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

Dear Serge, An interesting note for the Italo-Byzantines: At the time,, (15th c.) " a metropolitan archbishop-with the title archbishop of Agrigento-was nominated for the Italo-Albanians by Prochoro, the Archbishop of Ohrid. Prochoro also bore the title of Archbishop of Albania with jurisdiction over Albanians of the Greek Rite in Italy. Remarkably, this appointment was confirmed by the patriarch of Constantinople, with the authorization of the pope, in 1553; after the decrees of the Council of Florence were declared null and void by the Orthodox..."
Vito

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: vito ]

Many of the Italo-Albanian towns of Calabria are bilingual with Albanian and Italian being spoken. There are also Calabrians and Apulians who speak Greek dialects of whose origins are still debated: Byzantine period or Magna Greca period??? These Greek speakers are primarily Western Catholics today.

Bishop Nikolaos of Odessa has his own solution to the issue of Roman Catholic diocese in Russia: train Polish Orthodox priests in the Western-rite and send them into those areas where one finds groups of RCs who are without pastoral care and provide for those pastoral needs.

How can Rome object? After all, they do recognize the "validity" of Orthodox sacraments and they certainly feel no reason to apologize for the Unia.

I believe the Church of Romania has a western-rite. Why not Russia?

What is good enough for the First Rome is certainly good enough for the Third Rome. It's about time the Orthodox get in line and follow the example of Old Rome.

Right?

FG

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

That is heartbreaking news!

On the other hand, I suppose such a change was inevitable.

FG

I think the Greek ecclesiastical usage in southern Italy dates from the 6th century, when Justinian reconquered large portions of the peninsula-the Crusades in reverse.

MK

Dear Free Greek, After the Norman conquest of southern Italy in the 11th century, very gradually Greek bishops were replaced by Latins. Eventually the Latin church became dominant. What is remarkable and heartening is that even with latinzation the Italo-Greek-Albanian Church survived and is revived.
"In October 1973, a delegation from the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church made an official visit to the Eparchy of Piana of the Albanians. A highlight of the visit was an ecumencial liturgy, with the delegation from the Greek Orthodox synod participating with the Italo-Albanian bishop, clergy and faithful."
http://www.byzantines.net/OurLadyofGrace/
Concerning the Greek dialect speakers:
How fortunate is the Italian nation and the Holy Roman Catholic Church to have in its midst a Griko (one of the dialects) speaking minority! Sia lodato Gesu` Cristo! Praise be to Jesus Christ!
Vito

Wow. A lot of activity on this one. It seems that everyone really hates the MP. Not surprising.

My own $0.02 is that this is part of the stick of the carrot and stick routine that the Vatican is using with the Russian Church. The Vatican wants the Russians to play ball ecumenically, and a part of the strategy to get them to do that is the carrot (ie, soft influence like last summer's Ukraine visit) and a part of that is the stick (ie, taking what can be viewed as a hostile action).

Rome has the right to minister to its faithful throughout the former Soviet Union. What is more troubling is the idea that Rome can, should or must seek to proselytize amongst un-churched Russians and nominal Orthodox who are not practicing their faith -- that basically seeks to "set the reset button" with respect to the history of the country, and take advantage of a once-in-a-millenium opportunity to reverse gthe religious fabric of a traditionally Orthodox country by ths spread of Catholicism there. And the ROC has the right to be very, very afraid of this. It is nonsense to state that the resources of the Vatican and the ROC are similar in any regard -- the Vatican is the wealthiest ecclesiastical institution in the world, by far, has, again by far, the largest number of adherents and, by far, is also the most highly organized. It is very possible that hundreds of millions of dollars, countless numbers of missionaries and the power of a highly organized unit could be poured into Russia in a relatively short time frame -- thereby seeking to "restore the balance" by creating a much larger Catholic presence in Russia than was ever historically the case. That is not appropriate for a "sister church", but you can't really blame the Catholics for trying to take advantage of the situation -- it's a *great* opportunity to expand there, and won't come along again any time soon.

Brendan

Right on the mark, Brendan.

http://oldworldrus.com

Rome has exited the closet and is unapologetic about her premeditated strategy to subvert and destroy Orthodoxy in Holy Russia.

I believe my Greek Bishop is correct: This tentative first step to subvert the Orthodox Church of Russia is the first step in subverting Orthodoxy.

Historically, this has always been the intent of the papacy. Nothing has changed.

As the wise Solomon said so many centuries ago:

"There is nothing new under the sun."

The Russians must reach back into their historical and collective memories and do whatever must be done to thwart the papist invasion.

They must be willing to do what the Greeks did to the Turkish infidels in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Whether Turk or papist, an infidel is an infidel and there can be no place for them in Holy Russia. Are we--the Orthodox diaspora--willing to see Russian children subjected to the "pastoral" care of men of the likes of Cardinal Law of Boston? Certainly not those of us born into the faith; the true and seasoned guardians and zealots of genuine Orthodoxy.

God and the Holy Mother of God, preserve these innocent children from the evil machinations of the papacy!

FG

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Dear Brendan,

What I have difficulty understanding is how you find the fact that there would be even a little antipathy against the Moscow Patriarch somehow discriminatory on religious grounds alone.

Does this Patriarchate's collusion with the soviet regime not merit even a little criticism on moral, rather than discriminatory religious, grounds?

