For Eastern Orthodox Christians

[Nine_Two]

I had to re-read my post thinking I may have posted something different or maybe in the Spanish language.

I think you are both making my post more of what it really was.

I have quoted myself to both your [and my] benefit.

Notice I did mentioned the factions and that I did not mentioned any historical background, but that I did say that **it took off **during the Avignon controversy because of the different factions.

Your comment left the distinct impression that it was the movement which caused the Great Western Schism, when in fact it was the Great Western Schism that caused the movement, and it was in this way that the schism was ended. Your post seemed to be quite negative toward conciliarism, but if that was not your intent I’m wondering if you could expand on what you were trying to get at with your original post. It clearly went over my head.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Your comment left the distinct impression that it was the movement which caused the Great Western Schism, when in fact it was the Great Western Schism that caused the movement, and it was in this way that the schism was ended. Your post seemed to be quite negative toward conciliarism, but if that was not your intent I’m wondering if you could expand on what you were trying to get at with your original post. It clearly went over my head.

It was in response of Fr. John’s post regarding us not recognizing the Councils in the same manner as the Protestants. When the issue of the authority of the Pope vs the Councils did not really take full effect until the Avignon controversy, in fact it did not become “official” until Vatican I, if my memory serves me right - although it is not infallible (My memory that is)

 

[frjohnmorris]

I had to re-read my post thinking I may have posted something different or maybe in the Spanish language.

I think you are both making my post more of what it really was.

I have quoted myself to both your [and my] benefit.

Notice I did mentioned the factions and that I did not mentioned any historical background, but that I did say that **it took off **during the Avignon controversy because of the different factions.

I will give you both the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t help but be suspicious of my comments being taken advantage of, to present your own points of view.

And the Church is Catholic, not Roman Catholic as it is inconsiderate to our Eastern Catholic brothers.

The Conciliar Movement took place before the formation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus using the title Roman Catholic in this context is not inconsiderate to Eastern Catholics because they did not exist at that time. Besides, although I try my best to respect the sensibilities of the Catholics, I do not always know what is the right expression to use. I was not trying to insult anyone. The Conciliar Movement took place in the West within what even Eastern Catholics would consider the Roman Catholic Church.
The Maronites existed at that time, but as I have mentioned the sign before the Maronite Church in Boston calls the Church “Maronite Roman Catholic,” or at least it did 34 years ago when I was in seminary at Holy Cross, which is next to a Maronite Church.
It is two way street. Catholics are offended if I do not use the term that they do not like to describe them, but do not make an effort to understand that some of the terms used by Catholics, like “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” are offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians. I have written before that of all the matters that divide us the most contentious is the Eastern Catholic movement. I do not call myself or my Church Orthodox Catholic out of respect for the sensibility for the Catholics.
Actually if we were using Arabic, I would be called a Roman Orthodox, because the Turks put our people within what they called the Roman Nation (Rhum Millet) because they considered all Eastern Orthodox under their control Romans because of their association with the Eastern Roman Empire. Because their Islamic religion mixed government with religion, they ruled people through their religious affiliation. Under the Ottomans religious officials were responsible for many of the things like divorce, inheritance and other things that we Americans consider matters for the secular state.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Conciliar Movement took place before the formation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus using the title Roman Catholic in this context is not inconsiderate to Eastern Catholics because they did not exist at that time. Besides, although I try my best to respect the sensibilities of the Catholics, I do not always know what is the right expression to use. I was not trying to insult anyone. The Conciliar Movement took place in the West.
The Maronites existed at that time, but as I have mentioned the sign before the Maronite Church in Boston calls the Church “Maronite Roman Catholic,” or at least it did 34 years ago when I was in seminary at Holy Cross, which is next to a Maronite Church.
It is two way street. Catholics are offended if I do not use the term that they do not like to describe them, but do not make an effort to understand that some of the terms used by Catholics, like “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” are offensive to Eastern Orthodox Christians. I have written before that of all the matters that divide us the most contentious is the Eastern Catholic movement.

Fr. John

Father, in all honesty - What do you think is the percentage of a Catholic Church being named with something other than a Saint, our Blessed Mother, or our Blessed Savior in favor of a geographical area or ethnicity?

To use the minimal and apply it to the maximal is just not a good practice. We are the Catholic Church.

