.  The Orthodox declared that they could not accept Catholic baptism per se but only "by economia" at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  In other words, they went with our traditional Cyprianic baptismal theology.   The Catholic delegation, understandably shocked, staged a walk out.

Since then they have lacked the intestinal fortitude to face the topic again - the topic being of course: are there sacraments outside the Orthodox Church?

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #73 on: July 22, 2010, 02:25:51 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,077
  • don't even go there!
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #74 on: July 23, 2010, 11:49:55 AM »
Quote

I don't see a problem here. Latins have have to submitt to the authority of Rome. Why shouldn't Byzantines? If we excluded  you from this then that would mean that Rome did not respect you enough to hold your Church to Catholic ecclesiology, that is, you would not be held to the same standard. Such a sad situation would mean that Byzantines would be seen as second class Catholics, which we don't want to see.

You should take that on the road. You're hilarious. Really, any measured response to this borrage of one-liners would be heckling.   :laugh:  Hey, maybe you could incorporate props in your act. Like maybe you could have giant foam rock that you pretend to live under. You could comment on current events, trends in agriculture, talk about the weather on Jupiter.  :laugh:  I was wrong about you, Papist. There's no way you could be a bad guy.  ::) Keep at it. We shall all meet again by and by.

You know, I don't agree with Papist about everything, but that's just rude.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,077
  • don't even go there!
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #75 on: July 23, 2010, 11:54:06 AM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your vessel. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.

I do hope you are all keeping your bishops informed.

Mary

It is a pretty fair assessment of how the Orthodox think that Rome looks at them, though, Mary.  And let's face it, they have some good precedents for that concern.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #76 on: July 23, 2010, 03:58:15 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.

As bishops, all of them are equal, absolutely!!

The Patriarchs have jurisdiction over particular Churches east and west and in that manner hold primatial power that is recognized and exercised but does not presuppose to replace the power of each bishop.

The Pope has universal jurisdiction which has a particular meaning as outlined in conciliar documents and canon law.  It is a petrine primacy grounded in the charge to keep unity in the Church and to serve the bishops in love.  The power of the ecclesial office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] is never replaced by any exercise of petrine primacy or of primatial power.

To the extent that patriarchs and popes are established to serve the work of the bishops, they are equal in their work.  The pope would then, in ideal circumstances, preside over universal unity, and in a particular expression of that unity, guarding the Truth in matters of faith and morals.

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #77 on: July 23, 2010, 05:25:55 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.

As bishops, all of them are equal, absolutely!!

The Patriarchs have jurisdiction over particular Churches east and west and in that manner hold primatial power that is recognized and exercised but does not presuppose to replace the power of each bishop.

The Pope has universal jurisdiction which has a particular meaning as outlined in conciliar documents and canon law.  It is a petrine primacy grounded in the charge to keep unity in the Church and to serve the bishops in love.  The power of the papal office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] never replaces the ordinary episcopal power of each bishop in their episcopal see.

To the extent that patriarchs and popes are established to serve the work of the bishops, they are equal in their work.  The pope would then, in ideal circumstances, preside over universal unity, and in a particular expression of that unity, guarding the Truth in matters of faith and morals.

M.

I need to correct a serious error here that I did not see right away.  I had inverted my second paragraph and was thinking about too many things at once and just made a lumpy mess.

The episcopacy is an ordained state and NOT an office.  The papacy is an office and NOT an ordained state.

So the last sentence in the second paragraph must read:

"The power of the papal office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] never replaces the ordinary episcopal power of each bishop in their episcopal see."






Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,159
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #78 on: July 23, 2010, 05:55:54 PM »
Unity is not achieved by 'uniting the churches', but rather through 'union with the Church'

Brilliant!! Eis polla eti, Fr Theodoros!

Well, that's just it in this perennial topic of online theological warriors.

On one hand Rome says a unia in which the Easterners have to latinise their practices is false. It also doesn't proselytise you one on one. It wants corporate reunion.

That said both sides say they're the one true church. So it'd like you to be the unia - super-Greek Catholics if you will, minus the latinisations over the centuries mostly self-inflicted by the Greek Catholics themselves. In the Orthodox version, RCs would be super-Western Rite Orthodox. Does anybody think that will happen?

In order for union to happen one side would have to change its view on the scope of the Pope and join the other side, end of story.

