www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Hypothetical Question

One more note. You must realize that the USA and to a lesser extent Canada are in a bit of a different situation than most of the world.
No matter if the church is Antiochan, Greek, OCA, Romanian, Bulgarian, Russian et al.. they are all the same church.
It is hard to understand because they appear to actually be seperate. They have different hierarchies. It can be confusing.
Ideally every country should have one hierarchy, like the Orthodox Church in Slovakia, or the Orthodox Church in Romania.
In the States I mentioned above there were many factors that occured in the first half last century. We now have many jurisidictions in the USA. It doesn't however undermine the fact that they are all the same church. Perhaps one day in the United States we will work towards a simplified jurisdictional system or perhaps a new model that represents this vast and expansive and diverse Nation.
Even in countries that have historically had one major jurisdiction there are often parishes from other jurisdictions. In Moscow the OCA has a parish that exists to be a place of worship for English speakers in Russia.
I can see where the situation may be a little hard to understand. But the bigger picture is one that isn't hard to see if you take a step back and have a look see.
May your blessings be many,
Your brother in Christ,
The non-Mrs. T pierogie

Dear Pyrohy,

Sorry you found my post offensive and uncharitable. But you may have missed the point.

It is entirely up to the Orthodox how they use the term Orthodox. But it is a simple matter of observation that Orthodox "widely" use the term independent of communion, independent of schisms on ecclesiastical issues, and independent of separation founded on highly important theological issues. Notwithstanding this "wide" usage, I know of very few Orthodox who would not object to the use of the term, however modified, for Greek Catholics.

These are simple observations that I wouldn't expect to viewed as controversial, let alone uncharitable or offensive. It is the strained usage - OK for evry Eastern Christian except Eastern Catholics - that IMO seems illogical and uncharitable. So I find your reaction very peculiar. And your suggestions about my knowledge you might like to re-evaluate.

Btw, on occasions when I've had this conversation with Orthodox priests, they have simply agreed with my observations and the larger point.

Maybe I misinterpreted you intent on the post. I still don't understand what you mean by saying they liberally apply it regardless of communion etc... schisms, etc.. what do you mean exactly?
Having a rainy Day
Piroh

Yes just in case "liberal" is somehow difficult, I am happy to use the word "widely". The point is that while communion, as identified by Alex, is certainly a key point in being genuinely "Orthodox", even the Orthodox themselves apply the term much more widely. In fact, they apply it to just about anyone who identifies as such - OO, ROAC, HOCNA, etc. - except those who identify as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Hello again,

Well, then my opinion is probably not very useful to you.

I hope our prayers are a little more, and you find what your heart is looking for.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo-

Actually your post was very helpful. Your comments made me stop and think about how I see myself and my spiritual life.

Which is a very important piece of this puzzle!

Thank you again for your honesty as it caused me to be honest with myse4lf.

God's peace,

Carole

Carole, as I read your original hypothetical question and the other posts here...I think, if it were me, I would not limit it to an either/or...but, of course, I would seek God's will at all costs.

I would take some time to go on retreat and seek spiritual direction/counsel in this. And, most of all, I would ask God to show me through the instrumentality of others and my own prayers what is the best choice I can make. Sometimes when I find myself at a crossroads...I discover there is a third way...one I didn't anticipate.

Your honesty here is most appreciated and gives us all food for thought and to ask ourselves... "What if...?"

Blessings,

Porter

Continuing with the hypothetical question--

What if the priest retired, but a retired Orthodox priest would be willing to provide the Divine Liturgy on Sundays only, but no other pastoral duties? Would that hypothetically be permitted?

Another thought also- I realize priests are "assigned" to specific eparchies. If the members kept the church open, and invited priests to vacation in the area and provided "free" lodging at the fully furnished rectory, would the priest be able to take advantage and stay at the rectory, and be able to perform the Divine Liturgy (Sundays only), even if they are from a different eparchy?

Just a couple off the wall questions.

Thanks.

Michael

Interesting questions, Michael. Very interesting indeed.

Dear Andrew,

Your points on papal authority for EC's are true, of course.

However, they are also "tempered" by the fact that EC's have a special status as Particular Churches whose Patriarchs/Primates have a responsibility to govern their Churches with the Pope.

The Catholic Catechism is directed, first and foremost, at Latin Catholics. I don't see anyway around this - there is no mention of "Theosis" there and some other points and this is why EC Churches, like the UGCC, has undertaken to produce their own Catechisms that better reflect the theological/canonical/liturgical traditions of their particular Eastern Christian patrimony.

So what is stated there also needs to be "translated" into an Eastern framework that is not there now (and that is the EC's responsibility anyway).

Given that our local Bishop/Hierarch's authority is absolute and that, after him, the authority of the Primate be he a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, Metropolitan, what have you, governs the particular exigencies of Eastern Catholic ecclesial life, in fact, the role of the Pope is rather minimal in the life of the EC Churches (and I would love to see the day when the Pope keeps out of EC church jurisdictional affairs, save and except for a crisis or when he is asked to intervene).

In fact, I've met many Anglicans today who would WISH to be in union with Rome so that the Pope could intervene in their church affairs and do what their bishops have failed to do, in their eyes, with respect to certain moral positions.

As with all good football teams, one needs a good quarterback and this was and is the Pope of Rome.

That he is infallible is not only an added "plus," it really does give the team confidence when they go to tackle the opposing team in the secular world . . .

Alex

Dear Memo,

Speaking for myself, I belong to the Universal Church through my membership in my Particular UGCC.

This means I never have to look further than the UGCC for: the fullness of the faith, Apostolic Orders and Mysteries/Sacraments, Hierarchy and means of sanctification and salvation.

I would attend other Catholic Churches and their Liturgies, but they would not be the way I live out my life in Christ, so something would be missing for me with the respect to its fullness.

We can never separate "spiritual culture" for "spiritual/ecclesial life."

The latter can only be seen and understood in the context of the former.

Alex

If all the Eastern Catholic Churches suddenly vanished, I would become Eastern Orthodox.

But I do not foresee the disappearance of the Eastern Catholic Churches any time soon.

how come?

How come? What?

How come all of the Eastern Catholic Churches disappeared?

or

How come if there were no Eastern Catholic Churches he'd go Orthodox?

Or was the "How come?" question addressing something else?

How come if all the eastern Catholic churches disappeared he would become orthodox?