www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West St.Theodore Romzha:Greek Catholic Martyr

In the Latin Church this is understandable, in the Eastern Catholic Churches this is not. I for one would press this. Is this a function of the pope's patriarchal duties or his Petrine primacy. I would argue the former rather than the latter.

Pax Christi,
John

Righto!

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

In the West, the process of canonization was reserved to the Holy See in 1160 by Pope Alexander III.

(Here I must add that decrees like this do not take effect in a given area until they are promulgated there, and geographical and political barriers delayed the promulgation of this decree in many areas, e.g. the Rhineland. This is why the legitimacy some canonizations, like St. Hildegard of Bingen's around 1179, can be debated. In her own case, the legitimacy is generally no longer questioned because her cultus has several implicit approvals from the Holy See.)

Prior to that the local bishops would establish the formal cultus within their own sees. The decree of reservation was prompted by rampant European infighting during the mid-twelfth century. (The political situation of Europe was so bad that the Pope excommunicated the emperor for about 17 years, if that's any indication.) Some were seeking to establish a cultus for one person or another on purely political grounds (something like: "this was a staunch defender of our Frankish values against our Germanic enemies"), which the Church--quite naturally--considered anti-catholic.

Was this discipline a good idea for its time? Would it be a good idea to change the discipline back now? These are difficult questions to answer. But I do think it's only fair to our ancestors to evaluate such decisions in their proper historical contexts.

For the interested, here's another page about Bishop Romzha [geocities.com] .

I am a little amazed as to how quick some of our faith are to make uncharitable assumptions based on false claims (I excuse Rusnak from this since he is not of our communion).

Individual Catholics have the authority to venerate those who their private conscience determines to be worthy of personal veneration. (I.e. if you feel strongly so and so should be venerated - do it! Don't whine that you need some additional authorizaton about it).

The Universal Church does so for those to be universally venerated.

The particular churches detremine who is appropriate for veneration within their particular church. The Ukrainians, for exampel, have their own office which declares individuals appropriate for veneration within the Ukrainian Particular Catholic Church (the term "Blessed" is usually attached to these inividuals in the English language). Their cause may then be forwardee to the Congregation of Saints in Rome for consideration for universal veneration.

We Ruthenians, being a tiny jurisdiction, have elected to "contract out" much of the investigatory work to the Congregation in Rome. For those who have an objection to this fraternal assistance by the Congregation, I would ask that they identify the personnel we wil re-assign from their currrent pastoral duties to this new ministry.

We Ruthenians, being a tiny jurisdiction, have elected to "contract out" much of the investigatory work to the Congregation in Rome. For those who have an objection to this fraternal assistance by the Congregation [...]

Tee hee. In theory this all could be so, but the reality reminds me of how Transcarpathia �elected� to be annexed by Joe Stalin and how he offered his big-brotherly �assistance�.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

Now, my friend Rusnak, I would say the claim that the genocidal murder Stalin and the Holy See are moral equivalents is not conductive to ecumencial dialogue between our two churches, but maybe that is part of your agenda.

K.

Christ is born!

Now, my friend Rusnak, I would say the claim that the genocidal murder Stalin and the Holy See are moral equivalents is not conductive to ecumencial dialogue between our two churches, but maybe that is part of your agenda.

Part of me regrets taking your bait but I couldn�t let the reality of Roman (not just papal, but Roman Church) control over your Churches go unacknowledged.

Speaking of wiping people out (though not in the bloody or tortuous manner Stalin did it), the fact (affirmed by Fr Serge Keleher, who has absolutely no anti-Catholic agenda, as indeed I don�t) is right at the beginning of Vatican II there were Roman Catholic bishops who proposed banning the Eastern Catholic churches outright in the US.

The dirty, ugly reality, Kurt, saccharine rhetoric about �the Universal Pastor�, etc. notwithstanding, is your particular Byzantine Church and those like it exist at the sufferance of one particular Church, the Roman: something Catholics like Anastasios, Stuart and other �gr�cophiles� you don�t like are trying mightily to change, enduring a kind of martyrdom (as Brendan describes so well) for anticipating and trying to live as a present reality a future ideal of �post-post-Schism Church� life.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>


[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-09-2001).]

