Eastern Catholics Under Rome

[Orthodoc]

Fasting question asked and answered in the 'Eastern Catholic' section of EWTN.  And then they wonder why we question their 'We are Orthodox In Communion with Rome' claim!

Guess this means I can eat my 'Big Mac' in the church parking lot since it takes about 1 hr for the Liturgy to progress to the point of despensing Communion if I join an  Eastern Catholic under Rome Church .

==========

Eucharistic Fast
Question from Mitch on 06-12-2004:  
 
Is there a Eucharistic Fast in the Eastern Rite? If there is, how long is it?

Mitch
 
Answer by Anthony Dragani on 06-21-2004:  
Mitch,

Most Eastern Catholic Churches prescribe the same fasting period as does the Latin Church: the communicant must fast for 1 hour before receiving communion.

God bless, Anthony

==========

 Orthodoc

[Schultz]

I'm so glad for you that you're so perfect and have achieved perfect theosis that you can delight in pointing out what's wrong with others.

How big was that plank, buddy?

[4Truth]

What is the purpose of this thread?  To have "fun" poking at Catholics?    

Years ago, a (wise) priest remarked to a group of us that we should not get so worked up over the practices of people who are outside of the Church, but should remain focused on working out our own salvation within the Church.  (This was back when priestesses were coming into vogue in the Episcopal church.)  Still sound advice.

[Orthodoc]

[What is the purpose of this thread?  To have "fun" poking at Catholics? ]

The purpose of this thread is to point out to people who make false claims in regards to their identity why they are false.

Orthodoc  

[4Truth]

echo my original post.

[Schultz]

The purpose of this thread is for Orthodoc to make himself feel better by poking fun at people who are outside of his Church.  Apparently he's having a bad day and therefore must boost his own ego.

[4Truth]

Schulz,

I don't like your jabs at Orthodoc any more than I like his jabs at (I surmise) Fr. Dcn. Lance.  I felt as if Orthodoc's opening post in this thread was a continuing of the (now closed) post in which he was sparring with Fr. Dcn. Lance over what seemed to be the latter's naive view of what his religious affiliation is.  Therefore I posted what I did.

In Christ,

4Truth

[4Truth]

Dear Schultz,

Please excuse my misspelling of your name.  Kids are running in-and-out of the room.

4Truth

[Ben]

This is really gross. I can't believe a thread as been started to poke fun Eastern Catholics, and show how wonderful and holy Orthodoc is. I am glad you are perfect, Orthodoc, and I am glad you have the authority from God to judge others and condemn those who don't meet your standards of orthodoxy, but perhaps it would be best if you kept it to yourself. It would be one thing the answer posted was from an Orthodox site and answered by a Orthodox expert on the issue. But it wasn't, why do you care what the Eastern Catholics do?

[Schultz]

4Truth,

I calls 'em how I sees 'em.  Sorry I offended you.

[Anastasios]

I think it would be legitimate to discuss the lack of fasting in the Eastern Catholic Church, as long as we don't make fun of them.  On the other hand, how many Orthodox don't fast on Sundays and then end up not communing regularly?  Just curious.

anastasios

[4Truth]

Thank you, Anastasios.

And/or to discuss (in sadness) how widespread among the Orthodox jurisdictions in America is the teaching that fasting (of all kinds) is either impossible to do (?!), or is optional, along a pick-and-choose spectrum.

[cizinec]

I understand what's at issue here.  It's the use by Eastern Catholics of the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome."  At least, that's what I'm assuming.

While I certainly have my problems with that term, I don't think the ECs' lax fasting rules really bring those issues to light.  I realize that tempers can get pretty hot on this issue, but I think that if both sides look at what the other is saying, some good may come of it.  

I considered myself to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome" until a jurisdictional issue popped up in my parish.  That being said, I personally think the use of the term is unfairly misleading and is unjustified.  I think it does not do service to either Eastern Catholics or Orthodox.

[cizinec]

BTW, to those of you who don't think this is an important discussion, may I point out that almost all hierarchs in the Orthodox churches disagree.  

I should hope that the purpose of this thread is to reach some sort of understanding, not to poke fun.

