"Western Rite" Orthodox

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The oldest was Antioch, which lasted for nearly 9 centuries. The youngest was Alexandria, which lasted for over 7 centuries.

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?

Should he be any different from the other hierarchs under Rome in the East (read Claudius’ posts).

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?

The Patriarch of Antioch was expelled by the Crusaders to set up their patriarch. Constantinople 1204 I’m sure you know. The Fifth Crusade was sent to put the Latin on Alexandria’s throne.

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.

I’m interested in history, not its revision.

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.

There were no Latins there to speak of to service. And the Orthodox patriarch was expelled, and his hierarchy not allowed to function.

When the new Latin patriarch took up residence, the Vatican I father Giuseppe Valerga was nicknamed al-jazzaar “the Butcher” by the local Faithful, for the relish he took to his task of establishing the Latin presence in the Holy Land.

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.

No. They didn’t.

Hence the difference.

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.)

Nice to know our Sees are just honorifics to be passed around the curia.

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?

I don’t know about clever. I do know that those who are attracted to the Sinai (an autocephalous Chruch, btw) is not as enthused as the EP seems to be about Rome. Since I do not have the information on the visit, and this comment, I can’t definitely say what was up, only surmize.

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.

I’m sure there would be. I, however, won’t be one of them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Where?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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

U-C

U-C that still gives a good 90 year window SINCE WWI, doesn’t it?

You aren’t contending that there were never any opportunities or pressures for the Greek Catholics to renounce the unia are you? In the immediate aftermath of the Polish revolt against the Russian Empire in the 1830s the Imperial Government put in place measures to entice or force conversions. This was during the period of Bishop Joseph Semashko… Parishes in eastern Ukraine and the well known Pochaiv Lavra opted to convert to Orthodoxy… We could start to make lists and timelines but largely the point is to say that it would not be accurate to envision “They only came because they were poor, they only stayed because they were afraid.”

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?

 

[Ungcsertez]

U-C that still gives a good 90 year window SINCE WWI, doesn’t it?

You aren’t contending that there were never any opportunities or pressures for the Greek Catholics to renounce the unia are you? In the immediate aftermath of the Polish revolt against the Russian Empire in the 1830s the Imperial Government put in place measures to entice or force conversions. This was during the period of Bishop Joseph Semashko… Parishes in eastern Ukraine and the well known Pochaiv Lavra opted to convert to Orthodoxy… We could start to make lists and timelines but largely the point is to say that it would not be accurate to envision “They only came because they were poor, they only stayed because they were afraid.”

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?

My point was between the time of 1596-1914, returning to Orthodoxy was as good as outlawed, at least in regards to the Rusyn and Ukrainian Greek Catholics of the Roman Catholic Polish-Lithuanian and Hungarian Kingdoms (later Austria-Hungary).

U-C

 

[Hesychios]

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:

Yes, I agree that ACROD was very attached to the Greek Catholic customs of their homeland, which included a heavy dose of latinization. While bishop Nicholas is working to restore and clean up the Ruthenian recension, he is also a big advocate of preserving and using prostpinije, for which I think he should be awarded a medal of some sort.

‘Greek Catholic’ appears to be a term that gained wide currency first in the Austro-Hungarian empire, applied to the united churches there (probably around mid-nineteenth century). I don’t know if it was to differentiate them from Roman Catholic, because I am told Roman Catholic is a term invented by Protestants. But it seems pretty clear that the Latin Catholic government administration applied the term to it’s own formerly Orthodox subjects of the “Methodian Rite” (another old…very old… descriptive term used in central Europe).

But actually, considering what the words actually mean, it is not inappropriate for Orthodox. But using it would be too darn confusing because most people associate that term with the united (with Rome) parishes.

As I stated elsewhere, the Russian Metropolia called itself Greek Catholic as well. It probably still says that on old documents in force.
*
Michael*

 

[Ungcsertez]

While bishop Nicholas is working to restore and clean up the Ruthenian recension, he is also a big advocate of preserving and using prostpinije, for which I think he should be awarded a medal of some sort.
Michael*

I second that motion!

