OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 04:07:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox churc  (Read 2890 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« on: August 23, 2011, 06:19:16 AM »

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

apart from communion with Rome.

Thanks

Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2011, 06:28:50 AM »

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

What do you mean by the Byzantine Church? The contemporary Byzantine (or Greek) Catholic Church(es), that is, the Catholic Church(es) of the Byzantine (or Greek) rite, or the Church of the Byzantine Empire (4th-15th century AD)?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 06:29:51 AM by Michał » Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2011, 06:35:45 AM »

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

What do you mean by the Byzantine Church? The contemporary Byzantine (or Greek) Catholic Church(es), that is, the Catholic Church(es) of the Byzantine (or Greek) rite, or the Church of the Byzantine Empire (4th-15th century AD)?

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

I presume it is the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite That is part of the RCC.

I can go to there services and partake as a Roman Catholic.

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox. so very confusing.

I hope I have not confused you.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2011, 06:46:12 AM »

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

For the full list, see this message: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13463.msg186594.html#msg186594

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox.

I know some people may say otherwise, but they are fully Catholic, just like Western Rite Orthodox are fully Orthodox.
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2011, 07:20:03 AM »

wow, I did not know there was more than one !

For the full list, see this message: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13463.msg186594.html#msg186594

I was told by someone they are not fully Catholic and not fully Orthodox.

I know some people may say otherwise, but they are fully Catholic, just like Western Rite Orthodox are fully Orthodox.

Thank you for that, that was very interesting.

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2011, 07:39:11 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2011, 07:53:18 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2011, 08:01:23 AM »

. . . So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches . . .

It all depends on what one believes. If one believes in the Catholic -- rahter then Orthodox -- doctrine and loves the Byzantine rite, there is a point going to a Byzantine Catholic church.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2011, 08:39:34 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2011, 08:44:39 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2011, 08:53:45 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...
Ii know what you mean, and you'll certainly find a fair share of both Catholics and Orthodox who think Byzcaths should just be consistent and become Orthodox.

Then I think about the fact that we all read the same Bible yet have different beliefs...
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2011, 08:57:49 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Interpretation.  The human mind can easily make a square peg fit into a round hole when it wants to.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2011, 08:59:20 AM »

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Well, many liturgical rites are shared by various Church communions, which adhere to different beliefs -- that's just how things work in the Christendom.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 09:00:27 AM by Michał » Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2011, 09:05:42 AM »

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different, But the Byzantine and Orthodox are the same.

So in my eyes the Byzantine is really Orthodox that Rome accepts and they accept the pope as head.

Confusing???
 
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2011, 09:08:36 AM »

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different, But the Byzantine and Orthodox are the same.

So in my eyes the Byzantine is really Orthodox that Rome accepts and they accept the pope as head.

Confusing???
 

And yet the Roman Mass of ca. AD 700 and the Constantinopolitan Liturgy of the same were also worlds apart and they shared a common faith.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2011, 09:12:32 AM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Sometimes it helps to go back to the history “uniate” (Orthodox parishes joining the Roman Church).   For the most part Orthodox parishes found themselves in Western Countries when political boundaries changed.

History lesson:
Quote
The sixteenth century saw the development of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom on the Western boundary of Russia. By 1569 Poland and Lithuania had become one under Sigismund. The kingdom had taken segments of the Russian lands as far east as Kiev - territory populated almost exclusively by Orthodox Christians. Jesuits had entered this territory earlier, bringing Latin learning and practices. The result was the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 through which the Orthodox bishops of the area effected a union with the Roman Church on the foundations agreed to in Florence a century earlier. The rites and customs of the Church for the masses of Orthodox faithful taken into the "unia" remained the same. The ecclesiastical hierarchy, clerical, and academic leadership of the Church was totally subjected to the Latin discipline and doctrine of the Roman papacy. This union of 1596 remained in effect in the territories which have continued to be ruled by non-Orthodox governments such as Poland, Austro-Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. From its inception, the uniate movement was always confronted with substantial opposition. Opposers were mainly Orthodox laymen who were organized into brotherhoods and blessed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople to defend the Orthodox faith, as early as 1588. In the beginning the anti-uniate movement was helped by the use of the printing press of Ivan Fedorov. This man was expelled from Muscovy with his "diabolical invention" by Ivan III.
( http://oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=149 )
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 09:17:45 AM by AWR » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2011, 09:19:36 AM »

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different . . .

