www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox in Communion

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

I understand that the Byzantine/Ukrainian Catholic Church is the "Orthodox Church in Commuion with Rome".

But I need some clarification on some points.

Do the Byzantine Catholics believe identically as the Eastern Orthodox not in Communion?

Do Byzantine Catholics venerate such saints as St. Seraphim, St. John of Kronstadt? What about such "Orthodox" saints as those who specifically rejected Rome and Catholicism?

I know that the Lenten fasting for Ukrainian Catholics has been changed from the traditional no meat no diary for 40 days to something much more simpler. So does that mean that Ukrainian Catholics have a choice of how they are going to fast?

The book by Slobodskoy "The Law of God", is this a book that would be totally exceptable to Byzantine and Ukrainian Catholics?

Are there any differences in the preception of Purgatory, Immaculate Conception between the Byzantines and Eastern Orthodox? Perhpas another way put, are Byzantines totally free to accept the book "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" in total, or with reservations on certain issues?

I would really like to understand the differences between the Byzantines/Ukrainian Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox "not in Communion." What are the Byzantines/Ukrainian NOT free to accept, might be a better way of putting it.

I hope someone is willing to undertake my questions!

In Our Risen Lord,
Chris

Dear Chris,

Christ is Risen!

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is but one of several Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.

As such, we have our own theological, canonical and spiritual heritage which goes beyond only an outward, ritual distinction with the Latin Catholic Church.

With respect to saints, there are UC parishes that do indeed venerate such saints as Seraphim of Sarov.

Seraphim of Sarov is one of my favourites and he prayed the Rule of the Mother of God that is known in the West as the "Rosary" daily.

Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky petitioned Rome to acknowledge the saints of the Orthodox Church and this petition was granted in 1904 with only a few Orthodox saints not included on the grounds that the main characteristic of their lives was being against the union with Rome.

There are also Roman Catholic historians and theologians today who are likewise against the Union of Brest and against the Ukrainian Catholic Church for that reason.

Hopefully, none of them will ever be canonized as saints - because then we won't be able to have them in our calendar for being against the Union either.

The Immaculate Conception doctrine, from the Latin perspective, defines that the Mother of God was preserved free from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her Conception in the womb of St Anne.

While this theology of the "stain" of Original Sin is part of the Latin Church's theological tradition, it is not part of that of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

But long before the Immaculate Conception was defined et alia, the Eastern Churches observed the feast of the Conception of St Anne and that the Most Holy Mother of God was conceived as All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate etc.

Therefore, what the West took so much time to define so lately, (namely, that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was All-Pure and All-Holy from her Conception) is something the Eastern Churches have believed for centuries and have liturgically celebrated.

What has always impressed me about the Eastern Catholic Churches is their very great devotion to the Most Holy MOther of God as evidenced in the many feasts, beautiful liturgical prayers and miraculous icons.

There is really nothing like this in the Latin West by comparison - we have nothing to learn from the West in terms of devotion to the Most Holy Virgin Mary.

As for Purgatory, the EC Churches pray incessantly for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins etc.

The Latin term "Purgatory" is not used by Eastern Catholics because it expresses an eschatology that is foreign to our theological tradition which is just as "Catholic" as that of the West.

For one thing, we don't believe that there is a "purgatorial fire" and the Council of Florence affirmed that the Greeks did not have to subscribe to that.

What the Latin Church understands as "Purgatory," the East sees more in terms of a "forecourt" to Heaven where those in need of our prayer and that of the entire Church receive the Grace of God by means of it.

Ultimately, it comes down to the same thing, but from within different theological perspectives.

As for fasting, as in the Latin Catholic Church, so too local bishops' synods issue guidelines for fasting.

Many traditionally Eastern Ukrainian Catholics observe the full Orthodox fasting rules, including Wednesdays and Fridays and other fasts that are today much stricter than the woefully lax fasting discipline of your Church, eventhough traditional RC's are often good about going beyond what their bishops prescribe by way of fasting.

The term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the original name for the Belarusyan and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians whose bishops signed the Union of Brest in 1596.

It is coming back today as part of a return to our EC heritage.

