Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Peter_J]

No. According to Orthodox theology full communion means that we agree on all doctrines. We have no provisions for what the Protestants call intercommunion. We only have full communion. We believe that communion is the result of agreement on doctrine, not as the Protestants do, a step towards unity. The best example of this that I can cite is the intercommunion between the Episcopalians and the United Methodists. They had concelebration between the Episcopal Bishop in Jackson, Mississippi and the Methodist Bishop. They used two chalices, one with wine for the Episcopalians and one with grape juice for the Methodists. That is not real communion, but a mockery of the concept of unity.

Fr. John

That’s a fine answer, but I think it misses the point vis-a-vis the post I was responding to:

The document is a step in the right direction, especially the statement: To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

**However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope. **

The point, if you will, is that you (and, based on my experience, many other Orthodox) have no problem saying that agreement on doctrine is necessary for full communion, yet seem to find it unthinkable that Rome would say that agreement on doctrine is necessary for full communion. Unless I misunderstood.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Thanks for the question, Father. The only canonical way to get rid of a bad Pope is to question his election. Bad popes got into office because secular powers had a great hand in papal elections during those days. On the other hand, it would be canonically easy in those days to contest the election of a bad Pope because of that same factor (since ancient canon law rejects the validity of acts unduly influenced by the secular power).

Nowadays, it is extremely difficult, probably impossible, for a bad Pope to get into office, given that his election involves a much more comprehensive body of electors than during the patristic or Middle Ages.

But on the assumption that a bad Pope gets into office…well, as there is no ancient Canon governing that exigency, except the issue of a valid election, and no valid Pope has ever been deposed in the Church, I suppose the Fathers of a reunion council will have to invent something - but do even the Fathers of an Ecum Council have the authority to invent a new canon without justification or model from what went before?

On a theoretical level, if a Pope were bad (doctrinally or morally), no one has any obligation to follow anything that Pope says or does that is contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. When he realizes no one is following him, he will most likely abdicate.

So the two ways that one can get rid of a bad Pope:
(1) question his election;
(2) have the Church (especially his brother bishops) compel him to abdicate.

The first step, of course, would be for his brother bishops to offer correction to the Pope. If the bad Pope does not accept correction, then they should (imo) take actions that would compel him to abdicate.

Humbly,
Marduk

That is why I personally cannot accept the papacy, because he is not answerable to any higher authority than himself. I know enough of the history of the papacy to know that there have been bad popes. Alexander VI, for example or Leo X who said, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod can remove a bad Patriarch. As Lord Acton said after the declaration of papal infallibility at the 1st Vatican Council, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In the United States, all Bishops are appointed by Rome. The clergy and Faithful have no real imput into the decision on who becomes their Bishop. In our Archdiocese, the clergy and Faithful meeting in an Archdiocesan Convention nominate a list of three men from a list of every man who meets the requirements for election. The Local Synod chooses one of those men to be a local Bishop. In the case of the Metropolitan, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate elects the Metropolitan, but at least the clergy and Faithful have some influence on the decision.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Think about that one, Peter. Dangerous territory? If you ask me (and you didn’t so you can flip me off if you want) it sounds like a sell-out to the ultramontanist victory at Vatican I. (And yes, I know brother mardukm is going to jump down my throat for that, but never mind.)

Nah! I’m not reactionary. I know full well that the misconceptions of V1 is a powerful force that needs to be dealt with. The best way to get rid of the Absolutist Petrine element in the Church is by refuting their misinterpretations of V1 (and V2, for that matter).

I think the Church has done a great job already -
(1) The decrees of V2 on collegiality. The problem here is that Absolutist Petrine advocates still manage to corrupt the teaching of V2 to support their peculiar ideas.
(2) the past excommunication of SSPX. The problem here is the great majority of Catholics think that the only issue with the SSPX is the matter of the Liturgy. Not too many are aware that the real issue behind the past excommunications were the Absolutist Petrine/NEO-ultramontanist aberrations of Abp. Lefebvre and his group.
(3) HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory himself asserted that he does not have the authority to impede the local jurisdiction of bishops.

But some more clarification on an official level is obviously still needed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That is why I personally cannot accept the papacy, because he is not answerable to any higher authority than himself.

