Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding the schism

[Orthodoc]

So many times both here and elsewhere I have been chastised by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike for my insistence in defending the Catholicity of my Orthodox faith and my right to identify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.

Rather than try and understand why, many accuse me of having a Catholic Envy.  The following is a perfect example of what we allow to happen when we don't stick up for our faith and defend our rightful identity.  It is from the Catholics Answers section on a new thread that opened up called 'Greek Orthodox' -

============

 Re: Greek Orthodox
Today's "Greek Orthodox" are better called "Eastern Orthodox" because only a couple of the 16 or more Eastern Orthodox churches are actually Greek by nationality. Most of the others are the churches of some Slavic nation, like the Russian Orthodox, the Serbian Orthodox, etc. So I presume that you are not referring only to ethnic Greek churches, but to any EO church. There is not just one "Eastern Orthodox church", but instead there is a league of 16 or more juridically separate churches, all of which belong to the Byzantine rite, as they are descended from the churches of the East that once belonged to the "Patriarchate" of Constantinople (=Byzantium).

All these churches are descended from the originally Catholic dioceses of the East, and they have been in schism from Rome since, well, pick a date: 862, 1054, 1439 are dates sometimes found, as the schism originally begun about 862 by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople though healed was rekindled more than once.

There are other churches of the East that are Catholic, however. These are called "Eastern Catholic" churches, and almost all of them are descended from groups of Eastern Orthodox who left communion with Constantinople and came into communion with Rome again since the Photian schism. One, the Maronites,claims never to have been in schism, and a few others are descended from schismatic churches that were not in union with Constantinople, i.e., from churches that are not "Eastern Orthodox".

Catholics of the Roman rite have no quarrel with the authentic traditions of the East; the problem is only with their schism and the occasional errors that the Eastern Orthodox have picked up over the years, and above all with the anti-Roman animus that characterizes all these EO churches and is responsible for a great number of their errors. I think that wihout this antipathy to Rome they would have had a record of doctrinal orthodoxy even better than the otherwise fairly good record that they have had. If you want to appreciate the East you should check out a good solid Eastern Catholic parish, for instance, the Ukrainians, the Maronites, the Melchites, and so on, and attend their liturgy. This is fine and even recommended for Roman-rite Catholics to do.

Regards,

========

Note what I have put in bold type.  We are preceived as a group of  separate churches who all descended from Constantinople and left the Catholic Church at various times in history!

Note That as long as we are so willing to give up our Catholic identity for an ethnic identity we allow either misconceptions of of our faith or rewrites of history like this to continue.  And appear  to be agreeing with the misconception that we left the 'Catholic Church' continue.


Orthodoc
   

[Αριστοκλής]

Orthodoc,
As you know, at your request I joined that forum - my first, only, and last participation in an RC forum. You need not defend your views here, of course, and you and Fr. Ambrose are made of heartier stuff than I; I prefer to leave them to their own propagandistic delusions.
I nearly took the bait on their questioning St Andrew's establishment of the Church of Constantinople by responding with an in-kind reply about Linus, not Peter, establishing the Church of Rome. Then I figured- 'Why bother?' - neither point matters to me in the least.

Demetri

[bripat22]

 Orthodoc,
   
       I find nothing in that quote from that forum other then a very ill-informed opinion of one Latin Catholic.  This is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Orthodox which can be found in the Catholic Catechism and in the many Encylicals of Pope John Paul II. Why take such a quote and try to make it representative of Catholicism (Roman) which it is not?

[TomS]

...Then I figured- 'Why bother?' - neither point matters to me in the least.

Exactly. Once again -- all this stuff is just a distraction created by "you know who".

[Jennifer]

 Orthodoc,
 
 I find nothing in that quote from that forum other then a very ill-informed opinion of one Latin Catholic. This is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Orthodox which can be found in the Catholic Catechism and in the many Encylicals of Pope John Paul II. Why take such a quote and try to make it representative of Catholicism (Roman) which it is not?

But it's not completely inconsistent with Rome's current teaching and is entirely consistent with Rome's historic teaching.  What does "schism" mean?  Rome doesn't deny there is a schism and Rome believes that communion is necessary for the fullness of catholicity so it's not inconsistent for them to insist that the Orthodox are not "catholic." 

But my question to Orthodoc is what does it matter what *they* think?  So what if they don't think you're Catholic? 

[Orthodoc]

[But my question to Orthodoc is what does it matter what *they* think?  So what if they don't think you're Catholic? ]

Because to an outsider or one who has a limited knowledge of church history it looks like we Orthodox Catholics are the schismatics why the RCC is the true and original Church.  How many have been swayed from the true Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) by reading false claims like this?

Orthodoc

[Jennifer]

Because to an outsider or one who has a limited knowledge of church history it looks like we Orthodox Catholics are the schismatics why the RCC is the true and original Church. How many have been swayed from the true Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) by reading false claims like this?

Why does it "look like" that based on *their* claims?  Just because they say something doesn't mean 'outsiders' believe it. 

These people will never agree with you so let it go. 

[francis]

Orthodoc,

As a Roman Catholic, I thought I would respond.

You need to understand that, basically, most practicing Catholics and Orthodox see their own Church and the "other" Church in exactly the same way - just backwards. I've seen this time and time again. You could flip the words "Catholic" and "Orthodox" in this forum and a Catholic one, and get the exact same posts sometimes.

- A Catholic believes that the Orthodox Churches are in schism from the true Church - the Catholic Church.
- An Orthodox believes that the Catholic Church is in schism from the true Church - the Orthodox Church.

No amount of debate will change their minds.

Regardless of which Church is the "true Church", I think that one thing is clear: neither Church "left" the other. The historical reality is that over a period of hundreds of years they became estranged until the schism just was a reality. The estrangement came due to numerous factors, only some of which were theological. I think if the other factors - political, cultural, liguistic, etc. - were not there, the theological problems could have been worked out.

It is my opinion that the Catholic Church has maintained the "fullness" of Catholic teaching. All of the specifically "Roman Catholic" teachings, I believe, are legitimate developments and not heresy. Obviously you disagree and would say the exact some thing about the Orthodox Church. I take no offense to that, but you should take none at my position. You should simply try to educate us Catholics as to why you believe we are wrong (and allow us to educate you as to why we think you are wrong).

The schism exists, to be sure, and in some way, both Churches are lesser for it. But is one Church "schismatic"? I don't think so - I think that implies that one Church purposefully "left" the other, which I don't think ever happened.

BTW, I used "Catholic" to mean the Roman Catholic Church, and "Orthodox" to mean the Eastern Orthodox Churches, simply for conveniece. I consider you a "Catholic", btw, but I acknowledge that your Church and my Church are in schism.

[Jakub]

Gee Bob,

I thought you enjoyed it over thar, hell I like to throw a log or two on the fire over at CA.

You & Fr. Ambrose do a good job, throw a tibit out there and it becomes a feeding frenzy, no need to respond quickly, just sit back and read.

Some of the responses are really quite amusing, ... and ignorant.

I'm in your corner 75% of the time.

james

[Jennifer]

Some of the responses are really quite amusing, ... and ignorant.

What I don't understand (and if I were still Catholic, I would be ashamed of) is why all of the Catholic boards are uniformly awful.  I can't think of one latin rite RC board that isn't full of these arm-chair theologians/apologists. 

I've written before about my decision to leave Rome.  And part of my decision was motivated by their behavior.  There's almost 'fascist' about the way these "apologists" operate.  Any perceived dissent and they come down on you like a ton of bricks. 

Another thing that annoys me is the tendency to 'dogmatize' history.  Every once in awhile one of you will mention Fr. Dvornik's book on the filioque and St. Photius.   The responses are so hostile.  It's almost as if these people believe that the RCC's version of history is dogma.   As an example, over on the DCF board someone asked about the Slovakian nazi/priest.  I responded that unfortunately that bit of history is true and mentioned Archbishop Stepanic and how it's unfortunate that he was beautified.  One poster responded with the "logic" that because the RCC beautified him, he must be in heaven.  What do these people believe about infallibility?  Does the beautification of someone move them from purgatory/hell to heaven? 

I don't care what the Pope of Rome says, I don't think Archbishop Stepanic is worthy of veneration.  I hope he repented of his terrible sins before his death. 

I assume that mentioning this got me booted off the DCF board since it now says my user name is invalid.  That was my first post in about a month so I figure that was the 'offensive' one.  I didn't get notified or anything so it's hard to say.   But good riddance. 

[Schultz]

All I have to say is that the internet tends to bring out the worst in humanity across the board.

Keeping that in mind has saved me from a heart attack in the 10+ years I've been on the internet, I'm sure.

[Tony]

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us. 

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us.

I guess that explains it.  Of course I haven't gotten the "talking to" that they mentioned since no one has contacted me. 

I wonder who the tattletale was? 

[Tony]

It's ByzantineSerb. He has the same thread title "Discerning the East" on the convert section here and in the War Room.

I guess that explains it. Of course I haven't gotten the "talking to" that they mentioned since no one has contacted me.

I wonder who the tattletale was?

[francis]

I don't want to start a fight, but perhaps the reason you get banned Jennifer is that you spend so much of your energy in your posts pointing out everyone else's problems and faults. We all have them, but most of us don't like to hear about them all the time. You know the saying about honey and vinegar...

Just my not-so-humble opinion, feel free to fire away...

[Jakub]

If one is sincere in their beliefs and faith why fear or care about what another thinks or states ? Heck I've adapted to Orthodoc,  he could ruffle my feathers but I understand him better now.

Though I visited that site yesterday & today via the link its not of my liking.

Sometimes I post something to draw out a idea/true feelings/intent but I do it due to the person's unclarity in the discussion.

I like to get to the point without all the BS garnish . You can spend hours and days fighting thru that jungle.

james

[Jennifer]

I don't want to start a fight, but perhaps the reason you get banned Jennifer is that you spend so much of your energy in your posts pointing out everyone else's problems and faults. We all have them, but most of us don't like to hear about them all the time. You know the saying about honey and vinegar...

Well I don't like that either but that's been the overall response I've received on "religious" boards.  It's constant criticism to the point where you don't care anymore.  I've been told that I have no charity in my heart.  That I don't understand either the west or the east.   That's I'm "immature", "clueless," "stupid," you name it, I've been called it.  Now I have a chip on my shoulder and expect the criticism and sometimes shoot first. 

When I first showed up on the afforementioned site, I was "welcomed" by being informed that I couldn't be a Catholic because of what I wrote about politics.  They were rude to me from the beginning and I became rude in response.  That's no excuse on my part because I should have rose above it. 

Edited to add that what made it even worse for me was that when I was still trying to be Roman Catholic.  I was on the fence but wanting to be Roman Catholic because that's what I'd always been.  But to be told, in no uncertain terms, that I was not a Roman Catholic was very hurtful at the time.  That's probably why I'm still bitter about it. 