I can't help wonder but that you have a number of reservations concerning Orthodox theology and would disagree that one can be truly "Catholic" and "in union with Rome" while holding to the vast majority of what the Orthodox Church teaches.

What are your own views on this matter, may I ask?

Alex

Christus Surrexit! Vere Surrexit, Alleluia!

To the best of my ability, may I try to answer some of your queries?

"I understand that the Byzantine/Ukrainian Catholic Church is the "Orthodox Church in Commuion with Rome"."


Actually, Byzantines who maintain that they are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" represent to the Byzantine what "Traditionalists" represent to the Orthodox. In general, not all Byzantines can be defined this way and the majority of their churches are much more "broad" or liberal, although the ukrainians do have their "conservative" elements which are very "Tridentine". Those who are part of this movement aren't as organized or even represented as the "Traditionalists" are in Orthodoxy. Literature and a Patristic message could more than solidify and expand their role and amplify the Byzantine vocation, in my view.


"Do the Byzantine Catholics believe identically as the Eastern Orthodox not in Communion?"


No. Their eschatology, mariology, christology, ecclesiology, hagiology, etc. are thoroughly latin.
For instance, they believe in purgatory, limbo, indulgences, etc. They also believe in the Immaculate Conception, the latin view of "Co-Redemptrix", "immaculate hearts", the latin doctrine of the "Assumption", etc. Their christology is thoroughly latin shaped by Blessed Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, eg They believe in created grace, in nominal deification, and they worship pieces of Christ aside from Christ in toto, "sacred heart, overstated Veneration of the Sacrament, etc." They accept the latin standards for "sainthood", eg stigmata, tears of blood, recorded miracles, supererogatory merits, etc. And many if not most recite the filioque. They are rightly termed "Eastern Rite Catholics" for they share the same body of faith with the latins.


"Do Byzantine Catholics venerate such saints as St. Seraphim, St. John of Kronstadt? What about such "Orthodox" saints as those who specifically rejected Rome and Catholicism?"


They do have veneration for such Saints as SS Job of Pochaev, Athanasios of Brest', I understand they have "rehabilitated" Gregory Palamas, etc. But there is precisely a latin spin to them much like amongst certain Greeks ignoble personages such as athenagoras or metaxakis are almost elevated to a demigod status with outright inaccuracies and disinformation propagated about them, eg there is a book out there by Khondoroupoulos about St. Nektarios which addresses his relationship with metaxakis. In this work of fiction, metaxakis, a free mason who had been deposed 3 times by at least 2 local churches, who persecuted St. Nektarios, is rewritten as one of his staunchest allies. In general, modern Orthodox Saints do not have an "official cultus" for them, but there seems to be variation in regard to that at least in the exception of the veneration of St. Seraphim.


"I know that the Lenten fasting for Ukrainian Catholics has been changed from the traditional no meat no diary for 40 days to something much more simpler. So does that mean that Ukrainian Catholics have a choice of how they are going to fast?"


They have official guidelines which are very much like the latin ones post 1900, when dairy products were allowed for latins during lent. In some dioceses these are mediated to "conform with the spirit of vatican ii" allowing for "spiritual fasting according to conscience" usually requiring a minimum "obligation" of "fridays in lent" where eggs and dairy are allowed. Byzantine monastics follow their latin brethren for the most part and do eat meat. No, their observances are for the most part latin, but there are a minority of "orthodox" types who are more Patristic in observance.


"The book by Slobodskoy "The Law of God", is this a book that would be totally exceptable to Byzantine and Ukrainian Catholics?"


No, for the above mentioned interpretations of theology, the latin endorsement of evolutionism, and the papal ecclesiological model. Of course, there are more "orthodox" dioceses which could factor it in. It, however, could only be secondary material used in conjunction with the official "Catechism of the Catholic Church".


"Are there any differences in the preception of Purgatory, Immaculate Conception between the Byzantines and Eastern Orthodox? Perhpas another way put, are Byzantines totally free to accept the book "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" in total, or with reservations on certain issues?"

No, there are no distinctions and they as "Catholics" are one in Faith in doctrine with Rome. You are asking if they can divert from (to use Meyendorff terminology) the "Tradition" of faith of the latin church--to do so is considered heretical by both Orthodox and the latins, even though the Orthodox and the latins have a diverent, often diametric view of what "Tradition" is.


