www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hopes that Pope Francis Will Not Su

Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hopes that Pope Francis Will Not Support Greek Catholics


Source Link: http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/interchurch_relations/51644/

Thoughts on this. I'd say keep all Eastern Catholics in full union with the Vatican, don't try to break something that works, imo.

From whose perspetive does it work? As Met Alfeyev says, it doesn't work from a Moscow patriarchate point of view. The UGCC is the single largest barrier to the much vaunted meeting between Pope and patriarch.

I would also argue that the Ruthenian rite (not talking any other eastern Catholics here, just Ukrainian which are the main issue for Alfeyev) has not "worked" well from a Catholic point of view either. Witness the latinisms of the Union of Brest, the enforced celibacy, the revised Divine Liturgy, the split into ACROD, etc.

My brother,

I'm saddened that after after six centuries that this is still such a critical issue. It gives the impression that lording over canonical territory is more pressing than united faith in Christ.
The esteemed Metropolitan has a local view; if he and others looked broader he would see that the issue isn't as focused as he assumes. Orthodoxy has its problems also, the MP and EP won't talk to each other and they also squabble over canonical territory and cause scandal of the Faith. Back at the time of the unions, where was the great Russian Orthodox Church at the time of our suffering? Why didn't they support our monasteries and faithful? The EP was under the thumb of the Moslems, why didn't the MP step up? They had no interest in us then.



We Eastern Catholics are well aware of the faults of communion with the large and powerful Church of Rome. And certainly it has been repeated over and over ad nauseam. The Bishop of Rome has compromised much more than the MP with regard to canonical territory. In our own USA the Eastern Church didn't exist but yet it sprung up and we eventually received a bishop, then two bishops. Now we have metropolitan bishops and at least six different Eastern Catholic Church co-exist in Roman dioceses. How well does the MP get along with the Ukrainian Orthodox or the Armenians? Yes, we have had unjust restrictions, but mostly we have been our own enemy through lack of charity or lack of our own leadership.

We eastern Catholics generally encourage the Roman See to seek unity with the Orthodox. In return Orthodoxy seeks our destruction. I think it's about time that they respect our faith, for it is the same as yours. Orthodoxy defies its spirit of brotherly love when it says we must die. Look beyond the past; look forward and plan for how the Eastern Catholics can be respectfully absorbed into the complete Eastern lung of the united Church.

Demanding preconditions and absolutes infers that the MP has no interest in union. The is no sense in wanting union with a Patriarch who wants to lord over you.
It is a total rejection of what Christ taught his disciples.

I am not offended by Met. Hilarion's comments. I would expect an Orthodox prelate to be opposed to the unia.

I would expect an Orthodox prelate to be opposed to the unia.

As long as "Western Rite Orthodox" exist, I have trouble seeing the reason for the upset.

That Russian bishop is insane if he actually believes that the Pope will abandon the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
What craziness! And he calls himself a Christian?

The manner in which the two groups "Eastern Catholicism" and "Western Rite Orthodoxy" were created is very different, and as an Eastern Catholic I recognize the different origins of the two groups. If others choose not to that is their business. Orthodox and Catholics have not treated each other well, and they see things from different perspectives. Such is life.

Now I wonder what Patriarch Kyrill himself would think of Metropolitan Hilarion's move here...that has yet to be seen. I'd say that Patriarch Kyrill would wind up having a few words with Metropolitan Hilarion for sure.

I think it's probably a lot more complicated than many of the posts allow.

It is no secret at all that the Ukranian Catholic Church represents a very big sticking point in relations between Rome and Moscow. I admit that Metropolitan Hilarion's comments seem a little 'hard-line,' but I am not surprised that he is trying to underline the importance of the issue for their side. He doubtless wants to communicate this loudly and clearly, since there is a new partner to the conversation. He is also likely aware that Pope Francis has some strong personal ties to Ukranian Catholics.

It may come as a surprise but for many of us it works great.

You should be, that is the problem. One can be ecumenical with out being a doormat.

Evidently I'm just not as easily offended as some people. I wasn't offended when I was a High Church Anglican and Catholics told me that my Church was founded upon adultery and divorce, and that it was devoid of a real priesthood and eucharist. The Catholics who told me that really believed that to be so, and I didn't take offense when they said what they believed. As a Catholic I don't take offense when some of my Orthodox friends tell me that Catholic sacraments are devoid of grace, and that the Catholic Church is in heresy. It is what they believe, and I see no reason to be personally offended by their beliefs.

By the way, now when I talk to Anglicans, I tell them that I don't believe that their priesthood is valid or that their sacraments (other than baptism) are real. If they are personally offended too bad, because for me it is a matter of belief. I suppose, if I didn't believe what I was telling them, I would still be an Anglican.

You forgot to mention St. Alexis (Toth) and the split into the Metropolia, now for the most part the OCA. St. Alexis was rector of the Greek Catholic seminary in Presov prior to immigrating to America.

What he said was nothing new coming from Moscow so it isn't really news.

Is the restoration of the "status quo ante" property rights to be 1946 or 1590? That's the issue. Even though I am Orthodox I accept that 1946 is correct. Moscow holds to the earlier date which places them in the same boat as Greeks pining over the loss of Constantinople and Muslims mourning the expulsion of the Moors and the loss of Cordoba. That's the crux of it but both arguments are emotionally powerful and laced with Russo/Ukrainian politics as well.

Here is an interesting observation from a non Eastern Christian source: "One lung or two" - http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/03/orthodox-christians-and-catholics

To that list you can add the Catholics I have talked to who want to regain control of all the old Churches in England.