www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What does "Communion with Rome" mean?

Well, this is quite nice for one as sheltered as I.

Such rhetoric!

Dear me, I shall have to keep up with this! By the way, Orthoman, I personally don't like the harsh way you speak about the faith and way I have chosen to believe (I am a convert, in fact). But, I am not going to be angered at you.

You see, my family works in much the same way as this thread and discussion, though the words in the past have been much worse, and arguments have seldom been this deep and well worded. We had problems with each other, and we had no problems letting each other know we had problems, because being as close as we were, we had friction.

But a difference I see here as opposed to my family, is there is no dinner table. After many arguments, my parents forced us to eat at the table with each other. We were forced to live with each other, despite our differences, and despite our ire with each other.

Sound familiar? God works in mysterious ways, I guess.

Through the harsh words you have chosen, I see why and how you think, and can make a much better argument for it. Thank you for the chance to further myself in my spiritual growth, though, it may sadden you to hear it, I am sure I will not become orthodox because of your arguments. My influences are a number of Byzantine Ruthenian mentors including, but not limited to, of a Priest, a Deacon, two discerning vocations (I am one myself, though not of my mentors, that would be just the pinnacle of egomania) a Lector, and the entire congregation.

But, Orthoman, I'm sorry to say I don't know if we can have dinner.

You get used to it after awhile. They have actually been worse than this, at times. This is really kind of mild. You can only remain sheltered for so long, and then it ends. But do keep in mind that they are basically good people.

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say I have indeed "chilled out!"

The Administrator warned me to limit my posting to about five per day - I have repeatedly ignored his warning, not deliberately perhaps, but allowed myself to continue on.

And I have failed to be a responsible poster yet again, ignoring the Administrator's repeated advice on this very matter.

On second thought, I can't say that Bob Orthoman is wrong in his assessment of me.

It's just that I now accept that assessment.

I reacted in anger when I shouldn't have or at least should have expressed it in a way that was not "giving as good as I got."

But I do tend to attract some of the anger that inevitably develops on any forum.

For whatever reason . . .

And I now accept that I can't handle it and make a mess of things each and every time it happens.

For that reason alone, and not because of Orthoman or Jennifer or any other myriad excuses I've made in the past, for that very real reason alone, I'm done posting - period.

Life was very good when I wasn't posting some time ago and when I was bugging the Administrator with my long PM's on various issues, I proceeded to ask his permission to post on a trial basis.

He has been more than patient with me and I'm sure I've worn out the welcome wagon, although he's too much of a gentleman to say so (although when he does say so, you know that you've really crossed the line!).

I just can't handle the emotions that develop in me on the forum - just can't.

I've lots to do in terms of church work that keeps me busy. What I do here, which is of my own making, just doesn't relate to much that the New Testament would define as positive in that respect!

Orthoman did not end my sojourn here - my good sense has.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave by making that point.

I apologise to the Administrator for my behaviour here and for my disobedience of his directives that we agreed to before I resumed posting.

As an official lurker, I hope to continue to learn from this Forum and wish everyone here the very best.

God bless you all,

Alex

Diak:

All I know is that when I make statements that you and others would take as contrary, I usually back them up both here and elsewhere with references. If you have answered all my claims, then where are all the references to back up all your counter claims? Must be why I missed them.

I notice in your profile you list yourself as a Kievan Catholic. What the hell is a Kievan Catholic? I thought you lived in California. You state on more than one occassion that you are in communion with the pope by choice but I'm restricted from referring to you as a p**** Catholic with threat of being banned from this site once again.

You, as well as others, have stated to back up your claims to being 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome', that you have been instructed by the pope to return to your ancestral traditions and practices. If you are so Orthodox and free and self governing, then why did it take the pope to instruct you to initiate the change? Why didn't you all do it on your own long ago? Are you implying you can't do anything without the popes ok or that you are really not as Orthodox as you claim without the popes permission to be so?

Now, once again my honesty and directness has caused havoc. Especially my accusations regarding Alex being contrary in his posts. Especially those regarding the 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' issue. To back up my accusation regarding this matter I once again gave a website address and dates of posts Alex made which were in opposition to what he was claiming somewhere else. And, once again rather than being proved wrong, I have been accused of being rude, crude, etc. I never apologize for telling the truth. If you don't believe it's the truth then prove me wrong by giving me some facts to back up your disagreements.