Older forms of the Roman rite aren't that different from the Byzantine rite (as far as their "spirit" is concerned). The real difference comes with the Novus Ordo, especially when it is served versus populum and in a happy-clappy style (or simply in a sloppy way).
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 09:19:52 AM by Michał » Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2011, 09:31:26 AM »

When you put the Byzantine Divine Liturgy and compare it to The Latin Rite mass, it is worlds apart, completely different . . .

Older forms of the Roman rite aren't that different from the Byzantine rite (as far as their "spirit" is concerned). The real difference comes with the Novus Ordo, especially when it is served versus populum and in a happy-clappy style (or simply in a sloppy way).

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


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


« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2011, 09:54:10 AM »

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.

Surely, a change in wording won't change a thing. What is needed is a change in priests' mentality and approach.
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2011, 09:56:41 AM »

I really do not like this type of Mass, it is so non-spiritual these days, and I don't think the new English mass will make any difference.

Surely, a change in wording won't change a thing. What is needed is a change in priests' mentality and approach.

I agree, and also the liberals..
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2011, 10:39:24 AM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2011, 10:54:32 AM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2011, 10:57:26 AM »

In this case, thats about the extent of it.  We call it stealing sheep.
Logged
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2011, 11:17:25 AM »


It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2011, 11:21:25 AM »


It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
AWR
Greetings from the Southern Jersey Shore.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 240


Expelled from Paradise


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2011, 11:50:49 AM »


It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church. 

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !

But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2011, 12:01:05 PM »


It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church.  

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !



But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.

I agree.  One of the first things these bishops have to do is stop teaching that their church is the bridge that will reunite both churches.  Nothing can be further from the truth!  Even the RCC doesn't believe or proclaim that anymore.  If anything, their church is the biggest hinderence towards eventual reunion.  The RCC realizes that and that's why this church is never invited to any joint Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic discussions.  The RCC realizes they( GCC)  suffer from an identity crisis and  are a blemish of the history of their RCC.  When Rome started to claim that our churches are in fact sister churches the Orthodox answered by stating if that is the case and we are in fact share equal validity in beliefs and practices the this Church should be given a chance to decide which theology they wanted follow and become full members of that church in idenity & practice.

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 12:22:48 PM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2011, 02:29:44 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2011, 03:34:12 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a the Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.
fixed that for you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2011, 03:36:00 PM »


It is a sad part of church history, but remember that the governments (kingdoms) of the time wanted their subjects to be under the same bishops.  That  way they could deal with the people in a more organized way, and in the west, the Church of Rome was the more organized church.  I’ve read that folks were told that the Pope had joined the Orthodox Church.  

Just outright lies, no excuse for that !



But don't hold that against the parishioners of the Byzantine Rite church today.  It is, in my opinion, the bishops of that Rite who need to find a way to remedy this centuries old problem.

I agree.  One of the first things these bishops have to do is stop teaching that their church is the bridge that will reunite both churches.  Nothing can be further from the truth!  Even the RCC doesn't believe or proclaim that anymore.  If anything, their church is the biggest hinderence towards eventual reunion.  The RCC realizes that and that's why this church is never invited to any joint Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic discussions.  The RCC realizes they( GCC)  suffer from an identity crisis and  are a blemish of the history of their RCC.  When Rome started to claim that our churches are in fact sister churches the Orthodox answered by stating if that is the case and we are in fact share equal validity in beliefs and practices the this Church should be given a chance to decide which theology they wanted follow and become full members of that church in idenity & practice.