[Jakub]

Everybody has a different definition of charity & compassion. I have mine & you have yours, what really matters is that He knows what is in your heart.

james

[Jennifer]

Everybody has a different definition of charity & compassion. I have mine & you have yours, what really matters is that He knows what is in your heart.

james

I thought that we all had the same definition of charity and compassion but apparently not.  My definition includes not calling people names and not publically judging people.  Apparently that definition is not shared by all. 

That's not to suggest that you don't share my definition of charity and compassion. 

[Hien]

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us.


[I am not Catholic either Orthodox.  I didn't believe in God... until "broken life".  Just try to learn about Chirstian Life...Come out, at this Web, I learn that people who belives in Jesus love to fight each other.  So shame to fight.]

[Jack]

I've never been to the Catholic Answers forum, but maybe I'll sign up.  Nobody should be mean to you, Jennifer, and I'm sorry if that happened.  This is a good time to compliment this forum.  As a Catholic, I find this forum quite hospitable for the most part, and the debate challenging and robust.  For an internet site, the level of discussion is kept pretty intelligent, meaningful, and educated.  I enjoy coming here and reading the posts even if I don't write something myself.  My compliments.

[Augustine]

As many postings on this forum (and in many different threads) have indicated, getting shafted on RC ran boards (and I include Byzantine Catholic forums in this) is not a rare or surprising thing. I'm not saying that out there, somewhere I've never been, there is not a good RC forum to be had. I'm just saying I've yet to see it.

However, I don't think the problem is one Orthodox Christians should feel is unique to them, as if they're the only targets. Anyone who dissents from the "party line" or the cult of "John Paul II the Great", or who is not convinced that Cardinal Ratzinger is really the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc. is almost sure to be treated like a menace to society (with cooties) - and this is true, no matter how well argued, or civil your tone may be. All that you can count on, is that you'll be remembered for the few times where you fell from perfection, and (in your frailty) responded to the abuse with equal rancor. I've seen this many times, and in a previous online life (back when I was a Latin Traditionalist, and supported the Society of St.Pius X), was the victim of it myself.

The problem, is that these boards (which are invariably ran by Americans; not a slight to my American friends, but really to a certain variety of politicized Americans, and a certain type of American Catholicism) are ran by "neo-cons". The term "neo-con" refers to the "new conservatives" which in both political and religious terms (it's amazing how the two line up so well; scary actually) are really just yesterday's liberals - both are in want of clear thinking, victims to all sorts of modern philosophical fashions (egalitarianism, feminism "lite", etc.), and both are quite totalitarian despite cries to the contary. That "spirit" fills the "new Catholicism" of these American Catholic "conservatives", and of course it's going to find it's way onto message forums which are ultimatly derivative of the apologists of this movement (in fact the one that is being spoken of here right now is personally owned and operated by one of these apologists.)

A couple of "good" case examples of what I'm talking about (a situation involving non-Orthodox; in fact both of these people are "ultramontane" in the extreme) are what happened to both Gerry Mattatics and Robert Sungenis. Both were well known RC apologists (Mattatics in fact used to work for Catholic Answers, and is himself a former Presbyterian minister), but both in various ways ended up going from "neo-con Catholic stardom" to the sh*tlist. Why? Because both (in slightly different degrees but for very similar reasons) ended up concluding that everything isn't peachy keen in Rome, that the anarchy in modern Catholicism is not something the Vatican or the Pope can be totally absolved from, and that Vatican II itself was not the beginning of a "new spring time" but a collosal disaster. Well, this pretty much ended their "careers" in the neo-con/EWTN complex.

So, if these "new Catholics" will eat their own, it shouldn't be surprising that they'll treat Orthodox like crap*.

(* except for gooey, falsely ecumenical Orthodox, who basically don't raise any serious objections to distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines, or who do not interpret "re-union" in any terms other than the Pope renouncing those distinctly RC dogmas - so long as you're willing to be a "Catholic minus the Pope", you'll probably be ok...probably.)

Edited to changed a few words that some may take offense at even though I do not believe that was their intent.

[JoeS]

IMHO, it is of little consequence whether or not the Roman church believes that the Orthodox is fully Catholic or not. We know that we are and we dont need Rome's approval to believe this. There was no loss of Catholicity at the Schism.

JoeS

[Jakub]

Augustine,

I'm 98% in agreement with your post regarding other boards, but we must acknowledge that a majority of people all have some sort of agenda, some will make you aware of it, or some of it or attempt to "veil" it (fat chance).

Speaking for myself, I am not one who places much power with men/mankind, sure there are some holy and righteous clergy out there, but they are human like us, prone to sin and mistakes also, no matter what a "Canon" states.

Guess I'm more in the mold of a "Old Catholic Thought", except I do not hold either East or West above each other.

james, a maverick of sorts

[Jennifer]

The term "neo-con" refers to the "new conservatives" which in both political and religious terms (it's amazing how the two line up so well; scary actually) are really just yesterday's liberals - both are in want of clear thinking, victims to all sorts of modern philosophical fashions (egalitarianism, feminism "lite", etc.), and both are quite totalitarian despite cries to the contary. 

Exactly, Augustine.  I've been banned from two Roman Catholic boards: the Steve Ray board and byzcath.  On byzcath, I was accused of "bashing" Roman Catholicism because I stated that I didn't like the Novus Ordo.  I found that charge to be absolutely absurd.  Why is criticism of the Novus Ordo "bashing" the RCC?  That was when I thought Byzantine Catholics were fellow traditionalists but I learned differently.  Most of them are really Novus Ordo.  Honestly, are there any Orthodox who like the Novus Ordo?  I've yet to meet one.  Their support for the NO is strong proof IMHO that they are not "orthodox in communion with Rome." 

As for the Steve Ray board, "neo-con" is the best way to describe it.  Interestingly about a month ago a priest chastized them for being so critical of every other Catholic.  (Claims were made that people who used birth control weren't Catholics.)  They jumped on him just as they do with everyone who rocks the boat over there.  Traditionalists would never treat a member of the clergy like that.  Of course they're mostly ex-prots.  For the record, they banned me without any notication which I thought was ironic given that they complain when that happens on the protestant boards.  In fact, one of the moderators specifically mentioned that they don't ban without notification there.  Also, their moderators (well, actually in my case, the administrator) don't follow their own rules.  They have a no baiting rule now which is funny given the games the administrator plays over there.  She also spread lies about me and was nasty and hateful to me. 

[Deacon Lance]

Jennifer,

Just to be accuarte byzcath.org forum is a Byzantine forum open to anyone regardless of confession.  It has both Catholic and Orthodox moderators.  And you were not banned, you were suspended for 30 days which is now over.  Please feel free to comeback.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Jennifer]

Jennifer,

Just to be accuarte byzcath.org forum is a Byzantine forum open to anyone regardless of confession. It has both Catholic and Orthodox moderators. And you were not banned, you were suspended for 30 days which is now over. Please feel free to comeback.

Fr. Deacon Lance

No thanks.  I'm still 'smarting' over the "no charity in my heart" comment.  I'm also glad that I no longer have to endure right-wing propaganda.   

[Jakub]

Jennifer,

I've had a few problems regarding the Mass of Pope Paul VI at ByzCath, but with other Roman Catholics not Easterners, and it is really not the place to discuss it. There are many corrections/revisions in progress, hopefully they will also include the priest facing east while performing/celebrating the Liturgy etc etc.

Personally, I've started to control my bitterness(this issue is not a me thing) regarding this and are cautiously awaiting the revisions.

Now with this aside, I'm refraining from all negative comments & discussions during this Lenten Season, there are more important aspects to pursue.

james

[Augustine]

Jennifer,

Don't worry, I was actually accused of being in need of "mental help" when in my "Lefebvrist" days I bothered posting on byzcath.org. This is typically liberal - it's what commies did/do to their own dissidents, and is apparently what liberal/"queer" RC seminaries do in order to harass/weed out seminarians of a "traditionalist" bent (even if only slightly so.) However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types. The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox." Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.

As for our neo-con "buddies", their need for absolute homogeny is legendary. Hence, why they could not make the real distinction that the visiting priest you mentioned was capable of making - someone practicing birth-control may be a sinner, but being a sinner doesn't make them an apostate. You'd figure these papalaters would be able to make that distinction, given how much time they spend labouring to distinguish the notorious personal immorality of many of medieval Roman Popes from their office of authority and charism of "infallibility".

[Jennifer]

However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types.  The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox."  Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.

The "no charity in my heart" comment (btw, I think this is one the worst anyone has ever said to me) was in reference to my assertion that some there were "deluded" about what it means to be in communion with Rome.  I had discussed some of the things written there with a good RC priest who's a friend of mine (or rather was a friend of mine before I became a catechumen).  He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy. 

There's a discussion over there right now about something from the old Catholic encyclopedia and the typical "that's not what Rome believes anymore" response was given.  I think they've come up with their own idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome.   Their idea is not at all consistent with what Rome herself teaches.  But they ignore the conflict believing that they're somehow more enlightened than the rest of the Catholic communion. Anyone who disagrees is an ultra-trad or ultramontanist. 

[Deacon Lance]

In order to gain an understanding of the deluded of byzcath.org I encourage everyone to read Archbishop Elias of Baalbeck's works We Are All Schismatics, A Voice from the Byzantine East, and Ecumenical Reflections.

[Νεκτάριος]

Bashing another message board or saying that RC message boards are bad is not very productive conersation.  There are plenty of legitimate topics of conversation, or even a way to carry this one on at more mature level...i.e the ethos of a certain group is different this group because of A, B and C,

[Orthodoc]

[He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy.

There's a discussion over there right now about something from the old Catholic encyclopedia and the typical "that's not what Rome believes anymore" response was given. I think they've come up with their own idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome.  Their idea is not at all consistent with what Rome herself teaches. But they ignore the conflict believing that they're somehow more enlightened than the rest of the Catholic communion. Anyone who disagrees is an ultra-trad or ultramontanist. ]
 
=======

He was right about their delusions.  Seems everyone sees it but them.

Those within the Unia have been suffering from an identity crisis since their inception in 1596. And they still haven't decided who they really are or what they really want to be. And its been over 400+ years now! Don't expect them to suddenly figure it out now. Especially since theology seems to take a back seat to nationalism, politics, and ethnic hatred which their churches seem to thrive on. Especially amongst the Ukrainians.

All one can do when reading some of their posts is shake your head in wonder. They will spend a whole week bitching and moaning about something where Rome has either interferred in or upsurted its authority regarding them. And then in the next week go right back to trying to convince themselves as well as others that they are this self governing entity who is only 'in communion with Rome' rather than under its authority. And act highly insulted if you in anyway connect their Church to any papal connection. Perfect example is their current bitching about the new appointment by the Pope to the Russian Catholics which they seem to be in disagreement with.

Another interesting discussion is concerning the possible evangelizing or missionary aspects of their Church. They have yet to figure out the their whole Church was never created for the purpose of evangelizing, but for proseltyzing and sheep stealing amongst their Orthodox Catholic relatives and bring them into papal domination. The only type of growth expected was thru this sheep stealing rather than the preachingof the Gospel amongst the heathens. What I find interesting in their their current discussions is the fact that when they speak of 'Church growth' they have expanded their goals to proseltyze not only amongst the family they turned their backs on, but amongst the family that they ran to become part of. So much for family loyality on either side!  Perhaps Rome has taught them too well what is expected of them regarding 'Church growth' and it will now come to bite them in the a--!

