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

Alice,

I can speak for OrthoMan. His reply will be "Orthodox Catholic" (he is Eastern Orthodox).

Logos Teen

I disagree. The ethos of Orthodoxy exists as much in the Roman Catholic Church as it does in the Byzantine Orthodox Church as much as it does in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Hmmm�. So all of the Orthodox theologians who state that the Churches separated from one another are rally lying to us? The fault is all on the part of Rome and Constantinople and the other patriarchates have no responsibility to ensure �that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.�

A year or two back I was at the picnic at the Greek Orthodox parish in my town and sat on the church tour. I admit some amazement when one of the people taking the tour asked the deacon: �What is the difference between this church and the Byzantine Catholic one in Annandale?� The deacon responded �None�. Later someone asked him a more detailed question about Orthodox, Byzantine Catholics and the pope. He responded that the two churches were essentially the same but that they were Greek and that we were Slavic, that we were under the pope and that they were not.

Most of the Orthodox I know are not perplexed with the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome�. The term �uniate� comes from the Polish term �uniat� (which is where the Russians got it from). It was originally used to term �those Christians who are like us but who are in union with Rome�. [Keep in mind that while the Church certainly used the term �Orthodox� to define its theology at this point in history it did not use the term �Orthodox� to refer to �the Orthodox Church� or �St. Mary Orthodox Church�. In the 16th century it was still simply �the Church�.

I do agree with Brian that most of my Orthodox friends (not in communion with Rome) do not see union with Rome as �adding� anything to Orthodoxy. I have not suggested they did. I have only suggested that they respect our use of the term even while they disagree with how the term is defined.

I do acknowledge that some find the term �Orthodox in communion with Rome� to be offensive. I know a few (not many) Roman Catholics who find it distasteful when the term �Catholic� is applied to Orthodoxy. I believe that both perspectives are incorrect. These terms are the property of both Churches and cannot be used exclusively.

Antiochian Village is a wonderful place. But� but� if we are meeting in the winter and some of us will be flying I suggest that we choose a warmer place. There is a beautiful Greek Orthodox parish in the Bahamas.

Alex,

Please know that your godmother and your family being raised up in prayer this evening.

Yes, I realize that we disagree on many things. Nevertheless I will continue to prod you because I think you are capable of being a great leader in your Church.

Admin

Although I hesitate to agree with Ortho man, i don't think one can ignore the political pressures for the Union that came from Poland and the Counter-Reformation which sought to save the "schismatics" and "dissidents" I am not saying that is all the Union was about but like with all events like this, political factors abounded. Also, the Roman Church procliams that such a model of union cannot be viable today.

Dear Administrator,

The Panakhyda service and everything was all wonderful.

I read the psalms over my aunt and Godmother for over half an hour prior - they really do help and bring one into a state of prayer and comfort!

I spoke with the priest afterwards - a priest I've never met before.

God intended, I believe, for me to meet him and he's opened up new vistas for me .

I thank you for your confidence in me being a leader - but I don't think that is necessarily the direction for me.

Suffice it to say that my eyes are rolling and I now have an inner contentment and calmness as a result of the events of tonight.

I will never waste time arguing over the definition of a crucifix ( ) or devotions again.

I've got a lot to think over. But, oh, the sense of inner peace and contentment. Let it stay forever!

A Happy Christmas to you and everyone on the Byzantine Forum!

Alex

Bob, please consult a linguist. The term �uniate� comes from the Polish term �uniat� or �unia� (which is where the Russians got �униат� from). It was originally used to term �those Christians who are like us but who are in union with Rome�. I have a friend who is a Roman Catholic priest and a Latin scholar who has researched this.

The term �union� comes to us through Middle English from the Old French from the Latin Latin �unio� from the earlier Latin �unus� (which means �one�).

I cannot get to the link that David posted to re-read the article. I will have to comment on it tomorrow. I seem to remember that Fr. Taft uses the term "Uniatism" on purpose and to refer in a very judgmental way that the method the Roman Catholics used to establish the unions and to condemn that model. This is something that Rome has since done.

Brian,

I have not ignored the political pressures. As I stated above the reasons were a mix of faith issues, political issues and survival issues. No one here comes out smelling like a rose. All involved made mistakes. Bob�s reduction of the whole complex history to a deliberate and purposeful turning of one�s back on the rest of Orthodoxy is just plain silly.

