OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 02:52:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox engage in reverse uniatism?  (Read 3178 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« on: June 03, 2012, 08:42:40 AM »

Dear forum members,

We've had a few debates, and will probably have a few more in the future, about whether Western-Rite Orthodoxy is “uniatism” or not. That is not, however, what I want to discuss on this thread (although I'm not opposed to talking about it on another thread, if someone wants to start one for that purpose).

What I actually want to ask here is, do Orthodox engage in a bait-and-switch tactic that could be described as “reverse uniatism”?

From my experience, it seems like the answer is Yes. Without making you listen to my whole life story, the basic message that I have heard over-and-over from Orthodox is (paraphrasing of course) “If you won't leave Catholicism, you can at least be one of us Eastern Christians by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.”

But, with time and digging-a-little-deeper, I have found that beneath the surface is another message (the “switch” part of bait-and-switch) that being Eastern Catholic really doesn't cut it after all, that being Eastern Catholic is only a “band-aid”, or even that Eastern Catholics can only be true-to-themselves by converting to Orthodoxy.

I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. Sincerely,
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 09:18:22 AM »

I do not think that you have been a victim of "bait and switch" as much as that you have not been talking with Orthodox Christians.  No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox.  We do not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox, we see them as apostates.  Now, as to the Western Rite, I do indeed have some sympathy for your view.  It does seem as thought the Western Rite was intended as a gimmick to get converts . . . on the surface.  On the other hand, when I actually bothered to look into the matter (rather than just assume all Western Rite Orthodox were simply half converted Anglicans), I found that some of the more conservative proponents of the Western Rite (like St. John of San Fransisco) believed that the "Western" Church was a legitimate Church for 1000 years, and there is no reason that those who come back to Orthodoxy from the West should not be allowed to keep the form of worship that was theirs when they were Orthodox.  The Byzantine Rite is NOT Orthodoxy, it is but one manifestation of Orthodox Worship.  I think that once this understood here in the United States, we will be on our way to spreading the Word. 

So, based on what you have written, it is possible that you were exposed to some form of reverse uniatism.  However, that would be no more Orthodox than any other form of uniatism.  There is NO unia in Orthodoxy, only the Church . . . whichever right it chooses to use to worship the one God.

BTW - you posted an excellent question and I hope that there is good discussion concerning it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,858



« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 10:07:40 AM »

We do not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox, we see them as apostates.

We do? How can a person who was born and raised into Eastern Catholicism without any exposure to Orthodox be categorised as "apostate"? Heterodox or heretic for sure but apostate sounds a little far-fetched to me.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 10:08:06 AM by Alpo » Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,026


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 10:56:40 AM »

The problem of uniatism is that it lured people away from the Truth. Our "reverse uniatism," if that is an accurate description, does not have this problem.

I would agree though that blanketing Eastern Catholics with the title "apostate" is a bit much.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 12:26:50 PM »

We do not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox, we see them as apostates.

We do? How can a person who was born and raised into Eastern Catholicism without any exposure to Orthodox be categorised as "apostate"?

Good question. And I would add, how can a person who was born and raised into Latin Catholicism and then switched to Eastern Catholicism be categorised as "apostate"? (I suppose that might be claimed by some radical-fringe-sedevacantist "Catholics", but I doubt Punch intended to side with them. Grin)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 12:28:14 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

(Note: I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but at the same time I think that many other peoples' experiences are similar to mine.) For a number of years, starting in about 2004 or so (a couple years after I started attending a Melkite parish) my focus, my goal, was to be a good Eastern Christian. But over time, I began to feel like this goal was not becoming clearer but rather more and more nebulous. Initially I hadn't seen anything suspicious about the fact that Eastern Orthodox had been encouraging me to become Eastern Catholic; but once I took a good hard look at it, it did seem quite suspicious -- particularly in view of other messages from Orthodox, e.g. the notion that Eastern Catholics can only be "true to themselves" by converting to Orthodoxy(!)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 01:38:30 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

(Note: I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but at the same time I think that many other peoples' experiences are similar to mine.) For a number of years, starting in about 2004 or so (a couple years after I started attending a Melkite parish) my focus, my goal, was to be a good Eastern Christian. But over time, I began to feel like this goal was not becoming clearer but rather more and more nebulous. Initially I hadn't seen anything suspicious about the fact that Eastern Orthodox had been encouraging me to become Eastern Catholic; but once I took a good hard look at it, it did seem quite suspicious -- particularly in view of other messages from Orthodox, e.g. the notion that Eastern Catholics can only be "true to themselves" by converting to Orthodoxy(!)

I don't think Eastern Orthodoxy, on any official level, encourages people to become Eastern Catholics so they'll be good Eastern Christians. Eastern Christianity exists in its fullness only  in Orthodoxy.

Individual Orthodox can encourage that, I guess, but I don't see why they'd do such a thing.

Were the same Orthodox who told you to be EC the ones who told you that Eastern Catholicism is Orthodoxy-lite?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2012, 02:13:37 PM »

Were the same Orthodox who told you to be EC the ones who told you that Eastern Catholicism is Orthodoxy-lite?

At the risk of sounding evasive, it's hard to answer b/c "Orthodoxy-lite" seems like a loaded phrase.

Also, I would say encouraged to become Eastern Catholic -- rather than told to become Eastern Catholic -- by some Orthodox. No Orthodox has ever told me to become Eastern Catholic. More of a you'll-be-closer-to-us-if-you-do kind of message.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2012, 03:11:25 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

P.S. Although I don't recall any Orthodox saying that Eastern Catholic are Orthodox, some Orthodox have come pretty close to saying that ...

Quote
We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before. Chatting during coffee, he asked where I was originally from. When I answered, he said: That is a center of Orthodoxy in America. I replied that I am a Byzantine Catholic. He said: "Oh it's the same thing."

That was recounted by dvdjs (don't know his full name) here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2012, 03:33:13 PM »

We do not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox, we see them as apostates.

We do? How can a person who was born and raised into Eastern Catholicism without any exposure to Orthodox be categorised as "apostate"? Heterodox or heretic for sure but apostate sounds a little far-fetched to me.

As an organization.  What I think about individuals within an organization is a differant topic, and my thoughts may very well surprise you.  But cannot deny that the entire Unia was born of apostasy.  Belonging to an apostate organization does not necessarily make you personally an apostate any more than belonging to an Orthodox parish makes you Orthodox.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2012, 03:36:53 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

(Note: I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but at the same time I think that many other peoples' experiences are similar to mine.) For a number of years, starting in about 2004 or so (a couple years after I started attending a Melkite parish) my focus, my goal, was to be a good Eastern Christian. But over time, I began to feel like this goal was not becoming clearer but rather more and more nebulous. Initially I hadn't seen anything suspicious about the fact that Eastern Orthodox had been encouraging me to become Eastern Catholic; but once I took a good hard look at it, it did seem quite suspicious -- particularly in view of other messages from Orthodox, e.g. the notion that Eastern Catholics can only be "true to themselves" by converting to Orthodoxy(!)

Peter, I guess that I do not understand the push to be an "Eastern Christian".  Christianity is not an East / West issue.  I really do not believe that worshiping using one rite or the other makes one any more or less a Christian.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2012, 03:40:06 PM »

From my experience, it seems like the answer is Yes. Without making you listen to my whole life story, the basic message that I have heard over-and-over from Orthodox is (paraphrasing of course) “If you won't leave Catholicism, you can at least be one of us Eastern Christians by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.”

I have never heard an Orthodox Christian of any kind (i.e., lay or clergy) say anything even vaguely similar to this. I accept that you are honestly recounting your personal experience, but it is totally alien to my own experience of Orthodoxy (and clearly to others responding on this thread) so I'm not even sure how to start answering you.

The only thing I have ever seen Orthodox say--and this is particularly true of what our saints have said and the official pronouncements of our synods (i.e., authoritative sources) is what you are calling the 'switch' part--that Byzantine rite catholics can only be truly Orthodox (or indeed truly Catholic) by actually becoming Orthodox.

So I don't think you are seeing Orthodox engaging in 'bait-and-switch' in the sense that one person/source is telling you one thing when they don't actually mean it. Rather you have encountered some poorly catechized Orthodox individuals who actually (but incorrectly) believe what they are saying to you--but then as you probe deeper and begin to encounter actual Orthodox teaching it turns out to be different. (For comparison, I can find cafeteria catholics in the US who would say, "oh don't worry about the rules against contraception, no one actually believes that stuff." But when I look at actual Church documents, or talk with real traditional RC's, it turns out, yes, the RC Church does take the whole of humane vitae seriously. That doesn't mean that Rome or Roman Catholics are engaged in a bait-and-switch on birth control, just that some RC's don't do a good job of accurately reflecting the teaching of their church).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2012, 03:48:54 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

Basically repeating what I already said, but I likewise don't recall ever hearing 'being an Eastern Christian' held up as relevent goal/status of any kind.

Quote
P.S. Although I don't recall any Orthodox saying that Eastern Catholic are Orthodox, some Orthodox have come pretty close to saying that ...

Quote
We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before. Chatting during coffee, he asked where I was originally from. When I answered, he said: That is a center of Orthodoxy in America. I replied that I am a Byzantine Catholic. He said: "Oh it's the same thing."

That was recounted by dvdjs (don't know his full name) here.

