OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 25, 2014, 11:46:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: why are you not a byzantine catholic  (Read 5508 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 14, 2014, 09:02:20 AM »

The church's teachings can't change. What were the councils of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence trying to do? Reunite the Orthodox to the Catholic Church, not break them up. The difference now, though, is we don't pursue partial unions. (The Byzantine Catholic missions in Greece and Russia failed.) But the Ukrainians, for example, approached us for whatever reason (protection from the Poles), so the true-church claim means then, as now, we accept such conversions, individual and group, now albeit quietly.

As this discussion  continued, it became interesting and somewhat enlightening.  "Lip-service" as Isa stated and Fogey' s last post make sense when read together.  Mutual distrust and suspicion of motives is not limited to one side or just among the laity.... But whatever the "intent" of the western Synods at Lyons and Florence may have been, I have little doubt that had "union" followed, the historical effect would have been to break up the Orthodox and the impacts of whatever Reformation may have occurred would have spread and developed in the east as well....
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,175



« Reply #136 on: June 14, 2014, 09:07:51 AM »

(The Byzantine Catholic missions in Greece and Russia failed.)

Hmmm, I don't see that ... just like I don't see WRO as an outright failure.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,175



« Reply #137 on: June 14, 2014, 09:12:18 AM »

As this discussion  continued, it became interesting and somewhat enlightening.  "Lip-service" as Isa stated and Fogey' s last post make sense when read together.  Mutual distrust and suspicion of motives is not limited to one side or just among the laity.... But whatever the "intent" of the western Synods at Lyons and Florence may have been, I have little doubt that had "union" followed, the historical effect would have been to break up the Orthodox and the impacts of whatever Reformation may have occurred would have spread and developed in the east as well....

I basically agree, although it can be argued that in the Syriac/Antiochian world, "dual communion" was possible for some time even after the schism was set-in-stone by Florence (possibly right up until 1724).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #138 on: June 14, 2014, 09:37:40 AM »

(The Byzantine Catholic missions in Greece and Russia failed.)

Hmmm, I don't see that ... just like I don't see WRO as an outright failure.

Nor do I, but it has not gained a lot of traction either....again, in my opinion for many of the same reasons eastern Catholicism reached a "high water" line and then receded..The square peg in round hole argument...

To the majority view in both the Roman world and the Orthodox World, regardless of the historical precedence for a multiplicity of "rites" within the undivided church, the presence of the ritual of the "others" just seems not to fit. I'm not justifying that POV, just noting its powerful reality. It's part of what drove many back to Orthodoxy from the Greek Catholic church in the centuries following the unions...

For example, if WRO is equally appropriate, why would ROCOR "train" WRO clergy to serve as Byzantines when joint services are held? Heck, the Romans never did that to the Greek Catholics in spite of everything. To me that alone sums things up regarding the ROCOR WRO. Separate, but never equal applies to both the ECC and the WRO.   I do not get how folks can accept that status. St Alexis didn't, my grandparents didn't, nor could I.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 09:43:56 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,736



« Reply #139 on: June 14, 2014, 10:56:50 AM »

^It should be noted that in the Orthodox world it's specifically the EO/Byzantine tradition that can't seem to accept that there are others doing things differently. Just look at inter-Byzantine squabbles about Antiochian vs Greek vs Russian vs polyphony vs chant etc. etc. We can't even accept variations within our own rite and fits get thrown over the "right way", and our differences are a joke compared to say the Syriac and Coptic rites, who can accept just fine that their rites are wholly different.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,175



« Reply #140 on: June 14, 2014, 11:24:24 AM »

(The Byzantine Catholic missions in Greece and Russia failed.)

Hmmm, I don't see that ... just like I don't see WRO as an outright failure.

Nor do I, but it has not gained a lot of traction either....again, in my opinion for many of the same reasons eastern Catholicism reached a "high water" line and then receded..The square peg in round hole argument...