That does not really address the issue I brought up – namely:
“as there is no ancient Canon governing that exigency, except the issue of a valid election, and no valid Pope has ever been deposed in the Church, I suppose the Fathers of a reunion council will have to invent something - but do even the Fathers of an Ecum Council have the authority to invent a new canon without justification or model from what went before?”
If you feel an Ecum Council has the authority to create something new without precedent from Sacred Tradition, then suggest it to the Orthodox-Catholic commission.

the Holy Synod can remove a bad Patriarch.

I understand that, but that is not exactly the patristic standard. Only an Ecumenical Council should be able to do that. The idea that a Synod can remove its Patriarch and that’s that is not patristic. In the early Church, a Patriarch could appeal to the Pope of Rome. Not so today in the Orthodox Churches. So I think one needs to be cautious about claims of “being more faithful to the practice of the early Church Fathers.” There has been development in all Churches.

As Lord Acton said after the declaration of papal infallibility at the 1st Vatican Council, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Doesn’t one need to prove that the Pope has absolute power to begin with in order for this to apply? I have yet to see a single historical example from either Absolutist Petrine advocates or "non-"Catholics that demonstrates the Pope has ever possessed or exercised such “absolute power,” even in the Latin Church.

In the United States, all Bishops are appointed by Rome. The clergy and Faithful have no real imput into the decision on who becomes their Bishop. In our Archdiocese, the clergy and Faithful meeting in an Archdiocesan Convention nominate a list of three men from a list of every man who meets the requirements for election. The Local Synod chooses one of those men to be a local Bishop. In the case of the Metropolitan, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate elects the Metropolitan, but at least the clergy and Faithful have some influence on the decision.

Do you think it is appropriate to impose your ecclesiological standard on the Latin Church? As mentioned to brother Misplaced Book, making all bishops under a Metropolitan auxiliary bishops in relation to him is a much greater act of absolutism than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Latin Church (much less the Church as a whole). Let the Latin Church run itself as it wishes to.

In any case, I think you might have a slight misconception about how the Catholic Church selects its bishops. In the Latin Church, the Episcopal Conference nominates three candidates, and the Pope chooses one of them. The Pope also has the prerogative to choose one who was not among the three, but that very rarely happens. After the Pope chooses, the bishop is consecrated according to Tradition, and the Pope confirms.

In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the process is a bit more complicated. The Synod selects three candidates according to the rules of its Particular Church (I suspect the Melkites have similar rules as your Church does). The Pope then nominates one of the three candidates or nominates one of his own choosing. If the Synod disagrees with the Pope’s nomination (not from the three candidates), the Synod has the prerogative to challenge, and the selection process starts anew. Once everyone is agreed on a candidate, the bishop is consecrated according to Tradition, and the Metropolitan or Patrarch confirms.

The process in the Latin Catholic Church is properly called appointment, but that would be an inaccurate term in reference to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (even in the United States) - in the ECC/OCC, papal involvement is more aptly called a nomination, instead of “appointment.”

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Nah! I’m not reactionary. I know full well that the misconceptions of V1 is a powerful force that needs to be dealt with. The best way to get rid of the Absolutist Petrine element in the Church is by refuting their misinterpretations of V1 (and V2, for that matter).

I think the Church has done a great job already -
(1) The decrees of V2 on collegiality. The problem here is that Absolutist Petrine advocates still manage to corrupt the teaching of V2 to support their peculiar ideas.
(2) the past excommunication of SSPX. The problem here is the great majority of Catholics think that the only issue with the SSPX is the matter of the Liturgy. Not too many are aware that the real issue behind the past excommunications were the Absolutist Petrine/NEO-ultramontanist aberrations of Abp. Lefebvre and his group.
(3) HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory himself asserted that he does not have the authority to impede the local jurisdiction of bishops.

But some more clarification on an official level is obviously still needed.

This can be debated or argued here and elsewhere until the cows come home, but NOTHING will change until there is a formal, official de jure (“magesterial” if you will) clarification of Vatican I and all that it entails.

#3 is actually somewhat amusing. Sure they can. They can name a co-adjutor. They can simply suppress the diocese. They can simply make life so miserable that the bishop in question resigns. The first two of those are admittedly rare, but the last one isn’t all that uncommon, even if it doesn’t happen regularly. It’s the nature of the hierarchical beast. Think of it in corporate terms: doesn’t the Chairman of the Board usually get what he wants?

 

[mardukm]

The Local Synod chooses one of those men to be a local Bishop. In the case of the Metropolitan, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate elects the Metropolitan, but at least the clergy and Faithful have some influence on the decision

Btw, Fr. John, as far as the Catholic Church, one needs to distinguish between a sui juris Metropolitan Church, and a Metropolitan Church under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch.

