N
Nine_Two
Guest
True, but to us being Orthodox is the same as being orthodox - we want every Christian to be in Communion with us, but we don’t necessarily want them all to be Russian or Greek culturally.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Perhaps you misunderstand what we mean by “the Catholic Church can do no wrong”. Specifically, that doesn’t change the fact that members of the Catholic Church can, and at times have, done wrong.
In some instances? Absolutely. But in general? No. (How many Orthodox are sorry *in general *that there are Orthodox parishes in Catholic territory?)
P
Peter_J
Guest
Certainly, but I don’t know what your point is. The Vatican doesn’t try to make all Catholics Italian. (Or should I have said Argentinian?
) Even in the Latin Church, Catholics have a very wide variety of cultures.(If anything, I would think you would criticize Rome for imposing the Roman Rite on nearly all Western Catholics, since the time of Trent. But I don’t want to tell you how to do your job.
)
N
Nine_Two
Guest
My point, and I agree I didn’t put it across well, is that it is the idea of all Christendom being under Rome that we object to, not necessarily the idea of everyone being Catholic.Certainly, but I don’t know what your point is. The Vatican doesn’t try to make all Catholics Italian. (Or should I have said Argentinian?
(If anything, I would think you would criticize Rome for imposing the Roman Rite on nearly all Western Catholics, since the time of Trent. But I don’t want to tell you how to do your job.
In other words, we want everyone to be Orthodox but we don’t want everyone under the Ecumenical Patriarch. In Catholicism the idea is that everyone be under the Pope.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Being Orthodox is not the same as being Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense. Being Orthodox is about keeping the true faith, not about specific Rites or being in communion with one specific see.
So yes, we want everyone to become Orthodox. But it is not what you think it is.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think it is the same, in a way.Being Orthodox is not the same as being Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense. Being Orthodox is about keeping the true faith, not about specific Rites or being in communion with one specific see.
So yes, we want everyone to become Orthodox. But it is not what you think it is.
Let me explain: if I asked what I had to do to become Orthodox, you’d say “Believe the true faith” right? We’d say the same to someone who wanted to become Catholic … but we believe that the true faith includes certain believe about “one specific see”.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But here’s the thing, when we become Catholic we have to come under the Pope. When you become Orthodox, you don’t have to come under any of our bishops. You do not have to adopt our Rites (well, you’re Melkite so you already do). You don’t even have to adopt our ecclesiology. I believe that the Roman Catholic ecclessiology is acceptable to the Orthodox provided that:
- It is not touted as something divinely instituted and dogmatic
- It is limited to the Roman Church and those bishops who choose to be under her
D
dvdjs
Guest
I have trouble making any sense of this whatsoever in the present context of the Greek Catholic Churches that were liquidated in the Soviet era.This assertion is flat out untrue.
I don’t even think this is a matter of mythologized perspectives.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
By the way, it was the Soviets running the ROC during the Soviet era, not true Orthodox Bishops.
Also, my point was, these lands were Orthodox long before there was such a thing as Greek
Catholics.
Can you name a place that was Roman Catholic before and was conquered by Orthodoxy via proselytism and/or military action?
D
dvdjs
Guest
And then they suddenly became “true” after the fall of the Soviet Union?
I thought I read something about the take-over of lands that were Orthodox. But even with this change, the situation is not so black and white - both at the level of “lands” and of the identity of the people themselves. When was the idea of a schism between the Latins and Byzantines fully consolidated within the Ukraine or within Hungarian lands?
Read Taft on Anamnesis not Amnesia. And if Greek Catholics are included there are many places to name.
P
Peter_J
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Not suddenly, but since they Soviets no longer control the Bishops then the Orthodox Christians are free once more to put worthy men into the Episcopate, and not those dictated by the Soviets. Saint Tikhon of Moscow called on the Russian synods abroad to form their own synods apart from the ROC synod because he knew at that time that the ROC synod was compromised.
If there was no schism, why the need for a union?
How can you include Greek Catholics when those lands were Orthodox territory originally. Now if you are saying that the Orthodox were overrunning Greek Catholic territory, sure. But note that those Greek Catholics were Orthodox once, so there is a valid claim that those territories are Orthodox, not Catholic.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
This is a distinction without meaning, because if one rejects the authority of a council, he also of necessity rejects that the council possessed the authority to expound upon the faith, and therefore rejects the faith of the Council. But even if we were to grant this distinction, there still exist plenty of examples throughout history of people having not only rejected the authority of a council, but having rejected its faith outright. The Conciliarists (who were instrumental in ending the Great Western Schism) in fact went into schism in the aftermath of Florence, refusing to accept any of its teachings on the supremacy of the papacy.
Then there were the Franks, who rejected not only the authority of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but its central teaching and tenet that it is proper and right to offer unto icons worship of veneration. They did not do so, as is commonly said in apology of their intransigence, out of ignorance of what the council taught, but rather what they affirmed in their own synods shows that they did not consider it proper to offer unto images the worship of veneration.
There were also the numerous sees of Northern Italy and Spain which refused to accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s teachings, on the grounds that they were a betrayal of the council of Chalcedon.
Makes for a nice story, but in reality, Christianity in both the East and the West has always operated along the lines of regional synods, which is why other patriarchs and archbishops of the East had delegations present, which acted independently from the small group of bishops (barely two dozen), who represented the synod of Constantinople. Some delegations, like the delegation of the Georgian Catholicos left without ever signing (the Georgians in fact never approved of Florence).