U-C

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

The similarity/difference was that the Lutherans were not going to be allowed to keep their “theological perspective” and formula, as the unias were-at least in the beginning.

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”.

The Unia of Brest-Lvov? Done while the Polish king reigned over the lands in question? (and to avoid falling under the closer resurgent Moscow than farther, captive Constantinople).

The Unia in Transylvania stemmed from the attempt to escape the penalties placed on the Orthodox Romanian majority. Even the Protestants and even Unitarians had, unlike the Orthodox, recognized rights under the Hapsburgs.

I could go on, but I think I need not.

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)

and whose mother was a Latin Hungarian, btw.

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,

This has nothing to do with the unia, as Yaroslav predates the schism, which did not solidy until some time after 1054, and St. Peter Mohyla did not join the unia:his career was spent in keeping the Orthodox out of it.

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.

Yes, I would agree both sides benefited.

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.

You mean Latin or Melkite?

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.

Actually, there was: us (Antioch) them (Rome and Constantinople).

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!)

Ah yes, only the Muslims kept us from submitting to Rome. No mention of Rome taking advantage of the pressure on the Orthodox from the East.

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.

For one thing, the WRO Missal is explicitly edited for heterodoxy. The “Eastern Catholics,” at least initially, were not so edited.

Your Anglican Uage parishes might equally ask why Eastern Rites are OK but not theirs.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

And also untrue.

I do not know of a Latin priest forced to go Eastern, but I know many who have chosen to do so.

Most Anglicans (episcopalians, actually) I know prefer, and go to, the DL oif St. Gregory (the TLM) over St. Tikhon (the BCP one). I went this past month to Holy Incarnation in Detroit last month. The DL was the Latin mass, including some of the Latin!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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 know my old priest’s father, himself a priest, was told by his bishop in Galicia that when he came to America, not to go to the bishop Rome had there, but the Russian Orthodox bishop. “Here (Austro-Hungary) we have to be uniate,” he said “there you do not.” This would have been 3 centuries after the unia.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

For the Maronites, the history is scanty enough that those not familiar with it (i.e. most people) the claim that they remained in communion with Rome after the 6th Ecumenical Council can appear plausible. We do have interactions between the Maronites and their neighbors, and there is no indication of Rome being involved at all.

For the Italo-Albanians, the Albanians have come where the Greeks had been, but there is no connection between the two, Here the history is clearer, but since the Albanians appeared right when the Greeks had finally disappeared, and Greeks fleeing West (many already submitted to Rome), the appearance of continuity is easy to see, although not there.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

No, Orthodox Catholic is quite common among canonical Orthodox. After all, we say Catholic in the Creed, and in the rite of reception of converts the Church is constantly referred to as the “Holy Catholic Orhtodox Church.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

It’s mentioned in a lot of accounts about the schism of 1054, As I remember, it wasn’t the patriarch but another cleric, but memory might fail me here.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

My point was between the time of 1596-1914, returning to Orthodoxy was as good as outlawed, at least in regards to the Rusyn and Ukrainian Greek Catholics of the Roman Catholic Polish-Lithuanian and Hungarian Kingdoms (later Austria-Hungary).

U-C

The core (one at least) of the Orthodox Church of Czech and Slovak lands were those who returned to Orthodoxy in the interwar years. Another core were Western Rite Orthodox who went Eastern later.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I know my old priest’s father, himself a priest, was told by his bishop in Galicia that when he came to America, not to go to the bishop Rome had there, but the Russian Orthodox bishop. “Here (Austro-Hungary) we have to be uniate,” he said “there you do not.” This would have been 3 centuries after the unia.

Well there is certainly know arguing with that anecdotal evidence.

One wonders how it came to be the case that any Greek Catholics made it to freedom in the New World with their unia intact for the past 130 years…

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The similarity/difference was that the Lutherans were not going to be allowed to keep their “theological perspective” and formula, as the unias were-at least in the beginning.

Again dear Isa, how is this comparable?

