OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 02:26:23 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 3424 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2014, 12:23:44 PM »

I can't buy that the Western Church, essentially the same, is not part of the true church.

Someone, I forget who, quotes St. John Maximovitch in their signature "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern".

Right, his line for the then-new Western Rite Orthodox experiment. The difference is we acknowledge the Orthodox as the home of their own patrimony and having real bishops, etc.; they set up a small imitation church (what the Orthodox accuse the Greek Catholics of being) and pretend we don't exist or take potshots at us (graceless, complete frauds, etc.). By the way, ROCOR's Western Rite is so byzantinized, indeed russified, they might as well switch them like they obviously want to.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2014, 12:38:40 PM »

I can't buy that the Western Church, essentially the same, is not part of the true church.

Someone, I forget who, quotes St. John Maximovitch in their signature "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern".

Right, his line for the then-new Western Rite Orthodox experiment. The difference is we acknowledge the Orthodox as the home of their own patrimony and having real bishops, etc.; they set up a small imitation church (what the Orthodox accuse the Greek Catholics of being) and pretend we don't exist or take potshots at us (graceless, complete frauds, etc.). By the way, ROCOR's Western Rite is so byzantinized, indeed russified, they might as well switch them like they obviously want to.

I'm pretty careful to avoid having either an overly-high or overly-low opinion of them. They are definitely Byzantinized -- and I find it troubling that the Orthodox, generally, seem to have extremely little regret over that fact -- but at the same time I firmly support e.g. http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/05/western-rite-is-not-reverse-uniatism.html
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 12:39:42 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,233


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 12, 2014, 12:41:39 PM »

Peter and Fogey know full well that there is a vast division within Orthodoxy regarding the issue of 'gracelessness' and the Roman Church. and you both know where I and others - more in the real world than those who post online - stand.

Rome regards us as 'schismatics.' Orthodox either regard Rome in the same manner, while some/many regard Rome as 'heretical.'

My maternal grandfather and my father were both formally 'excommunicated' in writing by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I doubt many others here can say the same, so I will not be accused of 'squishiness' by either Roman or Orthodox apologists.

In either case, neither regards the other in any way as 'complete.' Is that so hard to fathom?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 12:43:49 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #93 on: June 12, 2014, 01:17:27 PM »

Peter and Fogey know full well that there is a vast division within Orthodoxy regarding the issue of 'gracelessness' and the Roman Church. and you both know where I and others - more in the real world than those who post online - stand.

Rome regards us as 'schismatics.' Orthodox either regard Rome in the same manner, while some/many regard Rome as 'heretical.'

My maternal grandfather and my father were both formally 'excommunicated' in writing by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I doubt many others here can say the same, so I will not be accused of 'squishiness' by either Roman or Orthodox apologists.

In either case, neither regards the other in any way as 'complete.' Is that so hard to fathom?

For some people it is, in my experience.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,926


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2014, 03:16:42 AM »

The tangent on Ukrainian politics has been moved to Politics.

If you don't have access to the private Politics board and would like to follow the discussion, please send Fr. George a private message requesting access.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=58985.0
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 03:18:03 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2014, 06:17:50 AM »

Peter and Fogey know full well that there is a vast division within Orthodoxy regarding the issue of 'gracelessness' and the Roman Church. and you both know where I and others - more in the real world than those who post online - stand.

Right. You and your jurisdiction mirror us regarding the other church. Because to deny us would be to deny yourselves.

Rome regards us as 'schismatics.' Orthodox either regard Rome in the same manner or some/many regard Rome as 'heretical.'

Correct with the addition that those born into schism aren't personally guilty of schism so at our nicest we don't call born Orthodox schismatics.

My maternal grandfather and my father were both formally 'excommunicated' in writing by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I doubt many others here can say the same, so I will not be accused of 'squishiness' by either Roman or Orthodox apologists.

Cry. That was for disobedience; your side really had no objection to our teachings at the time. That was adopted later to rationalize the schism. It never should have happened; if only our local Roman Riters hadn't been boneheads about the real issue. As I said, we let our own people down, so I understand your side still being mad at the church. But like you said, the healing of memories.

In either case, neither regards the other in any way as 'complete.' Is that so hard to fathom?