Problem with dealing with second and third-hand hearsay--how are supposed to know that the priest meant "Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholic are the same thing." or if he just meant "the center of Orthodoxy in America and the center of Byzantine Catholicism are the same thing." (the latter being a true statement).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2012, 04:22:20 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

(Note: I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but at the same time I think that many other peoples' experiences are similar to mine.) For a number of years, starting in about 2004 or so (a couple years after I started attending a Melkite parish) my focus, my goal, was to be a good Eastern Christian. But over time, I began to feel like this goal was not becoming clearer but rather more and more nebulous. Initially I hadn't seen anything suspicious about the fact that Eastern Orthodox had been encouraging me to become Eastern Catholic; but once I took a good hard look at it, it did seem quite suspicious -- particularly in view of other messages from Orthodox, e.g. the notion that Eastern Catholics can only be "true to themselves" by converting to Orthodoxy(!)

Peter, I guess that I do not understand the push to be an "Eastern Christian".  Christianity is not an East / West issue.  I really do not believe that worshiping using one rite or the other makes one any more or less a Christian.

I think I'm coming to that conclusion myself, or at least I'm leaning in that direction. But the thing is, if that's true then what is the point of talking about "the Christian East", "Byzantine Christianity", "Eastern Christianity" etc.?

Basically repeating what I already said, but I likewise don't recall ever hearing 'being an Eastern Christian' held up as relevent goal/status of any kind.

I can't deny that what you're saying offers a very simple answer to my above question to Punch; but in my experience Eastern Christian is a very relevant status.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2012, 04:27:47 PM »

So I don't think you are seeing Orthodox engaging in 'bait-and-switch' in the sense that one person/source is telling you one thing when they don't actually mean it.

No argument there. In fact, I would be greatly if any of the Orthodox Christians I've been talking about were anything but sincere and well-meaning. (Which I don't think can be said of all of the Latins who originally instigated the "Unions", several centuries ago.)

P.S. Although I don't recall any Orthodox saying that Eastern Catholic are Orthodox, some Orthodox have come pretty close to saying that ...

Quote
We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before. Chatting during coffee, he asked where I was originally from. When I answered, he said: That is a center of Orthodoxy in America. I replied that I am a Byzantine Catholic. He said: "Oh it's the same thing."

That was recounted by dvdjs (don't know his full name) here.

Problem with dealing with second and third-hand hearsay--how are supposed to know that the priest meant "Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholic are the same thing." or if he just meant "the center of Orthodoxy in America and the center of Byzantine Catholicism are the same thing." (the latter being a true statement).

Hmmm ... I admit I hadn't considered that possibility. But even now that you've brought it to my attention, I have to say that interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2012, 05:13:15 PM »

No.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #16 on: June 03, 2012, 05:18:36 PM »

Why do you bring threads from CAF here, Peter? I'm just curious, as it doesn't seem to be very helpful, since dvdjs isn't here to explain what was meant by that statement (though since I participated in that thread, I can't say I'm terribly sad to not have to re-argue my position here Smiley).

There is no such thing as "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and there is no such thing as "the same thing" as Orthodoxy that is somehow not Orthodoxy. What an individual priest says to someone (probably just to be polite, I would think) doesn't change those facts. In my time with the Ruthenians, I found the Eastern Catholic thing to make very little sense, as it seemed to exist in the idea (that I knew was wrong even then) that the Church's Orthodoxy may be separated from its ecclesiology. Nope. Not happenin'. It was the Easterners and Orientals who were told that they would keep their praxis in uniting with Rome, as though the Eastern Unia need only add Baba Benedictus to their diptychs and then they could go about their lives unmolested. I know that there are matters of degree (as I am told that the Melkites, for instance, are very Orthodox-like, whatever that means), but that is only in the minds of the Catholics themselves, not any Orthodox I've ever talked to. Instead, we see things like this: compared to its supposedly corresponding Orthodox liturgy, the Coptic Catholic liturgy might as well have been composed based on rumors of what Orthodox Copts do, with no real-life experience of Orthodox liturgy. This is disconcerting because, obviously, the liturgy is not something to trifled with, as it is the re-presentation of the truth of the Christian faith as it has been passed down from the apostles to our day. So it is not merely a matter of differing externals, but the encroachment of a new faith among previously Orthodox people, who have in accepting the new doctrines of their Roman masters likewise accepted a change in worship which reflects their new orientation.

By contrast, those of the "reverse uniate", as you might call it, are re-accepting the old faith, that which they had during the West's period of Orthodoxy. So there is no useful comparison to be made here, I don't think.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 05:20:27 PM by dzheremi » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2012, 06:06:06 PM »

Why do you bring threads from CAF here, Peter? I'm just curious, as it doesn't seem to be very helpful, since dvdjs isn't here to explain what was meant by that statement (though since I participated in that thread, I can't say I'm terribly sad to not have to re-argue my position here Smiley).

In retrospect, quoting that anecdote may not have been terribly helpful -- not for the reason you suggest (after all, it isn't a matter of what dvdjs meant, but rather of what the priest said) but because that seems to me to be a fairly rare, and fairly extreme, case. I doubt I will ever hear an Orthodox priest say that it's "the same thing". What I think is more common, and what I had in mind when I asked the original question, is just Orthodox encouragement of Eastern Catholicism and the categories Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

A better example I could have given, in relation to the Catholic Answers Forum, is a few years ago when the Eastern Christianity Forum was changed to the Eastern Catholicism Forum. There was a very long thread about that, which I don't want to re-read right now, but I'm pretty sure that in that thread is some Orthodox disappointment that it the new forum would not be "the Eastern Christianity Forum".
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 06:07:18 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2012, 06:08:41 PM »

By contrast, those of the "reverse uniate", as you might call it, are re-accepting the old faith, that which they had during the West's period of Orthodoxy. So there is no useful comparison to be made here, I don't think.

Although you didn't use the term Western Rite Orthodox, I'm fairly certain that's what your referring to here. I've heard the arguments for and against the idea that WRO is “uniatism”, but I don't really want to get into it in this thread.

But I would just like to comment on the idea of calling WRO “reverse uniatism”. As far as I can't tell, the only reason for putting the word “reverse” in there, is the idea that if Catholics do it to Orthodox it's “uniatism”, but if Orthodox do it to Catholics it's “reverse uniatism”. To me, that makes as much sense as saying that if I punched you in the nose it would be a “reverse punch”, because it would be a “punch” if you did it to me. (Which is to say, it doesn't make sense.)

But I think it's appropriate to apply the phrase “reverse uniatism” to what I describe in the OP, for the reasons in the OP.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2012, 06:33:15 PM »

Most of the unions took place due to political influence and were motivated with geopolitical reasons. They were created by people in charge (bishops, kings) and without the knowledge or consent from the believers and clergy. What is more unions' author had been falsely promised that they would be allowed to keep their traditions and going under Rome would be the only one condition.

On the other hand WRO communities are formed on a parish level. People are not tempted with things like places in the Senate and they do it only for spiritual reasons. No one also lies to them about the necessary changes that they would to introduce.

The answer to the OP is 'no'.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2012, 07:16:59 PM »

Most of the unions took place due to political influence and were motivated with geopolitical reasons. They were created by people in charge (bishops, kings) and without the knowledge or consent from the believers and clergy. What is more unions' author had been falsely promised that they would be allowed to keep their traditions and going under Rome would be the only one condition.

On the other hand WRO communities are formed on a parish level. People are not tempted with things like places in the Senate and they do it only for spiritual reasons. No one also lies to them about the necessary changes that they would to introduce.

The answer to the OP is 'no'.

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I think you misunderstood the question. I'm talking about reverse uniatism, not about Western Rite Orthodoxy or whether it constitutes uniatism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2012, 05:09:56 AM »

Peter,

I'll second dzheremi in his query

Quote
Why do you bring threads from CAF here, Peter? I'm just curious, as it doesn't seem to be very helpful, since dvdjs isn't here to explain what was meant by that statement

I've noticed that you've done similarly at ByzCath on occasion, as well as sometimes doing likewise between here and ByzCath or vice-versa. While I'm sure that a comparison of responses among the sites might be of occasional interest, it also begs the question whether doing so is intended to be instigatory at some level. Despite the bans at CAF in times past, there are still CAF members who also post either here or at ByzCath and there is member cross-over between this forum and ByzCath. Yet, other than an occasional prayer request or news item, one rarely sees anyone else cross-posting. A curious practice, that.

Apropos the quote from dvdjs, I'm really puzzled by his statement that "We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before." I've known dvdjs for a long time, from CAF and earlier, as he once was a regular at ByzCath. He's a very conservative EC and tends to be of that ilk who are strongly supportive of Rome and, at best, very cautious of Orthodoxy. I'm really curious that an EO priest was 'serving' at any liturgical service that dvdjs would have attended and would like to know more of it.

As regards your own statement, I've been an Eastern Catholic for more than 40 years and count a great many Orthodox among my friends, both on-lin and in real life. Never have any of them expressed a comment anything like 'you'll-be-closer-to-us-if-you-do' in regard to Eastern Catholicism. You (and I guess, dvdjs) apparently cavort with a different breed of Orthodox.

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 05:11:25 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

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

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2012, 06:13:24 AM »

And here I thought I was going to learn about some filthy, degenerate sexual perversion only the heathens practice heretofore unknown to me that I would not be allowed to engage in, unless a woman, to whom I am married, were present.

I knew I was wrong when I saw Isa's simple no.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2012, 07:21:32 AM »

My dear friend and brother Neil,

I think you are and dzheremi are quite right in saying that the example I borrowed from dvdjs "doesn't seem to be very helpful". Plus, as witega pointed out, there's the question of interpreting the "Oh it's the same thing" statement. I humbly apologize to you four and everyone else, especially if I gave anyone the impression that a statement made on the Catholic Answers Forum somehow has more weight than, say, a statement made on a blog.