This is the internet and I am not offended by the wrong usage in the name of our Church - I do feel compelled, however, to act regarding that matter (most of the time).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, in all honesty - What do you think is the percentage of a Catholic Church being named with something other than a Saint, our Blessed Mother, or our Blessed Savior in favor of a geographical area or ethnicity?

I RESPOND: The Catholic Church does have Churches that are named after a geographical area or ethnicity. Eastern Catholics call themselves Ukrainian Catholics, Romanian Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Armenian Catholics or use some other ethnically associated or geographical term to describe themselves.
We Orthodox use these geographical or ethnic terms because we are a family of local national self-governing Churches. We are not centralized like the Catholic Church is. We do not have anything like the Pope in our Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch has a primacy of honor, but has no real authority outside of his own Patriarchate. He can call a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy and preside himself or through his representative, but he cannot make doctrinal or disciplinary decisions binding on the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.
The national or ethnic divisions are due to historical factors in the United States. If you were in Greece, Russia, Bulgaria or some other traditional Eastern Orthodox area all every Church would be simply called an Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches in the United States uses these ethnic or geographical titles because our parishes were founded by immigrants from different countries with different cultures. Because we have always prayed in the language of the people, when the first immigrants arrived here they had to have a Priest of their nationality, or one who spoke their language. My parish was founded by immigrants from Lebanon and originally did the services in Arabic. Now no one in the parish speaks Arabic so we now use English and have many people who are not of Arabic ancestry including people who converted to Orthodoxy as I did.
Despite our administrative and ethnic divisions we consider ourselves one Church and work together. We all share the same doctrine and are in full Communion with each other. With the exception of a few Western Rite parishes under Antioch and the Moscow Patriarchate, we all use the Byzantine Rite. I received my theological education at a Greek Orthodox seminary although I am in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I was taught the same doctrine that I would have been taught had I gone to St. Vladimir’s which is under the Orthodox Church in America which is Russian Orthodox in backgroud.
Because each national Orthodox Church is self-governing different practices have developed. For example, tomorrow we begin the Christmas Fast. In the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, they allow weddings until December 12. In the Antiochian Archdiocese in which I serve, we do not allow weddings during the entire period of the Fast of the Nativity. Since this is a non doctrinal issue, we can have different national practices. However, since we are all now in one country, we are trying to find a way to reconcile these disciplinary differences.
We are working to form a united American Orthodox Church. All canonical Eastern Orthodox Bishops in the United States are members of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which has various committees to establish common practices and is working to form a united American Orthodox Church.

To use the minimal and apply it to the maximal is just not a good practice. We are the Catholic Church.

We usually call ourselves the Orthodox Church, but because of the growing number of Oriental Orthodox use the title Eastern Orthodox out of respect for them.

This is the internet and I am not offended by the wrong usage in the name of our Church - I do feel compelled, however, to act regarding that matter (most of the time).

I am trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the different kinds of Catholics. However, during the historical time which we are discussing, the Conciliar Movement can correctly be labeled Roman Catholic because it took place within the Latin or Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Thank you for clarifying, when you wrote this:

And immediately followed with this:

I read “they” as in both of us.

I did not mean it that way. Forgive me for expressing myself clearly. Had I been writing to a largely Eastern Orthodox audience I would have written that each Protestant has become his own Ecumenical Council.
In Protestantism because of their doctrine of the Bible Alone, they reject the other manifestations of Holy Tradition such as the consensus of the Holy Fathers or the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Each individual Protestant interprets the Bible for themselves, or accepts the interpretation of the founders of their particular branch of Protestantism. The reality is that each Protestant group is just as committed to their particular tradition as Orthodox and Catholics are to our understanding of Holy Tradition. All Baptist Churches have the same basic doctrine, the same forms of worship and the same way that they set up their worship space. The same can be said about every Protestant group. We also have a growing number of “non denominational” congregations in which the Pastor acts as the Ecumenical Council for the congregation. Joel Osteen is answerable to no higher authority, but decides for himself how to interpret the Bible and what doctrine to teach.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I RESPOND: The Catholic Church does have Churches that are named after a geographical area or ethnicity. Eastern Catholics call themselves Ukrainian Catholics, Romanian Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Armenian Catholics or use some other ethnically associated or geographical term to describe themselves.
**We Orthodox use these geographical or ethnic terms because we are a family of local national self-governing Churches. We are not centralized like the Catholic Church is. We do not have anything like the Pope in our Church. **

This is the best explanation I have heard to date, thank you!