No. But my point remains. It's not really about our teachings; it's about your culture, and while that culture is worth defending, the church has the authority to declare which rule on clerical marriage to follow in Western countries. That said, I agree the ruling for America was a mistake, as do byzcath.org and every Greek Catholic your brother works with. We're trying to more than meet you halfway; you've been honest about your jurisdiction's origins as long as I've known you so I think you can meet us halfway (and I don't believe in a squishy branch theory either).
Logged

The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2014, 06:35:14 AM »

I only met a Melkite (well, actually an RC that was going to change rites) once that came to my parish and stayed for coffee hour.  He was all about being "orthodox in communion with Rome" and telling the few of us that were there, including our Deacon, that there was no difference and we should all have communion together.  I'm sure he's not wholly representative of all Melkites and other eastern Catholics, but I wasn't going to bother to test the waters.

There's a true sense and untrue one to his position. We believe there's really no difference: you are estranged Catholics, so come back. He's wrong if like the few "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"* online (they do seem a nearlly wholly convert - Roman Riter changing rites - and online phenomenon) he's saying intercommunion as things are (you don't have to come back) makes sense. There are exceptions, which in a way bear witness to our teaching that our sacraments have grace so sacramentally we're still the same church. In Syria the Melkites and Orthodox are in intercommunion, the only division being the clergy don't concelebrate.

The Slavic born Byzantine Catholics I knew 20 years ago wanted nothing to do with the Orthodox, because of the schisms in America and the Communists in the old country. Understandable but not quite right either.

I think that misunderstanding right after Vatican II made lots of people then think all the "high" churches - Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran - would get back together soon.

*Not to be confused with the kind of Byzantine Catholic who tries to do what Rome says and so is liturgically just like the Orthodox and expresses Catholic theology in Byzantine terms.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2014, 11:25:13 AM »

Peter and Fogey know full well that there is a vast division within Orthodoxy regarding the issue of 'gracelessness' and the Roman Church. and you both know where I and others - more in the real world than those who post online - stand.

Right. You and your jurisdiction mirror us regarding the other church. Because to deny us would be to deny yourselves.

Rome regards us as 'schismatics.' Orthodox either regard Rome in the same manner or some/many regard Rome as 'heretical.'

Correct with the addition that those born into schism aren't personally guilty of schism so at our nicest we don't call born Orthodox schismatics.

My maternal grandfather and my father were both formally 'excommunicated' in writing by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I doubt many others here can say the same, so I will not be accused of 'squishiness' by either Roman or Orthodox apologists.

Cry. That was for disobedience; your side really had no objection to our teachings at the time. That was adopted later to rationalize the schism. It never should have happened; if only our local Roman Riters hadn't been boneheads about the real issue. As I said, we let our own people down, so I understand your side still being mad at the church. But like you said, the healing of memories.

In either case, neither regards the other in any way as 'complete.' Is that so hard to fathom?

No. But my point remains. It's not really about our teachings; it's about your culture, and while that culture is worth defending, the church has the authority to declare which rule on clerical marriage to follow in Western countries. That said, I agree the ruling for America was a mistake, as do byzcath.org and every Greek Catholic your brother works with. We're trying to more than meet you halfway; you've been honest about your jurisdiction's origins as long as I've known you so I think you can meet us halfway (and I don't believe in a squishy branch theory either).

I won't repost it here, but I think what I said on another thread, about a certain Catholic territory-argument that Orthodox don't necessarily buy, is closely related to the highlighted portion.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 11:28:23 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,456



« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2014, 11:36:26 AM »

I only met a Melkite (well, actually an RC that was going to change rites) once that came to my parish and stayed for coffee hour.  He was all about being "orthodox in communion with Rome" and telling the few of us that were there, including our Deacon, that there was no difference and we should all have communion together.  I'm sure he's not wholly representative of all Melkites and other eastern Catholics, but I wasn't going to bother to test the waters.

There's a true sense and untrue one to his position. We believe there's really no difference: you are estranged Catholics, so come back.
And you are wrong in these beliefs. Hence the big difference.