False. Upon returning home, those bishops who signed found themselves ostracized by the clergy who remained in Constantinople, to the point that they even refused to officiate with them. Furthermore, many returning bishops immediately repudiated the council. Bishop Anthony of Heraclea even recanted in a most dramatic fashion, claiming that he signed involuntarily, and that he should give himself up to judgment for betraying the faith. Even the Emperor, who was customarily commemorated in the petitions during the liturgy, had his name omitted in many churches throughout the city. The Union in fact, was only upheld by the emperor’s ability to confirm episcopal elections as sovereign of Constantinople.
The Three other Eastern Patriarchs (not personally present at the council), Dorotheos of Antioch, Philotheos of Alexandria, and Joachim of Jerusalem did not approve of the council, calling it among other things, the “lawless Council of Florence,” and even going so far as to declare in 1443 all of those ordained by the pro-union Patriarch Metrophanes of Constantinople were deprived of all ecclesiastical degrees and of any rights of officiating, for the reason that they had partaken in the pro-union heresy of Metrophanes, until their faith could be investigated by an ecumenical council (so much for the claim that pro-union patriarchs were never considered unorthodox, the three Patriarchs of the East would not even recognize any clergy ordained by the first such pro-union patriarch).
D
dvdjs
Guest
But they in fact let folks continue, through the fall, as their Hierarchy.
I’ll ask again: When was the idea of a schism between the Latins and Byzantines fully consolidated within the Ukraine or within Hungarian lands?
I don’t doubt that anyone who goes about overunning other people have some idea that their actions are justifiable. But making the claim does not mean the claim is valid. In fact it is a recipe for disaster. Am I personally vulnerable to a *valid * attack and forced conversion? Is is possible to get EOs to accept the Balamand statement that GCs have a right to freedom of conscience and GCCs have the right to exist.
Moreover, consider the liquidation of the the GCC in Czecho-Slovakia. What validity is there for claiming this as Orthodox territory?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It is an issue, but what are you expecting? Just depose every bishop on the grounds that they were there during the Soviet Era? The rest of Orthodoxy doesn’t think Russia is all roses and rainbows today, we know there are issues. But it is better than it was in the past. Besides, when will it ever be perfect? The Tsars had influence in the Church, the Turks have influence in the Church, the Byzantine Empire had influence in the Church. Why does this surprise us today?
When was it outside? Give me a definitive answer to this and I’ll give you a definitive answer to yours. Or you can figure out what my point is here.
I agree. I’m not saying it is right or justified, but the fact is you are crying foul that the Orthodox are taking stuff but you overlook the fact that stuff were taken from the Orthodox in the first place. Everyone has blood in their hands, don’t pretend to be the victim here. Both sides are victims and aggressors
I don’t have as much insight into the history of that land as Ukraine. In fact, I have zero. So I will not comment on this.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Their ancestors were – an important distinction, in the present context.
And as far as where it happened, “proselytism and/or military action” are “proselytism and/or military action” regardless of location, aren’t they?
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is only surprising when it is ignored.
I actually can’t. My point is that, whatever was going on in Moscow, or Constantinople, the situation in between was more murky, and consolidated probably less than a century before Brest.
Sorry, I don’t accept that. First, I don’t think in terms of sides, just in terms of my church and my people. What is the blood on our hands? And while I was not personally a victim, it is certainly the case that people, of living memory, in the old country were. No pretense about it.
Not sure exactly of the meaning, but the point is that there is essentially no basis for considering these as “Orthodox lands”
D
Defend_the_Keys
Guest
I’m sorry but I have to take issue with this comment. First off, there is no “territory” for the spreading of the Faith. Secondly, even if there were “territories,” the Greek Catholics of Ukraine and the Middle East would have MORE of a claim than the Orthodox since they have the legitimate lineage of the historic Patriarchs and Churches.
At the Union of Brest in 1596, the bishops of the Archeparchy of Kiev-Halych in unison, to include the legitimate Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych and the faithful, accepted reunion with Rome (Kiev of course being the capital or Rus’ at the time of Prince Vladimir’s conversion). With this in mind, it is difficult to still consider the kingdom of Rus’ an “Orthodox territory” when the Greek Catholics have the legitimate lineage going back to the original conversion of Prince Vladimir (which also occurred when there was no East/West schism). Later an Orthodox Patriarch of Kiev was created by Moscow and gained support by a minority of the faithful (which would later become a majority under persecution of Catholics under the Tsar and later Communist), but this does not negate the fact that the legitimate succession of the Kievian bishops belongs to the Greek Catholics and not the Orthodox.
Additionally, the legitimate lineage for the Byzantines of the See of Antioch also belongs to Greek Catholics. Originally all Christians of the Byzantine rite in the See of Antioch were called Melkite’s. When Cyril VI was legitimately elected Patriarch for the Melkites of the See of Antioch he was considered too sympathetic to Rome by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who then attempted to usurp him by elevating a deacon to bishop and imposing him as the rival Patriarch of Antioch. The faithful loyal to the Catholic Patriarch kept the historic name “Melkite” for Christians of the Byzantine rite. Thus, the Melkite Catholics are the legitimate heirs the seat of Antioch and not the Orthodox. (This also helps debunk the often used argument of Orthodox apologist that “Peter was in Antioch before Rome” to delegitimize the authority of the Pope. Aside from the fact that See’s were founded on the blood of the apostles, this argument has no weight b/c the CC is the legitimate heir to Antioch as well as Rome)
The “Orthodox Territory” argument does not hold up to the historical record.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually, the bishops were not unanimous and certainly sees did not join the union. It is important to note that whatever went into their decision, it was different than what happened in when the Czar or Commissar took control territories with Greek Catholics.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Of course there is. If you’re overrunning and converting fellow Christians, that is a problem.
- Status