Two questions about the EC & EO

[frjohnmorris]

We’ve talked about your casual use of the word “force” before. Given the relatively benign circumstances of the union as compared to its destruction, and the fact that the union was the idea of the Eastern Bishops themselves, not connived through murder, incarceration, and faux synods as in the liquidation of the GCCs in the last century, it would be very decent of you to avoid this outrageous language.

That is not true. Roman Catholic authorities persecuted Orthodox and pressured them to submit to Rome. The Bishops who signed the Union of Brest sent a delegation to Rome. When they got there they found that almost everything promised by Rome during the negotiations was not honored and that they had to submit completely to Roman Catholic doctrine. After the union a period of intense Latinization began. Meanwhile those who remained faithful to their Orthodox heritage faced savage persecution. King Sigismund III banned the Eastern Orthodox Church in his kingdom. This was not an age of religious toleration or separation of Church and state. The rulers usually determined what religion had to be followed by all the people under their authority. This was true all over Europe.
The persecution of the Eastern Catholics in the last century was not done by the Orthodox Church. It was done by Stalin, who was responsible for the murder of millions of Christians. Stalin did not discriminate. He persecuted all Christians, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Do no blame us, our people suffered much longer under Communism than the Eastern Catholics.
Besides, the post World War One government of Poland was hardly fair or tolerant towards Eastern Orthodox. They blew up and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Warsaw, and actively persecuted the Orthodox in all areas of Poland.
As is almost always the case when dealing with things of this nature, there were wrongs on both sides. To continue to resent Orthodox because of the events of the past is both un-Christian and waste of emotions. You cannot undo the injustices of the past. Once again the truth is that there were wrongs on both sides of the divide between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Objectively speaking both sides were at fault. It is not a pretty aspect of church history.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

That is not true.

Sadly it is true. The point is not that there was no force or no fault among members of the Catholic church or nations, the point is that all of these faults of Catholics, which you have recounted and to which I have stipulated before, is, as I noted, comparatively mild, open to choice, and typical of the times as compared to that dished out by against Greek Catholics.

To hear glib talk without the compunction that should characterize the words of one living in a glass house is very disturbing; it suggests denial of the glass house. Anamnesis not Amnesia.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Sadly it is true. The point is not that there was no force or no fault among members of the Catholic church or nations, the point is that all of these faults of Catholics, which you have recounted and to which I have stipulated before, is, as I noted, comparatively mild, open to choice, and typical of the times as compared to that dished out by against Greek Catholics.

To hear glib talk without the compunction that should characterize the words of one living in a glass house is very disturbing; it suggests denial of the glass house. Anamnesis not Amnesia.

I had nothing to do with whatever happened in Eastern Europe to the Eastern Catholics. Why should I or any other American Eastern Orthodox Christian feel guilty about something with which they had nothing to do? I repeat again, have studied enough history of that area of the world to know that there was fault on both sides as borders shifted Catholic monarchs persecuted Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox rulers persecuted Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

And, unlike the Ruthenian Schisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, it wasn’t “Break away, then see if someone is there who will accept you.” It’s not directly comparable.

Very true.

Of course, our main focus shouldn’t on how bad the Union of Brest was, but on how the future can be better. (The Balamand Statement comes to mind.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Very true.

Of course, our main focus shouldn’t on how bad the Union of Brest was, but on how the future can be better. (The Balamand Statement comes to mind.)