And does such criticism automatically mean that one wishes the destruction of the Moscow Patriarchate?

You are Orthodox and belong to the OCA. But surely membership in same doesn't prevent one from engaging in a critical assessment of things past?

I certainly believe in critically assessing the Unia and I can equally say that the Orthodox here "love to hate the Unia."

But let's be honest all around. And if someone here is criticizing the MP for no other reason than it is such - well I'm on record as defending the MP in that respect.

O.K., I've said my peace on that score.

Certainly, Rome is very "hot to trot" to get Russia within its ecumenical orbit of geopolitics.

The trip to Ukraine was also what you said it was.

But that's not all it was.

For the Ukrainian Church, it was a great moment when it united with its Supreme Pastor to glorify its martyrs and to affirm the Resurrection of Christ following its experience of Calvary.

Just ask any Ukrainian.

If you didn't feel that when the Pope was over there, it's probably because you aren't Ukrainian .

Alex

>That is not appropriate for a "sister church",

And that is exactly how the Russian Orthodox Church sees it. As I replied in another forum regarding this very subject -

You have to look at it from an Orthodox perspective. If what Rome is telling us is sincere, which is -

We are a valid Church
We have valid sacraments
We are the OTHER LUNG
We are SISTER CHURCHES

Then there is no need for either the Unia or proseltyzing. Because, according to Rome, if we both follow the teachings of our Churches our salvation will be assured.
But instead, what we see is one sister telling her other sister that she is an equal and qualified mother. And then turning around and trying to take her children away from her because she has fallen on some hard times!

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

You have put it well and I agree.

Alex

I don't hate the MP, but I have a hard time buying Brendan's analysis. First, particular between 'sisters', it is too much of a leap to go from regularizing the catholic chruch's administrative structure to claim it is on the verge of pouring "hundreds of millions of dollars, countless numbers of missionaries and the power of a highly organized unit could be poured into Russia in a relatively short time frame".

Second, and this may be the crux of the matter, the claim "that Rome can, should or must seek to proselytize amongst un-churched Russians". Since proselytize means to change from one faith to another, those without faith cannot be proselytized.

But this touches on a bigger issue. The ROC, which today is a minority religion in Russia. I am define Orthodox more liberally than annual church attendees or those who call themselves Orhtodox though never participate in any way. A majority of Russians have neither been baptized in the ROC nor define themselves as members.

While I agree that the Catholic Church's activities in Russia are best caring for its own members and helping the ROC evangelize, I think a serious question exists as to the ROC interest in evangelizing. In truth, half of the people of Russia have not even a historic or cultural connection to the ROC. They have no more familiarity or cultural knowledge of Orthodoxy than they do of Masonic ritual.

For the other half of the population, let us accept the ROC's assertion that they have this great connection with the "Russian soul" of nominal Orthodox. Well, then, that is a great resource no one else has, so why the whinning they are disadvantaged?

Since the fall of Communism, the ROC has put great energy and had great success in using the civil authority to repress other Christians. They have been pathetic in evangelizing, and in fact show little interest. All signs are that they are quite content with the Russian people being non-practicizing as long as they are not non-Orthodox.

The bottom line is that the non-Orthodox majority in Russia are NOT the ROC's children. And the ROC's continuation of that false belief is what allows the ROC to be so passive as to the evangelization of these people.


K.

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Kurt has spoken truly. The intention of the Catholic Church in this regard appears to be to focus on the "un-churched" Russians, and those nominal Orthodox who do not practice. Catholicism does not consider this to be proseytism, but Orthodox tend to. This difference of perspective is reflected in the following piece:

"“Note On the ground level the differences in usage of or at least of understanding the concept 'proselytism' has led to a certain amount of difficulty in the area of Catholic-Orthodox relations: Orthodox accuse Catholics of proselytism (passively or actively encouraging previously baptized Orthodox or unbaptized Russian ethnics to become Catholic, and a subsequent accepting of them into the Catholic Church). Catholics deny being 'proselytist' (luring or seducing people to become Catholic through financial and material benefits). While the same word is used by both sides of a polemical situation, the signification has a radical difference. A dangerous consequence of this confusion that arises at times is a building-up of feelings of mistrust, accusations of dishonesty, a sense of being attacked, etc.”

From “An Inquiry into the Russian Orthodox Concept of Proselytism”, available from “Aid to the Church in Russia”, a Roman Catholic agency that is engaged in evangalization activities in Russia (not to be confused with “Aid to the Church in Need&#8221 ."

The end result would, of course, be the gradual supplanting of Orthodoxy with Catholicism in Russia -- really a tremendous win for the Roman Catholic Church there, because it would reverse the Byzantine link in the largest former Byzantine mission, and winnow down the Orthodox Church to Greece, the Balkans and a seemingly ever-dwindling number of Arabs. It is a great opportunity, one must admit, and one that the Catholics would be foolish to pass up.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

(I don't hate the Moscow Patriarchate!)

Now that we have that out of the way . . .

I agree and it is at a time like this when true Christian Ecumenism by Rome will count for something in future.

If Rome truly believes the Orthodox Church is a "Sister Church," then it will help the Orthodox Church evangelize its own people and bring them into their Mother (Orthodox) Church.

This is the litmus test of true ecumenicity, I believe.

If Rome refuses to do this, then let's stop playing with words and false diplomacy.

Alex