www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Who Needs the Church?

SamB and Alex,
Suffice it to say that we probably are in agreement on many things, we just elucidate them differently (does that sound like relativism or what!?). Again, I'm sorry for getting all rattled.

Alex:
Sorry, I'm not Catholic, at least not yet. I am "Orthodox not in Communion with Rome," though that could change in the future. I only play a Catholic on the ByzCath forum when it suits me!

Alex, here's a question for you: should one stay on the ecumenical left wing of Orthodoxy, (at least as far as Catholic relations are concerned) but still try to maintin somesort of allegience to the Church (OCA?). I mean, where does being honest with one's self come into play? Its all nice and good around here to be an Orthodox who is open to Catholicism, but where do you cross the line? I think I know, and the answer isn't going to sound good to a lot of people I know.

God Bless,

Michael

PS: Alex, don't you celebrate Pascha with the Orthodox? So, Mardi Gras is just a party (this year) before a regular Wednesday fast day-rather ho hum.

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Hey, Alex, Mor and John-the Odd Duck. Love you guys a lot.

Y'all seem to have the sense of what is important to the people of God: both feasting and fasting.

Sometimes we get to the point that the external rituals are the 'end all and be all' of an important day/feast. This is the attitude of many of the revelers in New Orleans at Mardi Gras. These poor folks don't listen to the tolling of the midnight bells from the Cathedral of St. Louis signalling the end of the 'pre-fast' period.

However, I think that we can make use of these secular symbols to send a message to the world (including the revelers) that there is something more than the partying and food and drink of the pre-lenten celebration. Perhaps we should send clerics down Bourbon Street with hand-bells clanging to say: "The Catholic Church says that we are now about to begin the fast and abstinence period." How's about a legitmate procession in the Quarter, with a tolling bell?

Even the Prots would step back and say: "Hey, what's this??!?!" And maybe, just maybe, we can give them pause to think about how the "Church" is the foundation of the celebration. Easy? Hell, no. They would just as soon toss their Hurricane glasses; but it just might make them ask a few questions. And this is good.

Blessings!

Alex, here's a question for you: should one stay on the ecumenical left wing of Orthodoxy, (at least as far as Catholic relations are concerned) but still try to maintin somesort of allegience to the Church (OCA?). I mean, where does being honest with one's self come into play? Its all nice and good around here to be an Orthodox who is open to Catholicism, but where do you cross the line?

The "line" is crossed when you believe Catholic dogma. If you believe as the Roman Catholics do about all of their various dogmas that are not considered "orthodox" by Orthodoxy, then the line has been crossed, if you want to put it that way, and in my opinion conscience would lead one to formalize what may already be an internal submission to Roman authority and Roman truth. I honestly believe that for folks for whom "what they believe" is important, it is important to be in the place where your own beliefs mesh. So, from my own perspective, if an Orthodox believes what the Catholics do about the Pope (to take an example), he should become Catholic unless there are extenuating circumstances. If, by contrast, one does not believe everything that Rome teaches its flock that they must believe, one ought not join that flock.

Brendan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
[QB]Hey, Alex, Mor and John-the Odd Duck. Love you guys a lot.

"Perhaps we should send clerics down Bourbon Street........"

In drag?

" with hand-bells clanging to say: 'The Catholic Church says that we are now about to begin the fast and abstinence period." How's about a legitmate procession in the Quarter, with a tolling bell?'"

Ah yes, for "whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee."

As we say in the South: "y'all know that... white-trash is white-trash by any other name."

Thank ye kindly and y'all come back, 'ya hear. Yeeehooooooooo!

Sonny

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Sonny ]

I've never seen such a procession in this country...I'd go to New Orleans just for that!

(although I'd like to go to Mardi Gras one year)

Dear Friends in Christ,

Actually, I didn't think my quip to the Catholicos about Mardi Gras would engender such thought-provoking comments!

Even Brendan got into the mix. Hopefully, I'll be able to do a repeat of my act for future threads!

As for Mardi Gras, I first came into real contact with this "culture" last year when I visited New Orleans.

Being of a somewhat conservative sore (sorry Kurt!), it came as a shock to me (and my wife) to have strange women hug and kiss me and throw beads at me.

Like Valentine's Day and even Christmas, Mardi Gras is a pagan spin-off that the Church has tried, unsuccessfully, to Christianize - which means, to many, to be a kill-joy.

