www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Seeking an End to the ‘Scandalous Disunity’ Between East and West

'Tis a scary world, out there, though!

Maybe we're trying to say the same thing here. Again I hold that the church teaches that a Catholic may not condemn the use of images, calling it idolatrous. "How and how much" seems to mean the same thing as "the option of using images."

If you really think the Catholic Church is only "the Roman Communion" and that the Orthodox shouldn't be in it, then you're in but not of the church. "The Roman Communion": takes me back to my Anglican origins. "The Rrrrromans." Part snobbery, part "hey, we're Catholic too."

Western Orthodoxy is small because despite the Orthodox' doctrine being as universal in its claims as ours, in their hearts the Orthodox don't want it. It's small, many new communities are pressured into switching to Byzantine, and even those who don't switch have byzantinized themselves. To be Orthodox is to be Byzantine, just as it would be if the Orthodox came back to the church. Some say Western Orthodoxy's failure is a backhanded recognition of us. In a way you can say the same of small experimental Greek Catholic communities such as the Greek and the Russian: God's plan is to bring the real churches of Greece and Russia back to the church, not have us set up imitations. So in a way I understand the modern ecumenists' no to "Uniatism." We passively accept conversions from the Orthodox (as Fr. Serge Keleher told me, "quietly"); we don't solicit them. And that's fine.

That was understood from "the Orthodox have all the sacraments" and "the Protestants have some sacraments."

The PNCC has all the sacraments; the church doesn't recognize the Anglicans' "Dutch touch" claim, which the ELCA Lutherans now share. Makes the Christian East's point about orders being in the church being at least as important as a claim to apostolic succession.

Answering Alex's long post: "Sort of."

The Ukrainians were under some duress (harassed by the Poles); other groups have come into the church on their own, and don't forget how big the Ukrainian Catholic Church originally was. In the beginning, it included most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. As you note, westward tsarist expansion shrank it.

My understanding of the 1800s Easternizers in that region from reading Cyril Korolevsky's Metropolitan Andrew (translated by Keleher) is that it wasn't so much a Russian plot (although coercing the people to become Orthodox was meant to serve the Russian state, just like when Stalin did it in Galicia and Ruthenia right after WWII) but rather like many Greek Catholic converts we've seen online the past 20 years. Men like Siemaszko, a priest, tried to be good unlatinized Greek Catholics, were massively opposed in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, got fed up and 'doxed, which made the naysayers say "See? He wasn't a good Catholic after all."

When I bring up the true-church claims, it isn't just to promote Catholicism but, believe it or not, out of respect for what Orthodoxy teaches about itself.

I object to the painting-by-numbers caricature of Catholic trads. Educated ones knew about the Christian East and what the church teaches about it. Plus, after Vatican II, there's been an "ecumenism of the trenches" as conservative Roman Riters have found either a refuge or a new home, depending on what the person is called to, in Eastern Catholic parishes. For example, my first traditional Catholic liturgy, 30 years ago, was Ukrainian.

You're changing the subject a bit, though I can't really object since this is what it boils down to isn't it: we can endlessly say "The Catholic Church is only us." and they can endlessly respond "No the Catholic Church is only us." But I like to think that that isn't the sum total of the dialogue between us.

Dear Fogey,

First of all, let me say that it is just GREAT to have you here leading this forum debate with your articulate comments and insights! Reminds one of the good old days on this forum!

My comment about Catholic trads was a general one aimed at some online trads (and I was one a forum with a lot of them at one point) who demonstrated their "innocence" of Eastern Church anything. Certainly, there were and are educated/intelligent traditionalist RC's who are very conversant with the EC Churches. But even these would have views about the EC traditions which would be coloured by a certain Roman triumphalism in some cases.

For other Latin Trads, EC Churches were never "Churches" at all (and because Vatican II affirmed their Particular character, this made the whole enterprise extremely suspect in their eyes). Instead, they talked about Eastern Rites, giving the impression that EC's were Roman Catholics with a specific set of exterior rituals and liturgical traditions - that is all. For Latin Trads, "One Church" meant the old RC view that suggested the entire world was one great Diocese with the Pope as its Primatial Bishop.

Those Latin Trads who came into the EC Churches after the liturgical changes in the West, did so for reasons that were not all good. Nor was there impact on the life of the local EC parish all that good either.

Just when the EC Churches, and especially the UGCC, were "coming into their own" and claiming their Particular rights, the Latin Trads saw the EC's as "ritual allies" who maintained not only the same Catholic Faith, but, and this is where the problems crept in, the Latin mode of expressing it.

