www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ARCHBISHOP CLEMENT RECEIVES A REPRESENTATIVE OF VATICAN

I agree with anastasios on this. By the way, do you know if the Greek Metropolitanate in Italy is under Greece or the Ecumenical Patriarchate? If the former, then it could be interpreted as 'mission' churches; if under the MP, it makes a stronger statement.

Blessings!

Regarding the Metropolinate in Italy:

http://web.tin.it/ortodossia/arcore.html

Founded in 1991 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and God is blessing them with growth. They now have Italian speaking parishes!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dogmatically there is no problem in Orthodoxy with setting up territorial bishops in an area where there are bishops outside Orthodox unity. (Even so there is that reverent agnosticism in practice about Catholic bishops — the Greek metropolitan doesn't claim to be a Pope. Though the Greek patriarch of Alexandria does, even though there is a Coptic Pope.) Having said that, I understand the accusation of hypocrisy when the same complain about Catholic bishops in their territory. But — dogmatically Catholicism says the Orthodox hierarchs are not only real bishops in some theoretical sense (like vagante bishops) but are so in real Churches, governing with real apostolic authority. (Source: article by Fr Aidan Nichols linked to my Orthodoxy page.) Catholicism agrees Patriarch Alexis II is who he says he is: first hierarch of the Church in Russia, not an illegitimate "dissident'. So, one may argue, based on Catholicism's own teaching, it is still wrong to set up bishop against bishop territorially on Orthodox turf.

Having said all that, the Orthodox metropolia in Italy (EP) mainly was started to minister to the Greeks living there — like the episcopal apostolic administrators in Russia. I never have complained about the latter, as I realized from my reading there are German and Polish Roman Catholics living in Russia.

Dogmatically, Orthodoxy being what it is ( "we are sure by faith this is the Church but don't know about anyone else' ) , of course it wouldn't turn away Italians who wanted to join.

Just like in theory I have no problem with Catholicism's official stance to Orthodox who approach them: it doesn't solicit, but if they insist, Catholicism takes them — quietly.

Regarding the emergence of an Italian Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy, considering the view many orthodox apostolic Christians hitherto represented here that both side are the Church, which would one rather see: some Italians being secularized, bad Catholics (or completely unchurched) or the same people as devoted, good Orthodox?

Actually I am glad there are some traditional apostolic Christians, orthodox, thriving in Italy.

"OK', some of you are saying. "What about post-Soviet Russians? Wouldn't you rather see them as good Catholics than as bad Orthodox, or completely unchurched as a lot of Russians are?'

OK. I appreciate that argument. Some possible rebuttals, for discussion.

1. Given Catholicism's irenicism dogmatically to the Orthodox, and the small numbers of Italian Orthodox, one can argue the Italian Orthodox community is not a roadblock to Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

2. However, given Orthodoxy's stance, similar parallel dioceses in Russia DO interfere with this dialogue.

3. Pushed against the wall, yes, I am Orthodox. I do what I do because I believe it is true. And...

4. While I am not advocating attempted Orthodox aggression in Catholic countries or among Catholic populations, yes, if given only those two choices I would rather see people like Italians be Byzantine (100% orthodox) than Novus Ordo (in theory 100% orthodox but ambiguous enough to be of dubious orthodoxy in practice) — Byzantineness done honestly is more than a liturgical style to play with; it is orthodox. A belief that is not out of place on what ostensibly is a Byzantine Forum. (Hey, in my book Axios is welcome here as long as he is discreet and honest about his stand, which is not orthodox.) I am far from the most self-consciously hardline Orthodox here, as many here know.

"Holy Russia' wasn't perfect but with Orthodoxy in her veins, figuratively speaking, she fought off several foreign viruses, including, ultimately, Communism. As the orthodox and Orthodox Church rebuilds there, I do not want to see well-funded Westerners go in there and, however inadvertently, damage already-battered Russian souls with AmChurch-type nonsense. No more than I welcome porn and abortion in Pope John Paul II's Poland. (Similar contamination from a similar, related cause.)

I once saw a Maryknoll magazine where such were working in the town of Blagoveshchensk, with no mention the town is named after the Annunciation ( Благовещенiе ) , bringing in guitar Masses. Send in the Cossack brotherhoods!

BTW, a tip of the skufia to a very Orthodox-minded Italian-American, Archimandrite Joseph Francavilla of Holy Transfiguration Melkite Church in McLean, VA!

