Am I in the Right Parish?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unity7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unity7 said:
Honestly - I think what was giving me second thoughts about ROCOR was actually something similar. I believe it is safer to be in a jurisdiction that is in communion with the See of Peter. It seems that problems start when folks cut them off from that.
Click to expand...
I re-read this a few times and can’t figure it out. Can you elaborate on this? What problems are you thinking of?
 
wynd said:
I re-read this a few times and can’t figure it out. Can you elaborate on this? What problems are you thinking of?
Click to expand...
It seems to me, that it is difficult for Orthodox to agree amongst themselves as to who is Orthodox and who is canonical. For the longest time, the ROCOR wasn’t really in communion with any other jurisdiction, but then they signed an agreement with Moscow and now are mostly recognized as in communion with other Orthodox. Recently, the Church of Antioch has severed communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. I am sure I both oversimplify and don’t really understand the situation, but it seems clear to me, that if a certain jurisdiction is in communion with Rome, one can be assured that it is relatively stable.

What would happen if Bartholomew decided that it was prudent to enter communion with Rome? I know this is hypothetical: but what would be it’s canonical status among other Orthodox churches? Would some view the decision as the right decision and follow suit? Would others say that this is heretical and sever communion with Constantinople? It seems that the particular Churches are almost too autonomous and there is no broad consensus in actuality. Where is the real unity? How can all the particular Churches come together to discuss issues if they don’t even recognize each other?

Again, all this is above my head, so I know there are probably many subtleties that I am both not aware of, or able to understand. For a simple soul like me, the stability of Rome seems better. ROCOR didn’t even exist prior to the early 20th century! If Moscow was in communion with Rome before the revolution, then maybe all these crazy jurisdictional squabbles wouldn’t take place.

Don’t intend to offend anyone, so please don’t take offence.
 
Yes, there is a huge difference between a confessor and a starets.

Finding a confessor who is also a divinely intended spiritual father is not impossible. Perhaps we can join in prayer for Unity7.

JPII was actively working towards full reunion (and restored communion) between the estranged Orthodox churches and the Catholic fold. JPII recognized that the 20th and 21st centuries inherited an unfortunate ecclesiastical “separation” with suspicions unwarranted (and taught) on both sides. JPII knew that such ecclesiastical “separation” was never something that Jesus Christ intended, nor the Apostles. His papal leadership demonstrated brotherly love and respect for the Orthodox: he did not want them labeled or treated as “schismatics” or “heretics”. His papal leadership was proactive in seeking a meaningful and permanent reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches.

In any organization, meaningful change in policy and operation must happen from the top down - we were very blessed with the foundation building reconciliation between Catholics and Orthodox Christians. JPII gave a legacy that is alive in Francis I’s papacy and with discussions involving EC Patriarch Bartholomew. As a Christian, I truly believe the Holy Spirit will manifest this healing within our lifetime.
 
Unity7 said:
It seems to me, that it is difficult for Orthodox to agree amongst themselves as to who is Orthodox and who is canonical. For the longest time, the ROCOR wasn’t really in communion with any other jurisdiction, but then they signed an agreement with Moscow and now are mostly recognized as in communion with other Orthodox. Recently, the Church of Antioch has severed communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. I am sure I both oversimplify and don’t really understand the situation, but it seems clear to me, that if a certain jurisdiction is in communion with Rome, one can be assured that it is relatively stable.

What would happen if Bartholomew decided that it was prudent to enter communion with Rome? I know this is hypothetical: but what would be it’s canonical status among other Orthodox churches? Would some view the decision as the right decision and follow suit? Would others say that this is heretical and sever communion with Constantinople? It seems that the particular Churches are almost too autonomous and there is no broad consensus in actuality. Where is the real unity? How can all the particular Churches come together to discuss issues if they don’t even recognize each other?

Again, all this is above my head, so I know there are probably many subtleties that I am both not aware of, or able to understand. For a simple soul like me, the stability of Rome seems better. ROCOR didn’t even exist prior to the early 20th century! If Moscow was in communion with Rome before the revolution, then maybe all these crazy jurisdictional squabbles wouldn’t take place.

