"Western Rite" Orthodox

[JesuXPIPassio]

I was reading a little on the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and I found that they have something called the “Western Rite,” and apparently their vestments match that of the Latin Church.

What exactly is this Western Rite? Is it like how the Catholic Church has its Eastern Rites/Churches, the Orthodox has their Western Rite?

I’m trying to figure things out. From my (very uneducated) hypothesis, during the Great Schism, some individual Churches with Western traditions sided with Constantinople; their traditions were recognised as valid and still exist, perhaps like how the Maronites and Italo-Albanians were always Catholic.

Or could these be cases where particular Latin Churches broke off with the Pope and joined into Communion with Constantinople, like how the other Eastern Churches broke off with their Orthodox Communion and joined the Catholic Church?

Has there ever been a case where particular Churches broke with Rome in favour of Constantinople?

 

[catherineajt]

As far as I know, the Antiochian Orthodox use either the Eastern or the Western Rite (as decided by the individual parishes, I think).

Here is a link that has a lot of the history behind the Western Rite: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy

The Western Rite is a very small contingent among the Orthodox–most are Antiochian. And it’s a testy issue for most.

 

[Claudius]

I was reading a little on the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and I found that they have something called the “Western Rite,” and apparently their vestments match that of the Latin Church.

What exactly is this Western Rite? Is it like how the Catholic Church has its Eastern Rites/Churches, the Orthodox has their Western Rite?

I’m trying to figure things out. From my (very uneducated) hypothesis, during the Great Schism, some individual Churches with Western traditions sided with Constantinople; their traditions were recognised as valid and still exist, perhaps like how the Maronites and Italo-Albanians were always Catholic.

Or could these be cases where particular Latin Churches broke off with the Pope and joined into Communion with Constantinople, like how the other Eastern Churches broke off with their Orthodox Communion and joined the Catholic Church?

Has there ever been a case where particular Churches broke with Rome in favour of Constantinople?

The Eastern Catholic Churches are full Church bodies that either NEVER broke with Rome or have reconciled with Rome after all theological issues were cleared up. They are the legitimate Christian Churches of the East.

Western Rite “orthodoxy” is not a full church body that broke with Rome to go to Constantinople. There has never yet been a case of a reconciled Eastern Catholic Church breaking with Rome to go back to Constantinople. The Current Assyrian Church of the East was reconciled with Rome but broke away again only to see the counterpart that did not earlier reconcile do so. This Church is now called the Chaldean Catholic Church. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church are very close to reconciling with each other and we may see the entire legitimate Assyrian Church of the East as one unified Church in communion with Rome within our lifetime.

Western Rite ‘orthodoxy’ is when a priest, never a Catholic priest, usually an Anglican priest that does not have valid Holy Orders, converts to ‘orthodoxy’ and brings his congregation with him. They do not want to fully do things the Eastern way so they are allowed to keep their same ritual but there are many, many, massive changes made to it. The most noticible is the alteration of the creed. In a Western Rite church you may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father throught the Son. This formula is only valid in the creed, according to ‘orthodoxy’ if said in Greek, Russian, or Slavonic. If you say this in any other language it is invalid and you will be called a heretic. (no I don’t understand the logic of it either). What is more, they even sometimes mandate the verb be changed from proceed to originate. These two words have vastly different meanings and it is hard to see this change is justified. Another point I should point out is that the priest, or protestant minister, who do not have valid Holy Orders are never actually given valid Holy Orders by the ‘orthodox’. They simply are told that they can start up, do it how the Greek bishop says and send in the tithe money. Within ‘orthodoxy’ priest usually tell their members not to attend western rite churches because the secret is this ’ the eucharist at a western rite church is still really invalid’.

If a Catholic Priest converts to ‘orthodoxy’, and they shouldn’t because that would be VERY VERY WRONG, but if they do, they are usually rebaptised, reordained and forced to abandon the Latin Rite entirely and adopt the Byzantine rite. They must also confess the so called sin of consecrating falsly while as a Catholic priest. Though the Byzantines do not out right say it, this procedure tells us that they do not recongnize Catholic baptisms as valid, nor our Holy Orders, dispite statements to the exact opposite by their church leadership, and that they do not recognize the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Based on this, and the fact that we know the all the Catholic Rites are Valid, it tells us that they do not have a proper understanding of what these sacrements are and this makes their own sacrements very doubtful.

