OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 11:43:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is the word Uniate offensive?  (Read 4815 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,983



« on: May 19, 2013, 07:28:17 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2013, 07:41:05 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.


I think it has more to do with its history of being used as a perjorative against Eastern Catholics than anything inherent to the word, kinda like "monophysite" to the OO.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2013, 09:42:16 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.


I think it has more to do with its history of being used as a perjorative against Eastern Catholics than anything inherent to the word,

Right. In fact, if it was offensive to anyone at the beginning, it would have been the Orthodox.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2013, 10:42:02 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.


I think it has more to do with its history of being used as a perjorative against Eastern Catholics than anything inherent to the word,

Right. In fact, if it was offensive to anyone at the beginning, it would have been the Orthodox.

I think I know the explanatory ending to your sentence that you meant but I came up with two.

My preferred is "because the Orthodox were the first Uniates".

The second would be "that caused it".

There are certainly other endings.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2013, 10:44:18 PM »

All I see is Urinate.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,983



« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2013, 11:21:13 PM »

All I see is Urinate.

Well, I could definitely see how someone would consider that offensive if I called them that.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2013, 04:50:19 AM »

What about Disuniate?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2013, 07:39:04 AM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.


I think it has more to do with its history of being used as a perjorative against Eastern Catholics than anything inherent to the word,

Right. In fact, if it was offensive to anyone at the beginning, it would have been the Orthodox.

I think I know the explanatory ending to your sentence that you meant but I came up with two.

My preferred is "because the Orthodox were the first Uniates".

The second would be "that caused it".

There are certainly other endings.

 Smiley I meant, when the term was first used, if it was offensive to anyone it would have been offensive to the "non-uniat" Orthodox.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2013, 07:44:52 AM »

What about Disuniate?

Here's the New Catholic Dictionary's article Non-Uniat Churches. (I would quote it, but it's a little too long vis-a-vis forum policy.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2013, 09:52:03 AM »

I think the word communion is better. Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2013, 10:09:52 AM »

It's offensive because it sounds like you're calling names: "You neeate!!"  Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2013, 10:15:46 AM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2013, 11:11:19 AM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2013, 11:11:35 AM »

What about Disuniate?

Here's the New Catholic Dictionary's article Non-Uniat Churches. (I would quote it, but it's a little too long vis-a-vis forum policy.)

The "New" Catholic Dictionary doesn't seem to have been updated since at least 1945 since it still speaks of the Bulgarian Exarchate. Quite an ironic name.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 11:14:29 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2013, 11:23:44 AM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2013, 11:29:27 AM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2013, 11:38:03 AM »

The question below is from the Melkite Catechetical Questions for 9th through 12th graders as posted on the Newton Eparchy website:


40. Was the Vatican Council an ecumenical council? Why? Why Not?
Answer: The Vatican Council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2013, 12:00:55 PM »

LARP-ing^
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2013, 12:12:37 PM »

When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

This would actually be really interesting to watch.  What would Rome do?  Excommunicate you?  It's not like you don't have anywhere to go...  Smiley

At the same time, how much of the reticence of Eastern Catholics to "stand up for themselves" against Rome comes from their reverence for their faith beliefs about Rome and the papacy?  Only on the internet have I met Eastern Catholics with the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" mentality.  No matter how "Eastern" they are liturgically and culturally, the Eastern Catholics I've met "in real life" are basically "Roman Catholics of the X Rite" when it comes to their faith.  Many of them, though canonically Eastern Catholic and with a parish of the proper rite available to them, attend the local Roman Rite parish because Mass is shorter and Mass times more flexible.  If they do attend the Eastern Catholic parish, it's more for the (ethnic) community than it is about the rite, patrimony, "Orthodoxy", etc. 

So I think you're right, it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics when they let Rome push them around, but I think we might disagree on what it is they've done wrong.         
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,391



« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2013, 12:14:55 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2013, 07:08:19 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

They would say the same about you, as I'm sure you know.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2013, 07:23:51 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2013, 07:29:29 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.

Besides its use as a perjorative, it is simply inaccurate.  To be a uniate, in the common definition, one must be leaving the Orthodox Church to unite with the Catholic Church.  Cradle Greek Catholics didn't leave Orthodoxy.  We are what we have been for hundreds of years now. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2013, 09:03:01 PM »

LARP-ing^
What a weak comeback.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2013, 09:06:22 PM »

When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

This would actually be really interesting to watch.  What would Rome do?  Excommunicate you?  It's not like you don't have anywhere to go...  Smiley
I doubt Rome would do much of anything.

At the same time, how much of the reticence of Eastern Catholics to "stand up for themselves" against Rome comes from their reverence for their faith beliefs about Rome and the papacy?  Only on the internet have I met Eastern Catholics with the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" mentality.  No matter how "Eastern" they are liturgically and culturally, the Eastern Catholics I've met "in real life" are basically "Roman Catholics of the X Rite" when it comes to their faith.  Many of them, though canonically Eastern Catholic and with a parish of the proper rite available to them, attend the local Roman Rite parish because Mass is shorter and Mass times more flexible.  If they do attend the Eastern Catholic parish, it's more for the (ethnic) community than it is about the rite, patrimony, "Orthodoxy", etc. 

So I think you're right, it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics when they let Rome push them around, but I think we might disagree on what it is they've done wrong.         
As a Melkite Catholic I see myself as Orthodox, and I really don't think much about the "communion with Rome" part. I do think it is nice that Rome is in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, but it does not really impact my identity as a Christian.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2013, 09:13:12 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2013, 09:14:13 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2013, 11:51:36 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2013, 12:01:28 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Those were non-apostate Communists martyring faithful Orthodox and Catholics and destroying their churches?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2013, 12:10:56 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Those were non-apostate Communists martyring faithful Orthodox and Catholics and destroying their churches?
Many communists built churches. If that surprises you.



Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2013, 12:15:14 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Those were non-apostate Communists martyring faithful Orthodox and Catholics and destroying their churches?
Many communists built churches. If that surprises you.

Not at all.  Many communists became priests and bishops too, it doesn't mean they weren't apostates.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2013, 03:28:55 AM »

Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

Or it's a response to harassment of Orthodox by Catholics in the Commonwealth and Austro-Hungary. Not saying  it's a right reason. but factual.

I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

He is the supervisor of your Church. And the "vicar of Christ".
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,213


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2013, 05:24:47 AM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

So the Melkite Church by itself is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and needs neither Rome nor Constantinople/Moscow?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 05:24:57 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 974


« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2013, 08:30:36 AM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.

Besides its use as a perjorative, it is simply inaccurate.  To be a uniate, in the common definition, one must be leaving the Orthodox Church to unite with the Catholic Church.  Cradle Greek Catholics didn't leave Orthodoxy.  We are what we have been for hundreds of years now. 


How can it be a perjorative if the term was invented by the Roman Catholic Church and is used by the Roman Catholic Church in discussions with the Orthodox.  The term is also used by academic scholars like Prof. John-Paul Himka and others.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2013, 09:13:21 AM »

A hot topic. To provoke the good Deacon Lance to respond as he did verifies that the psychic wounds suffered by the Rusyn community during the first seventy years or so of the last century left deep scars, even on those of us - BCC or Orthodox - who were either too young to be at the center of the fight or not even born then.... I could see myself responding out of character to certain charges or exaggerations directed towards those who left the Unia - not all, I must add, coming from the Catholic "team." But, that's not for today.

Our Melkite friend expressed the common teachings of the Melkites re Rome , then a comment was made about standing up to Rome  and the Orthodox response followed "What would Rome do? Excommunicate you?" To which a response of "probably nothing"  followed.

I don't know about 2013, but in the early 1930's nearly ALL of the Rusyn Greek Catholic clergy and  prominent laity petitioned Rome in a formal, Canon lawyer prepared petition and brief seeking redress from various claimed violations of the Union of Uzhorod incorporated in the papal bulls, EA Semper and Cum Data Fuerit which mandated, among many things, that only celibate clergy minister the North American Greek Catholics. This took place within a background of increased pressures to Latinize. This petition, respectfully prepared by a graduate of the Presov Greek Catholic seminary and Harvard Law School, was delivered to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches where it sat and sat while the Church in America boiled over.

Finally in 1936, Rome's response was finally made and it was clear. There would be no compromise or concessions from Rome. Priests were to repent and publicly recant while professing their loyalty/fealty to Rome and the Holy Father. Control over church properties would be vested in the Greek Catholic ordinary or else costly and lengthy litigation would follow.

The clergy, mostly green carded immigrants with families had little choice. Comply or face the streets in the midst of the depression. Turn over control of the financial reserves and weekly publication, the Viestnyk of the leading fraternal organization or lose burial benefits. Risk losing the properties your families secured by personal mortgages. If you resisted and had signed the petition or if you were a national fraternal lay leader and didn't recant, you were FORMALLY excommunicated. (Including my maternal grandfather.) Most clergy, including much of the anti Rome leadership folded, many parishes resisted and most lost their properties. Those who would not fold, eventually formed an independent Greek Catholic organization of parishes, elected as administrator,  Fr.Orestes Chornock, pastor of what was the largest Greek Catholic parish in the USA, St. John's of Bridgeport, Ct which split into at least four St. John's in greater Bridgeport today... A year later, the bulk of those parishes and priests sought the protection of the EP, and ACROD resulted. Seventy five years later the scars still exist among the descendants of both factions but we at least understand our common history, culture and why things are what they are.

Would Rome act in a similar fashion in 2013? Probably/hopefully not. I think they practice a variant of         " Don't ask, don't tell" regarding today's Greek Catholics in terms of dogmatic/doctrinal/liturgical issues but remember that Popes come and go.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 09:18:09 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2013, 09:18:13 AM »

I don't know about 2013, but in the early 1930's ...

At least you went back to the previous century and not 1034.  Roll Eyes

But still - the 1930s were almost a hundred years ago. Granted we should learn from history, but the issues of today are different than they were in the 1930s, and need to be dealt with accordingly.

I do believe there are problems in the interaction between East and West, but they are the problems unique to 2013, not the same problems our great-grandparents were dealing with.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2013, 10:09:05 AM »

I don't know about 2013, but in the early 1930's ...

At least you went back to the previous century and not 1034.  Roll Eyes

1034 being the average of 1014 and 1054?  Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2013, 12:13:19 PM »

I don't know about 2013, but in the early 1930's ...

At least you went back to the previous century and not 1034.  Roll Eyes

But still - the 1930s were almost a hundred years ago. Granted we should learn from history, but the issues of today are different than they were in the 1930s, and need to be dealt with accordingly.

I do believe there are problems in the interaction between East and West, but they are the problems unique to 2013, not the same problems our great-grandparents were dealing with.

I agree. Frankly the healing which is taking place now in what was once the American Rusyn "ghetto" and now the broader, minimalisticly ethnic BCC and ACROD  is far greater than across the general Orthodox and Catholic worlds.

I was discussing this the other evening with our new, ethnically Greek, bishop. I attributed this to the fact that unlike most Orthodox or Catholic ethnic majorities (read Greek and Russians in the OC corner and Irish/Germans in north American Roman Catholicism ), the Rusyns, much like the Arab Melkites, lived among Roman Catholics and in the case of the Slovak Rusyns, among Lutherans and Hussites as well in the old world. The caricatures held by many Christians of east or west of the "others" were not as much of a reality there . "We" understood we weren't " them", but we saw "they" weren't goat horned agents of the anti-Christ either coming to steal our women and sacrifice our babies.

 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 12:14:13 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2013, 12:28:11 PM »

"We" understood we weren't " them", but we saw "they" weren't goat horned agents of the anti-Christ either coming to steal our women and sacrifice our babies.