He's wrong if like the few "Orthodox in Communion with Rome"* online (they do seem a nearlly wholly convert - Roman Riter changing rites - and online phenomenon) he's saying intercommunion as things are (you don't have to come back) makes sense. There are exceptions, which in a way bear witness to our teaching that our sacraments have grace so sacramentally we're still the same church. In Syria the Melkites and Orthodox are in intercommunion, the only division being the clergy don't concelebrate.
That is predicated on the Levantines doubts about the Melkites communion with the Vatican-doubts that we don't have, for instance, about the Maronites.
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
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2014, 12:34:53 PM »

Peter, do you mean that the Orthodox say no jurisdiction or bishop can change the universal Orthodox custom on clerical marriage, even though it's not doctrine? I like that approach to customs; celibacy's not a hill I'd die on as I like to say. But we hold the church can make those rules.

ialmisry, of course I know that's what Orthodoxy believes, so it's tactless or ignorant for one of us to breeze into one of your churches and say let's have intercommunion right now. That said, a perennial story in online Catholic/Orthodox fora is for a Catholic to come bounding in like a playful puppy, writing how much he loves Orthodox liturgy, theology, icons, etc., and how much we have in common, only to have the resident Orthodox kick him in the teeth ("Graceless heretic!" etc.). Granted, Catholics are allowed to believe that non-Catholics are going to hell (thank God we don't have to, and after all, we're allowed to venerate your post-schism saints, so there you go), but the difference is striking. Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

Loving "Byzantium" is Catholic. (Granted, a lot of us haven't lived up to that, but it's our teaching.) The church includes Byzantium.

The Orthodox seem rather to worship Byzantium. The church IS Byzantium; everything else is an unknown: could be schismatic, could be graceless heretics, etc. Like I said, the culture's great, but don't make an idol of it.

The Melkites have been around since the 1700s; I imagine everybody in Syria knows the Melkites are Catholics. Syrian Byzantine Christian families identify as Melkite or Orthodox.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 12:38:41 PM by The young fogey » Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,386


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2014, 12:50:38 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous. 
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: 6,109



« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2014, 01:03:11 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous. 

I have to agree with you, Mor.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2014, 01:32:16 PM »

Peter, do you mean that the Orthodox say no jurisdiction or bishop can change the universal Orthodox custom on clerical marriage, even though it's not doctrine? I like that approach to customs; celibacy's not a hill I'd die on as I like to say. But we hold the church can make those rules.

No. (At least that isn't what I was referring to. I'll let Orthodox say whether they believe that or not.)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,58824.msg1139074.html#msg1139074
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,233


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2014, 01:46:35 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous. 

Agreed...and if you (Fogey, not Mor)  posted that over on ByzCath you would get in trouble with their mods!
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2014, 02:05:09 PM »

Gotcha, Peter. It's just a rule, so having two rules isn't a big deal to the church. Of course, if you're in love and you might have a vocation, it is a huge deal!

ByzCath is rather like the aspiring Melkite in hecma925's story and is very "OicwR" ("Orthodox in Communion with Rome"*, too cool in one's mind for either church: Catholic but thumbing one's nose at Rome/snotty view of conservative Catholics, and agreeing with the Orthodox on nearly everything except the one-true-church claim so one doesn't join). Take what you read there with two grains of salt.

*Of course Greek Catholics who are восточный (Eastern-minded) and DO follow the magisterium are, in my view, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" in a true sense, but you know what I mean.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 02:06:30 PM by The young fogey » Logged

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: 37,456



« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2014, 02:08:25 PM »

Peter, do you mean that the Orthodox say no jurisdiction or bishop can change the universal Orthodox custom on clerical marriage, even though it's not doctrine? I like that approach to customs; celibacy's not a hill I'd die on as I like to say. But we hold the church can make those rules.

ialmisry, of course I know that's what Orthodoxy believes, so it's tactless or ignorant for one of us to breeze into one of your churches and say let's have intercommunion right now. That said, a perennial story in online Catholic/Orthodox fora is for a Catholic to come bounding in like a playful puppy, writing how much he loves Orthodox liturgy, theology, icons, etc., and how much we have in common, only to have the resident Orthodox kick him in the teeth ("Graceless heretic!" etc.). Granted, Catholics are allowed to believe that non-Catholics are going to hell (thank God we don't have to, and after all, we're allowed to venerate your post-schism saints, so there you go), but the difference is striking. Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

Loving "Byzantium" is Catholic. (Granted, a lot of us haven't lived up to that, but it's our teaching.) The church includes Byzantium.

The Orthodox seem rather to worship Byzantium. The church IS Byzantium; everything else is an unknown: could be schismatic, could be graceless heretics, etc. Like I said, the culture's great, but don't make an idol of it.