P.S. Every time I see those annoying, inappropriate smileys popping up in my posts owing to punctuation conflicting with UBB code, making me go back and edit them out, part of me wants to go to the house of whoever invented UBB and spray-paint smileys all over it.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Just found this interesting page:

http://utenti.tripod.it/Teotoco2/index.html

An explanation of Orthodoxy in Italian. It does contain this blurb in English:


Among the gems is the Divine Liturgy in Italian!

I don't know if the site has any ecclesiastical sanction (apparently run by a layman from St Petersburg, Russia) but it does have a wealth of information in Italian on Orthodoxy. Click under "Collegamenti" for Orthodox links in Italian.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

...do you think that there is a possibility of raising the Ukrainian status to patriarchal (the people have done it, but the bureaucrats are still dragging their feet) and then giving the Russian Byzantine Catholics their own status as part of the ancient Patriarchate of Kiev? That way, the ancient order would be restored, the Ukrainians/Kievans would finally be able to take their rightful place as the 'Mother Church' of Northern Slavic Christianity, the Russians would be out from under the "Polish" RCs, and the Muscovites would be dealing with another unquestionable Constantinopolitan church, more ancient and venerable than their own.

This would be a dream come true! But I don't think it will happen that soon.

And the "poor MP doesn't have the resources the western groups have" arguement is a little tired.

For sure! I can't believe there ever was such an argument! The Moscow Patriarchate is the 10th largest importer of cigarettes into Russia! They own oil wells in the East, they are rolling in the dough (not prosphora dough)! They have a virtual monopoly on faith and religion in their country, yet they can't do the job. They spend too much money on rebuilding marble and gold churches, and too little on feeding the poor, teaching children, and educating their faithful. If they really cared for the salvation of the souls of their fellow Russians, they would have no problem with other canonical Christian churches spreading the Word of God in their land, and tending to Christ's Flock.

Daniil

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Daniil ]

Dear Serge,

Galicia was part of Russia for maybe a few months before the Soviets took it. Galicia is not part of Ruthenia (and by this name, I pressume you mean "Zakarpatia").

Also, on present-day, correct English maps, it's Lviv or L'viv.

Another point -- the Patriarch is moving his See to Kyiv. They Patriarchal Cathedral is already under construction. Too bad it's kinda ugly, architecturally speaking.

Daniil

"...do you think that there is a possibility of raising the Ukrainian status to patriarchal (the people have done it, but the bureaucrats are still dragging their feet) and then giving the Russian Byzantine Catholics their own status as part of the ancient Patriarchate of Kiev? That way, the ancient order would be restored, the Ukrainians/Kievans would finally be able to take their rightful place as the 'Mother Church' of Northern Slavic Christianity, the Russians would be out from under the "Polish" RCs, and the Muscovites would be dealing with another unquestionable Constantinopolitan church, more ancient and venerable than their own.'

This would be a dream come true! But I don't think it will happen that soon.

It would be awesome for the Ukrainian and Russian Catholics but disastrous for dialogue and the possibility of eventual reconciliation between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

and the Muscovites would be dealing with another unquestionable Constantinopolitan church

Exactly why such should not be done. More Russian Church-bashing — giving them the finger from Kiev (and Falls Church).

Such a Kievan Catholic Church may be vibrant and 100% orthodox, great in the short term but again, disastrous in the long run for Church relations in the Russias. What was Balamand all about? Hot air? I hope not. The Catholic communion setting up its own "little Orthodoxy' in Kiev, in the middle of Patriarch Alexis II's canonical territory, is revived Uniatism and goes against what Balamand said.

more ancient and venerable than their own

No. The new Kievan Catholic Church as such would be a modern creation like Ukrainian nationalism. Sure, it could be holy. It could be 100% orthodox. But ancient? Heт.

In a true reconciliation, is moving the patriarchal see of Rus' to Kiev an option? Дa.

http://oldworldrus.com

I agree with Dr. John and Lance on this.

In general, I think it is very hypocritical that Orthodoxy can establish itself in traditionally Catholic Western Europe, but Catholic bishops are taboo for small numbers of Russian Roman Catholics who aren't anywhere near a threat to the MP's existence.

Generally, Orthodoxy in the West is much more aggressive (esp. in the US) than Catholicism is in Eastern Europe about getting new converts.
After all, you just have to go to your local Orthodox bookstore and you'll find a million titles of books like "Coming Home," etc. about
people becoming Orthodox. I seriously doubt one would find such things in Eastern Europe.

