"Western Rite" Orthodox

[ASimpleSinner]

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

Would you have an interest in starting a thread to back up that assertion?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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

Joe I really don’t see how the events of the unias and the discussions with the Lutherans - rightly dropped by Constantinople - are comparable. Were the unias enacted with Eastern heretical parties? Was it with the Raskolniki? No.

I am not sure any special moral high ground can be found in not taking Lutherans in can be achieved. It certainly wasn’t comparable. Inviting comparison is valuable to what end?

As to the assertion or intimation that we were deviously tricked into unia by Rome, or were just taken advantage of in a time of disaffection. That simply doesn’t hold water.

In the face of no small amount of adversity when lands where churches in unia came under the sway of Orthodox rulers, unions held up, and folks who were as free to leave as they were encouraged to do so, opted not to. The subtle implication I deal with time and time again is that “you were tricked, and have been duped all this time by this trick”.

As unimaginable as this is to some or to many, among Slavic eastern Christians anti-Roman sentiment did not always hold sway. Looking at canonized Orthodox saints like St. Peter Moghyla (who roundly adopted a great deal of western theology and was largely open to Latin and Scholastic thought) to St. Yaroslav the Wise whose granddaughter married a German Catholci - without any special conversion or reception - and then became a hermittess who is locally venerated… Well one starts to get a better picture for how the unia is not all treachery, deceit or simply the product or Roman exploitation of disaffection. Some would say - and I would agree - that the most strident of Greek criticisms of Rome were as foisted on the Slavs for political reasons by the Czars and Patriarchs of Moscow and re-enforced by some strident Latin parties and the Austro-Hungarian civil government.

Among the Antiochian Orthodox, before the split between Orthodox and Melkite parties, there was much interchange with Catholics up to and including Orthodox priests marching in Latin processions. Even today most can’t be bothered to the levels of vitriol and contradistinction so common here. Intercommunion was and is rather regular, Roman clergy were sent to assist in formation of Antiochian clergy by Antiochian request. The demarcation point for the Antiochian split was when rival patriarchs who lined up with Rome and Constantinople in the 1700s. Tough as it is for some to accept, before that there simply was not the same prevalence of understanding “us & them” that reigns today.

The most popular and strident anti-Latin stances today weren’t found always and everywhere in the East since 1054. Strains of such thinking can be found well before 1054 to be sure. But the current tensions are of far more recent origin and far more related to national rivalries and dhimmitude status in the Ottoman Empire. (God knows the sultan did not want Easterners too cozy with Rome any more than the Premier of China is interested in Catholics in China in the “official church” having stronger ties and freedom to travel back and forth to Rome!)

Some of the mental gymnastics I have seen to arbitrarily pick some self-serving criteria for why “Anglican Rite Orthodox” are ok and NOT “comparable to Eastern Catholics” (who are not) makes me dizzy.

We are what we are - parties that have taken sides contravailing the standards for the majority involved with our ritual praxis. It may be just as well to leave it at that.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Western Rite ‘orthodoxy’ is when a priest, never a Catholic priest, usually an Anglican priest that does not have valid Holy Orders,
(…)
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.

In other words, Anglicans actually get treated better than Catholics in some cases? Anglicans-turned-Orthodox get to keep their liturgical traditions, but Catholics-turned-Orthodox are forced to abandon it all? That’s very sad and unfortunate.

 

[Ungcsertez]

What about the Unions of Brest (c.1596) and Uzhorod (c.1646)? Do you believe that these unions were of an economic and political nature? Remember at that time, the Ruthenian Orthodox priests had very little training, had to perform manual labor duties and pay tithes , and the faithful were uneducated peasants. Surely the priests believed there were economic advantages to be had if they accepted the Reunion with Rome.

U-C

U-C

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

In other words, Anglicans actually get treated better than Catholics in some cases? Anglicans-turned-Orthodox get to keep their liturgical traditions, but Catholics-turned-Orthodox are forced to abandon it all? That’s very sad and unfortunate.