The Melkites have been around since the 1700s; I imagine everybody in Syria knows the Melkites are Catholics. Syrian Byzantine Christian families identify as Melkite or Orthodox.
not really-for one thing, Antioch wouldn't mind a pox on the houses of both Romes.
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
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2014, 02:19:11 PM »

Never heard that before about Antioch. So even though they're now Byzantine Rite (they weren't to begin with?), they're like the Copts in that they don't like Rome OR the Greeks? So maybe they've long been friendly with the Melkites to spite Constantinople ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), rather like the Kyiv Patriarchate cozying up to the Ukrainian Catholics to take a swipe at Moscow?
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2014, 02:32:37 PM »

Gotcha, Peter. It's just a rule, so having two rules isn't a big deal to the church. Of course, if you're in love and you might have a vocation, it is a huge deal!

ByzCath is rather like the aspiring Melkite in hecma925's story and is very "OicwR" ("Orthodox in Communion with Rome"*, too cool in one's mind for either church: Catholic but thumbing one's nose at Rome/snotty view of conservative Catholics, and agreeing with the Orthodox on nearly everything except the one-true-church claim so one doesn't join). Take what you read there with two grains of salt.

*Of course Greek Catholics who are восточный (Eastern-minded) and DO follow the magisterium are, in my view, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" in a true sense, but you know what I mean.

Yes, I know what you mean, but the phrase "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" is a suspicious one in any case. ( I admit to using it at times, but even then I compromise by putting it in quotation marks to make it clear that I'm not actually claiming to be Orthodox.) However fine and dandy it may have originally been, nowadays -- at least on the Internet -- it seems to be most commonly used to silence or undermine the "Orthodox not in communion with Rome".
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2014, 02:42:56 PM »

It's come to mean someone who's really neither Catholic nor Orthodox but is a church unto himself with Byzantine trappings.
Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,248



« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2014, 05:44:15 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous.  

+1

And if the Roman Catholic Church had such a higher view of the Orthodox Churches than the reverse, it wouldn't demonstrate it by corralling its Eastern Catholic brethren into reservations under its Congregation of Indian Affairs Oriental Churches.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 05:50:54 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2014, 06:26:40 PM »

It's come to mean someone who's really neither Catholic nor Orthodox but is a church unto himself with Byzantine trappings.

I can -- perhaps -- understand where you're coming from ...
People who describe themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" often present themselves as neutral or in-between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. A natural response to that is "If you're in between, then you're neither Catholic nor Orthodox." but I think it's even more important to question the in-between-ness.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,386


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2014, 06:39:39 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous.  

+1

And if the Roman Catholic Church had such a higher view of the Orthodox Churches than the reverse, it wouldn't demonstrate it by corralling its Eastern Catholic brethren into reservations under its Congregation of Indian Affairs Oriental Churches.

These are all conveniences for Rome's benefit.  When the Eastern Catholic Churches do something that annoys the Orthodox and the Orthodox complain through the proper channels, the Vatican can put on a pouty face and agree with the Orthodox that they shouldn't have done it and promise that they will give the appropriate people a stern talking to with the hope that things will improve, but with no guarantees since "they're an independent Church in communion with Rome".  When the Eastern Catholic Churches need to fall in line, Rome has no problem forgetting that "independent Church" stuff, flexing its muscles, extending its foot, and requiring a kiss of the slipper. 

That's just part of what makes Young Fogey's comment ridiculous.  It's not that the Orthodox bishops hate the Catholic Church but the Catholics don't hate the Orthodox Church.  The Catholics love whomever they want whenever they want, and they also hate whomever they want whenever they want, starting in their own home and with their own children.  And then they try to teach us about "love".  We know all too well about their "love". 
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
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2014, 07:07:46 PM »

Your churchmen hate the Catholic Church. We don't hate the Orthodox churches.

That's ridiculous.  

+1

And if the Roman Catholic Church had such a higher view of the Orthodox Churches than the reverse, it wouldn't demonstrate it by corralling its Eastern Catholic brethren into reservations under its Congregation of Indian Affairs Oriental Churches.

Being Catholic doesn't mean you have to think the Greek Catholic churches are perfect. As podkarpatska can tell you, we've often fallen short in the treatment of our own people. That said, I wouldn't describe the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the far western Ukraine (most Byzantine Catholics) the Melkite Church in Syria, or, moving beyond Byzantium, the Chaldean Church in Iraq, the country's No. 1 church, bigger than the Nestorians they came from, as Indian reservations.
Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,248



« Reply #113 on: June 13, 2014, 07:13:20 PM »

Being Catholic doesn't mean you have to think the Greek Catholic churches are perfect. As podkarpatska can tell you, we've often fallen short in the treatment of our own people. That said, I wouldn't describe the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the far western Ukraine (most Byzantine Catholics) the Melkite Church in Syria, or, moving beyond Byzantium, the Chaldean Church in Iraq, the country's No. 1 church, bigger than the Nestorians they came from, as Indian reservations.