Best wishes to you,
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2012, 01:16:31 PM »

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I think you misunderstood the question. I'm talking about reverse uniatism, not about Western Rite Orthodoxy or whether it constitutes uniatism.

I understood your question as 'Does the Orthodox Church introduce unions with Western Church organisations similar to the unions that created Eastern Catholic Churches?'. If I am wrong what are you asking about, then?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 01:17:25 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2012, 01:36:26 PM »

... I found the Eastern Catholic thing to make very little sense,...
Does the WRO make sense?
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2012, 01:47:02 PM »

... I found the Eastern Catholic thing to make very little sense,...
Does the WRO make sense?

Yeah, I think it does. I mean, I'm sure it's not without its problems (though I don't know first-hand, since I'm not in it), and I have read some criticisms of it from some pretty big names (e.g., Fr. Alexander Schmemann), but I think it does for the reason I originally wrote in the post you took that snippet from.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2012, 03:01:42 PM »

Hi Michał. To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you thought I was asking about WRO. Granted I did, in fact, mention the question of "whether Western-Rite Orthodoxy is “uniatism” or not" in the OP; but my intention there was to say that wasn't what I wanted to ask about. (I guess it's like one of those movie plots where the people anticipate something happening in the future, and then change their plans to avoid it but actually end up causing it, like what Galadriel said to Samwise.)

I think there may be a little bit of truth to the idea that WRO is "uniatism" (little enough that I generally don't even bring it up in my criticisms of Orthodoxy) but even then it doesn't really make sense to call it "reverse uniatism". What's "reverse" about it?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2012, 03:20:49 PM »

I don't think Eastern Orthodoxy, on any official level, encourages people to become Eastern Catholics so they'll be good Eastern Christians. Eastern Christianity exists in its fullness only  in Orthodoxy.

Individual Orthodox can encourage that, I guess, but I don't see why they'd do such a thing.

Were the same Orthodox who told you to be EC the ones who told you that Eastern Catholicism is Orthodoxy-lite?

In thinking about what you said, I decided to Google "Eastern Catholics" "Orthodox Lite", resulting in several helpful results -- although not nearly as many as I would have thought (since I believe I've heard that phrase quite a lot).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2012, 03:32:20 PM »

Peter J , to be frankly I have no idea what are you asking about.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2012, 05:27:40 PM »

Basically repeating what I already said, but I likewise don't recall ever hearing 'being an Eastern Christian' held up as relevent goal/status of any kind.

I can't deny that what you're saying offers a very simple answer to my above question to Punch; but in my experience Eastern Christian is a very relevant status.

P.S. I put together a couple quotes to try to show why I think Eastern Christian is a relevant status (don't worry they're quotes from OCnet Wink). But since there's already a thread on terms like Eastern Christianity, I've put them there ...
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 05:30:45 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2012, 05:32:56 PM »

Peter J , to be frankly I have no idea what are you asking about.

Sorry to hear that. I've been trying to be clear, but perhaps I haven't been very successful.  Sad
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2012, 05:56:03 PM »

No Orthodox Christian would tell you that you could be an Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox. 

It isn't an issue of Orthodox telling us we can be Orthodox by being Eastern Catholic. It's an issue, to put it in a nutshell, of being an Eastern Christian.

(Note: I'm speaking largely from my own experience, but at the same time I think that many other peoples' experiences are similar to mine.) For a number of years, starting in about 2004 or so (a couple years after I started attending a Melkite parish) my focus, my goal, was to be a good Eastern Christian. But over time, I began to feel like this goal was not becoming clearer but rather more and more nebulous. Initially I hadn't seen anything suspicious about the fact that Eastern Orthodox had been encouraging me to become Eastern Catholic; but once I took a good hard look at it, it did seem quite suspicious -- particularly in view of other messages from Orthodox, e.g. the notion that Eastern Catholics can only be "true to themselves" by converting to Orthodoxy(!)

Basically repeating what I already said, but I likewise don't recall ever hearing 'being an Eastern Christian' held up as relevent goal/status of any kind.

P.P.S. One other thing I feel I should add here: I may have come across as unwilling to take responsibility for my past decisions. I didn't mean to sound that way. Certainly, no Orthodox told me to make “being a good Eastern Christian” my goal and focus; that was my decision.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,943


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2012, 10:17:16 PM »



Apropos the quote from dvdjs, I'm really puzzled by his statement that "We had an EO priest serving today whom I had not met before." I've known dvdjs for a long time, from CAF and earlier, as he once was a regular at ByzCath. He's a very conservative EC and tends to be of that ilk who are strongly supportive of Rome and, at best, very cautious of Orthodoxy. I'm really curious that an EO priest was 'serving' at any liturgical service that dvdjs would have attended and would like to know more of it.

dvdjs attends an OCA parish as it is the only Eastern parish close to him.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2012, 10:19:58 PM »

Do we really need to gossip about a guy from another forum?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,234


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2012, 10:26:42 PM »

Dear forum members,

We've had a few debates, and will probably have a few more in the future, about whether Western-Rite Orthodoxy is “uniatism” or not. That is not, however, what I want to discuss on this thread (although I'm not opposed to talking about it on another thread, if someone wants to start one for that purpose).

What I actually want to ask here is, do Orthodox engage in a bait-and-switch tactic that could be described as “reverse uniatism”?

From my experience, it seems like the answer is Yes. Without making you listen to my whole life story, the basic message that I have heard over-and-over from Orthodox is (paraphrasing of course) “If you won't leave Catholicism, you can at least be one of us Eastern Christians by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.”

But, with time and digging-a-little-deeper, I have found that beneath the surface is another message (the “switch” part of bait-and-switch) that being Eastern Catholic really doesn't cut it after all, that being Eastern Catholic is only a “band-aid”, or even that Eastern Catholics can only be true-to-themselves by converting to Orthodoxy.

I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. Sincerely,

Back on topic.

An Eastern Catholic Bishop once made the comment that the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church is like a bridge to Orthodoxy.

Disgruntled Roman Catholics who have had it with all the liturgical changes have been fleeing first to the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church, where they get catechized with material from St. Vladimir Seminary or Life and Light Publishing, and then they switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church ... going to either Antiochian, Greek, or OCA parishes.

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,943


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2012, 10:36:13 PM »

Why do you bring threads from CAF here, Peter? I'm just curious, as it doesn't seem to be very helpful, since dvdjs isn't here to explain what was meant by that statement (though since I participated in that thread, I can't say I'm terribly sad to not have to re-argue my position here Smiley).

There is no such thing as "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and there is no such thing as "the same thing" as Orthodoxy that is somehow not Orthodoxy. What an individual priest says to someone (probably just to be polite, I would think) doesn't change those facts. In my time with the Ruthenians, I found the Eastern Catholic thing to make very little sense, as it seemed to exist in the idea (that I knew was wrong even then) that the Church's Orthodoxy may be separated from its ecclesiology. Nope. Not happenin'. It was the Easterners and Orientals who were told that they would keep their praxis in uniting with Rome, as though the Eastern Unia need only add Baba Benedictus to their diptychs and then they could go about their lives unmolested. I know that there are matters of degree (as I am told that the Melkites, for instance, are very Orthodox-like, whatever that means), but that is only in the minds of the Catholics themselves, not any Orthodox I've ever talked to. Instead, we see things like this: compared to its supposedly corresponding Orthodox liturgy, the Coptic Catholic liturgy might as well have been composed based on rumors of what Orthodox Copts do, with no real-life experience of Orthodox liturgy. This is disconcerting because, obviously, the liturgy is not something to trifled with, as it is the re-presentation of the truth of the Christian faith as it has been passed down from the apostles to our day. So it is not merely a matter of differing externals, but the encroachment of a new faith among previously Orthodox people, who have in accepting the new doctrines of their Roman masters likewise accepted a change in worship which reflects their new orientation.

By contrast, those of the "reverse uniate", as you might call it, are re-accepting the old faith, that which they had during the West's period of Orthodoxy. So there is no useful comparison to be made here, I don't think.

While not denying latinizations, new and old, have taken place in Eastern Catholic Churches (in some more than others) the Coptic Catholic Liturgy is taking place in a Maronite Church that accounts for a lot of the visual difference.  I have seen the videos from the Coptic Catholic parish in LA and it looks the same as a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2012, 12:32:26 AM »

Yeah, certainly a lot of it is. The weird Maronite-esque chant from the guy at the beginning and during communion, for instance. Sadly, what I've seen of the much less debased mass of the Franciscans in Egypt, while being much less obviously offensive (I chose the particular video I did on purpose to show the extreme to which the idea behind the Eastern or Oriental Unia does not work, not because everywhere is just as bad as Lebanon; God forbid) was not really any better, unless you take "better" in this case to mean "they used the cymbals a bit more" (which, yes, to my ears does sound better, but I digress... Grin). The celebrant still faced the people, they still used unleavened bread, etc. By all the evidence that I have seen (videos from Lebanon, Egypt, and Italy), communion is by intinction, which is also not Coptic Orthodox practice. I am curious as to how the Coptic Catholics might preserve the fraction prayers (if they do; I don't remember them in either of the longer videos I've seen) that are common to the Orthodox from whom they came, if it is common to use unleavened bread. Such bread can't really be divided as you would leavened bread.