The Ecumenical Patriarch has a primacy of honor, but has no real authority outside of his own Patriarchate. He can call a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy and preside himself or through his representative, but he cannot make doctrinal or disciplinary decisions binding on the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.

This, I don’t quite understand. But maybe I do.

Would I be correct in understanding that while the individual Patriarch cannot make doctrinal or disciplinary decision for another Patriarchate - the individual Patriarchs can, when gather together (say in a Council or other meeting of the like) can then make a decision to make a doctrinal or disciplinary decision in regards to a Patriarchate?

The national or ethnic divisions are due to historical factors in the United States. If you were in Greece, Russia, Bulgaria or some other traditional Eastern Orthodox area all every Church would be simply called an Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches in the United States uses these ethnic or geographical titles because our parishes were founded by immigrants from different countries with different cultures. Because we have always prayed in the language of the people, when the first immigrants arrived here they had to have a Priest of their nationality, or one who spoke their language. My parish was founded by immigrants from Lebanon and originally did the services in Arabic. Now no one in the parish speaks Arabic so we now use English and have many people who are not of Arabic ancestry including people who converted to Orthodoxy as I did.
Despite our administrative and ethnic divisions we consider ourselves one Church and work together. We all share the same doctrine and are in full Communion with each other. With the exception of a few Western Rite parishes under Antioch and the Moscow Patriarchate, we all use the Byzantine Rite. I received my theological education at a Greek Orthodox seminary although I am in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I was taught the same doctrine that I would have been taught had I gone to St. Vladimir’s which is under the Orthodox Church in America which is Russian Orthodox in backgroud.
Because each national Orthodox Church is self-governing different practices have developed. For example, tomorrow we begin the Christmas Fast. In the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, they allow weddings until December 12. In the Antiochian Archdiocese in which I serve, we do not allow weddings during the entire period of the Fast of the Nativity. Since this is a non doctrinal issue, we can have different national practices. However, since we are all now in one country, we are trying to find a way to reconcile these disciplinary differences.
We are working to form a united American Orthodox Church. All canonical Eastern Orthodox Bishops in the United States are members of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which has various committees to establish common practices and is working to form a united American Orthodox Church.

And this explains much more, thanks again.

We usually call ourselves the Orthodox Church, but because of the growing number of Oriental Orthodox use the title Eastern Orthodox out of respect for them.

This is the internet and I am not offended by the wrong usage in the name of our Church - I do feel compelled, however, to act regarding that matter (most of the time).

I am trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the different kinds of Catholics. However, during the historical time which we are discussing, the Conciliar Movement can correctly be labeled Roman Catholic because it took place within the Latin or Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

Fr. John

I can understand the term when placed under this conditions, but I still get itchy fingers .

Love it when I learn new things! Thanks for your time, Father.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I did not mean it that way. Forgive me for expressing myself clearly. Had I been writing to a largely Eastern Orthodox audience I would have written that each Protestant has become his own Ecumenical Council.

I am culpable for reading too fast or too much into it . Forgive me as well.

In Protestantism because of their doctrine of the Bible Alone, they reject the other manifestations of Holy Tradition such as the consensus of the Holy Fathers or the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Each individual Protestant interprets the Bible for themselves, or accepts the interpretation of the founders of their particular branch of Protestantism. The reality is that each Protestant group is just as committed to their particular tradition as Orthodox and Catholics are to our understanding of Holy Tradition. All Baptist Churches have the same basic doctrine, the same forms of worship and the same way that they set up their worship space. The same can be said about every Protestant group. We also have a growing number of “non denominational” congregations in which the Pastor acts as the Ecumenical Council for the congregation. Joel Osteen is answerable to no higher authority, but decides for himself how to interpret the Bible and what doctrine to teach.