"I would really like to understand the differences between the Byzantines/Ukrainian Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox "not in Communion." What are the Byzantines/Ukrainian NOT free to accept, might be a better way of putting it."


See above for my response. In general, you cannot have carbon copy OCA, ACROD, ROCOR Orthodoxy in Byzantine Catholicism--they are in union with Rome and accept oneness in doctrine in faith with them. The distinctions seem between latins of Byzantine and Roman rite is just that rite and that's what most of their discussion addresses. It is simply a matter of how things are done, that's it. And many of the Byzantine Catholics have been forced into compromises of rite and conforming to latinization.


"I hope someone is willing to undertake my questions!"

In Our Risen Lord,
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you for your patience and due consideration of my view.
E D

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the thorough response! You've answered many of my questions.

I am a convert from the Russian Orthodox Church. My conversion was based more on family unity than theological purposes. My wife is a staunch Roman Catholic and would never convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. So after many years, I decided that I should join Catholicy for the sake of the unity of my family.

I have come to love Catholicy. We go to a Traditional Roman Catholic Mass. But so much is very foreign to me, and hard to get used to.

I started to go with my son to the local Ukrainian Catholic church, and just loved it. He serves in the Altar when we're there. My wife won't go to the UCC with us. So I go between the Roman Rite and the Ukies. Its tough, though.

So I've come to a point where I need to decide which tradition I will follow for my spiritual life. Obviously, the UCC seems natural to me. And the reasons for my questions is because I want to know how far I can go and still remain in the barriers of the Catholic Church.

As far as I can see, just going back to my Orthodox practices would be fine, but the difference is that now I am in Communion with my wife and children. This is wonderful.

Outside of the papal supremacy question, I see no difference in the two Churches. Just two different ways of expression that lead to the same thing.

What I don't like is the impression that I get that Rome treats the Eastern Rite Churches as some sort of step-children. I feel funny about a Roman being able to change anything, or bind our hands when he is Roman Rite and we are Ukrainian. It just doesn't seem right. Maybe my perception is off. I was very upset with all the recent goings-on about Patriarch Lyubomyr and a Ukrainian patriarchate. I don't see why there even needs to be discussion about it. There should be a patriarchate, and Patriarch Lyubomyr is the head -- period.

I'm buying Likoudis books "The Divne primacy" and "Ending the Byzantine-Greek Schism", I'm hoping I'll find them helpful. I read Zoghby and just loved him!

I would appreciate any more input!

Chris

"The term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the original name for the Belarusyan and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians whose bishops signed the Union of Brest in 1596."


Inaccurate. Actually, the Brest' unia affirmed the Greek Faith as Catholic and equal to that of Rome, but the word "Orthodox" was eschewed. They were wont to refer to themselves as "Greek Catholics" or "Catholic Uniates". It was eschewed, likewise, by Uzhgorod (1646) and the Galician unias of 1692-1696. For the most part the Brest' union lapsed after the Perjaslavl Pact due to a popular uprising against it and the liberation of cities from the unia by combined Russian-Cossack armies which liberated large tracts of White Russia and the Ukraine. The later unias under Austrian patronage were what represented the recovery of the Unia which was seen to have lapsed.

"It is coming back today as part of a return to our EC heritage."


It has an observance among a minority, and the movement emerges in the aftermath of vatican ii. In many instances, it has been greeted with hostility by Byzantine hierarchs and many of the faithful.


"I can't help wonder but that you have a number of reservations concerning Orthodox theology and would disagree that one can be truly "Catholic" and "in union with Rome" while holding to the vast majority of what the Orthodox Church teaches."


The impression I had was curiousity in the possibility of "Orthodox in Communion with Rome". And an attempt to set up a standard for what is considered "Orthodox" to see if the Byzantines could conform to that. I don't see the query in a negative or questioning light of Orthodoxy or this literature, but rather an endorsement of it for it means to be Orthodox.


E D

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!
I am an "Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome." And I understand the tension that such a belief causes for many Orthodox NOT in Communion with Rome, some Roman Catholics, and even some Byzantine Catholics.

