www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Drawn to Orthodoxy????

Hi everyone,

Was hoping to get some feedback on a spiritual mini-crisis I've been going through:

I've been unofficially Byzantine Catholic for almost a year now, and love it!

However, lately, I've been feeling drawn to Orthodoxy. "Why," you may ask, "would you want to go Orthodox, when you have the spirituality of Orthodoxy in the truth of Catholicism?"

Well, I don't think my reasons are actually good ones, and there's the problem. Right now, I feel like an amphibian, between Catholicism and Orthodoxy-- and I have more in common with the Orthodox than I do with Roman Catholics. It's like standing on a bridge, and I really don't like the feeling.

However, I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, and that Christians are supposed to be in communion with the See of Peter.

So intellectually, I can't leave the Church I know was founded by Christ, but emotionally and spiritually, I'm SO tempted to become Orthodox... head vs. heart.

Has any other Byzantine Catholics here experienced this? Any advice or prayers would be greatly appreciated.

Christ is among us!

Karen

[However, I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, and that Christians are supposed to be in communion with the See of Peter.]

If you believe what you state above, then you answer your own question. Stay where you are.

OrthoMan

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think I can very much sympathize with being drawn to Orthodoxy. It is like walking a tight rope, or being stuck between two divorced parents. There are times you feel you are going crazy, that you have a split personality. I have my "Latin" mode, and my "Byzantine" mode, and at times it is very hard to juggle them. The natural temptation is to throw oneself to one side and forget the other. But life is often never that easy.
The thing that has helped me most was talking to former Orthodox who have entered into communion with Rome. They can tell you things are not rosier on the other side of the ecclesial divide. Sure, Orthodox ceremonies look like heaven, but you have to get behind the appearances and go to their profound being. As it is written in the Imitation of Christ, location has often deceived many in the spiritual life. You will always be yourself wherever you are in terms of ecclesiology, and so will everybody else. If you take this under consideration, maybe you will realize that where you are is the best place for you.
So I like, in the end, being divided. Even if the Orthodox treat me like some weirdo who is trying to be like them without being them, and thus treat me with distrust, for the time being I can do nothing about it, and I will enjoy being "Orthodox-lite", a Latin in a riassa. At this point, it's not between me and them anyway, it's between me and God.

Arturo

Are you talking of the reality of Orthodox Church politics (which exist in ANY Faith) or something wrong with with the Nature of Orthodoxy itself??

Politics.

Karen,

The fact that you are feeling drawn to Orthodoxy is a sign that you are becoming "one of us," for real.

I experienced this draw myself several years ago, with great intensity. I was advised by a certain subdeacon that ALL Eastern Catholics should experience a draw toward Orthodoxy, or else something is wrong. Although we are in communion with Rome, the Orthodox Church is our mother Church, from which we came, and we are supposed to feel a longing for her.

At any rate, I made no hasty decisions and remained in Eastern Catholicism. Today I know that I belong exactly where I am, and have no plans to ever become Orthodox. Yet where I am is admittedly NOT comfortable. The draw toward Orthodoxy never vanishes, because it is in reality the draw toward the fulness of our Eastern Christian tradition.

Christianity is not supposed to be comfortable. It is possible for Roman Catholics to feel comfortable with their separation from Orthodoxy, for most of them aren't even consciously aware that the Orthodox exist. Likewise, it is possible for Orthodox Christians to become comfortable with their separation from Rome. But for us Eastern Catholics, we must live day in and day out with the discomfort of being separated from our mother Church. And this discomfort is the work of God, for it compels us to work toward unity.

Being Eastern Catholic isn't easy. It is full of frustration, disappointments, and hardship. But somewhere within this is the cross of Jesus Christ. We get to share in a taste of the pain that Christ feels over the disunity of his disciples.

And as for those Eastern Catholics who feel NO draw toward Orthodoxy, may God mercifully spare us from the damage that they can do.

Anthony

Mr. Dragani,

This is very, very astute! I definitely agree with this. No draw toward the other church = no draw toward unity (unless one defines "unity" submission of one tradition to another, which it is not).

Logos Teen

dear Karen:

Of course you feel drawn to Orthodox.

WE ARE ORTHODOX!

We are the Orthodox...the Orthodox-in-Communion-with-Rome, that is!

Of course we have more in common with the Orthodox than with Roman Catholics! That's just because....we ARE Orthodox! As Archimandrite Robert Taft says, except for our being in Communion with Rome, we should be in all of our Christian life, basically Orthodox.

We are not a hybrid of both, or as 1 Forum poster put it "Roman Catholics with a different Mass". We are not supposed to be "half and half", or some sort of ecclesiastical "third way".

Rather, we are 1 (Orthodox) and as well, in communion with the other (Latin Church & Armenian & Maronite & etc. Catholic Churches)

That communion with the Catholic family (and all the various churches therein {e.g. Syrian, Chaldean, Ethiopian, Coptic, Latin, etc.), as symbolised via the Bishop of Rome is very precious to us. Indeed working toward full church unity is very precious to us.

And we, despite our unworthiness, have been graced with a very unique and privileged position and vocation of being "Orthodox in communion with Rome". And it is not easy to be in the Catholic Communion without being swallowed or absorbed either entirely or partially by the Latin Church and its theology and spirituality, nor is it easy to be Orthodox and not be in Communion with our mother Churches.

Of course it's an uncomfortable position to be in at times. I personally think that that uncomfortability is a great grace. We are the "burr in the saddle" that disturbs each Communion's self sufficiency.

that's my experience of it, anyways.

Welcome to the holy struggle!

Herb

[WE ARE ORTHODOX!

We are the Orthodox...the Orthodox-in-Communion-with-Rome, that is!]

Herb: Using the same criteria you use to claim you are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'...then I guess you disagree with those within Latin & Eastern Rite Catholicism who claim the Anglican Church is not Catholic but Protestant. And you would have no objection if they started to call themselves 'Catholics In Communion With The Archbishop of Canterbury'?

After all, the criteria is the same. Your mother church is the Orthodox Church which your church left mainly for political reasons. The Anglican Church similiarly has the Roman Catholic Church as their mother which they also left mainly for political reasons. And the ritual in the High Anglican Church is very similiar to that of their mother. And dogma seems to be placed behind ritual.

OrthoMan

Yes, I do believe that some of them do believe and sincerely try to be Catholics (in Communion with Canterbury). Of course not all claim or want to be "Angle-Catholics".

I would support all their efforts to be AS CATHOLIC as Possible - in theology, spirituality, church discipline, etc.

And if they need any help, I am sure that members of the Forum and all "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" would be more than willing to assist - even though we not be assisting them into our Church (i.e. the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome).

I wish them well and pray for them in this difficult time in their church's life. I pray that they would have the consolation of God's love and the courage to stand for God's truth - i.e. I pray that they may be truly Catholic in faith - even though they may not be in Communion with their mother church (our Sister Church).

Herb

SaintClare, See my post to you in "Byzantine Evanglization what do we do thread?".

Dear Herb,

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a darn good answer!

Would that more Orthodox brethren would begin to see US not as imposters or traders but as brothers tyring to be faithful to our common Tradition in the Church Providence has placed us in. Bishop Kallistos talk "Eastern Catholics: Problem or Opportunity" comes to mind here. Thanks for what was to me a brilliant insight into the mind of Christ.

Dear SaintClare74,

I like the question you have reaised becuase I too have/are experiencing very similar feelings. I'm also glad you asked becuase I (as I trust is true for you) have benefited greatly from the answers you have received. Anthony Dragani, whom I greatly esteem, has been especially beneficial to me (as well as Herb).

The schism to me IS like a divorce. Being a child of divorced parents, I know what its like. No matter which parent you think is more right, you still love them both with all your heart. And you want more than anything to see them back together in one happy family again.

Good topic.

Your brother trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Is this available on-line?

Dear everyone,

Thank you very much for your replies-- all of your advice has been very good! I have no plans to leave the Catholic Church. I adore my parish, and have made many wonderful friends there.

Some of you brought up a great point-- that we're not supposed to feel "comfortable", and that although our position isn't easy, it's a real blessing. It's so easy to forget that hardship and suffering can be GOOD for us.

I'm also gratified to learn that I'm not the only one who's going through this! I guess it's something I just have to "deal with"-- very much like having divorced parents, which is a wonderful analogy.

God bless you all!

Karen

Thank you Karen, for bringing all of this to light.

My struggle parallels yours, and I have gained a lot of solace from the well reasoned posts on this thread.

Bless you all

Herb writes:

[Yes, I do believe that some of them do believe and sincerely try to be Catholics (in Communion with Canterbury). Of course not all claim or want to be "Angle-Catholics".]

Your answer is very well written and thought out. However, you are evading the question so I will rephrase it -

Based on the same criteria you use to justify identifying yourself as 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome', do you agree with those in the Anglican Church who claim they are still part of the Catholic Church? Who could also use the same criteria as you do to identify themselves as 'Catholics In Communion With The Archbishop Of Canterbury'? A simple yes or no will suffice.

OrthoMan

Actually Bob, you, not Herb, listed the criteria.
In any case your analogy has a flaw. We maintained communion with one of the Apostolic Sees. The Anglicans did not. They are thus more akin to HOCNA, RoCiE, ROCA, ...

I�m not sure about the point Bob is trying to make. It is my opinion that the example he offers would only work if applied to the Anglican Church in 1534. King Henry VIII did not seek to change the tenants of the Catholic Church but only wanted a Church recognized divorced so that a male heir could legitimately ascend the throne after him. On other theological points Henry VIII was actually a staunch Catholic and, in general, disapproved of both Martin Luther and Protestantism. Bob�s example does not work today because the Church of England has pretty much ceased to adhere to Catholic Teaching (even if one compares it only to 1534).

Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.).

Administrator wrote:

Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.). [/QB][/QUOTE]

This is interesting.

james

James,

I can�t think of a congregation of Roman Catholics that has broken with Rome and entered into communion with one of the other ancient Patriarchates. There are, however, a number of Western parishes that have broken with other Churches (mostly the Anglican Church) who have established communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchates.

Like in Catholicism there is a bit of a terminology issue here. �Anglicans in Communion with Antioch� is a bit of a mouthful just as �Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome� is a mouthful. Most simply call themselves �Western Orthodox� (just like we call ourselves �Byzantine Catholic�). It is usually best to respect individuals and call them what they call themselves.

Admin

[Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.).]

If a group of RCs broke with Rome and came under the EP, they would not do so as RCs but as Orthodox newly received through christmation into the Orthodox Faith renouncing all former errors...which of course means the dogmas of purgatory and all those related to RC theology. They would therefore, after renouncing RC theology and dogma, and accepting Orthodox theology and dogma would no longer be RC and therefore it would be wrong to call them RCs in communion with Constantinople. Within valid Orthodoxy one doesn't get to pick and choose what one believes. Nor does one get to reinterpret or definite it in a western mode.

As I have quoted previously St Paul instructs us in I Corinthians 1:10 (Caps are mine)

Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

Doctrines like Filioque and Purgatory are non negotiable. That's what it means to be Orthodox which most of you have yet to understand.

If you all consider yourselves Orthodox that means you do not and can not accept the RC theology and dogma in its entirety and therefore should not be "under" Rome (which being 'In Communion' with Rome means).

