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

Dear JoeS,

Gosh you are observant and intelligent!

I speak for myself and not for others.

The UGCC is very much like the Anglican Church - there are "High Church" people who are very Orthodox-minded and others who are "Low Church" and are Latin-minded and also those in between who just don't give a flying censer about it either way.

If there was a movement to return to its mother Orthodox Church within the UGCC, there would undoubtedly be a schism first. The "Low Church Latins" would readily become Roman Catholic. There already is a Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church across the pond.

The issue that you raise with respect to theology is really rather brilliant and it has never occurred to me, but is an issue that needs to be addressed.

There are Ukrainian Catholics today who are as Orthodox in every which way, save for the Pope, as you are. They would have no problem republishing their liturgical commemorations and be done with it.

The issue of Latinizations and acceptance of Latin theology is ALSO one that has affected the Orthodox churches of Ukraine and Russia.

The "Kyivan Baroque" period Orthodox Church was heavily Latinized. St Dmitri Tuptalenko of Rostov, St Innocent Kulchitsky, ST Ivan Maximovych, St Sophronius Krystalsky, St Tikhon Zadonsky, St Antony Smirnitsky, St Theophilus Leschynsky, St Peter Mohyla and others all belonged to this school.

Their devotions give us some indication of the extent of the Latinization that existed then. There are wood-cuts of the time and copies of theological theses with special decorations that show wooden rosary beads, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary, the 15 Prayers of St Brigitte of Sweden (I've found Slavonic translations of all of these on the internet at one time or another from that time period) and others.

St Dmitri was devoted to the Seven Joys and Sorrows of the Mother of God (Tale of the Five Prayers). He prayed a Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, even at night. He opposed the Old Believers strongly over their views that only the three-bar Cross was valid. He used many Western scholastic models for his hagiographical writings etc.

And there was the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Kyivan area. Orthodox members wore the medal of the Immaculate Conception, from France, and prayed "Most Immaculate Mother of God, save us!"

They also took the bloody vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception. They also believed in Purgatory and prayed for their souls.

As Prof. Poselianin writes in his "Bogomater," the Orthodox parishes throughout western Ukraine continued, until the Revolution, to have "indulgences" or special pilgrimages that he says were taken from the "uniate days."

Orthodox parishes in Western Ukraine today have devotions to the Sacred Heart and I have a beautiful Orthodox publication of the Way of the Cross . . .

I think the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will always have its Latinizations and I don't see them as posing a problem for Catholic converts.

Alex

Dear Marduk,

So far, I've not heard of anyone in the UGCC go over to Orthodoxy because Rome won't acknowledge its Patriarchate.

We accept the decision, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

And our obedience to Rome has produced many martyrs, many more who were beatified by the Pope in Ukraine some months back.

The issue with Rome and Moscow is a political one and I hope that disagreement over politics doesn't make us bad Catholics or disloyal ones.

There are many RC's who agree with the UGCC and think that Rome is in the wrong too.

And if the view of Orthodoxy is so important to Rome, then why doesn't Rome go the whole way and just disband the Eastern Catholic Churches as offensive to Orthodoxy? Why stop at just not recognizing our patriarchate when you know that our very existence is dissing them off?

This is politics, not faith and morals.

And when it comes to faith and morals, I'll match our Church's record in terms of obedience to Rome to that of most RC's I know.

Alex

Dear Brother Alex,

Thank you for the explanations, once again. Your clarity on the issues is highly commendable.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you will find that this brotherhood commemorated the Immaculate state of the Theotokos at the time of her Conception of the Incarnate God. I havent read anywhere where Orthodox recognized Her as The Immaculate Conception. We both recognize Her holy state during Her life time. And She was tempted as we are tempted to commit sin. However, what separated Her from us is that She Had the strength through God to thwart these temptations and as the result not fall in to sin as we do.

JoeS

//...And there was the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception in the Kyivan area. Orthodox members wore the medal of the Immaculate Conception, from France, and prayed "Most Immaculate Mother of God, save us!"...//

Alex

Athanasius,

I think for "the Church" to possibly "be all that it can be", yes you need the Pope.

It is true, that by fidelity to ecclessiastical customs (liturgy in particular) and the memory of the great Fathers, the Orthodox Churches have been bastions of spiritual conservativism and have managed to basically "keep it together."

