Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

[Nine_Two]

Now I find this highly offensive to say the least, however, it would be ironic (even hypocritical) wouldn’t you say, if indeed, Western rite Orthodox Churches were/are not autonomous, don’t have their own canon or seminaries, and are under a Byzantine bishop. It’s something to think about (and research).

Why would we utilize the unia model when we have been nothing but critical of it? Not only would that be ironic, but it would be hypocritical - something I’ve no doubt would be pointed out to us.

As it is we give those parishes who enter under the Western Rite exactly what we promise them. They can continue to follow a Western-based liturgy (not reconstructed as you earlier said), and they can keep their traditions.

They know full well that their right to practice Western Christianity is based on the hierarchs who lead them (though in fairness technically the same applies to the Eastern rite). It would be nice if they had their own bishops, but sadly we don’t have very many qualified bishops coming out of the Western Rite (small as it is).

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Misplaced Book needs to hear this more than LivingWordUnity, i.e., you would think from his replies that the EO is composed solely of Byzantine rite Orthodox parishes.

I never implied anything of the kind. I am well aware that there is “Western Rite” Orthodoxy, although they are a tiny fraction of our Church and not well known.

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings about the idea of a “Western Rite.” Not that I am some “Byzantine Supremacist”, I look at the Non-Chalcedonians and they have an interesting and organic diversity within their Communion. I admire them for that.

The story of the “Western Rite” is complicated. I’m on the fence. I can sympathize with the situation of these Convert “Westerners” and also sympathize with their critics and detractors.

 

[RyanBlack]

And we regret that shameful history, Ryan, i.e., we cannot erase the past but we are doing what we can to rectify it, in fact, pope John Paul II apologized for the misdeeds of Latin Catholics publicly as means of atoning and building new bridges. But do not say that I as a Latin Catholic cannot criticize, and I’ll explain why, there are quite a few Orthodox who look down upon Eastern Catholics for having united with Rome (even referring to them in a pejorative manner). Now I find this highly offensive to say the least, however, it would be ironic (even hypocritical) wouldn’t you say, if indeed, Western rite Orthodox Churches were/are not autonomous, don’t have their own canon or seminaries, and are under a Byzantine bishop. It’s something to think about (and research).

p.s. I have not nor ever witnessed an Eastern Catholic maltreated by a Latin Catholic, and I can assure that if I did, I would do something about it. Moreover, LivingWordUnity is correct in saying that on many Catholic channels like EWTN and other forms of media, Eastern Catholicism is being promulgated.

It’s not just the shameful history, it’s the fact that they we continue to be poorly treated-and not just by ignorant laity who basically don’t know any better, but sometimes even by Latin priests, bishops, and even members of the curia. What’s their excuse?

 

[RyanBlack]

There are also priests who harmed children and bishops who covered it up, my point being that you will find those few who are ignorant, possibly malicious. I cannot rightly say as I do not know them, but I think you need to focus on the good rather than the bad, i.e., I’m sure there are a few bad apples but the rest of us respect and admire our Eastern brethren.

There are more than just a few. Also, please don’t tell me what my focus or my feelings should be. I’m not a little child, and I’m perfectly capable of being self-critical about my reactions to things. Furthermore, I suspect you have a somewhat limited knowledge of what Eastern Catholics actually have to endure from fellow Catholics. My reactions to the shameful way in which Eastern Catholics have been-and in many cases still are-treated by Latin Catholics who basically think we’re not real Catholics are actually quite mild compared to those of some.

 

[josie_L]

It’s not just the shameful history, it’s the fact that they we continue to be poorly treated-and not just by ignorant laity who basically don’t know any better, but sometimes even by Latin priests, bishops, and even members of the curia. What’s their excuse?

Where is this “we” coming from, i.e., do you speak on behalf of all Eastern Catholics, i.e., I find it hard to believe that this behaviour of which you speak of is that prevalent?

 

[josie_L]

There are more than just a few. Also, please don’t tell me what my focus or my feelings should be. I’m not a little child, and I’m perfectly capable of being self-critical about my reactions to things. Furthermore, I suspect you have a somewhat limited knowledge of what Eastern Catholics actually have to endure from fellow Catholics. My reactions to the shameful way in which Eastern Catholics have been-and in many cases still are-treated by Latin Catholics who basically think we’re not real Catholics are actually quite mild compared to those of some.

Then see it in whatever manner you wish, God bless!

 

[josie_L]

Why would we utilize the unia model when we have been nothing but critical of it? Not only would that be ironic, but it would be hypocritical - something I’ve no doubt would be pointed out to us.