Recent dialogue with the ‘orthodox’ have impoved relations a lot and appologies are going back and forth for a host of things but full reconciliation with the Byzantines is a long way off. We should pray for it and look forward to it but really in a way, reconciliation has already taken place. The Eastern Catholic Churches are the true continuation of the Byzantine, Armenean, Coptic, and Antiochtene rites. They are in full communion with Rome as is the only spiritually and intellectually honest approach to this. We should all be joyful for the eventual reunion of the rest of the Byzantines with Rome when it happens.

However, the real issue that divides Rome from the churches in schism still have not been dealt with and we should give our support to boosting and improving the possition of the Eastern Catholic Churches who are still being persecuted for acknowledging the truth to their fellow countrymen.

 

[Claudius]

The Big issues that everyone talks about are always the Filioque or Papal Primacy/ Infallibility. These are not the actual issues that perpetuate the schism. These issues are a matter of solid Historical Church history that no one can deny when they took at the facts honestly. The real issue of the schism is the Eucharist. The ‘orthodox’ do not recognize Catholics as having a valid Eucharist because we did not want to change to leaven bread and prefer to retain unleaven bread as Peter taught us. (the original Roman Mass was called the Liturgy of Peter). We did not want to go along with their innovation to the liturgy but we did not prevent them from changing. They then denied that the original unleaven bread of the liturgy was valid matter for the Eucharist and began saying that Catholic no longer have a valid Mass. This is a lie of course but is was the most hurtful and deep of any lie. Then a Byzantine Patriarch broke into a Latin Rite church under armed guard and broke open the tabernacle, threw the Body and Blood of Jesus from the tabernacle onto the floor of the Church and stepped on it. For this action, he was personally excommunicated by the West (any bishop could have excommunicated him but it was only a Latin bishop with enough courage to do so and in fact he was automatically excommunicated by Cannon Law for his action even if a Bull of Excommunication had never been written). This excommuniation was to officially tell this Patriarch, Michael the first of Constantinople, that he commited a grave sin and to compel him to confess and repent. He however did not do this and lead the entier Church of Constontinople into Schism over the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the only issue that matters in the Schism and the Schism can not be healed no matter how many time FILIOQUE is resolved. (Filioque has be theologically resolved about 12 times so far.) Unfortunanatly for the native population, they were eventually conqured by muslims and the muslims accepted only the Church in schism as the legal Christain Church in the otoman empire because they wanted to keep out the legitimate Catholic Church. This lead to centuries and centuries of Eastern Catholic persecution from the legally sanctioned ‘orthodox’.

 

[Hesychios]

I was reading a little on the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and I found that they have something called the “Western Rite,” and apparently their vestments match that of the Latin Church.

What exactly is this Western Rite? Is it like how the Catholic Church has its Eastern Rites/Churches, the Orthodox has their Western Rite?

The Orthodox churches never targeted the western church for poaching and exploitation. Not even when the west was going through a series of crises (like the three-way Papal schism, or the Protestant dissension). The Orthodox never made common cause with any disaffected groups of the Latin Catholic church, and never considered naming a replacement for the Pope of Rome.

It is fundamentally against to ecclesiology of Holy Orthodoxy to interfere in the internal affairs of another Apostolic church. The policy of Holy Orthodoxy has always been to be open to reconciliation, and pray.

Western rites in Orthodoxy are a liturgical exception, but do not derive from Latin Catholic parishes. Most of the western rite Orthodox congregation in North America are former Anglicans and Lutherans (some Latin Catholics have converted into these parishes, as individuals). The Western Rite is a parallel to the Anglican Use your church has allowed. The Antiochian Apostolic See has the majority of these parishes (there are not very many, twenty perhaps?), and the Russian Patriarchate has a monastery.

