Question on the "Ethnic-ness" of Orthodox Churches

[SSTeacher]

Any enlightened Orthodox like Mick or Hesychios (Michael) will correct me if I’m wrong…

I really appreciate your graciousness but as I’m only a catechumen I’m nowhere near able to discuss Orthodoxy as competently as most other Orthodox Christians – especially Hesychios, whose informative and courteous contributions to threads on Catholic Answers Forums have encouraged and impressed me ever since I first came here.

Thanks a lot, Michael. May God grant you many years!

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[prodromos]

What the heck are you talking about

Hasn’t been taking his medication perhaps?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As Big Mama would say, “take it easy now!”

Hasn’t been taking his medication perhaps?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As far as I know, non-Catholics cannot take communion in a Catholic church either…

I’ve been reading this sentence over and over again, trying to figure out what it’s saying . Maybe you could rephrase that for me, because I really am curious. Please?

Excellent questions; The refraining of the Eucharist from Orthodox to Catholic, and Catholic to non catholics is a great divide and are never the same, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Catholics don’t refuse non catholics from recieving the Eucharist, Catholics protect non catholics from entering a divine curse from not being able to discern the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, (True presence in his Eucharist) which will brind judgement upon them. Please read I Corinthinians 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Non catholics are forever invited to the Lamb’s supper, but they must be given proper instruction and formation of this 2000 year old faith in Jesus Christ True presence.

On the other hand, Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, refrain the divine food to God’s children (Catholics) because of pride of men, not because Catholics are not able to discern the True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist.

To me this is a sin, to keep God’s food from his Children. This mystical sacramental body of Jesus Christ never belongs to man to keep from God’s children, for it is God who gives this bread to man. This is why God destroyed the second temple in 70 a.d because the Jews kept the Gentiles and women from entering God’s presence. There is only one biblical reason to keep man from recieving the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (see I Cor. above). All other reasons to refrain God’s children from recieving his Eucharist come from the pride man, not God.

Your second question has to do with alot of history and complicated circumstances between the Eastern Orthodox Church founded upon the Apostles and those who call themselves Orthodox in the West who was founded by an Orthodox Saint by the name of St. Tikhon “the enlightener of America”. Here read it for your self; westernorthodox.com/western-rite.html

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Hesychios;6454131]What the heck are you talking about

]

Well forgive me Hesychios, I was speaking to gurney on multiple level of topics from my commentary. I can understand your confusion.

For clarification I mentioned the spring cleaning to gurney addressing a past post that referenced the recent scandal with the Pope and German priest. This scripture will sum up my thoughts for you; Hebrews 12:6
for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." see also Hebrews 12:3-17 and Rev.3:19. God is cleaning house because he loves his Children.

Your Orthdoxy in West claiming to an Orthodoxy from the East is bit troubling for me, so I will give you only your Orthodox counterparts which suggest to what you appear to be confused about without giving Catholic theologians views. I don’t like to give Orthodox sites to assist in their prostelytizing here, but this may be an exception;

westernorthodox.com/western-rite.html

The restoration of a corrected, and truly Orthodox, Western Rite to Holy Orthodoxy in the United States was not originated by laity or by ordinary clergy. The vision of the Western Rite as an essential part of the Orthodox Mission in America belonged to Archbishop Tikhon of the American Archdiocese under the Moscow Patriarchate. About ninety years ago he examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. .

The Rite of Saint Tikhon, used by many Western Rite Churches, is an approved adaptation of the eucharistic liturgy from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Mine in parathensis ( Since when did your Saint Tkhon was given approval to invent a Rite"? and why is this Orthodox? if this Rite did not come from the Apostles themselves?)

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments.
"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies.
“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”
schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

I hope this clears up what the heck I am talking about?

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

]

Well forgive me Hesychios, I was speaking to gurney on multiple level of topics from my commentary. I can understand your confusion.