It still amazes me how few of them have figured out that the only future Romes sees for them is for them to disappear! Those with loyality towards tradition and ritual will return to their mother churches and those with loyality to Rome will be expected to become full fledged papal Catholics.

I found it better to just lurk than to try and show them how the real world works. Theological issues take a back seat where they are concerned about anyway.

Orthodoc

[Augustine]

Jennifer,

The "no charity in my heart" comment (btw, I think this is one the worst anyone has ever said to me) was in reference to my assertion that some there were "deluded" about what it means to be in communion with Rome.  I had discussed some of the things written there with a good RC priest who's a friend of mine (or rather was a friend of mine before I became a catechumen).  He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy.

The fact of the matter is that the conditions of their "unia" were a complete acceptance of Roman Catholic dogmas (even if not theologenum - which is fair, since those are not considered "mandatory" amongst Latins themselves), and submission to the See of Rome; just like every other Papal Catholic.  The other side of this was that they would be "allowed" to keep all of their liturgical practices (though my understanding is that even some of these were "corrected" - whether that was by Rome's decree or their own choice I'm not sure), which is really not all that shocking a concession, since that's simply a liberal application of the "Apostolic Constitution" Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine reform of the Roman Mass; the decree basically stated that liturgical usages older than 200 years, or which have received a special indult, could continue to be used but always leaving the option for those so privileged to willingly choose to adopt the Tridentine ritual if they so chose.

Obviously, the liturgical use of the various uniates would fall under those auspices.

The councils of the Latins which they see as being "Ecumenical" but which Orthodoxy doesn't recognize as such, are obliging to uniates - thus the idea that they are not obliged to believe in Purgatory, the Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. is nonsense.

The idea that any of the uniate churches (even those with "Patriarchs") are truly "self governing" is a fiction, at least by Orthodox understanding.  They are in the end (even those with Patriarchal title) no more self governing than the Archbishop of Milan, or the Patriarch of Lisbon, or any member of the RC heirarchy for that matter - what authority they have, it's only what Rome has chosen to give them.  This is precisely why Orthodox-RC dialogue on reunion is not helped when Pope John Paul speaks of a "reconsideration of how the Papacy is excercised in these times", since really all that boils down to is "how much of their government is the Papacy going to delegate to them".  It appears, for the sake of their ecumenical goals, the Pope is willing to delegate quite a bit should say, the Patriarch of Antioch or the Patriarch of Moscow (ha!) enter a "re-union" with Rome.  But what really matters is that in principle, the RC dogmas on the Papacy remain the same, and that the "self government" of these churches could be revoked at any time or altered by Rome's whim.

IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.  I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them.  But the principle remains in tact.

[bripat22]

Jennifer,

Don't worry, I was actually accused of being in need of "mental help" when in my "Lefebvrist" days I bothered posting on byzcath.org. This is typically liberal - it's what commies did/do to their own dissidents, and is apparently what liberal/"queer" RC seminaries do in order to harass/weed out seminarians of a "traditionalist" bent (even if only slightly so.) However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types. The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox." Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.

As for our neo-con "buddies", their need for absolute homogeny is legendary. Hence, why they could not make the real distinction that the visiting priest you mentioned was capable of making - someone practicing birth-control may be a sinner, but being a sinner doesn't make them an apostate. You'd figure these papalaters would be able to make that distinction, given how much time they spend labouring to distinguish the notorious personal immorality of many of medieval Roman Popes from their office of authority and charism of "infallibility".

 God, you seem to be so full of bile for everyone from any group.Is there anyone who deserves a charitable comment in this rant?

 It is one thing to make comments about a group such as "neo-cons" or "traditionalists" ect.  It is another to make an ad hominen attack on another poster. 

[SouthSerb99]

Frankly any discussion about "what the RC Church" thinks of any facet of our one true faith, is of no moment to me or shouldn't be to any of my brothers and sisters in this discussion.

Furthermore, much of the discussion which follows thereafter, is clearly colored with the flavor of Ecumenism. Something which should be of no interest to any of us.

[bripat22]

 I really don't it is helpful for us as Orthodox to close ourselves off to other Christians in this world.  I believe that we share more especially with Roman Catholics then with any other confession excepting the Oriental Orhtodox.  To be strong in our Faith does not mean to build walls.

[SouthSerb99]

I really don't it is helpful for us as Orthodox to close ourselves off to other Christians in this world. I believe that we share more especially with Roman Catholics then with any other confession excepting the Oriental Orhtodox. To be strong in our Faith does not mean to build walls.

I don't know that it is "closing ourselves off" to anyone.  I just don't like the notion that we need/want acceptance or approval from the RC Church.  As for closing ourselves off, I think an Orthodox Christian's doors are always open, but certainly not on the issue of religious compromise.  Indeed, we have an obligation to show all that ours is the way.

My best friend happens to be Jewish, and I can assure you she's heard this many times. 

[prodromos]

IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc. I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them. But the principle remains in tact.

Regarding the Melkites, my understanding is that when they formally joined Rome (since they had not ever officially been separate) it was agreed that they not be required to accept any dogmas/doctrines which they did not already hold to. This has since become a real thorn in Rome's side as this reunion happened in 1724, before the promulgation of such dogmas as Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception which the Melkites still do not accept.

BTW, if anyone can track down the text of the 1724 agreement it would be much appreciated as it has been discussed on other forums and noone seems to be able to find it anywhere.

John

[Αριστοκλής]

John,
Are you csure you're not mixing Melkites and Maronites together here?

Demetri

[Deacon Lance]

"The fact of the matter is that the conditions of their "unia" were a complete acceptance of Roman Catholic dogmas (even if not theologenum - which is fair, since those are not considered "mandatory" amongst Latins themselves), and submission to the See of Rome"

The conditions of the Unions were quite respectful of Eastern traditions, the Easterners only had to stop declaring heretical those doctrines or practices they disputed. Filioque and purgatory on the doctrine side. Unleavened bread and pouring instead of immersing on the baptism side.

"though my understanding is that even some of these were "corrected" - whether that was by Rome's decree or their own choice I'm not sure"

Not a single Latinization of an Eastern liturgy was ever done by Rome's decree, all were adopted freely (and unfortunately), unlike the mandated Byzantinizations of Latin liturgies among the Western Rite Orthodox.  Although some popes, Blessed Pius IV especially, favored some of the Latinizations adopted by the Byzantines as this served to distinguish them from the Orthodox.

"thus the idea that they are not obliged to believe in Purgatory, the Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. is nonsense."

Please read the books by Archbishop Elias I referenced above.  He is a bishop in good standing in the Melkite Catholic Church and has quite openly proclaimed that post- schism councils are not Ecumenical and finds no post-schism teaching binding.  Rome has not disciplined or excommunicated him.

"They are in the end (even those with Patriarchal title) no more self governing than the Archbishop of Milan, or the Patriarch of Lisbon, or any member of the RC heirarchy for that matter - what authority they have, it's only what Rome has chosen to give them."

Not true.  The Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elceted and enthroned by their Synods.  The Pope could refude communion with him, but this could happen in among the Orthodox as well.  An Eastern Catholic Patriarch authority over his Church is far beyond anything a Latin Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop has over his suffragans or the faithful in their dioceses.

"But what really matters is that in principle, the RC dogmas on the Papacy remain the same, and that the "self government" of these churches could be revoked at any time or altered by Rome's whim.  IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.  I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them.  But the principle remains in tact."

But you provide the proof in the pudding, Rome can say what it wants, but Rome can do nothing really without the consent of the hierarchs of a given Church.  And indeed if Rome pushed to hard Churches would leave communion.  So in reality Eastern Catholic Churches are as autonomos as they are willing to be.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Pravoslavbob]

Deacon Lance,

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence here by affirming that latinizations were adopted "freely" by Eastern Catholic Churches. You are right of course, in saying that nothing happened because of a Roman decree. Well, not directly. But have you forgotten how Pope Benedict XIV called the Roman rite "the most excellent" just because it was the liturgy of the Roman Church? The various latinizations that have come about have not been introduced because Eastern Catholics just felt like being closer to their Roman mother. They were made to feel inferior and encouraged and pressured ( if not outright coerced ) to adopt latinizations. Now, of course, Rome is encouraging the Eastern-rite groups to rediscover their authentic Eastern heritage.

I'm sure you're also quite aware that Rome has more direct authority over the "non-patriarchal" Eastern Catholics. Not that Augustine isn't right when he says that the Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in any Eastern Catholic Church, political suicide notwithstanding.

The Melkite Church can (and largely does) believe whatever it llikes. It is the Orthodox understanding that they accept everything about Roman dogma simply by being in communion with the Roman see. I know that many of them are very sincere, but simply by saying they don't believe something doesn't mean that they are free of any corruptions that may be associated with (what are to the Orthodox )erroneus doctrines. To be in communion is to be in communion with everything that is essential to a community's doctrine. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bob

[Deacon Lance]

Bob,

What do you then make of the Latinizations adopted by the Orthodox? The fact is Rome did not force a single Latinization other than mandatory celibacy in the diaspora. Now encouragement of Latinization by some of the Latin Religious and Monastic Orders that trained our priests and yours certainly occured nor am I denying that we were in second class status for a period. However, the liturgical Latinizations were relatively minor things, using a lention instead of a sponge, not using the zeon, bowing at "He became man" in the Creed, use of Santus bells, and other minor things.

On the otherhand, inserting the Byzantine epiclesis into the Western Rite Liturgy is quite a major thing, asserting that the ancient Roman Canon is deficient when SS. Maximos the Confessor and Nichoal Cabasilas understood that the Supplices te rogamus prayer:

"Humbly we beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, so that those of us who shall receive the most sacred Body + and Blood + of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this Altar may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

 is and was the only Epiclesis in or needed in the Roman Canon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

What do you then make of the Latinizations adopted by the Orthodox? 
 

Question, Deacon Lance:

To what "Orthodox" are you referring?

[Deacon Lance]

I was thinking primarily of the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox who were trained in West and adopted a very Latinized theology.  One could also point to ACROD who held unto many liturgical Latinizations long after they had rejoined Orthodoxy.

[Pravoslavbob]

Bob,

What do you then make of the Latinizations adopted by the Orthodox? The fact is Rome did not force a single Latinization other than mandatory celibacy in the diaspora. Now encouragement of Latinization by some of the Latin Religious and Monastic Orders that trained our priests and yours certainly occured nor am I denying that we were in second class status for a period. However, the liturgical Latinizations were relatively minor things, using a lention instead of a sponge, not using the zeon, bowing at "He became man" in the Creed, use of Santus bells, and other minor things.