Orthodoc
As someone put it, the Byzantine church is not the door, but the door mat, to the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2011, 03:41:35 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.
fixed that for you.

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2011, 03:44:22 PM »

But going back to my question what is the difference between the Catholic Church of the Byzantine rite and the Greek Catholic Orthodox Church, as I believe the services are very similar.

As far as the services (and the discipline) are concered, the two are very similar indeed (albeit not identical). The major difference is in doctrine. Byzantine Catholics cannot deny anything the Vatican officially teaches. On the other hand, they can, use the Byzantine theology, instead of the Latin one (what is meant here by 'theology' is a distinct way of defining the same faith).

I see, so the services are almost identical, but from what I have read and seen on this forum the doctrine is completely different, So really there is no point going to a Byzantine Catholic church as they still have to believe everything that Rome teaches, even though there services are orthodox.

Is that why people on this forum talk about going all the way home to the real orthodox church?

I find this very interesting.
Well, Papal Supremacy would be the main difference. If the Pope were Orthodox, he'd be one equal Patriarch among many with no jurisdiction outside of Western Europe. Byzantine Catholics have to accept his claim to be universal bishop over all others.

I understand that that Volnutt, what I don't really understand is how the 2 churches can have almost identical Divine liturgy, yet have different beliefs, if you know what I mean.

That Just doesn't make sense to me...

Interpretation.  The human mind can easily make a square peg fit into a round hole when it wants to.
indeed!  The round and square nature can be seen by the Latinizations which crept into the Byzantine church, and the changes made in the WRO DL of St. Gregory to make it conform to Orthodoxy (in the later, the peg is rounded before being inserted into the hole).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2011, 03:48:49 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2011, 03:51:21 PM »

Hi, can anyone tell me What is the difference between the Byzantine church and the greek orthodox church?

apart from communion with Rome.

Thanks


Depends on who you are talking to or about.  Some Ruthenians/Ukrainians are more Latin that the Vatican.  Some Melkites are more Orthodox than the Orthodox.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2011, 03:53:27 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2011, 04:06:18 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 
Then don't.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2011, 05:14:04 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 
Then don't.

Let's see if he has enough resolve.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2011, 05:18:04 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."
Don't confuse pride with true zeal for the truth.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2011, 05:18:04 PM »

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)
My Church wasn't broke.  Vatican II fixed yours real well.

  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)
Just because I don't share your indifference and 'la même chose' attitude which you brought with you into Orthodoxy and took with you when you left neither makes me nasty nor contentious.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just that. Not "a."

Oh boy.  Here we go.  Again.  It really is not worth engaging you. 
Then don't.
This, my friends, is what you would all baiting.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2011, 05:24:58 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

This is put very well.  I would add only that it was not simply the rulers (the King of Poland, etc.) and Rome who desired Catholicism within his realm, but many of the (we would say misguided) Orthodox Bishops in Eastern Europe also initially desired union for purposes of religious protection and advancement.  This was for several reasons:  the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom the Metrpolitan of Kyiv and Halych had been subject, had been greatly weakened after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453.  It was not easy to communicate about religious matters, as the Patriarch was greatly restricted in what he could do, and was surrounded by a hostile regime.  They were not interested in switching allegiance to the Patriarch of Moscow, inasmuch as they were under the political protection of the Polish sovereign, and it was not desirable to be ecclesiastically subject to a patriarch in a rival state.  Thus, many Orthodox bishops, having come under the jurisdiction of the Polish (Catholic) State, were more amenable to seeking the ecclesiastical protection of the Bishop of Rome than they might otherwise have been.  Thus the Union of Brest in 1596.  Educated non-clerical people, especially the Orthodox groups in the cities, rejected (in some cases violently) the Union.  Some bishops soon after repudiated it, resulting in a messy century-long situation in which some cities had both a Greek Catholic and an Orthodox bishop.  Within a century, their successors accepted the Union.   You speak about the Byzantine Catholic Church.  It did not stem from the Union of Brest, but from a similar union adopted in 1646, called the Union of Uzhhorod, covering the lands subject to the Eparchy of Mukachevo.    If you Google, you can find (in English) the terms of the Union of Brest, which were primarily liturgical.