I wouldn’t trust Claudius’ post too much on these matters, he seems a little…polemic (charitably put).

As Isa has already pointed out, the contention that “all” or “most” or even a considerable number of Catholic converts are rebaptised is false.

The only ones I can imagine doing something like that are the non-canonical Old Calendarists.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

As to the assertion or intimation that we were deviously tricked into unia by Rome, or were just taken advantage of in a time of disaffection. That simply doesn’t hold water.

What about them?

Did I write anything that would lead you to believe "that these unions were of an economic and political nature? "

Do you assert the unia went into place soley for those reasons and held up with that as the foundation for more than 3 centuries?

I contend that is one facet that we cannot rightly reduce it all down to.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

As a footnote to discussion, I would point out as an instance the practice of holding hands during the Our Father in the Latin Rite.

It is a practice with no liturgical foundation, worse reasons for existing, and very little aesthetic or spiritual value.

Yet, since but one generation was raised with it, it has become normative and has begun to be passed down throughout the generations, from parent to child.

Thus, even if the Ruthenian union was based on sandy foundations, it takes only the raising of one generation of Ruthenian Catholics for Ruthenian Catholicism to become a matter of heritage and contention for those so persuaded.

 

[Ungcsertez]

What about them?

Did I write anything that would lead you to believe "that these unions were of an economic and political nature? "

Do you assert the unia went into place soley for those reasons and held up with that as the foundation for more than 3 centuries?

I contend that is one facet that we cannot rightly reduce it all down to.

I think the economics of time made many indifferent to centuries-old schism between Rome and Constantinople. There were definite advantages to be gained and these Orthodox priests knew that when the signed these unions.

U-C

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

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

Really? I was taught to believe otherwise. ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm It says here that those two churches were never separated from us.

I believe you, of course. It’s just that there’s this disparity and it makes it even more confusing for a westerner like me to understand. I guess it’s not as black-and-white as I thought.

Any idea why there’s this dispute about the histories of those two Churches? Is it just that perhaps some factions of the Italo-Albanian and Maronite Churches were always Catholic, while some factions were not, causing differing opinions as to their bona fide history?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I wouldn’t trust Claudius’ post too much on these matters, he seems a little…polemic.

As Isa has already pointed out, the contention that “all” or “most” or even a considerable number of Catholic converts are rebaptised is false.

The only ones I can imagine doing something like that are the non-canonical Old Calendarists.

The fact it is a minority party doesn’t mean that it does not happen. A few years ago a convert who was ordained a priest was pressured on Athos to be baptized…

It may not be the majority, but a minorty feels comfortable in asserting it and their has been no broad or round declaration that they are wrong. This is still much debated in some circles.

And no, these parties are not to be found only among the “non-Canonical” and it isn’t even necessarily fair to label old calendarist parties as being “non-Canonical”. One explained to me that they were well within their canonical rights to “wall off” until such time that a council could be convened to settle a dispute.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I think the economics of time made many indifferent to centuries-old schism between Rome and Constantinople. There were definite advantages to be gained and these Orthodox priests knew that when the signed these unions.

U-C

Again, do you assert the unia went into place soley for those reasons and held up with that as the foundation for more than 3 centuries?

That there were certain advantages to be gained I cannot argue and would not say otherwise. But reduction down to just economic expedience seems difficult to argue - as their lot improved and the seminary system was put in place, they were free to leave - some did, others joined. 3 centuries later I am not sure we can say that economic interest of the sort you suggest was the sole factor in the unia remaining intact. Certainly at any given number of times, breaking the unia would have far easier.

As to the notion the economic need prevailed and pragmatic reasons lead them to overlook a split between the Greeks and Romans, I really just don’t see that as likely. If anything for several centuries before the unia, Slav and Arab Orthodox largely did not share in the anti-Roman sentiments of the Greek parties.