Their “theological perspectives” were pure heresy at many different levels. Contradistinctive polemic aside, this isn’t the sort of problem that Orthodox and Latins have to deal with in a unia. It wasn’t like the Orthodox had dropped 5 sacraments off the books and then argued about which two to keep.

So that is mighty magnanimous of Constantinople to not take in people that rejected a slew of sacraments and understanding of Tradition to “sneak it on them” later I suppose.

The Unia of Brest-Lvov? Done while the Polish king reigned over the lands in question? (and to avoid falling under the closer resurgent Moscow than farther, captive Constantinople).

If you feel better reducing it to that for expedience, I won’t spend days on end in a thread trying to talk you out of it. If it is all explained via pragmatic political expedience - nothing more, nothing less in your mind…

(on Saint Peter Moghyhla):

and whose mother was a Latin Hungarian, btw.

What are you satisfied that proves or demonstrates? You throw that out there as thought is stands alone as evidence… I welcome explication on the relevence of that…

This has nothing to do with the unia, as Yaroslav predates the schism, which did not solidy until some time after 1054, and St. Peter Mohyla did not join the unia:his career was spent in keeping the Orthodox out of it.

Have you read Moghyla’s work?

Ah yes, only the Muslims kept us from submitting to Rome. No mention of Rome taking advantage of the pressure on the Orthodox from the East.

The sarcasm is on becoming. Interestingly it distracts gently while creating a straw man “Ah yes, only the Muslims kept us from submitting to Rome.” - something I didn’t say or allude to. Then the second in the one-two punch: “No mention of Rome taking advantage of the pressure on the Orthodox from the East.” - which you maybe could take time to explain your meaning and its relevence to the quote to which you are replying…

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.

For one thing, the WRO Missal is explicitly edited for heterodoxy. The “Eastern Catholics,” at least initially, were not so edited.

Your Anglican Uage parishes might equally ask why Eastern Rites are OK but not theirs.

The first statement makes no sense as a point of distinction - Unless you are contending there was significant change in the DL of Saint John from the periods of time when Latins and Greeks were largely fully in communion, why on earth would the lit books need to be edited?

This is simply not the case with the Book of Common Prayer - it never existed in a Catholic context until allowances were made in the last three decades for a number of “Anglican Use” parishes using an edited BDW. So I am not even sure why you bring that up - goes without saying which would need editing and which would not.

I am befuddled by “Your Anglican Uage parishes might equally ask why Eastern Rites are OK but not theirs”…

Let me get this correct, you want to know why Anglican Use parishes might ask why they are not allowed to be Anglican use but Eastern Catholics are? That would be like me asking, why am I not allowed to post things here - by posting on here.

A website worth looking at for some lively combox discussion on the WRO movement is www.westernritecritic.wordpress.com

 

[Claudius]

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.

The year was 1054. The Patriarch in question was Michael I (Cereneus) of Constantinople. He did this in several Churches and if we are to believe some of the accunts, his troops killed priest who were actually celebrating at the time. One very horrific story is that one of the soldiers stabbed a flag with the ChiRo on it possible to show that he denied the divinity of Christ. (the chiro is the first two letters of Chirst in Greek. I looks like a P with an X through the bottom.)

 

[Claudius]

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.

The year was 1054. The Patriarch in question was Michael I (Cereneus) of Constantinople. He did this in several Churches and if we are to believe some of the accunts, his troops killed priest who were actually celebrating at the time. One very horrific story is that one of the soldiers stabbed a flag with the ChiRo on it possible to show that he denied the divinity of Christ. (the chiro is the first two letters of Chirst in Greek. I looks like a P with an X through the bottom.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well there is certainly know arguing with that anecdotal evidence.