On the otherhand, inserting the Byzantine epiclesis into the Western Rite Liturgy is quite a major thing, asserting that the ancient Roman Canon is deficient when SS. Maximos the Confessor and Nichoal Cabasilas understood that the Supplices te rogamus prayer:

"Humbly we beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, so that those of us who shall receive the most sacred Body + and Blood + of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this Altar may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

 is and was the only Epiclesis in or needed in the Roman Canon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,

First of all, this is not a contest to see who has been more hard done by in terms of undue influence. We both know that it is the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics who have had to struggle with Latin innovation, and not the reverse. Please don't play games. Of course I would agree that the "Supplices te rogamus" prayer, though not being an epiclesis, accomplishes the same thing.

What do I make of Latin innovations amongst the Orthodox? if by this you mean things like the prayer of absolution of Peter Moghila, I think that the Slavs should abandon it and return to the more correct Greek form. And of course the Orthodox Church should continue to struggle to overcome her "Western captivity" in terms of her theology, and recover a Patristic vision of the Church. ( I think this is moving along quite nicely, all things considered. And in one sense, the Orthodox Church has never lost this Patristic outlook.) Yes, this happened because of the weakness of the Orthodox under the Turkocracy and because the Eastern Slavs didn't have an intellectual tradition of their own for so long.

You absolve Rome from responsibility in matters pertaining to latinization of Eastern Catholics, because you would like me to think that the various religous orders that encouraged latinization did so without receving specific directives from the Pope. Well, my response is, respectfully, to say "so what." They were in communion with Rome. Rome did not actively discourage them from doing these things. I'm sure there were some in the cavernous Vatican bureuacracy who were actively encouraging these policies one way or another. Again, I would ask you to please not play games.

I am not aware of all of the hybridization that occured between Eastern and Western liturgical practice in the Eastern Catholic Churches, but I am sure that there was/is more going on than you allude to, if not in the liturgical sphere, than certainly in the paraliturgical realm, and as you have already alluded to, in the education of clergy and people.

Bob

[Αριστοκλής]

I was thinking primarily of the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox who were trained in West and adopted a very Latinized theology. One could also point to ACROD who held unto many liturgical Latinizations long after they had rejoined Orthodoxy.

I see. I thought you might be referring to certain Latinizations which crept in under the influence of a certain pro-Roman tsar.
As to ACROD, they were obviously created with the Latinzations as existed in the 1930s. Most of these (not all) have since been removed.

[Orthodoc]

[Deacon Lance,

First of all, this is not a contest to see who has been more hard done by in terms of undue influence. We both know that it is the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics who have had to struggle with Latin innovation, and not the reverse. Please don't play games. ]

Reply:

As far as Latin innovations, it brings to mind the infamous Byzantine Catholic Bishop Nicholas Elko of the 50's and the early 60's here in the U.S.  And what he did during that time period as the Latin Church stood by encouraging him and finally whisking him off to Rome to protect him when his own people bagan to turn against him.  In fact they protected him for 14 years until he returned as a Western Rite Bishop!  So to try and say that the papal Church was not in involved in any way is certainly stretching the truth.  Their silence and protection both during and after  this time period certainly shows a great deal of support of what was transpiring. 

In case Deacon Lance has forgotten, Bishop Elko was famous for proudly proclaiming that he would not be satisfied until  'All the stink was squeezed from the oninon domes and all the grease was wrung from the greasy Greeks'. 

I can still remember watching the Cupolas coming down with their three bar Crosses and replaced by a more Latin looking two bar in the area I was raised.  Also watching the Iconostasis being taken out and the Altar itself being replaced with new  RC marble ones imported from from Italy.  Not to mention the replacement of Icons with statues.  And the installation of the 'stations of the Cross'.

For this he was both honored and protected in Rome for 14 years or more until he returned as a Latin Rite Bishop!

Orthodoc
   
   

[TonyS]

In case Deacon Lance has forgotten, Bishop Elko was famous for proudly proclaiming that he would not be satisfied until 'All the stink was squeezed from the oninon domes and all the grease was wrung from the greasy Greeks'.

I can still remember watching the Cupolas coming down with their three bar Crosses and replaced by a more Latin looking two bar in the area I was raised. Also watching the Iconostasis being taken out and the Altar itself being replaced with new RC marble ones imported from from Italy. Not to mention the replacement of Icons with statues. And the installation of the 'stations of the Cross'.   

Elko!  A name that lives on in infamy.  I lived in the house Archbishop Elko built for some years.  He is definitiely credited with the removal of iconostases and other such latinization but honestly I can't recall any allegations or indications he ever was opposed to the 3-bar cross.  Perhaps you are confusing Orthodoc the Ruthenians with the Ukranians?  The Ruthenians remain very attached to the 3-bar cross, while the UGCs seem to have the Latin cross now.

[Lemko Rusyn]

>>>Bishop Elko was famous for proudly proclaiming that he would not be satisfied until  'All the stink was squeezed from the oninon domes and all the grease was wrung from the greasy Greeks'.

If he is "famous" for this statement, then someone should be able to provide the date and place he uttered it, or the date and place of publication in which it appeared...

And for your information, he was not widely despised as you claim.  Generally his people thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, sort of their own little Archbishop Sheen.  A small group of priests instigated an uprising against him.  I'm not saying that the movement he continued (it was really begun under his predecessor) of removing traditional Byzantine externals was enthusiastically accepted everywhere, but as a person and shepherd he had a very positive "approval" rating.

In many ways, the current "Ruthenian" hierarchy is very much in his mold (minus the personality) for all of their neo-Americanization and de-greasification (meaning, squeezing the last bits of russkost' and historical memory out of the church).

[Anastasios]

Elko was protected by Rome? Honored? Hmmmm. I hear that he was taken to Rome because he was ruining the Ruthenian Church, kept there against his will (they took his passport for awhile), and only returned to America after threatening the Vatican officials; he was sent back as a Western Rite bishop and forbidden to ever celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in the USA again. Doesn't sound like Rome was happy with him to me.

Anastasios

[TonyS]

Elko was protected by Rome? Honored? Hmmmm. I hear that he was taken to Rome because he was ruining the Ruthenian Church, kept there against his will (they took his passport for awhile), and only returned to America after threatening the Vatican officials; he was sent back as a Western Rite bishop and forbidden to ever celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in the USA again. Doesn't sound like Rome was happy with him to me.

Anastasios

While he was in Rome didn't he write that (in)famous letter to a newpaper?  Wasn't it to the Cleveland Plain Dealer?

[Orthodoc]

[While he was in Rome didn't he write that (in)famous letter to a newpaper?  Wasn't it to the Cleveland Plain Dealer?]

What letter might that be?

[And for your information, he was not widely despised as you claim.  Generally his people thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, sort of their own little Archbishop Sheen.  A small group of priests instigated an uprising against him.  I'm not saying that the movement he continued (it was really begun under his predecessor) of removing traditional Byzantine externals was enthusiastically accepted everywhere, but as a person and shepherd he had a very positive "approval" rating.]

Not by any of my Greek Catholic friends, neighbors, and relatives at the time.  Most would have preferred he be tarred and feathered for what he was doing at the time. 

Orthodoc




Orthodoc

[TonyS]

[While he was in Rome didn't he write that (in)famous letter to a newpaper? Wasn't it to the Cleveland Plain Dealer?]

What letter might that be?

A letter protesting his being in Rome.  It was published in a large newspaper. 

[TonyS]

An article on his episcopacy:

http://www.archeparchy.org/page/history/bishop-Elko.htm

[TonyS]

Apparently there was an article in the January 18th, 1971, TIME magazine that touched on this.  I will try to get my hands on it.

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios is correct Orthodoc is wrong regarding Archbishop Nicholas. One can read his version of the story in the book: White Heat Red Fire. Amazon has it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

Bob,

I am not playing games but trying to put forward the truth.  Yes, from Popes on down Latin Catholics quietly approved Latinization even while the officail policy was in favor of keeping the Eastern Liturgies pure.  However, encouraging and mandating are two different things.  The Latinizations that occured were our fault.  Whether it was out of inferiority, desire to differentiate ourselves, or whatever at the end of the day we are responsible for our actions not Rome, not the Emperor, not anybody else.  We could have stood firm and held on to what was ours, we did not.  Too many want to blame Rome for our problems when usually we have only ourselves to blame.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

[Elko was protected by Rome? Honored? Hmmmm. I hear that he was taken to Rome because he was ruining the Ruthenian Church, kept there against his will (they took his passport for awhile), and only returned to America after threatening the Vatican officials; he was sent back as a Western Rite bishop and forbidden to ever celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom in the USA again. Doesn't sound like Rome was happy with him to me.

Anastasios]

Yes, Elko was taken to Rome because of the way he was ruining the Ruthenian Church through his forced Latinizations.  I don't necessarily dispute what Anastasios says except possibilly his interpretation on why he was suddenly whisked to Rome and his passport taken from him. It was for his protection.  Rome had the final authority to restrict the Latinizations by the issuance of one edict.  that would have stopped him in his tracks.  Just like they have done by currently instructing those within the Unia to protect & return to their heritage.  If it could be done now, why couldn't it have been done then?   I was around during that time period (I'm older than hell) and remember the reaction of our next door neighbors when he had the cupola & three bar Cross taken down and replaced with a steeple with a two bar Cross on their church.  He also had the Altar Table replaced with marble one that was shipped from Italy.  And if I remember correctly also had the Iconostatsis taken out.  This was in St Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Nesquehoning. 

I have friends within both the OCA and the ACROD who returned to Orthodoxy because of Elko.


His hatred towards anything Orthodox was so great that he purposely organized St Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church Anchorage, Alaska to proseltyze against the Orthodox.

This fact is still proudly contained in the history of the parish -

http://www.ak-byz-cath.org/History.htm

Deacon Lance:

You are right, you do have only yourselves to blame for your problems.  But you have to learn that that is what being under papal authority means.  pertending you are only 'In Communion With Rome' is not now, nor will it ever be the reality of your situation!

Orthodoc

[Lemko Rusyn]

>>> I was around during that time period (I'm older than hell) and remember the reaction of our next door neighbors when he had the cupola & three bar Cross taken down and replaced with a steeple with a two bar Cross on their church.  He also had the Altar Table replaced with marble one that was shipped from Italy.  And if I remember correctly also had the Iconostatsis taken out.  This was in St Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Nesquehoning.

This was all the pastor's doing.  If it was an edict from the bishop, then how did the interior of St. John the Baptist Church in Lansford remain pretty much as it always had been -- full ikonostas, no statues -- except for stations of the cross?  They even had murals on the walls that were copied from or inspired by St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kiev.  But when were those painted over?  Not until the late 1990s!

[Orthodoc]

[This was all the pastor's doing.  If it was an edict from the bishop, then how did the interior of St. John the Baptist Church in Lansford remain pretty much as it always had been -- full ikonostas, no statues -- except for stations of the cross?  They even had murals on the walls that were copied from or inspired by St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kiev.  But when were those painted over?  Not until the late 1990s! ]

It still had to have the approval of the Bishop!  As far as St John's in Lansford, it already had suffered from the creation of three breakoffs and return to Orthodoxy in each of the surrounding towns - St Mary's In Coaldale, St John's In Nesquehoning, and St Nicholas in Lansford.  Any further interference would have probably been enough to close the church down.  I'm sure both the Bishop and Fr Morris was aware of that.  Fr Morris who once complained in my presence when I went with a firend to get a copy of his Baptismal records because he was being married in one of the three Orthodox Churches I mentioned, that the 'Russians' were stealing all his parishioners.  I replied that we weren't stealing them, he was turning them over to us by his actions.