The people in the villages really saw little change in their churches until after the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 when the Greek Catholic liturgy started to become standardized.  Prior to that, the priests were using old Orthodox service books which had been "retro-fitted."  Many villages near the border with Russia would call in an Orthodox priest if their Greek Catholic priest had died.  This was problematic to the Catholic Church and for the government, which didn't want Russian influence in the parishes.  The Greek Catholic Church began a stringent campaign to educate its priests, and it became noted for its sermons.  This was so that it could impress upon the people that they were praying for the Pope, who for many years was not included in the prayers in some villages.  Latinizations began to accrue.

After the Union, the Greek Catholic Church extended throughout the Polish lands, from Kyiv into what was western Galicia, approaching Krakow, Poland.  As Russia acquired more and more territory from the weak and dying Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, it fought to bring the people back to Orthodoxy.  If one reads anything of the life of Catherine the Great, one comes to the conclusion that this was more a political calculation than anything else, just as the Union of Brest had been.  Some parishioners returned very willingly to Orthodoxy, and others were compelled to give up their Greek Catholicism.  Because of political efforts, the entire region under the Russian partition of Poland reconverted to Orthodoxy in three waves, in 1796, 1839, and 1875.

Church history is messy and politics created some dirty events on both sides, sadly.  Modern freedom of religion simply did not exist in the age of "cuius regio, eius religio."

Greek Catholics from both the Union of Brest lands (mostly north of the Carpathians) and the Union of Uzhhorod lands (south of the Carpathians) came to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  They spoke varying dialects of an East Slavic tongue, calling themselves Rusnaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Russians, and/or Ukrainians, and worked in the mines and factories of the Northeast.  Some, influenced by St. Alexis Toth, returned to Orthodoxy soon after arrival, and they are the nucleus of what was called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (originally under Russia), which is now the OCA.  Others remained in the Greek Catholic Church which, by 1924, had split into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Byzantine (or Ruthenian) Catholic Church, based on the competing political sentiments of its members.  In this split, those who went with the Byzantine or Ruthenian Catholic Church almost all had their origin in the descendants of people from the Eparchy of Mukachevo, south of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Slovakia and the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, while those who went with the UGCC came from north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Southeastern Poland and the three western oblasts of Ukraine (L'viv, Ivano-Frankivs'k, and Ternopil).  Some came out of these groups into Orthodoxy -- those from the UGCC starting in 1929, mainly because married priests were disallowed and parish control of church property was restricted, and organized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA , and those from the Byzantine Catholic Church in the 1930s came into the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) for some of the same reasons.  So you can see why all the liturgies of these churches have common variants, deriving from the Divine Liturgy as employed by (broadly) one particular ethnic group.

But today, the theology is standardized in both camps.  The UGCC and BCC are Catholic Churches under the Pope, and the UOC of the USA and ACROD are Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  And, in the motherland, the Metropolitan of Kyiv has been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow since 1686, when Russia acquired the territory of Kyiv and the metropolitanate was transferred from Constantinople's jurisdiction.
Logged
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2011, 05:53:03 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

This is put very well.  I would add only that it was not simply the rulers (the King of Poland, etc.) and Rome who desired Catholicism within his realm, but many of the (we would say misguided) Orthodox Bishops in Eastern Europe also initially desired union for purposes of religious protection and advancement.  This was for several reasons:  the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom the Metrpolitan of Kyiv and Halych had been subject, had been greatly weakened after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453.  It was not easy to communicate about religious matters, as the Patriarch was greatly restricted in what he could do, and was surrounded by a hostile regime.  They were not interested in switching allegiance to the Patriarch of Moscow, inasmuch as they were under the political protection of the Polish sovereign, and it was not desirable to be ecclesiastically subject to a patriarch in a rival state.  Thus, many Orthodox bishops, having come under the jurisdiction of the Polish (Catholic) State, were more amenable to seeking the ecclesiastical protection of the Bishop of Rome than they might otherwise have been.  Thus the Union of Brest in 1596.  Educated non-clerical people, especially the Orthodox groups in the cities, rejected (in some cases violently) the Union.  Some bishops soon after repudiated it, resulting in a messy century-long situation in which some cities had both a Greek Catholic and an Orthodox bishop.  Within a century, their successors accepted the Union.   You speak about the Byzantine Catholic Church.  It did not stem from the Union of Brest, but from a similar union adopted in 1646, called the Union of Uzhhorod, covering the lands subject to the Eparchy of Mukachevo.    If you Google, you can find (in English) the terms of the Union of Brest, which were primarily liturgical.

