www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology anti-catholics

why do most Orthodox christians I encounter seem to lump roman catholics together with byzantine catholics?why do they show great distaste towards byzantine catholics?have any of you encountered this sentiment?I thought byzantine catholics were so close to eastern orthodox christians.anyone care to comment?thanks

Dear Brother In Christ:

First of all, Triumphalism on the part of Orthodox and Superpapalism on the part of Catholics are extreme positions taken by people who really don't want to hear anything but their own opinion, and preferably by them. However, these are extreme views of the very real theology of the two Churches (despite the views of relativists on both sides). Vatican II defines the equality of the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches as being so bceause both are entrusted to the jurisidiction of the Pope, so basically any ritutal or tradition (including Latin) is a concession on his part, which he may abrogate by fiat. Thus, forced celibacy in North America on the Eastern Catholic Churches, and those who felt being under the Pope was the most important part of the Faith accepted it (however reluctantly). Others became Orthodox in large numbers, and the OCA, and three Slavic NA EC jurisdictions (Johnstown, South Bound Brook and Winnipeg) are composed largely of families that were Greek Catholic from Austria-Hungary upon their North American arrival.

On the other hand, Orthodoxy is rediscovering its Eucharist, Patrisitic and Apophatic Theology. While this may all seem theolgical, what it basically means is that the Eucharist mystically binds together evey Orthodox Christian, regardless of man's limits of time and space (which are not the Unchanging God's). Thus, there is a very different view of the Church. Rites and traditions forming limitations are Second Millenium phenomena. In the first Millenium (prior to the Schism), your Church was determined by your territory, not Rite. Thus, Rome states that the Italo-Greeks of Southern Italy were never separted from Catholic unity, and eventhough the later Albanians were Orthodox tah taccepted the Pope, the origianl Italo-Greek Church was not part of the Orthodox Church after the two Churches tragically split. Conversely, the Latin Monastery on Mt. Athos was a part of Constantinople. In 1054. Pope Leo had Byzantine Rite Churches and Patriarch Michael had Latin Rite ones. This was largely a part of the Schism (unfortuantely). But both Catholics and Orthodox must be true to the common pre-Schism tradition of the Church being by unity under the local bishop, not rites and liturgical traditions (which are evolutionary).

Now many young people say this is all not a part of their reality. and they just want a parish where they feel comfortable. The Ecclesia is the People of God, and if any community does not meet the pastoral needs of its flock it is meaningless. "Where two or more are gathered in My Name, there I Am among you."

Christ Is Risen!

Three Cents

It appears that Three Cents has said it all. Clear and to the point!!

Christ is Risen!

Dear Three Cents,

You make some excellent points and I'm most proud that you mentioned my Italo-Greek-Albanian friends and their unique, eye-opening history. I'm under the impression that they had stronger ties to Constantinople than to Rome. The Greek Rite believers there were even the majority, Greek was the language of home and street up through Benevento through the Norman conquest. Napoli was Neapolis, etc, etc. Also, Southern Italy and Sicily were administered for a long period by the eastern half of the empire, until the Norman conquest (in 900-1070s).

What their (the Italo-Greek-Albanians) example does show is that the break in communion between East and West occurred much more slowly than many like to believe. Say from 1054 through the late 1700s, intercommunion was common in mixed rite areas.

Documents from 1568 show an auxiliary bishop to the Patriarch of Ohrid (Macedonia) was ordaining men for the Greek Rite in Puglia, Italy much to the annoyance of local Latin bishops, who subsequently complained of the scandal to Rome. The Roman Cardinal, in his reply, reaffirmed in no uncertain terms that this Patriarch was of "our sister Church" and fully within his bounds to look after his flock of Eastern Catholics in Southern Italy.

So I don't think that we can say that all Catholics in each city need come under the same bishop. As you pointed out, that is a canonical norm that did not forsee the evolution of rites. I think that we are ultimately faced with the decision of either doing away with many beautiful rites, or modifying the canons (at the next ecumenical synod) to account for these different rites and their ecclesial administration, especially in places such as Australia, Europe, and the Americas.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Dear Three Cents,

Excellent points!

But the different Church communities under different patriarchs DID suffer as a result of attempts aimed at either Latinizing or Hellenizing them.

The case of St Theodore of Canterbury is one in which a Greek is appointed to the Sarum Church of England by the Pope of Rome - but who also sends along a Latin prelate in the person of St Adrian to ensure that Thedore didn't (Heaven forbid) introduce Greek traditions or else try to bring England closer toward Constantinople.

The Latin Monastery of Amalfi, along with the Armenian Monastery, both on Mt. Athos, were viewed with deep suspicion by the Byzantine Monks - for their different ecclesial as well as doctrinal positions until those monastic establishments ended there.

Constantinopolitan triumphalism existed in the Church of Kyivan Rus' as its Metropolitans were often Greeks, Bulgarians or Macedonians who were subservient to the geopolitical interests of the Two-Headed Byzantine Church-State Eagle.

For example, the Constantinopolitan-approved canonization of Sts. Volodymyr and Olha took place only after the victory of St Andrew Boholiubsky over the Volga Bulgars in the thirteenth century - a canonization Russian and Ukrainian commentators say was altogether quite late, notwithstanding the great local veneration to these Saintly Enlighteners.

The ideal of one jurisdiction for various ethnoculturally based Churches is something that is therefore viewed with great suspicion by those same Churches who don't have historical amnesia in this regard.

It is popular among the American Orthodox who feel divested in effect of any strong cultural ties.