In Europe, the greater part of the western rite has originated from Old Catholics, who wanted to connect with an ancient Apostolic See. Their liturgy would be very close to the TLM, corrected where necessary (and I believe in the vernacular).

I have known of several Latin Catholic and Byzantine Catholic priests and deacons who converted to Holy Orthodoxy, none were rebaptised as far as I can tell. All of them preferred the Byzantine rite and had no interest in perpetuating or attaching to the western rite. They converted because of the theology, and apparently did not consider the liturgical practice a necessary condition.

… perhaps like how the Maronites and Italo-Albanians were always Catholic.

This is actually a fallacy.

• The Byzantine (Greek) church in Italy was completely suppressed. The modern dioceses of the Latin Catholic church in southern Italy are formerly Byzantine Catholic, you can determine this for yourself. After a war in Albania, large numbers of Christian Albanians fled to Italy, the Latin rite Albanians were absorbed after just a few generations. The Greek Orthodox Albanians were accepted as they were, because this was just after the Council of Florence and Rome was eager to placate the Orthodox. (Nevertheless, the new Albaninan church in Italy lacked Papal support for many years, and declined.) These new Orthodox Christians from the Balkan region are the foundation of the Italo-Albanian church, the Italo-Greek church having been forcibly suppressed long before.
• The Maronites were Monothelites for several centuries. Their history is quite interesting. Perhaps they were in communion with Honorius, but after him, no. The last remaining group of Maronites were received into communion with Rome at the Council of Florence, I believe.
  Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

There has never yet been a case of a reconciled Eastern Catholic Church breaking with Rome to go back to Constantinople.

There are actually - much to my sadness - many cases. The “American Carpatho-Rusyn Greek-Catholic Orthodox Diocese” comes immediately to mind - it happened here in the US in this century no less. Some were compelled by the state… Others went to Orthodoxy after a dispute.

I wrote about some of the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy here.

I think it is a small movement that will stay small - the frequently cited statistic of “10,000” members has been repeated for years - I doubt very much that among the 26 (at most) small chapels in America there are more than 1500 (that is being generous) regular worshippers.

In the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in America they largely use an edited version of the Book of Common prayer… A few parishes use an edited version of the Tridentine Mass calling it the “Divine Liturgy of St. Peter.” They do NOT represent a western church that (1) “sided with the east at the split” or (2) a church that entered into unia en masse like the Greek Catholic churches.

 

[Harpazo]

*]The Maronites were Monothelites for several centuries. Their history is quite interesting. Perhaps they were in communion with Honorius, but after him, no. The last remaining group of Maronites were received into communion with Rome at the Council of Florence, I believe.
Michael

This is completely incorrect. The Maronites never, ever adopted Monothelitism. Why you continue to perpetuate such a thing, I do not know. They professed that Christ had One will, doubly. St. Maximos the Confessor took the opposite and then the extreme view of this. That is how Syriac Christians professed it, as One will doubly (Human and Divine). Because Christ has One Will, that was doubled. The Maronites have never left Rome at all. There’s no historical proof whatsoever that they adopted Monothelitism, or that they “broke from Rome.”

There was a geographic disruption during Muslim invasions, although I’m sure you’ll disagree to this. Once communication was able to be re-established, the Maronites cleared up the confusion by adopting the Latin view. A more knowledgable Maronite can correct me if I’m mistaken on this.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Here’s a quote from a thread on Byzcath:

Francisco and Memo,

Maronites reject the shoddy scholarship that deems them once Monothelites. Recent scholarship proves they were no more Monothelites than the Oriental Orthodox are Monophysites. The problem comes not suprisingly from language. In their documents they spoke of one personal will in Christ coming from His two natural wills. What they wished to avoid was the idea that Christ’s divine and human wills could be in opposition to one another. They did not seek to eliminate his human will as the Monothelites did.

It is also a little ridiculous to think that the Maronites would adopt the heretical doctrine of a Patriarch of Constantinople and Byzantine Emperor, whom they had no great love for, that was meant to reconcile them with the Monophysites who persecuted them. They fought and routed the Emperor Justinian II after he attacked one of their monasteries.

