Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Odd history.

Until recently, particularly in Eastern you would typically hear Greek Catholics use some circumlocution like pravovirnyj rather than pravoslavnyj - in fact you will hear that even today in liturgies insome areas of Eastern Europe, and the equivalent, in English, in some churches in the US.

I would be surprised if you were able to provide documentation for the claims that you make about the time of Brest: that the phrase OiCwR was used then (if so, when/why was it later abandoned), or that there was a meme that the Pope had “become” Orthodox. Moreover the Jesuits, at that time, were certainly not interested in the Union, but in conversion to the RCC in the Latin rite. (See Taft, archeparchy.ca/documents/Taft%20Anamnesis%20not%20Amnesia.pdf)

The Articles of Brest included the an article stipulating that the state move to prevent the the admission of new Orthodox bishops into the territory and the fracturing of the people into parallel Greek Catholic and Orthodox groups. While there was some action behind this at the outset of the union, the reality was that this article was quickly abandoned. In fact, not all of the Bishops accepted the union and the eparchies that did not remained in the Orthodox communion. Given the strife and statecraft of the time (cuius regio, eius religio), the the outcome should be considered remarkable for its diversity and lack of violence: the Orthodox church was never suppressed in Polish-Lithuania - a feature remarkably different from the occasions in which Orthodox conspired to suppress Greek Catholic churches in the area - even through recent times. .

I suggest that you read some secular histories of Russia on the matter of the Ukranian and Ruthenian Catholic Churchs. Try, Michael T. Florovsky’s Russia, A History and Interpretation, vol. 1, pp. 258-259. Look also at pp. 58-59 of Jesse D. Clarckson’s A History of Russia which states that the Polish king forced the Orthodox under his rule to leave the Orthodox Church and join the Eastern Catholics. I am not exactly sure where I got the quote from a peasant that the Pope had become Orthodox. I had an area in Russian history on my PhD and therefore read a lot of books on Russia history. I earned my PhD before I converted to Orthodoxy, so my information on this articular issue is untainted by my commitment to the Orthodox Church. It is a fact that the Polish and Habsburg monarchs used force to make Orthodox accept the Union of Brest of of 1596 and the Union of Uzgorod of 1646.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

If your Bishop is in Communion with Rome, he is not Orthodox. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church if a Bishop is in Communion with another Bishop that means that he shares a common doctrine with the other Bishop. If the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch is in Communion with Rome, from an Orthodox point of view that means that he agrees with all the doctrine taught by the Bishop of Rome including those doctrines such as papal infallibility that Orthodox reject.

Alright, but does Rome get to decide which doctrines need to be agreed on?

Therefore you cannot claim to adhere to Orthodox belief if you are in Communion with Rome. There real and significant doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. You cannot simply ignore them and pretend that they do not exist because they do and will not be resolved unless we deal with them honestly and resolve them.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I agree. But at the same time, I don’t think switching sides solves anything – excepting extreme cases (if I were in the Episcopal Church, I’m sure I would leave it).

 

[Peter_J]

I am not exactly sure where I got the quote from a peasant that the Pope had become Orthodox.

I’m willing to trust that that happened. I’ve been in multiple intra-EC conversations in which it was generally accepted as true.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, but does Rome get to decide which doctrines need to be agreed on?

According to RCC ecclesiology, doesn’t the Roman Pope have exactly this power? From the dogmatic constitution promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1964: And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore** they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.*** (emphasis added)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Alright, but does Rome get to decide which doctrines need to be agreed on?

I agree. But at the same time, I don’t think switching sides solves anything – excepting extreme cases (if I were in the Episcopal Church, I’m sure I would leave it).