Starting in the Greek Catholic Chucrhes in Ukraine and the Patriarchate of Antioch in the early years of the 20th century, there began the rediscovery of the full theological tradition of Byzantine Christianity. This was, in part, a rediscovery of the Church's Liturgical life, but it developed into so much more.

Balaban's critic is partially valid, since there is still a segment of the Byzantine Catholic Churches membership who refuse to rediscover the Truth of the Holy Tradition. My experience has shown me that at least in the USA, those people are dying out. They were educated before the Second Vatican Council, and its impetus to advance the rediscovery of who we must truly be as "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." Their Children for the most part have abandoned the Byzantine Catholic Church for Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, because the "Hybridism" that Balaban still thinks is prevalent, does nurture a very deep or committed spiritual life.

I follow Bishop Zoghby's teaching on the issue. I would avoid Likoudis though, he has abandoned Byzantine Christianity and is merely a Greek convert to Roman Catholicism, ashamed of his ancestor's spiritual heritage.

If you have any other questions you can try to contact me by private email. I do not wish to get into a pointless conversation with the self-rightous on both ends of the issue.
Christ is Risen!
Fr. Vladimir

correction.
"Hybridism does NOT provide the basis of a real spiritual life."
sorry for the mistake

Khristos Voskrese!
Voistino Voskrese!

Dear Father,
I in no wise sought to impugn the "Orthodox in Communion movement" but to profer the notion that it is not characteristic of the Byzantines. Now, you seem to be intimating that I am disparaging you. I am not in any way. As a matter of fact, I would advocate the ascendancy of your party and its full control of Byzantine institutions with a vigorous press, Patristic studies, and a policy of pre-schism catechisms, liturigics, canon law, etc. I would advance the growth of your movement in Western Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. to "lapsed Catholic populations" and non-Orthodox. I would have you all placed as the main interlocutors with Rome on "dialogue with Orthodoxy" with you all to have a faithful and Patristic voice to lead the latin church in the era after the second vatican council. You see, Father, if rapproachment is to be attained between Orthodox and Catholics, we have to be able to view how our former co-religionists are able to preserve and propagate "Orthodoxy" in Catholicism, how a truly Catholic model of reconciliation exists and prospers and how the latin church can "truly breathe with two lungs". I believe this movement is crucial and requisite and I would petition the pope to de rigeour embrace it and utilize the excellent Byzantine institutions in Rome to champion your cause. I think Byzantines in this framework after a generation would break into three currents: those who return to Orthodoxy on a Patristic basis, those who stay to work rapproachment with Orthodoxy, and those Byzantines who are broad in their approach but now influence latin institutions and practices and are working as adjuncts to the latins to provide a truly Catholic model of church. (This was the model of union of Prince Constantine Ostrozhsky). I must remark that I was touched to tears to hear the Russicum academes singing the "Paschal stikhi" before the pope in Slavonic during the Easter Mass this year. To me, that was a validation of the Byzantine vocation and something Byzantines must insist on to ground the "catholic" character of their union and pursue their Patristic tradition.
E D
PS Real moves toward "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" received real support in the aftermath of vatican ii, qv the "new skete communities", the Western Canadian Ukrainians, the studite movement, etc. An argument can be made that the work of Fedorov and the Russian jesuits advanced an "Orthodox" model, but their reliance on the revolutionary authorities kind of calls them into question; Chevetogne, however, is an impressive institution. Metropolitans Sheptitsky's and Slipyj's work did nothing to undo the Zamosc Synod and what their "Byzantinism" inevitably lead to was a pseudomorphosis of sorts which simply reinforced things as not "Orthodox in Communion" but, rather, "traditionally Ukrainian". The Melkite work has mainly been ecumenism but not necessarily an advocacy of "Orthodox in union with Rome or in any way 'traditionalism'"; although, an argument can be made that the Melkites were the ones who at least, theologically, insisted on a more "Patristic" concept of unia.

Dear Balaban,

Actually, you are wrong about the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as this was an historical term that the early "Greco-Uniates" used to define themselves by (as shown by Met. I. Ohienko in a number of his works and he was certainly no friend of Eastern Catholics).