When their own Synods can be vetoed at will by a Latin-dominated and Latin-run committee, then they're reservations even on their "own turf:"

I can't answer thoroughly, but here's an enlightening quote from Archbishop Zoghby's 1992 A Voice from the Byzantine East:

Quote
Though Vatican II was over years ago, we united Easterners find ourselves exactly where we were before the Council began. We are still governed by what is in effect a super-patriarchate called "the Congregation for the Eastern Churches." All through the conciliar texts we find ourselves being led back, by sly maneuvering and skillful plays on words, to that Eastern pseudo-canon law created and unjustly imposed upon us by that same Curial Congregation. And that very same Roman congregation continues to make itself the sole judge of many things in our Churches including the election of our bishops. Also, it denies our own Greek-Melkite Patriarch and his Synod complete jurisdiction over the emigrant faithful who today constitute the majority of the whole Melkite population. It merely superimposes its veto on any decision emanating from our patriarchal Synod and our will it renders null and void. In fact, nothing important can be decided by us without the agreement of this Curial Congregation!

[...] Wishing to honor the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, the Romans have made them ex officio members of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dropping them into that body which has never had as much as one Eastern member. This is the Congregation that runs the Eastern Churches and only now has it allowed any Easterners even to penetrate its ranks! Since our Patriarchs are now full-fledged members of this Curial dicastery we are expected to be grateful. Yet it takes no genius to uncover the real truth and to see that the vast majority of its members are foreigners - strangers to all that we hold dear - and are from the Latin Church! When this Congregation holds a plenary session to decide a matter pertaining exclusively to one or another Eastern Catholic Patriarchate, it acts as though it were the legally constituted patriarchal Synod, and that the Patriarch responsible for this Patriarchate did not exist. Certainly, the respective Eastern Patriarch is now permitted to cast his ballot as a member of the Eastern Congregation but this is of little avail. What value is his solitary vote against those of some thirty or forty Latin prelates?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 07:13:35 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 13, 2014, 07:59:30 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,233


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 13, 2014, 08:49:16 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

Apples and (not even ) oranges.

Unlike the Greek Catholics who were functioning as Orthodox eparchial units with canonical bishops, priests and laity when they submitted to Rome in the 16th century, WRO is a nascent movement developed by two Orthodox jurisdictions in the 20th century. There was no migration of Roman Catholics with bishops, priests and laity "en masse" becoming WRO Orthodox bringing with them rubrics, liturgies and ecclesiastical structure and representations from the Orthodox regarding self rule  and autonomy.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 13, 2014, 09:05:14 PM »

You might agree with me that partial unions are an accident, not the intent at least now. That's the truth behind things like Balamand. That said, we've got dueling true-church claims and the minority-rite churches have the right to be in peace (because of those respective claims). A reason we agree what the Communists did to your cousins was wrong (besides our true-church claim - not just liberal human-rights stuff). Educated Catholics don't think the Greek Catholics are permanent substitutes for the Orthodox. Orthodox, when they know WRO exists, make like they're the replacement for Catholics, ridiculous on the face of it. Reminds me of the Old Catholics in Holland and Germany in the late 1800s. They thought they were the true continuation of the Catholic Church and ended up just like the Episcopalians with women priests (and inadvertently spawning lots of little "independent Catholic" make-believe churches). That said, WRO is almost a good fit for conservative former Episcopalians who don't accept the Pope.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #117 on: June 13, 2014, 09:12:19 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

I've haven't hesitated to criticize Orthodoxy over WRO issues; but we do need to take into consideration varying circumstances. Consider: would you expect the tiny Bulgarian Catholic Church to behave just like the UGCC?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 13, 2014, 09:16:23 PM »

Bulgaria's story's interesting here. Sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." When they were fighting the Turks for independence, as Orthodox they were under Constantinople as part of the empire, so a number of their churchmen became Catholic to get their own church, not under the empire. Then when the Bulgarian Orthodox broke away (C'ople declared them schismatic until 1946), most of the Bulgarian Catholics went back to the Orthodox. So the Bulgarian Catholic Church's a vestigial thing, probably latinized.
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #119 on: June 13, 2014, 09:21:43 PM »

Being Catholic doesn't mean you have to think the Greek Catholic churches are perfect. As podkarpatska can tell you, we've often fallen short in the treatment of our own people. That said, I wouldn't describe the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the far western Ukraine (most Byzantine Catholics) the Melkite Church in Syria, or, moving beyond Byzantium, the Chaldean Church in Iraq, the country's No. 1 church, bigger than the Nestorians they came from, as Indian reservations.

