www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question for Ruthenians, Melkites, and those who left for Orthodoxy

Dear Anastasios,

Ah, but can't we remind our big "O" friends to be kind to us on our own turf?

I got my knuckles wrapped by Dr. John (God love him!) for not going after a Muslim friend who had said some untoward things.

I'm still wondering if I was wrong or if I was right?

I must have been wrong since Dr. John is always right!

A blessed Christmas!

Alex

Good morning America,

Dimitri,
"unification under one head that sets us apart" is exactly what separates us. For you it's "King" Peter subjucating the Apostles and for us the Councils that include St. Peter and the Apostles. The Apostolic Orthodox Church is lead by His Holy Spirit and not by your King Peter. Again, you believe in a Papal Monarcy that does not mesh well with the Conciliar Tradition. Do you believe your Pope is more holier or more special than our Popes & Patriarchs? Please spare me!


Alex,
Thanks again friend for your understanding.


Robert,
Why cant a guy tell his story about coming to Orthodoxy(the focus of this topic) without being scrutinized?!!! Fear? Not sure why people go back and forth between East & West like yourself? For me I thought the gold was in the West but the old Man told me "Go East my son". I have no regrets about that. My personal encounters with the West(moreso with Roman Catholics) has led me to believe that Catholicism is responsible for the millions led astray. I really do not see unity with Catholicism. Yes, I am biased and in favor of Orthodoxy 100%. There are Orthodox elements within Catholicism but lacks the fullness of the Orthodox Church. The Byzantine Catholic Church does resemble the Orthodox Church but it is not. If having a visible head like the Pope is the cure to the chaos in the world you better read your papal history. Rome's backyard is full of chaos. Must I list my "99" grievances to make my point? Even the Orthodox Patriarchs have their own problems even though they are heads of their Churches. Sorry, patriarchal infallibility does not work outside the Church.

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Rum,
I am not sure what you mean by "Papal Monarch?" I do, however, believe that the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church. Do not all councils have chairmen? This does not mean that I feel he is "holier" then the other Patricarchs, simply that his Chair is the first among them. Again, I mean no disrespect to my Orthodox brothers. I find the actions of the other Patrtiarchs to be very apostolic and inspireing (for the most part). I hope I have clarified my statements.

Dmitri.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Rum Orthodox:

First of all you can talk about Orthodoxy; you can discuss it and present your case; that it all well and good, but you should expect people, like me who are still trying to wake up and drink their coffee in peace, to get upset about anti-Byzantine Catholic rhetoric.

I mean what I keep getting from you is that we are just a shell; that Greek Catholicism is mere formalism, something akin to High Church Anglicanism. But that view lacks substance and shows dire ignorance not only of Byzantine Catholicism, but also Catholic Dogma and teaching. And please list your "99" grievances! List 500 grievances if you will! Entertain me. What is this nonsense about Catholicism leading millions astray? You talked about Papal history, but what about the other Patriarchates, hmm! What about them. You gave your disclaimer about them making mistakes, well then what is your point about the Roman Pontiffs? But, the teaching of the Church today all the way down to Jesus, from His very mouth, was that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built and He holds the Keys and the power to lead the Church and to guide Her with the Teaching of Christ, The Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ!

Anastasios:

What are these Ben Lomond Contraversies that would of gotten Father David excommunicated? I mean what are you talking about? He would of never made a jump that big unless he believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In Christ and Mary,

Robert

Was just reading the latest posts. Wanted to jump in here and thank all those who have responded to my questions and participated in the discussion so far.

Rum Orthodox

I would really LOVE to hear your 99 grievances against the Holy Catholic Church. Please enlighten me!

[What are these Ben Lomond Contraversies that would of gotten Father David excommunicated? I mean what are you talking about? He would of never made a jump that big unless he believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church.]