According to Orthodox theology Communion means complete agreement on all doctrinal matters between the parties in Communion with each other. What you describe between the Melkites and Rome is really the Protestant concept of Intercommunion, which is sharing communion on the basis of a few common beliefs. We do not accept this Protestant practice. To us, there must be complete agreement on all doctrinal matters before we can be in Communion with any other group of Christians. That means that from an Orthodox point of view the Melkites agree with all Roman Catholic teachings. That was made clear by the Holy Synod of Antioch several years ago when the Melkites unilaterally declared themselves in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome. The Holy Synod of Antioch declared that since the Melkites wanted to remain in Communion with Rome, any Communion with them would only be possible as part of agreement of the entire Orthodox Church with Rome on all doctrines of the Church.
I did as you put it switch sides. I was an Episcopalian but could not remain after the Episcopal Church voted to ordain women in 1976. I was a delegate to the convention of the Diocese of Texas which voted in favor of women’s ordination. At that time, I was teaching history at a small university near Austin and was not trained in theology, so I did not really understand the theological issues involved. I did understand, however, that it is not right for a whole denomination to change its doctrine based on who can organize the best political campaign. The people who voted at the convention may have been successful in their businesses. They may even have been excellent in parish finance and building maintenance, but they were unqualified to make decisions on theological matters. Of course, after I graduated from an Orthodox seminary, I understood the serious deviation from historical Christian doctrine that the Episcopal Church had made by voting to ordain women. As it turned out I was right to leave, because woman’s ordination opened the door to radical feminist theology which brought the acceptance of homosexuality with it. Now the Episcopalians have openly practicing gay and lesbian clergy, including a gay and lesbian bishop. They also allow the blessing of so called same sex marriages.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Alright, but does Rome get to decide which doctrines need to be agreed on?

Alright, that’s a fair point. But then it’s equally fair to say that a lot of Melkite Catholics believe that he doesn’t.

 

[Peter_J]

According to Orthodox theology Communion means complete agreement on all doctrinal matters between the parties in Communion with each other. What you describe between the Melkites and Rome is really the Protestant concept of Intercommunion, which is sharing communion on the basis of a few common beliefs. We do not accept this Protestant practice. To us, there must be complete agreement on all doctrinal matters before we can be in Communion with any other group of Christians. That means that from an Orthodox point of view the Melkites agree with all Roman Catholic teachings.

^^ Not so. In the first millennium there was never agreement on everything; the question was always whether the disagreements were church-dividing.

That was made clear by the Holy Synod of Antioch several years ago when **the Melkites unilaterally declared themselves **in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch while remaining in Communion with Rome.

That’s an extreme [mis-]reading of the Zoghby Initiative. Our synod *proposed *dual communion, they didn’t say “We’re in full communion with you [AO] whether you like it or not.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Brother Peter j’s question was "does the Pope get to decide which doctrines to agree on?

The quote you give does not properly respond to that query.

The way it works is that the bishops first approach the Pope about a doctrine that is at issue in the Church beyond their local jurisdictions (i.e., that might affect the Church worldwide). Then and only then does the Pope get involved with a decision based on the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium and in communion with his brother bishops. The decision the Pope gives in response to to his brother bishops’ solicitude for the Church is the matter of the quote you give.

So the Pope by himself does not decide what doctrine to dogmatize. Rather, it is a collegial action that decides the matter.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

According to RCC ecclesiology, doesn’t the Roman Pope have exactly this power? From the dogmatic constitution promulgated by Pope Paul VI, 1964: And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable*, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore** they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.** (emphasis added)

 

[malphono]

Alright, that’s a fair point. But then it’s equally fair to say that a lot of Melkite Catholics believe that he doesn’t.

What? Now you think it’s only Melkites???

Yet it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.The situation on the (Roman) ground is that he does.

 

[mardukm]

What? Now you think it’s only Melkites???

 

[mardukm]

Yet it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.The situation on the (Roman) ground is that he does.

Well, it’s never happened that the Pope unilaterally decides what doctrine to dogmatize, So I’m not sure what the basis of this statement is.

Maybe you are thinking of some non-doctrinal matter?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Well, it’s never happened that the Pope unilaterally decides what doctrine to dogmatize, So I’m not sure what the basis of this statement is.