While Orthodoc's tone is a bit harsh, discipline "gaps" have been discussed by Eastern Catholics as well.  I'm assuming that Orthodoc is discussing these gaps in order to either 1) convince the ECs that they should go back to their original Orthodox fasting practices and thus bring them closer to Orthodoxy or 2) demonstrate that there are differences between Orthodox and Catholics of all flavors other than grand theological differences and that these practical differences keep us separated as well as the grand theological issues.

[Orthodoc]

[But it wasn't, why do you care what the Eastern Catholics do? ]

I do when they start to represent themselves as 'Orthodox' which is deceptive.  I am very well versed on the history behind that identity and the confusion it caused amongst many generations.

I come from an Orthodox Catholic parish that consists of primarily descendents from that faction.  My grandparents returned to Orthodoxy when they came to the U.S.  Why?  Because they weren't allowed to be Orthodox in the section of eastern europe they came from.

There were many of the older generation (now all deceased) in both my childhood parish & present parish who had no idea they were not Orthodox until they arrived in this country.  Why?  Because of false teaching like 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' type of deception. Some even believed the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church!  They heard the word Pravoslavnie (Orthodox) when they attended Liturgy and the priest told them they were Orthodox.  They never questioned it.  When they came here  many who had practically nothing and mortgaged their very homes to build a church only to find out later it wasn't Orthodox.  But in fact, under Papal domination when the Latinization strated to be enforced.

It means something to be Orthodox.  Orthodoxy is not based on ritual and tradition.  It's based the doctrines and dogmas.  Its based on the rules and regulations that have been passed down for generations.  One cannot be Orthodox who is taught that a precommunion fast is only an hour!  Name one Orthodox jurisdiction that practices that!

When the moderator closed the other topic he was right when he said people like me come from a generation that either suffered or had to deal with day to day with problems caused by the very creation of the Unia.

Families that were torn apart, churches that were lost, court cases ensued (my parish was sued for ringing the bells at midnight for Pascha),  once they either found out their true identity or suffered from increased Latinization and wanted to correct it.

I once asked my Baba (grandmother) why she returned to the Orthodox Catholic Church.  She replied in her very wise but broken English - "Dos peoples.  Dey don know vat dey are or vat dey vant be.  Dey no vant be Roamin Catolick, but dey no vant be Pravoslavnie (Orthodox) eider.  Dey neider fish nor foul.  

And, thats the way I see them.  
 
Now that Rome has proclaimed that we are 'sister churches'  with valid Sacraments and provide salvation there is no longer a reason for them to exist as a separate entity.  

Orthodoc
 

[Orthodoc]

[While Orthodoc's tone is a bit harsh, discipline "gaps" have been discussed by Eastern Catholics as well.  I'm assuming that Orthodoc is discussing these gaps in order to either 1) convince the ECs that they should go back to their original Orthodox fasting practices and thus bring them closer to Orthodoxy or 2) demonstrate that there are differences between Orthodox and Catholics of all flavors other than grand theological differences and that these practical differences keep us separated as well as the grand theological issues.]

WONDERFUL!  Finally someone who understands.  Number one applies but it's mostly number two.  thanks for understanding the importance of such issues.

Orthodoc

[cizinec]

"Now that Rome has proclaimed that we are 'sister churches'  with valid Sacraments and provide salvation there is either no longer a reason for them to exist as a separate entity. "

I have often wondered about that myself.

[Deacon Lance]

Whether Eastern Catholics are 100% identical to the Orthodox or Latinized does not matter one iota to Orthodoc.  If we we differ he will say it is proof we are no longer Eastern if we are identical he will accuse us of deception and being a trojan horse.  

Fr. Deacon Lance

[4Truth]

Perhaps the chief combatants in this thread could continue their animosities off-board, via private e-mails.  I have belonged to other boards where such was the accepted practice.  I suggest this because I still can't escape the feeling that I am witnessing a personalized argument that just jumps from thread to thread.  

In Christ,

4Truth

[cizinec]

4truth,

I think this is a grave issue for discussion.  So there are two strong wills arguing their positions, who cares?  I think it could be something good for those of us who have stakes in this complex issue and I think it is an issue that will continue to plague Orthodoxy until it is resolved.

