www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenicism?

And is this the official teaching by the various 'byzantine' churches? (I use the word as I cannot find a better one to describe the eastern catholic churches which use the byzantine rite

In case you didn't notice what my brother, Bob, has posted (on several occasions now, I believe), this has been the stance of the Catholic Communion, that of the 22 Eastern and Oriental Churches and the Latin Church, for close to a half-century, since Blessed John XXIII enunciated it at the time of Vatican II.

Many years,

Neil

Msgr Vladimir's short-lived religious congregation was established in France, not exactly a hotbed of Orthodoxy. As to precisely what he saw as its mission, it may well have been the conversion of those of the Orthodox faith, although I don't recollect ever reading any explicit description of it as such. Regardless, if that was his intent, the establishment of the congregation was not a factor in his subsequent martyrdom and the idea that the Orthodox should be 'converted' was a reflection of the thinking in that day. As has already been pointed out, it is not the view espoused by the Catholic Church today, which acknowledges a desire for unity but fully accords recognition to the Orthodox Churches as Sister Churches and prays for the day when communio in sacris can resume between the two ecclesia.


You seem to think that there is an interest here in tallying body counts as a means of determining who was, is, or will be more entitled to a better seat in the granstands, come the afterlife. We are not.


That is speculation, pure and simple. Did you read what I wrote, what Bob wrote, what anyone has written? Msgr Vladimir was martyred because he was a priest. What was the reason for martyrdom of those Romanian Orthodox presbyters who died in the same prisons in the same period? How could they have saved themselves?

Yes, the Communists sought to co-opt the Romanian Orthodox, as they did the Orthodox Churches in every satellite nation where Orthodoxy was the majority faith and was closely identified with the country's nationality. Why? Because it is much more productive to subvert the dominant faith and try to use its moral authority to serve as an opiate for the masses and keep them subjugated. Did they succeed? In instances, yes, they certainly did. Did they also 'turn' Catholic hierarchs and presbyters? Sure, they did - and it didn't necessarily require that they 'convert' them to any other faith.


I mentioned heresy because, quite frankly, those of us who are Eastern and Oriental Catholics, and those of our Latin Catholic brethen who have a profound love for and understanding of Eastern Christianity, are used to being accused of such when we try to explain that the 'us' and 'them' atmosphere of centuries or even decades past is no longer how Catholic-Orthodox relations are defined. If you don't see that as heretical, great - but, it's difficult to understand how else you'd describe the attitude you've evinced since you began posting here.

Bob has, on several occasions, suggested you read a now dated thread that is stickied in the Town Hall forum and titled 'Who We Are'. I've seen little to suggest that you have done so. Let me offer you a paraphrased taste ...

The ByzCath Forum is a community, a very familial community. Over time, the active members of this community change, folks come and go, but there are some characteristics that can be consistently observed over its decade plus of existence.

Our membership reflects an extreme diversity. Among the members, we number: Catholics - Eastern, Oriental, and Latin; Orthodox - Eastern, Oriental, and Western; and Protestants. Although I don't believe that there are presently any active Jewish or Muslim members, we have had such in the past and likely will again. We are bound by a common love for or interest in Eastern and Oriental Christianity, a desire to educate and be educated, a willingness to dialogue, discuss, and even debate on matters theological and spiritual, and for most of us there is the prayerful hope for unity to be achieved, as well as the realistic understanding that there are obstacles to its achievement - man-made, on both sides, and not likely pleasing to God.

Among us, there are those who came here as Catholics and have translated to Orthodoxy, those who came here as Orthodox and have translated to Catholicism, those who came here as Protestants and translated to one or the other, and even those who came here as one or the other and translated to Protestantism. As well, there are those of us who have remained steadfast in the faith that we held on arrival and are unlikely ever to change. All those decisions are respected - that is an absolute expectation here.

I can say, without any hesitation, that in each instance when someone has decided that God was leading them to another path, we have collectively prayed that the individual find spiritual peace in their decision - there are no dire warnings that hell lies ahead, no accusations of apostasy. Are we synchretistic? Hardly. We, each of us, firmly believe in our respective faiths but we also understand that there are deeply held spiritual convictions that underlie these decisions and how one deals with those is between the individual and his or her God.

We rejoice each time that a member is tonsured to serve God and his Church as a reader or subdeacon, regardless of which Church it is. You cannot imagine the communal pride, joy, and sense of being blessed, by the fact that, within the past few years, two members - 1 Catholic, 1 Orthodox - have been ordained to the priesthood, both young men who have posted here since they were teenagers.

