Topic: Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding the schism

[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.