Your views on the hybridism and Latinism of the Eastern Catholics are rather dated and while it is a certainty that Latinization is maintained at the parish level in various places, the Eastern Catholics of today are not what they were yesterday.

Your comments on the Byzantine movement of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and our Patriarch Josef, while correct on the Ukrainian aspect, are incorrect on the assumptions you appear to be making concerning their sincerity with respect to the Byzantine aspect.

Met. Andrew is also the one who welcomed the Russians into unity with Rome, he is the one who successfully petitioned Rome to acknowledge the saints of Russian Orthodoxy for liturgical veneration by the Russian Catholics, he is the one who got Rome to acknowledge both the Nikonian and Old Rites of Russian Orthodoxy and he is also the one whose efforts aimed at Byzantinizing his Church were only blocked by the refusal of those who were much tied to historic Latinisms.

Pat. Josef, it is true, kept a number of the Latinizations of Zamosc but only because he knew that it would take more education for his flock to reject them in favour of greater Byzantinization. What he did do is proceed to "Byzantinize" many aspects of what was formerly "Latin."

It was he who promoted the recognition of St Gregory Palamas by Rome - and other issues that directly contravene the Synod of Zamosc, so your point that he supported that Synod simply does not hold water. I myself had two opportunities to personally meet with Patriarch Josef and to hear him discuss these issues. Believe me, what you say about him is not true.

In addition, a number of Latin practices are also followed by the Orthodox of Eastern Europe, things they themselves picked up from the Roman Catholics or that converts brought with them, such as the Stations of the Cross. I was shown an Orthodox prayerbook from there that had the Latin "Supplicatsia" Eucharistic service in the back. There are also images of the Sacred Heart that one can find even in Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe, and as our Orthodox seminarian Tony here has also witnessed.

Latin practices among Eastern Catholics in Eastern Europe today also have a political/cultural function in that they serve as a religious "wall of separation" from the Russian Orthodox. There are those Eastern Catholics who simply do not want to bring their traditions closer to those of Orthodoxy that they see as being a religious embodiment of the hated Russophilism and of the Church that had committed the crime of ecclesiacide against their Church. I know that there are many EC parishes in E Europe that would dearly like to drop the "Orthodox Christians" in the Divine Liturgy for this reason. I don't agree, but that doesn't change how they feel.

There are indeed EC parishes that are very purely Orthodox in theology and ritual. Fr. Serge Keleher who was in Toronto years ago and ran the parish of St Seraphim of Sarov enjoyed great respect among the ROCOR clergy for his dedication to the Eastern traditions. There are other priests and parishes among us who likewise are deeply respected by ROCOR and other Orthodox jurisdictions for the same reason.

The Byzantinization movement is more far-reaching than you would wish to admit, but we can agree to disagree.

Finally, your statement that St Athanasius of Brest is venerated by EC's is false - he was one of a handful of Orthodox saints who was not approved by Rome for his opposition to the Union of Brest.

This doesn't mean that EC's could not venerate him privately etc.

In fact, as you might know, St Athanasius Filipovich was highly honoured by Eastern Catholics as well as by Orthodox in the 17th century for standing up to Poland and for attacking the imposition of the Filioque and the Unia in general by the Polish military.

He was honoured as a defender of the East Slavs and their heritage by the EC's, so much so, that the Jesuits established a feast-day for St Josaphat two days ahead of St Athanasius' (September 16 and Athanasius' is on September 18).

This was to get the EC's to forget about St Athanasius whose shrine and relics EC's made pilgrimages to.

It was Met. Andrew Sheptytsky who cancelled the September 16th feast for St Josaphat and moved it to November 25th, the date of his martyrdom, where it was before.

And it was both Met. Andrew and Patriarch Josef who returned many Orthodox feast-days back to the Eastern Catholic calendar, feast-days ordered dropped by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 19th century as being "too ORthodox" and tending toward "Russification."

Such feast-days included the Saints of the Kyivan Caves Lavra and other Orthodox saints, including the feast-days of such Orthodox miracle-working Icons as Pochaiv and others.

So your conclusion about these two great Eastern Catholic Hierarchs is simply wrong.

Alex

Dear Chtets,

Sorry if I sounded somewhat alarmed by your earlier question!