Obviously, you're wrong.  They are ram-horned agents of the anti-Christ coming to steal our women and sacrifice our babies. 

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,415


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2013, 12:33:37 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.
HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh

I think the "Vicar of Christ" would disagree with that comment.

PP
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,718



« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2013, 12:40:51 PM »

As a Melkite Catholic I see myself as Orthodox, and I really don't think much about the "communion with Rome" part. I do think it is nice that Rome is in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, but it does not really impact my identity as a Christian.

Do you ever attend RC masses and receive their Eucharist?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2013, 01:03:34 PM »

"We" understood we weren't " them", but we saw "they" weren't goat horned agents of the anti-Christ either coming to steal our women and sacrifice our babies.

Obviously, you're wrong.  They are ram-horned agents of the anti-Christ coming to steal our women and sacrifice our babies. 



Which "them" are "they"?   Wink

Reminds me of a quote by Pogo from my younger days: "We have met the enemy and they are us."  Cheesy
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2013, 08:42:23 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 08:48:31 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2013, 10:40:14 PM »

As a Melkite Catholic I see myself as Orthodox, and I really don't think much about the "communion with Rome" part. I do think it is nice that Rome is in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, but it does not really impact my identity as a Christian.

Seems reasonable to me.

I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

Seems reasonable to me. Who owns whom is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the "Vicar of Christ" would disagree with that comment.
PP

Why should the Melkites care?


The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Remarkably I read it as a letter of defiance. Perhaps the nuance went past me.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: May 29, 2013, 07:06:08 AM »


The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Remarkably I read it as a letter of defiance. Perhaps the nuance went past me.

Defiance? Where? He acknowledged that "if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas", among which he explicitly includes Papal infallibility. He refers to the Pope as "the successor of St. Peter the Rock" and warns of breaking the bond of unity with him by denying any of these dogmas. He strongly forbids preceding the commemoration of the Pope with "among the first", which he considers an act of defiance against legitimate authority, and allows the priests only to say "First, Lord, Remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome..." which very clearly recognizes the Papal supremacy. I don't know where you're reading defiance in any of this text.

Again, if you specifically commemorate the Pope in the anaphora at every liturgy, you are acknowledging his jurisdiction over you. My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 07:07:15 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2013, 09:02:42 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,983



« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2013, 09:09:24 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2013, 09:13:56 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?

You Antiochians are strange. Not sure, taking into account I do not know how your affair with bishops eventually solved.

The traditional practice is to commemorate the dioceasan bishop and the bishops who are present. Not some patriarchs or metropolitans that preside synods (unless of course it's a primatial Liturgy). Commemorating synod presidents alongside diocesan bishop is a Russian innovation.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,415


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2013, 09:23:31 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?
We do the same.

PP
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,461


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2013, 10:25:30 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?
We do the same.

PP

We commemorate Patriarch +Irinej and our bishop, Bishop +Mitrophan as well at every liturgy.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2013, 10:40:20 AM »


The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Remarkably I read it as a letter of defiance. Perhaps the nuance went past me.

Defiance? Where? He acknowledged that "if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas", among which he explicitly includes Papal infallibility. He refers to the Pope as "the successor of St. Peter the Rock" and warns of breaking the bond of unity with him by denying any of these dogmas. He strongly forbids preceding the commemoration of the Pope with "among the first", which he considers an act of defiance against legitimate authority, and allows the priests only to say "First, Lord, Remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome..." which very clearly recognizes the Papal supremacy. I don't know where you're reading defiance in any of this text.

Again, if you specifically commemorate the Pope in the anaphora at every liturgy, you are acknowledging his jurisdiction over you. My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

Exactly. In ACROD we commemorate the EP and our local bishop for the same reason. And the intonation is properly translated from the Slavonic through the Koine Greek as " Among the first." The distinction between "Among the first, remember..." and "First remember..." is both linguistically and theologically clear and unambiguous.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2013, 10:44:13 AM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2013, 10:46:41 AM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?

You Antiochians are strange. Not sure, taking into account I do not know how your affair with bishops eventually solved.

The traditional practice is to commemorate the dioceasan bishop and the bishops who are present. Not some patriarchs or metropolitans that preside synods (unless of course it's a primatial Liturgy). Commemorating synod presidents alongside diocesan bishop is a Russian innovation.

Orthodoxy = "it depends."  

ACROD, like OCA was founded by former Greek Catholics. I can't tell you how many times we in ACROD were criticized over the years by "High" Russians and Greeks for retaining the commemoration for the EP as being a "uniat" thing.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 10:53:02 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2013, 12:42:39 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?

More like, "The Melkites say blank at every liturgy, therefore blank is the Melkite teaching." Which is quite reasonable and straightforward.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2013, 03:35:36 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?

More like, "The Melkites say blank at every liturgy, therefore blank is the Melkite teaching." Which is quite reasonable and straightforward.

I was talking about this part:

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2013, 03:42:29 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?

More like, "The Melkites say blank at every liturgy, therefore blank is the Melkite teaching." Which is quite reasonable and straightforward.

I was talking about this part:



Everything Bishop John says in that link logically follows from the Melkite church's basic recognition, in their liturgy, of the Pope's universal jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 03:42:46 PM by Iconodule » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,415


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2013, 07:50:04 AM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
So you dont believe in the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Seems that my priest's monk friend had it right.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 920


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2013, 08:58:05 AM »

Well, to throw in my two cents here- technically speaking, the Pope has jurisdiction over us, by virtue of Universal Jurisdiction. As a Ruthenian, we commemorate the Pope, then Metropolitan William (we don't have a diocesan bishop, as our Metropolitan is our former eparch). As far as I'm aware, the Pope has jurisdiction over us, whether we like to think about it or not. Especially however much the Ukrainians I know may not like to think about it.  Tongue
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 30, 2013, 10:53:11 AM »

I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.
The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church
Rather than write my own response I thought I would re-post the text written by Hesychios:


"Looks like equal time given to opposing viewpoints...

Bishop John Elya was one of only two Melkite bishops in the synod to vote against the Zoghby initiative. Both of whom were appointed to their positions by the Pope, not the Melkite synod!

In other words, the Pope now (only since Vat II) has the power to name members to the Melkite synod, when those Sees are in the diaspora. I hate to state that bishop John's opinion can be discounted, clearly it cannot, but he is equally clearly out of step with his own synod and Patriarch, as well as (apparently) traditional Melkite belief.

He is also retired, and no longer occupies the See. I wonder if his successor was a bishop at the time, and if he signed the Zoghby Initiative? Can anyone here help us with that?

Nevertheless, the initiative passed overwhelmingly, and was heartily endorsed by the Patriarch. Bishop John does not speak for anyone but himself (and his Pope I guess, that counts for something), he is contradicting his church's Synod.

We see the Melkites saying one thing in the synod, and another in the diaspora. It's synodal integrity slowing eroding away as more and more Melkites leave the Middle east for places like Europe, Australia and North America and the Pope will have ever growing direct control over erecting new Eparchies and appointing new bishops.

Why is this important? Patriarchal churches in Communion with Rome must be absolutely free of coercion from, or subordination to the See of Rome, to set a good example for the Orthodox. Right now we see a synod with manacles on, making a lot of noise but ultimately unable: to even name all it's own bishops, manage it's own growth and teach it's own Truth to it's children abroad.

No Orthodox church wants to be trapped in a vortex like that one, enticed by promises then slowly constrained into absorption, and with that Orthodox Truth disappears.

Michael"


Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2013, 10:57:04 AM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy.  . . .
I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Now as far as the pope being commemorated in Melkite parish liturgies is concerned, I think he should only be commemorated in liturgies celebrated by the Melkite Patriarch. I see no reason to commemorate him in every parish. Hopefully someday, when more Melkites are willing to stand up for their own legitimate traditions, that practice will finally be done away with.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 10:57:19 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #60 on: May 30, 2013, 11:07:25 AM »

I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.
The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church
Rather than write my own response I thought I would re-post the text written by Hesychios:


"Looks like equal time given to opposing viewpoints...

Bishop John Elya was one of only two Melkite bishops in the synod to vote against the Zoghby initiative. Both of whom were appointed to their positions by the Pope, not the Melkite synod!

In other words, the Pope now (only since Vat II) has the power to name members to the Melkite synod, when those Sees are in the diaspora. I hate to state that bishop John's opinion can be discounted, clearly it cannot, but he is equally clearly out of step with his own synod and Patriarch, as well as (apparently) traditional Melkite belief.

He is also retired, and no longer occupies the See. I wonder if his successor was a bishop at the time, and if he signed the Zoghby Initiative? Can anyone here help us with that?

Nevertheless, the initiative passed overwhelmingly, and was heartily endorsed by the Patriarch. Bishop John does not speak for anyone but himself (and his Pope I guess, that counts for something), he is contradicting his church's Synod.

We see the Melkites saying one thing in the synod, and another in the diaspora. It's synodal integrity slowing eroding away as more and more Melkites leave the Middle east for places like Europe, Australia and North America and the Pope will have ever growing direct control over erecting new Eparchies and appointing new bishops.

Why is this important? Patriarchal churches in Communion with Rome must be absolutely free of coercion from, or subordination to the See of Rome, to set a good example for the Orthodox. Right now we see a synod with manacles on, making a lot of noise but ultimately unable: to even name all it's own bishops, manage it's own growth and teach it's own Truth to it's children abroad.

No Orthodox church wants to be trapped in a vortex like that one, enticed by promises then slowly constrained into absorption, and with that Orthodox Truth disappears.

Michael"

So, according to this text, the Melkite church 1) has bishops appointed by the Pope; 2) is merely "making a lot of noise" with the Zoghby declaration and similar statements; 3) is moving toward even greater subordination to Rome than before. Thanks Apotheoun, you have brilliantly demolished your own claims about the Melkite church being an independent church merely in communion with Rome. And when he says that this is not traditional Melkite practice, it must be asked again, whom do you commemorate first in the anaphora at your regular liturgies?

How did the Melkite church become "trapped in a vortex like that one"? By entering into communion with a church claiming dogmatically to have universal supreme jurisdiction over everyone. If you don't agree with what someone is teaching as dogma, you shouldn't enter into communion with him- it's that simple. Even if the Melkite Catholic church, at its beginning in the 18th century, seemed to have real vestiges of independence, it was bound to slide toward its present subjugation because it already, implicitly, subjugated itself by entering communion with the Papal supremacists. So again, the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" model continues to be untenable and nothing more than a fantasy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #61 on: May 30, 2013, 11:14:39 AM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy.  . . .
I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Note the bolded words. A patriarchal liturgy is of course different from the regular parish liturgies conducted by priests. Nice try at dodging the issue though. 

Quote
Now as far as the pope being commemorated in Melkite parish liturgies is concerned, I think he should only be commemorated in liturgies celebrated by the Melkite Patriarch. I see no reason to commemorate him in every parish.

I've bolded the parts that are completely irrelevant.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 30, 2013, 12:14:35 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy.  . . .
I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Note the bolded words. A patriarchal liturgy is of course different from the regular parish liturgies conducted by priests. Nice try at dodging the issue though. 

Quote
Now as far as the pope being commemorated in Melkite parish liturgies is concerned, I think he should only be commemorated in liturgies celebrated by the Melkite Patriarch. I see no reason to commemorate him in every parish.