The Patrirach of a sui juris Metropolitan Church is the Pope of Rome (even though it might be of a different Rite than the Latin), so please do not think there is something strange about the Pope’s involvement in the election of its Metropolitan.

The differences between the selection process for the Metropolitan in the two types of Metropolitan Churches is this:
(1) For a sui juris Metropolia within Latin territorial jurisdiction, the Metropolitan is chosen by the Pope from the list of three candidates given by the Synod. There is no other choice for the Pope to make. The Metropolitan is then consecrated and enthroned by the Synod and then requests communion from the bishop of Rome.
(2) For a Metropolia under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch that is within Latin territorial jurisdiction, the Metropolitan is also chosen by the Pope from the list of three candidates given by the Synod. There is no other choice for the Pope to make (i.e., the Pope does not have the prerogative in this instance to choose another that is not among the three candidates chosen by the Synod). The Metropolitan is then consecrated by the Synod, confirmed by his Patriarch, and then enthroned by the Patriarch.
(3) For a Metropolia under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch within the traditional Patriarchal territory, the process is the same as in the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
NOTE: There is no such thing as a sui juris Metropolia within the traditional Patriarchal territories of the Oriental and Eastern Catholic Churches. All Metropolias within such terriotires are under the omophor of the Oriental or Eastern Patriarch.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This can be debated or argued here and elsewhere until the cows come home, but NOTHING will change until there is a formal, official de jure (“magesterial” if you will) clarification of Vatican I and all that it entails.

Agreed (but just because the Absolutist Petrine neo-ultramonstanists, both in the CC and the SSPX are so persistent).

#3 is actually somewhat amusing. Sure they can. They can name a co-adjutor.

A co-adjutor bishop cannot impede the authority of the local bishop. He is only an auxiliary bishop who has the right of succession.

They can simply suppress the diocese.

Not on their mere say-so. It has to be according to just standards. One of the most ancient canon laws states that a diocese can only be formed if there are enough Christians in the region to merit it. Sometimes, an area can lose its populace for a variety of reasons. In such instances, the Pope, according to that ancient canon law, will suppress a diocese and join it with another. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and the clergy have been dispersed by persecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, or vicariates Apostolic.”

They can simply make life so miserable that the bishop in question resigns.

That’s possible, but wouldn’t the use of such a tactic demonstrate that the Pope does not have the (at least) direct authority to impede the authority of the local bishop?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

A co-adjutor bishop cannot impede the authority of the local bishop. He is only an auxiliary bishop who has the right of succession.

Depends, really, on how he’s charged. IIRC there was at least one case where a co-adjutor was named with something of a “veto power” over the incumbent bishop. Rome can always declare that the incumbent is “non compis mentis” or in some other way “impaired” from carrying out his office.

Not on their mere say-so. It has to be according to just standards. One of the most ancient canon laws states that a diocese can only be formed if there are enough Christians in the region to merit it. Sometimes, an area can lose its populace for a variety of reasons. In such instances, the Pope, according to that ancient canon law, will suppress a diocese and join it with another. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and the clergy have been dispersed by persecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, or vicariates Apostolic.”

Yes, but Rome can and does split diocese at will. And if such can be split, they can be joined.

That’s possible, but wouldn’t the use of such a tactic demonstrate that the Pope does not have the (at least) direct authority to impede the authority of the local bishop?

 

[spina1953]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

That does not really address the issue I brought up – namely:
“as there is no ancient Canon governing that exigency, except the issue of a valid election, and no valid Pope has ever been deposed in the Church, I suppose the Fathers of a reunion council will have to invent something - but do even the Fathers of an Ecum Council have the authority to invent a new canon without justification or model from what went before?”
If you feel an Ecum Council has the authority to create something new without precedent from Sacred Tradition, then suggest it to the Orthodox-Catholic commission.

I understand that, but that is not exactly the patristic standard. Only an Ecumenical Council should be able to do that. The idea that a Synod can remove its Patriarch and that’s that is not patristic. In the early Church, a Patriarch could appeal to the Pope of Rome. Not so today in the Orthodox Churches. So I think one needs to be cautious about claims of “being more faithful to the practice of the early Church Fathers.” There has been development in all Churches.