It's all very simple!

OrthoMan

[Like in Catholicism there is a bit of a terminology issue here. �Anglicans in Communion with Antioch� is a bit of a mouthful just as �Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome� is a mouthful.]

And 'rthodox In Communion With Rome' isn't?

Orthoman

I love it every time you post this, Bob. :rolleyes:
Must've gotten this from your participation on the Indiana list.

Theotokos rotted in the grave or not?
Tollhouses or not?
New Calendar is uncanonical/heretical or not?

Perhaps you would like to rephrase so that you are saying something not obviously incompatible with reality.

What goes on in Western rite Orthodoxy? Or are you saying that this is invalid?

Brothers,


What's amazing to me is that ALL these things are the things that I struggled with personally before I became Orthodox. I guess I was wasn't as hard in myself as we are on each other........ I reached the conclusion Orthoman did.....not everyone does.


Peace all
Michael

[Theotokos rotted in the grave or not?]

The Theotokos died and was buried. Christ came down to take her soul into heaven. As you will see him on every Orthodox Icon of the Dormition standing near her body holding an infant that represents her soul.

Tradition tells us that Thomas arrived about three days later and wanted to venerate her body. When they opened the tomb her body was gone and a flower stood where it was. Orthodox believe her body was assumed into heaven but it was a separate event from her Dormition. I know of no Orthodox that believes that her body rotted in the garve.

Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption.

Father Tom: Care to elaborate or correct if need be?

[Tollhouses or not?]

Tollhouses have never been part of Orthodox theology. It is an opinion of certain Orthodox theologians. But not dogma. just like Co-Remdeptorix is an opinion of some Roman Catholic theologians but not offiecial dogma of the RCC.

[New Calendar is uncanonical/heretical or not?]

You all have your RC Fundalmentalists too like the SPPX's, Transalpine Redemptorists, etc. that argue over silly issues. Why can't we Orthodox?

So glad to hear you read my posts on Orthodox Catholic sites. I love that Bibilical quote too. It shows the essence of Orthodox belief. You guys have been under Rome so long you have lost the essence of what it means to be Orthodox!

OrthoMan

OrthoMan,

You're doing fine. Ignore the straw-man arguments.

PT

[Perhaps you would like to rephrase so that you are saying something not obviously incompatible with reality.]

I could say the exact thing for you.

[What goes on in Western rite Orthodoxy? Or are you saying that this is invalid? ]

Now its time for you to get real. Ask any Western Rite Orthodox if they believe in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. and you will get a definite NO! Ask the same questions to either a Latin Rite or Eastern Rite Papal Catholic and you will get everything from yes, no, maybe, I define it differently, etc. But never an agreed upon answer. Just check the archives here when the questions come up. You guys can't even agree on what being 'In Communion' with the Pope really means.

Your whole comment just proves to me how ya all look at things. You base everything on ritual and outward appearances and delegate dogma (which is the very basis of Orthodoxy) to second place. Like I said you have lost the very essence of what it means to be Orthodox and have become too western in your outlook. Thats why its so ridiculous to try and claim to be 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'.

OrthoMan

If the Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople retained the liturgy and Latin approach to theology they would remain Roman Catholic. Bob�s claim that we are picking and choosing beliefs is false. A prosphora recipe written in Church Slavonic using metric measurements is equivalent to a prosphora recipe written in English using American measurements. The Gospel read in Church Slavonic is just as valid as the Gospel read in English.

Bob�s quote from 1 Cor 1:10 is definitely applicable here as there is no real difference in the faith as expressed by East and West. What differs is the theological language each Church uses to proclaim the Trinity. Speaking the same thing does not mean speaking in a universal language. Sadly, however, there are divisions among us due to sin and misunderstanding.

Bob, you might wish to read �An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation� which stated last week that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches �expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� and �that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution�. Participants from your own Orthodox Church in America have acknowledged that we are limited in our ability to proclaim who God is and that we must work together to proclaim our theology more clearly for a reunited Church in the Third Millennium. While the document is not binding on either Church it does represent the expressed opinion of your Church as well as mine.

I respectfully disagree. Rome is the ultimate judge of what is Orthodox, not the larger body of Orthodox Christians who are not in full communion with her.

I also disagree with your distinction between �in communion� and �under�. If the two terms are equivalent please go and tell one of your Russian Orthodox friends that he is �under� Constantinople or one of your Greek Orthodox friends that he is �under� Moscow.

Bob,

I have given you far more freedom to express your views on this forum than I have given to those who speak against Orthodoxy. On this forum the first rule is charity. One of the signs of charity and respect is to call one another by the terms they use to refer to themselves. We are officially titled as �Byzantine Catholic� (or �Ukrainian Catholic�, �Ruthenian Catholic� and etc.). We are not now and never have referred to ourselves as �Eastern Rite Papal Catholics�. The term �Papal Catholic� is always a pejorative and an insult. When you use such terms you present yourself as a bitter person incapable of arguing intelligently. I have read your posts for long enough to know that you are very intelligent indeed. I request that you not engage in such open insults.

Admin

Bob,

I am delighted with your response.

It is now clear that you actually do understand the difference between the core of dogma and the constructs and language used to describe it. And also understand that differences of opinion outside of the core do not represent a barrier to the unity (Cor 1:10). This very point seemed to elude you when the adminstrator was trying to get it across to you in a couple of other threads.

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000980;p=1#000003

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000971;p=4#000059

Hope this helped.

Now, Bob,

What I felt was unreal was the rigidity with which you were interepreting Cor1:10 with the admin, when it was pretty clear - as was ultimately borne out in your response - that you would take a far more nuanced interpretation when applying it to Orthodoxy. I wanted to establish the fact that you could, in fact, see his point if you wished.

(And by the way, where were you when one of your communion was advancing the idea that the rotting in the ground perspective is completely permissible to "pick and choose" within Orthodoxy!)

As to the Western Rite: your answer now switches back to core rather than "mode" of expression. How naughty. Particularly inasmuch as my comment was made in direct response to yours about keeping a "western mode".

No. I think that a great part of the genius of Ortho-praxis is the complete coherence between the two. I think that with your comment you are lapsing back to your use of "dogma" to include theological opinions, and modes of expression. It is the latter not dogma, that is delegated, appropriately, to lesser significance. (Your backed-into-the-corner-by-Original-Sin line being a classic example; if I had a nickel for every Orthodox apologist who confused theological opinion and actual dogma of the Catholic church on this subject, I could take very early retirement.)

Well that last part may be true. I am an American. And I hope that you don't think that Eastern Christianity is only for those who eschew Western civilization. And the first part? Only to the extent that you insist a certain Romophobia is essential to Orthodoxy.

[If the Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople retained the liturgy and Latin approach to theology they would remain Roman Catholic.]

You seemed to have missed the entire point of my post. Which is if they were to in communion with Constantinople they would not be allowed to maintain a Latin approach to theology. You bring up the recent joint statement regarding Filioque. Read it carefully. It says nothing other than once again they agree to disagree.

[Bob�s claim that we are picking and choosing beliefs is false. A prosphora recipe written in Church Slavonic using metric measurements is equivalent to a prosphora recipe written in English using American measurements. The Gospel read in Church Slavonic is just as valid as the Gospel read in English.]

HUH????? I can't even reply to this because it makes no sense to me. What does making Phrosphora and Church Slavonic have to do with the tenets of the faith which are specified within it's DOCTRINES and DOGMAS. Once again your comments are proving that you can't comprehend the difference between tradition, ritual, and doctrine.

[What differs is the theological language each Church uses to proclaim the Trinity. Speaking the same thing does not mean speaking in a universal language. Sadly, however, there are divisions among us due to sin and misunderstanding.]

The Trinity is only the tip of the iceberg my friend! What does language have to do with it? You contradict your first two sentences in your third sentence.

You mean like the RC double talk? Like when we RC's say 'and the Son' we really mean 'Thru the Son' but we're going to continue to say 'and the Son' and when we do you can think 'thru the Son' and therefore WE WILL ALL BE SAYING THE SAME THING! Gemme a break!

[�An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation� which stated last week that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches �expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� and �that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution�. ]

Which means 'Once again we have agreed to disagree!

[I respectfully disagree. Rome is the ultimate judge of what is Orthodox, not the larger body of Orthodox Christians who are not in full communion with her.]

You make a statement like that and then feel insulted when I refer to you as a Papal Catholic! It is the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church under the authority of the Holy Spirt (not an infallible Pope) that proclaims what is Orthodox.

[I also disagree with your distinction between �in communion� and �under�. If the two terms are equivalent please go and tell one of your Russian Orthodox friends that he is �under� Constantinople or one of your Greek Orthodox friends that he is �under� Moscow.]

And WHY WOULD THAT BE? Could it be because being 'in communion with' and 'under the authority of' mean two separate and distinct things to an Orthodox. While under current Roman Catholic governing practices to be 'in communion with' her automatically means to be under her ultimate authority and accept her theology. The Latin Catholics here and elsewhere keep telling you this but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. What do you think titles like 'Vicar of Christ', Supreme Pontiff', 'Universal Bishop' means? Maybe you should sit down and read the 'Canons of the Eastern Churches' which specify just what you communion with the Pope means!

I would never tell a GO he or she was 'under Moscow' because being 'In Communion' with Moscow in no way implies being under Moscows authority. However, as stated it means smething entirely different within the RCC. Its amazing to what lengths some of you will go to just to deny the reality of your situation with Rome.

[We are not now and never have referred to ourselves as �Eastern Rite Papal Catholics�. The term �Papal Catholic� is always a pejorative and an insult. When you use such terms you present yourself as a bitter person incapable of arguing intelligently.]

Beg to differ. I see the reality of your churches communion with Rome. You, on the other hand, choose to live in a fantasy world regarding what that communion really means. Perfect example is your claim that Rome has the authority to decide what is Orthodox and then say the term Papal Catholic is insulting to you makes absolutely no sense to me. It is you who isn't able to argue intelligently because you, once again, deny the reality of your situation.

OrthMan

djs:

Pulling at straws, and twisting my words, throwing in strawmen, won't get you anywhere. Others can read what I wrote and judge for themselves.

I stand by everything I wrote and don't take one word or sentence back.

Now where I am it's 11:30 and I'm tired.

Goodnight all,
Orthoman

Orthoman:

I am not trying to get anywhere.

Just illuminating the bias with which you wield the Corinthians passage. And that fact that you could understand the administrator's point if you wanted to.

Goodnight.

Bob,

I understood your post but I disagree with your point. We are primarily catechized by prayer (liturgy). Those who use a Latin liturgy are catechized into a Latin spirituality and a Latin approach to theology. There is no getting past this point unless you wish to claim that Orthodox / Byzantine theology is not primarily expressed in the liturgy. People using a Latin liturgy who are in communion with Constantinople are still formed in the Latin approach to theology.

Regarding the Joint Statement, please read it again. The fact that your own Church agreed to a statement that it [we] �expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� and �that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution� totally blows away your argument.

Look for the parallel to ways of speaking theology! Just because the West speaks in a theological language that is different from us Byzantines does not mean that what she speaks is false. Seeing her speak the truth in her own language and acknowledging does not mean that we cease to speak our own theological language.