The accusation of Monothelitism seems more the invention of Latin Crusader Bishops who wanted to use it as a pretext to get rid of the Maronite Patriarch and bishops and take over their jurisdiction.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[countertenor]

The Orthodox never … considered naming a replacement for the Pope of Rome.

It is fundamentally against to ecclesiology of Holy Orthodoxy to interfere in the internal affairs of another Apostolic church. The policy of Holy Orthodoxy has always been to be open to reconciliation, and pray.

If it is against the ecclesiology of Orthodoxy, why are there EO Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, ect? I realise that Orthodoxy was still in communion with Rome at that time, but if the Byzantine Churches had no problem at the time of Chalcedon in replacing Oriental Patriarchs why should they have had a problem replacing a Roman Patriarch years later? Why was it okay then, but not later?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

If it is against the ecclesiology of Orthodoxy, why are there EO Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, ect? I realise that Orthodoxy was still in communion with Rome at that time, but if the Byzantine Churches had no problem at the time of Chalcedon in replacing Oriental Patriarchs why should they have had a problem replacing a Roman Patriarch years later? Why was it okay then, but not later?

There were significant Greek Communities in Alexandria & Antioch… As they sided with the Greek parties of the council, they were the “last community standing” when the Oriental Orthodox left communion with the Greeks & Latins. It made for a good promotion!

But I generally agree with your assesment of the notion that:

The Orthodox never … considered naming a replacement for the Pope of Rome.

Just such seemed to play out in Alexandria…

Plus the “1054” date of the schism is as wrong as it is popular. Unlike the Oriental Churches that were in clear schism at the end of the councils they rejected, the split between Greek and Latin was not as abrupt or even pronounced in some places for centuries.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There is no autocephaulus independent Western Rite Church in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. The Western Rite parishes (not jurisdictions) are all headed by Eastern bishops of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. So all the “Western Rite” is, is a few parish churches which decided to leave their continuing Anglican jurisdictions for an Apostolic jurisdiction, maintaining no independence they had in their own churches. The Orthodox Easternize the “Western” liturgy and mold it to fit Eastern doctrinal beliefs. The “Western Rite” ‘orthodox’ do not keep any of their own traditions except outwardly. There is no adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, no belief in indulgences, no concept of purgatory, no original sin, etc. The “Western Rite” ‘orthodox’ are basically Protestants in Communion with Constantinople.

 

[Alexios]

Western Rite Orthodox aren’t “Protestant in communion with Constantinople.” They’re just Eastern Orthodox.

Not only are they not allowed Western theological patrimony, which from an EO point of view I understand, but many churches have a weirdly aesthetic mix of Western and Byzantine, at least from the pictures I’ve seen. Byzantine-style icons, censers, etc. Sort of how a latinized Eastern Catholic church looks odd, same idea here but in reverse.

And Simple Sinner, I think the “TLM-like” Mass they have is called the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, not of St. Peter.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And Simple Sinner, I think the “TLM-like” Mass they have is called the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, not of St. Peter.

You are right! That was a misfired synapse on my part!

You know, I actually had known that - if I would have read my own article I wrote about WRO linked above, I would have been reminded! Duh…

Did not have any coffee today…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is completely incorrect. The Maronites never, ever adopted Monothelitism. Why you continue to perpetuate such a thing, I do not know. They professed that Christ had One will, doubly. St. Maximos the Confessor took the opposite and then the extreme view of this. That is how Syriac Christians professed it, as One will doubly (Human and Divine). Because Christ has One Will, that was doubled. The Maronites have never left Rome at all. There’s no historical proof whatsoever that they adopted Monothelitism, or that they “broke from Rome.”