To the majority view in both the Roman world and the Orthodox World, regardless of the historical precedence for a multiplicity of "rites" within the undivided church, the presence of the ritual of the "others" just seems not to fit. I'm not justifying that POV, just noting its powerful reality. It's part of what drove many back to Orthodoxy from the Greek Catholic church in the centuries following the unions...

For example, if WRO is equally appropriate, why would ROCOR "train" WRO clergy to serve as Byzantines when joint services are held? Heck, the Romans never did that to the Greek Catholics in spite of everything. To me that alone sums things up regarding the ROCOR WRO. Separate, but never equal applies to both the ECC and the WRO.   I do not get how folks can accept that status. St Alexis didn't, my grandparents didn't, nor could I.

^It should be noted that in the Orthodox world it's specifically the EO/Byzantine tradition that can't seem to accept that there are others doing things differently. Just look at inter-Byzantine squabbles about Antiochian vs Greek vs Russian vs polyphony vs chant etc. etc. We can't even accept variations within our own rite and fits get thrown over the "right way", and our differences are a joke compared to say the Syriac and Coptic rites, who can accept just fine that their rites are wholly different.

Excellent posts both.

I only have anecdotal evidence to support this, but I've become convinced that underlying much of this is a distaste (among Orthodox) for any parallels at all between Eastern Catholicism and WR Orthodoxy.

(Needless to say, I'm not saying that there wasn't anything wrong with the UoB and other "unias", but I hate guilt-by-association.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 15, 2014, 08:53:53 AM »

(The Byzantine Catholic missions in Greece and Russia failed.)

Hmmm, I don't see that ... just like I don't see WRO as an outright failure.

Nor do I, but it has not gained a lot of traction either....again, in my opinion for many of the same reasons eastern Catholicism reached a "high water" line and then receded. The square peg in round hole argument...

To the majority view in both the Roman world and the Orthodox world, regardless of the historical precedence for a multiplicity of "rites" within the undivided church, the presence of the ritual of the "others" just seems not to fit. I'm not justifying that POV, just noting its powerful reality. It's part of what drove many back to Orthodoxy from the Greek Catholic church in the centuries following the unions...

For example, if WRO is equally appropriate, why would ROCOR "train" WRO clergy to serve as Byzantines when joint services are held? Heck, the Romans never did that to the Greek Catholics in spite of everything. To me that alone sums things up regarding the ROCOR WRO. Separate, but never equal applies to both the ECC and the WRO.   I do not get how folks can accept that status. St Alexis didn't, my grandparents didn't, nor could I.

I hear you.

The difference between the sides is how they interpret that. I read it as a sign from God that, rather than a church setting up imitation churches of the other rites (but the true-church claims mean those churches have the right to be), all the Eastern churches should be back in the Catholic Church with their rites as is. Orthodox tend to read and practice it as the church equals the Byzantine Rite. Understandably (Cum Data Fuerit) the Orthodox often accuse Rome of believing vice versa but we really don't.

A successful medieval union wouldn't have destroyed the Orthodox rite because travel and communication were so hard that Rome couldn't have done that even if it wanted to (it didn't), so Greece, Russia, etc., would have carried on as normal, run by local custom is is right, much like the Melkites did but better.

The schisms in America happened because overlapping rites were largely a new experience for Catholic churchmen, and the Roman Riters handled it very badly. Rather like the uncanonical situation in American Orthodoxy of overlapping immigrant-based jurisdictions, another novelty, necessary because to force otherwise would be unfair/a pastoral disaster/suicidal.

Again I don't think the church ever saw partial unions as a permanent solution but arguably we used to pursue them as a goal. You can look at the failed missions in Greece and Russia two ways, as a witness to unity to persuade the Greek and Russian churches as a whole to come back (the approach I believe in, which is Catholic policy now), or with the goal of converting individual Orthodox. They failed at both (Orthodoxy's the state church of Greece so the government understandably cracked down on the mission; the Soviets, hating the Catholic Church because they couldn't take it over, crushed what little there was of the Russian Catholic Church, which at first foolishly welcomed the change in government as an opportunity to advance its work). Bad strategy because it makes the Orthodox not trust us.