Doesn’t one need to prove that the Pope has absolute power to begin with in order for this to apply? I have yet to see a single historical example from either Absolutist Petrine advocates or "non-"Catholics that demonstrates the Pope has ever possessed or exercised such “absolute power,” even in the Latin Church.

Do you think it is appropriate to impose your ecclesiological standard on the Latin Church? As mentioned to brother Misplaced Book, making all bishops under a Metropolitan auxiliary bishops in relation to him is a much greater act of absolutism than anything the Pope of Rome has ever done in the Latin Church (much less the Church as a whole). Let the Latin Church run itself as it wishes to.

In any case, I think you might have a slight misconception about how the Catholic Church selects its bishops. In the Latin Church, the Episcopal Conference nominates three candidates, and the Pope chooses one of them. The Pope also has the prerogative to choose one who was not among the three, but that very rarely happens. After the Pope chooses, the bishop is consecrated according to Tradition, and the Pope confirms.

In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the process is a bit more complicated. The Synod selects three candidates according to the rules of its Particular Church (I suspect the Melkites have similar rules as your Church does). The Pope then nominates one of the three candidates or nominates one of his own choosing. If the Synod disagrees with the Pope’s nomination (not from the three candidates), the Synod has the prerogative to challenge, and the selection process starts anew. Once everyone is agreed on a candidate, the bishop is consecrated according to Tradition, and the Metropolitan or Patrarch confirms.

The process in the Latin Catholic Church is properly called appointment, but that would be an inaccurate term in reference to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (even in the United States) - in the ECC/OCC, papal involvement is more aptly called a nomination, instead of “appointment.”

Humbly,
Marduk

Agreed! It makes sense to me. I think that if for some reason there was a bad Pope as there have been in the past, it is my thinking that somehow he would be removed in some manor. Just as a bad Bishop is sometimes removed or bad priest are often removed. while it might be harder to do with the Pope, it could be done. this is only my opinion.

 

[spina1953]

Btw, Fr. John, as far as the Catholic Church, one needs to distinguish between a sui juris Metropolitan Church, and a Metropolitan Church under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch.

The Patrirach of a sui juris Metropolitan Church is the Pope of Rome (even though it might be of a different Rite than the Latin), so please do not think there is something strange about the Pope’s involvement in the election of its Metropolitan.

The differences between the selection process for the Metropolitan in the two types of Metropolitan Churches is this:
(1) For a sui juris Metropolia within Latin territorial jurisdiction, the Metropolitan is chosen by the Pope from the list of three candidates given by the Synod. There is no other choice for the Pope to make. The Metropolitan is then consecrated and enthroned by the Synod and then requests communion from the bishop of Rome.
(2) For a Metropolia under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch that is within Latin territorial jurisdiction, the Metropolitan is also chosen by the Pope from the list of three candidates given by the Synod. There is no other choice for the Pope to make (i.e., the Pope does not have the prerogative in this instance to choose another that is not among the three candidates chosen by the Synod). The Metropolitan is then consecrated by the Synod, confirmed by his Patriarch, and then enthroned by the Patriarch.
(3) For a Metropolia under the omophor of an Oriental or Eastern Patriarch within the traditional Patriarchal territory, the process is the same as in the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
NOTE: There is no such thing as a sui juris Metropolia within the traditional Patriarchal territories of the Oriental and Eastern Catholic Churches. All Metropolias within such terriotires are under the omophor of the Oriental or Eastern Patriarch.

Humbly,
Marduk

If and when one is chosen, the one chosen come from Rome or does he come from the area from which he will reside? Also, does he understand the culture, traditions and language etc. of the Church in which he will reside over?

 

[dvdjs]

Fr. Taft’s article was very interesting. I do have a few comments.

I note that you jump ahead from the time of Brest to the last century. We have made some progress here. Before joining you with later history, I want to re-emphasize that the notion put forth earlier, that the RCs and Jesuits were seeking by trickery to set up set up Greek Catholic churches, is forcefully dispelled by Taft.

I do not think that it is fair to blame the Russian Orthodox Church for the forced union of the Eastern Catholics with Orthodoxy under Stalin. The Russian Orthodox were hardly in a position to resist Stalin. The truth is that the both sides have been wrong during the conflict between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox since the fall of Communism. Neither side has acted in a Christian way.

