www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Do Eastern christians really NEED the Pope?

Diak,
I attended a Byzantine DL today and they did not use the fillioque either, no big deal.

Your correct, I dont have any contact with Greek Catholics but I have read enough material about the GCC to know that it was difficult to get Rome to agree on NOT saying the Filiogue during Liturgy and it is only recently that this Pope has insisted that the Eastern Catholics return to their once Eastern Traditons. Now, at the insistance of the Pope one has to believe that western theology had replaced much if not all of Byzantine Traditions over the centuries since Brest/Litovsk. And I didnt get the impression that the Byzantines Catholics put up much of a resistance to retain those Traditions that were guaranteed them in this 33 article agreement.

JoeS

//Joes, you don't apparently have much contact with Greek Catholics. In my parish we do not use the Filioque at all.//

Actually, there was significant resistance, and some Greek Catholics were faithful to keeping their traditions.

I am not sure what specifically you are mentioning when you say "at the insistance of the Pope".

Rome, especially post-Vatican II, has exhorted us Eastern Catholics to return to our full legitimate Eastern traditions, and become less latinized, not more so. Orientale Lumen is the most recent encyclical dealing with the Eastern Catholics, which has some very strong language exhorting ECs to return to their traditions.

The Holy Father himself has led the Akathist to the Theotokos as well as celebrated the Divine Liturgy without using the filioque.

I also find your comments puzzling. Especially about "get[ting] Rome to agree". Rome was usually in the position of supporting adherence to our tradition, trumping local pressure - both external and internal.
I'd be curious to learn about this reading list - full of such interesting things.

//I'd be curious to learn about this reading list - full of such interesting things.//

Try 'The Orthodox Church In The History of Russia' by Dimitry Pospielovsky

Page 92-93 regarding the union -

{Note: This section deals with a second memorandum sent to the Pope on their conditions for submission to the Pope. The first memorandum which consists of ten conditions was rejected by the pope. Rome ignored all these conditions, promising only that the metropolitan of Kiev would have full contol over the ancient Kiev Monastery of the Caves. The bishops responded by by drafting a "Concilliar Address" to the pope, consisting of twenty six articles, which were delivered by the two bishops sent to Rome, Ipati-Potii of Vladimir-Volynsk, and Krill (Terletsky of Lutsk. The articles included both a confession of faith and a number of requests -

1. The Holy spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son
2. All orthodox liturgies and other rites should remain unchanged
3. The Eurcharist is to continue to be distributed under both species, according to Orthodox tradition
4. No objection to purgatory, "but we want to be true to the teachings of the Church." The new calendar can be accepted but the Paschal cycle should remain untouched, as well as those Orthodox feasts which are absent from the Roman Church, e.g., Epiphany
6. The rentention of married clergy
7. That only Russians or Greeks may be consecrated bishops (This reflects the fear that Poles might try and infiltrate the Church and gradually latinize and polonize it).
8 & 9: (Identical to the 8 &9 in the previous memo whic dealt with equal rights & privleges with the Latin Rite Bishops ).
11. No Greek bishops to be allowed in the commonwealth's territory, and none of their bans are to be valid in the Commonwealth.
12 & 20: Defections to the Roman rite and transformation of Eastern churches ito Latin-rite ones is forbidden
21. Colleges and brotherhoods, should they join the Unia, are to be subject to the bishops.
26. "Some of ours" have gone to Greece to report [on us] in order to be appointed to posts "superior to ours". Let the King of Poland prevent their re-entry into his domains.


[Caps are mine]

UGCC historians have claimed that this document had a theological character. But the only theology here relates to the FILIOQUE and Purgatory, and on both issues the Bishops meekly agree to accept whatever the pope decides. Yet even this petition did not receive a proper response from the Vatican. After vainly waiting for it in Rome, the bishops were simply brought before the pope, were handed the Latin texts of the Latin episcopal oath, which they were made to pronounce WHILE KNEELING BEFORE THE POPE.
Then, after receiting the Creed WITH THE FILIOQUE, they were reconsecrated by the pope AS ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS pure and simple. The confession of faith included in the oath AFFIRMED THAT ONLY THE ROMAN CHURCH POSSESSED THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH, AND THAT THEY ACCEPT ALL THE TRADITIONS, RITES, AND SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Only a month later, in January 1596, the pope magnanimously handed the bishops a short statute for the UGCC Church, permitting it to retain those of their traditions and rites WHICH DID NOT CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. ALL THE OTHER DEMANDS MADE IN THE TWO MEMORANDA - SUCH AS AUTOMONY, THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS, ETC. - WERE TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE POPE. Ipati and Krill then returned to the Commonwealth as bishops of the eastern rite, but with no guarantee that that rite would be respected or retained.