Orthodoc

[Pravoslavbob]

I am not playing games but trying to put forward the truth.

Deacon Lance,

I apologize if I was vitriolic in my posts.  Also, I don't completely agree with what you are saying, but I can see that you have some points.

Bob

[TonyS]

I was around during that time period (I'm older than hell) and remember the reaction of our next door neighbors when he had the cupola & three bar Cross taken down and replaced with a steeple with a two bar Cross on their church. He also had the Altar Table replaced with marble one that was shipped from Italy. And if I remember correctly also had the Iconostatsis taken out. This was in St Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Nesquehoning.

Not that there is much value in discussing much of this but, this is attributed to Fr. Barnyak by a good source. Not Morris as it appears in another post. The pretense of removing the ikonostas was that it had termites.

edited verb tense

[Lemko Rusyn]

>>>The pretense of removing the ikonostas was that it has termites.

So instead of a new screen they installed a marble communion rail.  Makes complete sense! 

[TonyS]

>>>The pretense of removing the ikonostas was that it has termites.

So instead of a new screen they installed a marble communion rail. Makes complete sense!

Well.   I think they do have a screen now, for whatever it's worth.

[Orthodoc]

[The pretense of removing the ikonostas was that it has termites.]

So what was the pretense for the removal of the cupola and three bar Cross at the same time?  Bats in the belfry?

Orthodoc

[TonyS]

So what was the pretense for the removal of the cupola and three bar Cross at the same time? Bats in the belfry?

Orthodoc

Perhaps I should have written "the people were told" instead of using "the pretense."

I don't know what the people were told about that.  The steeple was removed somewhat recently due to leaks I am told.

Do you remember what the people were told when the cupola was removed?

[Orthodoc]

[I don't know what the people were told about that. The steeple was removed somewhat recently due to leaks I am told.

Do you remember what the people were told when the cupola was removed? ]

The cupola and three bar Cross were removed at the same time the Altar and the Iconostastasis   were removed or changed. It all happened in the 1950's. Maybe the recent Steeple removal was the one that replaced the cupola. I haven't been in that area for awhile. I don't remember what the people were being told at the time it was going on! Our neighbors were so up in arms that the subject was avoided! They eventually left and joined St John's ACRO Church in Nesquehonig while others joined St Nicholas ACRO Church in Lansford which was also being formed from former parishioners of St John's in Lansford.
   
We seem to have gotten off subject so I'll consider this the last post on this particular matter.

But my memories of Bishop Elko come from the people themselves and they are not very nice ones. Of course, I was only about ten or eleven at the time.

The following part of his autobiography seems to be a little lop sided -

========

Bishop Elko's tenure also was an era of tremendous growth, expansion and development of physical facilities throughout the exarchate. Under his direction, more than one hundred churches and schools were constructed or reconstructed. This capital expansion program, while absolutely necessary to accommodate larger congregations, in hindsight had a major regrettable consequence. In an effort to be like other American Catholic churches, many traditional Byzantine architectural features such as icon screens were omitted or removed from the newly-built or renovated churches.
========

I remember it as a time where people were leaving in droves rather than a time of tremendious growth !

Orthodoc

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

People certainly left as you mention but at the same time new churches and schools were built and the seminary was full.  Despite the growth however, the seed was planted that one was Catholic first, Byzantine second and those that grew up in this era are the ones that when they moved made no attempt to maintain their Byzantine faith and simply went to the nearest Latin Church becasue it was convenient.  Our Church has still not recovered from this loss of parishioners as we struggle to close some parishes and support the few missions we have.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Orthodoc]

[Despite the growth however, the seed was planted that one was Catholic first, Byzantine second and those that grew up in this era are the ones that when they moved made no attempt to maintain their Byzantine faith and simply went to the nearest Latin Church becasue it was convenient.  Our Church has still not recovered from this loss of parishioners as we struggle to close some parishes and support the few missions we have.]

And now that is no longer true?   It's part of what has to accept when one submits to the authority of Rome, isn't it?   Doesn't Rome have to approve all those transfers from one Rite to another?  From one sui Juris church to another?  Seems it's a heck of a lot easier for a Byzantine Catholic to become a Latin than vice versa. 


Orthodoc

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

"And now that is no longer true?   It's part of what has to accept when one submits to the authority of Rome, isn't it?"

The Catholic Church since Vatican II has realized that one can only be Catholic by being Byzantine, Latin, Maronite, Coptic, etc. and one cannot artificailly seperate the former from the latter.  Admitting Rome's primacy and authority should not entail adopting Latin theology or praxis, although admittedly this has occurred.  Some still believe Catholic first, (fill in tradition) second, but slowly we are changing this attitude.

"Doesn't Rome have to approve all those transfers from one Rite to another?  From one sui Juris church to another?  Seems it's a heck of a lot easier for a Byzantine Catholic to become a Latin than vice versa."

One must distinguish bewteen attending a parish of another Church and officially transferring from one Chruch to another.  Any Catholic can attend a different Catholic Church's parish, even become a parishioner it does not affect their canonical status in or obligation to their particular Church.  And this is what has hurt my Metropolia especially.  Our people do not officially transfer from the Byzantine Church to the Latin, they simply join the nearest Latin parish.  Rome is not involved, and most Latin pastors are happy to get a new parishioner and don't encourage them to travel to a nearby Byzantine parish or start a mission.

As for officially changing from Church to another.  Rome is no longer involved as long as the transfer is between Churches that coexist in the same territory.  So a Latin could transfer to the Byzantine, Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, Armenian, or Syro-Malabar Churches since they all have eparchies in the US.  If one wishes to transfer to a Church that does not have jurisdiction in a territory Rome's approval is needed.  Transfers from Latin to Eastern are quite easy and I have never heard of one being refused.  My own took about two months.  Transfers from Eastern to Latin are usually not approved.

Fr. Deacon Lance   

[emmanuelmelo]

From an Eastern Orthodox persepective, that sounds quite complicated.  I must say that Orthodoc's responses are absolutely brilliant.  As a history student who has seen the (relatively) good, the bad, and the ugly of Catholicism, I think that if Rome was in a better position than it is now it would still be pushing for Latinizations.  I am well acquanted with the Catholic seminarians of the diocese where I go to the University.  The Eastern Rite is still seen as awkward and foreign.  With the declining numbers of vocations around the globe, from Ireland to Poland to the United States, why not open the floodgates for all possible rites to patch up that sinking ship which is the Roman Catholic Church.

Believe it or not, Father Deacon Lance, your Byzantine Rite holds as much water to Rome as the hybrid "Masses" in Africa which include pagan rites (Remeber Archbishop Milingo  ) .  Face it- You are just another color of JP II's Liturgical spectrum.  What an honor!  Granted, you can hold your GIRM in your hand and say- "Look at all the abuse that is going on!"  But honestly, when abuse becomes the Norm, it is no longer an abuse, it is simply the status quo

  It pains me to say this, for I was educated in a Catholic school, although born Orthodox.  At best, Uniatism is a cheap imitation of Holy Orthodoxy, at worst it is a deception of the faith of the Fathers and the wishes of the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

Savor the Freedom of moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction- but its kind of like admiring the water when you are drowning.

God Bless

-Emmanuel

[Orthodoc]

[The Catholic Church since Vatican II has realized that one can only be Catholic by being Byzantine, Latin, Maronite, Coptic, etc. and one cannot artificailly seperate the former from the latter. Admitting Rome's primacy and authority should not entail adopting Latin theology or praxis, although admittedly this has occurred. Some still believe Catholic first, (fill in tradition) second, but slowly we are changing this attitude.]

I find the above statement utterly confusing!  Considering how much time, effort, and chastisement I have received both here and elsewhere defending my own 'Catholicity' as a member of the Orthodox Catholic Church.  Rome still defines 'Catholic' as one who is in union (and by that very union under papal authority) with Rome.  Referencing this coment in your previous post -

'the seed was planted that one was Catholic first, Byzantine second and those that grew up in this era are the ones that when they moved made no attempt to maintain their Byzantine faith and simply went to the nearest Latin Church because it was convenient.'

The seed was planted at the very initiation of the Unia rather than in the time period we are discussing.  It was something your Church agreed to accept from its very inception.  It only became a problem when circumstances changed in the fact that you were no longer confined to an area where Orthodox Catholicity was the only other predominate religion and your main purpose was to proseltyze and sheep steal amongst them to increase your flock.  When the circumstances changed and were such that your chief competition was no longer the Orthodox, but your adopted 'catholic' brothers and sisters, it became an effective tool in the eventual elimination of your church.  Now, in order to prevent your demise here in America you will have proseltyze and sheep steal amongst your own family as well as ours.  Of course, if there is that equality amongst various Rites as you claim, Rome should have no problem with it based on how successful or unsuccessful it would become.

You are looked at with confusion by many of us.  Because you preach the so called importance of being in papal union on one hand, and then either deny, or are offended, when you are reminded what that union entails and implies on the other.

So many of your former members were lost from my generation as well as this younger one because you sent your kids to Roman Catholic parochial schools.  They were brought up in the Latin Rite while being schooled, and all of a sudden Baba's quaint old church was some kind of second class oddity they wanted no part of because they were American and Catholic first (like you claim).

If union with Rome is so important then the demise of your traditions and Rites is something you should be willing to sacrifice for the sake of 'Catholicism' (as you were taught to define it).  Either that, or do the same thing my grandparents and hundreds of others of your people  did and return to the faith of your ancestors!  To continue the way you are can only lead to disaster!

It's hard for someone like me to have any type of sympathy for you since you do have options.  But as long as you continue to make yourself a doormat  or walk around with your head in the sand...then 'Don't complain about being stepped on!'

Orthodoc

 
   

[jmbejdl]

I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert on Eastern rite Catholics, but my experience in Romania is that they are not at all well treated by the Latin rite Catholics. Dn. Lance's picture seems overly rosy to me, but then maybe things are different in the US?

My wife's home town has three main churches, an Orthodox church, a Latin rite Roman Catholic church and what they refer to as 'the Ukrainian church', which is Eastern rite Catholic. The Latin rite Catholics and the Orthodox seem to get on reasonably well (whilst obviously disagreeing) but the Eastern rite Catholics are universally looked down on. The Latin Catholics say they aren't real Catholics (and, yes, they do try to poach parishioners) and the Orthodox, obviously, see them as Catholics in Orthodox clothes. The worst jokes at the expense of the 'Ukrainians' and the greatest prejudice against them that I've heard, though, has not come from the Orthodox, but from the Latins.