As it is we give those parishes who enter under the Western Rite exactly what we promise them. They can continue to follow a Western-based liturgy (not reconstructed as you earlier said), and they can keep their traditions.

They know full well that their right to practice Western Christianity is based on the hierarchs who lead them (though in fairness technically the same applies to the Eastern rite). It would be nice if they had their own bishops, but sadly we don’t have very many qualified bishops coming out of the Western Rite (small as it is).

So you’re saying that not having seminaries, their own canon, not being autonomous, and/or having their own bishop is better than our model? And I never said they were reconstructed, wikipedia did. I asked RyanBlack a question, i.e., “are they well accepted because this is what I found on Wikipedia?”

 

[josie_L]

I never implied anything of the kind. I am well aware that there is “Western Rite” Orthodoxy, although they are a tiny fraction of our Church and not well known.

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings about the idea of a “Western Rite.” Not that I am some “Byzantine Supremacist”, I look at the Non-Chalcedonians and they have an interesting and organic diversity within their Communion. I admire them for that.

The story of the “Western Rite” is complicated. I’m on the fence. I can sympathize with the situation of these Convert “Westerners” and also sympathize with their critics and detractors.

Yes, you did imply, reread all your posts directed at dvdjs, and then read the post I directed at you.

 

[Nine_Two]

So you’re saying that not having seminaries, their own canon, not being autonomous, and/or having their own bishop is better than our model? And I never said they were reconstructed, wikipedia did. I asked RyanBlack a question, i.e., “are they well accepted because this is what I found on Wikipedia?”

Quoting an erroneous document is the same as saying it yourself, especially if you know it is wrong and leave it uncorrected.

And yes, absolutely the position they have in the Orthodox Church is better than that. It maintains the unity of the faith. It maintains the Canons - and there can only legitimately be one code of Canons, otherwise you have a house divided against itself. To be quite honest I find it troubling that the steps to be taken to be a “good Catholic” vary depending on where you were baptized.
They are far too small in number to maintain their own seminaries. The OCA Archdiocese of Canada has its own seminary - it is a third rate mostly distance institution and we still send our priest Candidates to the seminaries in the US. Our Archdiocese outnumbers the Western Rite significantly.

You’re trying to make them out to be a sort of Western uniate. They aren’t. They don’t all have the common heritage that, for example the UGCC has. They did not ask for that sort of agreement when they joined us, and they were not offered it. They are groups who have come over to Orthodoxy and asked to be allowed to keep their liturgical traditions.

The model itself predates the schism and was used in both the East and the West (the Norman’s ending the practice in their Sicilian territories is in fact often given as an example of one of the catalysts for the Great Schism). Churches under the authority of one Patriarch, made up of people originating from the territory of another (Greeks in Italy, Italian traders in Constantinople) were allowed to use their own liturgy with their own priests trained in that liturgy.

 

[josie_L]

Quoting an erroneous document is the same as saying it yourself, especially if you know it is wrong and leave it uncorrected.

How in tarnation would I know it’s wrong, if I was asking someone else the question, i.e. Ryan Black? Moreover, how erroneous can this “document” be if the central focus was how well-received are Western rite Orthodox Churches within the EO, i.e., can they freely practice, do they have autonomy, their own seminaries and/or bishops . . etc., which the “document” delineates, and which you have confirmed for the most part.

And yes, absolutely the position they have in the Orthodox Church is better than that.** It maintains the unity of the faith**. It maintains the Canons - and there can only legitimately be one code of Canons, otherwise you have a house divided against itself. To be quite honest I find it troubling that the steps to be taken to be a “good Catholic” vary depending on where you were baptized.

And yet we are still “one faith”, i.e., having more than one code of canon does not hinder this if said canon does not affect the overall teachings of the Church. I don’t believe that the pre-Schism church was as unified in its canon either, i.e., regional councils and their respective canon were not always received universally, and as such East and West approached things in a different manner.

They are far too small in number to maintain their own seminaries. The OCA Archdiocese of Canada has its own seminary - it is a third rate mostly distance institution and we still send our priest Candidates to the seminaries in the US. Our Archdiocese outnumbers the Western Rite significantly.

Maybe it’s because they are not getting enough exposure.

You’re trying to make them out to be a sort of Western uniate. They aren’t. They don’t all have the common heritage that, for example the UGCC has. They did not ask for that sort of agreement when they joined us, and they were not offered it. They are groups who have come over to Orthodoxy and asked to be allowed to keep their liturgical traditions.