There was a geographic disruption during Muslim invasions, although I’m sure you’ll disagree to this. Once communication was able to be re-established, the Maronites cleared up the confusion by adopting the Latin view. A more knowledgable Maronite can correct me if I’m mistaken on this.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

Here’s a quote from a thread on Byzcath:

The evidence is quite clear, including, for instance a 7-8th century Maronite manuscript on St. Maximus that starts off calling him a “blasphemer whose tongue was cut out and his hand cut off for cursing Christ.” Further, at the council of Florence, the Maronites specifically renounced their monotheletism. It was not just a question of geography. The Melkites remained in communion with Rome and New Rome for centuries after the Muslim conquest. I’ll have to refresh my memory on Muslim polemics, as the better ones, eg. Ibn al-Warraq, know the difference between the Orthodox Catholic, “monophysites” and the Maronites.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Big issues that everyone talks about are always the Filioque or Papal Primacy/ Infallibility. These are not the actual issues that perpetuate the schism.

Actually, yes they are.

These issues are a matter of solid Historical Church history that no one can deny when they took at the facts honestly. The real issue of the schism is the Eucharist. The ‘orthodox’ do not recognize Catholics as having a valid Eucharist because we did not want to change to leaven bread and prefer to retain unleaven bread as Peter taught us.

Your source that “St. Peter taught this”?

Why didn’t he teach it at his original See, at Antioch?

(the original Roman Mass was called the Liturgy of Peter). We did not want to go along with their innovation to the liturgy but we did not prevent them from changing.

Actually, unleavened bread was the innovation.

And Rome’s suppression of the use of leavened Eucharist in the South of Italy, Sicily etc was the start of the events of 1054.

They then denied that the original unleaven bread of the liturgy was valid matter for the Eucharist and began saying that Catholic no longer have a valid Mass. This is a lie of course but is was the most hurtful and deep of any lie. Then a Byzantine Patriarch broke into a Latin Rite church under armed guard and broke open the tabernacle, threw the Body and Blood of Jesus from the tabernacle onto the floor of the Church and stepped on it. For this action, he was personally excommunicated by the West (any bishop could have excommunicated him but it was only a Latin bishop with enough courage to do so and in fact he was automatically excommunicated by Cannon Law for his action even if a Bull of Excommunication had never been written). This excommuniation was to officially tell this Patriarch, Michael the first of Constantinople, that he commited a grave sin and to compel him to confess and repent. He however did not do this and lead the entier Church of Constontinople into Schism over the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the only issue that matters in the Schism and the Schism can not be healed no matter how many time FILIOQUE is resolved. (Filioque has be theologically resolved about 12 times so far.)

If it has been resolved, why do you still have it?

Unfortunanatly for the native population, they were eventually conqured by muslims and the muslims accepted only the Church in schism as the legal Christain Church in the otoman empire because they wanted to keep out the legitimate Catholic Church. This lead to centuries and centuries of Eastern Catholic persecution from the legally sanctioned ‘orthodox’.

You skipped over the part where Rome usurped the patriarchates of the East by the Crusaders’ swords.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Orthodox churches never targeted the western church for poaching and exploitation. Not even when the west was going through a series of crises (like the three-way Papal schism, or the Protestant dissension). The Orthodox never made common cause with any disaffected groups of the Latin Catholic church, and never considered naming a replacement for the Pope of Rome.

It is fundamentally against to ecclesiology of Holy Orthodoxy to interfere in the internal affairs of another Apostolic church. The policy of Holy Orthodoxy has always been to be open to reconciliation, and pray.

You’re right, the Western Rites of the Orthodox Church are not reverse unia, we’ve made no attempts to coerce entire Churches into communion with us.

In fact when there were overtures made by the Lutherans to the Ecumenical Patriarch in the 16th century, after several correspondences Patriarch Jeremiah II broke communications with them because of their heterodox beliefs. If he had desired perhaps the EP could have overlooked the theological issues and forged ahead with union with the Lutherans but he valued truth over any particular political advantages he may have gained by such a union.

Compare that attitude to some of the “unions” between disaffected Eastern Churches and Rome.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[ASimpleSinner]

You skipped over the part where Rome usurped the patriarchates of the East by the Crusaders’ swords.

I used to take your posts more seriously as a credible argument. But this odd assertion just defies that. It is needlessly inflamatory, inaccurate, and polemic. But it does at least help to refocus the debate by putting your party in the seeming “moral high ground” while talking about the Romans with their “Crusaders usurping swords”.