We pray for one another and for each others family and friends. We welcome those new to here and mourn those who have gone before us. In the span of a few hours here, I'm likely to exchange comments, prayerful wishes, felicitations, and thoughts with a Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox cantor, a Ruthenian Catholic deacon, a Lutheran pastor, a Latin Catholic funeral director, a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic retiree in Scotland, a Russian Orthodox hieromonk in New Zealand, a Melkite Catholic diaconessa, a Russian Catholic lady in CA, or a Greek Orthodox lady in NY.

Your desire to measure the respective Apostolic Churches against an artificial yardstick intended to discern which is the more 'true' faith or to suggest that ecumenical (in the positive sense of the term) efforts need be more constrained, lest they water down Catholicism (yes, my words, my perceptions of your thinking - not your words) are not really consonant with the admittedly more hopeful viewpoint that generally permeates this venue. We aren't really prepared to engage in any prolonged debate or defense of a position that we firmly believe reflects the ultimate desire of God - that His people become as one. You asked our opinions, we've provided them.

Many years,

Neil

Firstly just to point out that really you should use 'byzantine' and not eastern, maronites, melkites and malabar catholics are also eastern and yet not necessarily byzantine. Aside of course from the fact that not all eastern catholics and Orthodox will agree with your frankly very liberal view of things.

Second you know as well as I do that opinions among theologians differ over how to intepret those vatican 2 documents or whether to even listen to them at all. Your interpretation is one view, there are others.

Third, no it is not speculation, I read what was written, I rejected it, like it or not Greek Catholics (as they are called by others) faced added persecution on top of the fact they were religious at all because they were Catholic and died for that faith when they could have lessened their persecution simply by converting. This is a fact and a well known one, as is the fact that they are still subject to persecution today.

Fourth I asked for no debate, as you evidently care little for the teachings of the Church so it would do little good, rather I wished to know you opinions. Sadly I can take those opinions as being representative only of this site and perhaps of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America as I have seen no official documentation proving others hold it and I know Orthodox and eastern catholics who believe otherwise.

What I will say is that being overdefensive if perhaps understandble will do nothing but perpetuate the bad relations between some latin and eastern Catholics. That is why I did nothing but ask for opinions and see what the reaction was. I hope we can pray for each other and both be welcome with open arms into our blessed home which was prepared for us before the foundation of the world!

So far as I can see I have the answer to my questions, you believe St Josaphat, Mgsr Ghika and all who thought like him were simply wrong. I confess I do not understand such an attitude but be that as it may, I will see if other eastern catholics think similarly.

JMJ1991:

Did you mean to say "not" use byzantine? I don't follow.



Theologians are not official teachers; bishops are--they form the Magisterium with the Pope. Listen to them? You've bandied about the "de fide" phrase and these documents are part of being Catholic today as we write.



You didn't read our disclaimers in addition to "Who We Are." No one here makes any claim to representing the official views of his Church or community, unless identifying himself or herself as someone in authority. We do have clergy who post here and we give them a more serious listening, but we're here as lay people trying to understand other people in the same boat as we are--struggling to get to the Kingdom and trying to overcome centuries of animosity, outright hatred, and clouded history. We take Blessed JP2 seriously when he said that we need to "cleanse memories." Yes, there are plenty of martyrs to go around. And they are in their place in history. And there are plenty of persecuted Christians today. And we pray for all of them.

This is not a "liberal" site. We try to take the Gospel seriously so that as the Romans said about the early Christians "see how they love one another."



Sadly, we believe that you are reading your own rigidity into this whole discussion. No one said this or implied this or meant to imply this.

Bob

Actually that is exactly what was said several times, 'they were honourable men of their time but....' 'they followed the practices of their time but...' all imply, quite explicitly that they were wrong. You cannot say they were right then and wrong now, quite clearly if it mattered enough to them to die for belonging to The Catholic Church and for converting others it mattered to them yesterday, today and for always. Problematically that also implies that now in heaven they have changed their minds about the very ideas they taught, believed and were martyred for. St Francis de la sales ridicules such an idea in his book 'The Catholic Controversy' and rightly so.

I expected people here to have some idea about what the official teaching of the eastern churches was, I hardly think thats an unreasonable expectation.

I used De Fide in regards to the teaching on hell because you ASKED me to show where the Church taught something, you then deleted the post and claimed I was being a 'Latin Triumphalist'. Why ask me the question if you don't want to know the answer?

Regarding V2, like it or not you offer one interpretation, other people offer others you are no more qualified than they and often you are less qualified.

Anyway I have no interest in continuing this discussion as it is evident what the view on this site is and thus my question vis a vis this site is answered, though not regarding more traditional eastern catholics.

Firstly, the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church is indeed a Church of the Byzantine Rite.