Maybe you are thinking of some non-doctrinal matter?

Whether it’s happened or not isn’t the point. Remember the “could the Pope throw out the Divine Liturgy” thread from a few years ago? That hasn’t happened either, but the theory is the same. Rome claims unto itself the power to do it. I’d actually suggest all the more so in the matter of doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Alright, that’s a fair point. But then it’s equally fair to say that a lot of Melkite Catholics believe that he doesn’t.

Well, and some other Greek Catholics. Not too many of the Oriental (in the sense of non-Byzantine) Catholics – or at least that the impression I’ve gotten.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Alright, that’s a fair point. But then it’s equally fair to say that a lot of Melkite Catholics believe that he doesn’t.

If they do not agree with Rome, why do they accept the authority of Rome? Rome certainly claims authority over the Melkite Patriarchate and all other Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Someone posted somewhere on this site quotes from the canon law governing the Eastern Catholics. The canons cited made it perfectly clear that the Pope has complete and supreme authority over the Eastern Catholics.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

Well, and some other Greek Catholics. Not too many of the Oriental (in the sense of non-Byzantine) Catholics – or at least that the impression I’ve gotten.

I admit we’re the minority, but still … you’d be surprised.

 

[frjohnmorris]

^^ Not so. In the first millennium there was never agreement on everything; the question was always whether the disagreements were church-dividing.

That’s an extreme [mis-]reading of the Zoghby Initiative. Our synod *proposed *dual communion, they didn’t say “We’re in full communion with you [AO] whether you like it or not.”

I remember the incident well.The Melkites did act unilaterally and without talking with us, issued a press release that implied that they were in Communion with us and with Rome. Our Holy Synod had an emergency meeting and told the Melkites that since they are in Communion with Rome the establishment of Communion with them would have to be part of a general agreement between all of Orthodoxy and Rome. As I remember it, Rome also was very upset by the Melkite announcement. At about that time, I happened to be in a city for the dialogue with the Lutherans and could not make it to an Orthodox Liturgy on Sunday, but could walk to a nearby Catholic Church that had a Melkite Liturgy on Sunday afternoon. The Priest was quite insistent that I concelebrate with him. The whole thing forced Metropolitan Philip to have a letter read from the altar of every parish informing the faithful that we are not in Communion with the Melkites.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Brother Peter j’s question was "does the Pope get to decide which doctrines to agree on?

The quote you give does not properly respond to that query.

The way it works is that the bishops first approach the Pope about a doctrine that is at issue in the Church beyond their local jurisdictions (i.e., that might affect the Church worldwide). Then and only then does the Pope get involved with a decision based on the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium and in communion with his brother bishops. The decision the Pope gives in response to to his brother bishops’ solicitude for the Church is the matter of the quote you give.

So the Pope by himself does not decide what doctrine to dogmatize. Rather, it is a collegial action that decides the matter.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

If that is the case, and decisions are made in a collegial fashion, why cannot the Pope simply reform the method to return to the time when Ecumenical Councils made decisions on doctrine? However, I am afraid that from what I have read and what people have written during these discussions, the Pope has the final say and a veto over the college of Bishops who can only advise the Pope not make the decision as the Ecumenical Councils did.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

I suggest that you read some secular histories of Russia on the matter of the Ukranian and Ruthenian Catholic Churchs. Try, Michael T. Florovsky’s Russia, A History and Interpretation, vol. 1, pp. 258-259. Look also at pp. 58-59 of Jesse D. Clarckson’s A History of Russia which states that the Polish king forced the Orthodox under his rule to leave the Orthodox Church and join the Eastern Catholics. I am not exactly sure where I got the quote from a peasant that the Pope had become Orthodox. I had an area in Russian history on my PhD and therefore read a lot of books on Russia history. I earned my PhD before I converted to Orthodoxy, so my information on this articular issue is untainted by my commitment to the Orthodox Church. It is a fact that the Polish and Habsburg monarchs used force to make Orthodox accept the Union of Brest of of 1596 and the Union of Uzgorod of 1646.