Anyway, the point is not to pick on the Coptic Catholics in particular (Lord knows they don't need more trouble), but to point out - in connection with my earlier post - that the Orthodoxy of the church is inseparable from its ecclesiology. The only reason the Catholic Unia have any of these distinctives that aren't shared with the churches that they left is that these are the "Catholic" practices. So in a way, it is right that they should have them...but in another way, it really kind of shoots the whole "Orthodox in union with Rome" thing in the foot, as well as the "same thing" idea or "closer to us" idea, since of course it also isn't only about externals, but the theological reasons why we've developed as we have. Anything inherited from post-Orthodox Rome makes the resulting churches, even if they're 99.9% the same, not Orthodox. It's not really a matter of degree, as far as I can tell from talking to OO and EO of many different stripes. You either are or you aren't, and for every Orthodox person I've ever known, Eastern Catholics are in the "are not" category not any less than their Latin counterparts.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2012, 08:01:12 AM »

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2012, 09:22:58 AM »

Dear forum members,

We've had a few debates, and will probably have a few more in the future, about whether Western-Rite Orthodoxy is “uniatism” or not. That is not, however, what I want to discuss on this thread (although I'm not opposed to talking about it on another thread, if someone wants to start one for that purpose).

What I actually want to ask here is, do Orthodox engage in a bait-and-switch tactic that could be described as “reverse uniatism”?

From my experience, it seems like the answer is Yes. Without making you listen to my whole life story, the basic message that I have heard over-and-over from Orthodox is (paraphrasing of course) “If you won't leave Catholicism, you can at least be one of us Eastern Christians by joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.”

But, with time and digging-a-little-deeper, I have found that beneath the surface is another message (the “switch” part of bait-and-switch) that being Eastern Catholic really doesn't cut it after all, that being Eastern Catholic is only a “band-aid”, or even that Eastern Catholics can only be true-to-themselves by converting to Orthodoxy.

I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. Sincerely,

Back on topic.

An Eastern Catholic Bishop once made the comment that the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church is like a bridge to Orthodoxy.

Disgruntled Roman Catholics who have had it with all the liturgical changes have been fleeing first to the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church, where they get catechized with material from St. Vladimir Seminary or Life and Light Publishing, and then they switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church ... going to either Antiochian, Greek, or OCA parishes.

Yes, that makes sense. In fact, I believe one of the standards arguments against the idea that WRO is "uniatism" (or "reverse uniatism") is that it isn't a "bridge". (Quoting from The Western Rite is Not "Reverse Uniatism",

Quote
At our most hopeful, Western Orthodox dream of whole denominations accepting the Orthodox faith in either of our Eastern or approved Western rites. We pray for it. Yet we do not see ourselves as a "bridge" to the Papacy.
) On the other hand, it seems to me the Eastern Catholic Churches are a bridge from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and a bridge from Catholicism to Orthodoxy (even though originally it was pretty much a one-way bridge) -- which is to say, nowadays Eastern Catholic Churches are subject to both "uniatism" and "reverse uniatism".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2012, 11:45:40 AM »

Im a little late coming to this party, but I'd like to give my opinion since I happen to be a WR Orthodox.

I personally dont feel that WR is ***the U word**** in reverse, as Met. Ware stated once. We dont have separate bishops, a separate law, and separate beliefs. I am 100% Orthodox in every way except that it is in the pre-schism western tradition. Things like the fast and certian feasts are different to be honest, also the liturgy. However, these things are documented to have occured in the west.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2012, 01:25:30 PM »

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.

So? As others in this thread have told you explicitly, "Eastern" isn't a goal in and of itself. The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies. So in trying to be both "Eastern" and "Catholic", their "Easternness" is compromised by their "Catholicness". You can't simply extract the Eastern part and hold that up as evidence that it is possible to be both, because the very union degrades and distorts what it means. So, yes, I suppose they aren't fully "Eastern" (sorry for all the scare quotes, but I feel dumb using this terminology when I'm not in the EO church from which most of the Unia came from), but this isn't because it is a matter of degree -- it's a matter of Eastern Catholics accepting things that the Orthodox themselves do not accept. Not being fully Eastern is a way of essentially saying "You look like us, but you're not actually like us", not "You're closer to us than others are, just not quite there."
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2012, 01:35:38 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )

Quote
You're closer to us than others are, just not quite there
Good way to say it.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2012, 01:47:14 PM »

I don't think I really want to argue with you, dzheremi. Personally, I think it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern". If you think it is fine, then that is your right.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2012, 01:51:53 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )



Fixed that for you.   Grin
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 (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2012, 01:58:53 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )



Fixed that for you.   Grin
I was wondering how long it would take a RC to hit me with the strikethrough attack Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2012, 02:00:56 PM »

I don't think I really want to argue with you, dzheremi. Personally, I think it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern". If you think it is fine, then that is your right.

I think what Shenouda is actually saying is that in context "Eastern" is really just being used as a synonym for "Orthodox" (and "Western" as a synonym for 'Roman'--not necessarily Latin per se, but in terms of being tied to the errors developed by Rome/in Latin). Or in other words "Eastern Catholics" aren't Orthodox because, well, they aren't Orthodox. I think the use of 'Eastern', 'Western' is understandable from a historical standpoint, but it's not very precise and most of these conversations would go more clearly if it was avoided. (one of the problems with that, however, is that 'Eastern' Catholics' don't want to be called 'Roman' and 'u' term has come to be regarded as pejorative and so everybody is left looking for a term that is acceptable to everybody--meaning we often end up with terms that are less than precise).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2012, 02:04:46 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )



Fixed that for you.   Grin
I was wondering how long it would take a RC to hit me with the strikethrough attack Smiley

PP

Guess you're still waiting.  I'm not RC.   Grin
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 (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 05, 2012, 02:06:19 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )



Fixed that for you.   Grin
I was wondering how long it would take a RC to hit me with the strikethrough attack Smiley

PP

Guess you're still waiting.  I'm not RC.   Grin
I thought you were. Shows you sometimes how much I  pay attention.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2012, 02:16:22 PM »

Quote
The point in saying that the Eastern Catholics are not fully Eastern and thus it is not possible to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" is that they cannot fully express Orthodox theology and ecclesiology due to their acceptance of Western theological speculation as dogma, in accordance with the Western way of doing theology, and the various Papal heresies
Something Western Riters can say. I am of the same faith as my Eastern Rite bretheren in every way. I dont try to say, "Roman Catholic in communion with Pat. Ignatius" or some other stuff like that. You cant be Orthodox in communion with Rome, because at this juncutre, being in communion with Rome automatically makes you non-Orthodox (or orthodox Wink )



Fixed that for you.   Grin
I was wondering how long it would take a RC to hit me with the strikethrough attack Smiley

PP

Guess you're still waiting.  I'm not RC.   Grin
I thought you were. Shows you sometimes how much I  pay attention.

PP

I may (sometimes) walk like a duck, (sometimes) talk like a duck, and even (sometimes) look like a duck.  But I'm really a mean, nasty, honking old goose (that's in addition to all my other endearing qualities).   Grin Grin
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 (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2012, 02:18:21 PM »

Witega: That's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you. To say "Eastern Catholic" says something about their historical origin, but that's all it can reliably connote, since the union with Rome has fundamentally changed their character (i.e., they used to be Orthodox, in everything that that means, and now they are not). So this division of things into Eastern or semi-Eastern or whatever doesn't really get to the root of the matter, which is their inability to be Orthodox, as Rome is not Orthodox. If you think about it, hypothetical union or reunion of the Eastern Catholics with their Orthodox mother churches might involve greater or lesser modifications in praxis (this would be left to the receiving Orthodox bishops to decide, I suppose), but an invariant complete repudiation of all Roman heresies. So it is obvious what becoming "fully Eastern" would mean.

And Peter: Fair enough. You started the thread to ask about this stuff, but if you don't want to hear my opinion, I will not respond to your posts anymore.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 02:19:11 PM by dzheremi » Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2012, 02:22:24 PM »

Quote
I may (sometimes) walk like a duck, (sometimes) talk like a duck, and even (sometimes) look like a duck.  But I'm really a mean, nasty, honking old goose (that's in addition to all my other endearing qualities).
http://www.tasteofhome.com/Recipes/Mandarin-Goose

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....goose...

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #52 on: June 05, 2012, 02:32:50 PM »

Quote
I may (sometimes) walk like a duck, (sometimes) talk like a duck, and even (sometimes) look like a duck.  But I'm really a mean, nasty, honking old goose (that's in addition to all my other endearing qualities).
http://www.tasteofhome.com/Recipes/Mandarin-Goose

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....goose...

PP

You betcha!  We're pretty greasy, though  Grin.
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 (?)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #53 on: June 05, 2012, 03:07:58 PM »

If you think about it, hypothetical union or reunion of the Eastern Catholics with their Orthodox mother churches might involve greater or lesser modifications in praxis (this would be left to the receiving Orthodox bishops to decide, I suppose), but an invariant complete repudiation of all Roman heresies. So it is obvious what becoming "fully Eastern" would mean.
A while back, there was an Eastern Catholic Church in the USA where the priests decided that they wanted to transfer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. (The reasons for the change were not fully publicised, but according to rumors, they involved in part, some nasty personal problems and criminal activity). The congregation was informed and some left for another EC Church, while others stayed on in the parish. The Orthodox metropolitan came to the Church and the priests put some sort of a rope around their waists, and prayers were said and incense offered in the Church, but  as far as I know, no one was required to explicitly repudiate anything. The Church was declared to be an Orthodox Church and the priests were Orthodox priests. It was a simple ceremony.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #54 on: June 05, 2012, 03:27:10 PM »

If you think about it, hypothetical union or reunion of the Eastern Catholics with their Orthodox mother churches might involve greater or lesser modifications in praxis (this would be left to the receiving Orthodox bishops to decide, I suppose), but an invariant complete repudiation of all Roman heresies. So it is obvious what becoming "fully Eastern" would mean.
A while back, there was an Eastern Catholic Church in the USA where the priests decided that they wanted to transfer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. (The reasons for the change were not fully publicised, but according to rumors, they involved in part, some nasty personal problems and criminal activity). The congregation was informed and some left for another EC Church, while others stayed on in the parish. The Orthodox metropolitan came to the Church and the priests put some sort of a rope around their waists, and prayers were said and incense offered in the Church, but  as far as I know, no one was required to explicitly repudiate anything. The Church was declared to be an Orthodox Church and the priests were Orthodox priests. It was a simple ceremony.