No! There is no contradiction whatsoever. Language has everything to do with it. The West speaks a theological language that is different than ours. Some concepts translate from one theological language to another quite readily. Some do not. The theological issues that separate East from West are not ones of having a different belief in who God is but rather ones of �our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� (to quote a joint document of our Churches).


Yes I do fee insulted. The term �Papal Catholic� is only used by those who intend insult. There are similar pejoratives for African-Americans and Jews that people who are charitable refrain from using.

Further, if you are going to disagree you should at least be factual in your disagreement. The Catholic Church has never taught or even hinted that the an Ecumenical Council is under the authority of the pope instead of the Holy Spirit. Please at least attempt to accurate state the teaching before you disagree with it.

Multiple definitions? And you accuse the Roman Catholics of double speak?

I�m sorry, Bob, but when you select the best of Orthodox theology and place it against the worst of Roman theology, when you apply different meanings to terms that are favorable when speaking about Orthodoxy and unfavorable when speaking about Catholicism, you accomplish nothing and earn no respect for your arguments.

This is an area on which we must agree to disagree. Our world is filled with pejoratives (words people would never use to describe themselves but are used by others as insults). Charitable people refer to people using the terminology that people use to refer to themselves. The term �Papal Catholic� has never been used by anyone in the Catholic Church to describe themselves. It is an invented term used as an insult. Nothing else.

[There is no getting past this point unless you wish to claim that Orthodox / Byzantine theology is not primarily expressed in the liturgy. People using a Latin liturgy who are in communion with Constantinople are still formed in the Latin approach to theology.]

We seem o be talking past each other. I never claimed that Orthodox theology isn't expressed in the Liturgy. But it is not the Liturgy alone that defines my Orthodoxy. It is the Apostles, early Church Fathers, and the ecumenical councils of the undivided church that formulated the doctrines that proclaim what is Orthodox. It is that basis and background which formulated the Liturgy. And it certainly is not the Pope that defines what is Orthodox as you have stated!

Thats why for the Unia to maintain Orthodox Ritual after turning their backs on Orthodoxy and accepting Roman Catholicism is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Everyone of those western rites within Orthodoxy you speak of were not accepted as is. They were modified to project Orthodox theology. They no longer project a Latin approach to theology! Why do you think the ritual in your own church began to be latinized? Its ironic that you defend the idea that you are still Orthodox BUT IT WAS THE POPE HIMSELF THAT INSTRUCTED YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR ROOTS. You were never Orthodox enough to want to do it on your own!

[ [we] �expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� and �that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution� totally blows away your argument.]

It doesn't blow away my arguement. It confirms it. What do you think statements like - "We expressly recognize THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR ABILITY TO MAKE DEFINIIVE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE INNER LIFE OF GOD" and 'and the manner of the spirits, WHICH STILL AWAITS FULL AND FINAL ECUMENICAL RESOLUTION" means?

Translated it means that once again we agree to disagree until that time we can come together in a truly ecumenical council to resolve the issue. Until then, the status quo remains! More double talk with no substance!

[Look for the parallel to ways of speaking theology! Just because the West speaks in a theological language that is different from us Byzantines does not mean that what she speaks is false. Seeing her speak the truth in her own language and acknowledging does not mean that we cease to speak our own theological language.]

Either the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and infallible or he isn't? Either the CONCEPTION of Mary was Immaculate making her humanity different than ours or it wasn't. Either there is a Purgatory or there isn't. I find your analogy full of holes and double talk to enable you to justify the position your church is in. You no longer have a defined theology. You have a mixed breed theology that is neither completely eastern or western. And thats why you get such flax from both sides!

[The Catholic Church has never taught or even hinted that the an Ecumenical Council is under the authority of the pope instead of the Holy Spirit. Please at least attempt to accurate state the teaching before you disagree with it.]

Are you or are you not, the person who made the folowing statement? -

"I respectfully disagree. Rome is the ultimate judge of what is Orthodox, not the larger body of Orthodox Christians who are not in full communion with her."

[The term �Papal Catholic� has never been used by anyone in the Catholic Church to describe themselves. It is an invented term used as an insult. Nothing else.]

I'm equally insulted when those who turned their backs on Orthodoxy try and pass themselves off as 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'!

[when you apply different meanings to terms that are favorable when speaking about Orthodoxy and unfavorable when speaking about Catholicism, you accomplish nothing and earn no respect for your arguments.]

What the heck are you talking about? It has nothing to do with being favorable to Orthodoxy. Within Orthodoxy to be 'in communion' means to share the same faith. To be 'under the authority' of a hiearch means exactly what it says. Within Roman Catholicism to be 'in communion' with it not only means to share the same faith but to be under its authority thru what they call the 'Vicar of Christ' on earth. I DIDNT MAKE THOSE RULES, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID.

OrthoMan

Bob, thanks for the post.

In an earlier post (which I was replying to) you stated: �Which is if they were to in communion with Constantinople they would not be allowed to maintain a Latin approach to theology.� Because we are primarily catechized by prayer (liturgy) that statement can only mean that Roman Catholics who entered into communion with Constantinople would not be allowed to retain Latin liturgy (which is the formative source for Latin spirituality and theology). I respect that you are now restating your definition of what defines Orthodoxy and I think that your restatement makes much more sense. I continue to disagree with your statement regarding the Holy Father. It is the Holy Spirit leading a council of bishops presided by the Holy Father that is the ultimate arbiter of Orthodoxy. This is, of course, the meat of the disagreement between East and West and I respect this disagreement.

This statement makes no sense unless one believes that prayer (liturgy) is not the primary means of catechesis.

If they are using a liturgy that is from the Latin (Western) tradition then they are projecting a Latin approach to theology. There is no getting around this point, Bob. If one modifies a few major points in French grammar and replace them with the parallel Greek points one cannot say that French is now Greek. Likewise, making some theological changes to Latin (Roman) Catholicism does not mean that it ceases to be Latin (Roman) Catholicism.

I�m not sure what you mean here. At one point you are stating that ritual has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Now you are suggesting that it has everything to do with Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxy cannot be confused with Byzantine-ness. One can be Orthodox without being Byzantine. Our Byzantine Catholic Church did certainly adopt numerous rituals and spiritual customs that were not part of our Byzantine inheritance and Pope John Paul II is correct in asking us to restore a more authentic Byzantine life. We are merely following the example set by the (now) OCA a hundred years ago. The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholics of that era took many generations to become more faithful to their Byzantine inheritance.

The statement means that both of our Churches are acknowledging that we cannot fully understand the inner life of the Trinity, that we must continue to pray, that we must continue to work together until we reach a resolution. Are you suggesting that both of our Churches are only engaging in polite fiction when they issue these statements? Why would either Church continue in a dialog if it is so obvious that it is nothing but fictional and there is no hope of resolving the issues that separate us? Are you suggesting that prior to an ecumenical council there is to be no prayerful research and dialog over the issue? The very fact that the Orthodox Church is willing to trust in a fresh ecumenical council to resolve these issues is an acknowledgment that the theologies of either Church are not carved in stone and can mature further.

One really needs to define things in order to understand them. Let�s look at your first comment. Christ is the only head of the Church. The pope cannot replace him and the Catholic Church has never taught that he does. But Christ is not physically present on this earth so he entrusted the keys to the chief apostle, Peter (and, in a lesser way to all bishops). A vicar is one who represents another. Each bishop is in this sense a Vicar of Christ to the people under his care (his diocese). The Holy Father, being the first of the apostles, is the preeminent Vicar of Christ.

Does the conception of the Theotokos make her humanity different than ours? No. The Western theology on this point is predicated on a different starting point than ours (for us the inheritance from Adam is mortality). The resultant theology is necessarily going to be expressed differently. This does not mean that only one formula can be right and the others therefore must be wrong.

Is there a purgatory? If one believes that there is a purifying journey of the soul upon death that may continue until the Final Judgment then one must state yes. This is really the essence of the Latin Church�s definition of purgatory. The theological overlay that is particular to the Latin tradition is comparable to the Byzantine idea of toll houses. Acceptable and good but not the last word on the subject.

Are we guilty of not having a defined theology? No! Our theology is very nicely defined by the Church Fathers of the Byzantine Tradition. Our acknowledgement that there are other legitimate ways to speak about God does not mean that we have no defined theology.

In what way does the belief that the Holy Father is the final earthly voice of a council remove all possibility of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church in council?

How does a statement that there is one bishop who calls the council, resolves the disputes if they are irresolvable, and has the final word remove all possibility of him being led by the Spirit? If you are stating that then you must also believe that a council that is co-chaired by all the bishops present also does not submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I can respect that you do not like the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� and that you find it very distasteful. There is a difference here. The term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� has a history that comes from Orthodoxy itself. The term �Uniate� originated with the Orthodox Poles and was adopted by the Russians to refer to Orthodox Christians who were in union with Rome. �Uniate� is shorthand for �Orthodox Christians in union with Rome�. The terms �Orthodox in communion with Rome� and �Uniate� have a legitimacy gained over 400 years of use and there is ample historical evidence to support this. The term �Papal Catholic� was unknown until very recently and was invented as a pejorative.

Dear OrthoMan,

Not wanting to add any more fuel to the fire burning here, however, when clarifying Eastern Orthodox beliefs you really do need to allow for the variety of valid opinions expressed within our communion, both now and historically.

Epiphanios, the famous heresy-hunter from Cyprus chased after divergent groups in the early Church who either denigrated our Most Holy Theotokos or elevated her to the level of Goddess. One of the things that he wrote, and against which you will be hard-pressed to find any contemporary or later repudiation of was the following in Chapetr 78 of his "Panarion," a veritable mainstay of heresiological texts for centuries up until the present:

"If the holy Virgin died and was buried, her falling asleep was honorable and her end holy; her crown consisted in her virginity. Or if she was put to death, according to the scripture, 'a sword shall pierce her soul,' her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows her end."

The fact is that there are many acceptable opinions, but dogmatically, the Church has not spoken on this issue.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Administrator:

We've gone around in so many circles and here there and everywhere that my head is spinning. Partly because we are attempting to discuss various issue all at once. So its time to regroup.

Please confirm or deny the following questions so I know where you stand -

1) You are stll Orthodox in spite of your union with Rome because you still utilize the Orthodox Ritual in some form?

2) That the Orthodox Liturgy expounds Orthodox theology and is therefore the primary tool used to teach that Orthodox Theology. Which is another justification for you to retain your so called Orthodox identity? [The same for the Latin Liturgy which expounds the theology of the Roman Catholic Church? Therefore, if a Roman Catholic Church enters Orthodoxy and is allowed to maintain their Liturgy they will remain 'Roman Catholics In Communion With Constantinople (or any other recognized Orhodox Patriarchate) because their Liturgy still proclaims Latin theology?]

3) That your being 'in communion' with Rome does not imply that you are under Rome's authority?

4) That the theology of both the eastern and western churches is still basically the same. It is only expressed differently because of language and culture?

Please give a yes are no reply to each of the questions so we can go on from there and take each question individually. I'm asking the questions because I want to be definite on where you stand. Because right now, I'm not really sure.