In my opinion the Balamand Statement did more harm than good because some people on both sides were not yet ready for such a statement. Have you read what the leading Romanian Catholic Bishop had to say about it? Also some Eastern Orthodox felt that it went too far too fast. IT will take a lot more dialogue and education of the clergy and Faithful before we are even near healing the schism between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. You cannot undo a thousands years of division and sometimes outright strife in a few years. We in America, where we do not have the baggage of such things as the argument between the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox in Eastern Europe to weigh us down have the best chance of beginning to reach some sort of healing in our relationships. However, we cannot let the conflicts of Eastern Europe bog us down. The issue should not be how to deal with the past but how do we arrive at a common doctrine, for it is doctrine that is important not who persecuted who in Eastern Europe. There are some very important doctrinal differences between us. For example, there is no way that I could accept without a whole lot of redefinition and qualification the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council. I am not trying to be offensive.I am just trying to be honest.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

In my opinion the Balamand Statement did more harm than good because some people on both sides were not yet ready for such a statement. Have you read what the leading Romanian Catholic Bishop had to say about it?

I’m don’t recall what he said specifically. I do recall telling a conservative Latin Catholic priest about it (he’s generally well-read, but hadn’t heard of it) – or, more specifically, telling him its title: “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion.” His thoughts on it were, essentially, Why would uniatism by “of the past”? And I imagine that was how many, many Catholics reacted to it.

But does that mean that we should pretend that uniatism is a good thing, just because people aren’t ready to hear otherwise? I think not.

 

[dvdjs]

The issue should not be how to deal with the past but how do we arrive at a common doctrine, for it is doctrine that is important not who persecuted who in Eastern Europe. There are some very important doctrinal differences between us. For example, there is no way that I could accept without a whole lot of redefinition and qualification the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council. I am not trying to be offensive.I am just trying to be honest.

Actually I think the first step, even before we get to doctrine, is to establish a common understanding of our past. That, without all of the theological and ecclesiological overtones will help us understand each other in a common language. With an ability to speak and listen in a common language, with cultural attunement, the we will be in a far better position take up the harder problems.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m don’t recall what he said specifically. I do recall telling a conservative Latin Catholic priest about it (he’s generally well-read, but hadn’t heard of it) – or, more specifically, telling him its title: “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion.” His thoughts on it were, essentially, Why would uniatism by “of the past”? And I imagine that was how many, many Catholics reacted to it.

But does that mean that we should pretend that uniatism is a good thing, just because people aren’t ready to hear otherwise? I think not.

The problem is that “uniatism” in the statement that you paraphrase was used with a specific meaning, clearly articulated in the Balamand declaration, that at the same time fully endorsed the right of ECC to exist. The carefully constructed language is often lost in discussion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The problem is that “uniatism” in the statement that you paraphrase was used with a specific meaning, clearly articulated in the Balamand declaration, that at the same time fully endorsed the right of ECC to exist. The carefully constructed language is often lost in discussion.

No intelligent person in the Eastern Orthodox Church denies the right of the Eastern Catholics to exist. That is not what offends Eastern Orthodox. What offends us is when Eastern Catholics claim that one can be Orthodox and in Communion with Rome at the same time or when Eastern Catholics try to tell our people that there is no difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Actually I think the first step, even before we get to doctrine, is to establish a common understanding of our past. That, without all of the theological and ecclesiological overtones will help us understand each other in a common language. With an ability to speak and listen in a common language, with cultural attunement, the we will be in a far better position take up the harder problems.

If Eastern Orthodox and Catholics get bogged down in arguments about the past, we will never do anything but argue about events that we cannot change. We should start with what we have in common and build on that to see if we can reach agreement on the more divisive issues such as the authority of the Pope.

Fr. John W. Morris.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem is that “uniatism” in the statement that you paraphrase was used with a specific meaning, clearly articulated in the Balamand declaration, that at the same time fully endorsed the right of ECC to exist. The carefully constructed language is often lost in discussion.

I was going to say that seriously doubt there’s any significant denial of our right-to-exist, but I see Father has already made the point more strongly.