No, I’m not because I think their situation is not on par with the particular Catholic Churches as stipulated by Vatican II:

The Church will only be truly Catholic, truly universal, when the Council’s words are fully realized — that all the Churches and rites are of “equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite, and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations.”

And yet we are still “one faith”.

The model itself predates the schism and was used in both the East and the West (the Norman’s ending the practice in their Sicilian territories is in fact often given as an example of one of the catalysts for the Great Schism). Churches under the authority of one Patriarch, made up of people originating from the territory of another (Greeks in Italy, Italian traders in Constantinople) were allowed to use their own liturgy with their own priests trained in that liturgy.

And yet you refer only to their liturgy.

 

[Nine_Two]

How in tarnation would I know it’s wrong, if I was asking someone else the question, i.e. Ryan Black? Moreover, how erroneous can this “document” be if the central focus was how well-received are Western rite Orthodox Churches within the EO, i.e., can they freely practice, do they have autonomy, their own seminaries and/or bishops . . etc., which the “document” delineates, and which you have confirmed for the most part.

The punctuation threw me off. You are correct, my apologies.

Is that how you perceive the Church of the first Millenia?

By and large. Local Councils might draw up their own canons on certain issues unique to the local church but these would have been minor - and small in number.

Maybe it’s because they are not getting enough exposure.

They are welcome to show themselves off to the world.

No, I’m not because I think their situation is not on par with the particular Catholic Churches as stipulated by Vatican II:

But you think it is wrong of us to not grant them a status identical to what the Eastern Catholics have in the West? Am I missing something?

And yet we are still “one faith”.

At the risk of being censured, I am not convinced.

And yet you refer only to their liturgy. ]

The traditions would have gone with it. I doubt a Genoese priest dressed as a Greek just because he was in Constantinople.

 

[josie_L]

The punctuation threw me off. You are correct, my apologies.

:hug1: You’re the green guy.

By and large. Local Councils might draw up their own canons on certain issues unique to the local church but these would have been minor - and small in number.

I don’t think they were always perceived as minor nor were they small in number.

They are welcome to show themselves off to the world.

Maybe you can help them.

But you think it is wrong of us to not grant them a status identical to what the Eastern Catholics have in the West? Am I missing something?

Okay, let me clarify, Byzantine rite bishops take care of Byzantine rite adherents, and so shouldn’t a Western rite Orthodox bishop be taking care of Western rite Orthodox parishioners? There should be a level of autonomy given to them as would have been the case in the pre-schism Church, so it’s no so much that I wish the Western rite Orthodox to be regarded as identical in status vis a vis Eastern Catholics in the CC, but that our views about our Eastern brethren are a lot more cohesive and a lot more fairer than the way Western rite Orthodox Churches are accepted into the EO.

At the risk of being censured,I am not convinced.

It’s okay because that’s my perception of the EO.

The traditions would have gone with it. I doubt a Genoese priest dressed as a Greek just because he was in Constantinople.

I think customs/traditions entailed more than that, so much so much that they became an issue of contention, i.e., I don’t think Father Humbert went to Constantinople because he wanted to see the Hagia Sophia.

 

[RyanBlack]

Where is this “we” coming from, i.e., do you speak on behalf of all Eastern Catholics, i.e., I find it hard to believe that this behaviour of which you speak of is that prevalent?

How would you know?

 

[RyanBlack]

So you’re saying that not having seminaries, their own canon, not being autonomous, and/or having their own bishop is better than our model? And I never said they were reconstructed, wikipedia did. I asked RyanBlack a question, i.e., “are they well accepted because this is what I found on Wikipedia?”

Realistically, they’re not large enough to have their own seminaries, canon law, and bishops. Are you aware that there are some Eastern Catholics who don’t have a seminary, and are under the authority of a Latin bishop? In fact, there is at least one particular church, the Russian Catholic Church, which has no bishops of its own.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think they were always perceived as minor nor were they small in number.

What canons do you have in mind?
I’ll clarify that they were relatively small in number.

Maybe you can help them.

Some day, God willing, maybe we can. For the time being most of our missionary efforts (in the West) are focused on showing people we exist.

Okay, let me clarify, Byzantine rite bishops take care of Byzantine rite adherents, and so shouldn’t a Western rite Orthodox bishop be taking care of Western rite Orthodox parishioners? There should be a level of autonomy given to them as would have been the case in the pre-schism Church, so it’s no so much that I wish the Western rite Orthodox to be regarded as identical in status vis a vis Eastern Catholics in the CC, but that our views about our Eastern brethren are a lot more cohesive and a lot more fairer than the way Western rite Orthodox Churches are accepted into the EO.