I've bolded the parts that are completely irrelevant.
I did note that, and that is why if you actually read what I wrote, which you rarely do, you will see that I do not think it is appropriate to commemorate the pope in parish liturgies. Why would I want him commemorated? After all, he is not my patriarch, nor is he my bishop.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 30, 2013, 12:15:38 PM »

I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Does your pope commemorate your patriarch during every Liturgy?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2013, 12:16:23 PM »


I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Now as far as the pope being commemorated in Melkite parish liturgies is concerned, I think he should only be commemorated in liturgies celebrated by the Melkite Patriarch. I see no reason to commemorate him in every parish. Hopefully someday, when more Melkites are willing to stand up for their own legitimate traditions, that practice will finally be done away with.

As I believe has been noted already, heads of autocephalous Churches commemorate the other primates with whose Churches they commune; it doesn't happen in every parish.  Parishes are supposed to commemorate the local bishop, the local bishop commemorates the primate, and the primate commemorates the other primates.  

Of course, there are exceptions, like when OCA parishes commemorate the primate and the local bishop: do both have the same jurisdiction over the same parish?  If not, it's really not necessary, and I've been to parishes where the priest omitted it intentionally.  And in Oriental practice, it's normal to commemorate, in addition to the local bishop, the primate; in addition, other primates are sometimes commemorated.  Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, and "who has jurisdiction" is always clear to us, but it is done.  

Are you arguing that the latter alone describes Melkite practice?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2013, 12:18:04 PM »

Why would I want him commemorated? After all, he is not my patriarch, nor is he my bishop.

Does Universal Ordinary Jursidiction mean something else to the Melkites?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2013, 12:19:11 PM »

I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Does your pope commemorate your patriarch during every Liturgy?

Good question.  The Latins don't have the practice that the Byzantines do in this regard, so the Pope definitely doesn't commemorate any of the Eastern Catholic primates.  I'm not even sure if, when the Pope celebrates Mass outside of Rome, he commemorates the local bishop (in Rome, of course, he only commemorates himself in the anaphora).  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2013, 12:20:16 PM »


I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Now as far as the pope being commemorated in Melkite parish liturgies is concerned, I think he should only be commemorated in liturgies celebrated by the Melkite Patriarch. I see no reason to commemorate him in every parish. Hopefully someday, when more Melkites are willing to stand up for their own legitimate traditions, that practice will finally be done away with.

As I believe has been noted already, heads of autocephalous Churches commemorate the other primates with whose Churches they commune; it doesn't happen in every parish.  Parishes are supposed to commemorate the local bishop, the local bishop commemorates the primate, and the primate commemorates the other primates.  

Of course, there are exceptions, like when OCA parishes commemorate the primate and the local bishop: do both have the same jurisdiction over the same parish?  If not, it's really not necessary, and I've been to parishes where the priest omitted it intentionally.  And in Oriental practice, it's normal to commemorate, in addition to the local bishop, the primate; in addition, other primates are sometimes commemorated.  Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, and "who has jurisdiction" is always clear to us, but it is done.  

Are you arguing that the latter alone describes Melkite practice?  
I am saying that it describes Melkite practice in the United States. But again, as I have said before - and I don't know how many other ways I can say it - the Melkite Church needs to stand up for itself, and tell Rome to mind its own business. We also need to clean up our own act (liturgically and otherwise) and purge the vestigial Latinizations that still afflict our life.

As far as "universal jurisdiction" is concerned, no bishop has that kind of jurisdiction. From my perspective the bishop of Rome only has actual jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2013, 12:21:20 PM »

I do not think it is appropriate to commemorate the pope in parish liturgies. Why would I want him commemorated?

Again, irrelevant parts in  boldface.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2013, 12:22:14 PM »

I see. So in the dozens and dozens of liturgical videos that I have watched on the Moscow Patriarchate's Youtube channel where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the other Patriarchs (and even the Metropolitan of the OCA) he is admitting that they all have "universal jurisdiction" over him. That is interesting.

Does your pope commemorate your patriarch during every Liturgy?
Nope, because the Roman Church has - as I am sure most posters here would agree - lost touch with the ancient Tradition of the Church. Perhaps the Orthodox - in their talks with the Roman Church - should call it back to Tradition.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2013, 12:23:34 PM »

I am saying that it describes Melkite practice in the United States. But again, as I have said before - and I don't know how many other ways I can say it - the Melkite Church needs to stand up for itself, and tell Rome to mind its own business. We also need to clean up our own act (liturgically and otherwise) and purge the vestigial Latinizations that still afflict our life.

As far as "universal jurisdiction" is concerned, no bishop has that kind of jurisdiction. From my perspective the bishop of Rome only has actual jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome.

What's the point of remaining in communion with Rome if you are going declare any tenets that don't agree with your opinion null and void?
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2013, 12:23:38 PM »

Why would I want him commemorated? After all, he is not my patriarch, nor is he my bishop.

Does Universal Ordinary Jursidiction mean something else to the Melkites?
It doesn't exists for the Melkite Church. The pope's primacy is not supremacy, nor is it a matter of jurisdiction. Perhaps that explains why the Melkite Patriarch has refused to call any of the later Roman councils ecumenical.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 30, 2013, 12:25:38 PM »

I am saying that it describes Melkite practice in the United States. But again, as I have said before - and I don't know how many other ways I can say it - the Melkite Church needs to stand up for itself, and tell Rome to mind its own business. We also need to clean up our own act (liturgically and otherwise) and purge the vestigial Latinizations that still afflict our life.

As far as "universal jurisdiction" is concerned, no bishop has that kind of jurisdiction. From my perspective the bishop of Rome only has actual jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome.

What's the point of remaining in communion with Rome if you are going declare any tenets that don't agree with your opinion null and void?
I am in communion with the Melkite Church, and the pope happens to be in communion with the same Church. I do not wake up every morning saying to myself, "Oh, I am so happy to be in communion with Rome." And I don't say that because I am not directly in communion with the bishop of that diocese; instead, I am in communion with my bishop and through him with the Melkite Patriarch.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2013, 12:27:24 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 30, 2013, 12:29:30 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop, not a super-bishop (regardless of the pretensions of the Roman Church on the issue), and perhaps the Orthodox should more forcefully remind the Roman Catholic representatives of this fact during their talks with Roman officials in the Joint International Commission on Dialogue.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 12:31:17 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #75 on: May 30, 2013, 12:30:48 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop

So why does the Melkite liturgy commemorate him first in the anaphora? And don't answer with what you think should be done or not done.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2013, 12:31:55 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop

So why does the Melkite liturgy commemorate him first in the anaphora? And don't answer with what you think should be done or not done.
Because we have been Latinized, and like all other Latinizations it should be expunged from our liturgy.

What else do you expect me to respond. That it is truly representative of the Eastern liturgical tradition to commemorate the pope? I know it is not, which is why I think it should stop.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 12:32:51 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2013, 12:32:41 PM »

Good question.  The Latins don't have the practice that the Byzantines do in this regard, so the Pope definitely doesn't commemorate any of the Eastern Catholic primates.  I'm not even sure if, when the Pope celebrates Mass outside of Rome, he commemorates the local bishop (in Rome, of course, he only commemorates himself in the anaphora).  

The Roman Church has only one autocephalous Church (then a couple of autonomous Eastern Patriarchates). Since there is only one autocephalous primate it would be silly.

I am in communion with the Melkite Church, and the pope happens to be in communion with the same Church.

He is the supreme leader of your Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2013, 12:34:09 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2013, 12:34:30 PM »

Good question.  The Latins don't have the practice that the Byzantines do in this regard, so the Pope definitely doesn't commemorate any of the Eastern Catholic primates.  I'm not even sure if, when the Pope celebrates Mass outside of Rome, he commemorates the local bishop (in Rome, of course, he only commemorates himself in the anaphora).  

The Roman Church has only one autocephalous Church (then a couple of autonomous Eastern Patriarchates). Since there is only one autocephalous primate it would be silly.

I am in communion with the Melkite Church, and the pope happens to be in communion with the same Church.

He is the supreme leader of your Church.
In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2013, 12:36:47 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations. How is that a denial. Just because I refuse to leave my Church to make you happy? I intend to stay in the Melkite Church and work for the removal of Latinizations. You may not agree with me, and I am fine with that, because you are - quite frankly - a nobody to me. I don't know you from Adam. God will judge me when I die and should I have made the wrong choice I will pay the price for it. The same is true for you. God bless.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2013, 12:38:52 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2013, 12:41:59 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations. How is that a denial. Just because I refuse to leave my Church to make you happy? I intend to stay in the Melkite Church and work for the removal of Latinizations.

The problem is Latinisations in theology are what differs Melkites from the Orthodox. There wouldn't be any Melkites if your theology was Orthodox because you would be Orthodox.


Quote
You may not agree with me, and I am fine with that, because you are - quite frankly - a nobody to me. I don't know you from Adam. God will judge me when I die and should I have made the wrong choice I will pay the price for it. The same is true for you. God bless.

<emphasis mine>

That made me smile.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2013, 12:43:16 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Nice to see that you know how to use the copy and paste function, but I can copy and paste things too, for example the following from Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (of blessed memory), who said: "In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]

As I have said plenty of times I do not accept ANY of the later Roman synods as ecumenical, and - by the way - neither does the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Synod.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 12:43:53 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2013, 12:44:36 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations. How is that a denial. Just because I refuse to leave my Church to make you happy? I intend to stay in the Melkite Church and work for the removal of Latinizations.

The problem is Latinisations in theology are what differs Melkites from the Orthodox. There wouldn't be any Melkites if your theology was Orthodox because you would be Orthodox.


Quote
You may not agree with me, and I am fine with that, because you are - quite frankly - a nobody to me. I don't know you from Adam. God will judge me when I die and should I have made the wrong choice I will pay the price for it. The same is true for you. God bless.

<emphasis mine>

That made me smile.
Oh snap! Of course I am a nobody to you. I am just an name on the internet for you, just as you are for me.

No doubt just another of your "brilliant" comebacks. Your wit is a thing to behold.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 12:45:23 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2013, 12:45:35 PM »

As I have said plenty of times I do not accept ANY of the later Roman synods as ecumenical, and - by the way - neither does the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Synod.

So Melkite Patriarchs attend those Councils, debate there, sign the papers and then say they do not accept them? So why do  they go there?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2013, 12:46:42 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations.

Entering communion with Rome, and by implication accepting all of Rome's dogmas, is not a Latinization. You can remove all the Latinizations you want- your church will still be in communion with the Pope, and therefore under him. There is no other way that you can be in communion with the Papal supremacists. If you really rejected Papal supremacy, you could not be in communion with Rome. You have already admitted that Rome picks bishops for you and that the Zoghby declaration was therefore just a bunch of impotent noise. That is not a Latinization- that is simply domination, which you willingly accept, despite all your contentions to the contrary. The proof is in the pudding, or, in this case, the eucharist. Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2013, 12:47:19 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations. How is that a denial. Just because I refuse to leave my Church to make you happy? I intend to stay in the Melkite Church and work for the removal of Latinizations.

The problem is Latinisations in theology are what differs Melkites from the Orthodox. There wouldn't be any Melkites if your theology was Orthodox because you would be Orthodox.
Wow, you really do like to beat a dead horse. I have already admitted that the Melkite Church suffers from Latinizations. Tell me something I do not know.

As I have said many times, I am for the complete removal of all Latinizations from the Melkite Church (and the other Eastern Catholic Churches too).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2013, 12:49:15 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...
No denial, I have admitted that my Church suffers from Latinizations.