Maybe we can start the above four questions as for separate threads that can be discussed individually on the East-West Form.

OrthoMan

[The fact is that there are many acceptable opinions, but dogmatically, the Church has not spoken on this issue.]

I assume that you are talking about the Assumption. Reread what I wrote. Especially the part that states HOLY TRADITION TELLS US etc.

The Assumption is not a specified belief in the Orthodox Church. The Dormition is. It's just the opposite in the Roman Catholic Church. Their emphasis is on the Assumption.

OrthoMan

Bob,

I agree that these discussions can get quite complex. I have provided a brief response to each of your points that we can discuss in further detail if you wish. I am sorry that I could not provide a simple �yes� or �no� but it was not possible with the way your questions are worded.

1) You are stll Orthodox in spite of your union with Rome because you still utilize the Orthodox Ritual in some form?

No. [I must take issue with the question itself.]

We are Orthodox because we preserve the fullness of the Orthodox Faith (theology of the Councils and the Church Fathers especially as prayed in the liturgy). It is the larger body of Byzantine Orthodox Christians who are missing something (and that something being full communion with Rome).

We are continually formed into Byzantine Orthodoxy because we pray according to the liturgy of the Byzantine Orthodox Church. People are primarily formed through prayer (liturgy). Our liturgy is that of Byzantine Orthodoxy (Vespers, Matins, the Divine Liturgy) so our formation must necessarily be that of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

You could counter with the powerful argument that the celebration of Vespers and Matins is missing from many (if not most) of our parishes. But such an argument would also be powerful against most Slavic Orthodox parishes (which don�t have a regular celebration of Matins) and most Greek Orthodox parishes (which don�t have a regular celebration of Vespers).


2) That the Orthodox Liturgy expounds Orthodox theology and is therefore the primary tool used to teach that Orthodox Theology. Which is another justification for you to retain your so called Orthodox identity? [The same for the Latin Liturgy which expounds the theology of the Roman Catholic Church? Therefore, if a Roman Catholic Church enters Orthodoxy and is allowed to maintain their Liturgy they will remain 'Roman Catholics In Communion With Constantinople (or any other recognized Orhodox Patriarchate) because their Liturgy still proclaims Latin theology?]

Yes. Let me offer another example. An Italian who moves to Greece and takes Greek citizenship yet still speaks Italian at home, cooks Italian at home, and spends his time reading from Italian books is still an Italian.


3) That your being 'in communion' with Rome does not imply that you are under Rome's authority?

No. �In communion� and �under� mean two different things (as you have noted within your own Church).

Are we in communion with Rome? Yes. But this will always be true, even after full communion between East and West is restored.

Are we under the authority of Rome? Yes. Until there is full communion between East and West and we are once again under the Patriarch of Constantinople. But, there is another way in which all Christians are to be �under Rome�.

A question here that really must be addressed is �What does it mean to be under Rome?�

Ideally, this means that we submit to our own patriarch and he is in communion with Rome. Since we are not currently in communion with Constantinople our status is irregular and you are correct to look askance at it. To understand the point, however, look at the example of the Melkites and the developing example of the Ukrainians. The Melkite Patriarchate operates independently and, when a bishop or patriarch is elected the patriarchate informs Rome of the election. Rome can interfere with the election (universal jurisdiction) but should not do so without just cause (say there was a fraudulent election). The other Eastern Catholic patriarchates operate the same way and the developing Ukrainian patriarchate is also following this pattern.

This brings us back to the question �What does it mean to be under Rome?� For us it means believing in and trusting that Rome always has authority to intervene (universal jurisdiction) but that she will do so only when absolutely necessary. In this sense we believe that all Christians should be �under Rome�.

Of course, this is the crux of the difference between East and West. Byzantine Orthodoxy (not in communion with Rome) believes that the primacy of Rome is merely one of honor and that Rome never has the right to interfere in another Church. Catholicism (Rome, which is the real and final arbiter of Orthodoxy) believes that it has this immediate jurisdiction. History, not surprisingly, can be used to support both positions. There are examples of the Eastern Churches welcoming Rome�s intervention as well as examples of the Eastern Churches condemning Rome�s intervention. I believe that Rome does have this authority and should have this authority and that one is not really Orthodox if one does not accept this. [Yes, I believe this even though we have oftentimes been mistreated by Rome.] You believe differently (as does the greater body of Byzantine Orthodox Christians.] I respect this disagreement and pray that it will soon be resolved.


4) That the theology of both the eastern and western churches is still basically the same. It is only expressed differently because of language and culture?

Yes to the first statement. No to the question.

I believe that the only real issue preventing the reestablishment of full communion between East (including Byzantine Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy) is that of the question of the authority of Rome. Everything else (the procession of the Holy Spirit, the definition of original sin and its effect upon the Theotokos, etc.) is not really a disagreement about matters of faith (what we believe about God) but rather one of how we have expressed the same faith (how we state what is a shared belief). As an example consider the christological issues between Rome/Constantinople/etc. and the Oriental Orthodox. Recent (separate) dialogues between the Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church have shown that there is really not a difference in belief but of how the faith is expressed. Looking for the moment at the Catholic / OO discussions we see several common declarations where there is a joint profession �that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, one person in two natures�. The issue arising from their rejection of the ecumenical councils was not a rejection of the theology but one of the way the theology was expressed. In these cases there are definitely cultural and language barriers that cause difficulty.

Admin

Orthoman,
What Fathers of the undivided Church are you referring to?
I thought Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian and Augustine were a part of the Chutch and they were certainly latin in the theological perspectives.
I suggest you re think you thinking.
Stephanos I

Dear OrthoMan,


On 11-02-03 you posted:

"Tradition tells us that Thomas arrived about three days later and wanted to venerate her body. When they opened the tomb her body was gone and a flower stood where it was. Orthodox believe her body was assumed into heaven but it was a separate event from her Dormition. I know of no Orthodox that believes that her body rotted in the grave."

I was concerned that your post may have reinforced the idea frequently expressed on this esteemed site that there is no difference between the RC dogma of the Assumption and the Holy tradition of Orthodoxy on the same subject. My point is to remind all that there are several valid holy traditions on this subject within Orthodoxy.

There is no particular problem if an Orthodox Christian does believe that (that her body rotted in the grave), although it would likely be a minority opinion, even a controversial one, but not demonstrably erroneous and certainly not heretical. I wouldn't have reason to assert it myself, but I wouldn't be alarmed if a brother OC did.

I have made an effort in the past to point out that the RC dogma of the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos and the OC lack of a dogma on the same subject remain a barrier to the unity that we so cherish.

Unity implies dogmatic consistency, even if expressed in different terms.

In Christ,
Andrew

Orthoman,

you are correct in stating that "in communion" means something entirely different than "under", but the Catholic Churches' understanding of "in communion" would include the ability to receive the Eucharist (Holy Communion) from eachother as a visble sign of that communion. I hardly think this is the norm in the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Could a GO Christian receive the Eucharist in the RO Church or vice-versa? Even within the same Church the Orthodox faithful may not be able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese.

Orthoman,

Could a GO Christian receive the Eucharist in the RO Church or vice-versa? Even within the same Church the Orthodox faithful may not be able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Of course, because the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (as well as the Church of Greece) are in communion with each other, so there is no impediment to the reception of the Eucharist.

This is absolutely not the case. Intercommunion between the various Orthodox Churches is defacto. Although canonicity *is* an issue with various groups (HOCNA, et al) even then the practical implications are not as clearly adhered to as one might think. Most of the adherants of these groups tend to stay to themselves and would not think of taking communion in the majority of Orthodox Churches.

Suffice it to say that nearly all of those who call themselves Orthodox Christians are in communion with one another. These various fringe groups are insignificant numerically, with the possible exception of the Old Calendarist Church of Greece.

Me thinks there is much too much made of these fringe groups on this board, and certain posters (not you, Deacon) like to play the "non-cannonical card" when pointing out what they see as Orthodoxy's weaknesses.

PT

Administrator:

I have read through your response and have compiled the following sentences which you have supplied:

" It is the larger body of Byzantine Orthodox Christians who are missing something (and that something being full communion with Rome)."

"Are we in communion with Rome? Yes."

"Are we under the authority of Rome? Yes."

"Rome can interfere with the election (universal jurisdiction) but should not do so
without just cause (say there was a fraudulent election)."

"This brings us back to the question �What does it mean to be under Rome?� For us
this means believing in and trusting that Rome always has authority to intervene (universal jurisdiction) but that she will do so only when absolutely necessary. In this sense we believe that all Christians should be �under Rome�."

"Catholicism (Rome, which is the real and final arbiter of Orthodoxy) believes that it has this immediate jurisdiction."

" I believe that Rome does have this authority and should have this authority and that one is not really Orthodox if one does not accept this. [Yes, I believe this even though we have oftentimes been mistreated by Rome.]"

Response:

And yet you take offense at being called either an 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholic' or more importantly, a 'Papal Catholic'.

I wish I could understand the logic and make sense out of that, but in all honesty, I cant. To me, it only shows a complete denial of your true identity.

You tell me that you agree that you are both 'in commnion' with Rome and also 'under its authority'. You go on to state that your so called Orthodoxy is more complete than mine because of that authority. You further tell me that my Orthodoxy is incomplete because I am not under Romes authority. And then go on to state being identified as a 'Papal Catholic' is insulting and derogatory. In all honesty, that even lacks common sense!

In your 400+ years from your mother you have completely lost touch with the reality about what she is all about! Because you center everything around Rome and then continue to be offended by being identified with her in any way, shape, or form.

OrthoMan

Let's try this one Bob.

What is does it mean to be in communion with the EP, not to the Russian Orhtodox - who by history, geography, and demographics were always pretty much outside the reach of Constantinople - but to the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Serbian Patriarchates, for example.

Are you sufficiently in touch with you Mother to know what I am talking about?

[Let's try this one Bob.

What is does it mean to be in communion with the EP, not to the Russian Orhtodox - who by history, geography, and demographics were always pretty much outside the reach of Constantinople - but to the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Serbian Patriarchates, for example.]

I'm not sure what your point is or what your question is all about for that matter. To be in communion with the EP (or any other canonical automonous or autocephalous Church) means to be within canonical Orthodoxy!

What is your point about the MP being out of reach with Constantinople? The Russian Orthodox Church received their autocephally from Constantinople. I really don't know how answer your questions because they make no sense to me. Unless you are trying to make the EP out to be some kind of Orthodox Pope which he isn't and never was.

And my mother church is the MP which I am both in communion with and in touch with. However, I still don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Why don't you just make your point so it can be addressed?


OrthoMan

Bob,

I respect that you cannot see the logic. I also know that your understanding is incorrect. The use of a pejorative is always an insult. I�m sure that you disagree with this as you do not consider the term �Papal Catholic� to be insulting.

Regarding the use of the term �Eastern Rite Roman Catholic� the term itself doesn�t make sense. What is a Roman Catholic? A Roman Catholic is one (or a Church) that uses the theology and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. Our theology and liturgy is not that of the Roman Church but that of the Byzantine Church. There is no way that the term �Roman Catholic� would apply to us. I know that many Orthodox believe that because we acknowledge the Latin Catholic doctrines as legitimate and Orthodox and believe that Rome is the ultimate arbiter of Orthodoxy that there is no possible way that we can remain Orthodox. I respect such a position but I know it to be an incorrect one.

