www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Father Keleher and St Mark of Ephesus

Dear Serge,

I agree totally, and have affirmed, that Latinization exists not only within EC Churches but also in Orthodox Churches. I would go so far as to argue that the Latinization of the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia constitute one of the deciding factors that led it to sign the Union of Brest.

The Latinized forms can and do exist. But the ideal is to ultimately do the "nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter" thing. Latinizations that we have tend largely to be at the level of paraliturgical and private devotions. That is how it is up here in our UGCC parishes. I think we can make too much out of Latinization/Latinized forms. In fact, when they are placed within a Byzantine context - no one really notices them.

I don't really know very much about the BCC in the U.S., but my time on this forum has convinced me of one thing - thank God I'm with the UGCC!

Alex

I can't say I think of anyone as "under Rome" except for the Diocese of Rome and possibly suffragan dioceses ... But then, like many metaphorical questions this one doesn't really have a black and white answer.

OK, but this still doesn't answer the question about how Catholics and Orthodox are to relate to each other.

Do we, as Catholics, need to have a particular approach to the Orthodox that is basically one of "convert!"

Is that a good approach to take? It is something that is definitely Catholic - but is it Christian?

Alex

+1

Think I know what the answer to ths will be.


Are you also a country boy?

Dear Peter,

What is the answer then? I'm asking, not telling. Go ahead, give us your take.

I spent half of my life in the country working with my father's beekeeping operation - all in all a stinging indictment of urban life.

That's the buzz.

Cheers,

Alex

Yes, yes, and yes.

In terms of Catholics, and Orthodox, there needs to be give on both sides. Secondly, their needs to be another council (truly ecumenical in some way) to affirm what it is to be professed, as an entire Church. I think this item is something my friend tells me still impedes on the Eastern Orthodox reuniting w/ the Oriental Orthodox.

Essentially, they understand there were linguistic hurdles causing misunderstanding. But, there needs to be a common profession of Faith (as strange as it sounds), alluding to the need of addressing anything covered by the subsequent three or four councils held by the Byzantine Orthodox, but not the Oriental Communion.

What is it the Orthodox have to convert to, Young Fogey? It seems the other side needs to do the converting.

As I wrote:

There's an authentic Catholic version of that - the Orthodox give up schism (convert to Catholicism) and we bend over backwards to respect their traditions, making sure that what happened to Frs. Alexis Toth and Orestes Chornock (and DMD's grandpas and dad) never happens again. You bet this reconciliation is a two-way street!

well, what would they need to accept? Because I'm sure they would take issue with various papal prerogatives which weren't historically present, in the united church.

The Orthodox likely will the say the same about the Roman Church, along with requested repudiations (papal prerogatives only being one of the items on the table)

Well, I thought it was going to be "Born Orthodox etc benefit of the doubt etc not individual conversions etc" but i was wrong (see the above yeses) and must retire from the scene shame-facedly.

Just for the sake of good conversation, I very much hope that an Orthodox will post the reverse of your proposal.

I just realized that you, Lester, already did more or less what I said,


Unfortunately, I don't think I'll live to see either one of you get your wish.

I think, in some ways, it's better that way