www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology If the Union had NOT been signed

Dear Brian:

Pardon me if I express some doubt on your perceived "non-existence" of collegiality in the (Roman) Catholic Church.

During the past 25 years of Pope John Paul II's pontificate, His Holiness presided over 15 World Synods of Bishops: six ordinary (1980, 1983, 1987, 1990, 1994, and 2001), one extraordinary (1985), and eight special assemblies (1980, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1997, two in 1998, and 1999).

Regional Synods of Bishops have been called for in the 5 continental regions for the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania.

Local Synods of Bishops are constantly held by national Episcopal Conferences or as often as the need arises, such as when the USCCB had to to deal with the recent scandals.

The Sacred College of Cardinals always act as a collegial body.

What else should we do more?

AmdG

Dear LT:

We have danced this dance before and many-a smarter person has tried to set you straight on this, so I won't try. Suffice it to say that salvation IS possible for someone who is not in communion with Rome - even according to the teaching of the big-c Catholic Church.

If someone who is not in communion with Rome can enter the Kingdom, then it would appear that God indeed does not care that much - or else he would send them downstairs, now wouldn't he?

Yours,

halychanyn

I indicated that this movement for more collegiality started with Vatican II but as with infallibility and Primacy, the Pope does not have to listen to any of these bodies and can make his decision as one person whereas in the East, there was more of a tradition of decision making within conciliar structures and within the Holy Synod's of National Self-Governing Churches

Dear Brian:

The Catholic Church has had 14 more Ecumenical Councils (well, I am almost certain the Admin will scourge me for this if I persist), or, as you Easterners tend to correct us, General Councils, gathering the world's Catholic bishops in Rome or elswhere for conciliar consideration of myriad Church matters.

If you claim that the Orthodox Church(es) act on important Church matters ALWAYS (or almost always) at the conciliar level (by the convocation of a Holy Synod or an Ecumenical Council), how come there has been no pan-Orthodox Synod, much less a pan-Orthodox Ecumenical Council, of recent memory?

Truncated and/or overlapping (more of the time conflicting) jurisdictions do result where there are no conciliar guidelines that could be enforced.

AmdG

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halychanyn:
[QB] Dear LT:

If someone who is not in communion with Rome can enter the Kingdom, then it would appear that God indeed does not care that much - or else he would send them downstairs, now wouldn't he?

I can agree with this .

james

Halychanyn writes:

[Now, does this mean, that there are differences in theology, ritual, tradition or anything else that is important to the Faith that differentiates us from our Orthodox brothers down the street? To this question I give you my resounding "no."
As I have said before, God doesn't give a flying leap whether we are in communion with the Roman Pope or not and I refuse to accept any suggestion that says that there is any difference between my Faith and that of any other legitimate member of the Church of Constantinople and her daughter churches.]

The local Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral here in Philly is dedicated to the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception". Can you name me ONE, JUST ONE, canonical Orthodox Church WORLDWIDE of any automonous or are autocephallous jurisdiction that has a church dedicated to the ROMAN CATHOLIC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
Now why do you think that is? Could it be because we Orthodox reject said doctrine? That it is not now, nor was it ever, part of the Orthodox Catholic faith! If you share the same faith as the Orthodox rather than the Roman Catholics, then why are you dedicating your Churches and Cathedrals to Roman Catholic doctrines?

To say you share the same faith as your Orthodox brothers is ludicrous! Your ancestors turned their backs on your mother in Constantinople at a time she needed you the most. She gave birth to you, nurtured you, taught you, and provided you with the faith that your whole culture and traditions are based upon. Only to be abandoned by you as she was being overrun by the infidels! And in doing so, you aposticized the Orthodox faith for the faith of Rome. By the very fact that you are 'in communion' with Rome requires you to accept the theology of said church.
If you don't, then you are stating that you knowingly and willingly accept the ultimate authority of a bishop who believes, protects, and upholds doctrines you don't accept! Being a sui juris church does not give you the right to pick and choose the doctines of your adopted mother you accept or reject. That is a completely Protestant concept that is unknown in either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church. Are you telling both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics in here that you are Protestant?

Diak writes:

[Since this post started with the Union of Brest, and thus the Kyivan Church, Bob still does not offer adequate response as to why we should enter union with an Orthodox church(es) that are nowhere near united in Ukraine, nor the fact that the hierarchy of the mother church of Moscow, Kyiv, is not even recognized as legitimate by Moscow.]

If you read what I have posted thus far I think I have. If you share the same faith as your Orthodox brothers down the street as Halychanyn claims, there was no reason for you to leave the Orthodox Church for the second time in the early 1990's. Especially backed up by recent statements made both in Rome and by the Roman Catholic bishop of Russia, that we Orthodox are a sister church, with valid Sacraments, and provide equal salvation, then there is no longer any reason for your existence outside of your mother churches. You should return to those mothers within Orthodoxy.
After all, your salvation is no longer in jeopardy if you do.

As far as the Orthodox schisms in Ukraine. They once again were created not within Orthodoxy itself, but by the Ukrainians themselves, because of their fanatical desire to put nationalism, politics, ethnic hatred above both the canons and the doctrines of the church.