For clarification I mentioned the spring cleaning to gurney addressing a past post that referenced the recent scandal with the Pope and German priest. This scripture will sum up my thoughts for you; Hebrews 12:6
for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." see also Hebrews 12:3-17 and Rev.3:19. God is cleaning house because he loves his Children.

Your Orthdoxy in West claiming to an Orthodoxy from the East is bit troubling for me, so I will give you only your Orthodox counterparts which suggest to what you appear to be confused about without giving Catholic theologians views. I don’t like to give Orthodox sites to assist in their prostelytizing here, but this may be an exception;

westernorthodox.com/western-rite.html

The restoration of a corrected, and truly Orthodox, Western Rite to Holy Orthodoxy in the United States was not originated by laity or by ordinary clergy. The vision of the Western Rite as an essential part of the Orthodox Mission in America belonged to Archbishop Tikhon of the American Archdiocese under the Moscow Patriarchate. About ninety years ago he examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. .

The Rite of Saint Tikhon, used by many Western Rite Churches, is an approved adaptation of the eucharistic liturgy from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Mine in parathensis ( Since when did your Saint Tkhon was given approval to invent a Rite"? and why is this Orthodox? if this Rite did not come from the Apostles themselves?)

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments.
"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies.
“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”
schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

I hope this clears up what the heck I am talking about? Before you give your intellectual reasons to reason these difficulties, there are others who have remarked to this phenomenon.

Peace be with you

 

[OCAguyGareth]

I have been a member of the OCA (Orthodox Church in America - www.oca.org) for almost 20 years. Currently I attend a Ukrainian Orthodox Church in my town since it is the only Orthodox Church in the area. The Ukrainian Church can be ethnic at times, but the priest is still Orthodox first, Ukrainian second. The faith is the most important thing to him, helping others to understand God’s love, the Holy Trinity, the importance of Sacraments (yes we have them too) especially Confession and Holy Communion since this is the cornerstone of our Liturgy. The service is almost entirely in English which is good since our priest has requested that I continue my Reader duties in the church (I was recently tonsured a Reader by my OCA Archbishop Seraphim) My wife was raised Catholic and has since become Orthodox and I attended a Catholic school (as well as Mass) from grade 4 to grade 12. Yes there are a lot of differences, but if we focus on those differences, those who aren’t even Christian will pounce on us like the devil. We can discuss our differences with one another privately when we come to a better understanding of the faith of the other.

Even in some of the postings about the Coptic Church not seeing Jesus as having two divine natures, this is just not true, talk to a Coptic priest, read the history of the Orthodox Church, especially how the OCA came to be in North America. The OCA is a fully North American church (with a few exceptions) that is fully English speaking. It is the largest Orthodox community in North America with Churches spread out across my country (Canada) and many more in the US, Mexico, and Australia.

As far as the communion issue (not being able to receive communion) the same thing occurs in the Roman rite as well, they do not communicate Orthodox, at least not many will, My wife has had many discussions with Catholic priests in our city regarding this issue as well as our marriage in the Orthodox Church (which is still not seen as fully valid since it was not blessed by a Catholic Priest) But I am heading into the dark waters of exploiting differences and this is almost always a bad thing.

If you don’t want to attend an “ethnic” church see if there is an OCA church in your area, there are plenty! and they are almost always English and mostly made up of North American (Canada and US) people although there are quite a few ethnic people intermingling as well, which is wonderful! it reminds us that our Christian faith is not a Western faith but is from the East, originating with Jesus Christ who sits at the right hand of God the Father which we recently celebrated (actually on the same date this year) His rising from the dead and conquering death. So I leave you there, so on this Holy Pascha we proclaim

Christ Is Risen! Indeed He Is Risen!

 

[Hesychios]

I did not see this until just now, so I will belatedly respond

… The vision of the Western Rite as an essential part of the Orthodox Mission in America belonged to Archbishop Tikhon of the American Archdiocese under the Moscow Patriarchate. About ninety years ago he examined the existing Anglican Book of Common Prayer and sent it to the Holy Synod of Moscow. .

