Divorce and the Greek-Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter YAA23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a friend who grew up BC then went to the OCA. He complains, not of infant, communion, but of ill-tempered 3-5 years olds who go. Somehow, new Orthodox - probably in reaction to the “heresy” of the pews - have digested the idea that children are supposed to be left to do their own thing, rather that being being held to attentiveness during the liturgy. Even by the time that they are old enough to know better and to act better. He is scandalized and think sit plain wrong for them to go communion.
 
RyanBlack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiousity, how do you know so many bishops or bishops for that matter in the Roman curia, did you reside in Rome temporarily?
 
josie_L said:
Just out of curiousity, how do you know so many bishops or bishops for that matter in the Roman curia, did you reside in Rome temporarily?
Click to expand...
I don’t, but it’s not necessary to know them personally in order to have knowledge of these things.
 
I feel that I should point out that the idea that a rite must have a bishop is foreign to the tradition. Monastics in the East frequently had different rites (though it is not common to regard the different ritual uses of Western monastics as rites, for whatever reason) from their bishops in the city (this difference between the Cathedral Rite and the Monastic Rite was in fact one of the major contributors to what today is called the Byzantine Rite).
 
Cavaradossi said:
I feel that I should point out that the idea that a rite must have a bishop is foreign to the tradition. Monastics in the East frequently had different rites (though it is not common to regard the different ritual uses of Western monastics as rites, for whatever reason) from their bishops in the city (this difference between the Cathedral Rite and the Monastic Rite was in fact one of the major contributors to what today is called the Byzantine Rite).
Click to expand...
But we are living in a post-schism world, i.e., there are new issues to contend with, i.e., how to receive whole groups from differing rites/churches without compromising their traditions but without compartmentalizing them either? This is easier said than done. I would have thought that at the very least Western rite Orthodox parishes would have their own bishop (by now anyways). God bless!
 
RyanBlack said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, if they don’t have their own seminaries because they aren’t large enough, does that mean that they won’t have enough priests who would be able to perform the Western rite liturgies?

Second, is it the norm for Eastern Catholics in general not to have their own seminary and/or to be under the authority of a Latin bishop? What is the cause of their not having a seminary, is it because they are not large enough to have their own?

Third, I know that in Russia “Catholicism” is not officially recognized by the state (Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism are), so would that be the reason why the Russian Catholic Church does not have its own bishop? I found this on Wikipedia:
In 1997, however, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting the activities of religious organizations within Russia. Complete freedom is given to any religious organization officially recognized by the Soviet government before 1985: the Orthodox Church, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. The basis for consideration as an official religion of the Russian Federation is supposed to be a 50-year presence in the state. According to this criterion, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and the Baptist faith should all enjoy official status as Russian religions. However, this is not the case. Non-official religions are strictly limited in that they are not permitted to operate schools or import non-Russian citizens to act as missionaries or clergy. Likewise, they must annually re-register with local officials.
Click to expand...
This act has been sharply criticized as antithetical to the concept of freedom of religion, especially in countries with religious organizations that expend a great deal of money and effort in proselytizing.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_by_country#Russia
 
josie_L said:
First, if they don’t have their own seminaries because they aren’t large enough, does that mean that they won’t have enough priests who would be able to perform the Western rite liturgies?

Second, is it the norm for Eastern Catholics in general not to have their own seminary and/or to be under the authority of a Latin bishop? What is the cause of their not having a seminary, is it because they are not large enough to have their own?

Third, I know that in Russia “Catholicism” is not officially recognized by the state (Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism are), so would that be the reason why the Russian Catholic Church does not have its own bishop? I found this on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_by_country#Russia
Click to expand...
I don’t know how they address the issue of your first question, but it seems to me that it would not be that difficult an issue. Training for the priesthood in the Western Rite could involve academic training in an EO seminary, and the liturgical training could take place under the guidance of a Western Rite priest.

As to your second question, no it is not the norm for Eastern Catholics not to have their own seminaries and be under the authority of a Latin bishop, but in some cases, when an Eastern Catholic Church is very small (like the Western Rite Orthodox Vicariate), it does happen. Placing Eastern Catholics under the authority of a Latin bishop happens even when an Eastern Catholic bishop could do the job. For example, instead of placing Russian Catholics in the Americas under the authority of resident Eastern Catholic bishops, they are under the authority of the local Latin bishops, even though a Ruthenian, Ukrainian, or Melkite bishop would have more knowledge of their liturgical and spiritual traditions, as well as the Eastern Code of Canon Law.

As to your third question, I’m inclined to say no, since there are Latin Catholic bishops in Russia.
 
RyanBlack said:
I don’t know how they address the issue of your first question, but it seems to me that it would not be that difficult an issue. Training for the priesthood in the Western Rite could involve academic training in an EO seminary, and the liturgical training could take place under the guidance of a Western Rite priest.