 

[dvdjs]

No intelligent person in the Eastern Orthodox Church denies the right of the Eastern Catholics to exist. That is not what offends Eastern Orthodox. What offends us is when Eastern Catholics claim that one can be Orthodox and in Communion with Rome at the same time or when Eastern Catholics try to tell our people that there is no difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

That reminds me of a statement by Sen Adlai Stevenson. While running for President, he gave a great speech, after which a supporter said: every intelligent person in America will vote for you. Stevenson responded: but we need a majority. The fact is that many Orthodox specifically objected to that portion of the Balamand declaration. And you are the only Orthodox on this forum who was willing, when I asked, to affirm the right of Greek Catholic churches to exist. I would like for you to try to persuade the MP.

You complain about the rare creature - existing only in recent times - who identifies as Orthodox in communion with Rome. Do you also think that calling the MP churches in the Toth era “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic” was objectionable?

 

[frjohnmorris]

That reminds me of a statement by Sen Adlai Stevenson. While running for President, he gave a great speech, after which a supporter said: every intelligent person in America will vote for you. Stevenson responded: but we need a majority. The fact is that many Orthodox specifically objected to that portion of the Balamand declaration. And you are the only Orthodox on this forum who was willing, when I asked, to affirm the right of Greek Catholic churches to exist. I would like for you to try to persuade the MP.

You complain about the rare creature - existing only in recent times - who identifies as Orthodox in communion with Rome. Do you also think that calling the MP churches in the Toth era “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic” was objectionable?

I do not have a great deal of influence over the Patriarchate of Moscow. I do not think that what the Russian Orthodox called themselves almost 100 years ago is particularly relevant today.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

I do not have a great deal of influence over the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Then don’t be so glib about our right to exist.

I do not think that what the Russian Orthodox called themselves almost 100 years ago is particularly relevant today.

Hah. But your discussion of the objection to “Orthodox in Union with Rome” was first raised in the context of the pasthttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11372560&postcount=121

 

[Peter_J]

Do you also think that calling the MP churches in the Toth era “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic” was objectionable?

I do not think that what the Russian Orthodox called themselves almost 100 years ago is particularly relevant today.

Fr. John W. Morris

Frankly, I’m only too happy that you’re willing to allow us ownership of the terms “Eastern Catholic” and “Greek Catholic”.

Now if we can just secure all the rights to “Anglo-Catholic”.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Then don’t be so glib about our right to exist.

Hah. But your discussion of the objection to “Orthodox in Union with Rome” was first raised in the context of the pasthttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11372560&postcount=121

No one in this country is trying to deny the right of Eastern Catholics to exist. I am only asking for truth in advertising. If you are in Communion with Rome you cannot be Orthodox. That is the chief objection most Eastern Orthodox have with the Eastern Catholics. It does not show proper respect to us to claim to be what we are when you are not. It is also dishonest to tell someone that they can remain Orthodox while accepting the claims of the papacy especially as they were articulated by the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[dvdjs]

No one in this country is trying to deny the right of Eastern Catholics to exist.

Sadly that is not true throughout the world.

I am only asking for truth in advertising. If you are in Communion with Rome you cannot be Orthodox. That is the chief objection most Eastern Orthodox have with the Eastern Catholics. It does not show proper respect to us to claim to be what we are when you are not. It is also dishonest to tell someone that they can remain Orthodox while accepting the claims of the papacy especially as they were articulated by the 1st Vatican Council.

You are entitled to your own view of what it means to be Orthodox. I cannot agree that the chief objection that most EOs have to ECCs is the use of the word Orthodox. First almost no one uses it to refer to their churches, very, very few use it to refer to themselves, and some even go so far as to avoid the use of “orthodox” in the liturgy. Did that insulate them against aggression? Nope. Really, it must be something else,

 

[frjohnmorris]

Sadly that is not true throughout the world.