The people in the villages really saw little change in their churches until after the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 when the Greek Catholic liturgy started to become standardized.  Prior to that, the priests were using old Orthodox service books which had been "retro-fitted."  Many villages near the border with Russia would call in an Orthodox priest if their Greek Catholic priest had died.  This was problematic to the Catholic Church and for the government, which didn't want Russian influence in the parishes.  The Greek Catholic Church began a stringent campaign to educate its priests, and it became noted for its sermons.  This was so that it could impress upon the people that they were praying for the Pope, who for many years was not included in the prayers in some villages.  Latinizations began to accrue.

After the Union, the Greek Catholic Church extended throughout the Polish lands, from Kyiv into what was western Galicia, approaching Krakow, Poland.  As Russia acquired more and more territory from the weak and dying Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, it fought to bring the people back to Orthodoxy.  If one reads anything of the life of Catherine the Great, one comes to the conclusion that this was more a political calculation than anything else, just as the Union of Brest had been.  Some parishioners returned very willingly to Orthodoxy, and others were compelled to give up their Greek Catholicism.  Because of political efforts, the entire region under the Russian partition of Poland reconverted to Orthodoxy in three waves, in 1796, 1839, and 1875.

Church history is messy and politics created some dirty events on both sides, sadly.  Modern freedom of religion simply did not exist in the age of "cuius regio, eius religio."

Greek Catholics from both the Union of Brest lands (mostly north of the Carpathians) and the Union of Uzhhorod lands (south of the Carpathians) came to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  They spoke varying dialects of an East Slavic tongue, calling themselves Rusnaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Russians, and/or Ukrainians, and worked in the mines and factories of the Northeast.  Some, influenced by St. Alexis Toth, returned to Orthodoxy soon after arrival, and they are the nucleus of what was called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (originally under Russia), which is now the OCA.  Others remained in the Greek Catholic Church which, by 1924, had split into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Byzantine (or Ruthenian) Catholic Church, based on the competing political sentiments of its members.  In this split, those who went with the Byzantine or Ruthenian Catholic Church almost all had their origin in the descendants of people from the Eparchy of Mukachevo, south of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Slovakia and the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, while those who went with the UGCC came from north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Southeastern Poland and the three western oblasts of Ukraine (L'viv, Ivano-Frankivs'k, and Ternopil).  Some came out of these groups into Orthodoxy -- those from the UGCC starting in 1929, mainly because married priests were disallowed and parish control of church property was restricted, and organized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA , and those from the Byzantine Catholic Church in the 1930s came into the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) for some of the same reasons.  So you can see why all the liturgies of these churches have common variants, deriving from the Divine Liturgy as employed by (broadly) one particular ethnic group.

But today, the theology is standardized in both camps.  The UGCC and BCC are Catholic Churches under the Pope, and the UOC of the USA and ACROD are Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  And, in the motherland, the Metropolitan of Kyiv has been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow since 1686, when Russia acquired the territory of Kyiv and the metropolitanate was transferred from Constantinople's jurisdiction.


Thank you, I had to read this a few times, but know I am beginning to understand why the Divine liturgy and the Byzantine mass are almost the same.

I did not realise that politics played such a big part of this....

I learn so much from this forum, thanks again.
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2011, 05:56:17 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.
fixed that for you.