I can see the sides understanding each other well and gladly acknowledging so much they have in common but can't see union, ever.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; Ukrainian Catholic parish once a month. Traditional Latin Mass most other Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #79 on: July 23, 2010, 07:12:53 PM »
Unity is not achieved by 'uniting the churches', but rather through 'union with the Church'

Brilliant!! Eis polla eti, Fr Theodoros!

Well, that's just it in this perennial topic of online theological warriors.

On one hand Rome says a unia in which the Easterners have to latinise their practices is false. It also doesn't proselytise you one on one. It wants corporate reunion.

That said both sides say they're the one true church. So it'd like you to be the unia - super-Greek Catholics if you will, minus the latinisations over the centuries mostly self-inflicted by the Greek Catholics themselves. In the Orthodox version, RCs would be super-Western Rite Orthodox. Does anybody think that will happen?

In order for union to happen one side would have to change its view on the scope of the Pope and join the other side, end of story.

I can see the sides understanding each other well and gladly acknowledging so much they have in common but can't see union, ever.

Both sides would have to come to an agreement on "scope of Pope" and resume communion.

Beginning of story!!

Mary

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,264
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #80 on: July 23, 2010, 07:22:23 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.

As bishops, all of them are equal, absolutely!!

The Patriarchs have jurisdiction over particular Churches east and west and in that manner hold primatial power that is recognized and exercised but does not presuppose to replace the power of each bishop.

The Pope has universal jurisdiction which has a particular meaning as outlined in conciliar documents and canon law.  It is a petrine primacy grounded in the charge to keep unity in the Church and to serve the bishops in love.  The power of the papal office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] never replaces the ordinary episcopal power of each bishop in their episcopal see.

To the extent that patriarchs and popes are established to serve the work of the bishops, they are equal in their work.  The pope would then, in ideal circumstances, preside over universal unity, and in a particular expression of that unity, guarding the Truth in matters of faith and morals.

M.

I need to correct a serious error here that I did not see right away.  I had inverted my second paragraph and was thinking about too many things at once and just made a lumpy mess.

The episcopacy is an ordained state and NOT an office.  The papacy is an office and NOT an ordained state.

So the last sentence in the second paragraph must read:

"The power of the papal office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] never replaces the ordinary episcopal power of each bishop in their episcopal see."

Office. Ordained state.

It matters not how you slice the hair, you are still splitting it.

You Lumen Gentium, CCL etc. make it clear that NO bishop, nor council of bishops, may act without the suprme pontiff. Yes, the comrades are all equal, but the party chairman is just more equal.

Btw, following the rule of Hebrews that the higher blesses the lower, no bishop can make a pope.  Nor is it recognized as another degree of priesthood. Yet all the charisms are claimed for it. Interesting aspect of Vatican sacramentology, charisms in the church unconferred by sacrament.
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

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,543
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #81 on: July 23, 2010, 07:59:30 PM »
Unity is not achieved by 'uniting the churches', but rather through 'union with the Church'

Brilliant!! Eis polla eti, Fr Theodoros!

Well, that's just it in this perennial topic of online theological warriors.

On one hand Rome says a unia in which the Easterners have to latinise their practices is false. It also doesn't proselytise you one on one. It wants corporate reunion.

That said both sides say they're the one true church. So it'd like you to be the unia - super-Greek Catholics if you will, minus the latinisations over the centuries mostly self-inflicted by the Greek Catholics themselves. In the Orthodox version, RCs would be super-Western Rite Orthodox. Does anybody think that will happen?

In order for union to happen one side would have to change its view on the scope of the Pope and join the other side, end of story.

I can see the sides understanding each other well and gladly acknowledging so much they have in common but can't see union, ever.

Both sides would have to come to an agreement on "scope of Pope" and resume communion.

Beginning of story!!

Mary

Not quite, EM. There's also the teensy matter of serious theological, doctrinal and dogmatic differences to be sorted out as well.  ;)
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,159
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Rite
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #82 on: July 23, 2010, 08:10:22 PM »
But, Mary, an agreement is impossible. Like 'the object is black' vs 'the object is white'.

Not quite, EM. There's also the teensy matter of serious theological, doctrinal and dogmatic differences to be sorted out as well.  ;)

The difference about the Pope is the only one that can't be explained away but I don't agree with most of this forum about that and accept that.

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; Ukrainian Catholic parish once a month. Traditional Latin Mass most other Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #83 on: July 23, 2010, 09:18:39 PM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.

As bishops, all of them are equal, absolutely!!