Entering communion with Rome, and by implication accepting all of Rome's dogmas, is not a Latinization. You can remove all the Latinizations you want- your church will still be in communion with the Pope, and therefore under him. There is no other way that you can be in communion with the Papal supremacists. If you really rejected Papal supremacy, you could not be in communion with Rome. You have already admitted that Rome picks bishops for you and that the Zoghby declaration was therefore just a bunch of impotent noise. That is not a Latinization- that is simply domination, which you willingly accept, despite all your contentions to the contrary. The proof is in the pudding, or, in this case, the eucharist. Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
The pope is in communion with my Church. None of the members of the Melkite Church living today "entered into communion with Rome." That the pope chooses to be in communion with us is fine by me, as long as he minds his own business. But when he appoints our hierarchs in the diaspora, I protest against it, and I support our Patriarch and our Synod in their calls for such things to stop.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #89 on: May 30, 2013, 12:49:54 PM »

Nice to see that you know how to use the copy and paste function, but I can copy and paste things too, for example the following from Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (of blessed memory), who said: "In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]

As I have said plenty of times I do not accept ANY of the later Roman synods as ecumenical, and - by the way - neither does the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Synod.

So they place themselves in direct opposition to the Anathemas declared by the Church of Rome? What in God's Green Earth is the point of remaining in Communion with Rome?
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2013, 12:50:27 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2013, 12:53:18 PM »

Nice to see that you know how to use the copy and paste function, but I can copy and paste things too, for example the following from Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby (of blessed memory), who said: "In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]

As I have said plenty of times I do not accept ANY of the later Roman synods as ecumenical, and - by the way - neither does the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Synod.

So they place themselves in direct opposition to the Anathemas declared by the Church of Rome? What in God's Green Earth is the point of remaining in Communion with Rome?
Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2013, 12:54:50 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?

You're right. You could simply dismiss it as my opinion, and the words of your liturgy and your bishops as someone else's opinion, and  the rulings of Vatican I as another person's opinion, and the law of gravity as yet another person's opinion, in which case there's no need for you to even respond to or acknowledge what I or others say. You can continue to inhabit your private fantasy; meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2013, 12:55:59 PM »

Every time you commune at a Melkite church, you are swallowing Papal supremacy, infallibilty, filioque, and all the other junk you rant against quite uselessly on internet forums.
In your opinion. But why should I care about your opinion on anything?

You're right. You could simply dismiss it as my opinion, and the words of your liturgy and your bishops as someone else's opinion, and  the rulings of Vatican I as another person's opinion, and the law of gravity as yet another person's opinion, in which case there's no need for you to even respond to or acknowledge what I or others say. You can continue to inhabit your private fantasy; meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
And it is simply your opinion. My Patriarch has said that none of the later Western councils are ecumenical, and so I see no reason to put your opinion above his statements to the contrary.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #94 on: May 30, 2013, 12:57:03 PM »

Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.

Answer me this, do you consider the Church in Rome today to be in heresy?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 30, 2013, 12:58:47 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...

Actually, it's cocaine. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2013, 12:59:57 PM »

. . . meanwhile, the world will continue to turn and Rome will keep dominating the Melkite church.
I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I should clarify what I said above, because by "many Orthodox" I am mainly referring to those that I know online. The Orthodox I know in person are quite friendly and supportive.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2013, 01:00:28 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.

Exactly, because you are a Melkite and not a Roman nor under Rome. I understand exactly what you are saying. Those that don't are simply choosing not to.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2013, 01:03:41 PM »

Anathemas from a fallible Western synod that has no importance in the East. Rome has pretensions to greatness, but it is just a lowly diocese (and grouping of Churches), and that is all. As a Melkite I look to my Patriarch and Holy Synod and to the tradition of the Church founded upon the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and none of the Fathers accepted the idea that Rome had the kinds of powers it has claimed in the past, and so I see no reason to accept them either. I also see no reason to leave my Church just because you think it is in error.

Answer me this, do you consider the Church in Rome today to be in heresy?
No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma. Are many of Rome's theologoumena erroneous? Yeah I think so, but they are just theological opinions and people can be wrong about them without necessarily being heretics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,415


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2013, 01:04:26 PM »

Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

PP
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2013, 01:04:57 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.

Exactly, because you are a Melkite and not a Roman nor under Rome. I understand exactly what you are saying. Those that don't are simply choosing not to.
Thanks. I appreciate your response.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2013, 01:05:40 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2013, 01:07:17 PM »

Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

PP
The Churches of the first millennium disagreed about many things, and yet they did not break communion with each other. I hope that the Eastern Catholic Churches - if they truly stand up for themselves - can help to bring about a real reform (or better purification) in the Roman Church, and in the process help Rome to return to a more patristic understanding of the nature of the Church, and of communion. Rome has changed a lot in just the last 40 years (admittedly not all of the changes are good), but I think the days of Roman supremacy are numbered.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 30, 2013, 01:10:24 PM »

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?
I could not, nor will I ever, communion with Protestants because they have denied the ministerial priesthood, and the true nature of the holy mysteries. Would I communion with the Eastern Orthodox? Sure, but when I attend Orthodox Churches I do not, because I know that they do not allow it, and so I respect their views on the matter. Nevertheless, it does not prevent me from attending Orthodox services from time to time.

Postscript: I am looking forward to attending the ordination of an Orthodox friend of mine in July.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:17:39 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 30, 2013, 01:12:13 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
It has to be a dogma (and as Fr. Behr wrote there are really only two dogmas - the Trinity, and the Incarnation). Theological opinions on various issues can differ without breaking communion.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:20:08 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2013, 01:19:04 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church is breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2013, 01:24:21 PM »

I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I think the Orthodox can be and often are guilty of preferring their "little fiefdoms", but I don't think that explains everything here.  What you describe as the traditional view and practice of the Melkite Church is not how many, if not all, the other Eastern Catholic Churches operate.  And I don't think that can all be blamed on enforced or willful Latinization.  

In India, for example, the Syro-Malankara Church was only recently elevated from a Metropolitan Church to a Major Archbishopric.  It wasn't long after this elevation that the Major Archbishops began calling themselves Catholicoi, usurping the title "Malankara Metropolitan", "Successor to the Throne of St Thomas", etc., all of which are Orthodox titles.  When the Malankara Orthodox Church lodged an official "complaint" with Rome on the matter, the response was that the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches does not recognize the title Catholicos (the office with equivalent powers is Patriarch, and the incumbent does not possess patriarchal authority), and so the Major Archbishop is just a Major Archbishop according to the law the Malankara Catholics recognize as their own, any usage to the contrary being a violation of the law.  Now, there's a complicated history regarding why they did this and why it's so contentious, but they continue to do it, even after receiving the Cardinal's hat (which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch).  Are they "freedom fighters" waging war against Roman hegemony?  Hardly.  As "Orthodox" as their liturgical life is, they've got plenty of heartily embraced Latinizations.  Are they fully obedient and subservient to Rome?  No, because they know they can get away with certain things and Rome will "have their back" privately, even if they issue something resembling a "public rebuke".  They do their own thing, to be sure, but it is neither "Catholic" nor "Orthodox".  

Perhaps Melkites are more consistent, I don't know.  But I know that the Syro-Malankara "experience" is not unusual among Eastern Catholics.  How could we, as Orthodox, ally ourselves with the Eastern Catholics in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past when it is often the Eastern Catholics themselves who benefit from the current status quo and use it to their advantage when convenient?  You can't have it both ways.      
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2013, 01:29:42 PM »

The problem is Apotheoun is mispresenting the opinion of Melchites on popes, primacy, Vatican I, Vatican II etc:
https://melkite.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CouncilChapter5.pdf

(which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch)   

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:31:22 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2013, 01:34:24 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church is breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.

Canon 5 of Nicea seems to disagree.

Quote
As regards those who have been denied communion, whether they be members of the clergy or belong to a lay order, by the bishops in each particular province, let the opinion prevail which expressed in the Canon prescribing that those rejected by some are not to be received by others.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 01:34:39 PM by sheenj » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 30, 2013, 01:42:29 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2013, 01:44:28 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 

Isn't that a personal opinion?

BTW AFAIR Cardinals have precedence over Eastern Patriarch in Catholicism.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 30, 2013, 01:54:27 PM »

Isn't that a personal opinion?

BTW AFAIR Cardinals have precedence over Eastern Patriarch in Catholicism.

Not really, no.  According to their canon law, there is a distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops.  Based on those distinctions, and based on what a Cardinal actually is, I'd argue that it's not just a personal opinion that it is a "demotion" for the former and a "promotion" for the latter.  You might argue that it's my personal interpretation, and that's fine I guess, but the Catholic Church is not beholden to us to define the status of every possible combination of "offices".  It's enough to look at what things are and what they mean for them.

Cardinals are, technically, the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  Nowadays, they're usually all bishops, but among the Cardinals are three ranks: bishops (who were once the suffragans of Rome), priests (pastors of the ancient churches), and deacons (in charge of deaconries).  The Eastern Patriarchs, whether they are Cardinals or not, are equal in rank to Cardinal-Bishops, and thus outrank Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons.  But there's no circumstance I'm aware of in which a Cardinal ever outranks an Eastern Patriarch.  Major Archbishops, on the other hand...  Wink 

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 30, 2013, 01:55:11 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop, not a super-bishop (regardless of the pretensions of the Roman Church on the issue), and perhaps the Orthodox should more forcefully remind the Roman Catholic representatives of this fact during their talks with Roman officials in the Joint International Commission on Dialogue.

Pope Benedict is rumored to have observed that the Orthodox have come as far as they can with respect to the Ecumenical dialogue and that the time had come for Rome to get serious about the remaining issues and move the process forward. I'm not sure Pope Francis has this as a priority. I say this because perhaps, just perhaps, the 18th century "raison d'etre" for the existence of the Melkite Catholic Church is no longer relevant.  The inherent contradictions between the expressed positions of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Church of Rome with respect to the nature and role of the Papacy seem similar to the ones held by the Orthodox. Since we Orthodox view communion as the culmination of actual unity, perhaps the Melkite Patriarch and Synod should view it in the same manner.
Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,121


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


« Reply #113 on: May 30, 2013, 02:05:23 PM »

Too much is made of the pope. He is just a bishop, not a super-bishop (regardless of the pretensions of the Roman Church on the issue), and perhaps the Orthodox should more forcefully remind the Roman Catholic representatives of this fact during their talks with Roman officials in the Joint International Commission on Dialogue.

Pope Benedict is rumored to have observed that the Orthodox have come as far as they can with respect to the Ecumenical dialogue and that the time had come for Rome to get serious about the remaining issues and move the process forward. I'm not sure Pope Francis has this as a priority. I say this because perhaps, just perhaps, the 18th century "raison d'etre" for the existence of the Melkite Catholic Church is no longer relevant.  The inherent contradictions between the expressed positions of the Melkite Catholic Church and the Church of Rome with respect to the nature and role of the Papacy seem similar to the ones held by the Orthodox. Since we Orthodox view communion as the culmination of actual unity, perhaps the Melkite Patriarch and Synod should view it in the same manner.

This is only my opinion, but I think things are fine as they are....
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #114 on: May 30, 2013, 02:07:24 PM »

You are qouting a local council of the Roman Church. You question as to why the Roman Church isn't breaking with those Churches that don't agree should be sent to the Vatican.


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #115 on: May 30, 2013, 02:08:12 PM »

And we agree on everything?
Apotheoun, I dont get it. If your Churh and Rome disagree on evidently, so many things, how can you commune with them? I dont get it...

Would you have a problem with the Lutherans, or Baptists communing with the Melkites as well?

NOTE: Im asking a serious question, not trying to get into the middle of this fight.

PP
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 30, 2013, 02:42:58 PM »

Not really, no.  According to their canon law, there is a distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops.  Based on those distinctions, and based on what a Cardinal actually is, I'd argue that it's not just a personal opinion that it is a "demotion" for the former and a "promotion" for the latter.  You might argue that it's my personal interpretation, and that's fine I guess, but the Catholic Church is not beholden to us to define the status of every possible combination of "offices".  It's enough to look at what things are and what they mean for them.

