www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

You speak much wisdom, Alice!

Actually, through this thread, I have come to develop a strong respect for and sneaking fondness for Seraphim. I think he's about as wrong-headed as someone can be, but I respect his strength of conviction and fearlessness in stating his not-very-popular position.

"There is no schism in Heaven"--Amen! Of course, Seraphim doesn't think we Papists are gonna get there. But there will also be a few surprises in heaven, I'm thinkin'.



ZT

Dear Zoe and Alice,

There was a wonderful old Russian mystic who loved Roman Catholics . . .

In Russian, if you are RC, then you are a "KaTolik" but if you are Orthodox then you are referred to as a "KaFolik."

This mystic used to say that we are separated only by one letter . . .

Like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox were separated by one word to describe the union of the Natures in Christ for 1800 years . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,


What is the difference between KaTolic and KaFolik? Thanks!

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony,

A fascinating issue!

All Slavs had a problem with the Greek sound "Th."

They just couldn't pronounce it.

So Western Slavs, who were Roman Catholic, replaced it with the hard "T" sound.

Eastern Slavs, who were Orthodox, replaced it with the letter "F."

For example, in Russian and (literary) Ukrainian, it is "AriFmetika" and in Polish it is "AriTmetika."

It is "Toma" (for "Thomas") in Polish (and also Galician Ukrainian), but "Foma" in Russian and literary Ukrainian.

Both Latins and Orthodox referred to their Churches as the "Catholic Church."

But in OCS and in Russian, the word "KaTolik" referred to the Latin Slavs, and, by extension to all Roman Catholics of the west.

"KaFolik" referred to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

St Peter Mohyla in his catechism ALWAYS refers to the "Pravoslavno-KaFolicheskaya" Church and faith.

I've seen modern Ukrainian Orthodox liturgical translations cast it as "Pravoslavno-Kafolichna Tserkva" and they refer to Latin and Eastern Catholics as "Katolyky."

And you thought I led a boring existence!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the explanation!

I thought it mught have something to do with pronunciation. Once I visited an Orthodox parish for Vespers. After the service I went down stairs for some coffee. A Russian woman greeted me and said she hoped I joined the parish and then I could sing in the choir if I liked. She was very friendly until I said that would be nice, but I was a Catholic. When she heard that she got all flustered and ran away screaming to everyone else present, "He's a Katolic!! He's a Katolic!!"

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony,

Yes, some Orthodox have a "thing" about "Katoliky" .

But I doubt you would have gotten a better reception if you presented yourself as a "Kafolik."

When I attended the OCA ordination of my formerly Evangelical friend (it's dangerous to be my friend if you are a Protestant, you know . . .), I brought my Old Believer Lestovka.

The poor lady beside me thought I was a "priestless Old Believer" and tried to convince me to be accepted into a parish with a Priesthood . . .

I told her I was there, wasn't I?

Alex

Speaking of Pronunciations, I remember being corrected heartily in my old Greek Catholic parish when at the monthly Slavonic Liturgy, I sang "GOspodi Pomilui" in response to the Litanies. A baba took me aside and said in no uncertain terms "Sing HOspodi! The Other is the RUSSIAN way"

I went on saying "Gospodi" :p

I should have mentioned that the phrase 'there is no schism in heaven' is not mine. I read it elsewhere and it was coined by this forum's own Anthony Dragani.

What a Holy Spirit inspired phrase it is!

Forgive me everyone, and ESPECIALLY Anthony, if it seemed as if I was passing it off as my own.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Brian,

Actually, "Gospodi" is not only the Russian pronunciation - it is the incorrect Old Church Slavonic pronunciation of the "H" letter.

In the 17th century, bishops (including St Dmitri of Rostov) would frequently tell their flocks to stop pronouncing the hard "G" sound when saying "Hospodi" in Slavonic, even though the Muscovites (who only adopted the term "Rus'" or "Russian" at the time of Peter the Great), developed a knack for saying it as they say it today.

So "Hospodi" is the correct (because original) Church Slavonic pronunciation, although Russian Churches today would use only the incorrect "G."