The true heroes and protectors of Eastern Catholics in the 20th century weren't Toth or Chornock, as understandable as their situations were (but sad in my view, not something to celebrate, and again, our churchmen started it) but, for example, Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky), an Easternizer, and acting Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk), who ran the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the Ukraine as a completely underground operation.

You think if the ACROD split hadn't happened, the Greek Catholics in America would have disappeared; they'd all be run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo Catholics with a few ethnic customs. Understandable but I don't think the outcome (a small, shrinking church) would have been much different. You'd still have had extreme self-latinization* in the '50s followed by the push from Rome to correct that for the ecumenical reason, with Vatican II. (Catholic churchmen's main concern with that was relations with Russia and Greece, not the schisms in America.) These churches still would have lost people after the third generation in America when they weren't really Carpatho-Russian or Ukrainian anymore, and they moved and married out of the ethnic communities. And vocations still would have cratered because of the one-two punch of the council and secularization in the larger culture. Clerical marriage, while good and your perfect right, doesn't stop those last two.

*I'm a moderate on latinization. (Some crossover is inevitable: among Arab Christians, and the mixture of Polish and Ukrainian customs, for example.) With the church I say don't start it, but where it exists I like it when it's pre-Vatican II and doesn't take over the rite, so the monsignori and the Rosary Society can go on forever as far as I'm concerned, but don't ban clerical marriage, take down the iconostasis, or replace Saturday Vespers with Roman Catholic devotions or a Saturday-night Mass.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 08:55:38 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,734



« Reply #142 on: September 22, 2014, 11:57:49 PM »

Because the Byzantine Empire was not contingent with American shores.
Logged
Strongylocentrotus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: I am an atheist, but I do have faith in a good horse...
Jurisdiction: Baptised in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Posts: 47


With Overlook Cocquette - my favorite mare 1984


« Reply #143 on: October 28, 2014, 12:23:12 AM »

I am not a Byzantine Catholic, because my people didn't come from an area that was the borderlands of powerful empires and religious institutions.  When you consider the response of other peoples in similar conditions (Bogomile Bosniaks and Orthodox Albanians who converted to Islam en mass), they at least managed to keep most of their religion in the face of rampant Poland and Austria.  After a few generations then this new form became THEIR church, the church of their fathers and the preserve of their language and culture.  So the entrance of Russian Nationalism on their homelands didn't hold much attraction for them (this is probably their perception, I am guessing) Now today perhaps, things are a little bit different.  The world is secular (well Europe anyway) and frowns on State Religions persecuting minorities.  Our Byzantine cousins, could very well assert themselves, by moving closer to Orthodoxy, demanding more respect from the Vatican or going their own path.  One thing for sure... they probably aren't in the mood to punked by anybody.

My family came from an area that was thoroughly conquered and annexed by a Muslim Empire that, for the most part left our religion alone*.  As the mongols did with our Russian brothers.  Perhaps other empires and would be empires should take note...

*Well they did depose our patriarch and placed us under the Ecumenical Patriarch, but in their defense the Osmanli didn't have much appreciation for Orthodox subtlety and nuance.  The Sultan's ministers didn't recognize nationality, they recognized religion.  Each religious group in the empire was recognized as a flock (reyya), so one shepherd for each Orthodox, Catholic and Jewish flock.  Better to husband them and better to fleece them.  The Osmanli did have a sense of history however, so they made reyya concessions to the independence of the legacy partiarchs in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, when they eventually conquered those areas in the sixteenth century.  By then they had a better understanding of the workings in the Orthodox Church, plus they had many Phanariots working in their administrative apparatus.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 12:48:03 AM by Strongylocentrotus » Logged

If you cain't stand the stink, then don't kick the skunk!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #144 on: October 28, 2014, 06:03:39 AM »

Well put, Strongylocentrotus. Though there is a vestigial Bulgarian Byzantine Catholic Church, left over from a 19th-century attempt at Bulgarian church independence from Constantinople as the country was struggling for independence from the Turks (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). But when the Bulgarian Orthodox Church broke away from Constantinople, most of the people returned to it.