Cardinals are, technically, the clergy of the diocese of Rome.  Nowadays, they're usually all bishops, but among the Cardinals are three ranks: bishops (who were once the suffragans of Rome), priests (pastors of the ancient churches), and deacons (in charge of deaconries).  The Eastern Patriarchs, whether they are Cardinals or not, are equal in rank to Cardinal-Bishops, and thus outrank Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons.  But there's no circumstance I'm aware of in which a Cardinal ever outranks an Eastern Patriarch.  Major Archbishops, on the other hand...  Wink 

I do not deny the difference between patriarchs and major archbishops.

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy. They also have some prerogatives outside their territories patriarchs do not have. They can also chose popes what patriarch can not.

See, not really a demotion.

I've read about some propositions to make patriarchs who are not cardinal bishops equal in rank as cardinal bishops without making them cardinals but this hasn't been done yet.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 30, 2013, 03:25:04 PM »

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy. They also have some prerogatives outside their territories patriarchs do not have. They can also chose popes what patriarch can not.

See, not really a demotion.

I've read about some propositions to make patriarchs who are not cardinal bishops equal in rank as cardinal bishops without making them cardinals but this hasn't been done yet.

Regarding liturgical precedence, I'll let Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, they probably know better than either of us, though I got my information from books by Catholic authors, not just people on the internet, however knowledgeable. 

Cardinals do have certain extra-territorial prerogatives that Patriarchs don't have, but I'm not sure how many Eastern Cardinals avail themselves of those prerogatives anyway.  For instance, I know Cardinals can confirm and hear confessions throughout the world (i.e., they have universal faculties), but when's the last time an Eastern Cardinal did confirmations for a Roman rite community in the Roman rite?  A Roman Church penitent can approach any Catholic priest, Eastern or Western, for confession, as long as that priest has the requisite faculty to hear confessions...no one stops them from going to an Eastern priest, but it's not like Eastern priests are chasing after penitents.  They have a kind of diplomatic status according to certain international conventions, but that's really a secular matter, not ecclesiastical.  The extra-territorial prerogatives are more a Roman Church matter, addressing the status of Cardinals outside the Diocese of Rome, where they properly belong; they don't make sense in an Eastern context.  Neither does a Cardinal's hat, I'd say.   

That Cardinals elect the Pope is a relic of the past, when the clergy of Rome would elect their own Bishop.  From an Eastern perspective, I'd argue that Eastern Catholics, if they're serious about "communion" rather than "subjugation", really ought not vote for the Patriarch of another Church.  But if they deserve a vote for some egalitarian consideration, this could be done by a change to the law, without requiring that they also become Cardinals.  But it is what it is at present.  It doesn't create a lot of problems unless you think about it. 

So I maintain there's a difference between what a Cardinal actually is (in principle, a cleric of the diocese of Rome) and what people think he is (a "senator" or Cabinet minister).  If you consider all that "not really a demotion", so be it, but that's too simplistic, given the history, for me to take seriously.  If the Catholics want to set me straight, though, they are here and so am I.  Smiley   

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #118 on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:08 PM »

Hi again. Pardon my slowness, I had a lot of reading to catch up on.

I do not think it is appropriate to commemorate the pope in parish liturgies. Why would I want him commemorated?

Again, irrelevant parts in  boldface.

Interesting ... and rather sad. I mean, participating on this forum can't be very enjoyable for you if you have no interest what people think.

(I guess you could just say that "enjoyable" is another irrelevant part.  laugh)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #119 on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:47 PM »

Man, denial is a hell of a drug...

I think most minority positions appear to be the result of denial ... actually I think most minority positions are the result of denial (especially when it's a very small minority); but that doesn't mean there can't be the occasional minority position that is correct.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #120 on: May 30, 2013, 04:31:27 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

Nice quote. I notice that it says "anyone ..." not "anyone in communion with Rome ..." .
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #121 on: May 30, 2013, 04:32:28 PM »

So, according to this text, the Melkite church 1) has bishops appointed by the Pope; 2) is merely "making a lot of noise" with the Zoghby declaration and similar statements; 3) is moving toward even greater subordination to Rome than before. Thanks Apotheoun, you have brilliantly demolished your own claims about the Melkite church being an independent church merely in communion with Rome. And when he says that this is not traditional Melkite practice, it must be asked again, whom do you commemorate first in the anaphora at your regular liturgies?

How did the Melkite church become "trapped in a vortex like that one"? By entering into communion with a church claiming dogmatically to have universal supreme jurisdiction over everyone. If you don't agree with what someone is teaching as dogma, you shouldn't enter into communion with him- it's that simple. Even if the Melkite Catholic church, at its beginning in the 18th century, seemed to have real vestiges of independence, it was bound to slide toward its present subjugation because it already, implicitly, subjugated itself by entering communion with the Papal supremacists. So again, the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" model continues to be untenable and nothing more than a fantasy.

I'll readily grant that it was a hasty full communion agreement. If time somehow rewound back to 1724, I imagine we would take it a bit slower ... maybe try to set up a dialogue commission and sign an "inter-communion" agreement. (Of course, back then the end result of such a "try" would probably be the realization that there were really only 2 choices in the matter.  Embarrassed  Wink )
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #122 on: May 30, 2013, 04:35:47 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
So you dont believe in the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Seems that my priest's monk friend had it right.

I'd say it more that we don't think about it in terms of that question. (Although honestly, I'm having trouble seeing the connection between your question and my post.)

BTW, I should clarify that when I said "not this song again", I'm referring to the fact that on a Catholic forum that I participate on, Bishop John Elya has been quote an enormous number of times (not by Iconodue, naturally) usually with the Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching" thing.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #123 on: May 30, 2013, 05:08:07 PM »

Patriarchs also receive. But some refuse.

Yeah, I'm aware of that.  My point was simply that, if you're "only" a Major Archbishop, being elevated to Cardinal is a step-up within the Catholic Church.  If you're a Patriarch, it's technically a demotion or at least a lesser honour, even if it gives you a vote in conclave. 

Well, for a Major Archbishop or Patriarch to become a Cardinal doesn't mean that he stops being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch. So in that sense it isn't a step down.

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,007


"My god is greater."


« Reply #124 on: May 30, 2013, 05:14:28 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
It has to be a dogma (and as Fr. Behr wrote there are really only two dogmas - the Trinity, and the Incarnation). Theological opinions on various issues can differ without breaking communion.

Is anyone else noticing what complete nonsense this is?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 30, 2013, 05:21:41 PM »


In your opinion. The pope is a wonderful bishop of Rome, and I have no problem with him accept when he overreaches his position, which is quite often. But I think the super-papacy's days are coming to an end.

Quote
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV ,  Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

Nice quote. I notice that it says "anyone ..." not "anyone in communion with Rome ..." .

And that, perhaps one of the most disastrous overreaches in the history of the Catholic church, is the very issue Pope Benedict referred to regarding dialogue with the Orthodox.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 30, 2013, 05:25:00 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 05:25:14 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #127 on: May 30, 2013, 05:27:47 PM »

The Melkite Church commemorates the Pope at every liturgy (not just at special events or when the Pope is present at the liturgy). One does that only for a hierarch who has jurisdiction over one's church. Therefore, the Melkite church acknowledges the Pope's universal jurisdiction at every liturgy. If you are still confused about what your church teaches, here is a helpful link: https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-melkite-clergy-and-the-pope-why-and-how-is-the-pope-commemorated-in-the-melkite-church

Dear God, not this same song again. I have the lyrics memorized: Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching". Did I get them right?
So you dont believe in the Pope's universal jurisdiction? Seems that my priest's monk friend had it right.

I'd say it more that we don't think about it in terms of that question. (Although honestly, I'm having trouble seeing the connection between your question and my post.)

BTW, I should clarify that when I said "not this song again", I'm referring to the fact that on a Catholic forum that I participate on, Bishop John Elya has been quote an enormous number of times (not by Iconodue, naturally) usually with the Bishop John Elya said blank, so that proves that blank is "the Melkite teaching" thing.

In fairness to informed 21st century Eastern Catholics, quoting Bishop John Elya on matters of the current positions of the EC' s is akin to quoting former BCC Bishop Nicholas Elko - he who was "fired" as Ruthenian Eparch of Pittsburgh only to be recycled five years later as Latin Rite auxiliary Bishop for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #128 on: May 30, 2013, 05:44:52 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

A cardinal (generally) isn't the head of church sui iuris.

P.S. On a side note, I wonder if you and others here aren't reading too much into the ECs-are-second-class-citizens talk.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 30, 2013, 05:49:22 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

A cardinal (generally) isn't the head of church sui iuris.

So what prerogatives being a head of the sui iuris have? Of course but the one people call you "patriarch" even if you are not.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #130 on: May 30, 2013, 06:53:37 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2013, 06:54:58 PM »

Communion involves distinction and reciprocity; while union tends to involve absorption. I have decided to coin a new term, co-uniate, in order to describe the communion of two sister Churches or groupings of sister Churches.

 laugh

The problem is your term is misleading since ECCs are subject to the Roman Church.
When that happens it is primarily the fault of Eastern Catholics. Quite honestly, we should stand up for ourselves and tell Rome - politely - to mind its own business.

Everyone's business is Rome's business. That's the dogma that your church teaches. Stop pretending you live in the 10th century.
The Melkite Church doesn't teach that. I have never taught that when I have led faith formation classes for our young people.

If you are in communion with Rome, you agree with their dogmas. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the bishop of Rome happens to be in communion with the same Church.

Is there a secret history of the Melkite Catholic Church I've missed?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #132 on: May 30, 2013, 06:56:07 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.
An inane thing to say as joining the Communist party did not imply apostasy necessarily.
Those were non-apostate Communists martyring faithful Orthodox and Catholics and destroying their churches?
Many communists built churches. If that surprises you.





The Partisans saved a miracle-working icon of the Mother of God from destruction by the Chetniks in Bosnia. Always exceptions.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #133 on: May 30, 2013, 06:57:42 PM »

So why is the word Uniate offensive?  Doesn't it just mean unified with Rome?

Wikipedia has failed me, so I ask here.

Besides its use as a perjorative, it is simply inaccurate.  To be a uniate, in the common definition, one must be leaving the Orthodox Church to unite with the Catholic Church.  Cradle Greek Catholics didn't leave Orthodoxy.  We are what we have been for hundreds of years now. 


How can it be a perjorative if the term was invented by the Roman Catholic Church and is used by the Roman Catholic Church in discussions with the Orthodox.  The term is also used by academic scholars like Prof. John-Paul Himka and others.

My Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic professor self-identified as one as if that were the general term.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #134 on: May 30, 2013, 07:03:51 PM »

My church commemorates the OCA metropolitan and our local bishop, because they have jurisdiction over us; we do not commemorate, say, the Ecumenical Patriarch specifically, except on those special occasions where we commemorate all the orthodox primates; we are in communion with him but he does not have jurisdiction over us.

You shouldn't commemorate the metropolitan either police

Why not?  we commemorate Met. Philip and Bishop Thomas.  Is there some rule against it?

You Antiochians are strange. Not sure, taking into account I do not know how your affair with bishops eventually solved.

The traditional practice is to commemorate the dioceasan bishop and the bishops who are present. Not some patriarchs or metropolitans that preside synods (unless of course it's a primatial Liturgy). Commemorating synod presidents alongside diocesan bishop is a Russian innovation.