[cizinec]

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Do *you* consider yourself to be Orthodox?  Do you follow the fasts as prescribed by most Orthodox churches?  Do you see the pope as being the first, although equal, among the bishops?  Does the pope have universal rights of action in any parish anywhere, or does he have only the universal right of appeal?  Do Orthodox churches have valid sacraments?

Sorry about all the questions.  I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

[4Truth]

I really, truly agree that the issue is very, very important.  I always have thought it bizarre how Catholics-in-Orthodox-trappings frequently claim to be Orthodox Christians.  What I have not liked around here is that personal animosities accompany the plain issues.  I joined these boards in the first place only because I bumped into a thread launched by an absolutely impossible-to-tolerate hater of Orthodoxy who was attacking my archbishop without sufficient cause.  

In Christ,

4Truth

[Deacon Lance]

"Now that Rome has proclaimed that we are 'sister churches'  with valid Sacraments and provide salvation there is either no longer a reason for them to exist as a separate entity. "

Until the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are reunited we have a reason to exist.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

Cizinec,

"Do *you* consider yourself to be Orthodox?"

I do not consider myself Orthodox. I do not believe using the term Orthodox in Communion with Rome is appropriate. Obviously I do consider myself orthodox and not a heretic.  

"Do you follow the fasts as prescribed by most Orthodox churches?"

I try my best.  I am a diabetic so I have to make adjustments.  

"Do you see the pope as being the first, although equal, among the bishops?"

I believ all bishops are equal, but I also believe the Succesor of Peter inherits a special role beyond that of an ordinary bishop.  Peter was head of the Apostolic College, the Pope is head of the Episcopal College.

"Does the pope have universal rights of action in any parish anywhere, or does he have only the universal right of appeal?"  

For the good of the Church I believe he has universal right of action.  However, sadly this right has been misused and something that needs further refinement.

"Do Orthodox churches have valid sacraments?"

Absolutely.  I do not think the Orthodox suffer from any defect other than lack of communion with Rome and a seeming dislike for anything Latin.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

4Truth,

"Perhaps the chief combatants in this thread could continue their animosities off-board, via private e-mails."

Please understand I have no interest in continuing anything with Orthodoc as it is pointless.  My only reason for responding to his posts is for those others that might come here and read his posts and think they are an accurate portrait of my Church.  I try to keep it from getting personal and if I have failed in that I will make an extra effort to present only factual information.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

[Until the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are reunited we have a reason to exist.

Fr. Deacon Lance]

For what purpose?  Even the Pope no longer claims you are the bridge between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism.

In fact, you are one of the chief stumbling blocks.  The fact that you continue to exist only invalidates what comes out of Rome regarding church unity.

Orthodoc

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

In fact I would say the opposite is true, for if Rome would order us liquidated it would prove the worst Orthodox fears true, that Rome thinks it can act unilaterally and despite the wishes of Eastern Christians.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

]"Perhaps the chief combatants in this thread could continue their animosities off-board, via private e-mails."]

4Truth:

Perhaps it would be better for you not to read those topics or authors who upset you rather than try and control the board.  There are plenty here that think the discussion is worthwhile.

Orthodoc

[4Truth]

I do not attempt to control the board.  Or, if it comes across as if I do, it is for the moderator or administrator to so state.  I have personal opinions about your own behaviour on the board, but I keep them to myself.  

[Orthodoc]

[In fact I would say the opposite is true, for if Rome would order us liquidated it would prove the worst Orthodox fears true, that Rome thinks it can act unilaterally and despite the wishes of Eastern Christians.]

Read the history of your church for gads sake!  Rome has always acted unilaterally despite your wishes!  What would be any different than it is now?

If Rome was sincere in its recent statements about the Orthodox Church then it should be advising you to return home to your birth mother.  That's not called liquidation, its called sending the wayward children back to their families.

As far as the wishes of Eastern Christians under Rome, you should be given a choice what is more important to you.  Being in communion with the chair of Peter  or ritual and tradition. I say that because theology doesn't seem to be that important to you.  Your choice should decide where you are to be.  Back home from whence you came or completely  part of your adopted family.