I think there is a place for revelry and enjoyment of one another. I think that Christians can hug and kiss and otherwise be demonstrative about their love for one another in the Lord. And I think we know how to kick up our heels and have a good time.

Mardi Gras celebrations can become violent and pornographic. Our Christian witness is truly, as our mentor, Dr. John, has said, to affirm the Christian value of Lenten self-discipline. And we can also witness to having a good time, that Christ's death and resurrection have given us the big smile we should have on our faces.

So happy Mardi Gras everyone!

Alex

Dear Michael,

(Brendan, Michael was talking to me, need I remind you )

Yes, where does one cross the line indeed?

Of course, my idea of where the line is is perhaps less definite.

The fact of the matter is that I've met Orthodox who believe that the Orthodox Church should submit to the papacy. This, as Orthodox opinion, is discussed in Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church" so don't take my word for it.

John Meyendorff mentions historical Orthodox personages who have understood and accepted the western idea of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception doctrine.

There have been Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception during the Kyivan Baroque period, leaving aside the question of Latinization in Orthodoxy at that time.

St Peter Mohyla of Kyiv's Confession was, originally, a completely Latin document before it was pruned by the Orthodox Patriarchs. Yet, Peter himself refused to accept the pruning insofar as Purgatory was concerned and continued to teach that western doctrine.

An Orthodox Christian may believe in the Pope as the first among equals, and even more than this, as long as it is his opinion alone or theologoumenon.

Catholicism has become more open to Patristics and Eastern Orthodoxy - I see a real acknowledgement of the truth of Orthodoxy by Rome.

As I've said on other occasions, I personally believe everything that the Orthodox Church teaches, I believe it to be in keeping with RC faith, although expressed differently. In addition, I believe that the Pope is first among equals, the first bishop and Patriarch in the Church, as the entire Church once believed.

I further believe in the Pope's jurisdiction, but that he shares this with the Patriarchs and Primates of the Particular Churches who have "first dibs" on jurisdictional matters. I believe that this issue needs more work and that such work is being undertaken "in process."

I also believe that the Pope can express infallible truth by the Holy Spirit when he speaks "ex cathedra" or from the Chair of Peter which presupposes that he is in union with the thought of Peter and his successors and Councils through the ages.

Michael, if you wish to become Orthodox in union with Rome, we welcome you and love you.

If you wish to remain where you are, we love you.

No matter what you do, we love and cherish you for the committed and thoughtful Christian you are.

Alex

Alex --

As Michael is Orthodox, I thought I would provide the Orthodox perspective on the question he raised -- that is, of course, different from the perspective of some Eastern Catholics, and I understand that.

I would point out, however, that the approach outlined in your note contradicts what the Vatican itself told the Melkites when they attempted to profess similarly -- specificially noting that the developments relating to the Papacy that have happened since the separation have to be accepted by Catholics as a matter of faith "in their entirety". I know that there are some Eastern Catholics who may think differently, but Rome hath spoken on this specific point, and to continue to believe otherwise is dissent, whether the Catholic Church chooses to "enforce" that or not.

Brendan

Alex, here's a question for you: should one stay on the ecumenical left wing of Orthodoxy, (at least as far as Catholic relations are concerned) but still try to maintin somesort of allegience to the Church (OCA?). I mean, where does being honest with one's self come into play? Its all nice and good around here to be an Orthodox who is open to Catholicism, but where do you cross the line?

The "line" is crossed when you believe Catholic dogma. If you believe as the Roman Catholics do about all of their various dogmas that are not considered "orthodox" by Orthodoxy, then the line has been crossed, if you want to put it that way, and in my opinion conscience would lead one to formalize what may already be an internal submission to Roman authority and Roman truth.


I agree. And, as can be seen on my Q&A page, AFAIK I am Orthodox.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Brendan,

Friend, I never denied what Rome has said, otherwise I would be Orthodox .

(And I was just quipping about your response to Michael being addressed to me - you have every right to make your point, of course!).

You are right, of course, and we Byzantine Catholics often cross the line ourselves in what we ourselves believe to be "loyal dissent."

I did a lot of that myself in the hey-day of the Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchal movement.

We affirm that our Patriarchs and Primates of our Particular Churches have a right to share in the Pope's administration of our own Churches.

And that is something straight out of Vatican II which is where I got it - and I think I read it correctly . . .