The Pope has universal jurisdiction which has a particular meaning as outlined in conciliar documents and canon law.  It is a petrine primacy grounded in the charge to keep unity in the Church and to serve the bishops in love.  The power of the ecclesial office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] is never replaced by any exercise of petrine primacy or of primatial power.


This is probably the point on which we shall never be able to unite - the papacy.  For the Church the concept of a papacy is an aberration created in Rome and it has no place in the Church founded by Christ. There is not one single bishop on earth who has any sort of universal jurisdiction. No matter how much modern Catholicism may want to nuance that concept it is false. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is heresy.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #84 on: July 23, 2010, 11:37:17 PM »
Extract: 

"...the Orthodox church has a structure different
than that of the Catholic Church, as we have no single universal primate.
 ... There must be no illusion that there is such a hierarch."



Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says

5/30/2007
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)

MOSCOW (CNS) - A Russian Orthodox official who represents his church on a Catholic-Orthodox commission said his church rules out any compromise on papal primacy

"Historically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church, from our point of view, was that of honor, not jurisdiction -- the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches," said Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, who represents the Russian Orthodox Church on the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.

The commission is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy, for the 10th plenary since its creation in 1979. After a six-year break, the 60-member commission reconvened in September to debate conciliarity and authority.

"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.

He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of primacy."

The Moscow Patriarchate was drafting its own document on primacy, which would help him "assert our official point of view" at future talks, said Bishop Hilarion.

"These are the questions around which principal problems will emerge," Bishop Hilarion said. "I protested and will continue to protest if such important theological and ecclesiological questions are put to the vote. What is at stake here is not to identify a majority or minority opinion, but to find the truth."

Bishop Hilarion also said the commission's composition failed to reflect "the actual distribution of powers and views in the Orthodox world," since each Orthodox church was represented by two members, despite its size.

"The millions-strong Russian church is represented in the commission by only two delegates, while any other Orthodox church, even if smaller numerically, is also represented by two delegates," he said. He added that the Orthodox co-chairman, a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should act as a moderator and not impose his views on others.

He added that Russian church leaders were against calls for Pope Benedict XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to attend the Ravenna talks.

"When the pope of Rome and patriarch of Constantinople meet, the secular media, who have a poor knowledge of refinements of Orthodox ecclesiology, tend to present it as a meeting of the heads of the two churches – Catholic and Orthodox," said the bishop. "However, the Orthodox church has a structure different than that of the Catholic Church, as we have no single universal primate. ... There must be no illusion that there is such a hierarch."

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #85 on: July 24, 2010, 12:04:12 AM »

Both sides would have to come to an agreement on "scope of Pope" and resume communion.

Beginning of story!!

Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #86 on: July 24, 2010, 03:57:55 AM »
Co-equals today, subjects of Rome tomorrow.

That is not a realistic statement of fact, though I accept it as a statement of concern and perhaps fear.

If the resumption of communion does not resolve primatial power to a workable system of universal communion and governance, then the union will not hold.  Nobody is going to want to accept resumption of communion without assurances on both sides that it will hold.

Communion is, at its core, as is faith, a matter of commitment.

Mary

Of course, papal claims will be/should be on the top of the list--not that there's much to negotiate, one can prove from history, IMHO, that St. Leo the Great and Pope Gregory VII had different ideas of what papal supremacy meant. As for what the modern popes think of their supremacy, that appears a different story as well. Anyway, can it be said today that Rome's Eastern Patriarchs are real equals to the pope? I'm not Eastern Catholic, so I will not conjecture on this.

As bishops, all of them are equal, absolutely!!

The Pope has universal jurisdiction which has a particular meaning as outlined in conciliar documents and canon law.  It is a petrine primacy grounded in the charge to keep unity in the Church and to serve the bishops in love.  The power of the ecclesial office [office having a particular meaning in ecclesiastical terms] is never replaced by any exercise of petrine primacy or of primatial power.


This is probably the point on which we shall never be able to unite - the papacy.  For the Church the concept of a papacy is an aberration created in Rome and it has no place in the Church founded by Christ. There is not one single bishop on earth who has any sort of universal jurisdiction. No matter how much modern Catholicism may want to nuance that concept it is false. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is heresy.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Well it won't be saints deciding will it?  It will be bishops.

Mary

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Unia as a Model of False Unity
« Reply #87 on: July 26, 2010, 10:43:11 PM »
If the bishops do not listen to the saints, no one will listen to them. That is why the Orthodox do not listen to the Pope of Rome.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.