Can you point to any crusader sword usurped Patriarchates today that represent the Roman suppression or oppression of the Orthodox? If anything, they titled the bishops they brought with them “patriarch” in the same way the Greek bishops in Oriental sees got “promonted” when the OO dropped communion.

But what again did this have to do with the WRO?

When you assert Claudius is wrong:

The Big issues that everyone talks about are always the Filioque or Papal Primacy/ Infallibility. These are not the actual issues that perpetuate the schism.

Yes they are

Are we to garner from this assertion that if Rome renounce primacy and dropped the filioque they would be “welcomed back to Orthodoxy” en masse? Eastern Orthodox parties have rival theories on whether Catholic priests are even priests! When JP2 visited St. Catherines Monastery in Sinai he was referred to by his hosts as “The President of Vatican City”

If the Pope of Rome found out that the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Moscow (Oldest, First see of Peter, “first among equals” and Largest) were gathered in one place and he flew to them, through off his papal tiara, and flung himself at their feet, I don’t think it is clear it is a known quantity what would or should be done with him on their part! The infighting as to what it would take to recognize Catholic Holy orders, the Mass, canonical traditions, etc. would begin!

The tired old canard about “Antioch as the real petrine see” always begs the question - what other Apostles have contention as to which can rightly be considered “their see” besides where they died?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Eastern Catholic Churches are full Church bodies that either NEVER broke with Rome or have reconciled with Rome after all theological issues were cleared up. They are the legitimate Christian Churches of the East.

According to the West.

Western Rite “orthodoxy” is not a full church body that broke with Rome to go to Constantinople.

The West doesn’t have full church bodies anymore. Rome suppressed them all.

There has never yet been a case of a reconciled Eastern Catholic Church breaking with Rome to go back to Constantinople.

Constantinople itself is one that did.

Western Rite ‘orthodoxy’ is when a priest, never a Catholic priest,

Never? There has been quite a few.

usually an Anglican priest that does not have valid Holy Orders, converts to ‘orthodoxy’ and brings his congregation with him. They do not want to fully do things the Eastern way so they are allowed to keep their same ritual but there are many, many, massive changes made to it.

I’ve been told by WRO that it is little change. The Western DL I have been to support that contention.

The most noticible is the alteration of the creed.

You mean using the unaltered, original Creed.

In a Western Rite church you may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father throught the Son. This formula is only valid in the creed, according to ‘orthodoxy’ if said in Greek, Russian, or Slavonic. If you say this in any other language it is invalid and you will be called a heretic.

You may not say “and the Son” in any language.

No one says “through the Son” in the Creed, although it is Orthodox.

(no I don’t understand the logic of it either).

Well, since you made it up, if you don’t understand it…

What is more, they even sometimes mandate the verb be changed from proceed to originate. These two words have vastly different meanings and it is hard to see this change is justified.

Because the Greek original word, and most translations, mean both proceed and originate, although I’ve never heard of this “mandate.”

Another point I should point out is that the priest, or protestant minister, who do not have valid Holy Orders are never actually given valid Holy Orders by the ‘orthodox’.

I personally know a number of Protestant ministers who have converted and every single one, and every single one they know, has been ordained by an Orthodox bishop.

They simply are told that they can start up, do it how the Greek bishop says and send in the tithe money. Within ‘orthodoxy’ priest usually tell their members not to attend western rite churches because the secret is this ’ the eucharist at a western rite church is still really invalid’.

Even the most virolent opponent of the Western Rite (and there are many) admit that it is a “valid” Eucharist (since we don’t talk about “valid” and “illicit but valid,” and “invalid,” I think you’re hearing rumors on this one too. Or making it up?).

If a Catholic Priest converts to ‘orthodoxy’, and they shouldn’t because that would be VERY VERY WRONG,

Says who, Rome?

but if they do, they are usually rebaptised, reordained and forced to abandon the Latin Rite entirely and adopt the Byzantine rite.

