www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

I am beginning to see the similarities between math and religion.

Just for the sake of argument, speaking theoretically (I don�t want anyone damning me to hell over this exercise):

On the subject of Vatican I, is it not conceivable (at least theoretically) that it�s pronouncements could be reviewed by a later Council and modified?

Has this never happened before?

Michael

It gives us the chance to practice the virtue of humility...Rome humiliates us every chance it gets and sometimes seems to go out of her way to do so! (asking the MP about a patriarchate for the UGCC for example)

Dear Administrator,

Let me be the first to recommend Moe for acclamation/acknowledgement for having finally discovered the ultimate benefit for being in union with Rome!

And congratulations to you for your own mystical charisma in drawing such brilliant people to your Forum!

Alex

To answer my own, original question, I think that union with Rome brings us unity because we have a clear, discernable head of the Church (ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, as St. Ambrose said).

One of my problems with Orthodoxy (no offense to the Orthodox on the board), is the lack of a clear position on contraception. In the Catholic Church, we have a clear position because of the Petrine ministry.

Incidentally, I don't think the definitions of Vatican I are necessary to achieve this clarity on the issue of contraception (not that I'm necessarily denying the definitions of Vatican I either).

In short, union with Rome brings us unity not only in terms of doctrine, but also in terms of communion. As Michael pointed out earlier, being union with Rome brings us communion with all sorts of Churches of different traditions (Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, etc.).

Jason

Jason,

I remember a mentor of mine talking about a collegue of his who had a lovely collection of proofs of 2=1, not contingent on concealed division by zero. Are you aware of any of these proofs?

Dear Jason,

But to paraphrase Neil, "So what" if Rome has a clear position on contraception?

Rome also has a clear position on giving Communion to politicians who support abortion.

And, again to quote Neil, "So what?"

What does this have to do with union with Rome as such?

Orthodox Christianity has a clear position on many things that Rome doesn't or doesn't seem to have.

It is much more conservative in terms of faith and liturgy than the RC Church.

This is one reason why Orthodoxy is so attractive to Western Christian converts.

Rome has clear positions on a number of things - but do Roman Catholics, in their majority, obey them?

Orthodoxy does not approve of artificial birth control or abortion - that is simply a myth.

It is like the old myth, that one can still come across, that if Orthodoxy doesn't accept the Immaculate Conception, then it must believe that Our Lady was conceived with the "stain of Original Sin."

Or if it rejects the RC dogma of the Assumption, then . . .

In addition, I think one may overdo the argument about all those traditions that the Catholic Church has.

Most RC's I know have never heard of them - I daresay most RC's period have little idea about the "Eastern rites."

It is also a myth that Rome has encouraged ritual diversity in history.

Since Rome wishes to maintain its strangle hold on the EC Churches, denial of married priesthood etc., it is clear from this sort of praxis that Rome itself, rhetoric to the contrary, sees EC's as "Roman Catholic rites" and not as true sui iuris Churches.

Until Vatican II, the order of the day was Latinization, and it matters not who is ultimately to blame. The Roman Rite was formerly seen to be the "best" one and this is also a view that was often communicated to me when I attended my Catholic schools.

Alex

Another nice thing is we get to practice our whining.

Show me the orders from Rome on Latinizaton. You know the history is just the opposite. Show me the diversity within the EO communion.

Denial of married priesthood? Where: In Ukraine? In Slovakia? Oh you mean in America, implemented at a time when we were sucessfully advancing the innovation of having our own bishops here, and waning already within a century - breakneck speed by ecclesial standards.


Of course. By avoiding recognition of our own responsibilites we can whine about Rome.

I believe there was a time (not that long ago) when people (like me) were not permitted to transfer from the Latin Church to an Eastern Church. OTOH, people could transfer from Eastern Churches to the Latin Church.

That would seem to indicate that the Eastern Churches/Rites/whatever were considered inferior to the Roman Church/Rite/whatever.

Of course, djs, you do have good points.

Jason

About division by zero?

There is a history. This union began, for Rusyns, with priests and people, then a bishop suffragan to Eger, then an eparchy, then metropolia, then sui juris churches. IMO the reality of this church as a church has never changed. What has changed is the perception of it, the recognition of it. It is errant anachronism to take a slice of history and apply it to the present, and take it as indicative of contemproary "trouble" and the "price". One might instead take some satisfaction from the continuing positive development. (And btw it's just as easy to play this game within EO - e.g., Can the EP quash a Patriarchal church; does he have immediate jurisdiction over other patriarchal churches?)

Has this evolving perception been a stumbling block to our salvation. I regret having to say yes; I wish that we were not so troubled about such things, when only one thing is necessary.

Dear djs,

I'm rather surprised the Vatican hasn't drafted you into its diplomatic corps as an "apologetic at large!"

"Whining?" Are you serious? I guess you are . . .

So all the Latinizations and denials of our rights are "our fault?" Hmmm . . . I have yet to see even an RC historian say that.

Latinization need not happen by "decree." It can happen by proxy, such as when local RC churches pursued active policies of Latinization in E. Europe and Rome did nothing to stop it, nice rhetoric notwithstanding.

But the approach you take, "show me a document" is rather silly, after everything that's been discussed on this Forum?

And perhaps you think the UGCC Cardinal (I'm sure you don't agree he is a "Patriarch" - after all Rome won't approve him without the Moscow Patriarchate's "go-ahead") and his synod are also "whiners?"

I'll leave you in your perfect world.

Alex

Dear Benedictus,

DJS only has good points if you agree with them!

He's very loyal to Rome, come what may, and he seems to be a Democratic supporter.

But other than that, he's O.K.!

Alex

Dear djs,

We have the right to defend our Churches. If you come at the EC's from what appears to be a universalist perspective, then why even bother having EC Particular Churches?

As for our Churches being a stumbling block, it would appear that Rome has found that out a well - especially in its relations with the Orthodox.

Although, and I know it is anathema to say anything critical of Rome, Rome didn't appeared too, too concerned with what Orthodoxy had to say when it established its own Latin dioceses in Russia ie. its own internal business.

So why should OUR internal business be the concern of Orthodoxy?

Or is Rome right nomatter what?

Alex

Just out of curiosity . . .

Does anyone think the Ruthenian rescension would have survived had it not been for the Union? I could even ask whether or not it survived the union.

I suppose that is another topic. If the consensus is yes, then I'll stick by my earlier statment.

I don't believe the Union of Florence had been rejected completely by the Unions of Brest and Uzhorod. There were EOs under Poles, Hungarians, etc. and I don't think their masters were going to allow the EO churches to survive within their empires. At least not without a lot of persecution or control.

But then again, didn't some reject the unions and continue to exist as they had before?

Dear Cizinec,

Well, we have UGC priests who are all for throwing out the Ruthenian Recension!

The Union didn't save us from that phenomenon . . .

Certainly, the Unias gave a number of benefits to our local Churches, benefits that some Orthodox leaders have, time and again, praised.

I'm just wondering if the whole idea of such unions have become bankrupt in our time from the point of view of Rome, Orthodoxy (we already know the answer to that one) and also the EC Churches.

Alex

Certainly. That is what I was doing.

Not our churches. Our tendency to be so troubled by ecclesiological stuff, rather than important things. OK, I suppose that stuff is important, and I am grateful to people who work on those things.

:rolleyes: If the criticism is inaccurate or otherwise unfair it is anathema.

Neither did it appear too concerned when the UGCC set up new eparchies in eastern Ukraine, as well it should not have.