To a point that seems fair, but:

• However one might want to excuse the behavior under the terror of the communists, it should be understood that method was already established under the Czar, who liquidated GCCs in every territorty that he conquered. Only with the late Romanovs, was there finally some choice: Orthodox or RC Latin rite. How magnanimous!
• Orthodox were complicit in these liquidations both under the Czar and the Communists. In my own ancestral village, a party official and an Orthodox cleric came to the local GC priest with papers to sign under the explicit threat of violence.
• The attitude cannot be excused because of the terror of the communists because, it has not changed since the fall of Communism. Orthodox who conspired with the Communists remained in power after the fall of communism in Russia. Those who conspired against the GCCs remained in place. There was no samokrita, no metanoia. The current leadership, brazenly still insist on the canonical validity of the synod of L’viv and the ostensible synod of Uzzhorod. Breathtaking. Even today, among Orthodox there is far, far more cheering than concern about the lack of religious freedom in Russia.

It is my understanding that after the end of Communism the Russian Church proposed letting each parish decide whether to remain Orthodox or to rejoin the Eastern Catholics, but that the Eastern Catholics rejected this proposal and demanded back their old buildings. This led to some law suites and violent clashes. In Slovakia the Orthodox were thrown out of their buildings which were given to the Eastern Catholics.

Fascinating. The property was really just stolen from the GCCs. The idea that something less than complete restitution is in order is an affront to the simplest sense of justice. Actually the situation in Slovakia was handled very smoothly, with Orthodox parishes remaining in those areas that had a history of that affiliation from just before the communists. In my ancestral village the situation was different - there was not adherence to Orthodoxy. The priest did sign papers under duress, but that was all that was changed - he continued the liturgy just as before, including commemorations of Papa Rimska. Note that throughout all of these time - czar to commisar - Greek Catholics were received en masse with no re-baptism, renunciations, or anything; I think of this when I hear bloviating on Orthodox recognition of Catholic baptism.

Problems in Romania have certainly not been one sided. George Gutiu the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cluj-Gherla rejected the Balamand Statement as a betrayal of the Eastern Catholics who he claimed had liberated the Romanian people from “the darkness of domination by the Orthodox Greco-Bulgarian Church.” A friend of mine once visited Romania. During the Divine Liturgy, Romanian Catholics came into the Church to harass the Orthodox and threatening them with knives.

The Romanian situation remains tense. There has been little progress in righting the wrongs of the past, and a great deal of maneuvering to prevent the legal system from taking its rightful course. This does not excuse the threat of violence. But this lack of progress is a violence in itself. This has to be recognized,

 

[dvdjs]

In the United States many parishes of the Orthodox Church in America and the Carpatho Russian Archdiocese under Constantinople began as Eastern Catholic communities, who came to us and asked to become Orthodox. They did this because of the hostility of the local Latin Bishops like Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota who was very hostile when Fr. Alexi Toth a Eastern Catholic Priest arrived in St. Paul and came to see him. The decision of Rome not to allow the American Eastern Catholics to have married Priests as they do in their homeland played a major role in their decision to become Orthodox. The point is they freely came to us, we did not go to them and pressure them to become Orthodox.

I am not sure what, if anything, this has to do with the conversation. But…

The Minneapolis parish did actively seek entry into the Orthodox Church. They “freely came” to you. The rest of the Fr. Toth’s mission was much more complex. He was well-funded by the Czar to bring GCs to Orthodoxy. The interests of the Russian state had more to do with the impacts back in Eastern Europe with the currents of Pan-Slavism and Russian Messianism in teh imminent conflict with Austria-Hungary. There was an active missionary program to bring GCs to Orthodoxy.

Not a single other priest joined Fr. Toth (three dallied for a bit, but then went back to the GCC - among them Fr. Toth’s brother). Missionary activity happened at the parishioner level; ultimately it had much to do with money and property - who owned the parish property? There was much litigation and some violence, as people were afraid that their contributions to the church would be under control of a local ordinary who was not of their own flesh and blood.

The creation of the Carpatho-Russian diocese - much opposed by the pre-OCA Metropolia, but what is another jurisdiction among friends - was more fixed on the celibacy issue: by that time we had a GC ordinary was enjoineded, albeit temporarily, to stop ordaining married men as priests. There was also unsettled business about the interplay of people and clergy from different old country eparchies. When things aren’t working out, they always get political. Another round of litigation and violence as those who wanted to leave the GCC, expected to hold the property and eject those faithful to the GCC. (See, eg, Historical Mirror Greek Rite Catholics 1884-1963, Fr. John Slivka).
Overall, these issues are messy.