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

I am sorry, but I really did not understand a word of this, what are you talking about? Please use English, not what ever this is... Thank you...
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2011, 10:00:40 AM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

That was interesting, so The RCC had taken advantage and tricked people into communion with Rome, basically a political game.... taking advantage of peoples naivety as they could not read and write.

it does make me wonder if the RCC is actually Christian when I read about all the things it has done...

JR--The RCC *is* a Christian Church.  The Orthodox Church *is* a Christian Church.  In both of them there have been and still are people who act in an un-Christian manner, sometimes even in the name of their respective church.  This has been the case since long before the schism.
fixed that for you.

Don't fix what ain't broke.  (Yours was broke-now *it's* fixed.)  (Just got to get that ol' nasty contentiousness of yours in there, don't you?  It's like you just can't stop yourself.)

I am sorry, but I really did not understand a word of this, what are you talking about? Please use English, not what ever this is... Thank you...

Replied via pm.
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2011, 12:44:12 PM »

JR:
 
Yes I guess it is confusing for you as well as others who do not know or fully understand how, what you call the Byzantine Rite papal Catholic Church' came into existence in Eastern Europe in late 16th and early 17th century. As the old saying goes....'It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what on the inside!'  This situation is a perfect example.
 
Here's a brief rundown -
 
Prior to 1596 the people who are now called Greek or Byzantine Catholics in Eastern Europe were all members of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  When these lands were taken over by Roman Catholic empires (Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc, rule) these RC empires tried to force the people into the RCC. The Protestant reformation had begun & the RCC was losing millions of souls.   The people themselves tough peasants were very devout in their Orthodox types of worship and identity.  The now RC government knew they would never willingly give up their Orthodox identity or beliefs.  They also realized, that because it was the 16th & early 17th century, the people could neither read nor write.  They based everything on what they saw and heard.  To them...AS LONG AS EVERYTHING LOOKED THE SAME AND SOUNDED THE SAME...IT WAS THE SAME!  The plan was that over time the RCC would start the process of Latinization with each new generation.  Though it may take a century or more, the time would come when the new church under Rome would become fully latinized and no different than its counterpart in Rome.  So when the Unia was signed evrything stayed the same.  With the exception the Popes name was commerated in the main Cathedral but the local Bishop was still mentioned everywhere else.  So as far as the people were concerned one Sunday they went to Liturgy and were Orthodox.  The next Sunday they went to Liturgy at the same parish but were now  papal Catholics and were none the wiser.  In the main Cathedral where the Pope was commerated and the people questioned it they were told the Pope had become Orthodox!  Because of this, some of them still claim they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome!' which is an oxymoron!
 
My grandparents came to this country knowing what had happened but there were others who came from areas where they had no idea they were no longer Orthodox until they came here.  I personally consider this as a cancer perpetuated by the RCC on innocent people. And all for the lust for power and glory.  No matter how much the RCC tries to justify what it did, it was no coincidence that it happened around the same time Rome was losing millions of its people to Protestantism.  It has caused many rifts within families (those that returned to Orthodoxy vs those that remained).  My grandfather and his brother  lived in the same small town and were no longer speaking to each other after our Orthodox Church was built.
 
Remember, a persons faith or religious identity is not based on how they worship but what they believe (contained in the doctrines & dogmas of their church).  If you believe in what the RCC teaches then you are a Roman Catholic or papal Catholic.  If you believe what the OCC teaches and believes then you are an Orthodox Catholic.
 
When I hear people here and elsewhere claim that they believe all that the Orthodox Catholic Church teaches but are knowingly and willingly in communion with the pope and accept him as the highest earthly authority in their Church I can only shake my head in bewilderment.  Because to me, its like saying that they are knowingly & willingly under the authority of a heretical bishop!
 