As long as you make statements like you have a reason to exist until Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism unite... you are insinuating that any union is based on Roman authority.  And everyting is based on communion with Rome.  

What does that signify besides another Unia?

Ain't gonna happen!

Orthodoc

[Arystarcus]

Most Eastern Catholic Churches prescribe the same fasting period as does the Latin Church: the communicant must fast for 1 hour before receiving communion.

Guess this means I can eat my 'Big Mac' in the church parking lot since it takes about 1 hr for the Liturgy to progress to the point of despensing Communion if I join an  Eastern Catholic under Rome Church .

I believe that the reason the Eastern Catholic's eucharistic fast is the same as the Latin is because if it were longer, (or if they followed the traditional Orthodox practice of fasting from midnight the night before), many EC's would just commune at the RC church down the street rather than having to endure a longer fasting period to commune at their Eastern Church.

After all the Eastern churches are not nearly as plentiful as RC churches. In most cases one has to travel some distance to attend at an Eastern Church as compared to just attending Mass at their local RC church.

In Christ.
Aaron

[JoeS]

Thats a pity that Eastern Catholics do not know enough about their traditions as passed down to them.  I mean a one hour fast thats not even a fast by any stretch of the imagination.   Talk about modernism. When things get tough just run a quickly as my feet can take me to a local RCC.  

JoeS   :-


date=1087958977]
I believe that the reason the Eastern Catholic's eucharistic fast is the same as the Latin is because if it were longer, (or if they followed the traditional Orthodox practice of fasting from midnight the night before), many EC's would just commune at the RC church down the street rather than having to endure a longer fasting period to commune at their Eastern Church.

After all the Eastern churches are not nearly as plentiful as RC churches. In most cases one has to travel some distance to attend at an Eastern Church as compared to just attending Mass at their local RC church.

In Christ.
Aaron

[Arystarcus]

Thats a pity that Eastern Catholics do not know enough about their traditions as passed down to them.  I mean a one hour fast thats not even a fast by any stretch of the imagination.  Talk about modernism. When things get tough just run a quickly as my feet can take me to a local RCC.  

JoeS  

I'm not so sure the Church can be blaimed for this though...

Just take all the "Chreasters" into consideration... These peopel never bother to go to church during the year, except when Christmas and Easter rolls around and then they go get their membership cards punched with the good Lord and everything is a-okay.

For some people their faith does not play an integral part of their life, it's true and unfortunate - so those are the kind of people who wouldn't think twice about bypassing the traditional practices of their church just because it's more convenient for them.

In Christ,
Aaron

[cizinec]

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your response to my probing questions.  I respect your answers to my questions.  At least it lets me know where you are coming from.  

I agree with everything you said with one minor adjustment.  That is, as you probably guess, in the universal right of action.  There certainly is a universal right of action in the Church, as we have seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  The pope, in a united Church, has a role, usually a prominent role,  in that universal right of action.  

But it is this claim of a right of universal action that Rome has allowed to be used by proxy by those far beneath the bishop that has been abused - and abused since the initial claim was made.  In other words, the Bishop of Rome was the most respected patriarch in the East until the bishop claimed the right of universal action.  At that moment, everything seems to have fallen apart.  Why?  

For instance, in my own situation, a Roman Catholic priest with very little understanding of Orthodoxy was made the priest of my BC parish.  His claim is that he was appointed by the bishop who was appointed by the metropolitan who was appointed by Rome and, essentially, the pope.  Does the pope have the authority to do this?  Can the pope be right always?  

My answer to to these questions was no.  The pope does not have the authority as First Among Equals to insert a Latin priest in an Eastern Church and that, whoever he appointed to these positions, was in error.  

When there is a serious charge that Rome has abused her power, without the Church as an organic whole as ultimate arbiter, to whom do we appeal, since Rome herself is the one being challenged?

Fr. Deacon, thank you for reading my questions and I hope I have not taken a negative or challenging tone.

[cizinec]

"After all the Eastern churches are not nearly as plentiful as RC churches. In most cases one has to travel some distance to attend at an Eastern Church as compared to just attending Mass at their local RC church."