Now I don't know of any issue regarding Orthodoxy I haven't addressed except maybe Alex's question on nationalism within Orthodoxy. Yes, there is nationalism within Orthodoxy also. Especially amongst the Greeks and of course once again the Ukrainians. It seems the Ukrainians are united in one aspect. Which is they have no direct loyality to pope or patriarch which I have already stated. If they don't like what either says they will ignore it or do what they want. Examples being the UGC's calling Cardinal Husar patriarch in spite of the pope denying them a patriarchate. And, of course the UOC-KP electing a defrocked married bishop patriarch of a self proclaimed autocephalous church. A church which is recognized by no one including Rome & Constantinople as being canonical. It seems that the only ones that recognize them as such are other Ukrainians.

It seems that I too need a rest from this site.


OrthoMan

Bob,

As you've mentioned me by name in your post above, I wanted to respond.

That the pope has told EC's to return to their Eastern roots is a positive, not a negative thing.

It shows, contrary to much Orthodox opinion, that Rome is not hell-bent on Latinization. Indeed, historically we did not receive ONE single Latinization from Rome, but from the Roman Catholic countries under which EC's lived.

Nationalism is not just among the Greeks and the Ukrainians, as you've said.

Great Russian chauvinism, something that goes well beyond nationalism, is central to the Russian Orthodox Church. That is so evident in the ROC's life, and I'm not saying it is such a bad thing, however, when it denies the rights of other groups to self-determination, it is a bad thing.

Admit it or not, it is there. Perhaps you are not a reader of Russian. If you were, you would be better acquainted with the ROC.

As for your charge that I've said one thing on one site and another on another site, I deny that.

EC's, in the main, would NEVER formally refer to their churches, by way of title, as "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Perhaps there are a few such parishes. But this would NEVER be accepted in the UGCC and it would constitute an offense to Ukrainian Orthodox and others, to be sure.

That is my point, here and everywhere, that I still affirm.

However, EC's DO and always HAVE used the term "Orthodox" and in the Liturgy especially. I know of one Ukr. Orthodox Metropolitan who referred to the UGCC as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and acknowledged that this was our historic title soon after the Union of Brest.

The point is, and it is unresolved, how can we be as Orthodox as possible and in communion with Rome. How can we be "Orthodox" and "Catholic" at the sam time, in other words? There is the matter of giving offense to Orthodox, but I've come to realize of late that nomatter what we do, we constitute an offense to many Orthodox.

I don't know the answer, we're discussing it. I, like other EC's, would prefer not to offend the Orthodox, but we will anyway, it would seem.

While there are limits, as I've outlined in articles on UO, I see NOTHING wrong with EC's using the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" amongst themselves - taking into account also there are many EC's who would balk at using the term "Orthodox" as this reminds them of Russian Orthodox imperialism under soviet communism, religious and cultural imperialism.

As you refuse to acknowledge Russian chauvinism, it is no use continuing with that, is there?

You yourself say you are an "Orthodox Catholic" which you have every right to do as this is the original title of the Eastern Christians.

For us who accept this name, it means the same as "Orthodox in communion with Rome." For indeed, the early Church knew of no other Orthodox Christian.

Yes, there is a schism between the Churches that changes perspectives on the matter of primacy.

As for the UOC-KP and the non-canonical Ukrainian Orthodox, they are what the Russian Orthodox Church made them.

If the Moscow Patriarchate, which operates very much like a medieval papacy, would have allowed a real self-determination of the Ukrainian Orthodox (and your contention that the UOC-MP is such a formation is simply an opinion that is problematic), that situation would not exist today.

Conversely, the ROC wants to have it both ways. The ROC declared its patriarchate against the wishes of the EP and then just hung on until Orthodoxy finally acknowledged its status - as did other national ORthodox Churches (there is no such thing as an Orthodox Church that isn't a "national Church").

Yet, Ukrainians are not allowed to do the same and follow suit in the same manner.

As for Filaret, there were other Patriarchs of the UOC-KP before him who were equally despised by Russian Orthodoxy - no matter who it would be, he would be despised by the ROC.

If we cannot see the issue of chauvinism and imperialism via the church in that, then we will agree to disagree.

Your idea of the "truth" is one which does not go beyond the interpretive prism of what you acknowledge it to be.

I'm not saying that mine isn't.

All I'm saying is that on a forum like this, we all come with our views of the world.