No. It makes perfect sense. Any term that was invented as a pejorative is always offensive. I don�t know why you can�t understand this. Use of the term �Papal Catholic� is no different than the use of the term �papist�. �Papist� may be recognized by everyone worldwide as a term for Catholics but it is considered offensive because it is always used disparagingly. Charitable people simply choose not to use terminology that is offensive. It is always best to use the terminology that people use to describe themselves. Since you find the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� to be distasteful why not simply refer to us as �Byzantine Catholics� since that is our chosen title?

No! Nice try but it really doesn�t work. Actually, in our 400 years as Orthodox in communion with Rome we have seen from a unique vantage point just how wounded both East and West have become because of their separation from one another.


Admin

Where do ideas like these come from?

Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too?

Or was that meant to be some joke?

(Never, never think you have heard it all...just check on byzcath.org to hear somthing crazier than you ever imagined!)

The bottom line, and the only one that matters to this old warrior, is this: "For the first 1,000 years the Church East and West was in communion. It wasn't perfect. Some things, many things, were overlooked. Live and let live was the rule of the day as long as it wasn't a dogma. Even the Liturgy was quite different. Still we were in communion with each other.

Now the union between East and West Catholicism isn't perfect. The East has too often allowed itself to be intimidated by the West, but we are coming out of that period. But we are in communion. We are working through our differences.

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not in communion. Most of the time the arguments are over non-dogmatic matters.

Given that none of these situations is perfect let me ask this: "Which situation is closer to Christ's prayer in John 17?"

I know how I've answered that and no amount of polemic will convince me otherwise.

Dan Lauffer

Yes Dan that is lovely and to the point. But, spurious statments such as the one above really do nothing helpful and on the contrary harm what unity there is. The statement I quoted above is simply false, bottom line.

First, the comments about putting the blood of Christians in matzos is uncalled for.

Second, the conclusion made by Father Deacon John is understandable, even if inaccurate. I have several Orthodox friends who will not communicate in a parish that is not their own because of the real expectation that they will be refused the chalice because they had not first approached the priest to either go to confession or to ask his permission to receive. Back in the 1980�s a very good friend of mine (who is OCA) and I often used to take whatever weekend special the airlines offered (they were extremely cheap back then). Oftentimes we attended both an Orthodox and a Byzantine Catholic parish on a Sunday for their respective Divine Liturgies. The only time I remember my friend communicating was in parishes where he had already established a relationship with the priest. I know that this has changed very much over the past 20 years but there are still many people who hold this practice and to people not �in the know� it does appear as if they are not welcome to receive in another jurisdiction.

Dear Father Thomas,
Sorry if my references earlier in this thread caused offense. I also made such reference in one other thread, when I asked if "mainline" Orthodox have a similar objection to the use of the "Orthodox" by non-canonical groups (or Oriental Orthodox) as they do with our use of the word. I don't make such reference to point out any "weakness" of Orthodoxy; I have no interest in that at all.

My criticism of Orthoman's posts is simple. He posts with some pretense as a great illuminator of perceived weaknesses of my church. Sometimes his facts are just plain wrong. More often, however, he make a very tendentious interpretation of the facts. I like to point out to him, that the same difficulties apply within Orthodoxy, and if he would take the trouble to get the log out of his own eyes, he might be better able to see and comment thoughfully on ours.

He likes to quote Cor.1:10 to us. But it is clear that the text cannot be taken at face value, in light the range of expression within Orthodoxy. So it really is a discussion over discerning core dogma against expression and illustration of the core. Here I'd like to invoke a corrollary to Ghazar's principle: Orthoman should be more restrained about telling Catholics what is and what is not Catholic dogma.

Orthoman likes to point out the grave differences between "in communion with" and "under". It would be nice if such distinctions were, however, grounded in reality. If Orthoman had a better idea, from historical facts, just how very much "in communion with" the EP, during his millenium as first among equals, has actually meant "under", then he would be more circumspect about harping on our relationship to Rome.

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your post here.
I know that the phrase I used arose a hyperbolic extension of your words by someone else on the Dormition thread. I am very glad that that is a view that you would not assert yourself.

Administrator,

Yes, it was absurd? Good, that is my point. Which is why I allowed the option of it being a joke, albeit in poor taste.

Thanks for the lessons on the issues of communicating in Orthodoxy, I am somewhat aware of them, I had hoped you could imagine. I undersand the matter of etiquette and the issue of being refused (much greater among some than others) but the point is how his post was presented.

Perhaps it was phrased poorly, it is hard to tell. Since the word used when referring to the Catholic Church was "ability" I took it as that. If I call ahead and speak to the priest in another parish I am certainly ABLE to communicate there, in some I can just walk up. I know that...I think most Orthodx do as well, not all especially if they have not left their own parish much. But, the issue is they CAN, they are able to.

The original post (responded to by Fr. Thomas in the same understanding I ascribed to it) could only be read by me (perhaps my small mind) as saying that they cannot since the words "ability" and "could" are used.

I try to read carefully, call it what you like. I can't read the mind of the posters, only the posts.

Tony

It is common practice to contact the priest before going to a different parish and introducing yourself and telling of your intention to receive the Mysteries. A priest at his ordination is told to guard the Mysteries as he will have to render an account before GOd in behalf of those he has communicated. It is a Sacred trust.

djs writes:

[If Orthoman had a better idea, from historical facts, just how very much "in communion with" the EP, during his millenium as first among equals, has actually meant "under", then he would be more circumspect about harping on our relationship to Rome.]

Being 'in communion' with the EP HAS NEVER meant being "under" the EP's authority. First amongst equals means just that and nothing more. It gives the EP the authority to call a council and preside over that council as a kind of CEO. But HE ONLY HAS ONE VOTE ON ANY DECISIONS MADE. THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER BISHOPS PRESENT. NOR DOES HE HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE OR VETO AND DECISION MADE.

HE IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN THE EASTERN VERSION OF THE POPE AMONGST ORTHODOXY.

For some one who accuses me of trying to tell Catholics what Catholic dogma is, aren't you doing the same thing in the above statement?

[My criticism of Orthoman's posts is simple. He posts with some pretense as a great illuminator of perceived weaknesses of my church. Sometimes his facts are just plain wrong.]

Care to elaborate?

[He likes to quote Cor.1:10 to us. But it is clear that the text cannot be taken at face value, in light the range of expression within Orthodoxy. So it really is a discussion over discerning core dogma against expression and illustration of the core. Here I'd like to invoke a corrollary to Ghazar's principle: Orthoman should be more restrained about telling Catholics what is and what is not Catholic dogma.]

And just what particular Catholic dogma are we speaking of?

OrthoMan

[It is common practice to contact the priest before going to a different parish and introducing yourself and telling of your intention to receive the Mysteries. A priest at his ordination is told to guard the Mysteries as he will have to render an account before GOd in behalf of those he has communicated. It is a Sacred trust.]

That's exactly true! My priest will question any stranger who approaches the Chalice. And will refuse those Orthodox who are not prepared. I have even seen him refuse people with cigarette breath and those who admit they have not fasted or received Confession and/or Absolution because of that Sacred trust to protect the Body & Blood or Our Lord.

I have never seen him refuse anyone who is properly prepared because of a jurisdictional issue.

I have received in many Orthodox Jurisdictions but make arrangements with the priest before hand.

OrthoMan

2003.10.31 Slate:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2090526/>
faith-based
"Property of Rome"?

Does the Vatican have exclusive rights to the word "Catholic"?

By Michael McGough
Posted Friday, October 31, 2003, at 3:59 AM PT
They say the pope's infallible, but does he also hold a trademark on the
word "Catholic"? Readers of a dispatch from the Associated Press last month
might well have wondered. The story reported that "a lawsuit filed by the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta accuses a network of Spanish-speaking
churches of falsely claiming to be Catholic."

Fox News was laughed out of court when it sued Al Franken for including the
phrase "fair and balanced" in the subtitle of his satirical book Lies and
the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. But the Archdiocese of Atlanta fared better
in its attempt, as intellectual-property lawyers put it, to "protect the
mark." In October, a Fulton County judge entered a consent order that
permanently enjoins the "Mision Catolica: Capilla de la Fe" (Catholic
Mission: Chapel of Faith) from "representing themselves to be a part of or
associated with or sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta or Archbishop John Francis Donoghue."

The lawsuit didn't exactly chisel a TM under the word "Catholic"; rather,
it alleged that the Chapel of Faith was "intentionally or recklessly"
creating the impression that its clerics and services "are sanctioned by
the Roman Catholic Church." That is a weightier complaint than Fox's brief
against Al Franken; you don't need to be a federal judge to understand that
"fair and balanced" in Franken's title was a joke, not the appropriation of
a trademark for fraudulent purposes.

Mark Chopko, the general counsel of the United States Catholic Conference,
said as far as he knows the Atlanta lawsuit is one of a kind and that the
national church took no official position on it. The American Roman
Catholic Church is not declaring open season on other groups that use the
"C" word in their names.

That's just as well, because it could prove impossible under the First
Amendment to cabin the terms "Catholic" or even "Roman Catholic."

Lots of people who don't recognize the Bishop of Rome consider themselves
just as Catholic as John Paul II. Many Protestants on Sunday recite the
Apostles Creed, which contains the affirmation "I believe � in the holy
catholic church."

Whether the "c" is capitalized or not, "Catholic"-the etymology is from the
Greek katholikos for "universal"-has been a contested term in Christian
theological polemics for centuries. After the churches of Rome and
Constantinople split in a schism usually dated to the 11th century, the
Church of the West became known as the Roman Catholic Church, and the
Church of the East as the Orthodox Church. (To complicate matters further,
there are other ancient churches that went their own way because of
doctrinal disputes even before Rome and Constantinople split.)

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that it is not only orthodox (correct
in its teaching), but also Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church likewise
considers itself to be orthodox in doctrine. In emphasizing one term over
another in their "trademarks," these two branches of Christianity are not
relinquishing their claims to both attributes. (For a secular analogy,
consider the names of the two major political parties in America: Democrats
would tell you that they believe in a republican form of government;
Republicans like President Bush trumpet the virtues of small-d democracy,
at least in Iraq.)

Of course, "Catholic"-especially when the "C" is capitalized-has other
connotations besides "universal." As a result of the 19th-century Oxford
Movement in the Church of England, some Anglicans began to identify
themselves as "Catholics" in the sense of incorporating Roman Catholic
rituals and vestments (what some called the "rags of popery") in their
worship. To this day some so-called Anglo-Catholic churches are "more
Catholic than the pope" in the sense that they preserve older practices
(like priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the congregation) that
have been suppressed in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Some High-Church
Anglicans even offer prayers during Mass for the pope (and for the
patriarch of Constantinople, for good measure).