To me, as an outsider, it was always apparent that the Eastern rite Catholics were looked down on as somehow second rate by their Western rite co-religionists - this doesn't strike me as supporting the idea of a genuine reunion with Rome, but more a subjugation by her, and I've always found it concerning. What if we agree to a reunion at some point in the future and are treated the same? I can understand the Orthodox mistrust of Eastern rite Catholicism, given the history of the region, but the Latins' attitude to their co-religionists is utterly unbelievable. I hope and pray for a reconcilliation, but not one that is in any way like the Unia in Eastern Europe.

James

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

" Rome still defines 'Catholic' as one who is in union (and by that very union under papal authority) with Rome."

Neither Rome nor I deny your Catholicity.

"If union with Rome is so important then the demise of your traditions and Rites is something you should be willing to sacrifice for the sake of 'Catholicism' (as you were taught to define it)."

Rather I willing die rather than sacrifice my Tradition for the sake of the Catholic Church.  I have come to accept and agree with Archbishop Elias Zoghby.  We are not a bridge, we are an irritant, both to Rome and to Orthodoxy.  And this is a good thing.  For without us serving as an irritant Rome and Orthodoxy would be ignoring each other rather than dialoging.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[prodromos]

We are not a bridge, we are an irritant, both to Rome and to Orthodoxy. And this is a good thing. For without us serving as an irritant Rome and Orthodoxy would be ignoring each other rather than dialoging.

Actually, I believe you (not you personally) are one of the biggest impediments to fruitful dialogue there is between Orthodox and Catholics.

John.

[Αριστοκλής]

... We are not a bridge, we are an irritant, both to Rome and to Orthodoxy. And this is a good thing. For without us serving as an irritant Rome and Orthodoxy would be ignoring each other rather than dialoging.
 

I apologize in advance, but this is the funniest thing I've read on these boards in the last two years. In fact as long as the ByzCaths exist as they do I'll not have to worry about misplaced ecumenism. 

[Deacon Lance]

Aristokles,

It may be funny but I think it is true.  If there were no unions would the Orthodox even bother with dialogue?  Without us reminding Rome there is another way to be Catholic would they care?  If you think its funny read Archbishop Elias': A Voice from the Byzantine East.  It is the most fair, non-polemical assessment of the situation that has been put forth yet.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

John,

I here this repeated all the time especially by the Greeks,and at the same time they reaffrim our right to exist.  What are we supposed to do?  Vanish? Be forced to violate our consciences and adopt the Latin Rite or leave communion with Rome?  I think we are a convenient scapegoat for those who don't want Orthodox-Catholic dialogue to go anywhere.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[TonyS]

My wife's home town has three main churches, an Orthodox church, a Latin rite Roman Catholic church and what they refer to as 'the Ukrainian church', which is Eastern rite Catholic.

James,

Is that in Transylvania?  Or Bucovina?  Are they really ethnic Ukrainians?

T

[Αριστοκλής]

Aristokles,

It may be funny but I think it is true. If there were no unions would the Orthodox even bother with dialogue? Without us reminding Rome there is another way to be Catholic would they care? If you think its funny read Archbishop Elias': A Voice from the Byzantine East. It is the most fair, non-polemical assessment of the situation that has been put forth yet.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Actually, Deacon Lance, in keeping with the original intent of this thread there seems to be a common mis-conception in the Roman communion that the woes of the the churches in the 'unia' are a convenient scapegoat, as you say, to dialogue. However, the forging of the schism as final pre-dates the 1646 or 1596 Slavic unia and goes much further back - a legacy of 1204.
I have recently finished a book (by a nonCatholic- Orthodox or Roman) on the Venetians' 350 year colonization of Crete which began in 1211. The work cites the papal directives for how the "Greek Church" was to be treated under the new Latin bishop. I gasped as I read such things as "One Church -Two rites"- the first or earliest I had seen reference to this concept.(What was the pre-schism church?) Then it got worse:
1) No educated Greek may be ordained as anything but a Latin rite cleric.
2) Conversion of 'some' existing temples to the Latin "rite".
3) No Greek may leave the island and seek ordination from any Greek bishop outside of the colony.
4) The indigenous Greeks may continue to use their Greek Rite - Corrected (Filioque)
5) There's more.
All of this was violently resisted. I can only assume that the Venetians were given the same orders in their other Byzantine colonies and make the assumption that the Greek lands under Genoa got the same treatment.
It does appear that the seeds in concept of Florence were born here.
When the Pope of Rome apologizes for 1204 I assumed (as many) that he meant only the sack of "the City". Apparently there was a lot more going on. The "unia" so decried by the Orthodox today seems just an outcome of this 'divide and conquer' method.
The dialogues will go nowhere, but not only for the reason of your churches' existence.

Demetri

[jmbejdl]

James,

Is that in Transylvania? Or Bucovina? Are they really ethnic Ukrainians?

T

TonyS,

That's in Bucovina (Siret, to be precise, 3km from the Ukrainian border). I'm impressed that you even raised the possibility of it being Bucovina - do you have some connection to Romania or are you just well informed?

As to whether or not they are ethnically Ukrainian, some are, some aren't. It's actually quite difficult to separate Ukrainians from Romanians in Siret. There are some entirely Ukrainian (but Orthodox) villages near the town, but in the town itself there are a lot of people who consider themselves Romanian and attend the Romanian Orthodox church but have Ukrainian surnames (my wife's maiden name, for instance, is Mandiuc). Really the people are very mixed.

I think the distinction is made (in the way they name the church) not so much on ethnic grounds but rather because they see the Eastern rite Catholics as originating in the Ukraine whereas western rite Catholicism is asociated with Germans, Austrians and Poles (all making up small minorities there). They usually refer to the people as Greek Catholic while continuing to call the church Ukrainian.

James

[TonyS]

TonyS,

That's in Bucovina (Siret, to be precise, 3km from the Ukrainian border). I'm impressed that you even raised the possibility of it being Bucovina - do you have some connection to Romania or are you just well informed?

As to whether or not they are ethnically Ukrainian, some are, some aren't. It's actually quite difficult to separate Ukrainians from Romanians in Siret. There are some entirely Ukrainian (but Orthodox) villages near the town, but in the town itself there are a lot of people who consider themselves Romanian and attend the Romanian Orthodox church but have Ukrainian surnames (my wife's maiden name, for instance, is Mandiuc). Really the people are very mixed.

I think the distinction is made (in the way they name the church) not so much on ethnic grounds but rather because they see the Eastern rite Catholics as originating in the Ukraine whereas western rite Catholicism is asociated with Germans, Austrians and Poles (all making up small minorities there). They usually refer to the people as Greek Catholic while continuing to call the church Ukrainian.

James

James,

I was in Romania once for a few days, in Transylvania. I also hosted a Romanian immigrant for a short time in my home in Miami, that is a long story. I would like to think of myself as well informed but that is probably arrogance. However, I do have a grasp of geography of that part of the world and know that language and ethnicity does not always respect borders.

The Bucovineans do seem to be an interesting bunch from what little I know of them.  

It seemed to me that the people in places like Satu Mare and Baia Mare in Transylvania thought of RCs as Hungarians. I guess in Bucovina it is different. Someone even spoke Hungarian to me on the street in Baia Mare (I don't speak Hungarian, but I can barely get by).

It's an interesting world!

TonyS

[Orthodoc]

[Rather I willing die rather than sacrifice my Tradition for the sake of the Catholic Church. I have come to accept and agree with Archbishop Elias Zoghby. We are not a bridge, we are an irritant, both to Rome and to Orthodoxy. And this is a good thing. For without us serving as an irritant Rome and Orthodoxy would be ignoring each other rather than dialoging.]

Father Deacon Lance:

With all due respect, it is statements like the above that make it hard for any of us to relate or sympathize with you or the plight you are in.  Not only is it a result of your own creation, but as long as you are so willing to play the 'martyr'  role for what you claim as unity between papal & Orthodox Catholicism,  you will have to accept the consequences.

Have you noticed that you are not part of any such dialogue or that your input is not asked for by Rome in any of the dialogues?  Rome itself speaks for you and about you. And your future within any united church will not be decided by you but by others?

It is because of statements like the above, so many of us who are Orthodox (including myself)  refer to you as the perfect example of 'battered wife syndrome'!  For time and time again we watch as we see you cry, bitch, and moan about your treatment & plight under Rome but then end it with something similiar to 'Well they said they would never do it again and things will change!'  Have they?  Will they?  That haven't so far!

[It may be funny but I think it is true. If there were no unions would the Orthodox even bother with dialogue? Without us reminding Rome there is another way to be Catholic would they care? If you think its funny read Archbishop Elias': A Voice from the Byzantine East. It is the most fair, non-polemical assessment of the situation that has been put forth yet.]

If there had been no forced unions there may have been no reason to dialogue by this time.
Many of the issues may have been resolved.  It was the creation of your churches that have hindered the process for so long.  Archbishop Zogby is right.  You are not a bridge but you are more than just an irritant.  You are a constant reminder that within the RCC it is all about power, authority, and domination. 

[Be forced to violate our consciences and adopt the Latin Rite or leave communion with Rome? I think we are a convenient scapegoat for those who don't want Orthodox-Catholic dialogue to go anywhere.]

If you are honest with yourselves you will have to come to the acceptance that eventually you will have to make the choice on what is more important to you...1)  Communion with Rome or 2)  Your Rites and Traditions.  And, somewhere along the way you are going to have to realize that  your decisions should be made not according to tradition and Rites, or
earthly authority but on theological grounds which you seem to put at the bottom of the barrel.

Orthodoc

[Jakub]

Orthodoc,

I see & understand your point, though it will be another idea for me to personally debate within myself, arghh...

james

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

"And your future within any united church will not be decided by you but by others?"

Archbishop Elias argues this is how it should be.  Rome and Orthodoxy must work out their problems.  When they do we will return to our mother Church.

"Have they?  Will they?  That haven't so far!"

I think that is an inaccurate statement.  Our conditions are greatly improved although admittedly not perfect.

"If you are honest with yourselves you will have to come to the acceptance that eventually you will have to make the choice on what is more important to you...1)  Communion with Rome or 2)  Your Rites and Traditions.  And, somewhere along the way you are going to have to realize that  your decisions should be made not according to tradition and Rites, or earthly authority but on theological grounds which you seem to put at the bottom of the barrel."

Actually we hold Communion with Rome, our Tradition, and our Theology as equally important.  We refuse to allow Rome or Orthodoxy to view itself as the only proper expression of the True Faith.  By maintaining our Traditions and theology we witnes to Rome.  By maintaining communion with Rome we witness to the Orthodox that we refuse to succumb to the Byzantien chauvinism present among the Orthodox that equate Latin and error.  While we may disagree with some of Rome's doctrinal developments we refuse to denounce them as heretics as did the Eastern Church of the 1st millenia.  I think ti is important to remember that while the East was struggling with heresy Rome didn't denounce the East but remained in communion with her and helped her restore orthodoxy.  I think it is shameful that the majority of the East has ignored/abandoned/denounced Rome in her time of need.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

Sounds like "neither here nor there " to me. 