The Maronite and Syro-Malabarese Churches (as well as the Chaldean Church), although often spoken of in the same breath as the 'Oriental' Catholic Churches, are alone among the 22 non-Latin Catholic Churches in that, in the strict sense, they are neither Eastern nor Oriental. They are neither ecclesiastical descendents of the Constantinoplian/Byzantine/Eastern (synonymous terms) tradition nor of the Oriental or Chalcedonian tradition.

And why should I use 'Byzantine'? Not all of us here are Byzantine - as I think I made clear, many of us are not.



I certainly never said that they would; in fact, if I didn't make it clear, let me state unequivocally that - together with diversity of spiritualty, praxis, ecclesial affiliation, etc - there is a fair amount of diversity of opinion. And, both liberal and conservative (neither actually a dirty word, by the way) views abound, as do those which can only be termed moderate, or centrist or middle-of-the-road, if you'd prefer.


My brother and friend, Bob, has spoken well to this point - and I'm no theologian - not by a long shot.


Having rejected it somehow removes your opinion from the realm of speculation?


As most of us who are of the Byzantine tradition are called, by ourselves, and by others. (There are a few Churches of the Byzantine tradition which do not use that styling because of historic issues between the national group most represented in the Church and the Greeks, e.g., the Byzantine Bulgarian Catholic Church.) As well, Oriental Catholics (those of the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian/Eritrean, Syriac, and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches sui iuris), together with the Maronite, Chadean, and Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churches sui iuris are not Greek-Catholics.


No one disputes that Eastern Catholics were sometimes the more persecuted for being Eastern Catholics (sometimes by Latin Catholics, by the way, although not usually to the point of martyrdom, before you try to extend that thought). Nor does anyone deny that promises of more lenient treatment were sometimes offered in exchange for conversion. Let's keep in mind - as I previously pointed out - that these were the promises of ruthless, dictatorial governments - not of the Orthodox. And, I refuse to bother reiterating that the litany of those martyred at the hands of such governments is replete with the names of other God-loving clergy and laypersons, Orthodox and otherwise.


A tad judgmental aren't we? Is there a Church teaching in Ott that I've missed - one that asserts de fide that Eastern and Oriental Catholic history is best understood when filtered through the lens of a Latin eye?

You have the temerity to explain to us why and how the blood of our spiritual forebearers came to be spilt and, when it's pointed out that we might see it differently, you have the audacity to suggest that our understanding of and our fidelity to our Catholic faith is somehow tainted?

You should have known Archbishop John Ireland. Look him up. This Latin hierarch is often derisively referred to as the Father of Orthodoxy in America. With someone of your ilk at his side, he could have effectively cleansed the American landscape of Eastern Catholics for all time; Lord knows he tried hard enough.


I speak neither for this site, where I am a guest, as are all here, nor for the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (a/k/a Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh for the Ruthenians), since I'm neither a hierarch, a presbyter, nor even a member of that Church sui iuris, being instead a layperson of the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites, for which I also do not speak. I speak for myself and only myself. Am I outspoken? Yes, I am. But, any standing that anyone here might accord me as representative of their opinions is a kindness of which I am unworthy.


Over 45 years as a Melkite Catholic and 20 previous as a Latin Catholic, I've been termed many things - overdefensive nor even defensive, is none of them. In my opinion, those who wish to have or perpetuate bad relations between the various Churches - Catholic, Orthodox, or otherwise - do so at the risk of their own salvation. And, I must admit that I'm lost as to how my views on St Josaphat factor into that, nor my views on my Orthodox brethren, nor my views on anything else that you've asserted.


You are in my unworthy prayers.


No one, not one of us, said that. We did say - or I certainly did - that their attitudes were those of the times in which they lived. Once upon a time, those deemed to be heretics and witches were burned at the stake; you've perhaps noticed that is no longer done.

We live in a different time. That said, I'll offer this thought, which will probably cement your opinion ... While I imagine that God will reward St Josaphat for whatever holy things he did in life, I rather doubt that he'll be rewarded for burning Orthodox temples or killing Orthodox Christians who declined conversion. I also expect that the same distinction will likely be applied in judging those Orthodox who murdered Josaphat. Why? Because God is a Just God.

And we are in the season of Great Lent, when we are called to forgive and ask forgiveness. This thread is not spiritually edifying in that it evokes or provokes reactions that, rather than presenting opportunities to forgive, must needs subsequently to be forgiven. So, I'll bow out here.

Many years,

Neil

This whole thread has become painful. It is clearly time to move on. There certainly other forums in which JMJ1991's views would be more happily received. Since he or she seems more interested in polemic than discussion I suggest he or she take these arguments there where they will be heartily embraced by others like him or her.

For my part, I would ask that you consider closing this thread as it is going nowhere and the tone of some of the participants is clearly inconsistent with the standards of this forum.

Jim