Eastern Catholics "forced" and "bribed" into communion with the RCC

[theistgal]

I also have found that the Ukrainians that I know don’t feel oppressed at all and love the fact that they are Catholic.

I think you are right, Volodymyr! Did you see the Ukrainian Catholic priest on Father Benedict Groeschel’s show yesterday (on EWTN)? He’s 96 years old and the oldest Catholic priest in the U.S. He was wonderful! He explained many of the differences between the Eastern and Western churches, and then went almost into ecstasy describing how he visits the Blessed Sacrament every night before he goes to sleep.

He did not seem to feel the least bit oppressed by the “latinizations” - in fact, he gently but sternly lectured the Latin Rite priests who have moved the Blessed Sacrament out of the center of their altars and made his opinion on that very clear! But in a way that made it apparent that he loves and respects the traditions of both East and West - which is what we should all be striving to do.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I would say most certainly not. They stay in Communion with Rome, because they have wanted to keep their theological traditions, and liturgical traditions, however they wanted to stay with the See of St. Peter. They wanted to stay connected with the Church established by Christ, that we are compelled to not schism from.

 

[Hesychios]

I would say most certainly not. They stay in Communion with Rome, because they have wanted to keep their theological traditions, and liturgical traditions, however they wanted to stay with the See of St. Peter. They wanted to stay connected with the Church established by Christ, that we are compelled to not schism from.

The story of how some of these churches came under the Pope is highly varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are some very interesting historical moments worth studying.

The reason they remain under the Pope is simple, the nature of their own ecclesiology has changed. They cannot ‘want’ anything, one way or the other.

Some, if not most of those synods which came under the Papacy did so because they had the right to make that decision, as synods. The very fact that they would (or could) separate from their patriarchates shows that they were at that point acting in an autocephalous (self headed) manner, not merely autonomously (self called).

Today, none of these churches is recognized by the Vatican to be autocephalous. They simply don’t have the right to chose their affiliation that they exercised before.

The most clear analogy I can think of outside of the religious sphere is the story of United States government.

The thirteen original independent states chose voluntarily to align themselves into a confederation, and later a federation. They had, at the time, sovereign power to make that decision and they actually erected the Federal government out of what they assumed to be their own will and power. When some of these ‘states’ chose to disaffiliate and form a new confederation, they found that they could not, the way was blocked.

[Imagine a soverign nation being compelled to remain a member of the United Nations, or NATO or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8”]G8 or OPEC. It does not happen, nation-states affiliate with the organization because they want that, and they retain the right to withdraw (as some may from time to time).]

The code of canons for the Eastern churches does not recognize the right of these churches to disaffiliate from Rome in the same manner as they disaffiliated from Orthodoxy, so there is no question of “choosing” to remain, the option is not on the table. There is a check valve in place, one-way flow only.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The code of canons for the Eastern churches does not recognize the right of these churches to disaffiliate from Rome in the same manner as they disaffiliated from Orthodoxy, so there is no question of “choosing” to remain, the option is not on the table. There is a check valve in place, one-way flow only.

Michael

Doubtless the autocephalous polyarchy in use in the wider Orthodox communion precludes a whole national church from remaining within communion with wider Orthodoxy if they opted for open and visible communion with the Holy See.

The question of “Well they aren’t really autocephalous anymore, are they?” is a two way street.

I am confident you are not meaning to assert we choose to stay in union because we percieve we have no choice. Almost everywhere we exist, there is an Orthodox presense (sometimes across the street) and our options are known.

 

[Hesychios]

I am confident you are not meaning to assert we choose to stay in union because we percieve we have no choice. Almost everywhere we exist, there is an Orthodox presense (sometimes across the street) and our options are known.

I think we are in agreement here. It cannot be assumed that the decision of individuals to remain is a forced one. I hope that I did not imply that.

Even bishops have free will and can leave if they want, abandoning the institution (I note that they don’t). Individuals stay out of choice, and they leave out of choice, or they simply do not address the option.

I am saying that the institution of the particular church does not address that issue ever. The Church structure offices and titles, property and goods would remain with the Papacy regardless of anyone person’s (or even all persons) decision to leave or not. The Sui Iuris church does not address the possibility of leaving as a church.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I am saying that the institution of the particular church does not address that issue ever. The Church structure offices and titles, property and goods would remain with the Papacy regardless of anyone person’s (or even all persons) decision to leave or not. The Sui Iuris church does not address the possibility of leaving as a church.