We sometimes get our backs up against the wall here on such issues . . .

Welcome to the fullness of Communion in Christ's Holy Catholic Church!

I agree with you 100% that we can be fully Orthodox theologically and liturgically and still be in communion with Rome - I think Rome would really like us to be that way.

Our Latinizations over time came to us from our own clergy and monastics. And as others here have shown, various letters from Rome have effectively cancelled the Synod of Zamosc to the extent that there is no need to follow any of its rather damaging articles.

I myself love Fr. Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" and have discussed numerous points of his with Catholic priests and some theologians.

So while the East does not have the Sacred Heart of Jesus or Mary devotions, it DOES worship the whole Christ as the "Lover of Mankind." And it does venerate the Most Holy Theotokos in her icons of "the Seven Swords/Arrows," "Softener of Evil Hearts" and the like.

While the Immaculate Conception is certainly not part of the Orthodox tradition, as Pomazansky says, the East does honour the holy Conception of the Mother of God (and of the Forerunner) which is not the same thing, but affirms that the East has always believed them to have been sanctified from their conception (there is also a tradition that St Nicholas of Myra was likewise conceived in holiness and I've seen a Russian Orthodox troparion in honour of this!).

In fact, when it comes to their relationship to both East and West, the EC's are like the Anglicans

There are "high" Eastern parishes and "low" Latin parishes.

Certainly, the fullness of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church tradition, theological, liturgical and canonical, can be embraced while in full communion with Rome.

The Russian Catholics have been very faithful to their traditions and have earned the respect of many in Russian Orthodoxy as a result.

May all EC's follow in their foot-steps.

And I think that our friend, Balaban, would make a great Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome!

Alex

Firstly, the useage of the term "Orthodox" amongst Byzantines simply is not historically there. The Polish crown in the era in question OUTLAWED it. The term came to be equated with "schismatic", +Metropolitan Ilarion-Vjechnaja Jemu Pamjat'!--notwithstanding but his statement was that the "Greek Catholics were Orthodox in Roman bondage"--"Hreko-katoliki je tii zhe samyj Pravoslavnyj khristiany u rimskoi nevoli"--but that does not mean that he or they understood themselves as "Orthodox in union with Rome". This is a relatively new movement without real support on the parts of various hierarchies yet.

Secondly, the fact that Metropolitan Sheptitsky and Metropolitan Sipyj supported this or that Byzantinization in no way mediates the environment of the Byzantine church under their rule. You did say the filioque. You did lose married priests. You did even take the doors off your ikonostases. And you didn't return to explore the spiritual heritage of Orthodoxy, no, what was introduced were devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, rosaries, the stations, statues of Mary in your homes. Why, in the ugcc under Slipyj, some of your clerics were wearing latin birettas for a time. One can try to read whatever one wants into a personage as I've illustrated with my allusions to metaxakis, but that does not spin away the truth.

As I have stated the fundamental differences in latin ecclesiology, christology, mariology, eschatology, hagiology, soteriology are "T"raditon variations with Orthodoxy which Rome cannot reconcile without changing what Rome believes. You cannot reconcile Blessed Augustine with St. Gregory Palamas. I would hope the "orthodox Byzantines" did reach to the ascendancy and were ready to put forward Patristic teaching to the other Byzantines and the latins, but that part of their vocation simply has not materialized.

The statements on russophilia are veiled russophobia--do we really need to concoct hostilities on the basis of piroshki vs varenniky?!

I thought St. Athanasios of Brest' was part of the ugcc cultus. The sacred hearts, stations, etc. in a minority of reunited Orthodox churches, while not denied, do not enjoy any cultus in Orthodoxy and never have. Fr. Pomazansky goes into that at length. I'm not going to comment on fr. keleher, but let's just say there are more "appreciated" clerics in your midst who are part of the "orthodox in union with Rome movement"--isn't there a Fr. Roman of the ugcc in W Canada who modeled his parish off of Jordanville and used to go there on pilgrimage yearly?--I seem to remember seeing him.