And, therefore, the right way.  angel
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #135 on: May 30, 2013, 07:19:01 PM »

No, but that is because I do not believe that the councils it held during the second millennium are ecumenical and therefore nothing that was proposed in those local synods is a dogma.

So for something to be a heresy, it has to be approved by an ecumenical council. That makes sense.
It has to be a dogma (and as Fr. Behr wrote there are really only two dogmas - the Trinity, and the Incarnation). Theological opinions on various issues can differ without breaking communion.

Is anyone else noticing what complete nonsense this is?

Yes.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #136 on: May 30, 2013, 07:19:46 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

You never have to worry about wearing white for the rest of your life.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #137 on: May 30, 2013, 08:25:30 PM »

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

My earlier answer to this does seem to have been particularly helpful, but can find quite a lot of information about it at this website:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__P47.HTM
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #138 on: May 30, 2013, 11:24:53 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

If everybody in Slovakia who "became" communist during the fifty plus years of Russian occupation were barred from the Greek Catholic church, there would be a whole lot fewer Greek Catholics there today if my grandparents' two villages were  any indication of what really went on there -religious propaganda aside. (I am an equal opportunity cynic as for every Greek Catholic piece of mythic propaganda out there, an equally ridiculous Orthodox counterpart exists as well.)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #139 on: May 31, 2013, 06:03:34 AM »

The "New" Catholic Dictionary doesn't seem to have been updated since at least 1945 since it still speaks of the Bulgarian Exarchate.

I guess I had the wrong idea about it: namely, I've tended to associate it with the same period as "the Catholic Encyclopedia", about 1917 or so.

 Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #140 on: May 31, 2013, 02:39:27 PM »

Now what would I do if the bishop of Rome broke communion with the Melkite Catholic Church? Where would I stand? I have no qualms in saying that I would remain in the Melkite Church.

That's certainly to traditional response to that event, although some might say that the current situation (not "current understanding" mind you) calls for a different response.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #141 on: May 31, 2013, 07:35:22 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #142 on: May 31, 2013, 07:55:49 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Well, I am not one of those people. But you did say that, even if you didn't mean to.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #143 on: May 31, 2013, 08:05:04 PM »

I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I think the Orthodox can be and often are guilty of preferring their "little fiefdoms", but I don't think that explains everything here.  What you describe as the traditional view and practice of the Melkite Church is not how many, if not all, the other Eastern Catholic Churches operate.  And I don't think that can all be blamed on enforced or willful Latinization.  

In India, for example, the Syro-Malankara Church was only recently elevated from a Metropolitan Church to a Major Archbishopric.  It wasn't long after this elevation that the Major Archbishops began calling themselves Catholicoi, usurping the title "Malankara Metropolitan", "Successor to the Throne of St Thomas", etc., all of which are Orthodox titles.  When the Malankara Orthodox Church lodged an official "complaint" with Rome on the matter, the response was that the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches does not recognize the title Catholicos (the office with equivalent powers is Patriarch, and the incumbent does not possess patriarchal authority), and so the Major Archbishop is just a Major Archbishop according to the law the Malankara Catholics recognize as their own, any usage to the contrary being a violation of the law.  Now, there's a complicated history regarding why they did this and why it's so contentious, but they continue to do it, even after receiving the Cardinal's hat (which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch).  Are they "freedom fighters" waging war against Roman hegemony?  Hardly.  As "Orthodox" as their liturgical life is, they've got plenty of heartily embraced Latinizations.  Are they fully obedient and subservient to Rome?  No, because they know they can get away with certain things and Rome will "have their back" privately, even if they issue something resembling a "public rebuke".  They do their own thing, to be sure, but it is neither "Catholic" nor "Orthodox".  

Perhaps Melkites are more consistent, I don't know.  But I know that the Syro-Malankara "experience" is not unusual among Eastern Catholics.  How could we, as Orthodox, ally ourselves with the Eastern Catholics in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past when it is often the Eastern Catholics themselves who benefit from the current status quo and use it to their advantage when convenient?  You can't have it both ways.      
Deacon Phil,

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement.  The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos.  Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:
30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop.  Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #144 on: May 31, 2013, 08:12:54 PM »

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy.

I can infact confirm the opposite.  Primates of sui iuris Churches, be they patriarch, major archbishop, or metropolitan, are always accorded first place in Rome before the cardinals.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,609



« Reply #145 on: May 31, 2013, 08:39:50 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,609



« Reply #146 on: May 31, 2013, 08:42:34 PM »

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy.

I can infact confirm the opposite.  Primates of sui iuris Churches, be they patriarch, major archbishop, or metropolitan, are always accorded first place in Rome before the cardinals.
Not always.  Up until  recently, a cardinal took precedence over a patriarch in his own patriarchate.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #147 on: May 31, 2013, 08:48:06 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #148 on: May 31, 2013, 09:42:36 PM »

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos.  Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:
30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop.  Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.

Thanks, Dn Lance.

To be very precise, the "traditional" usage of the Church in India for its primate is "Metropolitan (and Gate of All India)" or "Metropolitan of Malankara", with other bishops technically being his suffragans.  When the Orthodox Church in India split into autocephalous and non-autocephalous jurisdictions, the former assumed/was given the title of Catholicos of the East, the title of the Orthodox primate of the Church of the East, based in Persia (another Thomasine Church); the title had fallen into disuse since the Persian Church was basically "Nestorian" and not Orthodox.  The Catholicos was the head of the entire Orthodox Church of the East, Persian and Indian, while the Metropolitan was the local primate of the Indian Church.  Originally these were two distinct offices held by two different bishops, but eventually both titles were vested in one bishop (though it could, theoretically, be separated again).  To my knowledge, the non-autocephalous jurisdiction never had Catholicoi until the 1970's when, after a reunion of twelve or so years, the schism resumed, and the Patriarch of Antioch gave the title to one of their bishops.  Though at first the title of their primate was also "Catholicos of the East", the current incumbent is officially styled "Catholicos of India", and does not claim the office of "Metropolitan of Malankara" or "Successor of St Thomas"--only the autocephalous primate does so.  

In light of this, it's not really a "traditional usage" of the Indian Church to refer to the head of the Church there as Catholicos, but only as Metropolitan.  The Catholicos is really the head of the Orthodox Church of the East, the heir of which neither the "Jacobite Church" in India nor the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church claim to be.  From this perspective, it doesn't really make sense for the Major Archbishop to claim the title Catholicos, even if they don't claim explicitly the throne of the East (which, to their credit, they don't): technically, it's an innovation.  It makes more sense, IMO, when seen against the background of the sheep-stealing that the Malankara Catholics are prone to doing.  

This is confirmed by the other title the Major Archbishop has assumed: "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas".  Though St Thomas ordained bishops and priests during his missionary activities in India, the real "lineage" that this title is traced from is the Catholicosate of the East, also founded by St Thomas.  Unless I'm mistaken, "Successor of St Thomas" only really entered India with the Catholicosate (of the autocephalous Church), and was thus a matter of contention between Antioch and India.  Since the Major Archbishop is not the Catholicos "of the East", "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas" doesn't make much sense either: I don't believe the Metropolitans of Malankara used such a title.  So again, it doesn't really make sense (to my knowledge, no other Eastern Catholic primate claims to be the successor of a particular apostle, even if his "Orthodox" counterpart does, though you may correct me on that).  

The only title the Major Archbishop could assume with any sort of historical tradition behind it is "Metropolitan of Malankara", and he has.  He's the only primate of any Church in India to claim that title other than ours (and it was from our Church that Mar Ivanios broke away).  It's a gutsy move, but it's not like there's a major push to return to traditional, Orthodox practice at all levels in Malankara Catholicism.  There's still self-imposed mandatory celibacy, Latinizations like the use of unleavened bread, mandatory introduction of Western devotions, religious orders, etc.  Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid?  I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO.  They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes.  Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them.  They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet).  But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Anyway, the more the merrier, I guess.  Tongue  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #149 on: May 31, 2013, 10:02:23 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized.  Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism.  I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism.  Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #150 on: May 31, 2013, 10:25:52 PM »

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos.  Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:
30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop.  Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.

Thanks, Dn Lance.

To be very precise, the "traditional" usage of the Church in India for its primate is "Metropolitan (and Gate of All India)" or "Metropolitan of Malankara", with other bishops technically being his suffragans.  When the Orthodox Church in India split into autocephalous and non-autocephalous jurisdictions, the former assumed/was given the title of Catholicos of the East, the title of the Orthodox primate of the Church of the East, based in Persia (another Thomasine Church); the title had fallen into disuse since the Persian Church was basically "Nestorian" and not Orthodox.  The Catholicos was the head of the entire Orthodox Church of the East, Persian and Indian, while the Metropolitan was the local primate of the Indian Church.  Originally these were two distinct offices held by two different bishops, but eventually both titles were vested in one bishop (though it could, theoretically, be separated again).  To my knowledge, the non-autocephalous jurisdiction never had Catholicoi until the 1970's when, after a reunion of twelve or so years, the schism resumed, and the Patriarch of Antioch gave the title to one of their bishops.  Though at first the title of their primate was also "Catholicos of the East", the current incumbent is officially styled "Catholicos of India", and does not claim the office of "Metropolitan of Malankara" or "Successor of St Thomas"--only the autocephalous primate does so.  

In light of this, it's not really a "traditional usage" of the Indian Church to refer to the head of the Church there as Catholicos, but only as Metropolitan.  The Catholicos is really the head of the Orthodox Church of the East, the heir of which neither the "Jacobite Church" in India nor the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church claim to be.  From this perspective, it doesn't really make sense for the Major Archbishop to claim the title Catholicos, even if they don't claim explicitly the throne of the East (which, to their credit, they don't): technically, it's an innovation.  It makes more sense, IMO, when seen against the background of the sheep-stealing that the Malankara Catholics are prone to doing.  

This is confirmed by the other title the Major Archbishop has assumed: "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas".  Though St Thomas ordained bishops and priests during his missionary activities in India, the real "lineage" that this title is traced from is the Catholicosate of the East, also founded by St Thomas.  Unless I'm mistaken, "Successor of St Thomas" only really entered India with the Catholicosate (of the autocephalous Church), and was thus a matter of contention between Antioch and India.  Since the Major Archbishop is not the Catholicos "of the East", "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas" doesn't make much sense either: I don't believe the Metropolitans of Malankara used such a title.  So again, it doesn't really make sense (to my knowledge, no other Eastern Catholic primate claims to be the successor of a particular apostle, even if his "Orthodox" counterpart does, though you may correct me on that).  

The only title the Major Archbishop could assume with any sort of historical tradition behind it is "Metropolitan of Malankara", and he has.  He's the only primate of any Church in India to claim that title other than ours (and it was from our Church that Mar Ivanios broke away).  It's a gutsy move, but it's not like there's a major push to return to traditional, Orthodox practice at all levels in Malankara Catholicism.  There's still self-imposed mandatory celibacy, Latinizations like the use of unleavened bread, mandatory introduction of Western devotions, religious orders, etc.  Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid?  I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO.  They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes.  Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them.  They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet).  But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Anyway, the more the merrier, I guess.  Tongue  

Deacon Phil,

I think I was unclear.  I meant traditional because the Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchs used it.  I am sure equaling prestige with the Malankara Orthodox had something to do with it as well.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop also claims his lineage from St. Thomas.