Interesting.  Any idea to which "jurisdiction" the EC Church was received into?
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 (?)
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #55 on: June 05, 2012, 03:36:59 PM »

Sounds like hearsay. I don't know why it would matter that you didn't hear that it involved repudiation of anything. As someone who very recently was received in to the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church, I can tell you without even having to look it up, it involves not only repudiation on my part, but prayers from the priest that I be confirmed and strengthened in the Orthodox faith (I don't know how much this might differ from EO rites, but I can't imagine them being too different in this respect). To the extent that it differs for the reception of priests, I don't see how this proves anything other the fact there are no cookie-cutter receptions (this is also why EO converts to the OO churches are not received by baptism as I was, as RC baptism by sprinkling or pouring is deficient and not acceptable, whereas the EO baptism by triple immersion is acceptable according to OO authorities). All who are received are, however, required to hold the same faith no matter who they are or where they come from, so perhaps a better way of phrasing this principle would be: Any non-Orthodox who comes into the Orthodox Church cannot retain their non-Orthodox theology. So what is necessary to form them in the Orthodox faith will differ from person to person (e.g., I never had catechism classes, but was personally mentored by the priests, deacons, and laity of the Church), but the end result must be the same, and requires repudiation, if not by ceremony then certainly by profession, of all former heresies. No Orthodox Church is going to receive anyone if they continue to hold/do not repudiate their past heterodox belief.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 03:38:07 PM by dzheremi » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,595


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2012, 03:37:07 PM »

If you think about it, hypothetical union or reunion of the Eastern Catholics with their Orthodox mother churches might involve greater or lesser modifications in praxis (this would be left to the receiving Orthodox bishops to decide, I suppose), but an invariant complete repudiation of all Roman heresies. So it is obvious what becoming "fully Eastern" would mean.
A while back, there was an Eastern Catholic Church in the USA where the priests decided that they wanted to transfer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. (The reasons for the change were not fully publicised, but according to rumors, they involved in part, some nasty personal problems and criminal activity). The congregation was informed and some left for another EC Church, while others stayed on in the parish. The Orthodox metropolitan came to the Church and the priests put some sort of a rope around their waists, and prayers were said and incense offered in the Church, but  as far as I know, no one was required to explicitly repudiate anything. The Church was declared to be an Orthodox Church and the priests were Orthodox priests. It was a simple ceremony.

That must have been an irregular situation to begin with as to my knowledge, Rome has NEVER allowed a property transfer from a Greek Catholic jurisdiction to an Orthodox one and those of us in ACROD, the BCC , the UOC and UGCC all know of parishes where bitter, costly litigation was required for a parish to leave for Orthodoxy and the winners of the property were few and far between.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2012, 04:41:01 PM »

And Peter: Fair enough. You started the thread to ask about this stuff, but if you don't want to hear my opinion, I will not respond to your posts anymore.

So noted. That will be good to know -- if I ever decide that I don't want to hear your opinion.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2012, 04:43:30 PM »

I don't think I really want to argue with you, dzheremi. Personally, I think it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern". If you think it is fine, then that is your right.

I think what Shenouda is actually saying is that in context "Eastern" is really just being used as a synonym for "Orthodox" (and "Western" as a synonym for 'Roman'--not necessarily Latin per se, but in terms of being tied to the errors developed by Rome/in Latin).

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

Of course, like most of the "messages" we've been talking about here, that statement would be fine if it were accompanied by all the other messages. Recall that I started out talking about a "bait and switch" -- although I guess that's a little bit of an over-simplification, since it implies that there are only 2 different message (the "bait" and the "switch").
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2012, 04:59:00 PM »

I don't think I really want to argue with you, dzheremi. Personally, I think it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern". If you think it is fine, then that is your right.

I think what Shenouda is actually saying is that in context "Eastern" is really just being used as a synonym for "Orthodox" (and "Western" as a synonym for 'Roman'--not necessarily Latin per se, but in terms of being tied to the errors developed by Rome/in Latin).

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that. We think we know what these people you are quoting/paraphrasing are trying to say, using 'Eastern' to mean Orthodox (and 'Western' to mean 'heterodox'/'errors of rome'/'not-Orthodox') for historical reasons. And to that extent we agree with them; but we all agree it would be better to use clear terms (like 'Orthodox') rather than the vague directional terms.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #60 on: June 05, 2012, 05:28:38 PM »

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".
I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that.

Interesting ... I'll have to give that some thought and/or re-read some of the posts.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #61 on: June 05, 2012, 08:41:01 PM »

No Orthodox Church is going to receive anyone if they continue to hold/do not repudiate their past heterodox belief.
From what i have read about the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Ukraine, during the Stalin period, many EC Churches were simply declared EO Churches overnight. People who continued in those Churches were simply accepted with a simple act of faith and reception of the Mysteries. Does everyone agree that this was indeed the case, or did I get it wrong?
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #62 on: June 05, 2012, 08:51:20 PM »

Why are you picking out these incredibly anomalous situations and then holding them up as though they are indicative of how the Orthodox Church operates, Stanley? What does Stalin have to do with anything? Do think Stalin is an Eastern Father? Do we ask you about Roman Catholicism in Fascist Italy and use what happened there (e.g., the Lateran Treaty) to insinuate things about the Roman Church?
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #63 on: June 05, 2012, 09:27:02 PM »

Why are you picking out these incredibly anomalous situations and then holding them up as though they are indicative of how the Orthodox Church operates, Stanley? What does Stalin have to do with anything? Do think Stalin is an Eastern Father? Do we ask you about Roman Catholicism in Fascist Italy and use what happened there (e.g., the Lateran Treaty) to insinuate things about the Roman Church?
So you do agree then that in the situation in the Ukraine, Eastern Catholic Churches became Orthodox Churches  overnight, and Eastern Catholics could continue to attend services in these buildings as they had before, and were fully accepted as parishoners attending an Eastern Orthodox Church?
I believe that this is a known historical fact, is it not? And it involved a rather large number of people, did it not?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2012, 09:31:30 PM »

That must have been an irregular situation to begin with as to my knowledge, Rome has NEVER allowed a property transfer from a Greek Catholic jurisdiction to an Orthodox one and those of us in ACROD, the BCC , the UOC and UGCC all know of parishes where bitter, costly litigation was required for a parish to leave for Orthodoxy and the winners of the property were few and far between.

There might have been litigation or some agreement on property transfer, but it is true is it not that the following  Western PA partishes began as Greek Catholic but switched to Orthodoxy:
St. Nicholas Duquesne
St. John The Baptist Black Lick
St. Nicholas New Castle
St. Mary's McKees Rocks
SS. Peter and Paul's Carnegie
St. John The Baptist East Pittsbrgh
St. John The Baptist Ambridge
St. Michael's Rankin
St. John's in Lyndora, was Orthodox for about nine years, before becoming GC again.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #65 on: June 05, 2012, 09:40:15 PM »

Why are you picking out these incredibly anomalous situations and then holding them up as though they are indicative of how the Orthodox Church operates, Stanley? What does Stalin have to do with anything? Do think Stalin is an Eastern Father? Do we ask you about Roman Catholicism in Fascist Italy and use what happened there (e.g., the Lateran Treaty) to insinuate things about the Roman Church?
So you do agree then that in the situation in the Ukraine, Eastern Catholic Churches became Orthodox Churches  overnight, and Eastern Catholics could continue to attend services in these buildings as they had before, and were fully accepted as parishoners attending an Eastern Orthodox Church?
I believe that this is a known historical fact, is it not? And it involved a rather large number of people, did it not?

No. That doesn't sound very much like the 'historical facts' as I've seen them presented. Although the historical facts are not very complimentary to the Russian Church so I have no interest in going into them further.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #66 on: June 05, 2012, 10:27:56 PM »

Why are you picking out these incredibly anomalous situations and then holding them up as though they are indicative of how the Orthodox Church operates, Stanley? What does Stalin have to do with anything? Do think Stalin is an Eastern Father? Do we ask you about Roman Catholicism in Fascist Italy and use what happened there (e.g., the Lateran Treaty) to insinuate things about the Roman Church?
So you do agree then that in the situation in the Ukraine, Eastern Catholic Churches became Orthodox Churches  overnight, and Eastern Catholics could continue to attend services in these buildings as they had before, and were fully accepted as parishoners attending an Eastern Orthodox Church?
I believe that this is a known historical fact, is it not? And it involved a rather large number of people, did it not?

No. That doesn't sound very much like the 'historical facts' as I've seen them presented. Although the historical facts are not very complimentary to the Russian Church so I have no interest in going into them further.
Oh. I thought that  in a "sobor" in Lvov on March 8-10, 1946, an end was proclaimed to the 1596 Union of Brest, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church was declared "reunified" with the Russian Orthodox Church? The union was established by fiat with no requirement on the part of Eastern Catholics to repudiate anything?
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #67 on: June 06, 2012, 01:01:24 AM »

The same happened in Romania: Greek Catholics became Orthodox overnight (after the Alba Iulia "synod") with their clergy accepted as clergy without anything being added. So, no chrismations, re-ordinations, just  a profession of faith for the clergy.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 06, 2012, 04:41:26 AM »

Oh. I thought that  in a "sobor" in Lvov on March 8-10, 1946, an end was proclaimed to the 1596 Union of Brest, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church was declared "reunified" with the Russian Orthodox Church? The union was established by fiat with no requirement on the part of Eastern Catholics to repudiate anything?