 

[dvdjs]

I think that Fr. Taft’s mention of the Western Rite Orthodox is unfair in this context. The Western Rite parishes under Antioch in the U.S. consist of people who came to us from various Anglican and Old Catholic groups. None of them, as far as I know, came to us from the Roman Catholic Church. They asked if they could become Orthodox and retain their Western liturgical traditions. Based on a request from St. Tikhon who was the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan in the United States in about 1900, the Holy Synod of Russia did a detailed study of the American Book of Common Prayer and indicated what changes had to be made to conform to Orthodox theology. In about 1962 when a group of Old Catholics came to Metropolitan Anthony of the Antiochian Archdiocese, the Holy Synod of Antioch referred to the Russian study and approved the Western Rite. They now use the Anglican Liturgy and the pre-Vatican II Roman Mass both with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology. Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite parishes are clearly labeled as Orthodox and no effort is made to claim to be Catholics in Communion with Antioch. I do not understand why Catholics should be offended if Anglicans convert to Orthodoxy and retain their Western liturgical customs. Today about 10% of the parishes of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America are Western Rite. We had a Western Rite Vespers at our Archdiocesan Convention in Houston in July.

So the question comes full circle: What is it, exactly about the GCs that is objectionable? And add to thathow is it different, or the same, as in the Western Rite?

If one accepts the polemical faux history of people being forced and tricked into membership in the GCC, then there is a big difference. But really, one should rather just put aside all of that nonsense. There is a difference that the development of Western Rite parishes seems to be relatively free of the the political and legal overtones that plagues the Orthodox/GC interactions. That is a consequence of the history, but that aspect also has a flip side that I think is Fr. Taft’s point.

The GCs are organic. They are a continuation of churches that once existed in full communion with both Rome and the Eastern patriarchates. And held that communion, in many cases, for a lengthy period - far more that the relatively short period in which they had to make a choice. There was a continuity of practice, even as it slowly over time may have incorporated some Western elements. And the connection of Rome to Eastern practice had a long history. The WR, by contrast, is wholly inorganic. Its rites were immediately adulterated; some adherents seek to resurrect rites long in disuse; there has been no tradition of WR practice in Orthodox churches for a millenium. And what is its theological tradition? It is, at least now, more a construct, which indeed people may choose to engage, than a living body.

 

[spina1953]

Sorry Peter J for for addressing you as Father, I was speaking in general terms concerning the posts I’ve been reading in this forum. Your arguments are good one’s and in general I agree with your arguments and thoughts.

 

[Peter_J]

As Harry Potter said, There’s no need to call me “sir”, Professor.

 

[frjohnmorris]

So the question comes full circle: What is it, exactly about the GCs that is objectionable? And add to thathow is it different, or the same, as in the Western Rite?

If one accepts the polemical faux history of people being forced and tricked into membership in the GCC, then there is a big difference. But really, one should rather just put aside all of that nonsense. There is a difference that the development of Western Rite parishes seems to be relatively free of the the political and legal overtones that plagues the Orthodox/GC interactions. That is a consequence of the history, but that aspect also has a flip side that I think is Fr. Taft’s point.

The GCs are organic. They are a continuation of churches that once existed in full communion with both Rome and the Eastern patriarchates. And held that communion, in many cases, for a lengthy period - far more that the relatively short period in which they had to make a choice. There was a continuity of practice, even as it slowly over time may have incorporated some Western elements. And the connection of Rome to Eastern practice had a long history. The WR, by contrast, is wholly inorganic. Its rites were immediately adulterated; some adherents seek to resurrect rites long in disuse; there has been no tradition of WR practice in Orthodox churches for a millenium. And what is its theological tradition? It is, at least now, more a construct, which indeed people may choose to engage, than a living body.