[Pravoslavbob]

Actually we hold Communion with Rome, our Tradition, and our Theology as equally important. We refuse to allow Rome or Orthodoxy to view itself as the only proper expression of the True Faith. By maintaining our Traditions and theology we witnes to Rome. By maintaining communion with Rome we witness to the Orthodox that we refuse to succumb to the Byzantien chauvinism present among the Orthodox that equate Latin and error. While we may disagree with some of Rome's doctrinal developments we refuse to denounce them as heretics as did the Eastern Church of the 1st millenia. I think ti is important to remember that while the East was struggling with heresy Rome didn't denounce the East but remained in communion with her and helped her restore orthodoxy. I think it is shameful that the majority of the East has ignored/abandoned/denounced Rome in her time of need.

It is a tragic thing indeed, my friend, if this is what you truly believe. If it is, then what more do we have to say to each other?

[jmbejdl]

James,

I was in Romania once for a few days, in Transylvania. I also hosted a Romanian immigrant for a short time in my home in Miami, that is a long story. I would like to think of myself as well informed but that is probably arrogance. However, I do have a grasp of geography of that part of the world and know that language and ethnicity does not always respect borders.

The Bucovineans do seem to be an interesting bunch from what little I know of them.  

It seemed to me that the people in places like Satu Mare and Baia Mare in Transylvania thought of RCs as Hungarians. I guess in Bucovina it is different. Someone even spoke Hungarian to me on the street in Baia Mare (I don't speak Hungarian, but I can barely get by).

It's an interesting world!

TonyS  

TonyS,

I'm not surprised they think of RCs as Hungarian in Transylvania - most of them probably are. In Bucovina it's different because it was never under Hungarian rule (it was under the Austro-Hungarian empire for a while but was ruled by Austrians exclusively). I've actually never met a Hungarian east of the Carpathians - I'm not sure there are any.
To further complicate things in Bucovina, there are a number of 'Russian' churches. These are Orthodox churches where the liturgy is in Slavonic attended by ethnic Ukrainians. I'm not sure whether they are under the Moscow Patriarchate or the Romanian Patriarchate, but I suspect the former. Basically then, if a church is described as German, Austrian or Polish, it's western rite Catholic, if Ukrainian it's eastern rite Catholic, and if Russian its a Slavonic Orthodox church. All very complicated.

James

[prodromos]

I think ti is important to remember that while the East was struggling with heresy Rome didn't denounce the East but remained in communion with her and helped her restore orthodoxy. I think it is shameful that the majority of the East has ignored/abandoned/denounced Rome in her time of need.

Deacon Lance, with all due respect you are full of it. The East has not ignored/abandoned Rome in her time of need. Rome, in her pride, has cut herself off from the East. As for denouncing Rome, good grief, error has always been denounced in the church. It is the first step towards correcting those who have fallen into it and you err greatly if you believe that Rome has never denounced the errors which she perceived in the East. You may believe you are a witness to Rome, but unfortunately by submitting to her errors (eg. supreme jurisdiction) you merely propagate the same, so it is and always will be completely ineffective.

John.

[Deacon Lance]

John,

Rome denounced error but it never denounced the East for simply being Eastern in the same way the Orthodox routinely denounce everything Latin simply because it is Latin.  And there was ample pride on both sides.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[prodromos]

Rome denounced error but it never denounced the East for simply being Eastern in the same way the Orthodox routinely denounce everything Latin simply because it is Latin. And there was ample pride on both sides.

I'm sorry Father Deacon, but I must have missed the encyclicals and synod publications of the Orthodox heirarchy which routinely do this. Perhaps you could direct me to them?

[Deacon Lance]

John,

These sites give a good overview. 

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/sep15.html

The reposed GOA Metropolitan of San Francisco refused to let his clergy have anything to do with Western Rite Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

John,

These sites give a good overview.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/sep15.html

The reposed GOA Metropolitan of San Francisco refused to let his clergy have anything to do with Western Rite Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Oh, please, Leacon Lance.
You must do better thans these. I fail to see how the first linked piece is relevant; the second is hardly anything but a polemical piece taking out of context the situation of the day. And the third comment is also meaningless here (besides, the metroplitan was within his rights within his see - something you RCs can't understand, I'm sure).

To your comment that the east abandoned the West: Do you have some persecution complex? Have you bookmarked every negative piece you can find on the internet? My read is that St. Photios bent over backwards to insure the communal integrity of the Church. The west persisted in it's ways - still is.

[Deacon Lance]

Demetri,

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy.  St. Augustine is denounced in some cirlces and ritual variances are still criticized.  The Western Orthodox are forced to insert the Byzantine Epiclesis into the ancient Roman Canon and use leavened bread.  And you think there is no bias against Latin practice, even those that predate the schism?

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

Demetri,

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy. St. Augustine is denounced in some cirlces and ritual variances are still criticized. The Western Orthodox are forced to insert the Byzantine Epiclesis into the ancient Roman Canon and use leavened bread. And you think there is no bias against Latin practice, even those that predate the schism?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,
Were it not for fora such as this one I would be unaware of this alleged "anti-Latin" undercurrent. We Greeks don't think much about the Latins at all. Many of my close personal friends are RC (alas, no BCs) and I do not see them insulted by any remarks I have made.
The GOA piece states about Blessed Augustine exactly what I have been taught by my GOA priests - all of them- so I have no experience of these "some circles". Again, you are overly sensitive.
As to Western Rite: you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Any changes made (and relatively minor at that) in the liturgy were not made to make them more Orthodox for the western riters, but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox. Call it a qualtifier to prevent confusion. The metropolitan of San Francisco simply avoided the problem totally in his see.
As to my opinion of bias against Latin practice, I have none. I haven't been in an RC church in 37 years. If there was bias pre-schism, it was on both sides.

[Pravoslavbob]

They certainly are relevant as all underline there is still an anti-Latin undercurrent in much of Orthodoxy.

Oh please, Deacon Lance. And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? Give me a break. The only difference is that people in the Latin Church TEND to be more polite about it when speaking with you face to face. This seems to be very important to people like your Robert Taft, but in many cultures of the East, politesse is not held in the same high esteem as in the West. You know this as well as I. I'm sure you are also quite aware that MANY in the Latin Church regard the Orthodox Church as either a quaint museum piece or as a bunch of crypto-monophysites, or both. The Orthodox don't corner the market on chauvinism, so let's please put away this red herring.

Bob

[bripat22]

. The East has not ignored/abandoned Rome in her time of need. Rome, in her pride, has cut herself off from the East.John.

 Well, Bishop +Kallistos in his history of the Orthodox Church has pointed out that there was pride and arrogance on BOTH sides leading up to the time of the Schism.  It is never just one side which is guilty in such cases.  It is only a spirit of mutual love and charity in truth which will bring unity.

[Deacon Lance]

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox. Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread. The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that.  But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence.  It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon.  And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors.  On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Αριστοκλής]

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox.  Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread.  The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Obviously we disagree as to the reasoning. So what's new?  :-";"xx

[Αριστοκλής]

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon. And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors. On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Turn it around...
No problem with ritual diversity as long as Rome gets the last word.

[Ian Lazarus]

 Well, Bishop +Kallistos in his history of the Orthodox Church has pointed out that there was pride and arrogance on BOTH sides leading up to the time of the Schism. It is never just one side which is guilty in such cases. It is only a spirit of mutual love and charity in truth which will bring unity.

I dont thinkwe can deny that the schism was partly the fault of bad blood, but there were more pertinant issues as well. Rome was already steeped in the "Ruler of the Church" mindset because of false documentation unknown in the east (Donation of Constantine) and having to play the political front with Charlamagne and his merry bunch at Aix-la-Chapelle. It was little wonder that Partiarch Michael had a very hard time with Cardinal Humbert and the other papal emmesaries, because they had the emminance grise mindset instilled in them, especially when they made their bull of excommunication and threw it on the alter table durring Divine Liturgy at the Hagia Sophia. The point being made is that the Orhodox stayed the course of the traditions passed down from the apostles, and Rome deviated. Now, after long centuries, we look at what the Roman Chruch has become, and we see somthing entirely different, even from the time of the schism, and that they want unity on their terms, aka, papal monarchy, and not concilliar brotherhood. In the East, it is the brotherhood of bishops (and there is no title higher than Bishop) and the unity of voice that prevails in arguments and disputes. In Rome, it is the will of the Pope that is the supreme authority, and for a bishop in the west to speak out against the Pope is to garner not only disfavour, but defrocking, and possible exommunication. I have Roman Catholic friends that attest to this, and ask if it is the same in my Church, of which I answer as above. When the question of unity comes about, the Orthodox answers that I have seen generally state "Come back the same way you left". The Greek Catholics in the Orthodox view are a thorn in the side of such talks because of the background. they did not come in to Roman communion voluntarily, but by force. Even now it is an uneasy arrangement, because they want freedom, and Rome seems unwilling to give it.

This is my two cents. Take 'em or leave 'em


Peace,

Ian Lazarus :grommit:
         

[James2]

Demetri,

"but to protect our existing flocks from the possible impression that the service (outside of the communion) itself IS Orthodox"

It IS Orthodox. Orthodox Saints like St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great celebrated the the Roman Rite without the Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread. The only reason these were changed for Western Rite Orthodox was to bow to Byzantine chauvinism.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

St. Gregory Dialogos and St. Leo the Great may not have used unleavened bread. Some accounts state that the use of unleavened bread in the West didn't take place until the 9th century. But I believe you are correct about the epiclesis not being in the Roman canon during their pontificates.

There are some tendencies for Western Orthodox to "byzantinize" themselves, just as there have been self-inflicted "latinizations" committed by Eastern Catholics. E.g., many people in our Western Rite mission cross themselves in the Eastern manner (although this used to be the Western manner centuries ago). Most stand to receive communion, but those of us who kneel are not discouraged from doing so. Of course standing to receive now appears to be the norm in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (at least in the USA). Some of our people even stand during the canon.

I doubt that there would be any theological objection to using unleavened bread in the Western Rite, but for now the rubrics say we have to use leavened bread. It's not exactly a hot issue. I'm not aware of any desire of Western Orthodox to have the epiclesis removed, either. In fact, Rome herself has incorporated explicit epicleses in the newer eucharistic prayers, although the position of the epiclesis in these prayers is before the institution narrative, rather than after as in Orthodox rites.

James

[Pravoslavbob]

"And you're telling me that there is no chauvinism in the Latin Church towards Orthodoxy? "

I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon. And I would challenge you to find statements by current Latin theologians or hierarchs calling Byzantine liturgy or praxis errors. On the otherhand one can find such statemnets from Orthodox about Latin liturgy or parxis quite easily.

Deacon Lance,

Historically, Rome has only been tolerant because it suited her purposes, i.e. biting off pieces of the Orthodox Church little by little. I have already cited the eighteenth century example of Pope Benedict XIV referring to the Roman rite as "Ritus praestantior." How about one of many nineteenth century examples? The "grandfather" of the liturgical movement, no less, a certain Prosper Gueranger OSB. He said something to the effect that unless the Byzantine rite could be made to parallel the Roman one in every way (i.e. no cherubic hymn, trisagion etc. etc. should be allowed) it should be eliminated. I guess there's no chauvinism evident in either of these examples? There are many more where these came from, right up to Vatican II.