Admin

Alex,

I am happy you had the opportunity to pray the psalms over your aunt / godmother.

I am also happy that you have the sense of peace.

Please keep in mind that a leader is not always an activist. Sometimes being a leader means being willing to speak out in a crowd rather than go with the crowd mentality.

Admin

Dear OrthoMan:

I humbly agree with the Administrator that you have raised several good issues. Still, I have never really understood (1) what does it mean to be "Orthodox" in your book; (2) why the Eastern Catholic churches are not among those "who rightly glorify"; and (3) what we should do about it.

I, for one, would appreciate you explaining yourself on these issues.

Yours,

hal

OrthoMan wrote:

Bob,

Why do you insist on being rude here? I once wrote Bishop Tikhon on this very subject. A former Romanian Catholic (now OCA) insisted on calling us "Uniates" and said that Orthodoxy required him to do so. I asked Bishop Tikhon if that was required and got a firm "No."

The OCA Website is much more charitable:

http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Uniate.html

For example, the recent news article about the Monastery in Florida which entered the OCA refers to us as "Byzantine Catholic" or "Byzantine Rite Catholic," not "Uniate." I doubt you can find "Uniate" used on the OCA website.

The article referred to by Professor Ericksen (from St Vladimir's) earlier in this thread also makes the same point about the term "Uniate."

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear OrthoMan,

Allow me to rephrase, in part, a message I directed to you in a post back in August:

There was a pub I used to visit. After a while I decided I didn't like the clientele, so I stopped going. If Eastern Catholics [or whatever you *really* want to call them - perhaps Eastern Rite Romans?] are so deluded and hopelessly confused and you find their thoughts of Orthodoxy offensive, then avoid places where they congregate, such as this Forum. I highly doubt someone is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to visit this site.

Or perhaps you enjoy descending from your throne of Orthodox righteouness and blessing us with your enlightenment on your personal mission to shepherd all these poor lost souls back to Orthodoxy [whatever the definition happens to be at the moment].

Andrij

[So what exaclty, Bob, is an Orthodox "identity" such that all Orthodox are of one mind.]

Once again, it has to do with the canons, doctinres, and dogmas of the Church that gives one their Orthodox identity. Yes, we Orthodox Catholics argue over earthly domains but you would never hear us argue over whether we have to believe in the IC, Purgatory, or other doctrines to be true Orthodox Christians.

Perhaps the best way and the quickest way to answer would be to quote St Vincent of Lerins on what also makes the Orthodox Church Catholic. Which is to adhere to those doctrines that were formulated and believed everywhere, always, by all. Those doctrines that were formulated when the church was undivided and still entirely Orthodox. We have neither added, subtracted, or changed them in any way as the See of Rome whose authority you are now under has.

My suggestion would for you to read the history of the undivided Christian Church up until the time the Roman Patriarch separated himself from the other four Patriarchates and there you will find what it means to be an Orthodox Catholic.

OrthoMan

Dear Brother OrthoMan,

Just because we are not audibly arguing, does not mean that there is not ALOT of confusion about the 'after life' in Orthodoxy...much more than there is about Purgatory in Catholicism.

I have uncovered four theoria.

For instance, the GOA calls the Monastic theory 'heresy', and the Monastic theory (toll houses) claims it is the one and only truth...

then there is the liberal theory, espoused by a certain Archbishop that basically grants 'indulgences' of heaven to anyone who has lots of money to give to the Church...and for the others, well, 'basically let's not think about hell, anyway'....

then there is the process of 'theosis' continuing until the 'final theosis'...or 'beatific vision' as the RC would call it.

Ofcourse, we both pray for the dead, and except in the case of the liberal, modernist example I gave above, we both feel that praying for the dead is quite efficacious...

I don't mean to scandalize, but let's not be so triumphalistic. We have enough 'room for interpretation' in Orthodoxy too.

I won't even get into the Assumption of our Theotokos or other doctrinal beliefs that have changed, over the centuries, or that are even presently changing as we speak.

I am not putting down my beloved Orthodoxy, but I also would not put down Catholicism.

In the end, our sins will be accountable before God, and it will not matter if we believed this or that, as long as we believed in our Lord as Saviour and followed HIS tenets. Whatever avenue takes us there, and whether that avenue is in the sacramental fullness of the East or the sacramental fullness of the West, is secondary.

There is no schism in Heaven.

God bless.

Alice