It is an undeniable historic fact that King Sigismund III forced the Orthodox under his control to accept the papal authority. There is no controversy over this question among historians.
“The Polish king Sigismund III Vasa was heavily influenced by the ideals of the Counter-Reformation and wanted to increase the Catholic presence in Ukraine. Meanwhile the clergy of the Ruthenian lands were ruled from distant Constantinople, and much of the population showed loyalty to Orthodoxy rather than the Catholic monarch. Persecution of the Orthodox population grew, and under pressure of Polish authorities the clergy of the Ruthenian Church agreed by the Union of Brest in 1595 to break from the Patriarch of Constantinopole and unite with the Catholic Church under the sponsorship of the ruler of the Commonwealth, Sigismund III Vasa, in response for ending the persecution.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church

“On December 15th, 1596, King Sigismund III of Poland issued an edict, on the basis of which the faithful were forbidden to adhere to any bishop who had incurred the anathema of the Uniate Council of Brest.” russian-inok.org/page.php?page=english2&dir=english&month=1202

Orthodox livine in Galatia, an area of the Ukraine given to the Habsburgs during the partitions of Poland were forced to accept the union with Rome in 1875. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest

The Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite is a legitimate reunion with the Orthodox Church of Western Christians whose ancestors once were Orthodox. Their Liturgies were not adulterated, they were corrected to bring them into conformity with Orthodox doctrine. They came to us and asked to become Orthodox while retaining their Western liturgical traditions. As far as I know, all of the Western Rite communities in our Archdiocese come from Anglican or Old Catholic backgrounds. None of them come from the Roman Catholic Church. No force or deception was used.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

It is an undeniable historic fact that King Sigismund III forced the Orthodox under his control to accept the papal authority. There is no controversy over this question among historians.

“The Polish king Sigismund III Vasa was heavily influenced by the ideals of the Counter-Reformation and wanted to increase the Catholic presence in Ukraine. Meanwhile the clergy of the Ruthenian lands were ruled from distant Constantinople, and much of the population showed loyalty to Orthodoxy rather than the Catholic monarch. Persecution of the Orthodox population grew, and under pressure of Polish authorities the clergy of the Ruthenian Church agreed by the Union of Brest in 1595 to break from the Patriarch of Constantinopole and unite with the Catholic Church under the sponsorship of the ruler of the Commonwealth, Sigismund III Vasa, in response for ending the persecution.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church

“On December 15th, 1596, King Sigismund III of Poland issued an edict, on the basis of which the faithful were forbidden to adhere to any bishop who had incurred the anathema of the Uniate Council of Brest.” russian-inok.org/page.php?page=english2&dir=english&month=1202

Orthodox livine in Galatia, an area of the Ukraine given to the Habsburgs during the partitions of Poland were forced to accept the union with Rome in 1875. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest

The Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite is a legitimate reunion with the Orthodox Church of Western Christians whose ancestors once were Orthodox. Their Liturgies were not adulterated, they were corrected to bring them into conformity with Orthodox doctrine. They came to us and asked to become Orthodox while retaining their Western liturgical traditions. As far as I know, all of the Western Rite communities in our Archdiocese come from Anglican or Old Catholic backgrounds. None of them come from the Roman Catholic Church. No force or deception was used.

Fr. John

 

[malphono]

The WR, by contrast, is wholly inorganic. Its rites were immediately adulterated; some adherents seek to resurrect rites long in disuse; there has been no tradition of WR practice in Orthodox churches for a millenium. And what is its theological tradition? It is, at least now, more a construct, which indeed people may choose to engage, than a living body.

The Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite is a legitimate reunion with the Orthodox Church of Western Christians whose ancestors once were Orthodox. Their Liturgies were not adulterated, they were corrected to bring them into conformity with Orthodox doctrine. They came to us and asked to become Orthodox while retaining their Western liturgical traditions. As far as I know, all of the Western Rite communities in our Archdiocese come from Anglican or Old Catholic backgrounds. None of them come from the Roman Catholic Church. No force or deception was used.

Very interesting rationalization, but I have to agree with the dvdjs. And I have to take issue with the “deception” and “adulteration” disclaimers in particular.

A few years back (prior to Summorum Pontificum) there were adverts in the local paper about a fledgling community offering the “Traditional Latin Mass” … under an Orthodox banner (I don’t recall if it was the AOC group or the ROCOR group, but it really doesn’t matter) in micro print. I was curious, and it took quite some time playing with google to find out what was what. Not deceptive, eh?

As for adulteration, the point really is that prior to 1054, there was no question of the orthodoxy of the Roman Canon. Yet both EO groups hosting “Western Rite Vicariates” have inserted an artificial, Byzantine-style, Epiklesis. So yes, there has been adulteration.

In the end, coming right down to it, there is little difference between the so-called “Unia” and the WRO. Same program, different channel.

 

[malphono]

Very interesting rationalization, but I have to agree with the dvdjs. And I have to take issue with the “deception” and “adulteration” disclaimers in particular.

