OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 02:32:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox engage in reverse uniatism?  (Read 3285 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 10,276


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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 10,276


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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 10,276


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: 10,276


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: 8,966


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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 5,636



« 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
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« 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
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: 8,966


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: 6,174



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 6,174



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 6,174



« 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: 10,276


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: 6,174



« 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: 6,174



« 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: 5,073



« 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: 6,174



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


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: 8,966


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
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 0.188 seconds with 73 queries.