That said, I am not advocating anything that would seriously hurt the fabric of Russian (or any other traditionally Orthodox country) society.
For better or worse, the Orthodox Church in these countries does have some claim to be in charge!


MK

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Дaниил,

Galicia was part of Russia for maybe a few months before the Soviets took it. Galicia is not part of Ruthenia (and by this name, I presume you mean "Zakarpatia").

"Ruthenia' has meant different things in history — a Latinism for "Russian' or "Rus'-ian', at one time it meant White Russia/Byelorussia/Belarus, way to the north! Ruthenia also was Russia Rubra (Red Russia) in Latin.

But, no, I never meant to claim Galicia was Russian all that time. (You're right — there was only a brief occupation during WWI*.) As you guessed, I was including it in Ruthenia — Закapпaтска( я ) oблacть. Between World Wars I and II, the former was in Poland, the latter Slovakia (then part of the artificial nation of Czechoslovakia).

Also, on present-day, correct English maps, it's Lviv or L'viv.

OK, fine. But the Polish majority population before WWII called it L'vov and spelt it Lwow (line through the L for a w sound).

Another point -- the Patriarch is moving his See to Kyiv. They Patriarchal Cathedral is already under construction.

As I wrote, great news for Byzantine Catholics in the Russias, bad news for long-term relations and the hope of reconciliation with the Orthodox.

As there are very few Ukrainian Catholics in Kyiv, what is the rationale? That Kyiv is the ancient see of Rus'?

Too bad it's kinda ugly, architecturally speaking.

I'm very sorry to read that.

Holy Wisdom/St Sophia — literally a Byzantine church, built by Greeks, but with handsome Ukrainian baroque gold onion domes added — in Kyiv would make a great patriarchal coбop for a reunited Rus' Church.

*During which I believe Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) was interned at an Orthodox monastery. Also, I believe post-Russian Revolution his "host' ended up interned in a monastery as the guest of Met. Andrew, who unlike the chilly treatment he got, treated the Orthodox metropolitan like a peer, a fellow bishop, inviting him to his dinner table.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Michael,

In general, I think it is very hypocritical that Orthodoxy can establish itself in traditionally Catholic Western Europe, but Catholic bishops are taboo for small numbers of Russian Roman Catholics who aren't anywhere near a threat to the MP's existence.



That's not the controversy here. There already are Roman Catholic bishops in Russia to minister to the Roman Catholics there. I have no problem with that. What is menacing is their establishment as territorial bishops, diocesan bishops with titles like "archbishop of Moscow'. The message this is sending to the MP is, "We are conquering you and already have divided the spoils geographically among ourselves.' BAD move.

Years ago the Roman Church dropped the practice of creating a titular patriarch of Constantinople. This new move seems a big step in the other direction.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Michael King ]

Serge,

I hadn't read that any Catholic bishop would be Archbishop of Moscow. Such would be in poor taste, I agree. However, I see no problem with letting a Catholic Bishop be a Bishop and not play semantic word games any longer.

The Catholic Church has no problem that Orthodoxy is flourishing in Western Europe. In fact, if memory serves she has offered help in differing ways. Has not Pope John Paul offered buildings for them to use?

I realize part of the puzzling Orthodox position on this is the "agnostic" view it possesses of those outside of its visible confines. This, of course, is limited to the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Most of the other Apostolic Churches have a more positive view of other Churches (which is why John Paul's visit to Armenia was not a problem for them, for example). Even though Copts generally re-baptize converts from Catholicism, Armenians do not (and can you believe the Copts and Armenians are in communion with each other?) A new webpage for a Coptic parish near Portland currently carries a report of a Eucharistic miracle in a Roman Catholic parish:

http://www.st-antonious.org/

The Assyrian Church of the East similarly has a positive view of other Apostolic Churches. IMO, the "agnostic" view of other Apostolic Churches by the Chaledonian Orthodox is a major weakness.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

While there has been no official statement, I think the four Apostolic Administrations will simply be made diocese immediately subject to Rome, with no metropolitan or province.

And Lance has hit on the crux of the matter:

"Another point, an Apostolic Administration is a diocese in everything but name (minus a few canonical points that only effect its relation to Rome not other Churches), what does it matter that they are now canonical diocese? The fact is they are there. Why must we play semantic games with the MP? Or is this just a weak excuse for the MP to complain about Catholic "aggression"?"

It is an argument of semantics. Any fair-minded individual can see this. Sad really, but such is the way of things.