www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question About Latinizations

[Most Orthodox � although they certainly reject the whole idea of uniatism (and rightly so) � watch us to see if we really can manage to be actually Orthodox and in communion with Rome.]

Take my word for it as an Orthodox Catholic. No we don't! We look at the terminology and just shake our heads in bewilderment. Because it shows us that your 400+ years under Romes authority have destroyed your whole concept of what it means to be Orthodox. You look at it through a purely western Roman Catholic mindset. As stated many times, you base an Orthodox identity on ritual and tradition and the concept that if I look Orthodox, sound Orthodox, I'll be Orthodox! No Orthodox who has any concept of his religion is going to buy that load of you know what!

You have bought hook, line, and sinker the original philosophy those who instituted the Unia that as long as everything looks the same, sounds the same, they'll never know the difference. And that's also what those of us who have studied the history of the Unia and how it all came about see - deception! Well, that was over 400 years ago and people are no longer illiterate to fall for that bunch of baloney!

Either are others from the outside buying it. Read the email from a Protestant looking into the eastern curch and how she sees some of the comments being made.

OrthoMan

[Why is it so hard to respect us when we say that the fullness of Orthodoxy is found in communion with Rome?]

Because it shows us that you don't have the slightest clue about what Orthodoxy is! You, whose ancestors turned their backs on the Orthodox faith, are in here trying to tell we Orthodox what Orthodoxy is! That alone is a contradiction.

Orthodoc

Because it is against the entire Ethos of Orthodoxy to be in Communion with a Rome that procliams infallibility to exist in the person of one HIerarch in the Church, a dogma that Byzantine Catholics must accept. Orthodoxy is the Church of the Councils not of Papal Infallibility. According to Orthodox teaching, Rome pulled away from union with the other Orthodox Patriarchs. The Orthodox that I know certainly respect Roman Catholics but they are perplexed at the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" amd see it as an oxymoron. They have no problem with "Eastern Catholic" They certainly do not see union with Rome as "adding" to Orthodoxy. This is just not the reality "on the ground"
A dear Eastern Catholic friend of mine who is more Orthodox in praxis then many I have known in the OCA, refrains from using the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" as he see it as offensive to the Orthodox. I make sure that Orthodox learn that the word "uniate" is similarly offensive to the Greek Catholics.

I am too swamped with work to comment very much on this. But:

ISTM that it's been amply established that you use verse, Orthoman, with extreme prejudice. There is a very low standard of "no divisions" and "same mind" when considering Orthodox, or even inter-communing Orthodox, and an enormously elevated one for us. I am not surprised by this anymore, but it's really a shame that you are unable to develop some understanding and some charity about these things.

Within Orthodoxy there as be differences of opinion on any number of elements of identity - ethnicity or not; enculturated or counter-cultural; supportive or wary of Western values; sisterly relations with Rome or Romophobia, with Pope as "witchdoctor". So what exaclty, Bob, is Orthodx "identity" such that all Orthodox are of one mind.


I asked before where I could find the implicated list of dogma proclaimed within Orthodoxy as "necesaary for salvation". But have not obtained an answer. I am suprised that Orthodoxy would have such a list - so juridicial/Latin in outlook.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It is quite plausible that my distant ancestors, with my surname, received the Byzantine-Slavonic faith, de novo, from SS. C&M. We have always struggled to be allowed to pursue Christian salvation in the way we received it - with obstacles thrown at us from all directions. We are the same people, pursuing the same objective, by the same means - throughout all of the intervening history. We have not essentially, as a church changed our faith, our devotion, our ethos, our duch.

Bob, it is your ancestors not mine who turned their backs on their particular patrimony. And who have swallowed the line that Romophobia is essential to the Orthodox ethos, perhaps a defining aspect of Orthodoxy.

By the way, Dean John Erickson of SVS gave a nice talk at Columbia recently that argues that this anti-sisterly perspective is a very recent invention, spawned by Orthodox dispersed in the West.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/HI/j_erickson.pdf

Brian wrote:

Surely, an uphill battle for you Brian! Perhaps you can start with Bob (OrthoMan):

For a very literate reply to the type of stuff Bob's espousing see:

http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm

I do not understand why our use of the term "Orthodox" is an oxymoron. "Orthodox" is claimed by Assyrians and Non-Chalcedonians, too. Do you similarly protest when they use it? I've yet to read such a protest from Eastern Orthodox. Catholics do not protest when all the above and you guys also use the term "Catholic." The term "Orthodox" pre-dates the Schism by centuries and is not the sole possession of those Churches in communion with Constantinople and Moscow.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Oh David, I have tried and failed there!!!

I have found in Orthodoxy however, that the loudest of those who rail against the "Uniates" really know nothing of the Eastern Catholic communities as they exist today and more importantly, do not know live Eastern Catholics as friends in real life. But I do know plenty of Orthodox who have Eastern Cath friends and socialize with them and love them. Although they would be perplexed at the use of the term "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" (as I said to the Admin), they have no hesitation in procliaming their affection for their Eastern or Greek Catholic friends.