Actually, all the priests I know who came home East, none were reordained nor rechrismated, let alone rebaptised. They chose the rite of Constantinople, at least that is what they told me. Btw, a good number of the bishops in the US were baptized by Rome, including Bishop Job of Chicago, Bishop Mark of Toledo, etc…

They must also confess the so called sin of consecrating falsly while as a Catholic priest.

I’ve read less conspiracy in a Chick publication.

Though the Byzantines do not out right say it, this procedure tells us that they do not recongnize Catholic baptisms as valid, nor our Holy Orders, dispite statements to the exact opposite by their church leadership, and that they do not recognize the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Actually at one of the joint theological meetings the Orthodox flat out refused to state that we unequivally recognize the sacraments of Rome, causing Rome’s delegates to walk out.

Based on this, and the fact that we know the all the Catholic Rites are Valid, it tells us that they do not have a proper understanding of what these sacrements are and this makes their own sacrements very doubtful.

You had better inform the Vatican: your popes and Vatican II say we have “valid” Holy Mysteries. But then, if you deny that, you have a problem explaining that infallibility Rome claims.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Recent dialogue with the ‘orthodox’ have impoved relations a lot and appologies are going back and forth for a host of things but full reconciliation with the Byzantines is a long way off. We should pray for it and look forward to it

this is true. Grant it O Lord!

but really in a way, reconciliation has already taken place.
The Eastern Catholic Churches are the true continuation of the Byzantine, Armenean, Coptic, and Antiochtene rites.

Now, you had to ruin it with propaganda.

They are in full communion with Rome as is the only spiritually and intellectually honest approach to this.

Good that you come clean. We Orthodox keep on being called paranoid when we say the “uniate model” isn’t dead.

We should all be joyful for the eventual reunion of the rest of the Byzantines with Rome when it happens.

Seien Sie außer Sorge, nach Canossa gehen wir nicht – weder körperlich noch geistig.

However, the real issue that divides Rome from the churches in schism still have not been dealt with and we should give our support to boosting and improving the possition of the Eastern Catholic Churches who are still being persecuted for acknowledging the truth to their fellow countrymen.

I know quite a few Orthodox whose churches have been seized by such “support.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I used to take your posts more seriously as a credible argument. But this odd assertion just defies that. It is needlessly inflamatory, inaccurate, and polemic.

None of the above.

But it does at least help to refocus the debate by putting your party in the seeming “moral high ground” while talking about the Romans with their “Crusaders usurping swords”.

The argument (tired argument I might add) that the Muslims are why the whole East never submitted to Rome was brought up, and with it the issue of force being used to establish churches. The Crusader patriarchates, abolished only after Vatican II, except Jerusalem, which still exists, provide the obvious rebuttal to this canard.

Can you point to any crusader sword usurped Patriarchates today that represent the Roman suppression or oppression of the Orthodox?

Jerusalem. (but to be fair, things have worked out now far better in the Latin Patriarchate than the Orthodox one at the present for the faithful).

The Maronites first got linked to Rome with the Crusades, but at least they seemed to have gone willingly.

If anything, they titled the bishops they brought with them “patriarch” in the same way the Greek bishops in Oriental sees got “promonted” when the OO dropped communion.

Again, Jerusalem was a glaring exception, no OO patriarchate. Only EO. Antioch maintained a good number of Melkites. Only in Alexandria can the case you state be perhaps made, and even then the cosmopolitan nature of Alexandria casts doubt on that. Btw, only Alexandria never had its Latin patriarch installed: both Christian and Muslim repulsed the Crusaders there.

But what again did this have to do with the WRO?

Nothing, but then I was just responding to the post. Perhaps a new thread, maybe even in another forum, is needed.

When you assert Claudius is wrong:

Are we to garner from this assertion that if Rome renounce primacy and dropped the filioque they would be “welcomed back to Orthodoxy” en masse? Eastern Orthodox parties have rival theories on whether Catholic priests are even priests! When JP2 visited St. Catherines Monastery in Sinai he was referred to by his hosts as “The President of Vatican City”

Well, he is, isn’t he?

We all have our converts from Rome, and we all require dropping filioque and supremacy.