Orthodoc

This is put very well.  I would add only that it was not simply the rulers (the King of Poland, etc.) and Rome who desired Catholicism within his realm, but many of the (we would say misguided) Orthodox Bishops in Eastern Europe also initially desired union for purposes of religious protection and advancement.  This was for several reasons:  the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom the Metrpolitan of Kyiv and Halych had been subject, had been greatly weakened after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453.  It was not easy to communicate about religious matters, as the Patriarch was greatly restricted in what he could do, and was surrounded by a hostile regime.  They were not interested in switching allegiance to the Patriarch of Moscow, inasmuch as they were under the political protection of the Polish sovereign, and it was not desirable to be ecclesiastically subject to a patriarch in a rival state.  Thus, many Orthodox bishops, having come under the jurisdiction of the Polish (Catholic) State, were more amenable to seeking the ecclesiastical protection of the Bishop of Rome than they might otherwise have been.  Thus the Union of Brest in 1596.  Educated non-clerical people, especially the Orthodox groups in the cities, rejected (in some cases violently) the Union.  Some bishops soon after repudiated it, resulting in a messy century-long situation in which some cities had both a Greek Catholic and an Orthodox bishop.  Within a century, their successors accepted the Union.   You speak about the Byzantine Catholic Church.  It did not stem from the Union of Brest, but from a similar union adopted in 1646, called the Union of Uzhhorod, covering the lands subject to the Eparchy of Mukachevo.    If you Google, you can find (in English) the terms of the Union of Brest, which were primarily liturgical.

The people in the villages really saw little change in their churches until after the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 when the Greek Catholic liturgy started to become standardized.  Prior to that, the priests were using old Orthodox service books which had been "retro-fitted."  Many villages near the border with Russia would call in an Orthodox priest if their Greek Catholic priest had died.  This was problematic to the Catholic Church and for the government, which didn't want Russian influence in the parishes.  The Greek Catholic Church began a stringent campaign to educate its priests, and it became noted for its sermons.  This was so that it could impress upon the people that they were praying for the Pope, who for many years was not included in the prayers in some villages.  Latinizations began to accrue.

After the Union, the Greek Catholic Church extended throughout the Polish lands, from Kyiv into what was western Galicia, approaching Krakow, Poland.  As Russia acquired more and more territory from the weak and dying Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however, it fought to bring the people back to Orthodoxy.  If one reads anything of the life of Catherine the Great, one comes to the conclusion that this was more a political calculation than anything else, just as the Union of Brest had been.  Some parishioners returned very willingly to Orthodoxy, and others were compelled to give up their Greek Catholicism.  Because of political efforts, the entire region under the Russian partition of Poland reconverted to Orthodoxy in three waves, in 1796, 1839, and 1875.

Church history is messy and politics created some dirty events on both sides, sadly.  Modern freedom of religion simply did not exist in the age of "cuius regio, eius religio."

Greek Catholics from both the Union of Brest lands (mostly north of the Carpathians) and the Union of Uzhhorod lands (south of the Carpathians) came to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  They spoke varying dialects of an East Slavic tongue, calling themselves Rusnaks, Ruthenians, Carpatho-Russians, and/or Ukrainians, and worked in the mines and factories of the Northeast.  Some, influenced by St. Alexis Toth, returned to Orthodoxy soon after arrival, and they are the nucleus of what was called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (originally under Russia), which is now the OCA.  Others remained in the Greek Catholic Church which, by 1924, had split into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Byzantine (or Ruthenian) Catholic Church, based on the competing political sentiments of its members.  In this split, those who went with the Byzantine or Ruthenian Catholic Church almost all had their origin in the descendants of people from the Eparchy of Mukachevo, south of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Slovakia and the Transcarpathian Oblast of Ukraine, while those who went with the UGCC came from north of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Southeastern Poland and the three western oblasts of Ukraine (L'viv, Ivano-Frankivs'k, and Ternopil).  Some came out of these groups into Orthodoxy -- those from the UGCC starting in 1929, mainly because married priests were disallowed and parish control of church property was restricted, and organized the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA , and those from the Byzantine Catholic Church in the 1930s came into the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) for some of the same reasons.  So you can see why all the liturgies of these churches have common variants, deriving from the Divine Liturgy as employed by (broadly) one particular ethnic group.