It is TRUE...how UNFORTUNATE....is it for Byzantine Catholics in the past have turn backs on the true Orthodox faith.

The Latinization of the Byz Church was a statement...by the Byz Caths...that they are in communion with Rome...to differentiate from the Orthodox Church that they are not in "communion" with.

What these Byz Caths have failed to realized...at the time...that one can be TRULY Orthodox and still maintain communion with Rome.

As my priest always says (former Orthodox priest, mind you), "There's nothing more Orthodox than to be in communion with Rome!"

It's sad, indeed, that Byz Cath have lost some of the key elements of Orthodoxy.

But the good news is, that Byz Cath is now returning to the roots of Orthodoxy. Of course, Byz Cath needs the Orthodox's help. And of course...the Orthodox needs help to learn what it means to be in communion with Rome.

But helping each other won't do any good if we keep spewing hateful words and thoughts against each other. So, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, STOP IT!!!

God is NOT going to judge us based on how Orthodox we are...How Latin we are...etc. That's soo CHILDISH! So Prideful!

We NEED to be ONE Church...ONE SPIRIT...in Christ...be ONE as Christ is ONE with the Father. Don't you all want that??? I have a strong feeling that the Orthodox doesn't want that!

Don't let the devil win this game!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine


"We must be Orthodox in FAITH...but Catholic in LOVE." ---John Paul the Great

Brian wrote:

Well, that's good news. I think we ought to have a Byzantine Forum weekend where all of us could get together. Locales, anyone? I think many a quarrel here would quickly be over and we'd all have a jolly good time. How about a Byzantine Forum retreat at the Antiochian Village? Or, better yet---Disney World?

Anyway, Brian, why is the use of "Orthodox" by us any different than its use by Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox or Assyrians? The Assyrians aren't real loud about it but it's there. The Copts and the Armenians do not soft-pedal its use. If you can accept their use of "Orthodox" to describe themselves, why can't you accept our use of the term?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Administrator,

I am late for my Godmother's panakhida.

I don't think I've misunderstood you. But I have no wish to go over ground where the grass has stopped growing for all the trampling.

I think we know where we stand - and that is enough.

As for the crucifix, you don't agree with me?

And so what else is new?

Bye!

Alex

You know its sad that we get it from both sides.

[For a very literate reply to the type of stuff Bob's espousing see:

http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm]

David: Thanks for the source. Have you read it? It seems like Fr Robert F. Taft seems to thnk that if he puts the word "uniate" in bracets he can use it as much and wherever he wants. Contrary to what the administrator states the word 'Uniate' is a latin word and was given to you by the latin Church whose authority you are under, not the Orthodox Poles!

The Latin church still uses the term very freely to discribe you as Fr Tafts article proves. Read footnotes [2] and [3].

As far as the article itself I got as far as the third paragraph under the subject "UNIATISM" (Note I put it in quotes) so it's OK. Where Fr Taft says the following -

[ For at Florence the Latin West and the Byzantine East tried to face and deal with each other directly as equals.]

As equals! He's gotta be kidding me! Is this another Roman Catholic rewrite of history? Is he aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch refused to leave the ship he was on because the Pope demanded that when they finally met he was to bow down before him and kiss his foot. That's equality?

Never mind how the Orthodox delegation was treated in regards to housing and food. Everything possible was done to undermine the morale and Fr Taft calls that 'equal footing'. Gimme a break!

OrthoMan

Well, Bob, you have just labeled our entire Byzantine Catholic Church to be nothing more than a load of crap. At the same time you state quite clearly that you do not believe that Orthodoxy is not transmitted through prayer and liturgy. I�m not really sure how to respond to someone who is so uncharitable. None of my Russian or Greek Orthodox friends act or speak as uncharitably as you do. We respect one another and have a sense of Christian brotherhood even in our disagreements.

Do we look at things through a purely western Roman Catholic mindset? Certainly some do but this is true of even people in your jurisdiction. Some of us do strive to live the Orthodox Faith and do so quite well despite your choice not to accept this.

Ah, yes! More nonsense on your part. You are not the only one who has studied the history of the Unia. You trumpet only part of the truth. It is certainly correct that the means used by the Romans to obtain the union were less than desirable. Yet you always seem to forget there were many people who truly desired communion with Rome and saw it as something vitally important. You always conveniently forget that the union was entered into by the Orthodox in order to preserve Orthodoxy (it was quite possible that �our people� would have been forced to become either Roman Catholic or Protestant). There are many sides to this history and one needs to acknowledge them and realize the Unia was very complex mixture of faith issues, political issues and survival issues.

I disagree. Our spiritual ancestors entered into union with Rome because they believed communion with Rome was necessary and they saw it as a way to preserve their Orthodoxy. As I stated above the reasons were a mix of faith issues, political issues and survival issues. To reduce this to a deliberate turning one�s back on the rest of Orthodoxy is silly.

Dear OrthoMan,

I am confused. Are you Eastern Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic?

Thankyou.

Alice