I do not think it is duplicity on Rome's part as they don't want it going on and sponsor things like CNEWA and Aid to the Church in Need which provide money without strings attached.  I think it shows how little control Rome has when an Eastern Catholic Church decides to do what it wants.  I am saddened the Malankara Catholics aren't helping their Orthodox brethren without sheep stealing.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #151 on: May 31, 2013, 10:31:12 PM »

Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid?  I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO.  They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes.  Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them.  They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet).  But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Anyway, the more the merrier, I guess.  Tongue  

I wonder if someday we'll see an "Oriental equivalent" of the Balamand Agreement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #152 on: May 31, 2013, 10:59:01 PM »

I think I was unclear.  I meant traditional because the Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchs used it.  I am sure equaling prestige with the Malankara Orthodox had something to do with it as well.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop also claims his lineage from St. Thomas.

That's news to me...since when?  India is such a mess...  Smiley 

I'll take you at your word that the Chaldean and Armenian Catholics use the title Catholicos as well, although someone ought to give the Roman Curia a heads up about such things.  When our chief ecumenical relations bishop penned a complaint to Rome about it when it first happened, his Vatican counterpart is the one who assured him that there was no such thing. 

Quote
I do not think it is duplicity on Rome's part as they don't want it going on and sponsor things like CNEWA and Aid to the Church in Need which provide money without strings attached.  I think it shows how little control Rome has when an Eastern Catholic Church decides to do what it wants.  I am saddened the Malankara Catholics aren't helping their Orthodox brethren without sheep stealing.

It's a very confusing situation, to be sure.  On the one hand, Rome claims universal jurisdiction, approves the Code of Canons which the Eastern Churches govern themselves with, etc., etc., but when they "go off on their own", they either can't or won't do anything about it.  Personally, I think it's a combination of both, but it matters little. 

I appreciate things like CNEWA and ACN in principle, and I think we can do a lot of good together even in India itself among the various Indian Christian communities, if poaching was not involved.  Unfortunately, it is, and has been for a long time.  My mom can tell stories of people who were Orthodox, Protestant, and even Hindus who, for whatever reason, were not able to get into schools and/or overseas jobs to support their families until the Catholics (Eastern and Roman) got involved.  They got them into schools, helped pay for them, got them overseas jobs, arranged for visas and the whole nine...all it required was conversion.  Things like that give all Christians a bad name, and are part of the reason why there is a distrust of Churches with "foreign allegiances" among many in India.

That said, it's not like Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in India are always at war with each other.  There is a lot of cooperation, especially locally but also beyond that, going on, and people from bishops on down can be and are friendly.  But when it's ugly, it's ugly.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #153 on: May 31, 2013, 11:07:57 PM »

I wonder if someday we'll see an "Oriental equivalent" of the Balamand Agreement.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making the connection.   Undecided
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
KostaC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago & the Diocese of Washington (Orthodox Church in America)
Posts: 188



« Reply #154 on: June 01, 2013, 12:24:32 AM »

I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church in order to change how it works and what it believes, and you were going to call on the Orthodox Churches as back-up?

Now I shouldn't speak for you, but you said that over the hundreds of years that Eastern Catholic Churches have been in communion with Rome, the Eastern Catholic Churches have taken up Latinizations? Wouldn't that mean that the plan of the Eastern Catholic Churches has backfired?

But, perhaps I misunderstand you and I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry.
Logged

«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #155 on: June 01, 2013, 06:09:35 AM »

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement.  The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #156 on: June 01, 2013, 06:28:15 AM »

I appreciate things like CNEWA and ACN in principle, and I think we can do a lot of good together even in India itself among the various Indian Christian communities, if poaching was not involved.  Unfortunately, it is, and has been for a long time.  My mom can tell stories of people who were Orthodox, Protestant, and even Hindus who, for whatever reason, were not able to get into schools and/or overseas jobs to support their families until the Catholics (Eastern and Roman) got involved.  They got them into schools, helped pay for them, got them overseas jobs, arranged for visas and the whole nine...all it required was conversion.  Things like that give all Christians a bad name, and are part of the reason why there is a distrust of Churches with "foreign allegiances" among many in India.

Interesting that you should bring that up. Something that has been on my mind lately (generally, not specifically with regard to OOs) is that there seem to be many people who think that proselytism is only a problem if it's in a "negative" form (e.g. punishing those who do not convert), not if it's in a "positive" form (rewarding those who do convert).
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #157 on: June 01, 2013, 06:28:53 AM »

I wonder if someday we'll see an "Oriental equivalent" of the Balamand Agreement.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making the connection.   Undecided

I guess I should have said, I wonder if someday we'll see a Catholic-OO agreement that officially condemns proselytizing.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #158 on: June 01, 2013, 06:32:22 AM »

I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church in order to change how it works and what it believes, and you were going to call on the Orthodox Churches as back-up?

Interesting way of putting it ...
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #159 on: June 01, 2013, 09:29:35 AM »

Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.

Joining the party was something most people did not do out of conviction. One could refuse to join, but that meant giving up on any sort of professional expectations. So pretty much everybody was signed on. Attending compulsory party meetings was the bore of the century according to my folks.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #160 on: June 01, 2013, 10:34:28 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

Indeed, the 1937 Soviet census found that a majority of Soviet citizens were believers.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #161 on: June 01, 2013, 10:37:08 AM »

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement.  The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

No, in both the Synod elects and Patriarch/Major Archbishop ordains.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #162 on: June 01, 2013, 10:37:41 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.

In the book "Father Arseny," one of his spiritual children describes himself as a Christian and a Communist. That said, there were anathemas (Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd) against those who destroyed churches, etc, as well as the "Living Church." It is interesting to note that St. Veniamin was elected metropolitan by the whole city--Red Guards and all. The authorities had to arrest and shoot him secretly to prevent rioting.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #163 on: June 01, 2013, 10:41:00 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized.  Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism.  I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism.  Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #164 on: June 01, 2013, 10:43:14 AM »

I wonder if someday we'll see an "Oriental equivalent" of the Balamand Agreement.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making the connection.   Undecided

Surely there is already an OO-RC meaningless agreement of endless controversy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,609



« Reply #165 on: June 01, 2013, 10:58:25 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized.  Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism.  I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism.  Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.
And which Church would that be?

You connected "continued harrassment" of "Greek Catholics" in Eastern Europe (I guess harrassment of them in Western Europe is a different issue) with "guilt and shame," presumably connected with communism, given the context.  Resistance to the "unions" predates the communists by quite a bit.  At least since Florence.

Btw, the Latin ordinary telling the Ukrainians to send their married priests back home, is that "continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe"?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #166 on: June 01, 2013, 11:09:16 AM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized.  Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism.  I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism.  Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.

 Huh

Do you mean returning to paganism from Christianity? That's clearly apostasy.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #167 on: June 01, 2013, 12:39:28 PM »

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement.  The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

No, in both the Synod elects and Patriarch/Major Archbishop ordains.


Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal

Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann.

947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law. 2. Other

bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to

cann. 149 and 168.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P51.HTM

It means you are wrong.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #168 on: June 01, 2013, 01:33:46 PM »

I guess I should have said, I wonder if someday we'll see a Catholic-OO agreement that officially condemns proselytizing.

Would it make any difference? 

At least with regard to the situation in India, the Orthodox don't proselytize among Catholics at all that I'm aware of.  There are no programs with which to "entice" potential converts, and in terms of ecumenism, the Orthodox clergy are on the "very friendly to slightly ecumaniacal" end of the spectrum when it comes to Catholics, even if we could make the case that Catholics err in matters of faith and they should "return" to the "real Catholic Church", Orthodoxy.  The closest thing to proselytism would be when Catholic girls marry Orthodox guys and have to convert in order to wed, but even that typically doesn't involve much more than going to confession.  When the situation is reversed, and an Orthodox girl marries a Catholic guy, the Catholics will attempt to chrismate, and will do so, in spite of their recognition of our sacraments and their belief that Chrismation is unrepeatable, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a higher authority.  Why do they do this and other similar things?  It's because Indian Catholics have such an elevated view of the necessity for salvation of "subjection" to the Roman Pontiff that they feel they're doing a service to Orthodox by converting them (when they are even conscious of their existence)...they're saving them from hell.  The "official position" of the Catholic Church(es) may be one thing, but what the people on the ground do with their faith convictions is quite another.   

At the end of the day, I think that what's done under the guise of religion is ultimately nothing more than community politics.  No matter what our rites, faith, or jurisdiction, all of us have the same levels of ineptitude, stupidity, and other bad qualities, as well as all the same good qualities.  The Roman connection keeps the Eastern Catholics a little more organized and conscious of a "wider perspective", but left to their own devices, they're just as dumb as we are.  Smiley   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #169 on: June 01, 2013, 02:01:41 PM »

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement.  The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

No, in both the Synod elects and Patriarch/Major Archbishop ordains.


Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann.  947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law.
2. Other bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to cann. 149 and 168.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P51.HTM

It means you are wrong.

No, I am right.

Canon 152

What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 181 Section 2 is refering to the appointment of bishops outside the canonical territory which references Canon 149.

Canon 149

The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, fulfilling the norms of the canons on the election of bishops, is to elect at least three candidates for filling the office of eparchial bishop, coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishop outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and through the patriarch propose them to the Roman Pontiff for appointment; secrecy is to be observed by all who in any way know the results of the election, even toward the candidates.
 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #170 on: June 01, 2013, 02:04:18 PM »

Canon 181 Section 2 is refering to the appointment of bishops outside the canonical territory which references Canon 149.

I was just going to say that.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #171 on: June 01, 2013, 02:11:45 PM »

I guess I should have said, I wonder if someday we'll see a Catholic-OO agreement that officially condemns proselytizing.

Would it make any difference? 

At least with regard to the situation in India, the Orthodox don't proselytize among Catholics at all that I'm aware of.  There are no programs with which to "entice" potential converts, and in terms of ecumenism, the Orthodox clergy are on the "very friendly to slightly ecumaniacal" end of the spectrum when it comes to Catholics, even if we could make the case that Catholics err in matters of faith and they should "return" to the "real Catholic Church", Orthodoxy.  The closest thing to proselytism would be when Catholic girls marry Orthodox guys and have to convert in order to wed, but even that typically doesn't involve much more than going to confession.  When the situation is reversed, and an Orthodox girl marries a Catholic guy, the Catholics will attempt to chrismate, and will do so, in spite of their recognition of our sacraments and their belief that Chrismation is unrepeatable, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a higher authority.  Why do they do this and other similar things?  It's because Indian Catholics have such an elevated view of the necessity for salvation of "subjection" to the Roman Pontiff that they feel they're doing a service to Orthodox by converting them (when they are even conscious of their existence)...they're saving them from hell.  The "official position" of the Catholic Church(es) may be one thing, but what the people on the ground do with their faith convictions is quite another.   

At the end of the day, I think that what's done under the guise of religion is ultimately nothing more than community politics.  No matter what our rites, faith, or jurisdiction, all of us have the same levels of ineptitude, stupidity, and other bad qualities, as well as all the same good qualities.  The Roman connection keeps the Eastern Catholics a little more organized and conscious of a "wider perspective", but left to their own devices, they're just as dumb as we are.  Smiley   

Sorry to hear all that. I never realized how "unecumenical" Catholics in India were.

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #172 on: June 01, 2013, 02:46:15 PM »

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?

It's a complicated situation, and so I don't want to make it seem as if all the Catholics in India are devils unleashed by the Babylonian whore.  Smiley  In many ways, there are good relations, which is why it's annoying when these things still happen and are not reined in. 

Because the Malankara Catholics have more of a "link" to Orthodoxy (their schism/reunion being less than a century old), their nonsense is what leaps out at me, and what "hits home" with the Orthodox: a lot of things are still within living memory. 