But today, the theology is standardized in both camps.  The UGCC and BCC are Catholic Churches under the Pope, and the UOC of the USA and ACROD are Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  And, in the motherland, the Metropolitan of Kyiv has been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow since 1686, when Russia acquired the territory of Kyiv and the metropolitanate was transferred from Constantinople's jurisdiction.


That was well put and accurate. It is true that many, if not most, of the early immigrants to the United States from these regions simply referred to their religious heritage as 'nase cerkov', i.e. 'our church.' They had no real sense of what today we would call an Orthodox or a Catholic identity - they were what they always were and what their priests and parents taught them to be.

What is true is that at least since 1720, the clergy recognized that they were Greek Catholics in union with Rome as they were educated as such and treated as such by the secular authorities. In other words, they were not serfs tied to the feudal estate of the local overlords, but rather they were subject to the religious authority of their bishops. And as men came to American, returned to Europe and so on, back and forth, by 1910 it is fair to say that most lay people began to understand that there was a difference to being loyal to the Bishops of the Church of Rome as opposed to the Bishops subject to the Church of Moscow. The actions of ill-informed and bigoted Roman Catholics, like Archbishop Ireland of Minneapolis certainly cleared the air for many!

There was no Greek Catholic religious authority in the United States for the first forty years or so of the diaspora from these regions until the appointment of Bishop Soter Ortynsky by Rome in 1913 to minister to both the Ruthenians and the Ukrainians. He died in 1916 and was succeeded by two bishops, one Bishop Basil Takach for the Ruthenians and another for the Ukrainians. Soon their respective dioceses were rife with strife and turmoil over the forced celibacy and property ownership decrees.

While many 'old timers', including my grandparents and countless others from their churches and my father's pastorates would swear to their death beds that by either staying where they were or leaving to build new churches that they 'stayed the same' as they always were; those who remained Greek Catholic held the same steadfast belief that they were the ones who 'stayed the same.'

In what can only be viewed as a cruel joke, in many ways they both were right.

As I have said in numerous postings the original return to Orthodoxy led by St. Alexis was 'tainted' in the minds of many of the faithful in that being Orthodox was equated to being considered ethnically Russian, To both Ruthenians and particularly Ukrainians, the end result of the return was the forced elimination of Ruthenian and Ukrainian practices, including their liturgical chants, pious customs and the style of vestments - to name a few items. This Russification was carried on as dramatically and with a firm hand in the same manner as was the on-going Latinization of the Greek Catholics. (It is more than somewhat ironic that the choirmasters of the Greek Catholic cathedrals in L'vov and Ungvar (Uzhorod/Muchachevo) were often trained at the royal academy in St. Petersburg before the revolution and that the tones of Bortiansky and Kedrov would be heard as often in the ears of the Greek Catholics of their time as in the ears of the Orthodox! )

The Russian Revolution only complicated matters. Likewise the 'flip-flopping' of allegiences of priests, parishes and Bishops caused by the lack of firm hierarchichal order due to the first world war and the Revolution was confusing and disheartening to many. The curious tale of Father, later Bishop ,Alexander Dzubay from Vicar General for the  Uniate Bishop Ortynsky, to tonsured Orthodox monk, to Russian Orthodox Bishop and later years in a Graymoor monastery as a repentant  and regretful Catholic where he died in 1933 is illustrative of the turmoil in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian communities of the 1920's and into the late 1930's.

To conclude, I will quote from Yurysprudentsiya: "But today, the theology is standardized in both camps.  The UGCC and BCC are Catholic Churches under the Pope, and the UOC of the USA and ACROD are Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  And, in the motherland, the Metropolitan of Kyiv has been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow since 1686, when Russia acquired the territory of Kyiv and the metropolitanate was transferred from Constantinople's jurisdiction."





Logged
Tags: Byzantine  greek  orthodox  rome ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.224 seconds with 71 queries.