What you wrote well describes why the first Eastern Europeans and Eastern Christians I knew, Ukrainian Catholics, would have been horrified and outraged (might well have beaten the tar out of someone if someone said it in person) if some "online Byzantine Catholic" told them their true future is to discard Catholic doctrine and ask the Orthodox to receive them economically, pretty much the party line in Byzantine Catholic fora (where I imagine few born Byzantine Catholics participate - they're older and don't care about the Internet). The Ukrainian Catholics chose to take their church underground, risking martyrdom, or to go into exile in America rather than do just that when the Soviets ordered them to.

Real Byzantine Catholics, such as the Ukrainians I knew, "demand more respect from the Vatican"; they don't want to leave the Catholic Church.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
iman_allen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 28



« Reply #145 on: October 28, 2014, 07:28:07 AM »

They are too Orthodox to be Catholic and too Catholic to be Orthodox.  Undecided

Exactly.... They're wolves in sheep's clothing either way.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #146 on: October 28, 2014, 07:39:47 AM »

They are too Orthodox to be Catholic and too Catholic to be Orthodox.  Undecided

Exactly.... They're wolves in sheep's clothing either way.

I understand even though of course I disagree. The strict Orthodox view on this is like how we see the Episcopalians using their Foreign Rites Canon. When they took in some Italian convert parishes (that had been independent, having left the Catholic Church), they allowed them to keep the traditional Roman Rite. Rather as if a United Methodist minister set up in a Greek neighborhood, suited up in Byzantine vestments, and claimed to offer the Divine Liturgy every Sunday. False-flag operation.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #147 on: October 28, 2014, 08:53:44 AM »

I am not a Byzantine Catholic, because my people didn't come from an area that was the borderlands of powerful empires and religious institutions.  When you consider the response of other peoples in similar conditions (Bogomile Bosniaks and Orthodox Albanians who converted to Islam en mass), they at least managed to keep most of their religion in the face of rampant Poland and Austria.  After a few generations then this new form became THEIR church, the church of their fathers and the preserve of their language and culture.  So the entrance of Russian Nationalism on their homelands didn't hold much attraction for them (this is probably their perception, I am guessing) Now today perhaps, things are a little bit different.  The world is secular (well Europe anyway) and frowns on State Religions persecuting minorities.  Our Byzantine cousins, could very well assert themselves, by moving closer to Orthodoxy, demanding more respect from the Vatican or going their own path.  One thing for sure... they probably aren't in the mood to punked by anybody.

My family came from an area that was thoroughly conquered and annexed by a Muslim Empire that, for the most part left our religion alone*.  As the mongols did with our Russian brothers.  Perhaps other empires and would be empires should take note...

*Well they did depose our patriarch and placed us under the Ecumenical Patriarch, but in their defense the Osmanli didn't have much appreciation for Orthodox subtlety and nuance.  The Sultan's ministers didn't recognize nationality, they recognized religion.  Each religious group in the empire was recognized as a flock (reyya), so one shepherd for each Orthodox, Catholic and Jewish flock.  Better to husband them and better to fleece them.  The Osmanli did have a sense of history however, so they made reyya concessions to the independence of the legacy partiarchs in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, when they eventually conquered those areas in the sixteenth century.  By then they had a better understanding of the workings in the Orthodox Church, plus they had many Phanariots working in their administrative apparatus.

Well said.

As to "wolves in sheep's nothing", that may have/did describe the hierarchy which acceded to the Hungarian and Polish aristocracy' s demands in the 16th and 17th centuries, it has no application today. Eastern Catholicism is not a threat to, nor is it appealing to Orthodox Christians.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #148 on: October 28, 2014, 09:58:34 AM »

Eastern Catholicism is not a threat to, nor is it appealing to Orthodox Christians.

