www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UOC/KP Patriarch Filaret visits UGCC Parish in US

No problem, LT.

And to respond to the Admin, to not only address Filaret as Patriarch publicly , by the head of a Catholic Church sui iuris, no less, and also to participate in joint services with his Church is more than just a simple gesture of respect or ecumenical encounter, I would posit.

Even the liturgical evidence is there in this case of a deeper relation as can be seen from the photos of the Moleben jointly presided by Patriarchs Lubomyr and Filaret, i.e. priests and Patriarchs of both churches are vested. Generally for those who are familiar with the Slavic liturgical rubrics there is a distinction in level of participation between vesting and just being present in riasa as an observer. Anyway those are my observations in this case.

The Catholic Church in general leaves issues of 'canonicity' as an internal Orthodox affair and this does not necessarily impact Catholic ecumenical relations with churches not recognized as 'canonical'. The examples of the UOC-KP, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the UAOC, the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches of the US and Canada all are inidcations that the Catholics will still have ecumenical relations with those not recognized by the MP as 'canonical'.

This is rather unclear. Rome is clearly not the �Mother Church� and Rome does not teach this. Rome considers the Churches of Orthodoxy (Constantinople, Jerusalem, and etc.) to be Sister Churches. Rome does not consider itself to be in any way the �Mother� of these Churches.

Rome also teaches that the various Particular Churches within Catholicism (i.e., Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, and etc.) are all equal. At this level �Sister Church� is applied a bit differently. The pope has three roles: Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of Rome (and the Latin Church), and Supreme Pontiff. We must be careful not to confuse or combine these roles.

Alright, then.

We all profess in the Creed "One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church." The visible head ("Supreme Pontiff" in your apt words) of that Church is the Pope. The One Church is a visible body, not just an invisible spiritual reality that binds together disparate local assemblies. Visible Communion with the Supreme Pontiff is what unites us to that One Church. The One Church INCLUDES all the particular churches like the Latin, the Melkite, the Ruthenian, the UGCC, etc. The One Church does not have any sisters. Particular churches, WITHIN the One Church, are sisters to one another.

Despite those citations from Orientale Lumen & Lumen Gentium, much of the East remains separated from the One Church. For their restoration to the family, we pray.

LatinTrad

L-T, our "Mother Church" as Byzantine Christians is ultimately Constantinople. That is from whence we received our faith, liturgy, spirituality and tradition.

I understand that--but Constantinople is a particular Church. It is not THE Mother Church.

As St. Thomas More once said--"I trust I make myself obscure?"
L-T

LT, you are Roman, aren't you?

There is a concept of dual communion that was present in the Kyivan Church from its inception. Constantinople was always recognized as the Mother Church. Rome was recognized for its ability to guard primacy and settle international civil and jurisdictional disputes.

We therefore as Greek Catholics are looking forward to the complete fufillment of this vision of unity. Until then, we are partially separated from our Mother Church of Constantinople, but she is still our Mother Church.

Rome is not our Mother Church but rather a sort of "older sister" with whom we have committed ourselves to respect her primacy as first among equals because of the unfortunate separation from our Mother Church.

We are a sister church, equal in dignity as the Roman Catholic Church, with our own hiearchy, etc. and all that goes with being a Church sui iuris.

Getting back to the family scenario, this is a really incomplete analogy but here goes. Imagine a mother had to leave her family for whatever reason and the oldest sister was placed in charge. While the other children would obey and love her as the oldest, since she was the head of the household, she could never be what the mother is.

This statement expresses a very incomplete understanding of what it means to be Church. It is not a matter of the Orthodox East being separated from the Catholic West. It is more a matter of East and West being separated from one another. Restoration of communion is with one another, not in a single direction. Pope John Paul II has been very clear that the Orthodox Church is fully part of the One Church even if there is a continuing separation (and that even the term �schism� is too strong to describe this separation).

Constantinople is indeed our Mother Church. We did not receive Christ from Rome. Rome is not our Mother Church. Communion with Rome does not mean that Rome becomes the mother.

Since this has gotten off the original subject of Denisenko to a discussion of WHAT, WHY, and WHO we are, its time for me to leave and let you all argue amongst yourselves.

