V
Vico
Guest
I would like to know what is the impact of diaspora on peoples of Eastern Europe.
Romanian married GC priests not welcome in Italy's Churches
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, it reads more clearly in Latin:
§3. Circa coniugatos ad ordines sacros admittendos servetur ius particulare propriae Ecclesiae sui iuris vel normae speciales a Sede Apostolica statutae.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Vico, you surely know. History seems to be repeating itself here.
V
Vico
Guest
Many things will always repeat because the Roman Curia is the ecumenical power of the Catholic Church and is competent to control jurisdiction everywhere with its judgment of what it charitable. That is part and parcel of Catholic full communion which means faith, sacraments, and government.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
My presumption is not based on knowledge of history nor my general experience of conversation with Eastern Catholics (it would be partially contradicted by both), but is based on a charitable decision to always presume good faith on the part of my fellow Catholic Christians. If a person is a Catholic, I will assume they believe in the essentials of Catholicism until they insist otherwise.I don’t see how anyone can say that the Orthodox bishops of the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia in 1596 sought union with Rome because they thought the (Roman) Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ.
In fact, it can be shown that there were other, more worldly considerations involved and that for those bishops it was simply a change of allegiance from one patriarch to another (in the West). And in no wise did they accept Catholic dogma but were purposefully obscure in the 33 articles of the Union of Brest.
In fact, their agreement on the unity was DEPENDENT on Rome’s acceptance of their traditions, including that of clerical discipline pertaining to married clergy.
So yours is not the best presumption!
Alex
P
Peter_J
Guest
Aelred Minor, I get the impression that you’re not really reading what Alex is saying about the Union of Brest.
V
Vico
Guest
Catholic Encyopedia has:I don’t see how anyone can say that the Orthodox bishops of the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia in 1596 sought union with Rome because they thought the (Roman) Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ.
In fact, it can be shown that there were other, more worldly considerations involved and that for those bishops it was simply a change of allegiance from one patriarch to another (in the West). And in no wise did they accept Catholic dogma but were purposefully obscure in the 33 articles of the Union of Brest.
In fact, their agreement on the unity was DEPENDENT on Rome’s acceptance of their traditions, including that of clerical discipline pertaining to married clergy.
So yours is not the best presumption!
Alex
On 12 June, 1595, Rahosa, the metropolitan, and the Bishops of Vladimir, Lutzk, and Pinsk met at Brest and drew up two petitions, one to Clement VIII and the other to Sigismund III. The former protested that they desired to renew the union concluded at the Council of Florence, saving always the Eastern customs and rites; in the latter the same desires were expressed, and it was added that the Ruthenian Church adopted the Gregorian Calendar.
… on 25 November, 1595, Pociej and Terlecki arrived at Rome with the decree of union of 2 December, 1594. The arrival of the Ruthenian bishops overwhelmed Clement VIII and the Roman Court with joy. The delegates were received with great honour; the pope and the cardinals discussed the conditions of reunion proposed by the Ruthenian episcopate, and ungrudgingly conceded that the integrity of the Ruthenian Rite should be maintained; it was also agreed that the “Filioque” should not be inserted in the Nicene Creed, although the Ruthenian clergy professed and taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. The bishops asked to be dispensed from the obligation of introducing the Gregorian Calendar, so as to avoid popular discontent and dissensions, and insisted that the king should grant them, as of right, the dignity of senators. To all these requests Clement VIII acceded. All obstacles having been removed, the union of the Rutheians with the Roman Church was solemnly and publicly proclaimed in the Hall of Constantine in the Vatican. Canon Wollowicz, of Vilna, read in Ruthenian and Latin the letter of the Ruthenian episcopate to the pope, dated 12 June, 1595.
newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
Union of Brest, includes doctrines and avoiding confusion and discord:
- Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
- And if in time the Lord shall grant that the rest of the brethren of our people and of the Greek Religion shall come to this same holy unity, it shall not be held against us or begrudged to us that we have preceded them in this unity, for we have to do this for definite, serious reasons for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further confusion and discord.
P
Peter_J
Guest
It’s back … or should I say, it’s baaa-aack.
L
lucklove
Guest
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
This is all nice, tried and true. But the history of the Union of Brest also includes social history that is entirely absent from this information.
And where in any of this does it say the Orthodox bishops sought union because they thought the Church of Rome was the true Church and RC doctrine the true doctrine? Only that the desired to “renew the Florentine” union. But why did they wish to do this? There is more to it than simply religious reasons and only historical analysis and commentary can provide us with the beginnings of some answers.
This doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. Also, the notion that the “Ruthenian clergy” taught the procession from the Son - well, quite nonsensical and ahistorical. Neither the clergy nor the people would allow the Filioque into the creed and in fact, Polish gendarmes were sent to the villages with sticks and into the Greek-Catholic churches to ensure compliance with the inclusion of the Filioque and the Union of Brest in totum. Again, because the Catholic encyclopedia has this, doesn’t make it infallible truth.
Alex
V
Vico
Guest
About politics, I included in the post their motive " for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further confusion and discord."
Acceptance of Florence is acceptance of the orthodoxy of the* filioque*.
“… it was also agreed that the “Filioque” should not be inserted in the Nicene Creed, although the Ruthenian clergy professed and taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.”