Father David Anderson, from what I understand was originally a Ukrainian Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy and was part of the OCA. When the so called (at the time) Evangelical Orthodox were received into the Antiochian Orthodox jurisdiction, Fr David was reassigned to the Antiochian Archdiocese by an agreement between Metropolitan Phillip and Metropolitan Theodosius. He was put on special assignment to teach the new converts Orthodox Liturgics, etc and assigned to Ben Lomond. Thus began experimentations with Liturgical practices. For instance the one time I attended Liturgy at Ben Lomond the Liturgy began with all the priests in the Nave of the church where they remained until the Gospel was read. They then processed into the Sancturay. Similiar to what is done when a Hierach is present. Anyhow, Metropolitan Phillip & Bishop Joseph wanted uniformity in the Liturgical practices within the Archdiocese so Ben Lomond was instructed to get rid of the innovations. This they refused to do. The priests in question (including Fr David) were put under suspension and given a year to conform. They, in turn, reacted by trying to join with the OCA. This put the OCA in a predicament, because according to the canons one Orthodox Church cannot accept clergy from another Orthodox Church who are under suspension by their Bishop unless that Bishop takes back the suspension and agrees to release the clergy to the other Orthodox Church. Since Father David was originally OCA, and assigned to the Antiochians Metropolitan Theodosius personally went to bat for him and asked Metropolitan Phillip to release his suspension so he could be received back into the OCA. Metropolitan Phillip honored Metropolitan Theodosius request and Father David was received back into the OCA under the direct authority of Metropolitan Theodosius. In the mean time, one of the Deacons who was still under suspension (and may have been excommunicated by that time) died. Father David was told by Metropolitan Theodosius that he could attend the funeral but could not serve at the funeral of a deposed cleric. Father David, decided to once again disregard the instructions of his ruling Hierach and served at the funeral. And for this he was deposed by Metropolitan Theodosius. So you see, he did not return to the Ukrainian Catholic Church because of any beliefs in the the teachings of the RCC, BCC, UCC. He returned simply because there was no place left for him to go. The very fact that he disregarded the authority of not one, but two of the ruling Hierachs whose authority he was under, meant that no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction would take him. And that's the true story behind Father David Anderson. One can only wonder what he will do if he doesn't agree with the instructions of the current Ukrainian Bishop he is under.

OrthoMan

Just letting everyone know this list has one dumb Slav that never did anything different than stay in the Catholic patrimony he was born into with the impression that learning about those beyond the ghetto of the Ruthenian Church was interesting and curious, but not essential to salvation.

Boringly yours,

K.

Dear Kurt,

Ho-hummm! Strrrretchchch!

Sounds O.K. by me!!

Alex

Hi Robert,
I really do not want to antagonize you. You have presented words such as "Greek Catholicism" & "Byzantine Catholicism" which are misnomers and misinforming about Orthodoxy. Roman Catholic dogmas are not compatible within Orthodoxy or even with our perception of life's mysteries. They are not even compatible with the Eastern Tradition of the Church. The basis of uniatism was based on faulty grounds or a misalliance and should not continue to flourish. The need to return to Orthodoxy is a serious issue. I am not saying come home by breaking communion with Rome but bring Rome home with you to Orthodoxy. Can you and the rest of the Eastern Catholic rites do that? If you seriously cannot diagnosis the issues that keep us apart from one another then there is no need for further dialogue.
Based upon my experiences living in America the Roman Catholics I have encountered do not abide with the teachings of Catholicism which range from practicing birth control, promoting the idea of ordaining women into the priesthood, pro-choice, abortions, etc. Even the Roman Catholic schools have many teenage pregnant girls. I know priests that allow gambling in their churches to generate an income. I know a priest who goes to Las Vegas to gamble and is tolerated by his archdioceses. I have met many bright Roman Catholic students that do not believe in Catholicism(I don't know if you would consider them bright). I figure we can classify those Catholics as not Catholics or nominal or secular Catholics. Somehow for some odd reason Catholicism is not an attraction to someone like myself that believes mysteries should remain mysteries rather than rationalized mysteries. Orthodoxy is not about fostering beliefs in dogmas to make sense to the rational mind. The mindset of the West is not that of the East any longer. Maybe there is a revival amongst the West by Easterners like you to save the West from themselves. Please note that the Rock is Christ and St. Peter & the Apostles are little rocks.
Everyone repeat after me "Kyyyrie eleiiiisooon"

OrthoMan wrote:


I think our Forum has reached new lows here. The situation at Ben Lomond was much more complex and what OrthoMan says here amounts to a smear against someone who is not here to defend himself. Suffice it to say there is much more to the story about Ben Lomond.