You are entitled to your own view of what it means to be Orthodox. I cannot agree that the chief objection that most EOs have to ECCs is the use of the word Orthodox. First almost no one uses it to refer to their churches, very, very few use it to refer to themselves, and some even go so far as to avoid the use of “orthodox” in the liturgy. Did that insulate them against aggression? Nope. Really, it must be something else,

I am an Orthodox Archpriest and am well qualified to define what it means to be Orthodox. If you are Orthodox, you are in Communion with the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Church. I believe that an honest evaluation would show that the ECCs have not been totally innocent of aggression against Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe. In fact my information is that they have been very aggressive. I do not know that much about Eastern Europe, but the Melkites do claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome causing great confusion among the Faithful. A few years ago the press reported that the Melkite Holy Synod had proclaimed themselves in communion with us while remaining in Communion with Rome. The Holy Synod of Antioch had to hold an emergency meeting to inform the Melkites that any agreement to establish Communion between them and us would have to be part of a rapprochement between the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome. Metropolitan Philip had to send a letter to be read from the Altar at every one of his churches informing them that we are not in Communion with the Melkites. A few years later, I was in Florida for a meeting of the North American Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue. On Sunday, I could not get to an Orthodox Church, but it happened that a Roman Catholic Church next door to where I was staying had a Melkite Liturgy on Sunday afternoon. I went and the Priest was offended that I refused to serve with him or receive Communion. That is why I am so sensitive on this subject. It is hostile attitudes like yours that has severely damaged the effort to heal the division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Let the Eastern Europeans deal with their own problems, do not bring them to America to cause tension between Catholics and Orthodox in this country.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I am an Orthodox Archpriest and am well qualified to define what it means to be Orthodox. If you are Orthodox, you are in Communion with the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Church. I believe that an honest evaluation would show that the ECCs have not been totally innocent of aggression against Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe. In fact my information is that they have been very aggressive. I do not know that much about Eastern Europe, but the Melkites do claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome causing great confusion among the Faithful. A few years ago the press reported that the Melkite Holy Synod had proclaimed themselves in communion with us while remaining in Communion with Rome. The Holy Synod of Antioch had to hold an emergency meeting to inform the Melkites that any agreement to establish Communion between them and us would have to be part of a rapprochement between the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome. Metropolitan Philip had to send a letter to be read from the Altar at every one of his churches informing them that we are not in Communion with the Melkites. A few years later, I was in Florida for a meeting of the North American Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue. On Sunday, I could not get to an Orthodox Church, but it happened that a Roman Catholic Church next door to where I was staying had a Melkite Liturgy on Sunday afternoon. I went and the Priest was offended that I refused to serve with him or receive Communion. That is why I am so sensitive on this subject. It is hostile attitudes like yours that has severely damaged the effort to heal the division between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Let the Eastern Europeans deal with their own problems, do not bring them to America to cause tension between Catholics and Orthodox in this country.

Fr. John W. Morris

This will be my last post for tonight, but I’ll check this thread in the morning.

I *am *sorry for the Melkite share of GC misconduct vis-a-vis the Orthodox. I take it that you regard this as a very large share indeed, but I believe you are way off on at least one key point: we did not “proclaim” full communion, we proposed full communion. I completely respect the AOC’s decision to the contrary.

 

[frjohnmorris]

This will be my last post for tonight, but I’ll check this thread in the morning.

I *am *sorry for the Melkite share of GC misconduct vis-a-vis the Orthodox. I take it that you regard this as a very large share indeed, but I believe you are way off on at least one key point: we did not “proclaim” full communion, we proposed full communion. I completely respect the AOC’s decision to the contrary.

That is what the press reported. That forced our Holy Synod to act. It is a principle of Orthodox theology that in order to be in Communion with a Church we have to be able to be in Communion with all the Churches that are in Communion with them. We told this to the Lutherans in our dialogue with them. The Lutherans are in Communion with all sorts of Churches, therefore, if we were to reach doctrinal agreement with them, we would also have to reach doctrinal agreement with all the Churches that are in Communion with the Lutherans before we could enter into Communion with the Lutherans. The same principle applies to the Melkites. Before we could enter into Communion with the Melkites we would also have to enter into Communion with Rome since the Melkites are in Communion with Rome.

Fr. John W. Morris