Are you so sure that Rome never required any Easterners to adopt Western things like unleavened bread etc.? Maybe you could look into goings-on during the time of the Latin Empire in 13th century Constantinople. In any event, both sides have been bickering about these things forever, it seems to me.

The newfound Latin appreciation for all things Eastern is only 30 or 40 years old, which really doesn't amount to much chronologically speaking. I do think that it's a very welcome development. Except when it is so often twisted into the "compliment" of "my, what a RICH tradition you Orthodox have. Such a beautiful museum!" What you dismiss as chauvinism on the Eastern side is actually much more than this, though I would never deny that chauvinism creeps into it. There are actually those who are seriously debating the idea of the Western rite and its place in Orthodoxy, and really thinking about what it means.

I'm sure that many Latin hierarchs say nothing negative publicly about the East because they know what's good for them: they know that the East is currently "de riguer" for some in the Vatican. Plus they are all just into being generally ecumenically minded, so they don't say many nasty things about any other confessions, as far as I know. You may have heard differently.

Bob

[emmanuelmelo]

deacon Lance,

You consistently use the word "Chauvinism."  How rude of you!  If I remember correctly, it was the Roman Bishops who forced Eastern Rite bishops to always stand behind them in processions (in this country and abroad).  Talk about Chauvinism- Uniate bishops couldn't even walk side by side with their Latin counterparts.  As far as the ROMAN CANON, who cares?  The Mass in the Western Rite "has been destroyed" in the words of Msgr. Klaus Gamber.  See my previous post for Roman toleration of Mass Abuses- why just limit Masses to include other traditions?  Why not other religions as well.  For every parish that uses the Roman Canon, I can tell you 20 that don't. 

You can encourage dialog between the Churches, but the bottom line is that NO ONE TAKES THE CATHOLIC POSITION SERIOUSLY ANYMORE.   Until you can get that through your head, why even bother posting.  Orthodoc, Aristokles, and Prodromos thrash you mercilessly every time you do.

Take Care

Emmanuel

[Jennifer]

The newfound Latin appreciation for all things Eastern is only 30 or 40 years old, which really doesn't amount to much chronologically speaking.  I do think that it's a very welcome development. 

I'm not sure if that's true.  I've been told that a lot of the 'authentic' "reformers" in the latin Church were very appreciative of the Byzantine rite before Vatican II.   I've heard that there was an influential publication devoted to the Byzantine rite.  What I find very telling is that after the 'destruction' of the western liturgical tradition, that publication ceased to exist. 

[Pravoslavbob]

Now that you mention it, Jennifer, i can think of other exceptions too. Like the monks at Chevtogne who have been working sincererly towards reconciliation between East and West since at least the 1920's, I think. Of course, you're right too if you're talking about people like Louis Bouyer and other "reformers".

Bob

[Jakub]

Emmanual taking pride in thrashing a person is uncalled for & sinful, especially at this time of year, give the Deacon his just respect.

james

[bripat22]

  I would second Bob's appreciation of the work of the Benedictines of Chevetogne and their great work for unity.  I also would mention the work of Father Lev Gillet of blessed memory who wrote under the name of "A Monk of the Eastern Church"  He always wrote in charity of the Catholic Church and was an Orthodox who was truly ecumenical in Spirit.  I wish there were more priests and HIerarchs like him around today!!

[Orthodoc]

[I did not say that. But on the othehand Rome is very tolerant of ritual divergence. It certainly never required an Eastern Church to use unleavned bread or replace their Anaphora with the Roman Canon.]

If this were true Deacon Lance, perhaps you can explain why the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Celtic, and Gallican Rites were abloished by Rome?

If Rome has always been so tolerant of ritual divergence these Rites should still be in existence as an integral part of the RCC, but they are not

Orthodoc

[Mor Ephrem]

Actually, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites haven't been abolished.  The latter, as I understand it, is celebrated on Sundays and feasts in the Archdiocese of Milan, although the regular Roman rite is celebrated on other days, while the former, through disuse (most people preferred to switch to the Roman rite), is used in the Cathedral of Toledo (although I hear some/all of the Spanish bishops want to try and bring it into more widespread use). 

[Orthodoc]

Actually, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites haven't been abolished. The latter, as I understand it, is celebrated on Sundays and feasts in the Archdiocese of Milan, although the regular Roman rite is celebrated on other days, while the former, through disuse (most people preferred to switch to the Roman rite), is used in the Cathedral of Toledo (although I hear some/all of the Spanish bishops want to try and bring it into more widespread use).

Perhaps I should not have used the word abolished but restricted instead. The fact of the matter is that if the RCC was as tolerant of other Rites as Fr Deacon Lance claims both Rites you mention should not be restricted to certain feast days of certain specific areas or churches as it is.

Orthodoc

[Mor Ephrem]

With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?).  I don't know why the Milanese don't use their own rite on weekdays, but I'm not sure if that is a Roman decision or a Milanese one.  I think the geographic restrictions for these rites stem from the council of Trent (rites in continuous use for at least 200 years could remain in use in those places, while the rest of the Catholic world went Roman rite), but I'm not sure of the background for that decision.  Maybe Dn. Lance or Neil can fill us in. 

[Orthodoc]

[With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?).]

From a former RC priest who is now Orthodox Catholic regarding the Mozarabic Rite -

 With regard to the Mozarabic rite, I think it was the decision of the Spaniards themselves, over time, to adopt the Roman rite instead of maintaining their own (a "latinisation" of the "Latins"?). 

Today the Mozarabic Mass is celebrated once daily at the Capilla Muzarabe in the Toledo cathedral.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10611a.htm

Orthodoc

[emmanuelmelo]

We must not forget that after the council Rome pressured those of the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites to "update" their Liturgy.  The Ambrosian rite is so modernized one can hardly tell it apart from apart from the Modern Roman Rite-  Mass facing the people, etc.  This is why internet sites such as Una Voce advertise the Ambrosian Rite done "Pre-Vatican II."  As far as the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, that was also butchered, but from my recollection not until the late 1980s.

[Deacon Lance]

Emmanuel,

I am sorry you find the truth rude.  What else do call the Byzantinization the Orthodox have done to the Roman Rite?

Whether the Catholic position is taken seriously is hard to say but it appears that at least yuor hierarchs feign interest.

Why bother posting? I enjoy the company here even if we debate alot.  Everyone here is a good Christian and I value their opinion even if I may disagree with them. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

The dominance of the Roman Rite over the other Latin Rites was unfortunate.  As Phil said at Trent every area that didn't have a use at least 200 years old had to adopt the Roman leaving only the Ambrosian and Mozarabic and a few uses of Religious Orders. 

Despite this however I think Rome still has a better track record than Constantinople.  Grottaferratta still thrives in Rome, Amalfion sits in ruins on Athos.  Also the GO Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem lost their Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, except for token use of St. James on his Feastday and the Sunday after Christmas among some.

Also be careful quoting the encyclopedia at New Advent it is very dated.  The Spanish have been reviving the Hispano-Mozarabic rite and its use is becoming more common accoring to a poster at byzcath who lives in Spain.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Irish Hermit]

It is ironic that the Roman Church successfully suppressed just about all the Rites which once flourished in the West in the early days but for the past few hundred years they have been hard at work filching the Byzantine Rites of the East!!! I wonder why don't they make similar efforts to restore their proper ancient Rites to the Irish and the Spanish and the French, etc? If Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics may keep the Byzantine Rites, why cannot Irish Catholics and Spanish Catholics be allowed their own Rites?


If we look at the geographical territory of the Roman Patriarchate we find wide-spread suppression of local Rites over the centuries.

The wonderful Mozarabic Rite of Spain and Portugal was completely suppressed and allowed to remain, as a kind of museum piece, only in Toldeo, while the rest of Spain was required to adopt the Roman Rite. This was accomplished by Pope Alexander II (1061-1073) and later by St. Gregory VII (1073-1085). Today the Mozarabic Mass is celebrated once daily at the Capilla Muzarabe in the Toledo cathedral.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10611a.htm

The Gallic Rites spread across France and Germany but were suppressed by the Papacy and by the Franks. By the end of the 9th century nothing remained and all had been replaced by the Roman Rite.

The Celtic Rites of Ireland, Scotland, Wales were entirely and utterly destroyed by the close of the 12th century. In Ireland this was accomplished at the insistence of the Papal Legate of Pope Adrian (at the Synod of Cashel in 1172AD) and with the assistance of the invading Anglo-Norman army.

So we see that some of the most sizeable areas of the Church of Rome--Spain, France, Germany, the Celtic areas--were obliged to abandon and suppress their ancient Rites and adopt the Rite of the Church of Rome.

(As an aside, the Celtic Rite, specifically the 8th century Irish Lorrha-Stowe Missal now has a small, very very small, revival in the Orthodox Church. It has been resurrected, and re-rubricised into a workable
Liturgy by Hieromonk of the Australian ROCA Diocese and awaits an episcopal blesing for its use. Whether it will ever be more than something for occasional use by liturgical enthusiasts is another question.)

[Orthodoc]

[Emmanuel,

I am sorry you find the truth rude. What else do call the Byzantinization the Orthodox have done to the Roman Rite?]


Reply:

Father Deacon Lance:

The above comment reminds me of a true story regarding an old Russian priest in Russia. When a western Christian once asked him what he believed his reply was - "Don't ask me what I believe. Ask me how I worship. For what I believe is completely expressed in the way I worship."

The fact that you, as a Byzantine Catholic, cannot comprehend that.. is just another reason why the oxymoron 'we are Orthodox In Communion With Rome' is such a ridiculous claim!

Orthodoc

[Deacon Lance]

Orthodoc,

I comprehend it very well.  The fact remains that Western Saints that the Orthodox recognize used the Roman Rite without a Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread showing that to be Orthodox one does not have to incorporate the Byzantinizations to be Orthodox, yet it is required of Western Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Irish Hermit]

<<I comprehend it very well. The fact remains that Western Saints that the Orthodox recognize used the Roman Rite without a Byzantine Epiclesis and with unleavened bread showing that to be Orthodox one does not have to incorporate the Byzantinizations to be Orthodox, yet it is required of Western Orthodox.

Fr. Deacon Lance>>

First question. I'm new here. Dear Father Deacon, have Eastern Catholics abandoned the Eastern tradition of having Saints' names as Christian names? Is this some sort of Latinisation of the Eastern Catholics? Why are you addressed as "Lance"? Short for something else?

Speaking of Latinisations, I think that the Roman requirement that Eastern Catholic clergy outside their 'homelands" must be unmarried is more of a gross attack on the Eastern Catholics in the West than any small requirement by the Orthodox about inserting one epiclitic phrase in a three hour Liturgy. And yes, I know that Bishop John Elya took his life in his hands and ordained a married priest not too long ago, but that was seen and is still seen as a challenge to Rome and its ruling: NO married Eastern Catholic priests in the States and Canada.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding the schism