When it came to the Latin Trads that I've come into contact with at the EC parish level, they weren't about to let EC's "get conned" by the new Vatican II theology/ecclesiology - not realizing the distinction between what Vatican II taught (and it did accept a lot of Eastern theological terminology) and what was always the authentic theological/canonical/liturgical expression of the East.

It came as a great surprise to them that EC's were, for the most part, actually breathing a sigh of relief with the exit of what was formerly a suffocating, Roman ecclesial monolith.

Prior to Vatican II, the idea that Rome had always accepted the "Eastern rites" as equal to the Latin Rite was, of course, nonsense. I've EC trebnyks and other liturgical books published in the 19th century which include telling prescripts. In one Trebnyk from 1893, there is a section that says that while EC's may always approach Communion in an RC Church - not so for RC's (sic).

Even before that, two local RC synods in Eastern Europe (written up by the Ukrainian Basilian author Fr. Ireney Nazarko in his book "Kyivan and Galician Metropolitans") established rules that forbade Latin Catholics from ever adopting "corrupting" Eastern practices from the EC's. One synod mentioned by Nazarko even went so far to say the Eastern Catholics/Uniates were "worse than the Orthodox" because of their local influence on, for example, Latin seminarians who were seen to adopt certain Eastern practices, including beards and long-sleeved cassocks (not to mention, horrors, three-bar Crosses!).

Roman Catholic bishops in Europe demonstrated throughout the post World War II period that they had no qualms about not only "Latinizing" the EC immigrants but, in reality, seriously attempting to integrate them within the RC Church.

In the book about Bl. New Hieromartyr Basil Velichkovsky C.Ss.R. that our Redemptorists published, Bl. Basil mentioins several instances of RC bishops telling him that the "Holy Father is making a grave mistake by trying to spread the Unia" since the Uniates continue with their "schismatic rituals" (meaning the three-fingered Sign of the Cross etc.).

However, that is all from the perspective of a specific group of Latin Trads (a priest I know has done a great job of integrating his large group of Latin Trad parishioners and turned them into real Ukrainian "nationalist" as he says :)). They have learned to sing the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian as well . . . Latin, Ukrainian - what's the difference?

As for Ukrainian Catholic historiography - it is not without its problems, the main one being that it tends to be highly uncritical of its own view of itself. And when there are Ukrainian Catholics of a highly Eastern perspective who venture to critique traditional UGCC histories today, such as one theologian whose critique I translated for publication, they are often set upon by UGCC "Trads" who regardd them as "traitors" which, from the UGCC perspective, means they are both disloyal to Rome AND pro-Russian - which is, of course, nonsense.

For certain, if not all, Latin Trads who came into the UGCC, the way politics and culture were intertwined with religion was beyond their comprehension and/or appreciation. It is for many within the UGCC as well. Again, I'm not saying trying to characterize all Latin Trads, only those who entered our parishes in this eparchy. It is a view based on observation and experience over forty years and I've done sociological papers on this in university as well.

As for Father Keleher (+ memory eternal!), even though he was an ardent Irish nationalist who theoretically understood the relation between religion and politics/culture, he became a very controversial figure in our eparchy when he was here.

Yes, he was a Russian Greek-Catholic, who had returned to Rome after a dalliance with Orthodoxy. Our eparch, Bishop Isidore Borecky (+ memory eternal!) appreciated him very much and learned much from him about Eastern traditions - as did I and many others. But he was truly and unfortunately "persona non grata" in the eparchy as felt by many. I am very sad about that history, he was treated unjustly. I am very happy that someone of strong Ukrainian as well as Greek Catholic roots as my late father were very warm towards him, always insisting that he stay longer at our house for coffee and cake when he wanted to leave earlier, perhaps because he felt uncomfortable thinking that "any time now" someone was going to say something to him.

I think I'll now go and say an akathist for the reposed for him or something.

Alex

I really hope that theologian is not Mikola Krokash, that you state is being refused ordination by his bishop. It is a pathetic shame, if this is the case due to his speaking the truth. The man is a PhD in Eastern Theology, our Churches could use more like him.

Alex:

Christ is in our midst!!

I had a discussion about this sort of thing with my spiritual father not long ago. His opinion was that those who pass up God-given gifts should be very wary because there will come a day when Someone will ask why. On the other hand, he ought to think of himself as being delivered from the hands of such a small-minded individual.

It seems to me, in general terms, that one only gets to be a bishop if he represents the most extreme positions in his Church. One who has a more nuanced view of things or who speaks the truth to authority is not likely to be asked to join the ranks--whether bishop or one of his delegates.