If the Pope of Rome found out that the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Moscow (Oldest, First see of Peter, “first among equals” and Largest) were gathered in one place and he flew to them, through off his papal tiara, and flung himself at their feet, I don’t think it is clear it is a known quantity what would or should be done with him on their part! The infighting as to what it would take to recognize Catholic Holy orders, the Mass, canonical traditions, etc. would begin!

No, just on a bigger scale. We’ve already all had our converts from Rome.

The tired old canard about “Antioch as the real petrine see” always begs the question - what other Apostles have contention as to which can rightly be considered “their see” besides where they died?

I didn’t say “real,” I said “original.”

No question. Constantinople is a See of St. Andrew, but everyone one knows he was martyred in his See of Patras, where his relics are.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The argument (tired argument I might add) that the Muslims are why the whole East never submitted to Rome was brought up, and with it the issue of force being used to establish churches. The Crusader patriarchates, abolished only after Vatican II, except Jerusalem, which still exists, provide the obvious rebuttal to this canard.

Can we examine this point on those Latin patriarchs of titular sees and again, my point about who they were for? With the exception of Jerusalem - a real bisop serving a real community of real Latins - the others have been titular sees for how long? And now abolished for decades no less.

Can it be asserted that the one remaining Latin patriarch of a see of the east (Jerusalem) asserts his his status as being over or replacing (any) of the Orthodox patriarchs for the Orthodox? And the others? Is there in fact any working praxis that these men who took these titles (again, for several of the sees titular titles) were asserting themselves the true and historic patriarchs of particular churches and asserting themselves as such? Again this reference to the “Crusader patriarchates taken by the sword” is needlessly invective and polemic. Any opportunity to bring in crusader imagery and “bloodthirsty Latins” in such matters seem to be welcomed.

Jerusalem. (but to be fair, things have worked out now far better in the Latin Patriarchate than the Orthodox one at the present for the faithful).

And to be fair, again, the Latin patriarch is for the community of Latins that exist there. I don’t see how this is difficult to see. It really seems no different from the Antiochians establishing a “Bishop of Toledo” in Ohio to serve them. They didn’t march on Rosary Cathedral and send the Roman prelate packing.

Again, Jerusalem was a glaring exception, no OO patriarchate. Only EO. Antioch maintained a good number of Melkites. Only in Alexandria can the case you state be perhaps made, and even then the cosmopolitan nature of Alexandria casts doubt on that. Btw, only Alexandria never had its Latin patriarch installed: both Christian and Muslim repulsed the Crusaders there.

In fact there was a Titular Patriarch of Alexandria that was a title given to various functionaries about Rome (at times vacant for centuries) and abolished in 1964 during but not by the Council.

At best it was an honorific handed out that sounded fancy no different than one RC auxilliary bishop I know of who is the titular bishop of a see located in modern day Algeria that has been vacant of centuries. And the holders of such honorifics make no real or intended claim to rule these sees or be the rightful leader of any of the baptized who may now reside there. (I recall being told they are expressly forbidden even from visiting them - I don’t think my aquaintance was in any hurry to try, the year we discussed it the Trappists had been executed, and several women bathing on a women-only beach in swinsuits wear decapitated.)

Well, he is, isn’t he?

Isa did you not understand that the reference to the Pope as “President of the Vatican” as opposed to even “Bishop of Rome” was to demonstrate that they didn’t feel he was even a bishop? Or are you just being clever in this particular response?

We all have our converts from Rome, and we all require dropping filioque and supremacy.

No, just on a bigger scale. We’ve already all had our converts from Rome.

And we have had them from the East… Also it is worth noting that how they are recieved is by no means uniform! French Catholic priests have been baptized in monasteries at Athos, ACROD came into union with Constantinople at the stroke of a pen.

But I don’t understand how this is related. No one said you didn’t what I assert is should Rome beg for corporate re-union on “EO terms” it isn’t the least bit clear that there is uniformity in thinking on what steps would need to be taken! It isn’t clear that parties in Orthodoxy wouldn’t demand the Pope himself needs to be repabtized.