M
Mickey
Guest
This is a big problem for Rome. Like so many things, She says:
**“Even though it looks like we are saying such and such, we are really saying so and so”.
**
- Status
**“Even though it looks like we are saying such and such, we are really saying so and so”.
**
F
Fuerza
Guest
It’s really only a problem when people refuse to listen and keep asserting their own misperceptions even after the truth is explained to them. It’s rather juvenile if you ask me.This is a big problem for Rome. Like so many things, She says:
**“Even though it looks like we are saying such and such, we are really saying so and so”.
As I’ve said over an over again, I do believe that we should omit or amend the Filioque to more accurately reflect Catholic theology in modern language, but certainly not as a concession to the Orthodox. In my opinion, what the East thinks should have no bearing on how Rome practices. Any change should be for the purposes of correcting misunderstandings among Catholics, and should be accompanied by an explanation of why it is being put into place.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello Fuerza,
For Orthodox, what the other churches think is critically important, it is part of the glue which keeps the Christian community together…right belief and right practice in common with the other patriarchal churches. It’s a given.
For Roman Catholics…well…to hell with what anyone else thinks.
I suppose that’s how the split-up happened in the first place. It does not bode well for future prospects between us.
I think that you have touched upon a very fundamental difference between the Orthodox and the Roman catholics:
For Orthodox, what the other churches think is critically important, it is part of the glue which keeps the Christian community together…right belief and right practice in common with the other patriarchal churches. It’s a given.
For Roman Catholics…well…to hell with what anyone else thinks.
I suppose that’s how the split-up happened in the first place. It does not bode well for future prospects between us.
F
Fuerza
Guest
Michael,Hello Fuerza,
I think that you have touched upon a very fundamental difference between the Orthodox and the Roman catholics:
For Orthodox, what the other churches think is critically important, it is part of the glue which keeps the Christian community together…right belief and right practice in common with the other patriarchal churches. It’s a given.
For Roman Catholics…well…to hell with what anyone else thinks.
I suppose that’s how the split-up happened in the first place. It does not bode well for future prospects between us.
Somehow I don’t get the impression that the Orthodox care much about what Rome thinks of them…
Despite that, perhaps my comment was a little too broad. I do think that the opinion of the OC is valuable with regard to our practices, but only insofar as it is willing to try and understand why we do the things we do. Blanket statements from the East indicating that the Filioque implies double procession and is heretical show an unwillingness to admit that Latins know their own theology better than Easterners do. Our formulation means to us exactly what yours means to you. Why is this so hard to accept? The same applies with purgatory. We tell you that the only thing we need to believe is that souls who die not completely free from sin undergo some sort of transitional state in which prayers are beneficial to them. There are many opinions as to what this state entails, but they are all merely speculation. Despite this, the Orthodox insist that purgatory has been dogmatically defined as a fiery prison in which souls are tortured as penance. Granted this is an opinion, but it is not dogma.
I guess that my point is that your Church needs to spend less time twisting our words and trying to prove us wrong and more time working for unity. That involves learning what we actually teach, not what you want to believe we do. Only then should you be able to comment on our practices.
Again, these comments are not meant for you in particular. It’s a general rant.
Eric
N
Nicholas82
Guest
So why doesn’t Rome just scrap “filioque” and remove all doubt about what is meant?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Eric,
I was referring to what Orthodox think, theologically. In the Orthodox world what other Orthodox think theologically is always a prime concern.
We are not afraid to criticise each other either, but Orthodox belief is very consistant across borders and across generations.
So consistant in fact, that some Roman Catholics seem to delight in calling us stagnant or even fossilized! They consider our consistency a negative (of all things!
), and appear to regard Holy Orthodoxy with contempt.
These very qualities drew me in and keep me Orthodox, I am very satisfied with our messy little church which is so stubbornly conservative.
Although I cannot share it, I can understand your point of view.
Peace, and all good things
Michael
I wasn’t actually referring to what Orthodox think of each other, or Rome (as in character judgments).
I was referring to what Orthodox think, theologically. In the Orthodox world what other Orthodox think theologically is always a prime concern.
We are not afraid to criticise each other either, but Orthodox belief is very consistant across borders and across generations.
So consistant in fact, that some Roman Catholics seem to delight in calling us stagnant or even fossilized! They consider our consistency a negative (of all things!