Delatinisations had started earlier.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #69 on: June 06, 2012, 09:01:04 AM »

The same happened in Romania: Greek Catholics became Orthodox overnight (after the Alba Iulia "synod") with their clergy accepted as clergy without anything being added. So, no chrismations, re-ordinations, just  a profession of faith for the clergy.

This is part of what is different between the 'facts' and stanley123's version.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,595


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 06, 2012, 10:49:48 AM »

The same happened in Romania: Greek Catholics became Orthodox overnight (after the Alba Iulia "synod") with their clergy accepted as clergy without anything being added. So, no chrismations, re-ordinations, just  a profession of faith for the clergy.

This is part of what is different between the 'facts' and stanley123's version.

And the same occurred within the context of ACROD and the early Metropolia. 

It should be noted that transfers of congregations between Greek Catholicism and Orthodoxy among the Ruthenian congregations, particularly as stated by Stanley several posts above, can be divided between the period prior to and following the establishment of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the appointment of Basil Takach as Bishop of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics. If my memory is correct, I believe that most of the cases cited by Stanley were either pre-Bishop Takach, situations where no Greek Catholic loyalists were willing to object or where the state granted charters were clear that the parishes were not intended to be Greek Catholic united with Rome.

While it is true that there were situations where no litigation occurred, such as St. Michael's in Rankin or St. John's in East Pittsburgh, those churches were likely chartered as independent Christian organizations without prerogatives from an Eparch or an Ordinary Bishop united with Rome. In the situations post- Bishop Takach, litigation was the strategy to bring recalcitrant congregations back into the fold. Often the mere threat of litigation was sufficient to either stop the talk of leaving or to force those who were determined to leave to simply do that and build a new church.

It was not uncommon in those early days for a parish to hire or fire a pastor and the 'affiliation' of the particular parish had much to do whether the pastor was Orthodox or Greek Catholic. Likewise,some priests were known to change 'teams' in those days with some frequency, depending on the opportunity. Hence Rome sent Bishop Basil Takach to America to 'regularize' things. We know how that worked out. One also must remember that Orthodoxy was in a state of some chaos in America following the Russian Revolution throughout this period.

For example, the congregations of these parishes were founded as new Orthodox parishes, having been forced to leave their prior churches:

St. Michael's, Freeland, PA
St. Nicholas, Scranton, PA
St. Mary's, Endicott, NY
St. Nicholas, Elizabeth, NJ
St. Mary's Bayonne, NJ

Most of these parishes ultimately were smaller that the Greek Catholic ones which they sprang from. It was difficult to leave a building which your sweat and equity built and in which you were married, baptized etc...and the timing, during the great depression, made such decisions all the more difficult.

These parishes were either as large, or larger than the parish which remained Greek  Catholic:

St. John's, Bridgeport, Ct. (after lengthy and failed litigation. St. John's Greek Catholic Church, where Bishop Orestes Chornock was pastor for 35 years before the split, was one of the few founded with the consent of the Latin Ordinary which makes it unusual.) The Orthodox St. John's later split two more times over internal Orthodox disputes. (St. John's BCC in Trumball, CT remains having relocated from Arctic St. in Bridgeport in the 1970's.)There are four parishes in the Bridgeport area all named after St. John the Baptist which come from the mother church of St. John's.

Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Johnstown , PA (St. Mary's BCC remains in Cambria City.)

St. George's, Taylor, PA (Much smaller BCC parishes remain in Taylor and Old Forge, PA)

St. Nicholas, Homestead, PA (after failed litigation, parts of which persisted into the 1970's from St. John's BCC in Homestead. Of course, the mother Church there was St. John's, the original BCC Cathedral Church which relocated to Munhall, PA in the 1970's.)

Holy Ghost, Phoenixville, PA. (St. Michael's BCC in Pottstown)

Only a few won their court cases in the pre-1950 era and became Orthodox congregations. The most prominent of those were:

St. Michael's, Binghamton, NY 
St. John's, Perth Amboy, NJ

It should be noted that in both of those situations, a significant portion of their congregations left to build new, clearly Greek Catholic parishes in the community. (St. Nicholas in Perth Amboy and Holy Spirit in Binghamton.)

St. John Chrysostom BCC Church in Ruska Dolina (Pittsburgh) was one of the more prominent Greek  Catholic Churches which suffered major and lengthy litigation (again into the 1980's I believe) where no Orthodox counterpart of note emerged.

These are only a few that come to my mind this morning, but all of these communities suffered greatly as a result of the early 20th century pressures to Latinize the Greek Catholics and assimilate them into American Roman Catholicism.

It can fairly be said that had the courageous priests and faithful of these communities not stood their ground when they did - and whether they became Orthodox or stayed Greek Catholic, their actions in standing up to Rome and saying 'NO' likely preserved the Greek Catholics here to the extent they remain today and allowed others to become fully Orthodox.
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #71 on: June 06, 2012, 11:28:52 AM »

Thank you, Podkarpatska, for that incredibly informative and interesting post.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #72 on: June 06, 2012, 02:08:38 PM »

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that.

I guess you've been quite selective in reading this thread. For example,

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.

So? As others in this thread have told you explicitly, "Eastern" isn't a goal in and of itself.

(emphasis added)
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 02:09:42 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #73 on: June 06, 2012, 02:39:11 PM »

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that.

I guess you've been quite selective in reading this thread. For example,

Selective's a rather loaded term. My browsing of the forum/discussions I'm following is a bit choppy through the work day, so it's entirely possible that I overlook a post (or forget it about it by the time I have time to post myself). But in this case, given dzheremi's subsequent posts expanding on his position, I stand by my characterization. He is agreeing with you that the the phrasing 'fully Eastern' is 'problematic' (indeed, in this post he's being more emphatic as that it's downright pointless, though in later posts he fills in the same understanding as I have--that is that they really mean 'fully Orthodox' and that more accurate wording is what should be discussed).

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.

So? As others in this thread have told you explicitly, "Eastern" isn't a goal in and of itself.

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 06, 2012, 02:52:12 PM »

Personally, I could not give a rat's hindquarters if I were "completely eastern". I would definitely care if I were not fully Orthodox however.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #75 on: June 06, 2012, 03:11:09 PM »

Exactly, Primuspilus. I don't particularly feel a need to defend my Westernness/non-Egyptianness in my church, for instance (and nobody has ever asked me to, though they do sometimes needle me for my 'foreign' ways; it's fine, since I do the same to them Smiley). That's just a fact of life/accident of birth, and doesn't mean anything. Everyone can be Orthodox, so that's what we should always focus on. Besides, there are plenty of Orthodox Westerners/Romans/whatevers throughout the history of the Church. It's not like it's something we made up to get the "not fully Eastern" crowd to like us. The history is already there, no matter who accepts it or what they make of it.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #76 on: June 06, 2012, 04:13:30 PM »

Selective's a rather loaded term. My browsing of the forum/discussions I'm following is a bit choppy through the work day, so it's entirely possible that I overlook a post (or forget it about it by the time I have time to post myself). But in this case, given dzheremi's subsequent posts expanding on his position, I stand by my characterization. He is agreeing with you that the the phrasing 'fully Eastern' is 'problematic' (indeed, in this post he's being more emphatic as that it's downright pointless, though in later posts he fills in the same understanding as I have--that is that they really mean 'fully Orthodox' and that more accurate wording is what should be discussed).

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.

So? As others in this thread have told you explicitly, "Eastern" isn't a goal in and of itself.

Frankly, I'm still not at all convinced that

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that.

either in general or with regard to dzheremi's statements in particular; but let's just suppose that you're right. What then is your stance? That you don't disagree with what I'm saying but you want it be kept quiet, perhaps?  Or what exactly?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 04:15:00 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 06, 2012, 04:24:40 PM »

Quote
Frankly, I'm still not at all convinced that
Well, for some its not a goal Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #78 on: June 06, 2012, 04:31:04 PM »

Selective's a rather loaded term. My browsing of the forum/discussions I'm following is a bit choppy through the work day, so it's entirely possible that I overlook a post (or forget it about it by the time I have time to post myself). But in this case, given dzheremi's subsequent posts expanding on his position, I stand by my characterization. He is agreeing with you that the the phrasing 'fully Eastern' is 'problematic' (indeed, in this post he's being more emphatic as that it's downright pointless, though in later posts he fills in the same understanding as I have--that is that they really mean 'fully Orthodox' and that more accurate wording is what should be discussed).

^^ But in my experience Orthodox often say it a little bit differently. I've witnessed or been involved in a great many conversations in which a Catholic says that he/she is "Orthodox in communion with Rome", and then an Orthodox says "No, because you're not fully Eastern" (emphasis added) or words to that effect.

So? As others in this thread have told you explicitly, "Eastern" isn't a goal in and of itself.

Frankly, I'm still not at all convinced that

That may be true, but really it just reinforces my notion, that it's problematic when Orthodox say that the reason Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox is because they "aren't fully Eastern".

I don't think any of us responding to you on this thread disagree with you on that.

either in general or with regard to dzheremi's statements in particular; but let's just suppose that you're right. What then is your stance? That you don't disagree with what I'm saying but you want it be kept quiet, perhaps?  Or what exactly?