I agree Rusnak. The fact of the matter is if these things aren't changed and the so called graecophiles and transritualists (I guess I'd fall under both categories) are silenced, then there will not even be a glimmer of hope for unity between Orthodox and Catholics. As Brendan pointed out Eastern Catholics must gain much greater independence first, before the Orthodox will take any efforts at unity put out by Rome seriously.

God Bless,

Joseph

The dirty, ugly reality, Kurt, saccharine rhetoric about �the Universal Pastor�, etc. notwithstanding, is your particular Byzantine Church and those like it exist at the sufferance of one particular Church, the Roman: something Catholics like Anastasios, Stuart and other �gr�cophiles� you don�t like are trying mightily to change, enduring a kind of martyrdom (as Brendan describes so well) for anticipating and trying to live as a present reality a future ideal of �post-post-Schism Church� life.



[This message has been edited by Spidey75 (edited 01-09-2001).]

Kurt,

Rusnak made a comparison, he didn't say they are moral equivalents. Please don't try to slip things by us like that.

i was happy that we all seemed to be getting along, but I guess in reality one can't always agree.

Thus the question I pose to you is: What is YOUR agenda, Kurt?

anastasios


[This message has been edited by anastasios (edited 01-09-2001).]

I wonder about Kurt's agenda. He seems to get upset when Byzantine Catholics try to claim more independence for themselves. Therefore, does he perceive us transritualists and graecophiles as being disloyal to Rome? This would seem the answer, however Kurt's views on extremely grave issues aren't foursquare with Rome, so it must be something else.

God Bless,

Joseph



i was happy that we all seemed to be getting along, but I guess in reality one can't always agree.

Thus the question I pose to you is: What is YOUR agenda, Kurt?

anastasios

My agenda is the advancement and the betterment of the Catholic faith along with ecumencial relations.


I find the "independence" game a latinism. If one wishes to ask the question do I get upset when we are willing to take on new pastoral duties and obligations, the answer is no. My bottom line is practical, let us get the job done. If you have a plan, let's hear it. If you just think a certain way fits better with the way we did it in the 9th century, I'll stick with the pastoral judgement of my hierarchs.


Oh, no! In fact very Roman. I think the hallmark of the eastern catholic churches is our practicality. Our history has been saving our sorry rear-ends from czar, sultan, cossack or king. Deciding who chooses the color for the prayerbook cover depends more on who is not in a gulag and can get it to a (illegal?) printing press rather than the decrees of the fifth Council of Toledo Mudhens as to the proper authority for picking prayerbook cover design.

The Western Church seems to have a philosophy of "constitutionalism" -- i.e. a focus of who has the authority to do what. Neither "right-worship" nor "right-belief" but "right-governance". We see this in anglophone protestantism in which the major denominations take their name from their form of governance (Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregational).

The leading Byzantine Catholic theologian of the modern day, my grandfather, once answered the (very western) question: What do authority do Byzantine Catholic believe the Pope has? He has the authority to do good. He has no authority to do bad.



I am in complete agreement with the Holy Father on any and all grave issues. I will admit I fit the historic sterotype of Byzantine Catholics of immense personal love and affection for John Paul, maybe to a higher emotional degree than for the Office of the Papacy. JPII is number one in my book and without a doubt the greatest figure of the past century.

To understand Byzantine Catholics, you have to look at the Church community as a family, not as a civil government. Families don't have constitutions, by-laws, rules that this family member has this indepedence on that matter and is subject to this authority on that matter. Its all about family.

K.

I find the "independence" game a latinism ... If you just think a certain way fits better with the way we did it in the 9th century, I'll stick with the pastoral judgement of my hierarchs.

The independence Anastasios, Stuart and the other advanced Orthofiers talk about isn�t a game but rather reflects Orthodox ecclesiology (the Universal Church is a family of Churches, of patriarchates) and is an attempt to reconcile this (which they see as an imperative of being Orthodox in communion with the Pope � I know you hate that term but that�s what you, my ethnic Rusyn acquaintance, are called to be!) with the postschism Catholic system.

I am in complete agreement with the Holy Father on any and all grave issues.