My point is that yes, the Roman Pontiff has Primacy of Jurisdiction, but that work is needed to define it in relation to the reality of the Particular Churches. That is something RC theologians accept readily in their discussions and writings. If that is dissent, then I'm in good (Catholic) company.

One could also say that the Eastern Churches have ALWAYS accepted a FORM of papal jurisdiction, one in which the Pope got involved in Eastern affairs when there was no other recourse, as St John Chrysostom, I am sure, was happy to know.

Perhaps Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction could be redefined along these same lines once again?

And that is not dissent to say so.

Doctrine is a funny thing, I believe. It only tells the story about a small part of the whole. It can always be redefined and expanded or limited.

That may seem to be relativist to some, perhaps to yourself as well.

But my absolute certainty doesn't come from the decisions of a set of Councils established long ago or even from papal infallibility.

Absolute certainty is an illusion, really. We are only certain that we are called to struggle in the darkness with Christ as our Light.

It is the Holy Spirit Who will have the last word, before, now and in the future.

I trust in the Holy Trinity to guide us and bring us into all truth through the Church of Christ and His Apostles.

We both agree on the role of the Petrine Ministry and on an ideal role for Rome.

Although I too would like to see "improvements" in the area of papal jurisdiction, I stay and pray with Rome throughout the process I believe God is guiding in this direction.

What Rome has defined is not the "end" of that process. It is a "part" of that process.

And, frankly, my Friend in Christ, I just don't see the Orthodox East as part of any process, apart from a repetition of ancient canons, many of which your own theologians are saying need revamping.

And again, that doesn't change the fact that the Orthodox Church is a part of Christ's True Church.

Alex

Alex --

Fact is that Vatican I defined, and Vatican II affirmed, as "dogma" the universal direct jurisdiction of the Papacy. As "dogma", that isn't Orthodox, and that's the problem. Yes, the doctrine/application/etc. can be discussed, but Rome has made very clear that the dogma of universal direct papal jurisdiction is mandated by God, in Rome's eyes. That's a difference in dogmatic faith.

I assume that you do accept the dogmatic nature of the Pope's universal direct jurisdiction -- as a Catholic, you must accept that as a matter of dogma (regardless of how one might theorize relating to the "working aspects" of that divinely-mandated direct universal jurisdiction).

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I hope you're not mad at me too today!

So far, Reader Sergius and Angela would rather I not came onto the Forum today . . .

Yes, I do accept what you said I should accept as a Catholic.

So did Patriarch Josef Slipyj and he had 18 years in Siberia under his belt as testament to his loyalty.

Yet, that didn't prevent him from seeking greater autonomy for his Particular Church under a Patriarchate.

Pope Paul VI told him flatly to keep quiet about it, and Patriarch Slipyj refused.

There IS such a thing as legitimate dissent within Catholicism, even though the bureaucrats may hate it and call you disloyal.

So what I'm saying is that the question of Papal supremacy isn't as cut and dried for Eastern Catholics as all that.

Yes, there is the Roman doctrine on the one hand, and, yes, there is the Vatican II approved responsibility of the Eastern Churches to govern themselves.

How do we bring the two together? Now that's when we get into uncharted, as yet, waters.

The Melkites are actually WAY ahead of the rest of us in this matter.

The Melkites are their own people and if they disagree with something Rome says, they will disagree.

When Ukrainian Catholics ever get to the same Eastern Church maturity as the Melkites (I'm not holding my breath just yet), then we'll do the same.

We affirm our Particularity and if Rome doesn't like it, it doesn't like it.

And until such time as we are excommunicated or otherwise publicly censured for disloyalty, that's the way things will remain.

And what is the difference, Big Guy, between this and the declaration of Patriarchates by the Serbs and the Russians that weren't recognized by world Orthodoxy for years?

It didn't alter their resolve and eventually Orthodoxy acknowledged their Patriarchal status.

Was that disloyalty? I don't believe so.

My Patriarch, whether Rome recognizes him as such or not, is the person who is most directly related to me as a member of a Particular Church.

He does not preach sedition or disloyalty to Rome.

He believes we must live our own life as an Eastern Church, as outlined in Vatican II.

As for Rome's discontent, well, "Here we stand . . ."

Alex

Every Eastern Catholic in North America accepts the Pope's universal direct jurisdiction. That is how we have Eastern churches in North America. The Pope created the eastern jurisdictions over the objections of the legitimate, canonical and established bishops who previously had comprehesive authority.

K.