Alex

'...Orthodoxy is rediscovering its Eucharist, Patrisitic and Apophatic Theology...'

Who says it ever lost it? So called 'theologians' in places of so called 'learning' may have become pseudo-Latin or pseudo-protestant, but Orthodox monasticism has never lost the above aspects of faith and theology.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Fr Mark<<Who says it ever lost it? So called 'theologians' in places of so called 'learning' may have become pseudo-Latin or pseudo-protestant, but Orthodox monasticism has never lost the above aspects of faith and theology.>>

AMEN, Father Mark!

OrthodoxEast

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Well, not being a Niconian, you perhaps don't realize the Latinization of Orthodoxy brought in under the Kyivan Baroque period .

A number have noted the notable Latinizations of St Dmitri of Rostov, his devotion to the Rosary and Little Office and Psalter of Our Lady (published in Slavonic at Venice at that time), his devotion to the Five Prayers - and also his stand against the Old Believers.

Hopelessly Latinized, wouldn't you say?

Alex

Yes Alex, yet the monasteries preserved the patristic traditions untouched by the creeping Latinisation of the Ukraine and the creeping Lutheranisation in Petersburg. The Moghila's and Prokopieviches might have looked to the west, but simple monastics kept the flames of ancient Orthodoxy alight until beacons like Optina could really blow on the flames and light a spiritual fire that would consume the Russian Empire in its own quiet way.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner,

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Yes, but, in a sense, the monastics were removed from the day to day of the Church in the world.

The Latinization of Mohyla was a "practical one" that was experimental in the hope of bracing for the coming deluge of Latin, Jesuit influence via Roman Catholic Poland.

He sent Orthodox students to Paris to learn the ways of the enemies of Orthodoxy, in effect.

The fact that they came back with Latinized practices (e.g. Immaculate Conception devotions) was not his fault.

And perhaps that would have happened anyway.

For Ukraine, however, Latinization was a way of being open to European civilization and as a way of keeping Russification at bay.

Ukraine was never afraid of European civilization in the way Russia was, Peter the Great et al. notwithstanding.

It was bad for our Easternness in church affairs, but positive, I would argue, for our national struggle against the Russian Big Brother.

And the Old Believers themselves flocked to Ukraine where they could print their liturgical and theological books in freedom and where wheat bread was in abundance . . .

Alex

why do most Orthodox christians I encounter seem to lump roman catholics together with byzantine catholics?

Well, ask your anti-catholic friends what they were before being Orthodox. Unless they are recalcitrant Greeks they will most likely be converts from Evangelical Protestantism who already disliked the Catholic Church before their conversion to Orthodoxy. It is not hard to differentiate them from those who have other reasons for their grievances with catholicism (the ROCOR people for example, and those who face proselitism in their countries, or have historial reasons to oppose the expansion of Rome).

The first ones feel they're more Orthodox than the other but if you ask them about Real Presence and the Eucharist you'll get the weirdest answers from them. Some of them are very confused and will also say "Papism is the oldest Protestantism", they would also tell you that the Ecumenical Patriarch is a mason, and a lot of things, just don't take them so seriously.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snoopy:

"they will most likely be converts from Evangelical Protestantism who already disliked the Catholic Church before their conversion to Orthodoxy."

This has be suggested before on this list, that anti-Catholic sentiments among some Orthodox is really baggage brought over from Protestantism.

This might be a more comfortable though for Catholics, "The REAL Orthodox likes us, those converts aren't to be taken seriously", but in reality I think those who belive this are fooling yourselves because it is not that simple.

Ask any simple monk or village priest in Greece, who most likely has never even seen a Protestant, much less actually been one himself.

Ask any babushka in a church in Russia. As for the Serbs, let's not even go there!

Bad feelings towards Catholics among some Orthodox is far too complex to be dismissed as "Protestant baggage".

"but if you ask them about Real Presence and the Eucharist you'll get the weirdest answers from them."

Really? I never meet any practicing Orthodox, convert or otherwise, who doesn't clearly affirm the real prence of Christ in the Eucharist.

"Some of them are very confused and will also say "Papism is the oldest Protestantism""

Well, actually St.Justin Popovich said that, not some Protestant convert.

"they would also tell you that the Ecumenical Patriarch is a mason"

I know some Catholics too, who thinks the Pope is a mason!

Christian

Dear Christian,

Well, the masonic charge has been levelled at both sides - Traditionalist Orthodox regard the EP as such, but let's not go there too much . . .

It is not just Orthodox who feel an aversion to the Latins, but also Eastern Catholics who live in areas where they experience discrimination from Latin Catholics.

And traditional Latin Catholics will still, when referring to Orthodox, write "Orthodox" in parentheses, consider them "schismatics" and the like.

We know from correspondence between St George Konissky of Mogilev and Bishop Borecky that Latins often referred to Eastern Catholics as "schismatics" as much as Orthodox.

But I've met Eastern Catholics who were formerly Orthodox who actually have a real disdain for Orthodox traditions - e.g. they insist on kneeling for Communion etc.

No one has a monopoly on such antagonism.

When it comes to feeling disdain for one another, Catholics and Orthodox have historically been united after all . . .

Alex

Phew!

Thank God I'm an old man and a Muslim and God will soon call me to Paradise, free from feelings of "disdain."

Of course, Muslims can take great consolation in the fact(?) the Sunnis and Shias are absolutely enthralled with one another...well...maybe in Paradise.

Salam

Dear Sonny,

Bismillah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim!

Alex