Don’t intend to offend anyone, so please don’t take offence.
Click to expand...
You might be interested in reading this: rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison, and then, for fairness, by way of reply, this: orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/frbrianharrisonwhynotconverttoeasternorthodoxycatholic.pdf
 
Unity7 said:
Alas! I know that the “perfect” community doesn’t exist: so what do I settle for? Which qualities are most important?
Click to expand...
IMO, and in order of importance: Validity, Unity with Rome, Supports your ability to accept the Grace that every valid liturgy offers, canonically correct rite, has a pastor you get along with.

Given there’s a melkite parish not too far away, make the effort to see if you can catch a ride with one of their parishioners.
 
Just thought of something…

If the participants who’ve contributed to this thread consider that the schism “wall” may be coming down soon: Pope Francis and EC Patriarch Bartholomew are making some type of formal “announcement” on May 25-26 during their extended meeting in Jerusalem (at the Holy Sepulchre)

I truly believe that this schism will be destroyed by the Holy Spirit acting through the Church’s apostolic succession in our lifetime. And the Orthodox will be considered as sui iris, just as the Ruthenians and Melkites (plus others) are sui iris with separate Eastern Canon Code of Law.

there is a great deal of evil in the world…we (as apostolic Christians) are better equipped at serving the Lord united, and with its members united. Of course our leaders recognize this! We can be better servants working in service and stewardship without division.

myocn.net/meeting-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-pope-francis-city-jerusalem/

How to stay connected to the historic meeting - apostolicpilgrimage.org/video/-/asset_publisher/MJkYFq1xBJx7/content/how-to-stay-connected-during-the-apostolic-pilgrimage-to-jerusalem
 
MichaelinMD said:
I’m afraid that I have to echo Brian Kerzetski’s sentiments in post #11. You’re right about not being double minded, but sometimes it’s easier to say that to someone than for that someone to do it. The rest of your post lacks both tact and charity, imho.

“Tacky” post-VII Masses are more the exception than the rule. “The gates of Hell” have NOT wrecked the liturgy and devotions for the everyday one billion Catholics (how would you know that, anyway?), although the assault on the Catholic Church has been and continues to be extremely fierce. And we have been promised that the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail. That really does mean something, you know. While Unity7 may not be nourished as much spiritually by the RC Mass compared to his experience of the DL, my own opinion is that if the Mass he attends is properly and reverently celebrated, that which he thinks is lacking has probably (sorry Unity 7) more to do with him and what he brings to it than something lacking in the Mass itself. While not as beautiful as the DL or a TLM, although it certainly can be, the N.O. Mass, has ALL the necessary components for a rich and deep spiritual encounter with Christ. If we don’t have that experience, the “fault” lies with us far more than the Mass.
Click to expand...
Oh, I could give you a big hug for saying that. God bless you!
 
MichaelinMD said:
Just a couple of points. There is a HUGE difference between a confessor and a “staretz”. Confessors abound–any priest given the faculties to hear confessions is a confessor. Startzy are, quite unfortunately, very few and far between anymore. If you find a true staretz cling to him like white on rice and cherish him enormously. There are priests who would like to be startzy, but usually the very wanting of it precludes them from ever attaining such exaltedly humble status. A “spiritual father”, in Eastern Christianity, is, I believe (someone correct me if I’m wrong), somewhat between a priest who hears confessions and a staretz. They are probably somewhat more numerous than true startzy. If you find a true one, cherish him and obey him. Otherwise, many good priest confessors can offer excellent spiritual advice without having the “status” of a staretz or “spiritual father”. And…if you think you can do this via email, or on the internet, such, well…think again! Would that we ALL had a true staretz to help guide us through the wilderness of this life!!!

**My other point–I think what JPII was referring to with the “two lungs” of the Church was the one lung of the Western (Roman) Catholic Church and the second lung of the Eastern Catholic Church. But, I could be wrong…someone please correct me if I am.🙂 **

In Christ,
MinM
Click to expand...
No, you are correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top