When their own Synods can be vetoed at will by a Latin-dominated and Latin-run committee, then they're reservations even on their "own turf:"

I can't answer thoroughly, but here's an enlightening quote from Archbishop Zoghby's 1992 A Voice from the Byzantine East:

Quote
Though Vatican II was over years ago, we united Easterners find ourselves exactly where we were before the Council began. We are still governed by what is in effect a super-patriarchate called "the Congregation for the Eastern Churches." All through the conciliar texts we find ourselves being led back, by sly maneuvering and skillful plays on words, to that Eastern pseudo-canon law created and unjustly imposed upon us by that same Curial Congregation. And that very same Roman congregation continues to make itself the sole judge of many things in our Churches including the election of our bishops. Also, it denies our own Greek-Melkite Patriarch and his Synod complete jurisdiction over the emigrant faithful who today constitute the majority of the whole Melkite population. It merely superimposes its veto on any decision emanating from our patriarchal Synod and our will it renders null and void. In fact, nothing important can be decided by us without the agreement of this Curial Congregation!

[...] Wishing to honor the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, the Romans have made them ex officio members of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, dropping them into that body which has never had as much as one Eastern member. This is the Congregation that runs the Eastern Churches and only now has it allowed any Easterners even to penetrate its ranks! Since our Patriarchs are now full-fledged members of this Curial dicastery we are expected to be grateful. Yet it takes no genius to uncover the real truth and to see that the vast majority of its members are foreigners - strangers to all that we hold dear - and are from the Latin Church! When this Congregation holds a plenary session to decide a matter pertaining exclusively to one or another Eastern Catholic Patriarchate, it acts as though it were the legally constituted patriarchal Synod, and that the Patriarch responsible for this Patriarchate did not exist. Certainly, the respective Eastern Patriarch is now permitted to cast his ballot as a member of the Eastern Congregation but this is of little avail. What value is his solitary vote against those of some thirty or forty Latin prelates?

I remember that one.  Ouch, Abp. Zoghby gives em' the ol' one-two. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #120 on: June 13, 2014, 09:23:26 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

I've haven't hesitated to criticize Orthodoxy over WRO issues; but we do need to take into consideration varying circumstances. Consider: would you expect the tiny Bulgarian Catholic Church to behave just like the UGCC?

When have they behaved like that? 
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,248



« Reply #121 on: June 13, 2014, 09:33:54 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

And this, despite ignoring that they're not analogous bodies, justifies the complete subjugation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Synod and all?

You might agree with me that partial unions are an accident, not the intent at least now. That's the truth behind things like Balamand. That said, we've got dueling true-church claims and the minority-rite churches have the right to be in peace (because of those respective claims). A reason we agree what the Communists did to your cousins was wrong (besides our true-church claim - not just liberal human-rights stuff). Educated Catholics don't think the Greek Catholics are permanent substitutes for the Orthodox. Orthodox, when they know WRO exists, make like they're the replacement for Catholics, ridiculous on the face of it. Reminds me of the Old Catholics in Holland and Germany in the late 1800s. They thought they were the true continuation of the Catholic Church and ended up just like the Episcopalians with women priests (and inadvertently spawning lots of little "independent Catholic" make-believe churches). That said, WRO is almost a good fit for conservative former Episcopalians who don't accept the Pope.

And what does any of this have to do with pod's point that they're not analogous bodies?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,233


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 13, 2014, 09:42:23 PM »

You might agree with me that partial unions are an accident, not the intent at least now. That's the truth behind things like Balamand. That said, we've got dueling true-church claims and the minority-rite churches have the right to be in peace (because of those respective claims). A reason we agree what the Communists did to your cousins was wrong (besides our true-church claim - not just liberal human-rights stuff). Educated Catholics don't think the Greek Catholics are permanent substitutes for the Orthodox. Orthodox, when they know WRO exists, make like they're the replacement for Catholics, ridiculous on the face of it. Reminds me of the Old Catholics in Holland and Germany in the late 1800s. They thought they were the true continuation of the Catholic Church and ended up just like the Episcopalians with women priests (and inadvertently spawning lots of little "independent Catholic" make-believe churches). That said, WRO is almost a good fit for conservative former Episcopalians who don't accept the Pope.