Long before the Archdiocese of Atlanta cried foul about the Mision
Catolica, Roman Catholics were rejecting the notion that one could be a
Catholic and not be in communion with Rome. And aggrieved Anglicans
responded in kind. Consider this sniffy entry in Fowler's Modern Usage,
published by Oxford University Press: "Catholic. It is open to Roman
Catholics to use C. by itself in a sense that excludes all but themselves,
but it is not open to a Protestant to use it instead of Roman-Catholic
without implying that his own Church has no right to the name of C."

So there. But Roman Catholics were unimpressed by this point of order. When
I studied religion at the University of Kent, one of my classmates, a Roman
Catholic priest in training, mocked this hair-splitting. When you asked an
Englishman for directions to the local "Catholic church," he told me, you
would always be pointed to the Roman Catholic church.

To add to the confusion, some Eastern Rite Catholics-whose churches
recognize the authority of the pope in Rome but follow rituals similar to
those of Eastern Orthodoxy-don't like to be referred to as Roman Catholics.
Then there are the churches that don't acknowledge the pope in Rome but
incorporate the term "Catholic" in their title. Some, like the "Old
Catholic" churches that broke from Rome over papal infallibility, have what
the Vatican considers "valid" holy orders. That means that an Old Catholic
(or, in this country, Polish National Catholic) priest has the power to
consecrate the Eucharist.

Even the presence of "Roman" in a church's name doesn't guarantee a
connection to the Vatican. According to the Web site of the Old Roman
Catholic Church in North America, schisms in its flock produced the Old
Roman Catholic Church in North America-Diocese of Michigan and the Central
States; the North American Old Roman Catholic Church; and the Old Roman
Catholic Church-Diocese of Florida within the Historic See of Caer Glow (!).

Lest that litany seem fantastic or facetious, consider the "Catholic Mass"
celebrated every Sunday evening at the Episcopal church in my Dupont Circle
neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The Mass is sponsored by Dignity, a group
of gay and lesbian Catholics that takes issue with the Vatican's
condemnation of homosexual acts.

Peggy Hays, a spokeswoman for Dignity says, that "we never hide our status"
as an autonomous group or pretend to be approved by the American hierarchy
(though some priests who celebrate Mass for Dignity are members in good
standing of religious orders who are acting with the tacit approval of
their superiors). Hayes says she knows of no attempt by the hierarchy to
move against Dignity for (mis)use of the term "Catholic." Given the
multiplicity of meanings of "Catholic," that seems like a prudent policy
even after the Archdiocese of Atlanta's legal victory
.
Michael McGough is a Washington-based editor at large for the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090526/

Do a little reading on the history of, say, the Serbian Patriarchate, then revisit you remarks.

Not at all. I am not referring to dogma. Or doctrine, or theological opinion, or canons or any such thing. Just uncontested historical facts.

For example:
"Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption."
This is errant nonsense. Likewise, you have been resisted the administrator's careful dissection of core dogma from mode of expression and illustration in the case of Purgatory, and have suggested a wholesale acceptance of Latin tradition. Etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being 'in communion' with the EP HAS NEVER meant being "under" the EP's authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do a little reading on the history of, say, the Serbian Patriarchate, then revisit you remarks.

------------

As an Orthodox Catholic I stand by what I wrote. BEING 'IN COMMUNION WITH THE EP' DOES NOT MEAN BEING UNDER HIS AUTHORITY! HE IS NOT THE ORTHODOX VERSION OF THE VATICAN POPE!

[For example:
"Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption."
This is errant nonsense.]

It's a fact. Adam and Eve were originally created by God to be immortal and live forever in the Garden of Eden. When they sinned they were banished from the garden and THEIR IMMORTALITY WAS TAKEN FROM THEM! We Orthodox refer to it as the 'fall' of Adam & Eve. We, as their descendents carry the result of their 'fall' by being subject to death. If Mary was conceived Immaculately (without the stain of that fall) then she would not only have have been immortal and as such, would have been a higher breed of human than we are. Which would also affect the doctrine of the Incarnation - {If the Holy Virgin Mary's human will was interfered with (ed.?as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.?human) and totally God."}


"Original Sin" and
the Mother of God
By a Priest of the Orthodox Church in America

See Also:The Meeting of Our Lord in the Temple (The Purification of Mary)

By Fr. Thomas HopkoandOur Most Holy Lady Theotokos


First: The use of the term the stain of Original Sin is exclusive Roman Catholic Church terminology and is NOT Orthodox.

The Orthodox position is that we are all born into a sinful world made sinful by the Fall of Adam. No one is or ever has been conceived and born with a "stain" resulting from Adam's sin. In her lifetime, the Blessed Virgin Mary did not sin by her own choice with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Because Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that all people bear the stain and guilt of original sin from the moment of their conception in the womb, the Roman Catholic Church had to devise a "Doctrine of Immaculate Conception" to confirm that the Holy Mother was sinless because, the Vatican rationalized, our Lord could not be born of someone sinful. The immaculate conception doctrine makes her different from the rest of humankind; it makes her not fully human because she was not by her own choice sinless but by the will of God.

If Mary were sinless by God's choice, not hers, then by virtue of the fact that she was as fully human as all of humankind is and has been, then God could make us all sinless and take away the free will given to us by our being created in His image and likeness.

The following is from the book Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos by Blessed John Maximovitch, published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CA:

The Heterodox Teaching
of "Immaculate Conception" and "Original Sin"

"Saint Ambrose (339-397), Bishop of Milan, comments that, 'Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ...'

"The Orthodox Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived by Joachim's seed and the period of gestation was nine months. None of the ancient holy Fathers (ed.?only the Roman Catholic Church) say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in Anna's womb.

Only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin. Many have correctly indicated that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by her Divine Son."

Blessed John Maximovitch (1896-1966) affirms that The Church teaches that "through the fall of Adam and Eve, all of the human race inherited death, becoming enslaved to the devil through the passions.
The progeny of Adam and Eve are not guilty of their first parents' tasting of the fruit; we are not being punished for this first sin or 'original sin.' If, for the sake of argument, we maintain the invalid heterodox teaching that the Theotokos was preserved from this 'original sin,' that would make God unmerciful and unjust. If God preserved her, why then does He not purify all men?
But then that would have meant saving men before their birth, apart from their will. This teaching would then deny all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Anna, when she could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to sin.

"The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She was not in a state of never being able to die. Thus, St. John of Damascus writes on the occasion of her Dormition,


'O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins, thine end was conformable to nature.'"

Blessed Archbishop John continues to comment that the Virgin was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for her salvation and overcame all temptations. The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary was manifested in the fact that she, being "human with passions?like us," so loved God and gave herself over to Him, that by her purity she was exalted above all other creatures. Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man.
The last comment made by St. John is so important -- "Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man".

If the Holy Virgin Mary's human will was interfered with (ed.?as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.?human) and totally God."

[ Likewise, you have been resisted the administrator's careful dissection of core dogma from mode of expression and illustration in the case of Purgatory, and have suggested a wholesale acceptance of Latin tradition. Etc.]

No. What I did was point out that you agreed to accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of 'Purgatory' right from the get go. And even copied and pasted the article it refrences in the 'Union of Brest'.

--------

Now, before someone comes back and quotes the ecumenist Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware in the latest edition of his book 'The Orthodox Church' where he says 'An Orthodox can believe in the Immaculate Conception and not be considered a heretic.' Let me just say that is one Bishops opinion, nothing more. I don't know of any other Orthodox bishop (well maybe one Ukrainian one) that agrees with him. It's no different than the RC bishops who go around preaching Mary as Co-redemptorix. It's just their opinion rather than an accepted view of the RCC.

Since this has gotten off the subject matter, than maybe someone should start a new thread. But I bet its already been rehashed a few times.

djs: I'm not trying to define Roman Cathoilc doctrine, I'm refuting it! There's a difference!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

And a top of the morning to you too, Big Guy!

(We are getting a lot of Irish here of late, you know . . .).

You really shouldn't be upsetting yourself over these matters - it's not as if we haven't talked about them before.

I know - but we Eastern Catholics don't seem to learn, we still keep calling ourselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and affirming all kinds of things that aren't true.

As the Irish would say, "Quite right - they're a bad lot!"

Here is my own take on the matter, for what it's worth (I know it's unsophisticated, but I'll try and hold off on my usual arrogance, rudeness et al!)

1) I agree that the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is both confusing to many Eastern Catholics and upsetting to Orthodox. I don't know of even one Ukie Church that would ever allow this term to be used to describe even one parish. The fact that it is upsetting to Orthodox is a good reason to not use it or at least keep it to ourselves. "Orthodoxy" today means the Orthodox Catholic Church that has nothing to do with Rome. The word can also mean "Russian Church" to a number of Eastern Catholics.

2) The Immaculate Conception as a doctrine is purely RC and relates to the Latin view of Original Sin. I'm not sure, anymore, WHAT the Latin view on Original Sin is, what it used to be, what it now is - one book I saw said RC's can believe in TWO versions of Original Sin and TWO versions of the Immaculate Conception. In any event, many of our Eastern Catholics believe in TWO versions all the same. There are those who accept the RC versions all the way. Others, like myself, who say that both East and West believe the Mother of God to have been completely sanctified by the Spirit from her Conception (the Feast of the Conception) but that this does not exempt her from the effects of Original Sin - which, in her, were mitigated i.e. she felt no pain in giving birth to her Son, her death was a "falling-asleep" etc. The theology of the IC is definitely Western - but the reason the West has sought to impose it on Eastern Catholics in the past is because the West always assumed that everyone had the same understanding of Original Sin as it (and St Augustine) did. And that is not so.

3) Purgatory was formerly conceived as a "place" by RC theology between heaven and hell. This is clear from the documents of the Council of Florence - something that horrified the Greeks, especially our Father among the Saints, Mark of Ephesus. It was formerly the case that Eastern Catholics were obliged to accept the Latin terminology and theological context of Purgatory, I have an old Greek Catholic text that outlines the Catholic oath of loyalty for Eastern Catholics and this is mentioned. But the "pith and substance" of what the East believes about prayer for the dead is similar, if not exactly the same, to what the West believes. We pray for the dead much more than the West today does. And we don't pray for the dead who are consigned to a destiny in hell, and we don't pray for the dead who are consigned to a destiny in heaven. We pray for those who have yet to enter heaven, who need our prayers to get closer to God, as Fr. Meyendorff states in his Byzantine theology. We don't define who is where in the afterlife, we pray and we're done with it.

4) I think that much of the Latinization we see in the Eastern Catholic Churches is our own fault. When Rome told our churches to be more faithful to our Eastern tradition, many of our priests and laity said, or words to the effect: "We stand by our Stations of the Cross etc.!" One priest of ours actually told me this.

There are many, even on this forum, who don't like "vostochniks" like you and me . I don't need to tell you who that is either!

I don't agree that Rome is the crown of Orthodoxy. Rome and Orthodoxy, to use the common parlance, are separated from each other.

And our union with Rome has already been discredited by RC theologians themselves - it is considered an historical mistake that should not be repeated again. (Thanks for all your support, Your Eminences!)

So when East unites together with West, according to God's Will, we, as uniates, will disappear back into our Mother Orthodox Churches.

So get ready - we'll be coming with our Stations of the Cross, our monstrances and rosaries, our miraculous medals and scapulars.

In fact, all of the above devotions have been practiced by many Orthodox Saints in the last few centuries any way.