 

[Ungcsertez]

That there were certain advantages to be gained I cannot argue and would not say otherwise. But reduction down to just economic expedience seems difficult to argue - as their lot improved and the seminary system was put in place, they were free to leave - some did, others joined. 3 centuries later I am not sure we can say that economic interest of the sort you suggest was the sole factor in the unia remaining intact. Certainly at any given number of times, breaking the unia would have far easier.

QUOTE]

In the areas controlled by the Roman Catholic Polish-Lithuanian and Hungarian Kingdoms (later the lands controlled by Austria-Hungary) leaving the Unia was risking life and limb. There were many civil trials for individuals and entire churches who attemped to return to Orthodoxy. Leaving usually wasn’t an option.

U-C

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

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.

Quick question, is that American Carpatho body in Communion with Constantinople? I always thought that if one were to join the Orthodox Communion, the Catholic label would be dropped in favour of Orthodox, just as how Easterners who leave the Orthodox Church and join Catholicism become Eastern Catholic and no longer Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, it always seemed to me that bodies that call themselves Catholic-Orthodox are counterfeit bodies that are really neither Catholic nor Orthodox, not being in Communion with any of the real Catholic or Orthodox Churches. At the very least, this seems true with the vast majority of people who claim to be “Catholic-Orthodox.” Are there exceptions where this is untrue, and “Catholic-Orthodox” people are in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

ASimpleSinner;3381071:

That there were certain advantages to be gained I cannot argue and would not say otherwise. But reduction down to just economic expedience seems difficult to argue - as their lot improved and the seminary system was put in place, they were free to leave - some did, others joined. 3 centuries later I am not sure we can say that economic interest of the sort you suggest was the sole factor in the unia remaining intact. Certainly at any given number of times, breaking the unia would have far easier.

In the areas controlled by the Roman Catholic Polish-Lithuanian and Hungarian Kingdoms (later the lands controlled by Austria-Hungary) leaving the Unia was risking life and limb. There were many civil trials for individuals and entire churches who attemped to return to Orthodoxy. Leaving usually wasn’t an option.

U-C

Well U-C you seem to be getting a little closer to answering my question (“Again, do you assert the unia went into place soley for those reasons and held up with that as the foundation for more than 3 centuries?”)

Also note in the edited portion of the post you do respond to that “Certainly at any given number of times, breaking the unia would have far easier”… Your post while factual enough seems also to need qualification, at other times it was allowed, encouraged, and rather dangerous NOT to leave the unia - borders changed.

I hope you are not building a thesis that essentially is “They only came because they were poor, they only stayed because they were afraid.”

 

[Ungcsertez]

Quick question, is that American Carpatho body in Communion with Constantinople? I always thought that if one were to join the Orthodox Communion, the Catholic label would be dropped in favour of Orthodox, just as how Easterners who leave the Orthodox Church and join Catholicism become Eastern Catholic and no longer Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, it always seemed to me that bodies that call themselves Catholic-Orthodox are counterfeit bodies that are really neither Catholic nor Orthodox, not being in Communion with any of the real Catholic or Orthodox Churches. At the very least, this seems true with the vast majority of people who claim to be “Catholic-Orthodox.” Are there exceptions where this is untrue, and “Catholic-Orthodox” people are in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches?

When they broke with Rome in 1936, they incorporated under the name “American Carpatho-Russian (Rusyn) Greek Catholic Church of the Eastern Rite”, as many only wanted their ecclesiastical rights according to terms of the Union (married clergy, full Eastern theology, etc.) . Many of the churches which went to civil court litigation held the name “Greek Catholic” in their titles so they really didn’t start using “Orthodox” in their charter titles of their churches until much later, '50’s and '60’s.

U-C

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

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.

Horrible. What an awful thing. Do you happen to remember specifics as to dates and names regarding this? I’d like to read more about it and I don’t know what exactly to look up.