This is largely a function of how things are owned. OCA parishes that go to ROCOR or ACROD or vice-versa whichever are doing so on the merits or demerits of the trusteeship system. The same is true for parishes that have managed to come into unia - with many of the ones which left unia taking their property with them if and when it could be proven in a civil court the leaving party actually owned the building. Note also that if the bishop goes - and that is who “owns” the buildings under Eastern Catholic law - at least in America it would be hard to argue that Rome could keep those parishes to re-assign them as they would like.

So I guess I am at a loss to understand what significance this last point has. Why would the sui juris church address the possibility of leaving as a church? The fact that whole national Orthodox Churches can is a function of having no authority above them to squash it, but regional self-governing churches in Russia that have levels of self-governance under the Patriarch likely have no recourse to “vote their way out”.

We may be saying the same things differently here… But the differences in “who can leave, how, and what they can take with them” doesn’t seem terribly relevent or significant.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Eastern Catholics are not being forced into anything. They have free will to leave. Obviously the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches like being part of them. Besides they are basically Autonomous.

 

[Peter_J]

I do not believe it possible to have forced this communion with Rome given that it would have been very easy for the People and Priest of the Eastern Catholic Rite Church to follow with the Orthodox if they had chosen to do so. Why some churches in the East stayed in the Catholic faith when the other did not I do not know. Other than to say that the Holy Spirit must have Guided the Bishops of Those Churches not to fall into schism.

Are you serious?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Are you serious?

I assume that he is.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Holden,

Eastern Catholics are not being forced into anything. They have free will to leave. Obviously the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches like being part of them. Besides they are basically Autonomous.

This is true, because for the most part the old system of state supported churches is gone. People can leave now, and sometimes they do.

But the point I would make is that the institution survives even if everyone was to leave! A case in point is the Georgian Catholic church, now so small it has nothing but a name. Hard to say this represents a group that “wants to be in communion with Rome” but they usually make somebody’s list of Sui Iuris churches.

Plus most of these (not the biggest ones these days, I guess) are not generating their own hierarchy like they would have originally…their own hierarchy derives from Rome these days. Even for the Melkites and Ukrainians this is the case outside of a highly restricted “home” territory. The Pope appoints their bishops. For most of the other Sui Iuris Churches the Vatican names the bishops, these are not bishops who can actually claim clear lines of succession from Orthodox predecessors.

At times the Papacy refuses to name a bishop, although the people are clamoring for one. This is why there are vacancies; it is why some churches have no hierarchy. If they were independent Synods, regardless of how small they could name their own bishop and get him consecrated. The Russian Catholics made such an attempt and were rebuffed.

So if the Pope is appointing the bishops, and the bishops want to remain in communion with Rome, what is this really telling us…how significant is this commitment really?

When it is the case that the Synod makes it’s own appointments, and the candidates were not vetted by Latin clergy in Dicasteries of the Vatican, and individual bishops do not feel under any obligation to patrons in the Roman Curia and they still wish to be under submission to Papal authority I would say that is significant!

The only clear example I can think of is the Melkite Synod (restricted to the home territory), and to some lesser extent the Synod of the UGCC. Both of these have to accept an increasing number of Papal appointed members to serve the Diaspora but they are still primarily self actualized churches with a majority of bishops of their own choosing.

Interestingly, I was reading a blog somewhere in which a Catholic priest was commenting in no uncertain terms that the “Melkite Cancer” was spreading into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church! What fascinates me is that these Synods probably could leave the Papal affiliation if they really wanted to (I am sure the governments of their native countries would protect their legal rights to do so in the court systems there), but there is widespread a lack of appreciation for the fact that these people (bishops, clergy and laity) actually choose to stay. It is ironically sad.

As a side note, if these (the Melkites or Ukrainians) did choose to leave the Papal affiliation, they would be stripped of their Diaspora congregations (such as in the United States), which are firmly under the control of Papal appointed bishops. Legally, even if these (North American, Australian etc.) bishops chose to leave the Catholic communion along with their Synods, the Pope could appoint replacements for them and it would hold up in US and other western courts.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Are you serious?

Why else would he write what he did? We clown around but aren’t clowns here.

I see that you are new, so it isn’t a big deal. But if you have a point to make, make it. If you disagree, say why.

That sort of passive-aggressive mocking derision neither wins friends nor influences people.

Make Dale Carnegie proud.