Why do they need autonomy or their own bishops (and I stress the word need. Those things might be nice for them, I won’t argue against that)? I’ve never heard that those pre-schism communities had any autonomy. They certainly didn’t have their own bishops.

I think customs/traditions entailed more than that, so much so much that they became an issue of contention, i.e., I don’t think Father Humbert went to Constantinople because he wanted to see the Hagia Sophia.

Humbert’s primary mission came as a result of the closing of those above mentioned Eastern/Western rite Churches outside the normal territory of that rite. He Constantinople of violating a number of Canons held by the universal Church (there seems to be no evidence that these things were actually happening though), and tried to force the Filioque on us - which is the only tradition involved here. While it is true that Western Rite parishes don’t use the filioque that has much to do with what it has become and a general uncertainty (even at the time those Liturgies were formed) with the Orthodoxy of the words in the creed in general.
As I said a while back, those traditions which are at odds with Orthodoxy are something they are required to forgo, but at the same time they are made quite aware of this at the time they come to us. It is never sprung on them after the fact.

Just to clarify I’ve never been to a Western Rite service, though I would like to some day attend a Divine Liturgy, I think the closest Western Rite church is about ten hours away by car.

 

[RyanBlack]

Where is this “we” coming from, i.e., do you speak on behalf of all Eastern Catholics, i.e., I find it hard to believe that this behaviour of which you speak of is that prevalent?

For those of you who think that mistreatment of Eastern Catholics is merely a thing of the past, well, it’s not. As far as it not being all that prevalent, well that’s relative. Given how small we are, it’s probably easy to think that It’s not that big of a deal, but given how much I’ve been exposed to in less than 8 years, I suggest it’s more of a problem than what some realize, or perhaps care to admit.

Personally, my wife and I have had to deal with a Latin priest refusing to commune our son, even though such refusal goes against the canons of the Latin Church. My wife has been told by a Latin Catholic that our understanding of theosis is blasphemous. That same person also called our church a cult.

I’ve heard criticisms from Latin Catholics of our tradition of chrismating and communing infants. On numerous occasions, I’ve deal with things such as Latin Catholics calling our teaching of the uncreated energies of God heresy. I’ve heard attacks on us because we don’t incorporate Latin devotional traditions, such as Eucharistic Adoration, veneration of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Divine Mercy Sunday, the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, veneration of various western Marian apparitions, etc.

An Eastern Catholic priest who is a friend of mine was once refused permission by a Latin Catholic bishop to perform a baptism in a Latin parish for no good reason, other than that bishop was hostile to having a Byzantine parish within the boundaries of his diocese—after all, there was already a Maronite parish in his diocese, no need for a Byzantine parish too. In the United States, we still deal with Latin Catholic pressure not to ordain married men to the presbyterate. This pressure has come within the last couple of years from as high up as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (a position that is held by a Latin Catholic, BTW).

It’s hard to forget the mistreatment of the past when the same old problems continue today. No, I am not bitter, and it is not the case that mistreatment of Eastern Catholics by some Latin Catholics is the focus of how I think about Latin Catholics, and it certainly is not the case that I hate Latin Catholics. I do, however, refuse to pretend that these problems aren’t really. I also refuse to accept the notion that they don’t really matter, since they don’t reflect the position of the Pope, or because Catholic TV and radio programs promote the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[josie_L]

For those of you who think that mistreatment of Eastern Catholics is merely a thing of the past, well, it’s not. As far as it not being all that prevalent, well that’s relative. Given how small we are, it’s probably easy to think that It’s not that big of a deal, but given how much I’ve been exposed to in less than 8 years, I suggest it’s more of a problem than what some realize, or perhaps care to admit.

Personally, my wife and I have had to deal with a Latin priest refusing to commune our son, even though such refusal goes against the canons of the Latin Church. My wife has been told by a Latin Catholic that our understanding of theosis is blasphemous. That same person also called our church a cult.

It’s hard to forget the mistreatment of the past when the same old problems continue today. No, I am not bitter, and it is not the case that mistreatment of Eastern Catholics by some Latin Catholics is the focus of how I think about Latin Catholics, and it certainly is not the case that I hate Latin Catholics. I do, however, refuse to pretend that these problems aren’t really. I also refuse to accept the notion that they don’t really matter, since they don’t reflect the position of the Pope, or because Catholic TV and radio programs promote the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I never said it didn’t matter, I said that I can’t imagine it being that prevalent, so my advice to you would be to seek out those in the hierarchy who will listen because these priests which you refer to are not conforming to Vatican II, and as you stipulated, the canons of our/your Church. If we want the Church to be swept clean of this, we can do it together.

p.s. The Church must be universal without having to sacrifice diverse spiritual traditions but without compartmentalizing either.