The Rite of Saint Tikhon, used by many Western Rite Churches, is an approved adaptation of the eucharistic liturgy from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Mine in parathensis ( Since when did your Saint Tikhon was given approval to invent a Rite"? and why is this Orthodox? if this Rite did not come from the Apostles themselves?)

The western church was Orthodox in the past and this is a representative recension of that rite. Having variations in liturgies is not in itself a problem. This is a matter of church discipline. We do always pray for unity and the western churches would need a liturgy which they can use.

I think Saint Tikhon had a possible reconciliation with the Anglicans in North America in mind at the time. The Protestant Episcopal church was very helpful to the Orthodox in the early years, and cooperation was so good that there was a lot of speculation about a possible “return to Orthodoxy” among them. It did not take off.

Saint Tikhon himself suggested that the text of the Anglican liturgy be corrected for use by potential convert churches, but he had to submit the work to the Holy Synod for approval. He did not ‘invent’ the liturgy nor have the authority in himself to approve it.

It is known by his name as an honor, so to say, for his efforts.

Since the Russian church had approved the liturgy, it was available to anyone who wanted to use it. However the Russians did not really make much use of it. The Antiochian Orthodox church picked it up for their own purposes, once they decided to receive western rite parishes via ‘economy’. So what you see is a prototype ‘Anglican Use’.

BTW, there also happens to be an approved ‘Gregorian’ liturgy, which corresponds more closely to the TLM or EF. I think that this is used more commonly in France, after the reception of Old Catholics there.

I remember reading that there were even some Orthodox priests may have recently used the Bragan rite (?), or the Mozarabic rite, but I cannot really attest to this with absolute certainty. I don’t now what practical value all of this has. A link with some potentially interesting stuff is here.These are legitimate liturgical traditions from the western church, going back to an age when it was in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, so if a synod approves of it’s use it can be used if needed.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments.
"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies.
“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”

I think that His Grace Metropolitan Anthony (Memory Eternal!) did not like the fact that the Antiochians have gone ahead and opened up this field of activity. In fact he seems to have been rather hostile toward it.

I have mixed concerns myself. If anyone says they “would convert only on the condition that they can keep their familiar liturgy” they are just not taking this seriously.

But I will say that I would love to visit one of the Orthodox parishes currently using it.

I would have to say that it holds the other way too. If a person considered becoming a Catholic under the Pope, but held back because they did not like the liturgy, I would say they were just kidding themselves. If the church is Truth, we should let nothing like that stand in our way.

The best reason to have such a liturgy approved is for the possible reconciliation of entire churches, such as may be a positive result of ecumenical dialogs.

schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

I like this quote from the above link: "The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be “foreign” to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . . ".

I do not think that a difference in liturgy should be an impediment to conversion. I think western people adjust to the liturgies of St John/St Basil rather well, in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox settings. If the liturgy itself is an impediment to a potential convert, they just can’t be all that convinced of Orthodox Truth to begin with.

As I stated above, I am pretty sure Saint Tikhon had a reception of large numbers of Anglicans in mind when he suggested correcting the Anglican (Book of Common Prayer) liturgy. Dioceses could print a new set of pewbooks if they accepted Holy Orthodoxy. He was not looking to set up a parallel western church by organizing new western parishes.

Even when the “evangelical Orthodox” movement started to come into communion (with the Antiochians first and then also some into the OCA) most of those parishes seem to have eventually adopted the St John/St Basil liturgy.

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

That is basically what I said above. The work of Saint Chrysostom was actually a revision of the liturgy of Saint Basil, and that work was a revision of the Liturgy of Saint James as used at Antioch in his day. The fact that most Orthodox use only the liturgy of Saints John/Saint Basil today is an accident of history (political suppression under the empire, schisms, etc.). Even in the (common) liturgy of Saint Chrysostom the actual practice is variable and the typicon allows this. So one can sometimes tell a parish follows the “Russian”, the “Greek”, the “Antiochian” the Carpath-rusyn", the “Old Russian Believer” way of celebrating liturgy, if one is familiar.