Good! Then if you side with him against the culture of death, I trust you are a good Catholic and don�t vote for proabortion political candidates, even when they claim to help the working man (playing on longstanding voting habits that are understandable reactions to historic WASP prejudice against na�i l�udi)?

Catholics can disagree in good conscience whether unions are good or bad, or whether free trade or socialized medicine are good ideas. There is no leeway with abortion. There is a cultural war going on. Pat Buchanan was right on that one.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>


[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-09-2001).]

Rusnak, my friend,

How can the Universal church, by divine mandate, be a family of patriarchates when patriarchates are a human invention? Catholic thinking would hold the Church to be both one universal church and a family of all the particular churches gathered around each ruling bishop (several thousand or so in communion with the Universal Pastor).

Orthodoxy's practice, whatever your theology is, is quite mixed. This "family" certainly did not exist from the schism to modern times. Speak to me if you will as to the "family relationship" between Constantinople and the Greek Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Anitoch from the schism until the end of the 19th century. Then speak to me of the relationship between Constantinople and the Balkan and Slav Churches from the schism until the 19th century.

The "indepedence" game is a game and often the game of secular interests. The christian imperative is ministry. I know our hierarchs are fully open to extending our church's ministry as far as possible, though competing priorities exist. I appreciate what you call the talk Stuart and Dustin offer for our independence. As for making our desired "independence" a practical reality, I am sure they apprecaite my even greater contribution to our Church.

BTW, my only objection to the phrase "OICWR" is that so many members of your Church find it offensive and I believe it is unecumencial to adopt a phrase our sister church objects to. If you would like me to drop my reservations on the phrase, talk to your own people.

Also, I have never identified myself in this forum as an ethnic Rusyn. Politeness might suggest you don't assign other people labels.

I am fully and actively behind the Holy Father in his battle against the culture of death. My voting habits are in accord with what my pastor, eparch and other hierarchs of the Catholic Church, based on personal direction by them.

The Holy Father, following on the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XI has a different view than you do about the dispensibility of trade unions. For me, I am sticking with the pope.



[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 01-10-2001).]

Kurt,

First, to respond to your accusation of rudeness: shuttling between here and the now-dead Byzantines-Dot-Net board, it can be hard for me to remember who has disclosed what where. I know I hate it when people online disclose things about me that either aren�t true, or if they are, I didn�t air them publicly. Sorry. I didn�t mean to make something up about you or disclose anything you hadn�t said yourself here.

One answer to your objections to my take on Orthodox ecclesiology might be a kind of Orthodox interpretation (expansion?) of the New Testament definition of �Church� as in the local Churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, etc. � the way Catholic documents refer to Roman dioceses today � to include the ancient and modern patriarchates.

Catholic thinking would hold the Church to be both one universal church and a family of all the particular churches gathered around each ruling bishop

AFAIK, the Orthodox do too! In fact, I understand Orthodox ecclesiology is from-the-ground-up: the Church in its fullness is wherever the local bishop (or his ordained deputy, the local priest), in communion with all other Orthodox bishops, celebrates the Eucharist for his community. (Cf. my Q&A page)

If you would like me to drop my reservations on the phrase, talk to your own people.

I do! It�s part of the �two-front� or �two theaters of operations� apostolate of <A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>. And like the serious Orthodox-minded Byzantine Catholics here, I�ve taken flak (�friendly fire�?) from our side too � as well as from a Catholic or two, though usually Catholics like my site.

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 01-10-2001).]

Rusnak, my big Julian timing friend,

Thank you for yoru reponse. Just to be clear, while I am in no way embarressed as to my ethnic heritage nor my voting habits, and I know people have made assumptions on both (possibly correct assumptions), i have never stated either directly simply because I beleive they are issues inappropriate for forums such as these.

I suspect some have characturized me to the contrary, but I think too much energy is taken up in many of our parishes on the National Question.

I also appreciate on the question of ecclessiology your statement of broad, basic principles that clearly Orthodox and Catholics can agree on matched with silence on judgemental fine points that are not barriers to communion.

As to your apostolate, best of luck. While I as a Catholic, I would like to continue to avoid doing any to unneccisarily antagonize our Orthodox sisters, if your successfull in your endeavors, I'll be right in line.

K.