Pretty much, which makes Metropolitan Hilarion's (Alfeyev) repeating the Russian line in Rome sound both out of touch and mean.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #149 on: October 28, 2014, 11:03:10 AM »

Eastern Catholicism is not a threat to, nor is it appealing to Orthodox Christians.

Pretty much, which makes Metropolitan Hilarion's (Alfeyev) repeating the Russian line in Rome sound both out of touch and mean.

Out of touch is accurate, as for many "been there, done that, not gonna do it again" would apply to both those whose families are today Orthodox as well as many who are Greek Catholics.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #150 on: October 28, 2014, 11:09:14 AM »

"been there, done that, not gonna do it again"

Let's just say I know that tune.

The Ukrainian Catholics I knew most emphatically did not regret being Catholic.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #151 on: October 28, 2014, 11:33:26 AM »

"been there, done that, not gonna do it again"

Let's just say I know that tune.

The Ukrainian Catholics I knew most emphatically did not regret being Catholic.

I certainly don't regret NOT being one. I wouldn't be here otherwise. Cheesy ( And I don't mean the Forum, I mean HERE...)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 11:34:23 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #152 on: October 28, 2014, 11:39:52 AM »

I'm sure you're happy.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,805


"The grace of God has appeared..."


WWW
« Reply #153 on: October 28, 2014, 01:06:22 PM »

Eastern Catholicism is not a threat to, nor is it appealing to Orthodox Christians.

Pretty much, which makes Metropolitan Hilarion's (Alfeyev) repeating the Russian line in Rome sound both out of touch and mean.

Out of touch is accurate, as for many "been there, done that, not gonna do it again" would apply to both those whose families are today Orthodox as well as many who are Greek Catholics.

Perhaps this is the case in Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of Eastern Europe as a whole, I don't know enough to say either way, but it happens elsewhere in the Christian East.  At least for this reason, I support the Metropolitan's remarks.     
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
bkovacs
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Christian
Posts: 85



« Reply #154 on: November 23, 2014, 12:53:22 AM »

The Orthodox have retained a much more purer form of Byzantine Christianity than Byzantine Catholics. At least here in the USA. All of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (also UGCC) I know of here in eastern PA have no Vespers, Orthos, Compline, Parakleses, and Akathist services. They hold the Divine Liturgy on Saturday evenings and Sundays, like their Novus Ordo loving Roman Rite brothers do (Mass on Saturdays (to fulfill your Sunday obligation) and Sundays). They never talk of the Jesus Prayer or even promote it. Go to Byzantine Seminary Press, and see if they even carry prayer ropes!!. You will not find any. The Orthodox just do a way better job, at showing the world the riches of Byzantine Christianity. It's a plain fact. I have seen it with my own eyes, and experienced it.  At the Second Vatican Council, Byzantine Catholics were told to de-Latinize themselves and return to their own traditions. I think in all fairness the Melkites are the only ones who have made any effort. The Ukrainians and Ruthenians forget it, some of them promote the Rosary and their chanting, if you can call it that, is horrific. I can go on and on. My personal view only!.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 12:59:41 AM by bkovacs » Logged

"We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere on earth." The Divine Liturgy at Hagia Sophia.
KostaC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago & the Diocese of Washington (Orthodox Church in America)
Posts: 214


Chicago River Dyeing, March 15th, 20


« Reply #155 on: November 23, 2014, 02:54:08 AM »

Again I don't think the church ever saw partial unions as a permanent solution but arguably we used to pursue them as a goal. You can look at the failed missions in Greece and Russia two ways, as a witness to unity to persuade the Greek and Russian churches as a whole to come back (the approach I believe in, which is Catholic policy now), or with the goal of converting individual Orthodox. They failed at both (Orthodoxy's the state church of Greece so the government understandably cracked down on the mission; the Soviets, hating the Catholic Church because they couldn't take it over, crushed what little there was of the Russian Catholic Church, which at first foolishly welcomed the change in government as an opportunity to advance its work). Bad strategy because it makes the Orthodox not trust us.