My line has ever been faithful to Orthodoxy and I am an anti-ecumenical, old calendar Orthodox Traditionalist. I live by the dictum, ORTHODOXY OR DEATH! I am satisfied with Orthodoxy, but I guess I must clarify that I would celebrate the day Rome was reconciled with her, and I would greet with bread and salt the Byzantines who realized their vocation to bring that about.
E D

Dear Balaban,

Yes, Fr. Roman is related to me by marriage as is his brother, Fr. Prof. Peter.

Met. Ilarion did indeed discuss the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as the Uniates' original title, but you are right, that was later discarded. He made the comment as a way to say that the Latinization of the Uniates occurred because they FORGOT their Orthodox roots etc.

The Latin practices you mention are again slowly being removed, but as for Russophobia - yes, there is that among EC's in Europe.

It comes from years of being part of the Soviet Russian empire and the "Soviet Orthodox" Sergianist Church - which I'm sure you'll appreciate my using that term.

As for the distinctions between Russians and Ukrainians, they are a bit more than simply ethnic foods. You can believe what you wish, but you don't have to be offensive.

That you are anti-ecumenical - now there's a shocker! :0

Despite our disagreements, I DO appreciate your unique ability to discuss the Eastern Catholic situation with a degree of detachment and insight I've not seen in other traditionalist Orthodox Christians.

Alex

Christos Voskrese

Actually, I believe the term is misleading.

When it was first used I think it was valid and I do not question the faith of those who used it (I don't think they could have seen what was going to happen).

I don't think it is current reality. Many (if not most) of the EC bishops defend and encourage Latin practices and theology and often force it on those in their churches. Those who try to retain their Orthodox heritage are often derided by many of the people and priests. Latin priests with little Eastern education are allowed to control Eastern parishes, etc. Where one attends and who the priest is can change the theology one is hearing. I do not believe that is right.

It is my understanding that if an Orthodox person decides to come into communion with Rome, they are required to do so in an EC church if available. If this is correct (and it may not be), how many priests actually follow it or care?

The filioque is not allowed under the union, but many parishes say it, and Rome, at best, doesn't mind. They've denied married priests here in North America. They limit the validity of the terms of the unions to Latin defined regions, so that if a person emigrates, they are no longer allowed the terms under which they came into communion. They allow some, but I have had it explained to me by both Latins and ECs that this is only a compromise.

Some of the Latin definitions of absolute infallibility (and I'm not arguing what the RCs "really" teach, but what they teach in practice to the laity) and the teachings about the Immaculate Conception weren't around when the unions were signed. I'm of the opinion these would have more severely limited the union.

I think there are some great EC people and priests (take Alex here) who work very hard to bridge the gap. They fight the fight with the Latins and the Greeks. I don't question that they believe what they say. In my opinion, however, the union has been at best a partial failure for everyone but the Latins.

If someone had asked me two years ago, I would have said the theology in the ECCs are similar and compatible to that of the Latin from an Eastern perspective (e.g. no filioque). Now, I think they are simply identical with some creative definitions and caveats thrown in.

For you, Chtets, I would say you need to find out if canon law allows you to become a Latin immediately. If not, then you need to attend an EC parish. Your and your wife's RC priest should be supportive if that is the case.

I would add that the Eastern Churches are your heritage and that I hope and pray that you will be able to embrase them fully.

Dear Cizinec,

Certainly, what you say is hard to argue with!

And it is hard to affirm Byzantinization when both clergy and parishioners themselves prefer their Latinized ways, and would even find those who are for great closeness to the East "under suspicion."

What really gets to me personally about all this is when you have a parish that considers itself to be "Eastern" because the people stand for the Canon during the Divine Liturgy and have gorgeous icons, but then see no problem with using the Filioque et al.!

And the fact that Rome appoints our bishops for us doesn't help matters.

One of the reasons why the Union of Brest came about was because the Orthodox bishops in the Polish Kingdom had to be approved by . . . the King.

But today there is a growing movement in the Byzantine Churchers that is very promising - and has the backing of Rome, despite Latin lethargy in the parishes.

This would have been unheard of before and there is nothing stopping all parishes to "go Eastern" tomorrow - other than their own attitudes, of course.

The only ones we have to blame for this is ourselves.

But you are right for the most part.

And so is our loveable brother, Balaban!

Alex

I'd much rather be wrong.