One wonders how it came to be the case that any Greek Catholics made it to freedom in the New World with their unia intact for the past 130 years…

Well, for one thing, the priest in question still went to the Latin bishop in Ohio (?), where he was spurned because he was married. He organized a parish and THEN went to the Russian bishop. He ended up founding 5 parishes I believe, both from Orthodox (especially after the Bolshevik take over) and the Unia (as they were called then). Similar to the famous encounter between St. Alexis Toth and Arb. Ireland, the Father of American Orthodoxy. Left to their own isolated villages, they saw no difference between Orthodox and those who submitted to Rome, and they were left in their ignorance. Some at the announcement of the Unia took it that the Pope of Rome had converted, after all, nothing in their parish church changed, except the names of the hierarchs. Latinizations even among the Orthodox helped with this. Only when they were confronted with the Latin church as a whole, eg. coming to the New World, did the realization dawn on them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again dear Isa, how is this comparable?

Their “theological perspectives” were pure heresy at many different levels. Contradistinctive polemic aside, this isn’t the sort of problem that Orthodox and Latins have to deal with in a unia. It wasn’t like the Orthodox had dropped 5 sacraments off the books and then argued about which two to keep.

The Chaldeans are allowed to continue to refer to the Theotokos as Christotokos (yaldat mshiHa), the very issue which caused the Third Ecumenical Council to expel Nestorius and his followers.

The various unia were allowed to say the Creed without the Filioque, at least at first, the very cause of 1054.

The Copts, Syrians, and Armenians as far as I know did not change a thing, a sign of the extend of that schism being a misunderstanding.

If you feel better reducing it to that for expedience, I won’t spend days on end in a thread trying to talk you out of it. If it is all explained via pragmatic political expedience - nothing more, nothing less in your mind…

The timing seems very opportune.

(on Saint Peter Moghyhla):

What are you satisfied that proves or demonstrates? You throw that out there as thought is stands alone as evidence… I welcome explication on the relevence of that…

You said something about relations between the Latins and the Orthodox being close. I was just giving a concrete example.

His mother, Elizabeth tried spreading submission to Rome in Moldavia.

Have you read Moghyla’s work?

Yes. And posted it.

The sarcasm is on becoming. Interestingly it distracts gently while creating a straw man “Ah yes, only the Muslims kept us from submitting to Rome.” - something I didn’t say or allude to. Then the second in the one-two punch: “No mention of Rome taking advantage of the pressure on the Orthodox from the East.” - which you maybe could take time to explain your meaning and its relevence to the quote to which you are replying…

you made the comparison:

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!)

Just like the only thing standing between the Patriotic Church (sic) and Rome is the Premier, the comparison made contends the Sultan played a similar role. In fact, with the tanzimat reforms, the Sultan furthered the consolidation of the unions with Rome into churches. The Sultan didn’t like the Orthodox getting cozy with the Russians (and for good reason), but no such wedge was driven between the Orthodox, nor is claimed.

The first statement makes no sense as a point of distinction - Unless you are contending there was significant change in the DL of Saint John from the periods of time when Latins and Greeks were largely fully in communion, why on earth would the lit books need to be edited?

and the Son.

This is simply not the case with the Book of Common Prayer - it never existed in a Catholic context until allowances were made in the last three decades for a number of “Anglican Use” parishes using an edited BDW. So I am not even sure why you bring that up - goes without saying which would need editing and which would not.

I am befuddled by “Your Anglican Uage parishes might equally ask why Eastern Rites are OK but not theirs”…

Let me get this correct, you want to know why Anglican Use parishes might ask why they are not allowed to be Anglican use but Eastern Catholics are? That would be like me asking, why am I not allowed to post things here - by posting on here.

I was referring to the demands by Anglican use for sui juris status.

A website worth looking at for some lively combox discussion on the WRO movement is www.westernritecritic.wordpress.com

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy

Is actually good, and has good links.

I have seen your linked site before.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The year was 1054. The Patriarch in question was Michael I (Cereneus) of Constantinople. He did this in several Churches and if we are to believe some of the accunts, his troops killed priest who were actually celebrating at the time. One very horrific story is that one of the soldiers stabbed a flag with the ChiRo on it possible to show that he denied the divinity of Christ. (the chiro is the first two letters of Chirst in Greek. I looks like a P with an X through the bottom.)

Since the Orhtodox believe in the divinity of Christ, well, draw your own conclusions about the veracity of this statement.