HuhHuhHuh?
what is my stance on what? I didn't think I had been unclear in any of my statements, but given that some of your last statements read like complete non sequitors to me ("kept quiet"? huh?), I'm no longer sure we're engaged in the same conversation at all.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #79 on: June 06, 2012, 05:13:20 PM »

either in general or with regard to dzheremi's statements in particular; but let's just suppose that you're right. What then is your stance? That you don't disagree with what I'm saying but you want it be kept quiet, perhaps?  Or what exactly?

HuhHuhHuh?
what is my stance on what? I didn't think I had been unclear in any of my statements, but given that some of your last statements read like complete non sequitors to me ("kept quiet"? huh?), I'm no longer sure we're engaged in the same conversation at all.

Sorry, I think I might have been mixing you up with a couple other posters. I guess a better question would be (given that we seem to have some measure of agreement on the whole "Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox because they aren't fully Eastern" thing) do you think it's fair to say that nowadays Eastern Catholics are subject to "reverse uniatism" as well as "uniatism"?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 05:14:37 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2012, 05:20:32 PM »

either in general or with regard to dzheremi's statements in particular; but let's just suppose that you're right. What then is your stance? That you don't disagree with what I'm saying but you want it be kept quiet, perhaps?  Or what exactly?

HuhHuhHuh?
what is my stance on what? I didn't think I had been unclear in any of my statements, but given that some of your last statements read like complete non sequitors to me ("kept quiet"? huh?), I'm no longer sure we're engaged in the same conversation at all.

Sorry, I think I might have been mixing you up with a couple other posters. I guess a better question would be (given that we seem to have some measure of agreement on the whole "Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox because they aren't fully Eastern" thing) do you think it's fair to say that nowadays Eastern Catholics are subject to "reverse uniatism" as well as "uniatism"?

I'm getting a little confused (nothing new, there).  If "uniatism" is "the union of an Eastern Rite church with the Roman Church in which the authority of the papacy is accepted without loss of separate liturgies or government by local patriarchs." from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Uniatism, what does "reverse uniatism" mean, how does it work, and is it important?
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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2012, 05:27:07 PM »

Yes, that is interesting. So according to thefreedictionary, WRO can't be uniatism, by the very definition of the word; neither can the Anglican Ordinariates.

Don't get me wrong: it's not that I thought that either of them were uniatism, I just didn't realize that proving that they weren't was as simple as reading the definition of "uniatism".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2012, 06:50:05 PM »

either in general or with regard to dzheremi's statements in particular; but let's just suppose that you're right. What then is your stance? That you don't disagree with what I'm saying but you want it be kept quiet, perhaps?  Or what exactly?

HuhHuhHuh?
what is my stance on what? I didn't think I had been unclear in any of my statements, but given that some of your last statements read like complete non sequitors to me ("kept quiet"? huh?), I'm no longer sure we're engaged in the same conversation at all.

Sorry, I think I might have been mixing you up with a couple other posters. I guess a better question would be (given that we seem to have some measure of agreement on the whole "Eastern Catholics aren't Orthodox because they aren't fully Eastern" thing) do you think it's fair to say that nowadays Eastern Catholics are subject to "reverse uniatism" as well as "uniatism"?

Gotta admit, whether its the way the thread has wandered or the choppy way I read threads or something else, but am by no means sure what you mean by 'reverse uniatism' at this point.

*If* you are still asking about the 'bait-and-switch' concept from your OP, then I would still say no. I believe the position of Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Byzantine Catholics is well-established from authoritative statements by synods and saints: through shared communion, Byzantine Catholics share in the errors of Rome; Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox; and the only way they can become Orthodox (which is always the recommended path) is to actually leave Rome and (re)join the Orthodox Church.

I believe that you have encountered individuals who either expressed this teaching badly (in using 'Eastern' as an imprecise synonym for 'Orthodox') or who were the functional equivalents of 'cafeteria Catholics' in that they did not accept the actual position of the Orthodox Church on Byzantine Catholics and expressed to you their own beliefs. In neither case, do I think it can be characterized as 'bait-and-switch' or 'reverse uniatism'.

Honestly, it seems like you are frustrated because you have actually been told this in the past and now you can't find anyone willing to stand behind it--either to attempt to justify it or to apologize for misleading you. And I can sympathize with that frustration. But I can't defend individual errors or acknowledge them as coming from the Orthodox Church any more than I would expect you or another traditional Catholic to defend or acknowledge as accurate representatives of Roman teaching those Roman Catholics who have told me that humanae vitae is not 'really' binding on the Roman Church.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2012, 07:29:47 PM »

The same happened in Romania: Greek Catholics became Orthodox overnight (after the Alba Iulia "synod") with their clergy accepted as clergy without anything being added. So, no chrismations, re-ordinations, just  a profession of faith for the clergy.

This is part of what is different between the 'facts' and stanley123's version.

And the same occurred within the context of ACROD and the early Metropolia. 

It should be noted that transfers of congregations between Greek Catholicism and Orthodoxy among the Ruthenian congregations, particularly as stated by Stanley several posts above, can be divided between the period prior to and following the establishment of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the appointment of Basil Takach as Bishop of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics. If my memory is correct, I believe that most of the cases cited by Stanley were either pre-Bishop Takach, situations where no Greek Catholic loyalists were willing to object or where the state granted charters were clear that the parishes were not intended to be Greek Catholic united with Rome.

While it is true that there were situations where no litigation occurred, such as St. Michael's in Rankin or St. John's in East Pittsburgh, those churches were likely chartered as independent Christian organizations without prerogatives from an Eparch or an Ordinary Bishop united with Rome. In the situations post- Bishop Takach, litigation was the strategy to bring recalcitrant congregations back into the fold. Often the mere threat of litigation was sufficient to either stop the talk of leaving or to force those who were determined to leave to simply do that and build a new church.

It was not uncommon in those early days for a parish to hire or fire a pastor and the 'affiliation' of the particular parish had much to do whether the pastor was Orthodox or Greek Catholic. Likewise,some priests were known to change 'teams' in those days with some frequency, depending on the opportunity. Hence Rome sent Bishop Basil Takach to America to 'regularize' things. We know how that worked out. One also must remember that Orthodoxy was in a state of some chaos in America following the Russian Revolution throughout this period.

For example, the congregations of these parishes were founded as new Orthodox parishes, having been forced to leave their prior churches:

St. Michael's, Freeland, PA
St. Nicholas, Scranton, PA
St. Mary's, Endicott, NY
St. Nicholas, Elizabeth, NJ
St. Mary's Bayonne, NJ

Most of these parishes ultimately were smaller that the Greek Catholic ones which they sprang from. It was difficult to leave a building which your sweat and equity built and in which you were married, baptized etc...and the timing, during the great depression, made such decisions all the more difficult.

These parishes were either as large, or larger than the parish which remained Greek  Catholic:

St. John's, Bridgeport, Ct. (after lengthy and failed litigation. St. John's Greek Catholic Church, where Bishop Orestes Chornock was pastor for 35 years before the split, was one of the few founded with the consent of the Latin Ordinary which makes it unusual.) The Orthodox St. John's later split two more times over internal Orthodox disputes. (St. John's BCC in Trumball, CT remains having relocated from Arctic St. in Bridgeport in the 1970's.)There are four parishes in the Bridgeport area all named after St. John the Baptist which come from the mother church of St. John's.

Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Johnstown , PA (St. Mary's BCC remains in Cambria City.)

St. George's, Taylor, PA (Much smaller BCC parishes remain in Taylor and Old Forge, PA)

St. Nicholas, Homestead, PA (after failed litigation, parts of which persisted into the 1970's from St. John's BCC in Homestead. Of course, the mother Church there was St. John's, the original BCC Cathedral Church which relocated to Munhall, PA in the 1970's.)

Holy Ghost, Phoenixville, PA. (St. Michael's BCC in Pottstown)

Only a few won their court cases in the pre-1950 era and became Orthodox congregations. The most prominent of those were:

St. Michael's, Binghamton, NY 
St. John's, Perth Amboy, NJ

It should be noted that in both of those situations, a significant portion of their congregations left to build new, clearly Greek Catholic parishes in the community. (St. Nicholas in Perth Amboy and Holy Spirit in Binghamton.)

St. John Chrysostom BCC Church in Ruska Dolina (Pittsburgh) was one of the more prominent Greek  Catholic Churches which suffered major and lengthy litigation (again into the 1980's I believe) where no Orthodox counterpart of note emerged.

These are only a few that come to my mind this morning, but all of these communities suffered greatly as a result of the early 20th century pressures to Latinize the Greek Catholics and assimilate them into American Roman Catholicism.

It can fairly be said that had the courageous priests and faithful of these communities not stood their ground when they did - and whether they became Orthodox or stayed Greek Catholic, their actions in standing up to Rome and saying 'NO' likely preserved the Greek Catholics here to the extent they remain today and allowed others to become fully Orthodox.

Is there a history of Ruska Dolina?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2012, 09:09:43 PM »

I believe that you have encountered individuals who either expressed this teaching badly (in using 'Eastern' as an imprecise synonym for 'Orthodox') or who were the functional equivalents of 'cafeteria Catholics' in that they did not accept the actual position of the Orthodox Church on Byzantine Catholics and expressed to you their own beliefs. In neither case, do I think it can be characterized as 'bait-and-switch' or 'reverse uniatism'.

Well, alright, but isn't it still "bait and switch" even it's just individual Orthodox who are giving those messages? (Also, this may go without saying, but lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not by any means suggesting that those individual Orthodox are evil or anything like that.)