Unity is in the beliefs of the church, the prayers need to be correct and the liturgy flows rather naturally from the beliefs stated in prayer.

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/news-encyclical.html
The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments.
"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies.
“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”

I think that His Grace Metropolitan Anthony (Memory Eternal!) did not like the fact that the Antiochians have gone ahead and opened up this field of activity. In fact he seems to have been rather hostile toward it.

I have mixed concerns myself. If anyone says they “would convert only on the condition that they can keep their familiar liturgy” they are just not taking this seriously.

But I will say that I would love to visit one of the Orthodox parishes currently using it.

I would have to say that it holds the other way too. If a person considered becoming a Catholic under the Pope, but held back because they did not like the liturgy, I would say they were just kidding themselves. If the church is Truth, we should let nothing like that stand in our way.

The best reason to have such a liturgy approved is for the possible reconciliation of entire churches, such as may be a positive result of ecumenical dialogs.

schmemann.org/byhim/westernrite.html

I like this quote from the above link: "The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Easter Canon of St. John of Damascus, are, I believe, much closer to that common and Catholic language of the Church than anything else in any Christian tradition. And I cannot think of any word or phrase in these services that would be “foreign” to a Western Christian and would not be capable of expressing his faith and his experience, if the latter would be genuinely Orthodox . . . ".

I do not think that a difference in liturgy should be an impediment to conversion. I think western people adjust to the liturgies of St John/St Basil rather well, in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox settings. If the liturgy itself is an impediment to a potential convert, they just can’t be all that convinced of Orthodox Truth to begin with.

As I stated above, I am pretty sure Saint Tikhon had a reception of large numbers of Anglicans in mind when he suggested correcting the Anglican (Book of Common Prayer) liturgy. Dioceses could print a new set of pewbooks if they accepted Holy Orthodoxy. He was not looking to set up a parallel western church by organizing new western parishes.

Even when the “evangelical Orthodox” movement started to come into communion (with the Antiochians first and then also some into the OCA) most of those parishes seem to have eventually adopted the St John/St Basil liturgy.

“The unity of rite in the Orthodox Church is comparatively a late phenomenon and the Church never considered liturgical uniformity a conditio sine qua non of her unity.”

That is basically what I said above. The work of Saint Chrysostom was actually a revision of the liturgy of Saint Basil, and that work was a revision of the Liturgy of Saint James as used at Antioch in his day. The fact that most Orthodox use only the liturgy of Saints John/Saint Basil today is an accident of history (political suppression under the empire, schisms, etc.). Even in the (common) liturgy of Saint Chrysostom the actual practice is variable and the typicon allows this. So one can sometimes tell a parish follows the “Nikonian/Synodal”, the “Greek”, the “Antiochian” the “Carpath-Rusyn”, the “Russian Old Believer” way of celebrating liturgy, if one is familiar.

Unity is in the beliefs of the church, the prayers need to be correct and the liturgy flows rather naturally from the beliefs stated in prayer.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My dear brother in Christ Hesychios; There is much to reveal here on this subject matter in regards to the Ethnic-ness of the Orthodox Churches.

What I bring up here from Orthodoxy reveals a double standard in Orthodoxy. It begins with the word “Uniatism”. Orthodoxy has expressed great difficulty and rejectiong to this Western phenomenum which has proved to keep unity among the college of Bishops successfully in the West and in the Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Pope.

Yet, today we find Orthodoxy who rejects this “uniatism” practicing it in her evangelical circles in the United States under the extarch of the Patriarch of Antioch, and in France under the aegis of the Rumanian patriarchate. These Western Orthodox Churches are they not “uniate”. I can see why this creates much difficulty with other Eastern Orthodox Churches who have publicly rejected this Roman Catholic ruling under One primate.