A few years back (prior to Summorum Pontificum) there were adverts in the local paper about a fledgling community offering the “Traditional Latin Mass” … under an Orthodox banner (I don’t recall if it was the AOC group or the ROCOR group, but it really doesn’t matter) in mico print. I was curious, and it took quite some time playing with google to find out what was what. Not deceptive, eh?

As for adulteration, the point really is that prior to 1054, there was no question of the orthodoxy of the Roman Canon. Yet both EO groups hosting “Western Rite Vicariates” have inserted an artificial Byzantine-style Epiklesis. So yes, there has been adulteration.

In the end, coming right down to it, there is little difference between the so-called “Unia” and the WRO. Same program, different channel.

 

[dvdjs]

It is an undeniable historic fact that King Sigismund III forced the Orthodox under his control to accept the papal authority. There is no controversy over this question among historians.
“The Polish king Sigismund III Vasa was heavily influenced by the ideals of the Counter-Reformation and wanted to increase the Catholic presence in Ukraine. Meanwhile the clergy of the Ruthenian lands were ruled from distant Constantinople, and much of the population showed loyalty to Orthodoxy rather than the Catholic monarch. Persecution of the Orthodox population grew, and under pressure of Polish authorities the clergy of the Ruthenian Church agreed by the Union of Brest in 1595 to break from the Patriarch of Constantinopole and unite with the Catholic Church under the sponsorship of the ruler of the Commonwealth, Sigismund III Vasa, in response for ending the persecution.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church

There has been no question on this thread that pressure was applied to bring Christians under his authority into the Catholic church. What was questioned first is the idea that this effort involved the trickery of a selling the idea of “Orthodox in Union with Rome” or the the Pope had “become Orthodox”. The Latins wanted the bring the Orthodox in as Latins, period. The idea of holding to Byzantine traditions was proclaiming union with Rome was the idea not of the king, the Jesuits, the pope, the local latins, but of the Ruthenian bishops. This is a key point of Taft.

Second, the idea that "King Sigismund III forced the Orthodox under his control to accept the papal authority: needs some qualification. Whatever force was involved, there was an option to opt out. Two of seven bishops did. Was there every any time in Polish-Lithuania that the Orthodox churches and hierarchy did not exist?

Finally, I would about the idea of loyalty to the EP. The EP had big problems; the key contact with the faithful was to extract money to pay tribute to the Sultan. Little by way of moral support. Many were weary of this situation (and were wary of whatever was going to emerge from Moscow). The EP of course had established paid “brotherhoods” to protect his interests against local bishops who were more connected to the interests of their flocks. And of course, none of this has anything to do with Uzzhorod, where the political pressures were flipped.

“On December 15th, 1596, King Sigismund III of Poland issued an edict, on the basis of which the faithful were forbidden to adhere to any bishop who had incurred the anathema of the Uniate Council of Brest.” russian-inok.org/page.php?page=english2&dir=english&month=1202

I already alluded this in an earlier post. You will recall that this act was specifically requested by in the treaty of Brest. And that it, in very short order was rescinded: it was the element of the treaty that was reneged upon.

Orthodox livine in Galatia, an area of the Ukraine given to the Habsburgs during the partitions of Poland were forced to accept the union with Rome in 1875. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest

1875???

The Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite is a legitimate reunion with the Orthodox Church of Western Christians whose ancestors once were Orthodox.

Ancestors were Orthodox?

Their Liturgies were not adulterated, they were corrected to bring them into conformity with Orthodox doctrine.

I think that that is a major point of Taft. Alterations were made that were needless in light of the historical use of those liturgies, just enforce conformity - rank Byanztination.

They came to us and asked to become Orthodox while retaining their Western liturgical traditions. As far as I know, all of the Western Rite communities in our Archdiocese come from Anglican or Old Catholic backgrounds. None of them come from the Roman Catholic Church. No force or deception was used.

I already stated that the issue of force and deception is not at play in the WR - hard to imagine it in this past century in the US - even as brutal force was being applied with the collaboration of Orthodox in liquidating Greek Catholic Churches in the Eastern Europe. But why is that the point. Surely, in light of their own use of force and work against religious freedom eve to this day, the Orthodox cannot be so contemptuous of GCCs simply because of some element of force or deception (even if there were a needle of truth to be found in the haystack of stuff-made-up). So what is your point? Perhaps if you quoted what you find objectionalbe in Taft, wrt the Western Rite it would be clearer.