There is no doubt in my mind, that had you stayed within Orthodoxy and/or at least honored the 'Quadripartite Agreement', there would already be a canonical autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its own Patriarch in Ukraine right now. Discussions were already in the process between the MP and the EP when all hell broke loose. In fact, the matter is still being discussed.

You know very well that both the UOC-KP and the UAOC are self proclaimed churches. And as such, are not recognized by any canonical Orthodox Church in the world! If you expect either the MP or any other canonical Orthodox Church to accept self proclaimed Patriarchs, then you better practice what you preach and accept Pope Pius XIII here in the U.S. as the legimate head of the Roman Catholic Church. After all he is a self proclaimed Pope and his church was founded based on the same principles as the two bogus Orthodox churches in Ukraine.

[The Ukrainian Catholic Church, on the other hand, at least in Ukraine, in the lands of the Union, is united and growing.]

Not according to the statistics published here just a few days ago. According to those statistics the UGCC in Ukraine lost 3/4 of a million people between 2000-2003. Where do you see growth in that?

OrthoMan

OrthoMan:

The fact that the Cathederal in Philly is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception is no doubt a Latinization that should never have come about. I didn't pick it and, if it were up to me, it would have been changed yesterday.

Still, theologians on both sides have come to agree that this purported division regarding Rome's 1854 proclamation of the concept of the Immaculate Conception is not something that should keep us apart but, rather, the Two Lungs of the universal church approaching the idea of original sin according to their own theology and tradition.

Therefore, one can only conclude that your agenda here is not seek further divisions within the Church and to convince us that we would succumb to the imperialist Muscovite Patriarchal throne.

You're wasting your time.

halychanyn

Bob, you are really unique. Since you are neither my spiritual father or confessor, I'll laugh at that remark. May God have mercy on your soul lest you be judged as you have judged.

Those statistics were world wide, as in the diaspora there has been admittedly a decrease. In Ukraine and the lands of the Union, if you will actually read before you speak, there is growth. We wouldn't be erecting new eparchies in Eastern Ukraine if there were no faithful.

No one has ever taken the Quadripartite Agreement seriously since (1) there was never an agreement ratified by either Rome or Moscow publically and (2) the hierarch of the church itself involved in the discussion was not included because he was prevented from attending. That's like France and Germany entering into a treaty for the US.

Rome certainly hasn't spoken about this much since, have they? The Holy Father didn't mention it EVEN ONCE in his trip to Ukraine. If this was binding on the UGCC, don't ya reckon he would of thought it important enough to mention?

The division in the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine is certainly and DEFINITELY within Orthodoxy. Filaret was a bishop of the MP. Synodally elected. He was even (albeit remotely) a candidate for Alexei's job upon Pimen's death. It is ridiculous to buy any argument that the KP/MP split is not "within Orthodoxy". Other priests of the MP have joined him. Do you really expect anyone here to believe this is outside Orthodoxy? Synodally elected bishops acting their conscience?

With or without the Quadripartite Agreement Moscow would not likely ever release its stranglehold on claim to the see of Kyiv. And Kyiv being the mother Church of Moscow certainly has right to autocephaly.

Moscow still hasn't given on this issue, and when it flatly rejected autocephaly for Kyiv, Filaret acted his conscience and was elected Patriarch of Kyiv. Last time I checked autocephaly had a well-established history in Orthodoxy, Bob. Bulgaria wasn't accepted for many years, as neither was the OCA by some jurisdictions.

But really now I think what Filaret has done is not create a new jurisdiction, but restoring the rightful status of Kyiv, historically the mother Church of Moscow. No, unfortunately the division in Ukraine is within Orthodoxy.

Thanks for being worried about my soul, though Bob. I am truly touched.

Dear Brian,
I notice you compare "does not have to" with "there was more of a tradition". Of course, you cannot say for example, that the EP
"had to listen" to some synod about installing other Patriarchs or quashing other Patriarchates. Likewise, you cannot say that there is a tradition of non-collegiality in the West.

When you make fair comparisons of reality, you will see that there is only a slight difference: Orthodox accept non---uncanonical acts done in extremis for the good of the Church; in the West there was an enlargement of canonical authority similar actions would still fall within the realm of canonical actions. But in practice? Ho hum.

Bob:

I've seen your refering to the numbers posted here on another forum as well as in the above post.

You will recall from the discussion here that we were not completely informed about counting pactices involved in generating the numbers. In Eastern Europe it appears that some initial counts - when churches were first being re-established - were overestimated. This situation in probably refelected in the numbers from, for example, Romania, where essentially the entire "loss" occurred in one Eparchy in one year. (Or maybe people just decided they'd rather worship indoors.)

In light of the discussion that accompanied these numbers, your comments about the decline of the churches are more than a little disingenuous. After all, our plight is not nearly as bad as the OCA, where recent numbers show ~100,000 members - down from the 1,000,000 reported just a few years ago!

Halychanyn replies to me:

[That's funny. All I see is hatred and contempt.]


Then in another post writes:

[that your agenda here is not seek further divisions within the Church and to convince us that we would succumb to the imperialist Muscovite Patriarchal throne.]

Reply: That's funny. All I see is hatred and contempt.

OrthoMan

???what part of this faith???