As complicated the issue is, Orthodox in the West is a new form of Orthodox succumbing to already Petrine successes. We have not touched on other matters stemming from Orthodoxy in the West that affect Orthodoxy in the East.

Under this heading of uniate churches which the Orthodox Church has rejected, now accepts it in her Orthodoxy in the West reveals a double standard here.

 

[Harpazo]

For those afraid of visiting an Orthodox parish because it may seem to ethnic, don’t worry about it. My parish is under Metropolitan Joseph of the Bulgarian Church, yet there are no Bulgarians or other ethnicities in the church at all. If one allows something like this to miss out on the opportunity to be in the heavenly presence of Christ our God at Divine Liturgy, then I find that to be a shame.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My dear brother in Christ Hesychios; There is much to reveal here on this subject matter in regards to the Ethnic-ness of the Orthodox Churches.

What I bring up here from Orthodoxy reveals a double standard in Orthodoxy. It begins with the word “Uniatism”. Orthodoxy has expressed great difficulty and rejectiong to this Western phenomenum which has proved to keep unity among the college of Bishops successfully in the West and in the Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Pope.

Iam giving this a bump, because I would like a formal or informal reply from an Orthodox Catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

What I bring up here from Orthodoxy reveals a double standard in Orthodoxy. It begins with the word “Uniatism”. Orthodoxy has expressed great difficulty and rejectiong to this Western phenomenum which has proved to keep unity among the college of Bishops successfully in the West and in the Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Pope.

Yet, today we find Orthodoxy who rejects this “uniatism” practicing it in her evangelical circles in the United States under the extarch of the Patriarch of Antioch, and in France under the aegis of the Rumanian patriarchate. These Western Orthodox Churches are they not “uniate”.

Thanks for the ‘bump’. I do not get onto the internet as much as I would like and I am asleep when this forum is most active, so I miss a lot more than I used to in the past.

The acceptence of the mostly Protestant congregations into Holy Orthodoxy which occasions the use of a liturgy “of Saint Tikhon” is not a case of uniatism, it is an expression of economy.

Uniatism as we see it was a deliberate program of interference by the Latin church in the canonical Orthodox churches with a mind to splitting the synods. It was, in a very strong way, the stealing of sheep.

You might have a basis for concern if the Orthodox had deliberately targeted Roman Catholic parishes with the intent of converting their priests an congregation to Orthodox while allowing them to keep their own liturgy, and separating them from their bishops.

Thus, it would be a masquerade, an attempt to fool some of the congregation that they were still ‘Roman Catholic’ while in fact they were worshiping under an Orthodox bishop.

Orthodox parishes which use the revised Anglican liturgy know they are Orthodox, and do not pretend to be Roman Catholic or even Protestant. It is not an attempt to fool anyone, or to split Roman Catholic dioceses. The people/ministers who have approached Orthodox bishops to be accepted in this way have not been Roman Catholics, I do not know of one case where a Roman Catholic priest was allowed to establish a western rite congregation. It is an expression of economy on the part of some bishops to bring former Protestants into canonical Orthodoxy under Orthodox bishops.

Quite clearly not all Orthodox bishops are happy about the policy, perhaps in part because it can be misinterpreted as a form of uniatism or perhaps because not everyone is convinced that a modern recension of a western liturgy (even after correction) is an adequate vehicle or divine worship. My only concern (admittedly not a great concern) is that the option may be misused by those who are not serious enough about Orthodoxy to give up their old liturgical practices.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks for the ‘bump’. I do not get onto the internet as much as I would like and I am asleep when this forum is most active, so I miss a lot more than I used to in the past.

Thank you kindly for your response;

The acceptence of the mostly Protestant congregations into Holy Orthodoxy which occasions the use of a liturgy “of Saint Tikhon” is not a case of uniatism, it is an expression of economy.

 

[Hesychios]

This is very debatable, for the reasons given by other Orthodox not able to attend or commune with these Orthodox in the West.