Hogwash.  That is an absurd assertion. Most Orthodox either don't know WRO exists and, in my experience, a majority of those who do, don't take it particularly seriously.
 
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #123 on: June 13, 2014, 09:55:19 PM »

Quote
And this, despite ignoring that they're not analogous bodies, justifies the complete subjugation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Synod and all?

Not at all. As I wrote earlier, we have lots of room for improvement.

Quote
Hogwash.  That is an absurd assertion. Most Orthodox either don't know WRO exists and, in my experience, a majority of those who do, don't take it particularly seriously.

Actually we agree. I think those who do know it exists don't take it particularly seriously probably not out of any regard for us but because of anti-Westernism.

The church is at its best when it is the Church Local, run by custom. Simpatico with Orthodoxy. The thing is, your culture, while a good thing, is not co-terminous with the church. Maybe believing or at least acting like it is, is why Orthodoxy hits a wall in America with the third generation after the immigrants; the culture's gone so they leave. In droves. It also relates to your objection to the cult of Russia. In the Russian myth, their culture IS the church.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #124 on: June 13, 2014, 10:08:42 PM »

Quote
Hogwash.  That is an absurd assertion. Most Orthodox either don't know WRO exists and, in my experience, a majority of those who do, don't take it particularly seriously.

Actually we agree. I think those who do know it exists don't take it particularly seriously probably not out of any regard for us but because of anti-Westernism.

Agreed, but your original statement, that

Orthodox, when they know WRO exists, make like they're the replacement for Catholics, 

is still "hogwash". As a matter of fact, I think it is far more common for Catholics to speak of ECism as a replacement for Orthodoxy  Roll Eyes (that is, in fact, the way "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is usually used on the Catholic forum that I have spent the most time on).
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #125 on: June 13, 2014, 10:10:54 PM »

Quote
Hogwash.  That is an absurd assertion. Most Orthodox either don't know WRO exists and, in my experience, a majority of those who do, don't take it particularly seriously.

Actually we agree. I think those who do know it exists don't take it particularly seriously probably not out of any regard for us but because of anti-Westernism.

Agreed, but your original statement, that

Orthodox, when they know WRO exists, make like they're the replacement for Catholics,  

is still "hogwash". As a matter of fact, I think it is far more common for Catholics to speak of ECism as a replacement for Orthodoxy  Roll Eyes (that is, in fact, the way "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is usually used on the Catholic forum that I have spent the most time on).

I agree that's ****. Sounds like what I've heard about CAF. I never go there.

Partially veiled obscenity removed  -PtA
 
You are receiving this 14-day warning for obscenity. Remember that even partially veiled versions of forbidden words are forbidden. If you think this action wrong, please appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 01:29:39 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #126 on: June 13, 2014, 10:16:56 PM »

Sounds like what I've heard about CAF. I never go there.

More of a de-caf guy?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #127 on: June 13, 2014, 10:18:10 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

I've haven't hesitated to criticize Orthodoxy over WRO issues; but we do need to take into consideration varying circumstances. Consider: would you expect the tiny Bulgarian Catholic Church to behave just like the UGCC?

When have they behaved like that? 

I don't entirely understand the question, but basically my point was that one cannot expect the Bulgarian Catholic Church, the Macedonian Catholic Church, the Albanian Catholic Church, etc to be just like the UGCC, since the circumstances are very different. Likewise I think Serge's comparison with the WRO was a bit unfair -- not that I'm proposing a WRO-EO double standard, but that the circumstances are different. (Although if someone made a comparison between, say, WRO and the Albanian Catholic Church, I wouldn't find said comparison so objectionable ... although I don't think I've ever heard that comparison anyhow.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #128 on: June 13, 2014, 10:41:53 PM »

The Western Rite Orthodox don't have countries where they're the majority nor synods of their own.

I've haven't hesitated to criticize Orthodoxy over WRO issues; but we do need to take into consideration varying circumstances. Consider: would you expect the tiny Bulgarian Catholic Church to behave just like the UGCC?

When have they behaved like that? 