As to your second question, no it is not the norm for Eastern Catholics not to have their own seminaries and be under the authority of a Latin bishop, but in some cases, when an Eastern Catholic Church is very small (like the Western Rite Orthodox Vicariate), it does happen. Placing Eastern Catholics under the authority of a Latin bishop happens even when an Eastern Catholic bishop could do the job. For example, instead of placing Russian Catholics in the Americas under the authority of resident Eastern Catholic bishops, they are under the authority of the local Latin bishops, even though a Ruthenian, Ukrainian, or Melkite bishop would have more knowledge of their liturgical and spiritual traditions, as well as the Eastern Code of Canon Law.
Click to expand...
So Latin bishops are in charge of the Russian Catholics in Russia and in the Americas, would this have anything to do with the fact that Latin Catholics brought Catholicism into Russia, i.e., is there a Catholic presence in Russia because of Latin missionaries?

newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm
 
josie_L said:
So Latin bishops are in charge of the Russian Catholics in Russia and in the Americas, would this have anything to do with the fact that Latin Catholics brought Catholicism into Russia, i.e., is there a Catholic presence in Russia because of Latin missionaries?

newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm
Click to expand...
No. The Russian Catholic Church once had a bishop, but has not had a bishop since 1996. Russian Catholics are not the only Eastern Catholics under the authority of Latin bishops. Wherever Eastern Catholics of any given particular church exist in numbers deemed too small to warrant the establishment of an eparchy, they are placed under the authority of the local Latin ordinary, even if there is a local Eastern Catholic bishop of another particular church.
 
RyanBlack said:
No. The Russian Catholic Church once had a bishop, but has not had a bishop since 1996. Russian Catholics are not the only Eastern Catholics under the authority of Latin bishops. Wherever Eastern Catholics of any given particular church exist in numbers deemed too small to warrant the establishment of an eparchy, they are placed under the authority of the local Latin ordinary, even if there is a local Eastern Catholic bishop of another particular church.
Click to expand...
Are all Russian Catholics Eastern rite Catholics? I’ve been reading up on Catholicism in Russia and it seems that there would be Russian Latin rite Catholics as well.
 
josie_L said:
Are all Russian Catholics Eastern rite Catholics? I’ve been reading up on Catholicism in Russia and it seems that there would be Russian Latin rite Catholics as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are Latin rite Catholics in Russia, but the Russian Catholic Church is an Eastern Catholic Church.
 
RyanBlack said:
Yes, there are Latin rite Catholics in Russia, but the Russian Catholic Church is an Eastern Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Do Latin Catholics make up a substantial portion of the Russian Catholic Church, i.e., when you make reference to the Russian Catholic Church you’re including both Latin and Eastern rite Russian Catholics?
 
josie_L said:
Do Latin Catholics make up a substantial portion of the Russian Catholic Church, i.e., when you make reference to the Russian Catholic Church you’re including both Latin and Eastern rite Russian Catholics?
Click to expand...
No, the Russian Catholic Church is an Eastern Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite. There are certainly Latin Catholics in Russia, but they are not members of the Russian Catholic Church, just as Latin Rite Catholics in Ukraine are not members of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which is an Eastern Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite.
 
RyanBlack said:
No, the Russian Catholic Church is an Eastern Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite. There are certainly Latin Catholics in Russia, but they are not members of the Russian Catholic Church, just as Latin Rite Catholics in Ukraine are not members of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which is an Eastern Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarifications.
 
Actually, the Tsars of Russia were in large part responsible for how Catholics were treated, i.e., the tsars had quite a bit of control over the ROC.
 
From my understanding, the treatment of Catholics vacillated from time to time, sometimes, Jesuits and the like were allowed into Russia and at other times they were expelled, it really came down to how Tsars felt vis a vis Catholics in their domain.
From the time of Peter the Great to Alexander I, the history of Catholicism in Russia is a continuous struggle against Russian legislation: laws that embarrassed the action of Catholicism in Russia that favoured the apostasy of Catholics, and reduced the Catholic clergy to impotence were multiplied each year, and constituted a Neronian code. In 1727, to put a stop to Catholic propaganda in the Government of Smolensk, Catholic priests were prohibited from entering that province, or, having entered it, were prohibited from occupying themselves with religious matters; the nobility was forbidden to leave the Orthodox communion, to have Catholic teachers, to go to foreign countries, or to marry Catholic women. In 1735 the Empress Anna Ivanovna prohibited Catholic propaganda among Orthodox Russians under the severest penalties. Illustrious converts, like Alexei Ladygenski and Mikhail Galitzin, were treated with the most inhuman barbarity on account of their conversion. In 1747 the government expelled from Astrakhan the Capuchins who were making many conversions to Catholicism among the Armenians.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm
Click to expand...
How are Catholics who represent a tiny minority in Russia responsible for the treatment they received by Tsars/Russian Government, i.e., till this day Catholicism is not recognized as an official religion of Russia (but Islam is), have things not changed?
 
Are they not aware of their own (Russian/Orthodox) violent history? At least, pope John Paul II apologized publicly for these misdeeds (I don’t think they ever have). Moreover, Russia has never been a haven for democracy.
 
josie_L said:
From my understanding, the treatment of Catholics vacillated from time to time, sometimes, Jesuits and the like were allowed into Russia and at other times they were expelled, it really came down to how Tsars felt vis a vis Catholics in their domain.
Click to expand...
The Russian policies toward the Jesuits were actually a very overt anti-Vatican (I would distinguish this from being anti-Catholic, since they accepted Catholics under the policy at times) policy.

The Jesuits were allowed in when Rome had them expelled from Catholic countries, and were banned when the Jesuits were allowed back in to Catholic countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top