I don’t see that. The bishop is giving standing instructions on matters for his priests. What you posted here (as follows) …

The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:
"1. ‘Western-rite’ clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese may not serve or receive communion in the parishes of this Diocese unless vested in traditional, ‘eastern’ Orthodox vestments.
"2. Clergy of this Diocese may not serve or participate in ‘western-rite’ liturgies.
“3. The participation of our laity in any pan-orthodox liturgical activity specifically with ‘western-rite’ parishes is to be actively discouraged.”

… is instructions from one bishop to his priests. It expects visiting western rite Orthodox priests to vest as eastern priests if they concelebrate on one of his altars. This is a church discipline and communion is assumed with concelebration.

Note that the laity are to be discouraged (by the priests) from participating in western rite Masses, not forbidden.

No breaking of communion is implied by these guidelines.

If Saint Tikhon’s Rite is used in the west (U.S) using an old revised Anglican Rite by Bishops under the extarch of the Patriarch of Antioch which has its own Liturgical Rite. This situation defines a “uniate” Church. What is the purpose of approving St. Tikhon’s Rite to be used in the West?

Your assumptions are wrong, Uniatism is a process, not a rite. It is a means to break a church by taking advantage of circumstances. For instance, gaining legal dominance and applying duress, or undermining the unity of a church and exploiting that.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. Let us say that there is a Catholic Archdiocese which has a scandal. If the Orthodox church sent people in there to aggravate the situation and talk priests and laity into breaking with the Pope, splitting the diocese and claiming to be the true Roman Catholic church, I think you would agree that it was a pretty foul exercise, taking advantage of the Catholic church in it’s misfortune.

That is what Uniatism is like. It is sheep stealing and tends to be divisive.

Western rite Orthodoxy is not based upon that practice, but allowing some Protestants to reconcile with an Apostolic church. The Catholic church is never targeted.

I must strongly disagree with your opinion here.The Orthodox in Southern Italy and Sicily had already enjoyed an unbroken existence with the Pope and were never the result of prosyletism or political chincanery as you falsely imply.

Actually, the southern half of Italy was Byzantine until the Roman Catholic Normans conquered it, and removed the “Two Sicilies” from the patriarchate of Constantinople.

This was a major contributor to the schism (and may be one of the reasons the Pope was removed from the dyptichs). It is an example of the Catholic church using a police state to divide an Orthodox synod.

You should note also that after this episode the Catholic church worked very hard at assimilating the Orthodox, and the Greek church essentially disappeared. What you have today is the result of Albanian Orthodox from the Balkans migrating after the death of Skanderbeg.

Take a look at your own back yard and look to the Antiochene patriarchate which produced the “Melkite” church which came from the Eastern Church not the Western Church.

A textbook case of the Catholic church working to split an Orthodox synod. These had come to believe that they were not leaving Orthodoxy, nor coming “under” the Pope, but merely coming into communion with the Pope. Rome still has to contend with the misunderstanding that this maneuver of 1724AD engendered.

The Melkites thought that they were still going to be Orthodox, which is why they even still try to proclaim (1995AD):

1. 
   *]I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
   *]I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
   
   Sadly for them, Rome does not agree with this and they are now stuck.
   

   Doesn’t this masquerade exist from the Orthodox in the West who think they have an Antioch liturgy but really have a protestant Anglican liturgy?

   I find this an odd contention.
   
   Are you of the opinion that the Anglican Use liturgy as approved by Rome is also a Protestant liturgy? We consider it to be a form of your Mass.
   

   Thank you very much for your reply Hesychios, you have confirmed my suspicions.

   I think you are trying too hard to convince yourself.
   
   Are arguments for Holy Orthodoxy that threatening to you?
   

   This I know the body of Jesus Christ needs both the Eastern Orthodox to hold the West to its faithfulness (which is lacking in the U.S from much liturgical abuse) …

   I might have said thank you for confirming my suspicions, but I don’t need you for that.
   

   … ( I can only pray that the Orthodox in the U.S never allow this to happen),

   It won’t. But your prayers are always appreciated
   

   … and the Eastern Orthodox need the Western Church for its faithfulness to Apostolic unity.