That's not the only reason why Catholic missions in Greece failed; the whole rice bowl Christians thing and free education for conversion plan didn't work because the people had no desire to leave the Church. The Jesuits tried politicking in the Sublime Porte: it backfired and failed miserably. Even forced conversion didn't work: only a few of the Cyclades ever had a majority or plurality Catholic population. You know there's that pithy, little saying in Greek, «Προτιμότερο είναι να δω να βασιλεύει στην πόλη το Τουρκικό τουρμπάνι παρά η Καθολική τιάρα» ("it's better to see the Turkish turban than the Catholic tiara rule the City [Constantinople]"), right? Loukas Notaras said that for a reason.
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

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #156 on: November 23, 2014, 03:10:05 AM »

The Orthodox have retained a much more purer form of Byzantine Christianity than Byzantine Catholics.

True. The Catholic Church rightly offers both the unlatinized and latinized forms, and officially favors the unlatinized, but unlatinized Byzantine Catholics need more support. A number of converts to Byzantine Catholicism get frustrated by what you describe and become Orthodox.

In my experience, born Orthodox don't talk about or promote the Jesus Prayer either. That they do is a Western myth about Orthodoxy.

Also, Byzantine Christianity is only a means, not an end, so I can't buy denying that the Catholic Church defends the list of beliefs I consider essential, so that I or others may chase a "purer" ritual form, that is, claiming that the purer ritual form IS the church.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 03:11:16 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,061


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #157 on: November 23, 2014, 10:02:28 PM »

Go to Byzantine Seminary Press, and see if they even carry prayer ropes!!. You will not find any.
That's a lie.  There is one in my pocket right now I bought there.  They always have them.
http://www.byzantineseminarypress.com/100-knot-red-prayer-rope/
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,061


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #158 on: November 23, 2014, 10:06:01 PM »

The Ukrainians and Ruthenians forget it, some of them promote the Rosary and their chanting, if you can call it that, is horrific. I can go on and on. My personal view only!.
It is called Prostopinje and Znamenny and our Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainian Orthodox brothers use it as well.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,133


"My god is greater."


« Reply #159 on: November 23, 2014, 10:12:53 PM »

The Ukrainians and Ruthenians forget it, some of them promote the Rosary and their chanting, if you can call it that, is horrific. I can go on and on. My personal view only!.
It is called Prostopinje and Znamenny and our Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainian Orthodox brothers use it as well.

I attended a local Byzantine Catholic church and the prostopinije was beautiful.

Re: the Jesus prayer, of course it's important, but it is not the end-all and be-all of Byzantine Christian spirituality. Generations of Orthodox went without it (hence why the practice has experienced so many revivals).
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Catholic (Went Back To The BCC from OCA)
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh sui iuris
Posts: 31



« Reply #160 on: November 27, 2014, 02:11:12 AM »

As a Byzantine Catholic I went into the OCA and went back to the BCC.  This was not because I rejected Orthodoxy but was really a personal matter of wanting to go back to where I felt at home.  I do miss being Orthodox, but alas one cannot be a member of both Churches.  I can say that if there was an ACROD Church near me when I was struggling to go back to the BCC I probably would of stayed Orthodox.  I can't say things are perfect--they by no means are, but I am hopeful and try to live my faith as best I can.  I know Father Nicholas, the priest who received me into Orthodoxy, would be very sad I left the Church, may his memory be eternal, but I am still struggling.  I miss Father Nicholas and when he died I think that was another factor in me leaving, because I was so grieved over his death that I pretty much lost it.  I was angry with God and stopped going to Divine Liturgy and practicing my Orthodox faith and decided just to return to the BCC, but there is still alot of pain there.
Logged
Shamati
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Protestant, possible convert
Posts: 36