I only hope LatinTrad is taking in some of the comments being made like 'sister church', 'first amongst equals', 'Constantinople is our mother' (with some kind of insinuation that their mother left them) so they fled to their oldest sister in Rome [Ref: "Imagine a mother had to leave her family for whatever reason and the oldest sister was placed in charge"], and other remarks which just justify all I have been saying all along.

Have fun trying to figure out what why, and who you are!

OrthoMan

This implies that Constantinople is Rome's Mother. I've never heard that before, even from the Orthodox. Emperors and Patriarchs of the East always looked to Elder Rome as to a Mother--not vice versa.


Admin, with all due respect, I think you made a self-contradictory statement when you wrote, "John Paul II has been very clear that the Orthodox Church is fully part of the One Church even if there is a continuing separation." "Fully part of" and "continuing separation" are very difficult phrases to reconcile.

Please don't get upset--I'm just trying to piece this all together, and I'm getting very confused about the Eastern Catholic point of view. I think the Orthodox posters on this site would be shocked to learn that they are "fully part of" the same Church of which JP2 is the supreme head. Could they be part of it without realizing? Maybe?

One who seeks to know,
L-T

Regarding my previous posting, Orthoman writes that "The UOC-MP received its automony in October 1990 from the Moscow Patriarch." This is not so. As the Administrator correctly reminded all of us, Moscow gave "independence" and "self-government" - neither of which are canonical terms in the Orthodox lexicon - but quite specifically did NOT give autonomy to her "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". Incognitus

Despite OrthoMan's obvious hatred for us EC's, he has a point. Perahps we should move the education of Latin Trad to another thread?

"The education of Latin Trad . . ."

I like that.

What do the Orthodox posters think of what I'm saying? Do you agree with Diak and the Administrator? Do you see the same logical difficulties that I do?

Admin or Diak, is it true that you consider Constantinople to be the Mother of Rome? I don't see it.

Please nobody get hot under the collar--just say what you have to say.

LatinTrad

Dear L-T:

I am putting my money where my mouth is. I have started a new thread on the East/West board (number 4) and give my humble thoughts there.

Yours,

kl

Bob, who is arguing here? Latin Trad of his own admission is quite comfortable as are we with this educational foray. But I agree with KL that it belongs somewhere else so we can leave Bob to discuss the issues he has not yet addressed with regard to canonicity, Alexei and the Party, etc. etc. etc.

Mr. Tallick seems to be incapable of discussing any issue on this forum without hate, insinuation, insult, deception, taking things out of context, on and on and can make no comment without painting Greek Catholics in a negative light. Bring it on if you want.

Bob, have you ever heard of St. Maximos the Confessor? Who fled to Rome? Just curious. LT is Catholic and I hope he will be edified by learning more about the Byzantine tradition of the Catholic Church. Who and what are you? The Church of Alexei? Or the Church of Patriarch Tikhon (ROCOR) which claims to be the true bearer of Russian Orthodoxy and is also opposed to Alexei? They are separated, right? Not in communion?

And exactly what have you been saying all along talking to "us people"?

I fail to see how any of your rantings demonstrate how as Greek Catholics we do not understand our identity. After trying to sift through the myriad Orthodox jurisdictions it seems we are not doing too bad.

Aren't you being a lil' bit tough with Latin Trad? :rolleyes:

What he meant was that the Catholic Church cannot be the sister of the Orthodox Church or viceversa, because there's only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; but that the Church of Rome, the Church of Constantinople, the Church of Antioch are sister Churches.

It's sad but true, a State of schism prevails and it's impossible to deny that to many Orthodox theologians and Bishops, the Church of the West has placed itself outside the body of the Church; and for the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches are in state of schism in dissobedience toward the Roman Pontiff, even when our sacraments and orders are seen as valid and licit by the Catholic Church.

It's always been hard for me to imagine what would be the role of the more recent National Churches (Romania, Moscow, Kiev, Serbia, etc.) in a future united Church. Even when nowadays they have autocephalous independent status, if the Orthodox Church was more centralized, these churches would not have the same honour role reserved in the past to the original pentarchy.