I don't entirely understand the question, but basically my point was that one cannot expect the Bulgarian Catholic Church, the Macedonian Catholic Church, the Albanian Catholic Church, etc to be just like the UGCC, since the circumstances are very different. Likewise I think Serge's comparison with the WRO was a bit unfair -- not that I'm proposing a WRO-EO double standard, but that the circumstances are different. (Although if someone made a comparison between, say, WRO and the Albanian Catholic Church, I wouldn't find said comparison so objectionable ... although I don't think I've ever heard that comparison anyhow.)

Understood, and I appreciate your candor.  I don't know any WRO people who feel that they are a replacement for Rome, as young fogey suggests.  Most that I know are simply people who are doctrinally in line with Orthodoxy and want to practice western rites approved by the Orthodox Church because it is closer to their hearts.  The Synods of 1838, 1848, and 1895 of Constantinople all approved of the usage of the Roman Rite within the Orthodox Church (among others, including Mozarabitic and Gallican), and the Moscow Synod approved of the usage of the modified Anglican rite. 

The reason why some Orthodox patriarchates are against western rites is because beating the drum against ErCs is without any hint of a double standard if we didn't have "western rite" practice at all.   And you are correct, the WRO is not comparable to the UGCC or the Melkites, but rather more to the Bulgarians or Albanian ErCs.   
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #129 on: June 13, 2014, 10:53:10 PM »

Well thank you.

The reason why some Orthodox patriarchates are against western rites is because beating the drum against ErCs is without any hint of a double standard if we didn't have "western rite" practice at all.   

Indeed one of the things that bother me most is that many Orthodox appear to reject anything that's even slightly similar to uniatism ... a kind of guilt-by-association as it were.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #130 on: June 13, 2014, 10:56:48 PM »

Well thank you.

The reason why some Orthodox patriarchates are against western rites is because beating the drum against ErCs is without any hint of a double standard if we didn't have "western rite" practice at all.   

Indeed one of the things that bother me most is that many Orthodox appear to reject anything that's even slightly similar to uniatism ... a kind of guilt-by-association as it were.

Witnessing in a backhanded way to something I believe, that partial unions aren't the goal. Our hosts' hardliners have a point that, because of our dueling true-church claims, ecumenism is zero-sum. One side would join the other. The thing is making sure it wouldn't be like those mergers where one brand eventually goes away. That's not what we teach about the East.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,109



« Reply #131 on: June 13, 2014, 11:35:09 PM »

Our hosts' hardliners have a point that, because of our dueling true-church claims, ecumenism is zero-sum. One side would join the other. The thing is making sure it wouldn't be like those mergers where one brand eventually goes away. That's not what we teach about the East.

Yes, in the sense that you clearly mean. But, of course, in another sense the big problem was precisely that some (Catholics anyhow) saw it as zero-sum, thus justifying proselytism/uniatism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,456



« Reply #132 on: June 14, 2014, 12:23:44 AM »

Well thank you.

The reason why some Orthodox patriarchates are against western rites is because beating the drum against ErCs is without any hint of a double standard if we didn't have "western rite" practice at all.  

Indeed one of the things that bother me most is that many Orthodox appear to reject anything that's even slightly similar to uniatism ... a kind of guilt-by-association as it were.

Witnessing in a backhanded way to something I believe, that partial unions aren't the goal. Our hosts' hardliners have a point that, because of our dueling true-church claims, ecumenism is zero-sum. One side would join the other. The thing is making sure it wouldn't be like those mergers where one brand eventually goes away. That's not what we teach about the East.
only in our lifetime. And not all of you.
the lip service, that is.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 12:24:12 AM by ialmisry » 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: 6,109



« Reply #133 on: June 14, 2014, 08:12:48 AM »

Well thank you.

The reason why some Orthodox patriarchates are against western rites is because beating the drum against ErCs is without any hint of a double standard if we didn't have "western rite" practice at all.   

Indeed one of the things that bother me most is that many Orthodox appear to reject anything that's even slightly similar to uniatism ... a kind of guilt-by-association as it were.

Witnessing in a backhanded way to something I believe, that partial unions aren't the goal. Our hosts' hardliners have a point that, because of our dueling true-church claims, ecumenism is zero-sum. One side would join the other. The thing is making sure it wouldn't be like those mergers where one brand eventually goes away. That's not what we teach about the East.
only in our lifetime.

Indeed. This is not your grandfather's Catholic-Orthodox relations.

(Or should I say "Vatican-Orthodox relations"?)
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #134 on: June 14, 2014, 08:18:44 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.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 08:20:52 AM by The young fogey » 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 0.17 seconds with 71 queries.