The Ukrainian language has an upside down "L" for the soft "H" (which the Russians always pronounce as a hard "G")and then the same letter with an upwardly pointing accent on the top bar for the hard "G" sound.

That 33rd letter of the Ukrainian alphabet became a kind of "emblem" of Ukrainian cultural identity under the Muscovites (later "Russians").

And only Ukrainians would make a point of affirming their cultural/national identity by using it frequently.

Thus, St Herman of Alaska ONLY signed his name with the Ukrainian letter I described above rather than the Muscovite pronunciation of the Slavonic "H" letter.

Raised in Russian schools as he was, one can only conclude that his cultural identity was Ukrainian.

The term "Little Russian," although offensive to Ukies today, wasn't originally.

"Mikra Rossiya" in Greek meant "essential Rus'" or the "heart of Rus'" in the sense of "Russia Minor."

The Greeks used the terms "Asia Minor" and other geographic names in the same way.

The term "Rus'" came from the river near Kyiv called the "Ros" and defined the city-state of St Volodymyr's Kyivan Rus'.

Another view is that it came from Scandinavia, from the Swedish term "Ruotsi" and in Finnish to this day, "Ruotsi" means "the Swedes."

But the former view is affirmed by most all East Slavic scholars.

Alex

Actually, I don't speculate on this. It either leads to despair or presumption.

Seraphim

Dear Alice,

Actually that phrase first originated with the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop of Mogilev in Belarus of the 17th century - Saint George Konissky who said "our walls of separation don't lead all the way up to heaven."

Alex

Dear Alice and Don,

There is an old saying that virtue, power, is found in the middle. What you say makes sense to me. Thanks for saying it.

There is another old aphorism that says that the Church supplies what is missing. That I learned in the Latin Seminary. It sounds like a western version of economy as an activity of the Church.

I was surprised by what appeared to be grounds for further discussion in Seraphim's postion on at least one issue. If I understood what I read correctly, and that's a big if, he suggested something happened because of the correct form at the ordination of priests in the Catholic Church and that this might be what makes possible the reception by vesting of those Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy. Perhaps it's a way to engage in ecumenical discussion on the nature of the Sacramental "mark."

Has that been raised by theologians who are engaged in ecumenical discussions?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Sorry for resurrecting this terrible thread--but I feel obliged to respond to one of Seraphim Reeves' arguments from before.

He argued that the Catholic Church no longer sees itself as the one true Church, regarding the Orthodox as equally salvific, but that the Orthodox Church has never changed ITS mind on being the one true Church.

This is not true, however. Since the Second Vatican Council, our top hierarchs have used all manner of "ecumenical" maneuvers to try to effect a reunion with the East. This has led many to conclude that the Catholic Church regards the Orthodox churches as equally part of the One Church, etc.

Many high-ranking clerics (Cardinal Kasper, et al.) have even said so explicitly.

Nevertheless, these statements do NOT alter the constant, solemn, de fide teaching that the Catholic Church is the One and only Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles. Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

I leave it to others to figure out what all this ecumenism means. I know that Rome, in order to placate certain Orthodox hierarchs, has refused to take certain jurisdictions under its wing. This is a "practical", "prudential", and maybe "political" decision, however; it can't be used to overturn 20 centuries of constant teaching. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will bring good out of all this; most of it is very confusing for right now. We know that practical decisions are not protected by infallibility; there may be sin or other error involved.

All I know is that the Catholic Church's teaching regarding itself has NEVER changed; nor can it.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

LatinTrad

Very true, Alex. It was also one letter (one little iota) that separated Arius from the orthodox doctine codified in the Nicene Creed.

Amen, LatinTrad!

This N.O. conservative-but-not-too-too-trad agrees 100%.

I keep hearing this argument from our Orthodox brethren--"The Catholic Church regards EOxy as equally salvific, etc., whereas EOxy alone still proclaims itself the One True Church."

It's like a mantra. But it's not true. It's extremely misleading.

I can see how certain ecumenical overtures could give the impression that we've given away the store. But we haven't. Dominus Iesus reiterates the time-honred Catholic teaching on this score. EOxy is very close to Catholicism; it "lacks little" for full communion. But "close" isn't the same as "indistinguishable" or "six of one, half a dozen of the other."

Blessings,

ZT