Honestly, it seems like you are frustrated because you have actually been told this in the past and now you can't find anyone willing to stand behind it--either to attempt to justify it or to apologize for misleading you. And I can sympathize with that frustration. But I can't defend individual errors or acknowledge them as coming from the Orthodox Church any more than I would expect you or another traditional Catholic to defend or acknowledge as accurate representatives of Roman teaching those Roman Catholics who have told me that humanae vitae is not 'really' binding on the Roman Church.

I guess I am somewhat frustrated -- largely at myself, for having so much difficulty in finding the right words to describe the problem that I see, on top of not being a respected Eastern Catholic.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 09:10:24 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2012, 09:34:57 PM »

I believe that you have encountered individuals who either expressed this teaching badly (in using 'Eastern' as an imprecise synonym for 'Orthodox') or who were the functional equivalents of 'cafeteria Catholics' in that they did not accept the actual position of the Orthodox Church on Byzantine Catholics and expressed to you their own beliefs. In neither case, do I think it can be characterized as 'bait-and-switch' or 'reverse uniatism'.

Well, alright, but isn't it still "bait and switch" even it's just individual Orthodox who are giving those messages? (Also, this may go without saying, but lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not by any means suggesting that those individual Orthodox are evil or anything like that.)

Perhaps we are using different definitions of 'bait and switch'. In my understanding of the term, it would only apply if the same people (or organization) that say the 'bait' then come back with the 'switch'. IOW, if I told you 'you should become Eastern Catholic', you do so and come back, and I say 'well, I really meant you should become Orthodox'; or if the Orthodox 'general synod' finally meets and publishes a specific list "for communion to be re-established, Rome must drop the filioque from the Creed, renounce papal infallibility, papal universalism, and the immaculate conception as dogmas and start doing confirmation before first communion", Rome bites the bullet and does all those things and then invites the EP to come concelebrate at St. Peter's and the EP responds, "well, you really should follow our fasting rule for Lent first" or "I really think we need to see some married Latin-rite priests before we take that next step." That's what I would call bait and switch, but it's not my understanding of what's happening. My understanding is that you had a couple of Orthodox tell you one thing, then as you continued talking to more/other Orthodox you found that most of them didn't agree with that original thing.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2012, 10:58:52 PM »

Why would the Orthodox see bringing people into the fold using western liturgies as reverse uniatism.  To us it would be bringing people into the Christian Church. 
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #87 on: June 07, 2012, 07:44:04 AM »

Why would the Orthodox see bringing people into the fold using western liturgies as reverse uniatism.

I wouldn't call that "reverse uniatism". If anything, that would be "uniatism" (and I don't even believe it is that, for the most part) not "reverse uniatism".

However, I believe "reverse uniatism" (not related to WRO) is also a possibility. As Maria said:

An Eastern Catholic Bishop once made the comment that the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church is like a bridge to Orthodoxy.

Disgruntled Roman Catholics who have had it with all the liturgical changes have been fleeing first to the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church, where they get catechized with material from St. Vladimir Seminary or Life and Light Publishing, and then they switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church ... going to either Antiochian, Greek, or OCA parishes.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2012, 08:29:44 AM »

Quote
Why would the Orthodox see bringing people into the fold using western liturgies as reverse uniatism
Well, although I am distinctly biased on this obviously, I would say a big part of it is that the orthodox pride themselves on liturgical purity and uniformity. However, we all know that is really far from being correct. From what I am told, you can have 2 churches in the same town do the liturgy differently (I've actually never even seen nor heard the Liturgy everyone else uses...ever).

PP
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 08:30:57 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,595


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2012, 10:43:10 AM »

"Doing the liturgy differently" is something of a misnomer. Certainly there are superficial differences in the rubrics which developed in different national churches over the passage of many centuries. Likewise, the modality of rubrics are different within the national churches today from various points in history. What you saw in Hagia Sophia in the 11th century might not be completely familiar to a modern eye or ear, but it would likely resonate with some sense of 'sameness.'  The same can be said if you attended liturgy at a Serbian or Antiochian or any other American jurisdiction. The differences from the olden days would be far greater than the external differences among our jurisdictions.

What you will not find within Orthodoxy is the range of differentiation in the liturgy which you may find within the Roman Church - ranging from a rapidly recited 'low mass' to a guitar mass 'novus ordus' to a Tridentine High Mass and any and all variations in between them.

As WRO struggles to establish its rubrics, I suspect that some form of uniformity will come out of these efforts as well. Perhaps the concept of a 'reverse uniatism'  might be not serve as a direct analogy, but there are some Orthodox who might seek to impose Eastern liturgical norms that were not 'regular' in the west prior to the schism in an effort to make the WRO appear 'more Orthodox' to our eyes and ears. That would be the reverse of 'latinizing' however....

Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2012, 11:09:52 AM »

Quote
"Doing the liturgy differently" is something of a misnomer
I was conveying the feelings of some other folks. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

Quote
s WRO struggles to establish its rubrics, I suspect that some form of uniformity will come out of these efforts as well
I agree. No matter what it looks like. I love the Liturgy of St. Tikhon but if it meant doing another instead to promote uniformity, I'd be down with it.

Quote
That would be the reverse of 'latinizing' however
Easternizing I s'pose.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2012, 11:44:02 AM »

"Doing the liturgy differently" is something of a misnomer. Certainly there are superficial differences in the rubrics which developed in different national churches over the passage of many centuries. Likewise, the modality of rubrics are different within the national churches today from various points in history. What you saw in Hagia Sophia in the 11th century might not be completely familiar to a modern eye or ear, but it would likely resonate with some sense of 'sameness.'  The same can be said if you attended liturgy at a Serbian or Antiochian or any other American jurisdiction. The differences from the olden days would be far greater than the external differences among our jurisdictions.

What you will not find within Orthodoxy is the range of differentiation in the liturgy which you may find within the Roman Church - ranging from a rapidly recited 'low mass' to a guitar mass 'novus ordus' to a Tridentine High Mass and any and all variations in between them.

As WRO struggles to establish its rubrics, I suspect that some form of uniformity will come out of these efforts as well. Perhaps the concept of a 'reverse uniatism'  might be not serve as a direct analogy, but there are some Orthodox who might seek to impose Eastern liturgical norms that were not 'regular' in the west prior to the schism in an effort to make the WRO appear 'more Orthodox' to our eyes and ears. That would be the reverse of 'latinizing' however....

I think I pretty much understand, and am in agreement with, what you are saying except for your use of the word "reverse". Even if WRO were "uniatism" (and I believe I share your skepticism about the possibility that it is) I don't understand why anyone would call it "reverse uniatism". That's like saying that if I punch you it's "reverse punch" because a "punch" would be if you punch me.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,488


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 07, 2012, 11:46:35 AM »

Quote
I think I pretty much understand, and am in agreement with, what you are saying except for your use of the word "reverse". Even if WRO were "uniatism" (and I believe I share your skepticism about the possibility that it is) I don't understand why anyone would call it "reverse uniatism". That's like saying that if I punch you it's "reverse punch" because a "punch" would be if you punch me
So, uniatism by any other name smells just as uniatist?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,174


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


« Reply #93 on: June 07, 2012, 11:47:34 AM »

"Doing the liturgy differently" is something of a misnomer. Certainly there are superficial differences in the rubrics which developed in different national churches over the passage of many centuries. Likewise, the modality of rubrics are different within the national churches today from various points in history. What you saw in Hagia Sophia in the 11th century might not be completely familiar to a modern eye or ear, but it would likely resonate with some sense of 'sameness.'  The same can be said if you attended liturgy at a Serbian or Antiochian or any other American jurisdiction. The differences from the olden days would be far greater than the external differences among our jurisdictions.

What you will not find within Orthodoxy is the range of differentiation in the liturgy which you may find within the Roman Church - ranging from a rapidly recited 'low mass' to a guitar mass 'novus ordus' to a Tridentine High Mass and any and all variations in between them.

As WRO struggles to establish its rubrics, I suspect that some form of uniformity will come out of these efforts as well. Perhaps the concept of a 'reverse uniatism'  might be not serve as a direct analogy, but there are some Orthodox who might seek to impose Eastern liturgical norms that were not 'regular' in the west prior to the schism in an effort to make the WRO appear 'more Orthodox' to our eyes and ears. That would be the reverse of 'latinizing' however....

I think I pretty much understand, and am in agreement with, what you are saying except for your use of the word "reverse". Even if WRO were "uniatism" (and I believe I share your skepticism about the possibility that it is) I don't understand why anyone would call it "reverse uniatism". That's like saying that if I punch you it's "reverse punch" because a "punch" would be if you punch me.

This is all getting far too esoteric for me.   Grin
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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #94 on: June 07, 2012, 11:53:54 AM »

Quote
I think I pretty much understand, and am in agreement with, what you are saying except for your use of the word "reverse". Even if WRO were "uniatism" (and I believe I share your skepticism about the possibility that it is) I don't understand why anyone would call it "reverse uniatism". That's like saying that if I punch you it's "reverse punch" because a "punch" would be if you punch me
So, uniatism by any other name smells just as uniatist?

PP

Not affiliated with Punch.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,595


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 07, 2012, 03:44:33 PM »

I just noticed the quote on the bottom of Peter's posts.

Peter's quote from +Lubomyr is interesting in that its sentiments precede Cardinal Huzar by about five decades. "Ani do Rim, ani do Moskvi!" (neither to Rome nor to Moscow!)was the rallying cry of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics leaving the Unia in 1937 as they sought refuge and protection under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. That path remains open to those who wish to follow it.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.317 seconds with 124 queries.