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
OK, as long as we acknowledge there was a lot of politics going on and current Roman Catholic historiography on the Union of Brest is probably the most objective and irenical on the subject. But enough on that.
One could make the argument that Florence was not so much a way to affirm the Filioque or any Latin doctrine since the schism between east and west as it was a formulation of EASTERN theology in a way that was acceptable to Rome (i.e. “through the Son” and acceptance of a purgatory in which there was no fire and the like).
Both the Greeks at Florence and the Ruthenians at Brest sought union with Rome in order to obtain something from the West that they needed - to put it in a nutshell. The Greeks wanted military support against the Turks and the Ruthenians wanted to improve their situation (mostly materially) within Poland and with respect to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which made the fatal error of appointing Orthodox laity to act as watch-dogs over the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops via their stauropeghial brotherhoods).
So the emphasis was not, in both cases of unionism with Rome, that “we want to accept the true Church that we broke away from” (which was our old EC “uniate propaganda”), but “how can we formulate our Orthodoxy in a way that won’t compromise either our faith or our traditions - married priesthood et alia - and still be in a form of union with Rome so to meet our agenda’s goals?”
Cheers,
Alex
One could make the argument that Florence was not so much a way to affirm the Filioque or any Latin doctrine since the schism between east and west as it was a formulation of EASTERN theology in a way that was acceptable to Rome (i.e. “through the Son” and acceptance of a purgatory in which there was no fire and the like).
Both the Greeks at Florence and the Ruthenians at Brest sought union with Rome in order to obtain something from the West that they needed - to put it in a nutshell. The Greeks wanted military support against the Turks and the Ruthenians wanted to improve their situation (mostly materially) within Poland and with respect to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which made the fatal error of appointing Orthodox laity to act as watch-dogs over the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops via their stauropeghial brotherhoods).
So the emphasis was not, in both cases of unionism with Rome, that “we want to accept the true Church that we broke away from” (which was our old EC “uniate propaganda”), but “how can we formulate our Orthodoxy in a way that won’t compromise either our faith or our traditions - married priesthood et alia - and still be in a form of union with Rome so to meet our agenda’s goals?”
Cheers,
Alex
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting. Years ago…when I was Byzantine Catholic…my wife planned on attending a local Roman Catholic Church with our two year old. She called ahead of time to let the priest know that she was Eastern Catholic and her child would be receiving Holy Communion. The priest said, “No way…it will cause confusion amongst the faithful.”
Different scenario…same explanation.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. We were very sad to hear this response at the time.
On a brighter note…my wife called a priest at a different RC parish about the same situation…and he did not know how to respond.
He called a canon lawyer and then called us back to let us know that our child could receive there.
On a brighter note…my wife called a priest at a different RC parish about the same situation…and he did not know how to respond.
He called a canon lawyer and then called us back to let us know that our child could receive there.
P
Peter_J
Guest
This is one reason that I find it quite odd when people say that EC priests are obliged to give communion to unconfirmed LCs. (Not that I know of any EC priests who were prefer to deny them.)Interesting. Years ago…when I was Byzantine Catholic…my wife planned on attending a local Roman Catholic Church with our two year old. She called ahead of time to let the priest know that she was Eastern Catholic and her child would be receiving Holy Communion. The priest said, “No way…it will cause confusion amongst the faithful.”
Different scenario…same explanation.
T
twf
Guest
The Holy Father’s stated opinion, it seems to me, is that ideally all Catholics should be confirmed prior to receiving Our Lord in holy communion. The ancient and original order of baptism, confirmation, and holy communion, still preserved in the Eastern Churches, is also the order used for adult converts in the Latin Church. Some Latin dioceses have, at the discretion of the local bishop, reinstituted this order for cradle Latin Catholics - I have heard of dioceses where Latin children are confirmed at age 7 (age of reason) prior to making their first communion. Perhaps given time this issue between East and West will be moot.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Perhaps, but there are many Latin Catholics who have absorbed various rationales for current norms, and are sometimes unwilling to consider historical norms or, better yet, an informed explanation of the nature of each of the Sacraments of Initiation which makes the case somewhat self-evident for a revision of the order of these Sacraments. Not to be critical; rather, the reluctance is understandable in the context of prevailing catechetical formation.
That said, IMO the recent developments and dialogue on sacramental order, and the reception of His Holiness to these changes and initiatives, provide a great opportunity for general catechesis, whether of not these regional changes become more widespread.
V
Vico
Guest
Some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox. Those that have entered into full union with the Catholic Church share in these three: government, faith, and sacraments. That means that those in full union hold that the faith of the Catholic Church is orthodox.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That’s what I call stating the obvious! Buddhists, for example, are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and certainly hold that the Catholic Church is heterodox. I’m guess you meant to be a little more specific than just “some of those that are not in full communion with the Catholic”.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
As an aside, Buddhists actually may not be the best example of this as many (most, I think) would presumably reject any orthodoxy/heterodoxy dichotomy.
Vico of course was speaking in the context of Eastern Christianity, and his point is obviously that (presumably) those who have entered into (or were baptized into as infants and as adults have chosent to remain in) the full unity of the Catholic Church acknowledge the Catholic Church to be orthodox
- Status