So what do we call Orthodox who find it easier to attend a Protestant or Roman Catholic church for convenience sake?  We call them Protestants and Catholics.  Why call Eastern Catholics who attend Latin mass, follow Latin discipline and see things from a Latin theological view "Eastern"?  They aren't.  They are Roman Catholics despite their juridical designation.

If someone *believes* as an Eastern Catholic, they will follow the discipline handed down by their church and will drive the distance it takes to be in their church (and this is all regardless of their juridical designation).  I know of people who drive hundreds of miles to go to an Eastern Catholic church and I think it's unfair to say that the church is better off by reducing their discipline to that of some of the abusive (and not traditional) standards of Roman Catholic churches in America.

The same is true of Orthodox.  Those who are faithful will find a way.

[Augustine]

re: "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

Those who use this term betray one of two attitudes - and given the often contradictory nature of men, sometimes both.

i) "Orthodox" is understood in a way which divests it of it's meaning, and becomes merely a title of identification.  It is used to mean simply "Byzantine style" (liturgy, "spirituality", etc.)  But is that all Orthodoxy is?  Hardly.

ii) "Orthodox" is understood in something of a dogmatic sense - in which case, what does this say of the brethren of these "Orthodox in Communion with Rome", namely Latin rite Catholics?  Seing the BC's are in communion with these folks (and in reality subject to their senior heirarch, the Pope of Rome), you'd think they'd understand their co-religionists to be "Orthodox" as well.  However, all you need to do is visit a certain notorious message forum to realize this isn't always the case - heaping contempt is often thrown on their "Latin brethren", including wholesale rejection of key Latin dogmas which, whether these BC's like it or not, are "infallible" dogmatic definitions of their churches as well.

In other words, as Orthodoc points out, they really don't seem to know who they actually are - too good for the Latin barbarians, more complete/enlightened than the Orthodox.

[Deacon Lance]

re: Orthodox in Communion with Rome

Please note that not a single Eastern Catholic jurisdiction presents it self as such or uses this terminology.  The term is confined to the internet "elite" who do often unfortunately display the attitudes Augustine describes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

Cizinec,

I did not take your questions as challenging or negative and am happy to answer any questions you have.  I understand your frustration, but I don't completely follow your example.  Placing the wrong priest in a parish or is not confined to the Catholic Church nor do I see a direct connection with Rome.  Bishops make mistakes.  As to whom do we appeal when Rome is abusing her power, that is the sticky wicket is it not?  This is one of the things that needs worked out.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[cizinec]

"certain notorious message forum"

Augustine

I'm assuming you're refferring to the byzantine catholic forum.  I'm not sure that is a fair assessment of the forum, although one will certainly find some of what you are mentioning.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Although no jurisdiction holds itself out as such, certainly some laity and priests, even outside the "internet elite" to which you refer, do use this term.  I have known and admire some of these priests and faithful, although I believe they are mistaken and somewhat confused.  Most of the folks I have known to take such positions are either converts or were from the Latin Rite, although that is not always the case.  Most of the cradle Byzantines I have known (I mean in the real world) have happily accepted Latinizations and do not wish to be associated with Orthodoxy.

Concerning my example, it is probably not the best, as it assumes a lot of the more stringent (or should I say astringent) conclusions of conservative Latins.  

As to the "sticky wicket," I would say that it was worked out long ago.  One could appeal to the college of bishops, of which the Roman Bishop was president (if he decieded to show ).  

If only the Bishop of Rome recognized such a right . . .

[Orthodoc]

The following two sites contain answers given on a Ukrainian Orthodox  website regarding the subject of "Orthodox In Communion With Rome'.  They are written by Dr Alex Roman who has quite a theological background.  Dr Alex is a Ukrainian Catholic who seems to jump from one side of the fence to the other.  He posts in the Byzantine Catholic Forum under the Id of OrthodoxCatholic where he constantly identifies and defends the "Orthodox In Communion With Rome' despite what he writes in his answers here.  

All in all he's a nice guy who I like in spite of some of the squabbles we've had in the past.
You may find his answers conflicting if you compare them with what he writes about the same subject line on the 'other forum'.  I present them for further evaluation.


http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/capitalletters.htm

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/hiver2004/union.htm

Orthodoc

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Eastern Catholics Under Rome