However, let's be frank and admit a few things which are painfully obvious. Despite condemnations of phyletism, the various local Orthodox Churches have increasingly become divided along national lines; and while I think the accusation of "Caesaro-Papism" is often unfairly exagerated by some western polemicists, it is true that the absence of the Pope has left a "vacuum" which has been often filled by people who have even less business sticking their nose into Church affairs. Russia is an excellent case in point here - for centuries there was not a Moscow Patriarchate, because by fiat the Tsars had disolved it (!!), replacing the rule of the Russian Orthodox Church with a synodal assembly of their own design, which included not only Bishops, but Priests, laymen, and government officials. How is this preferable to the Pope?

The Papacy is what keeps the Church from being uncomfortably identified TOO closely with any particular regime. It is what keeps the consciousness alive that even KINGS are subjects of the Church, not vice versa.

The day to day reality of the Orthodox, now and in the past, I think betrays that their being seperate from the Pope has created the kind of vacuum that I speak of. Parting ways with the Pope did not dissolve the need for an authoratative, unifying figure who if push comes to shove prevails, so as to guarantee the unity of the Church Universal. All that changed is that this went from being a world wide, to more local phenomenon. Unfortunately, on a global scale, because of the plurality of such "authoratative" figures each having their own interests, and probably because none had the special Petrine charism, this only magnified the divisions which exist within what really ought to be called the "union of Orthodox Churches" more so than "the Orthodox Church" in the singular.

Augustine

I believe the Council of Trent defined as de fide the idea of Purgatory. The nature of puhishment outside of the separation from God which the soul now understands perfectly and suffers from immensely is a continuing debate personally I think it is the Light of Tabor experienced as a cleansing fire a laser like fire of light.

//Auggie: I think for "the Church" to possibly "be all that it can be", yes you need the Pope.//

NO, we don't at least not in the way you think we need one.

//It is true, that by fidelity to ecclesiastical customs (liturgy in particular) and the memory of the great Fathers, the Orthodox Churches have been bastions of spiritual conservativism and have managed to basically "keep it together."//

And we managed to remain pretty much as we were back before Rome left Orthodoxy.

//However, let's be frank and admit a few things which are painfully obvious. Despite condemnations of phyletism, the various local Orthodox Churches have increasingly become divided along national lines; and while I think the accusation of "Caesaro-Papism" is often unfairly exagerated by some western polemicists, it is true that the absence of the Pope has left a "vacuum" which has been often filled by people who have even less business sticking their nose into Church affairs. Russia is an excellent case in point here - for centuries there was not a Moscow Patriarchate, because by fiat the Tsars had disolved it (!!), replacing the rule of the Russian Orthodox Church with a synodal assembly of their own design, which included not only Bishops, but Priests, laymen, and government officials. How is this preferable to the Pope?//

History is full of churches affiliated with their kings, emperors, and the like both east and west. How about that "Holy Roman Empire".
And you loved the papacy so much you even had three popes at one time. How about Charlemagne (sp?) and his influence on the papacy. Im sure some who are measurable more adept at history can come up with more examples of the hierarchies on both sides being chummy with the powers that be.
Charlemagne(sp?), didn't he get the RCC to condemn the Orthodox for taking out the filioque?




//The Papacy is what keeps the Church from being uncomfortably identified TOO closely with any particular regime. It is what keeps the consciousness alive that even KINGS are subjects of the Church, not vice versa.//

See my last Para. But dont forget the One church before the schism was subject to the emperor and this included Rome.

//The day to day reality of the Orthodox, now and in the past, I think betrays that their being seperate from the Pope has created the kind of vacuum that I speak of. Parting ways with the Pope did not dissolve the need for an authoratative, unifying figure who if push comes to shove prevails, so as to guarantee the unity of the Church Universal. All that changed is that this went from being a world wide, to more local phenomenon. Unfortunately, on a global scale, because of the plurality of such "authoratative" figures each having their own interests, and probably because none had the special Petrine charism, this only magnified the divisions which exist within what really ought to be called the "union of Orthodox Churches" more so than "the Orthodox Church" in the singular.//

I feel no vacuum as you say. And we have gotten along pretty well without the authoritarian office of the present day papacy.I keep hearing the Roman Catholic Church consists of the Latin Rite and 22 sui juris churches. How is that any different?

JoeS

Actually Joe
RCC is a miss nomer. The Catholic Church is federation of Churches, one of which is the Latin Church. An annalogy would be the 50 states which form the One United States of America. Each having seperate laws, customs, etc yet under one President.
Stephanos I