 

[Hesychios]

I do not believe it possible to have forced this communion with Rome given that it would have been very easy for the People and Priest of the Eastern Catholic Rite Church to follow with the Orthodox if they had chosen to do so. Why some churches in the East stayed in the Catholic faith when the other did not I do not know. Other than to say that the Holy Spirit must have Guided the Bishops of Those Churches not to fall into schism.

You have a right to believe whatever you want.

But I invite you to actually read the histories of these people, how they came into communion with Rome (each case is different) and why. You have nothing to fear, just read the histories. It is very interesting.

Then you will not have to say “I believe” this or that or “I do not believe” this or that. You will know.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

Why else would he write what he did? We clown around but aren’t clowns here.

I see that you are new, so it isn’t a big deal. But if you have a point to make, make it. If you disagree, say why.

That sort of passive-aggressive mocking derision neither wins friends nor influences people.

Make Dale Carnegie proud.

My question was addressed to oneGODoneCHURCH, not to you. I don’t negotiate with terrorists or bullies.

 

[Peter_J]

Interestingly, I was reading a blog somewhere in which a Catholic priest was commenting in no uncertain terms that the “Melkite Cancer” was spreading into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church!

I’ve looked at that blog and the outrageous “Melkite Cancer” comment that “Fr. J” made.

I have no wish to try and defend the indefensible, but I would point out that we don’t know for certain that “Fr. J” is actually a priest. (Or do we?)

-Peter.

 

[Hesychios]

I’ve looked at that blog and the outrageous “Melkite Cancer” comment that “Fr. J” made.

I have no wish to try and defend the indefensible, but I would point out that we don’t know for certain that “Fr. J” is actually a priest. (Or do we?)

-Peter.

True.

My bad, I should know better.

Michael

 

[Peter_J]

but I would point out that we don’t know for certain that “Fr. J” is actually a priest.

You realize, of course, that’s the optimist in me speaking: I’d really like to believe that there are extremely few, if any, Catholics priests who would make such a statement.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Are you serious?

I am serious. I mean why would It be possible to force one church, but not another? I appears to me that If the Bishops of the Eastern Rite Churches did not Believe it was the right thing to do and not follow their brothers into schism with Rome. Then no matter what we would not have Eastern Rite Churches Today. I believe If we look at the Reformation in the West that it shows that you can not force people to be in or out of union if they have decided.

To answer a few other post I do not have a fear of reading about the history of how/why The Catholic Churches of the east remained in union or came back into unto with the West. the only thing is, is from my point of view it matters nor does it matter what caused the schism between East and West in the First Place. The histories of these things should only be there as guides for all that the errors that both sides made are not repeated.

As the Name I choose shows I long for a united Church. I have no desire to look for reason to separate or look for reasons to continue separation.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

My question was addressed to oneGODoneCHURCH, not to you. I don’t negotiate with terrorists or bullies.

Go find a terrorist or a bully and go tell them that yourself. I am neither.

Your comment was in a public forum, expect feedback like that.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I’ve looked at that blog and the outrageous “Melkite Cancer” comment that “Fr. J” made.

I have no wish to try and defend the indefensible, but I would point out that we don’t know for certain that “Fr. J” is actually a priest. (Or do we?)

-Peter.

Father John Steel of the Holy Cross Fathers. He lives at Moreau Seminary in South Bend on the campus of Notre Dame.

Yes, he is a priest. Yes, we do know he is a priest. If you need to confirm, contact the Holy Cross Fathers and they will confirm his existence and supply you with the dates of his ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood.

ON that score, he is one priest, one man. In fairness to him, a few weeks at ByzCath with some idealogues who were insistent - and cited their cherry-picked writers and clerics of choice - were insistent in taking some of the most strident, polemic and anti-Roman (anti-papacy) quotes they can find. It comes across at times as rather cafeteria.

I note that the actual content of that entry - which I posted - was not nearly so discussed as the opportunity to cry “is outrage!” over a comment in the combox - which I don’t delete or edit (save for profanity or spam), counting on a free exchange of ideas that can rise or fall on their own merit.

Anyone interested in the content of the post?

theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/four-ukrainian-bishops-consecrated-without-mandate-of-rome-or-major-archbishop/

and then perhaps

theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/who-laid-the-easter-egg/

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Since I’ve spoken with Fr. J many times, I can only add that he is a loyal son of the Church. He is faithful to the teachings of the church. He has a great love for the Eastern Catholic Churches (especially the Ukrainians.) He does think that some of the comments of arm chair theologians of internet fame are “cafeteria” and for the record, so do I. Is there some middle ground? Do some people go too far? I think the answer to both is “yes.”