God bless!

 

[RyanBlack]

I never said it didn’t matter, I said that I can’t imagine it being that prevalent, so my advice to you would be to seek out those in the hierarchy who will listen because these priests which you refer to are not conforming to Vatican II, and as you stipulated, the canons of our/your Church. If we want the Church to be swept clean of this, we can do it together.

p.s. The Church must be universal without having to sacrifice diverse spiritual traditions but without compartmentalizing either.

God bless!

Well, on the issue of refusal to commune our son, to me, it just wasn’t worth it, since we attend our own Ruthenian parish the overwhelming majority of Sundays. OTOH, if we were in a situation where we were unable to attend an Eastern parish, I would ask my bishop to intervene on our behalf. However, there’s not a great deal to be done when the unjust treatment is coming from bishops, especially bishops who are members of the Roman Curia. To be perfectly honest, in spite of the Pope’s benevolence towards us, our problems tend not to be much of a papal priority, and these sorts of problems are not likely to be fixed by the Pope.

 

[dvdjs]

Personally, my wife and I have had to deal with a Latin priest refusing to commune our son, even though such refusal goes against the canons of the Latin Church.

A nice letter to his and to your bishop should follow, cc’d to the priest, asking for clarification of the canons of the Church on this matter and procedures being undertaken to ensure that the canons are being followed. Then wait and see what the bishops decide.

My wife has been told by a Latin Catholic that our understanding of theosis is blasphemous

.
It is easy to give that impression, especially if the foundation had not been laid to show the essential difference between God and creature, and that our theosis brings us to divinity through participation, not in essence. If that line of reasoning is too subtle, then thank them for their unusual opinion and leave it at that. There is no reason to expect that anyone knows much about the East. Some learn, some already know it all. Fortunately the latter are scarce apart from the internet.

That same person also called our church a cult.

Of course we are.

I’ve heard criticisms from Latin Catholics of our tradition of chrismating and communing infants.

I had this discussion once also. About 50 years ago. I was a little too young to be in a position to describe the thinking behind our way, which was, of course, clearly different than the theme of reaching adulthood in the faith as seen in the west. Did have an answer, but didn’t feel the need for one either: that is what we do and have always done; it does not require the assent or consent of anyone else.

On numerous occasions, I’ve deal with things such as Latin Catholics calling our teaching of the uncreated energies of God heresy.

Again a subtle area that is not east or explain or to grasp. Especially if the participants don’t also understand the idea of “uncreated” grace.

I’ve heard attacks on us because we don’t incorporate Latin devotional traditions, such as Eucharistic Adoration, veneration of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Divine Mercy Sunday, the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, veneration of various western Marian apparitions, etc.

Attacks? Do yourself a favor and find new people to talk to.

An Eastern Catholic priest who is a friend of mine was once refused permission by a Latin Catholic bishop to perform a baptism in a Latin parish for no good reason, other than that bishop was hostile to having a Byzantine parish within the boundaries of his diocese—after all, there was already a Maronite parish in his diocese, no need for a Byzantine parish too.

This is serious. These comments need to be well-documented then sent high authorities. I have to ask, however, why was the priest doing a baptism in a Latin parish. Was the child Latin? Was the child part of a Byzantine parish?

In the United States, we still deal with Latin Catholic pressure not to ordain married men to the presbyterate. This pressure has come within the last couple of years from as high up as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches

.
Actually there was a lot of fuss on internet fora about an article in the popular press to which some rushed to the opinion that the Cardinal was pressuring us not to ordain married men. I didn’t see this interpretation advanced or discussed in any church. I did see that you bishop ordained two married men shortly thereafter.

It’s hard to forget the mistreatment of the past when the same old problems continue today. … I do, however, refuse to pretend that these problems aren’t really.

Some of these things are the same, but most are not. The past was very, very different. Some of these things current things matter; some actually don’t. Balance and perspective are important,

 

[dvdjs]

Well, on the issue of refusal to commune our son, to me, it just wasn’t worth it, since we attend our own Ruthenian parish the overwhelming majority of Sundays.

Actually it is worth it, since you are still troubled by it.