   Holy Orthodoxy has Apostolic unity, in a most profound way.
   

   p.s get some well deserved rest my brother:thumbsup:

   Thank you for the kind words and wishes.
   
   You do have a generous spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t see that. The bishop is giving standing instructions on matters for his priests. What you posted here (as follows) …

The encyclical includes guidelines avoid improper activities:

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Gabriel,

Here is a definition from Websters “Uniate” = …the union establishing this church… a member of any Eastern Christian Church in union with the Roman Catholic Church but with its own Rite, custom etc.

"Uniate"

The term Uniat or Uniate is applied to those Eastern Catholic churches who were previously Eastern Orthodox churches, and to their members, primarily by Eastern Orthodox. The term is now considered to have a negative, even derogatory, connotation, though it was also historically used, even if less frequently, by Latin and Eastern Catholics, especially prior to the Second Vatican Council. Official Catholic documents no longer use the term, due to its perceived negative overtones.

Interestingly, I cannot easily find a Catholic source for a definition of the term, I wonder why? The term originated in the Catholic church and was used for centuries in official documents.

But really, the whole history on how these churches came about is a interesting, well worth a study.

This definition never hinders or subjects one by force, or to remove ones Liturgy or cultural standing.

It goes without saying.

All one has to do is read the histories of the churches to see that. If you need further clarification you can ask for objective histories of the various Eastern Catholic churches in their forum here, and see for yourself.

I have myself several times posted on the subject, when I was one and after I was accepted into Holy Orthodoxy.

I am very familiar with the strong protest and negativity from the Orthodox in regards to “uniatism”. To which I find this a new revelation that the Orthodox in the West go on uncontested. Grant it we see this from two different perspectives, what is happening with the Orthodox in the west borderlines Uniatism if not is a form of Uniate Church as per Websters definition except remove Rome with the Patriarch from Antioch.

Peace be with you

Your argument is flawed. You are trying to use a definition by Noah Webster to dismiss history. Webster does not mention coercion, duress, deception and poaching so it is not relevant? Those are the reasons Orthodox have always opposed the practice, not because they use the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. It was a form of religious colonialism.

I remember not too many years ago when a certain well known Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest and author made a public remark that the *Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus *was sometimes called the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” by his confreres in the EC church. I was there in Cleveland when he said it.

Most eastern Catholic churches that originated from Holy Orthodoxy are the result of military/political conquest and a resulting pressure upon the local Orthodox. The one single exception might be the Melkites, and the way they go on about their patriarch being equal to the Pope one can get the idea that they have never relinquished their Orthodox understanding and might even feel that the union was misrepresented to them.

Eastern Catholicism is a poor model for Christian unity, so poor in fact that in meeting between your churchmen and Orthodox at Freising (1990) and Balamand (193AD) specifically rejects uniatism as a way forward toward Christian unity. “… we reject it as a method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches”.

The western rite of Orthodoxy is not an example of uniatism because it is intended as a vehicle to bring non- Catholics into communion with an apostolic church. It never had it’s origins in strife, deception, political pressure and poaching. The Roman Catholic church was never targeted and deception was never used, the impetus to establish these parishes was the request for reception into Holy Orthodoxy by Protestant seekers.

Blessings to you my friend,

 

[an_orthodox]

How did Uniatism appear ?