« Reply #161 on: December 04, 2014, 06:39:21 PM »

I'm not a byzantine Catholic because I live to far away from a byzantine catholiic parish. I've studied the issue of the filioque & I must say that I dont think it's a theological issue at all if it's explained property. There's simply to much evidence from eastern fathers of the Holy Ghost proceeding through the Son that it's not possible to claim it's a heresy. I also dont think it's possible to claim that latin rite catholics are in heresy because of their use of unleavened bread. This is simply intolerance of diversity in my eyes. So I have no objections whatsoever to being in union with the pope of Rome right now. An interesting thing I've noticed is a convert congregation in western Europe who are much more open to being byzantine Catholic, rather than orthodox, have decided to be in communion with the patriarch of the west as opposed to under the jurisdiction of a eastern european orthodox & this has caused alot of bad blood, although the issue isnt theological but political.

"Romophobia" is a motivating factor for not an insignificant number of orthodox. I believe the Church must be able to have within it's fold the diverse theologies of the byzantine, coptic, syrian as well as latin & even some of the protestant perspective. The way I see it nowadays, after having read about the differences between the 2 is that the split is purely political & had it been that the nations in which orthodoxy is predominant had been in the role of worlds dominant power instead of the west, the split would've been healed. Likewise I believe that had the orthodox not been occupied by the muslims for so long, the alienation would've not been as large & the split would've been healed.

Although I think the church should be more decentralized than today & the pope shouldnt intervene in others affairs except in case of heresy or breaking of the law.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 06:43:41 PM by Shamati » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,736



« Reply #162 on: December 04, 2014, 07:07:00 PM »

I'm not a byzantine Catholic because I live to far away from a byzantine catholiic parish. I've studied the issue of the filioque & I must say that I dont think it's a theological issue at all if it's explained property. There's simply to much evidence from eastern fathers of the Holy Ghost proceeding through the Son that it's not possible to claim it's a heresy. I also dont think it's possible to claim that latin rite catholics are in heresy because of their use of unleavened bread. This is simply intolerance of diversity in my eyes. So I have no objections whatsoever to being in union with the pope of Rome right now. An interesting thing I've noticed is a convert congregation in western Europe who are much more open to being byzantine Catholic, rather than orthodox, have decided to be in communion with the patriarch of the west as opposed to under the jurisdiction of a eastern european orthodox & this has caused alot of bad blood, although the issue isnt theological but political.

"Romophobia" is a motivating factor for not an insignificant number of orthodox. I believe the Church must be able to have within it's fold the diverse theologies of the byzantine, coptic, syrian as well as latin & even some of the protestant perspective. The way I see it nowadays, after having read about the differences between the 2 is that the split is purely political & had it been that the nations in which orthodoxy is predominant had been in the role of worlds dominant power instead of the west, the split would've been healed. Likewise I believe that had the orthodox not been occupied by the muslims for so long, the alienation would've not been as large & the split would've been healed.

Although I think the church should be more decentralized than today & the pope shouldnt intervene in others affairs except in case of heresy or breaking of the law.

I know others will likely comment, but I must say a couple things:

1) "And from the Son" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "and through the Son." Many, if not most, EO's will still say "through the Son" when speaking theologically, but will hold that it's different from how the Latin Church has traditionally understood the filioque. Again, some will concede that the filioque can be understood, when pulled out of its historical context, in an Orthodox manner.

2) I don't think anyone says Latin Rite Catholics are "in heresy because of their use of unleavened bread." Some may, and unfortunately do, attack the practice, but frankly it's more or less irrelevant next to the papal claims of universal ordinary jurisdiction, etc. Armenians even use unleavened bread.

Tl;dr - there are much more important reasons to accept/reject communion with Rome than just the filioque or unleavened bread, and I've never heard of anyone solely (or even primarily) denounce Rome for their bread usage.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 54 queries.