So there you have it, Bob. I hope you'll come to my defence when the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" crowd read this and feel the need to come after me for spoiling their arguments.

I know you will!

Who da man?

YOU da man!

You da ORTHOMAN!

Alex

Alex writes:

[Dear Orthoman,

And a top of the morning to you too, Big Guy!

(We are getting a lot of Irish here of late, you know . . .).]

Welcome back Alex! I knew you couldn't stay away from here any more than I can! IT IS STILL THE BEST DISCUSSION WEBSITE AROUND. Even though I disagree with a ot of whats discussed.

Can't really disagree with anything you posted except mabe waiting until east and west reunite to 'come home'. COME HOME NOW! The calf is fatted and the pierogis are cooking. It just awaits the prodigal sons return!

[So there you have it, Bob. I hope you'll come to my defence when the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" crowd read this and feel the need to come after me for spoiling their arguments.

I know you will!]

Ya got that right!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman:

You have evidenced on this thread an ability to distinguish between dogma and illustrative modes of expression. So why do you lapse and scramble things here.

OS & IC has been discussed exhaustively in other threads. Search the archives. Let me just treat your quote from Fr. Hopko.

First, is Father being careful to avoid saying that his descriptions of RC ideas on OS correspond to dogma? Is he aware that his idea about "guilt" while it may have been terminology used by some writers is not only not dogma but not doctrine, and in fact is specifically stated as not being the Catholic teaching in the CCC? Does he understand precisely what is entailed by the use of the word "stain" both in the Catholic OS and IC teachings? Or is he attaching meanings inconsistent with Catholic teaching? Building straw men to knock down? Etc.

I am happy to learn of the Orhtodox view of OS.
I have, however, previously posted clips from various Orthoodox websites that in fact use terminology that Fr. Hopko might consider Orthodox, if the quoted remark were to be taken rigidly. Moreover, there are Orthodox sites that list not only mortality but other fallen attributes as part of our legacy from Adam. I would not presuppose to tell you what is Orthodox teaching, but would ask for clarification when there appears to be more latitude in the teaching than you are suggesting.

I won't speak for others on Purgatory. I have posted the same article from Brest myself here and have enjoined others to post the whole article. I readily and thankfully accept the idea that our salvation may be advanced even after death, through prayers and offerings. I would even go further than many here and say that I am grateful for the little bit of guidance that the the church gives in attaching an accounting scheme to such acts - in early training anyway - insofar as they help motivate them.

Of course the East and West have argued about lofty expressions: is it a place (Catholic teaching allows different opinions here); does it involve fire (a traitional metaphor but not dogma in Catholicism); is it the same fire as hell-fire or another fire (sheesh!). And here, we have sunk to issues of fuzzy grammar: is it a noun or a verb. These lie outside the core; they lie outside what must be believed. So when you talk about what we accept, it would be nice if you would attach the same wisdom that you do in understanding the allowable range of opinions on analogous subjects within Orthodoxy.

Yes, I agree that your comment was in poor taste.

I don�t think that Father Deacon John�s assumption was in any way absurd but rather a fair conclusion based upon observation. If you add to the mix that there were actually news articles stating that Greek priests could not serve with MP priests back during the Estonian crisis and that some may have read a news account of it the conclusion is a fair one. If anything I am surprised that you had responded without offering the same explanation that I offered.

It appears to me that you seek out the worst interpretation and then purposely use it as an instrument to clobber someone.

If you were an OCA pastor and one of your parishioners came up to you and asked:

�Fr. Tony, I�m going on vacation next week and will be going to the Greek Orthodox parish in Florida. Can I receive the Eucharist in a Greek Orthodox Church? Are Orthodox able to receive the Eucharist in another diocese?�

Would you respond:

�Where did you get such an idea? Do you believe that Jews put the blood of Christian babies in matzoh too? Or was that meant to be some joke? Is this something crazy you read on byzcath.org?�

I sincerely doubt that you would ridicule your parishioner. My guess is that you would either offer an appropriate explanation or ask a few questions to determine the real question.

You are studying to be a priest. You should always go the extra mile to see behind the words to the real question and minister to everyone you speak with.

Admin

Who are you thinking about with this?
Vostochnik is a loaded word of course.

I like very much what Diak wrote on another thread. I respond negatively to ad hoc standards originating from either RC or EO consensus practice. I am completely in favor of and committed to continuing efforts to invigorate our our practice, our cathechesis, our church. But I don't like, at all, any copy-cat defaults that say do this to be more like other Catholics; or do that to be more like other Orthodox. We have a long and beautiful tradition. One that goes directly back, arguably to Sts. C&M. We are not a church that was "created" with the Unia.

We can and we must be faithful to our patrimony, our way, and the way of our saints. We who had nothing as the world judges these things, were riotously wealthy in our church. Nothing short of amazing, when you think of all of the obstacles we faced, to have created such beauty and such goodness.

We can and we must do our own homework to solve our own problems - to discern our particular authentic tradition, and our particular organic growth, and to do so with particular pastoral sensitivity. We cannnot just copy. Any hint otherwise, contains, deep inside, the idea that we are not a church at all. Is outrage.

Bob,

Please don�t post such stuff in the middle of a thread unless you are also explain why you are posting it.

No one has disputed that others have the right to use the term �Catholic�. It is perfectly acceptable for the Moscow Patriarchate, for example, to identify itself as �The Catholic Church at Moscow�. [Although it would be technically very correct I wouldn�t want to be anywhere near the place if they did. ]

The issue in the story you linked is the purposeful use of the term �Catholic� to insinuate that they were part of the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta and were operating under its authority. This is a quite different issue than the one under discussion in this thread.

Admin

I apologize to the learned Orthodox brethren for my previous post, however, as the Admin stated, if my statement is inaccurate, it is certainly understandable. This was not some rash conclusion based upon urban legend. Perhaps the following will put it in perspective.

This weekend at the Divine Liturgy, I noticed a young couple who were visting. As it is my practice with all visitors, after the Divine Liturgy I approached them, introduce myself and welcomed them to our parish. I discovered they were an engaged couple (he is RC, she is GO), and they are planning to move to Phoenix from Boston. Both are committed to their Faith, and it was from the GO Christian, that I was informed of how the Eucharist is received (or not) within Orthodoxy. Her comment followed my comment about how any Catholic, properly prepared, may receive the Eucharist. My comment was in response to her fiance's question if whether or not he could receive the Eucharist in our Byzantine Church since he is a Roman Catholic. I guess this is a sign that we need to better educate the faithful.

Dear Administrator,

Part of the problem, Sir, is that I think you just don't understand my brother, Orthoman, as I have come to!

We've had our wars, but we've come to admire each other as the brothers we are.

Sometimes I think there are those who provoke him here.

He represents the "straight goods" of Orthodoxy here without wishy-washy ecumenical "feel good" views.

He is, in fact, our Mark of Ephesus who, as you know, when he left Florence without signing the instrument of union, prompted Pope Eugenius to say, "We have accomplished nothing."

To work out these issues with Orthoman to his satisfaction and his standards of what Orthodoxy is - now that is to accomplish something!

Orthoman - the Defender of Orthodoxy!

Alex

Bob,

There is no statement anywhere in Latin Catholic theology indicating that Mary is �perfectly holy� on the same level as Jesus Christ himself.

There are certainly differences in the Eastern and Western theologies of original sin and the effect or non-effect on the Theotokos. It does not help, however, when you post stuff claiming that the West actually believes something that it doesn�t and then attempt to shoot it down. It renders the rest of your argument powerless.

I have a personal devotion to St. John Maximovitch. His teaching on this issue, however, demonstrates that he had an erroneous understanding of Latin theology. He makes some classic assumptions that are simply not true. It is very easy to distort someone else�s belief and then shoot it down. The challenge is to actually understand what someone else believes and then respond to it. We can re-examine this new topic if you want under a new thread with an appropriate title.

Admin

Dear djs,

Actually, you are right, I was thinking of you!!

You yourself referred to the "Vostochnyk straightjacket."

Now that I found interesting!

It's part of a debate that exists in the UGCC as well.

I don't know what you mean by "Vostochnyk" but in our community it tends to mean two things: a) a Russifier and b) someone who has a general, if vague, commitment to "easternizing" our church.

So what I don't understand, and would ask you to comment on, is what constitutes a Vostochnyk Straight Jacket?

You say that you are for our Church maintaining its old traditions - are indulgences et al. part of those traditions?

If so, then this means you really do consider your Church to have begun at the time of its union with Rome.

There are others in my church who would say the Ukrainian Church was always in union with Rome etc.

So I'm just not clear where you are coming from.

I'm all ears!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Not to want to be seen to be picky, but I think St John Maximovitch was correct here!

St John of Shanghai was well acquainted with Western theology - he saw many positive things in it and began the trend back to placing Western saints into the Orthodox calendar.

His view was that the Mother of God grew dynamically in holiness - and he rightly critiqued the West's more static view of Mary's holiness.

Orthoman is correct in what he says on this point even from Eastern Catholic standards.

Alex

Alex:

I thought that this was pretty clear in my post above. Just as Bishop John's criticism was of slavishness, mine is of the straight-jacket - East or West, pro or con. It is not serious to accept or to reject something simply because it originated in the East or in the West. We can and must do our own homework, in light of our own particular tradition.

And what do you mean, Alex, by tradition? Is it what has been handed to us, or is it something that was current in some selected place at some selected time, and that is now elevated as the sine qua non of our Church? Are we a living breathing organismic church or are we a museum fossil? Or worse, are we aspiring to be disregard our particular inheritance and become a sorry clone.

I did note that my insouciant attitude toward indulgences may not be shared by others. And some of them likely have serious, non-slavish reasons for not sharing my attitude. Do you think this is a communion-breaking difference or might I be given toll-house latitude here?

I don't doubt that this notion emerged within our church after the Union. So what? Does that make it ipso facto illegitimate?

PS Your rant on Bishop John was untimely, at the very least.

Dear djs,

I didn't like what Bishop John had to say - there is never a good time to critique someone but it's not personal.

And I didn't "rant" - you should know better than to make groundless accusations like that. You should have, instead, said "I don't agree with that BS of yours, Alex" or words to that effect. I thought about Bishop John's statements for a long time before I made those comments. It is telling that you agree with Bishop John but seem to dismiss the ecumenical efforts of the rest of his colleagues. Why?

OR, you could have countered my arguments and indicated WHY you didn't agree with me. Whenever you're ready!

Both of our Churches have inherited a goodly amount of Latinisms in their lives and we are called by the Apostolic See to "return" to the true spirituality etc. of our Churches.

That is not me, but the Vatican II Council, as you know.

Clearly, Rome itself has a good idea of where we, as EC Churches should be, and where we are and that the two realities should become one.

No, we shouldn't be defending Latin traditions simply because: a) our forefathers had them; b) our Churches have had them for a very long time and let's not upset people c) they are now part of our national identity and d) to have them shows we are not backwards like those Orthodox.

In fact, we are called to have an identical liturgical identity with the Orthodox, with our Mother Orthodox Churches to be exact.

There is nothing in Orthodoxy, by way of spirituality, that cannot satisfy what our current Latin devotions satisfy. And Latin innovations are hardly a sign of progress and development, or at least this is how I'm reading you and others in my Church on this score.