I am delighted to hear of your studies and the facts that your views are untainted by your religious views. But none of that rescues your mistaken account.

The application of force by the Polish king could mean anything. The fact, however, is that L’viv did not join in the union of Brest. Thus, the whatever force was applied was limited; the people of that areas were not forced to join the Eastern Catholics. The option to say no did in fact exist; the same cannot be said about forced re-integration with the Orthodox.

The idea of force in the union of Uzhhorod is risible. While the Hapsburgs were sympathetic, the local Lords were decidedly anti-union and had incarcerated the bishop of Mukachevo on three occasions to prevent the union.

I can imagine that some peasant some where in the region might have said that the Pope had become Orthodox. It is much harder to imagine that that statement was deemed meaningful or worth recording for history. Far more likely that this is just faux history.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I am delighted to hear of your studies and the facts that your views are untainted by your religious views. But none of that rescues your mistaken account.

The application of force by the Polish king could mean anything. The fact, however, is that L’viv did not join in the union of Brest. Thus, the whatever force was applied was limited; the people of that areas were not forced to join the Eastern Catholics. The option to say no did in fact exist; the same cannot be said about forced re-integration with the Orthodox.

The idea of force in the union of Uzhhorod is risible. While the Hapsburgs were sympathetic, the local Lords were decidedly anti-union and had incarcerated the bishop of Mukachevo on three occasions to prevent the union.

I can imagine that some peasant some where in the region might have said that the Po:shrug:had become Orthodox. It is much harder to imagine that that statement was deemed meaningful or worth recording for history. Far more likely that this is just faux history.

The sources that I have cited are well respected works written by secular historians. I really do not want to go into all the terrible details of the persecution of the Orthodox by the Kings of Poland and other supporters of the Union of Brest. I just brought up the matter because the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches is a very sore point for Eastern Orthodox. I really do not think it is fair to blame the Orthodox for the crimes of Stalin against the Ukrainian Catholics. The Orthodox Church was also suffering under Stalin and certainly had no influence over his decisions. Because of what Stalin did things really got ugly after the fall of Communism. I have no doubt that wrongs were committed on both sides. A peaceful resolution of this matter is one of the things that stands in the way of reconciliation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

The sources that I have cited are well respected works written by secular historians. I really do not want to go into all the terrible details of the persecution of the Orthodox by the Kings of Poland and other supporters of the Union of Brest. I just brought up the matter because the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches is a very sore point for Eastern Orthodox. I really do not think it is fair to blame the Orthodox for the crimes of Stalin against the Ukrainian Catholics. The Orthodox Church was also suffering under Stalin and certainly had no influence over his decisions. Because of what Stalin did things really got ugly after the fall of Communism. I have no doubt that wrongs were committed on both sides. A peaceful resolution of this matter is one of the things that stands in the way of reconciliation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome.

The comment that piqued my response was the idea that there some a deceptive attempt, advanced by the use of the Orthodox in communion with Rome label, to bring unwary Orthodox into the Catholic church. I suppose that that idea has been abandoned as you now assert that the real problem was not deception (even the idea of the Pope “becoming” Orthodox seems to have been dismissed), but force. However, I have not denied force in Brest; I stipulate to it already in my first post. (Your claim about Uzzhorod, however, is just plain wrong.)

The idea of it being a sore point, among Orthodox is a bit much. I have pointed out that the level of force was modest or the times, and in comparison to later suppression of the Greek Catholic Churches. In particular, at Brest there was a choice: not all eparchies joined the union. Moreover, in short order the Orthodox were legally allowed to set up parallel churches with the Polish-Lithuania. That was not the case in Communist times, or even in Czarist times; in some places it is not true even today. Things were ugly for over a century; after the fall of the Soviet Union things began to get better. There is no moral equivalence here at all. You really should read Taft, both saintelias.com/ca/theologic/anamnesis.php, and in Orthodox Constructions of the West.