Fr. John

This is my opinion and experience as well, to most of what you said.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Ecumenical Patriarch only has authority within his own Patriarchate. Even then, he has to abide by the will of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I am not exactly sure which Bishops are members of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. In the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch all Metropolitans are members of the Holy Synod including Metropolitan Philip the head of our North American Antiochian Archdiocese. The Patriarch presides over the meetings, but must obey the will of the Holy Synod.
On an international level, the Ecumenical Patriarch can call meetings of the Primates of the autocephalous (independent self-governing) Churches or their representatives to deal with matters involving the whole Orthodox Church in a Pan-Orthodox Council. For example a Pan-Orthodox Council decided several years ago that in areas not under an autocephalous Church where there are several different Orthodox jurisdictions such as the United States must form Bishop Assemblies consisting of all canonical Orthodox Bishops in that region or nation to work together and formulate plans to unite all Orthodox in one jurisdiction. In America, we are under the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America. The Representative of the autocephalous Church with the highest rank presides over these Bishop’s Assemblies. For example, the Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese presides over the meetings of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America because he represents Constantinople. As next in seniority, the Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese, Metropolitan Philip, is the Vice Chairman, because Alexandria, which ranks next after Constantinople has no parishes in the United States. The Bishop’s assembly has several committees to deal with different issues. The committees are made up of Bishops, but each committee has a group of ordained and lay consultants who meet with the committee. I am a consultant to the Ecumenical Affairs Committee and a special consultant on Baptism and the reception of converts to the Pastoral Committee.
In case of a dispute between autocephalous Churches or a heresy that has to be dealt with on an international level, the Ecumenical Patriarchate can call a Pan-Orthodox meeting of the Patriarchs or their representatives to deal with the problem. I use the title Patriarchs for clarity. Not every Primate of an autoephalous Church has Patriarchal rank. For example, the Archbishop of Athens is the Primate of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece.
The Ecumenical Patriarch also coordinates international ecumenical activities by calling Pan-Orthodox meetings to discuss ecumenical activities such as our relations with the World Council of Churches. The International Eastern Orthodox Catholic Dialogue is done that way with the Orthodox delegation made up of representatives of the autocephalous Churches. In the United States ecumenical activities are coordinated by the Committee on Ecumenical Affairs of Bishop’s Assembly. At meetings of the World and National Councils of Churches the Eastern Orthodox caucus with the representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Antiochian Archdiocese withdrew from the National Council of Churches several years ago because it had become too involved in secular political issues, always on the liberal side. We are members of Christian Churches Together, as is the Catholic Church, which is not a member of the World or National Council of Churches. In Christian Churches Together, the Eastern Orthodox also caucus with the Oriental Orthodox.

Would I be correct in understanding that while the individual Patriarch cannot make doctrinal or disciplinary decision for another Patriarchate - the individual Patriarchs can, when gather together (say in a Council or other meeting of the like) can then make a decision to make a doctrinal or disciplinary decision in regards to a Patriarchate?

I RESPOND: No Patriarch can interfere in the internal affairs of another autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church. If two autocephalous Churches have a dispute, the Ecumenical Patriarch calls a Pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the problem. If there is a dispute within an autocephalous Church, both sides can appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the dispute. If a Patriarch has a dispute with his Holy Synod he can also appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch to convene a Pan-Orthodox meeting to deal with the problem. For example, several years ago the Holy Synod of Jerusalem removed their Patriarch for corruption. He appealed to Constantinople which convened a Pan-Orthodox meeting which heard both sides and decided to uphold the decision of the Holy Synod.
No Bishop or Pan-Orthodox Council can change the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If the doctrinal issue is local the local Bishop can deal with the issue, or it can be decided by the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. If the doctrinal issue is international the Ecumenical Patriarch calls a Pan-Orthodox Synod to deal with the problem.
No Patriarch can interfere in the internal affairs of another Patriarchate including the Ecumenical Patriarch. Usually the local Metropolitan deals with discipline of clergy within his jurisdiction. However, a Priest does have a right to appeal to the Patriarchate to call a spiritual court of the Patriarchate to hear his appeal.
I hope that this answers your questions.
Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

{Post shortened by me for space’s sake}
I hope that this answers your questions.
Fr. John

It does, thank you. Although it raises other questions but those are for another time or another thread.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

I had the same experience with the Greeks. I found the Russians to be much more open to non Russian converts, which was surprising to me, and to their credit.

I’ve had the opposite experience. The Russians here keep to themselves and aren’t very friendly. Part of this is due to language. The Greeks at the parish we converted in were VERY friendly. My children were accepted as their own (I was accepted to an extent…I wasn’t related to anyone and my nouna was not Greek, but an Anglo convert). Everyone’s experiences will be different.