As a result of the Reform of the XVI-th century the Romano-Catholic
Church lost millions faithful, who whered either to Lutheranism and
Calvinism or to Anglicanism. In such a predicament, the Church of Rome
attempted to regain lost ground by converting, various peoples and
Churches in Eastern Europe and in the Near East, who were just then in
a sore national, political and economic plight. As a means towards
achieving such objective mainly through schooling the Western Church
used the order of the Jesuit monks. Yet the Jesuits also strove to
achieve mass conversion to Roman Catholicism of the Orthodox nations
lying at the borders of Catholic States. To begin with, far from
imposing outright conversion to the whole people, a compromise was
sought, i.e. the partial acceptance by the Orthodox of Catholic dogmas,
which however went along with their entirely retaining the Greek
(Byzantine) rite or cult (ritual). The dogmas were the 4 points already
wordled out at the Union Council or Synod held in Florence in 1439:
Eventually these 4 “Florentine” points were reduced to one : Papal
primacy: Thus sprung up this “Uniatism” hybrid or the “Greek-Catholic”
(“Uniate”) Churches.
The first such “Union” was achieved at Brest (in today’s
Byelorussia) in 1596, when part of the Ukrainian clergy, nobility and
faithful of the Catholic Kingdom of Poland, accerpted the Union with
the Church of Rome. This act was followed by many troubles amongst the
Ukrainians, resulting in the martyrdom of many hierarchs, priests and
faithful, in church seizures and many other such like abuses. Yielding
to similar pressures on behalf of the Jesuits and of Catholic nobility,
part of the Ruthenians in Cis-Karpathic Ukraine were also forcefully
“united” to Rome at Muncacs (in today’s Ukraine). Sporadic
attempts at uniting with Rome Orthodox believers in Serbia, Bosnia,
Herzegovina, Syria, Palestine, although mostly doomed to failure, yet
unfailingly led to troubles, divisions, intestine dissentions and
sometimes, even to, partial denationalization. Although, as a first
step, many of the newly-united believers were assured that Byzantine
liturgy will be kept unchanged, however, in due course, gradual
catholicization was also attempted, with the final aim of totally
assimilating the Orthodox and “Old-Orthodox” believers to Catholicism.

 

[an_orthodox]

How did Uniatism appear ?

As a result of the Reform of the XVI-th century the Romano-Catholic
Church lost millions faithful, who whirred either to Lutheranism and
Calvinism or to Anglicanism. In such a predicament, the Church of Rome
attempted to regain lost ground by converting, various peoples and
Churches in Eastern Europe and in the Near East, who were just then in
a sore national, political and economic plight. As a means towards
achieving such objective mainly through schooling the Western Church
used the order of the Jesuit monks. Yet the Jesuits also strove to
achieve mass conversion to Roman Catholicism of the Orthodox nations
lying at the borders of Catholic States. To begin with, far from
imposing outright conversion to the whole people, a compromise was
sought, i.e. the partial acceptance by the Orthodox of Catholic dogmas,
which however went along with their entirely retaining the Greek
(Byzantine) rite or cult (ritual). The dogmas were the 4 points already
worded out at the Union Council or Synod held in Florence in 1439:
Eventually these 4 “Florentine” points were reduced to one : Papal
primacy: Thus sprung up this “Uniatism” known as the “Greek-Catholic”
(“Uniate”)Churches.

 The first such "Union" was achieved at Brest (in today's

Byelorussia) in 1596, when part of the Ukrainian clergy, nobility and
faithful of the Catholic Kingdom of Poland, accepted the Union with
the Church of Rome. This act was followed by many troubles amongst the
Ukrainians, resulting in the martyrdom of many hierarchs, priests and
faithful, in church seizures and many other such like abuses. Yielding
to similar pressures on behalf of the Jesuits and of Catholic nobility,
part of the Ruthenians in Cis-Karpathic Ukraine were also forcefully
“united” to Rome at Muncacs (in today’s Ukraine). Sporadic
attempts at uniting with Rome Orthodox believers in Serbia, Bosnia,
Herzegovina, Syria, Palestine, although mostly doomed to failure, yet
unfailingly led to troubles, divisions, intestine dissentions,etc. Although, as a first
step, many of the newly-united believers were assured that Byzantine
liturgy will be kept unchanged, however, in due course, gradual
catholicization was also attempted, with the final aim of totally
assimilating the Orthodox and “Old-Orthodox” believers to Catholicism.

This is the historical aspect of the word"uniatism" and I think this aspect needed to be showed.

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!