 

[Ungcsertez]

Well U-C you seem to be getting a little closer to answering my question (“Again, do you assert the unia went into place soley for those reasons and held up with that as the foundation for more than 3 centuries?”)

Also note in the edited portion of the post you do respond to that “Certainly at any given number of times, breaking the unia would have far easier”… Your post while factual enough seems also to need qualification, at other times it was allowed, encouraged, and rather dangerous NOT to leave the unia - borders changed.

I hope you are not building a thesis that essentially is “They only came because they were poor, they only stayed because they were afraid.”

Can you name an example, (time, village(s)? I have never heard of Orthodox Churches existing legally until the time after WWI.

U-C

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Quick question, is that American Carpatho body in Communion with Constantinople? I always thought that if one were to join the Orthodox Communion, the Catholic label would be dropped in favour of Orthodox, just as how Easterners who leave the Orthodox Church and join Catholicism become Eastern Catholic and no longer Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, it always seemed to me that bodies that call themselves Catholic-Orthodox are counterfeit bodies that are really neither Catholic nor Orthodox, not being in Communion with any of the real Catholic or Orthodox Churches. At the very least, this seems true with the vast majority of people who claim to be “Catholic-Orthodox.” Are there exceptions where this is untrue, and “Catholic-Orthodox” people are in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches?

Yes, ACROD is directly under Constantinople. The use of the term “Greek Catholic” was retained largely out of attachment to a particular identity and worldview that they wanted to hold unto and some would argue that entering into communion with Constantinople was largely a function of wanting to maintain the “status quo” of married priests (this was in the wake of Cum data ferrit) and the trusteeship system wherein the parishes remained under the ownership of the parish trustees. When they left communion with Rome and resettled with Constantinople they retained MANY distinct latinizations and “high Greek Catholic” customs for decades:

• When they built new churches, for example they would build them with baldichinos, the westernized style of iconography so popular in the Ruthenian Church at one point, abbreviated icon screens, Latin tabernacles, latin alters three-steps up… I have seen this in churches built in the 1960s - 3 decades after the seperation and unremodeled when I saw them in the 1990s…
• They continued to designate senior priests as “monsignori”
• The rosary and Sacred Heart devotions remained popular
• At least as recently as the late 90s they bought all of their liturgical books from the Byzantine Catholic Seminary Press…
• Thier bishops wore roman cassocks, with red piping and fascia, clean shaven and Roman pectoral crosses

I don’t think they were trying to “fool” anyone or that the continued use of “Greek Catholic” was all that out of synch with what the sense of identity.

Bishop +NICHOLAS of Johnstown - coming out of an OCA monastic foundation - has largely worked to “Byzantinize”… Some of thier parishes that are older and smaller are still found to have some varying amounts of some of these things…

 

[Ungcsertez]

Bishop +NICHOLAS of Johnstown - coming out of an OCA monastic foundation - has largely worked to “Byzantinize”… Some of thier parishes that are older and smaller are still found to have some varying amounts of some of these things…

Actually he went to a monastery at Halki and then was elected a bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Ecumenical Patriarch), before coming back to the ACROD in 1985.

U-C

 

[Hesychios]

The fact it is a minority party doesn’t mean that it does not happen. A few years ago a convert who was ordained a priest was pressured on Athos to be baptized…

Are you sure he was pressured?

I am going to assume the basic information is correct, that a man was baptized on Athos.

He went to Athos of his own free will, and could leave at any time. Perhaps he wanted the baptism, and went to Athos for that purpose? I won’t deny that there are probably some monasteries on Athos which would see it as proper.

But overall, this is not done. I have stated before that had my bishop requested it, I would have accepted a baptism when I converted, I was so sure I wanted to be Orthodox.

As it is, I was told I would be accepted through confession and a profession of faith with communion. I asked to be Chrismated, and my priest agreed, I am very glad I did.
*
Michael*