OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 01:51:04 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: why are you not a byzantine catholic  (Read 4145 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


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: 6,150



« 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: 6,150



« 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: 8,601


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: 4,622



« 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: 6,150



« 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
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,758


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

WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



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

Because the Byzantine Empire was not contingent with American shores.
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 0.062 seconds with 34 queries.