Orthodoxy is our "bench-mark" so to speak. It is no "straight-jacket."

And I'm not saying that private devotions of individuals, like me, should be disturbed or sacrificed on the altar of "Orthodox political correctness."

But we should guard against East-West hybridism - that is definitely not our tradition, even if it has been around for a few hundred years.

It makes a mockery of what we are supposed to be as Eastern Catholics with respect to both the West and the East.

Now, I'm saying this by way of what I perceive you to be saying - and I could very well have misread you.

In that case, I'm speaking to my own confreres in the UGCC who believe this way.

(And I wasn't "fuming" on the other thread - I was just upset and disappointed. How would you take being called "rude, arrogant and unsophisticated?" I'm not arrogant . . .)

Alex

Alex,

With all due respect, you are totally incorrect.

The Latin Church has never dogmatically or doctrinally taught that the Theotokos was perfect, equal to Jesus as the quote from St. Ambrose is used to indicate in the piece Bob quotes from.

The Latin Church has never dogmatically or doctrinally taught that Mary did not need to be saved by her Son as the article implies.

The Latin Church has never dogmatically or doctrinally taught that Mary was unable to choose sin (that she had no free will) as the article claims.

The Latin Church has never taught dogmatically or doctrinally that Mary did not die.

The last comment that is highlighted ("Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man".) is equally the teaching of the Latin Church even though St. John appears to be stating that the Latin Church does not teach this.

Your belief that the things the Latin Church is accused of but which it does not actually teach highlights the greater problem in dialog between East and West. Too often people in both Churches assume that the other believes something that that Church never actually taught.

St John Maximovitch did not have a good grasp on Western theology if he made the comments he made. He states some very good and accurate teachings about the Mother of God but his assumption that the Latins actually taught the stuff he is accusing them of is erroneous.

I am no Latin theologian but I have verified each of the points I made above to be accurate with people who are very prayerfully knowledgeable in Latin theology. At best one must pick and choose comments from various Western theologians through the centuries and interpret them broadly to come up with what St. John assumes the Western theology to be. St. John is a holy saint and obviously knew Byzantine Orthodox theology very well. He was not as well versed in Latin theology.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Now that I have your attention . . .

If I said any of the things you are accusing me of, then I deserve to be beaten about the calves and ankles.

But I didn't even mention them, and they are truly erroneous as you say.

And I agree that Maximovitch had trouble relating to the Latin theology of Original Sin - which coloured his subsequent overall assessment of it.

But he was correct in pointing out the dynamic process of holiness that the Mother of God underwent throughout her life - at her Conception, at her Annunciaton, at Pentecost and now in Heaven.

The Latin Church had a much more "static" view of her holiness and sinlessness - St John's identification of this in his book on the Theotokos is quite correct.

As for the Theotokos not dying, the Latin Church at least allowed for Catholics to believe that. There is no mention of her dying in the dogmatic decree on the Assumption - Fr. Hardon discusses this in his Catechism.

And on that score, my friend Bob, is too.

What do you have against us?

Alex

Alex,

Forty lashes over your calves and ankles with a wet noodle seems appropriate (unless someone can suggest a more appropriate instrument ).

You wrote: Not to want to be seen to be picky, but I think St John Maximovitch was correct here!

You endorsed St. John�s teachings as presented by Bob and stated that were correct. In fact his teaching about what the Latins believe was incorrect.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Ah, Sire, but notice the word "here!"

Not "everywhere," but "here!"

And where is "here?"

It is on the score of seeing the dynamic aspect of the Theotokos' sanctification that went from "sanctified in the womb of St Anne" to even greater heights throughout her life.

She was filled by the Holy Spirit on more than one occasion, as we know.

And St John M was reacting against the Latin static view and against the Augustinian Original Sin perspective, as we know as well.

And as for ecumenical relations, I at least made friends with Orthoman.

Can you say the same?

And if there really is such divergence of Orthodox thought on the subject - then what becomes of your "Orthodox in communion with Rome" hypothesis? Shouldn't you be giving that up? Wouldn't that confuse our people - as if they need more confusion?

Alex

Orthodox Catholic posted:

"And our union with Rome has already been discredited by RC theologians themselves - it is considered an historical mistake that should not be repeated again. (Thanks for all your support, Your Eminences!)"


Dear Alex and Fellow Posters,

I really have a tough time understanding this.

It seems to me that this is an instance of historians and theologians taking an anachronistic approach to theology and church history! I may be way out of line here, but I don't understand how one can call the union a mistake in terms of history and theology.

The times were what they were. The believers of the time, Eastern and Western, were just that. Those entering union with Rome, those opposed to their entering union with Rome, and those in Rome which entered into communion with them had only their visions and understandings to guide them. Given the historical circumstances, the state of communications, etc. they all did what they saw as the right thing to do for the good of the people and the Church.

The rest is history.

Of course, it seems to me that the Spirit had some part to play in it, too.

If Catholic historians and theologians discredit the Union of our Churches, what does it matter? It seems that the logical conclusion to what they say is that the existence of the Churches, including our own, as they are as a communion, is a mistake.

That makes no sense to me.

I don't understand how that can be. Let me share a train of thought that may illustrate my thinking and perhaps help you to help me understand.

The Eastern Churches of our communion have rekindled in the Western Church an emphasis on understanding ecclesiology as being a matter of communion. Given the current state of our understanding of the faith, it does make sense for Rome to say that to engage in that kind of union with segments of Orthodoxy today would be a mistake. I can't see how that justifies reinterpreting history and discrediting the historical union.

So the Western Church works for the reunion of all of the Churches using an approach that might in time show that it has changed and respects Eastern beliefs and ways of thinking and doing things. It seems that following the lead of the current Pope, she is trying to do so.

Couldn't that be seen as a working out of the plan of the Spirit for the Churches?. The role of the Eastern Catholic Churches is, it seems to me, an invaluable one to both East and West on the road to reunion. Our communion is not mistake.

I wonder where we would be on the road if the Union had not happened?

Am I missing something?

Thanks for your insights.

Steve

Dear Steve,

An excellent point!

I wish I understood Rome's politicking and posturing toward the East as well . . .

A lot of this is squarely the fault of the Ukrainians.

That Patriarch Josef Slipyj - they had to bring him out of Siberia didn't they?

And then he goes on and on about a . . ."Patriarchate" excuse the word . . .

Who did he think he was? The Russians would never speak to Rome if it approved a UGCC Patriarchate!

Never mind that the Vatican II Council document on the Eastern Churches affirmed that new Patriarchates ought to be established.

Never mind that the UGCC is a direct descendant of the St Andrew tradition of Kyiv.

Never mind that size-wise the UGCC makes other Patriarchal EC Churches look like overly-formalized parishes . . .

But when the Patriarchate thingy was denied to Patri . . oh, sorry, "Cardinal Slipyj," then Ukies began to make their own assessments about the Union of Brest-Litovske.

They affirmed the positive vision of the founders of the Union.

They also affirmed the many negative consequences the union had - it divided a nation against itself, it led to endless inner squabbles and court battles over church property, it alienated entire families etc.

One person once wrote that the great contribution of Brest-Litovske was the tremendous literature (of antagonism), Trenos, Palinodia etc.) that it produced.

I don't know, but I think we could have done without such a "literary legacy."

But, over time, the UGCC became, as the Ukrainian Orthodox historian, Dr. Doroshenko wrote, the "church of Western Ukraine."

It became "our Church" and we defended it, our martyrs died for it, and our hierarchs struggled to maintain it.

Our Church is certainly not a "mistake" - and we don't care what Rome thinks on this score.

Actually, I do have some views on the matter - but the Administrator is already keeping me on a short leash today . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

The issue at hand was Bishop John's being out of sync. There was no documentation of the reason why he was an opponent of the initiative. Was it because he viewed it as inapproapriate in the aftermath of Balamand where both the Catholic and Orhtodox participants argued against particular versus corporate re-unions? Did he think that the statement of Bishop Zoghby was too elliptical and prone to misinterpretation (What exactly is included in "everything" that the Orthodox church teaches?) Or was it, as you suggested, and expose' of his Latinizing tendencies. Your attack was made without any foundation being presented, and was in any case ad hominem and therefore not probative of his opposition. I think that "rant" was therefore justified.

I am delighted that Rome at Vatican II and beyond has advice for our chuirch, but surely we should not accept it slavishly. That would be true Latinism.

I have no problem with removing Latinizations. The problem is that the term is used rather vaguely. Just like the bench-mark of "Orthodoxy". What Orthodox and where? Present Orthodoxy in the US? Do we then admit organ music at the liturgy? Reinforce kneeling on Sundays, pews? Of course, these practices have been termed "westernizations" in Orthodoxy; while, at the same time they are viewed imposed with coercive force by Latins in EC churches.

We have lots of opinions that often don't go far beyond American Bandstand (It's got a good beat, I can dance to it I give it a 98) evaluations. And whenever I asked for norms and criteria - thud! Well that's OK, we're just an opinion forum, but if we haven't done the homework, then we should be a little less rigid about our opinions. That's what I ask for. One notorious example, let's not call the use of pre-cut prosphora a liturgical abuse, and attribute it to laziness of our priests, without first seeking to know the how and why of its origin within our church. If we do not do this, then we are really are becoming copy-cat churches - the most viscious accusation that is hurled against us.

That would be the slavishness, the straight-jacket.

First and foremost our obligation as a church is to advance the salvation of our faithful. What we are for the East or West, mnust be seen as of secondary. We are not a pawn, we are not a demo, we are not bait, we are a church. I've asked before, in similar contexts - what is a church. Thud!

I would like, moreover, to ask about this "hybridism". What does this entail? Must we blind ourselves to ideas "not invented here"? Must we utterly forsake of the idea of enculturation: we are of Western culture? This is a complex matter.

I would be fuming. I have never been called unsophisticated.

Dear djs,

You are definitely sophisticated, Big Guy!

My critique of Bishop John was based on his own words that to "walk with the Pope" necessitated acceptance of Latin church theological traditions over and above our own - that is what he said. If I've misinterpreted, well then, the rest of the Melkite Synod can't be wrong.

And for RC's to be always quoting Bishop John, and not the other members of the Synod with their Patriarch - what can that suggest if not that they've found one bishop who agrees with them and are using him as (falsely) representing the entire Melkite Synod - the Melkites being, as always, the exemplar of Eastern Catholic identity and praxis.

And we have our own theologians and historians who can truly identify what is a "natural" ecclesial development in our Churches' history and what is a "Latinization" or an "inorganic" development.

And we have bishops who sometimes prefer the "inorganic" development.

Slavishness exists among bishops who think that way, who, because of their loyalty to Rome as they understand it, find themselves to have blurred vision that fails to distinguish between Catholic faith, that is universal for all Catholics in communion with Rome, and what is simply Latin tradition - valid for the Latin Church but "inorganic" for the Eastern Churches.

That is what I objected to Bishop John's remarks - I think he was quite clear and articulate in making them.

And I think he goes against the spirit of Vatican II with respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Too bad we no longer live in the age of the inquisition.

I'd be in trouble, if we did - perhaps you'd even see to it.

Alex