The Malabar Catholics eclipse their non-Catholic counterpart and don't really resemble it in any way, and so they're rather independent.  My limited experience with them is that they see themselves and operate as Roman Catholics with a different Mass and a separate administration (in common parlance among Orthodox, Roman rite Catholics are "Roman Catholic", Malabar Catholics are "Latin Catholic", and Malankara Catholics are "the Rite").  "Easternizing" is controversial in their community because it's contrasted with "Indianizing": a good portion of their people view their Latinized expression of Church life as "Indian", with "Easternizing" akin to "Persianizing", so at times it's difficult for them to "return to their roots" as Rome prefers.  But because they're so big, they have their own identity and do their own thing, and the relations with the Orthodox (I think) are better.   

On the other hand, because they're so big, and because "Catholicism" is really their universe, they can be quite ignorant.  It was a Malabar Catholic priest who, hearing I was Orthodox, wondered if I was a convert to Greek or Russian Orthodoxy.  When I explained I was Indian, he was genuinely surprised and completely unaware that there was such a thing as Orthodoxy in India.  Resisting the urge to tell him that we're the Church that's always fighting with ourselves in the newspapers (Smiley), I told him that we're the Church that the Malankara Catholics split from.  That's when he told me that "Mar Ivanios wanted to go to heaven, that's why he joined the Catholic Church" and "Non-Catholics go to hell because they rebel against Christ's Vicar on earth, the successor of St Peter."  Well, I proceeded to tell him how I thought Catholics were heretical for things like papal supremacy, Filioque, etc., etc.  Smiley  He was genuinely shocked that someone could have a negative view of the Catholic faith without being a fire-breathing, Mary-hating Pentecostal.  Then there was the Malabar priest who intended on chrismating an Orthodox girl marrying a Catholic boy; I told the girl to tell him she was Orthodox, that the Catholics recognize our sacraments, that chrismation is unrepeatable for Catholics, and so she shouldn't have to convert.  When that didn't work, she had to produce documents downloaded from the Vatican website, citations from the Catechism, and a "Knock It Off" letter from the local RC bishop in order to stop it.  It makes you laugh at first, but then it's rather sad: if the clergy are like that, what do you do? 

These are just my experiences, not something with which to draw definitive conclusions.  But I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this stuff.
   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2013, 06:36:06 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #174 on: June 01, 2013, 06:38:55 PM »

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists.  Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.
I didn't say that.  Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist.  But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.
Yes, you did.  You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized.  Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism.  I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism.  Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.

 Huh

Do you mean returning to paganism from Christianity? That's clearly apostasy.

Yeah. Did I say it wasn't?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #175 on: June 01, 2013, 11:04:34 PM »

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?

It's a complicated situation, and so I don't want to make it seem as if all the Catholics in India are devils unleashed by the Babylonian whore.  Smiley  In many ways, there are good relations, which is why it's annoying when these things still happen and are not reined in. 

Because the Malankara Catholics have more of a "link" to Orthodoxy (their schism/reunion being less than a century old), their nonsense is what leaps out at me, and what "hits home" with the Orthodox: a lot of things are still within living memory. 

The Malabar Catholics eclipse their non-Catholic counterpart and don't really resemble it in any way, and so they're rather independent.  My limited experience with them is that they see themselves and operate as Roman Catholics with a different Mass and a separate administration (in common parlance among Orthodox, Roman rite Catholics are "Roman Catholic", Malabar Catholics are "Latin Catholic", and Malankara Catholics are "the Rite").  "Easternizing" is controversial in their community because it's contrasted with "Indianizing": a good portion of their people view their Latinized expression of Church life as "Indian", with "Easternizing" akin to "Persianizing", so at times it's difficult for them to "return to their roots" as Rome prefers.  But because they're so big, they have their own identity and do their own thing, and the relations with the Orthodox (I think) are better.   

On the other hand, because they're so big, and because "Catholicism" is really their universe, they can be quite ignorant.  It was a Malabar Catholic priest who, hearing I was Orthodox, wondered if I was a convert to Greek or Russian Orthodoxy.  When I explained I was Indian, he was genuinely surprised and completely unaware that there was such a thing as Orthodoxy in India.  Resisting the urge to tell him that we're the Church that's always fighting with ourselves in the newspapers (Smiley), I told him that we're the Church that the Malankara Catholics split from.  That's when he told me that "Mar Ivanios wanted to go to heaven, that's why he joined the Catholic Church" and "Non-Catholics go to hell because they rebel against Christ's Vicar on earth, the successor of St Peter."  Well, I proceeded to tell him how I thought Catholics were heretical for things like papal supremacy, Filioque, etc., etc.  Smiley  He was genuinely shocked that someone could have a negative view of the Catholic faith without being a fire-breathing, Mary-hating Pentecostal.  Then there was the Malabar priest who intended on chrismating an Orthodox girl marrying a Catholic boy; I told the girl to tell him she was Orthodox, that the Catholics recognize our sacraments, that chrismation is unrepeatable for Catholics, and so she shouldn't have to convert.  When that didn't work, she had to produce documents downloaded from the Vatican website, citations from the Catechism, and a "Knock It Off" letter from the local RC bishop in order to stop it.  It makes you laugh at first, but then it's rather sad: if the clergy are like that, what do you do? 

These are just my experiences, not something with which to draw definitive conclusions.  But I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this stuff.
   


Wow, from my experience you could take all of your posts, substitute Ukraine, Ukranian, Slovak, Russian, Rusyn where appropriate for Indian and Persian references and you have my people's story.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #176 on: June 02, 2013, 11:01:50 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

We tend to stick together in America, despite the differences in faith, to promote some sort of community spirit within the larger culture.  So we do a lot of things together: it's not uncommon, for example, for every Kerala Christian in the metro NY area to show up at someone's wake, even if they're not of your denomination, even if you don't know them, just because they're "us".  Even so, it's not hard to stay in your little corner if you want (and it's much easier in India, I'd guess).  I hope I've just had bad luck with them.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #177 on: June 02, 2013, 11:02:48 PM »

Wow, from my experience you could take all of your posts, substitute Ukraine, Ukranian, Slovak, Russian, Rusyn where appropriate for Indian and Persian references and you have my people's story.

I knew there must be a reason why, despite my love for all things Greek, I always speak of my "inner Slav".  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 03, 2013, 08:08:58 AM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD  faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #179 on: June 03, 2013, 08:11:14 AM »

Wow, from my experience you could take all of your posts, substitute Ukraine, Ukranian, Slovak, Russian, Rusyn where appropriate for Indian and Persian references and you have my people's story.

I knew there must be a reason why, despite my love for all things Greek, I always speak of my "inner Slav".  Smiley

I would suggest that this is a phenomena related to the theory and reality of the unias themselves.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,057


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #180 on: June 03, 2013, 01:42:05 PM »

I would suggest that this is a phenomena related to the theory and reality of the unias themselves.

And I was really enjoying my inner Slav...  Tongue     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #181 on: June 03, 2013, 04:59:27 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD  faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?

I am certainly used to ignorance from Latin Catholics, even those attending our parishes, but usually the cradles know what's up.  In fact the only time I've run into this myself is with the local OCA parish which broke away from us.  It is completely russified with no collective memory of having been Greek Catholic or Rusyn.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,121


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


« Reply #182 on: June 03, 2013, 06:15:47 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD  faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?

I am certainly used to ignorance from Latin Catholics, even those attending our parishes, but usually the cradles know what's up.  In fact the only time I've run into this myself is with the local OCA parish which broke away from us.  It is completely russified with no collective memory of having been Greek Catholic or Rusyn.

As I hear it, you guys were Orthodox way before you went to Rome not the reverse....
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #183 on: June 03, 2013, 07:26:43 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD  faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?

I am certainly used to ignorance from Latin Catholics, even those attending our parishes, but usually the cradles know what's up.  In fact the only time I've run into this myself is with the local OCA parish which broke away from us.  It is completely russified with no collective memory of having been Greek Catholic or Rusyn.

As I hear it, you guys were Orthodox way before you went to Rome not the reverse....

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about.  They came from Mukachevo and Presov not Moscow and Petrograd but you wouldn't know it by attending their parish.  
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 07:27:31 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,382


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #184 on: June 03, 2013, 08:15:08 PM »

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them.  I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD  faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?

I am certainly used to ignorance from Latin Catholics, even those attending our parishes, but usually the cradles know what's up.  In fact the only time I've run into this myself is with the local OCA parish which broke away from us.  It is completely russified with no collective memory of having been Greek Catholic or Rusyn.

As I hear it, you guys were Orthodox way before you went to Rome not the reverse....

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about.  They came from Mukachevo and Presov not Moscow and Petrograd but you wouldn't know it by attending their parish.  

That's true in almost every city and time in the Rust Belt, although many OCA "cradles" have rediscovered their cultural roots in recent years.  Sadly, decades of misguided propaganda in the former Metropolia conflated being Orthodox with being Russian - which came as a surprise at pan-Orthodox events to multitudes of Serbs, Bulgarians ,Romanians and Belorussians, not to mention Ukrainians who had their own variant of Slavic Orthodoxy.
Logged
surajiype
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Orthodox Church
Posts: 197


« Reply #185 on: June 04, 2013, 02:19:51 AM »

 
[/quote]

Deacon Phil,

I think I was unclear.  I meant traditional because the Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchs used it.  I am sure equaling prestige with the Malankara Orthodox had something to do with it as well.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop also claims his lineage from St. Thomas.

I do not think it is duplicity on Rome's part as they don't want it going on and sponsor things like CNEWA and Aid to the Church in Need which provide money without strings attached.  I think it shows how little control Rome has when an Eastern Catholic Church decides to do what it wants.  I am saddened the Malankara Catholics aren't helping their Orthodox brethren without sheep stealing.
[/quote]

Dn. Lance

There are both improvements and causes of concern as far as the Orthodox in India are concerned.

1. Relations between the Syro-Malabar church and the Orthodox are now better than they have been atleast for a hundred years. There are several riders ofcourse; relations are warm with the SM Archdiocese of Changanacherry which has always been the most traditional, independant minded and least Latinized of the SM archdioceses.  Where Chanagancherry minded bishops are located in the diaspora , relations are markedly better.
For example my parish hosted a convention of SM priests and laity, a decade ago this would be unthinkable. This has a lot to do with inter-catholic dynamics, relations between SM and Latin bishops in the diaspora especially in India seem to be patchy at best.  There was no reason for the SM diocese to approach an Orthodox church when there were 5 latin parishes and numerous Latin Catholic schools in the vicinity.  Then again it speaks volumes about the improvement that has been made.
We should remember ofcourse that the total seperation between the Malabar Catholics and Malabar Orthodox is a recent feature.
Well into the 1850's there was  plenty of interaction between the sides.  Parishes and priests changed sides atleast upto 1830, intermarriage was common and there were even attempts towards co-operation which were often nixed by the non-native bishops ruling over the SM dioceses then.  After the 1850's the gulf between the jurisdictions seems to have widened and a complete seperation seems to have been solidified around the 1900's.
Slowly that has been changing in the last 5-6 years and its welcome, we may follow different faiths and practices but no harm in acknowledging a shared patrimony.

2. With the Syro-Malankara, things are much more difficult. While they often speak about being bridges between East and West and so on, their actions are difficult for us to accept. Claiming titles is the least of the issues, in places where we have no churches, they will go and build one (even if there are no SMC laity in the area). Then will encourage our people to attent saying that there is no difference except that the Pope is commemorated in place of the Patriarch and Catholicos. As Dn. Phil said, using resources that are at their disposal time and again conversions will be gained in leiu of jobs, teaching and nursing positions etc. Entire dioceses have been erected where no SMC faithful exist.
The Orthodox and the Syro Malankara church have a difficult history and it was time we moved on , but such actions which negate what they say and what Rome says is huge stumbling block. The Ortho