And conversation is only possible if we agree to respect one another's views. We are all open to error. We are all here to contribute to a deeper understanding of issues.

But without respect of one another, we cannot hold civil discourse.

And that, my friend, is where you have erred. You have erred not in your devotion to Orthodoxy and Orthodox faith.

You have erred in an entirely personal matter which you will not acknowledge.

And that means that discourse, real discourse, cannot be had with you.

I am so sorry about that.

Alex

Dear Orthoman,

Rudeness is not any less rude if it communicates true facts among its ravings.

Kindly stop giving Orthodoxy a bad name by spewing invective.

Gaudior, who reminds you that no one is going to want to grow up to be like the foul tempered old man that you show yourself as. Let others see the icon of Christ in you, and perhaps your words will carry weight without recourse to statements like "What the hell is..."

This comment is oh so very very true - but I would also add something to it .

As well as respecting one another's views we must also be courteous .

There has been a sad lack of courtesy on the part of some posters recently - not just on this thread - but elsewhere also.

Anhelyna

Bob, it's simple. Kievan Catholic is a Catholic of the Kievan tradition. That's not hard, and a feeble attempt to remove jurisdictional and nationalistic barriers. I feel it is a much more descriptive term for myself than the ubiquitous "Byzantine Catholic" of which I am somewhat critical. The bottom line is it is simply a matter of personal preference which I hope one would respect instead of froth as you just responded with. As an historical note, the legitimate Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv, Mikhail Rahoza, entered into communion with Rome in 1596 and I honor his memory and vision.

I don't know where you got California from. Visited but never lived there. I'm just a hayseed Okie who ended up one state north of his home state. Several on the Forum have been to my house (and some have lived to tell about it).

What counter claims? You still havent't answered the questions. When did we ever deny the existence of the CCEO? Cite one, just one, only one, example on this Forum when ANYONE claimed to have denied the existence of the CCEO. Just one. I don't want any circular excuse, just an historical citation. That's all. That was your accusation. Back it up.

Nor have you addressed the fact that law is neither dogma, can be modified through praxis, nor is it theology. We have remanded you to such documents as Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Dignitas, Slavorum Apostili, Orientalium Ecclesiorum, which you have outwardly discarded. The guidance from the US Catholic Bishops Conference regarding Eastern Churches.

You've been quite too scholastic, methinks, to discard the praxis and episcopal guidance to fixate on the law. One without the other is meaningless. This is not Latin or Orthodox, but reality.

Your 'honest and directness' still hasn't answered the questions that have been asked in a direct manner. We've answered all the questions put to us. You don't have to like those answers, but there they are.

To continue to educate you and answer your questions, Bob, from the turn of the 19th century such luminaries as Metropolitan Sheptytsky, Cyril Korlovesky, Exarch Leonid Federov, Nicholas Charnetsky, Nicholas Tolstoy, and later Maximos IV, Maximos V, Elias Zoghby, Isidore Boretcky, and many more were actively working for the restoration of orthodox tradition within the Greek Catholic churches.

This all generations before Vatican II, and the current Pontiff. So drop the whole idea that the return to orthodoxy is some Pontifical whim. Anyone with a basic idea of sociology knows what the psychological effects of minority do to identity. Sometimes it isn't pretty.
We have been in an identity vise between the Latins and the Orthodox, and we are coming out, a process that went into fuller steam during the pontificate of Leo XIII.

Shall we keep going into the specifics regarding your unanswered questions? In the interest of brevity I will only cite the most recent example from this thread. Your admonition for us to "quit complaining" was answered by a simple question.
which you never answered. Orthodoxy has its problems, too.

Once again the bottom line is (1) we are in communion because we want to be and (2) we will be faithful to our Orthodox heritage (as that is the mother church of our origin). That will entail love, patience, and charity on our side and education, love, patience, and charity on the side of our Latin brothers.

Forgive us for being Eastern and being in communion with Rome. Just forgive us, pray for us, and let it go. We are not going away. We are reclaiming our heritage and stepping into the orientale Lumen.

We have a right to exist, which is recognized by your Orthodox Balamand Agreement, and many of your bishops such as Vsevelod and Kallistos Ware firmly believe that.

...and may God bless you all!

Your Orthodox sister in Christ,
Alice

And may God bless you, and the Holy Theotokos, the holy St. Nektarios, and all the angels and saints always intercede for you! Doxa Theou!

Amen!