In fact, the laity, the parish clergy, and particularly the brotherhoods refused to accept the union with Rome. The protest movement developed and spread quickly, joined at first by a single bishop, Gideon (Boloban) of Livov. The King gave in to these pressures and authorized the convening of a local council OF THOSE BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCH WHO ACCEPTED THE PAPACY - i.e., THOSE WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE COUNCIL WERE NOT INVITED.

The council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox churches in the city, THE METROPOLITAN OF KIEV SEALED ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS TO BEGIN, EXCEPT FOR THE CATHEDRAL WHERE THE COUNCIL WAS TO TAKE PLACE. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with Prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the UGC's, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school hall for a separate Orthodox Council. The UGC Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the UGC Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15 legalized only those Byzantine-rite Christians who joined the Unia; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL IT'S CLERGY EXCOMMUNCATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

I hope this helps explain our side of things.

JoeS

Joes, you can subscribe to whatever anecdotal accounts you wish of this time period. Perhaps the most historically and chronologically correct account is the Harvard Press account of Fr. Borys Gudziak, "Crisis and Reform".

The fact remains, undeniably as the agreement itself remians, that the legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv, Mikhail Rahoza, and the majority of the Kyivan Church, entered into union with Rome in 1596, church closings and other conspiracy theories aside.

No one was holding a gun to their heads, and a simple majority of bishops of the Kyivan Church agreed.

I'm not saying that the period since the Union has been without pitfalls, and we have been often caught between Orthodoxy and Rome and sometimes even our own hierarchy, with often negative results.

Some of us are genuinely trying to live out our Constantinopolitan tradition in union with Rome. Pray for us. We will pray for you.

Roll back to 1965. Athenogoras and Paul VI renounce the mutual anathemas of 1954. 2004, John Paul II and Bartolomeos reaffirm the acts of 1965. We share far more things in common than not.

//Some of us are genuinely trying to live out our Constantinopolitan tradition in union with Rome. Pray for us. We will pray for you.//

Well I hope it works our for you.

JoeS

Interesting passage from a monograph entitlted:
"The Orthodox Church In The History of Russia"

No.

Suggestion: if one wants to increase one's knowledge of almost anything, it pays to go straight to the source. In this instance, if one wants to know about Greek-Catholicism, read the Greek-Catholics. [The contrary practice is not confined to any particular group; I remember being informed that the best books to read about Communism were written by Richard Cardinal Cushing and Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Somehow I doubt that either of these hierarchs - whom I greatly admire - had much personal experience of Communism.]
Incognitus

Does the body need a head?
And JoeS the Eastern Churches are not a "rite" within the Catholic Church, a statement like that shows little understanding of Ecclesiology.
Stephanos I

The Orthodox have a head. He sits at the right hand of God the Father. Thats what we beleive to be the Truth. The head is Christ Himself and the body is the Church.

JoeS

//And JoeS the Eastern Churches are not a "rite" within the Catholic Church, a statement like that shows little understanding of Ecclesiology.
Stephanos I//

On EWTN the Byzantine priest on Light of the East mentions that they are a rite as opposed to a church within the one Universal Roman Catholic church. Even heard Romans refer to themselves sometimes as a Roman rite within the OUCC. One church, many rites.

JoeS

Hmm - are priests always correct ?

Do they never make mistakes ?

Dear JoeS,

In a united Church, which the Catholic Church intends to ideally represent, there IS INDEED ONLY ONE CHURCH. PERIOD. There are different jurisdictions within the ONE CHURCH which are also properly called "Churches." I do not need to see that episode of EWTN to know that when the Eastern priest said there is only "one Church," he was referring to the transcendent Body of Christ on earth which is indeed ONLY ONE. Give the benefit of the doubt to your eastern Catholic brethren, especially the priests.

Blessings,
Marduk