Bob

Yes sir, Dr Mykola Krokosh indeed! It is obvious our Churches can use more astute individuals like yourself too!

Alex

Dear Bob,

Very well said and you bring up an excellent point. I don't know if Dr Krokosh can be said to represent an extreme view (quite possibly).

The UGCC has always had all kinds of views on all manner of subjects in the past e.g. the Epiclesis. There are those who deny it has any direct role in the Eucharistic Canon, those who say it plays the entire role and those who are in-between.

I don't know. Alex

The bishop may well be persecuting Dr. Krokash but is this subject really appropriate for a Christian forum? Seems to slide into gossip. I don't know the bishop or this gentleman. It seems if he is being treated unfairly, this Internet talk would make it worse.

Anyway, sorry to blow this thread farther from its topic, but while I understand that the ignorant, rude Latin trad is a favorite stock character here, it's never been my experience, particularly knowing Slavic Greek Catholics in person 20-30 years ago. I've found them friendly and "chill," only going as far as nicely correcting you if you call them Russian or Orthodox.

I've also known Roman Rite refugees as well as those who've made Byzantium their home, both at ethnic latinized parishes and ones that are very Orthodox (often run by priests trained literally in Rome); none has tried to impose. For example, I've met former SSPX parishioners at an "Orthodox" parish that is a local conservative Catholic magnet.

My guess is you're more likely to find hyperdox hermans in training, the kind of newbie convert fresh from reading Ware, Schmemann, et al., who maybe wants to be a good unlatinized Greek Catholic but 1) like many newbies is tactless and overdoes it, since it's not natural to him (yet) and 2) is massively opposed by the born ethnic members both for historical/cultural reasons (they chose exile over state-pushed Orthodoxy, so their latinizations are dear to them; to them it's part of their being Catholic) and because of 1). The person usually gets fed up and leaves, becoming a real hyperdox herman online for at least a couple of years before settling down or burning out. A type you see disproportionately online; probably rare in the real world but they're out there. I'll concede the same can be true of unpleasant trads.

Anyway, the online sport of putting down trads makes one seem snobbish, that one's churchgoing is a hobby: the few, the cool, the Byzantine; the great unwashed "Romans" can keep their distance. Rather like Orthodox anti-Westernism. Never my experience of born Eastern Catholics in real life.

I read in [i]Metropolitan Andrew[/i] that once there was no literal intercommunion between the Roman Rite and the Eastern ones; unity was only at the top as the patriarchs and Ukrainian major archbishop answered to Rome. (I'm fine with the Ukrainian one being a patriarch; just using his official title here.) If I recall rightly, Sheptytsky had to get permission to commune his Roman Rite parents at his first Mass and couldn't even use the Byzantine hosts he consecrated, giving them Roman Rite ones from a Roman Rite Mass.

Dear Fogey,

I fear you've misunderstood my comments completely as it was not my intention to engage in any online sport attacking traditionalnist Roman Catholics.

From my vantage point, two things: First, to be "critical" is not the same as "to criticize" in a negative way. Secondly, my comments drew on my own experiences (which present a partial and personal perspective limited to my own eparchy) and on EC historical commentary on "monolithic Rome" in the past.

If I came across as wanting to negatively criticize for the sake of such, I apologise to you and to anyone else I have offended.

I withdraw myself from this thread to avoid further offense.

Thank you for the privilege of conversing with you here.

Alex

Alex:

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you missed fogey's point. I don't think it was necessary to mention the gentleman who may or may not be having trouble with his bishop. Mentioning a story or problem on the internet is like carving a piece of granite--it's there forever and can be found by anyone looking for it.

That's why so many people get into trouble with their job searches--they think that things don't get found by employers, banks, credit agencies, and others who use the material they find to make employment, lending, and other decisions.

May I suggest that we leave personal stories out of these threads if they can harm someone. It's one thing if the gentleman had brought up his own story and decried his treatment, but it's quite another when we can harm another who may not want his problems aired.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Point taken!

In fact, this fellow's story is well publicized on the Ukrainian language internet including criticisms of his views and criticisms of me for being associated with him.

So that ship has has sailed quite a while ago.

(And I did get Fogey's point, but should have explained myself.)

Too bad I messed up so terribly - was actually enjoying this discussion! Now I'm afraid to participate for fear of screwing up again.

I'll take the advice of a colleague here and bow out for a while!

All the best!

Alex

And I've happily and proudly never considered myself a convert to Catholicism, but simply translated. I have maintained all my essential Orthodoxy as a Catholic.

Blessings