That OrthoMan's basic facts about the Ben Lomond affair (as apart from his smear on Fr David on which I do not care to comment on) are in error please see:

http://www.ephesus.com/BenLomond/Archives.html

The vast majority of the parish (and clergy) had wanted to leave the Antiochian jurisdiction and enter the OCA before any suspension as OrthoMan claimed. The issues were not "innovations" but the requirement they become "Antiochian." Their request for a release to the OCA was not received favorably. The priests were laicized and later excommunicated. This pre-empted any chance for reception into the OCA. One should consider this background when one would judge whether or not someone should be denied Christian burial because they were excommunicated under such circumstances.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

For Rum Orthodox:

You are welcome here on this board. I'll ask again in case you missed the question I asked you a few days ago:

Originally posted by Rum Orthodox:

Just wondering. Robert, what is your view of Catholic mysteries? Do they have grace? When Catholics receive the Eucharist in Catholic parishes are they receiving the Body and Blood of Christ? I'm not asking for an official view--just your view.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[The situation at Ben Lomond was much more complex and what OrthoMan says here amounts to a smear against someone who is not here to defend himself. Suffice it to say there is much more to the story about Ben Lomond.]

So you are denying that Father David was disobient to not one but three Orthodox Bishops whose authority he was under (Metropolitan Phillip, Bishop Joseph, and Metropolitan Theodosius)? There may or may not have been other factors regarding Ben Lomond but that doesn't justify nor change the fact the this priest has a problem with Hierachal authority and showed it not once but on three differnet occassions. When he disobeyed direct orders from his Hierach. If you have proof that he did not then please present it.
My response was to the post that he became Ukrainian Catholic because of the truths he found within the RC structure. If that was so he would never have left it to begin with.

OrthoMan

In peace, let us pray!

Dear Rum Orthodox,

It is true that the mind of the West is not that of the East. Your perception is correct.

I admire your restraint in not posting the 99 thesis. Your concern for the Chruches in Communion with Rome is admirable. Would that we all shared the depth of interest in them that you do!

Beyond this, I am passing!


Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Double_Eagle:

For those who are still Byzantine Catholic or Melkite, I would like to know if there is anything you can point to in your Liturgies or Churches that you consider to be influenced by Latin theology. For example, is there anything in the Divine Liturgy or homily which has anything to do with... defining Mary's conception as being without original sin...?

Double_Eagle,

I have a question for you regarding "defining Mary's conception as being without original sin." Being a former evangelical Protestant who coverted to Byzantine Catholicism, you would probably expect me to have a lot of trouble accepting the Catholic teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Actually, after carefully considering what Holy Scripture says about God's nature, I really had no problem accepting this teaching.

The Old Testament is clear the God does not exist in the presence of sin. Adam and Eve were expelled from God's presence (Paradise) because of sin; God told Moses "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live" (Exodus 33:20); Psalm 104[103] indicates that sin is not intended to be part of creation, i.e, "Let sinners be consummed from the earth..." Considering just the Old Testament teachings about God, I have a very hard time NOT believing that Mary was conceived without original sin to bear God as a child.

Additionally, Catholics understand the grace referred to in Luke 1:28 as "at once permanent and of a singular kind." In other words, Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace from the beginning of her existence. She was given this grace as a special gift to be able to participate in God's plan of redemption through Jesus Christ, who is fully God.

I don't view this teaching as "just for Latins", as it seems to be a pretty basic statement about not only who Mary is, but more importantly, who Jesus Christ is. I don't understand why accepting it makes me any less "Byzantine" than someone who does not.

Do you reject the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin? For what reasons? If you believe that Mary was conceived with original sin, why do you believe that Christ was conceived without original sin? After all, he was born fully human and fully Divine, and He received His human nature from Mary.