), and appear to regard Holy Orthodoxy with contempt.These very qualities drew me in and keep me Orthodox, I am very satisfied with our messy little church which is so stubbornly conservative.
I know, I rant all the time these days just the same.
Although I cannot share it, I can understand your point of view.
Peace, and all good things
Michael
F
Fuerza
Guest
I agree that we should, or at least alter it to “through the Son”. I gave my guess as to the reason for not doing so in another post on this thread.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I’ve seen several explantions of filioque, where the question of being one source is questionable (“whatever the Father has, the Son has” etc.). In many instances it is not question of putting words in Rome’s mouth, it is drawing the logical conclusions of what she says.
St. Maximus (and your church claims him too) seems to have been given an explanation closer to what Rome says now. It is not what was being spread in the time of St. Photios, nor in 1054.
F
Fuerza
Guest
Isa,
I am aware that my Church also claims St. Maximus. As to your other point, do you have access to any authoritative Roman documents from that period which explicitly state a contrary view of the Filioque to what the Church now teaches? I’m not patronizing you, I’m curious to see what it is that you are referencing.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
This is one thing I don’t understand about the Orthodox Churches (fyi not trying to start an arguement) How can they keep the same doctrine if they have no supreme leader? One can see how different Protestantism has gotten, because it has no leader.
N
Nicholas82
Guest
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
That’s what we’ve always done and always will do as Christ’s Church - with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Ok, but how about differences like this? Correct me if I’m wrong the Patriarch of Moscow accepts the American Orthodox Church, many of the other ones don’t. How do you solve a difference like this. What if one Patriarch starts to believe in the Marian Doctrines, but others don’t. What do you do?2 Thessalonians 2:15
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
That’s what we’ve always done and always will do as Christ’s Church - with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
H
Hesychios
Guest
But you see, that doesn’t happen with Orthodox catholic churches, does it?
I have already stated all that needs to be said on this.
Our supreme leader is Christ. He promised us He would be with us until the end of the Age. Though we (as unworthy as we are) do not deserve it, Our Lord has never failed us.…In the Orthodox world what other Orthodox think theologically is always a prime concern.
We are not afraid to criticise each other either, but Orthodox belief is very consistant across borders and across generations.
So consistant in fact, that some Roman Catholics seem to delight in calling us stagnant or even fossilized! They consider our consistency a negative (of all things!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s.jpg/180px-ChristPantocratorStCatherines.jpg
H
Hesychios
Guest
We work together.
In the meantime no one is being hurt. We are working on it, and the laity are all welcome to worship and commune in each others churches unhindered. We all have the same fairly strict standards to meet as far as being considered prepared to receive.
The Roman catholic communion in North America has exactly the same situation of overlapping jurisdictions as Orthodox, and for the same reasons! But you have a Pope.
What does the Pope do to fix the situation? Nothing, he says it’s OK. In fact he complicates it by erecting more and more overlapping jurisdictions.
That’s the solution from Rome. We Orthodox have a collegial system, it may be a little messier, but it gets the job done. We know we are not perfect.
It does not happen, as you can see. We know that we should not act unilaterally, departing from the faith of our fathers and our brothers.
But if a single Patriarch did do something like promote a new heresy or novelty, he can be deposed by his synod. It’s a very rare event. The shepherd does not have the power to lead the flock over the edge of a cliff.
The Orthodox communion is notoriously conservative, everything about the ecclesiology promotes and encourages orthodoxy. No one has an excuse for traipsing off in a new direction. We are committed to the received Faith, we meditate on it, but do not speculate with it.
The concept of orthodoxy is highly prized in some other confessions, but hard to achieve, because they have put their trust in human leaders who are supposed to guide them with New Lights: philosophers, visionaries, populist leaders or prince bishops. They have gone in many directions establishing new definitions of orthodoxy, only to see them fail again and again as new doctrines are proposed and one community or another is led further and further from it’s Apostolic roots.
We cannot do that, we dare not. We stick to what we know, adding or subtracting nothing.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Just to add a tad to Hesychios excellent response. Moscow recognizes the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) as independent, others do not, but they are in communion with the OCA, recognize their bishops, etc.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
From the period of Maximus, there are not many. He recognized the period of the wording, but was given an explanation about the Latin that satisfied him. Later on, there are documents from the West that differ, but this is also in the context of accusations that we omitted the filioque. When I have more time (which may not be for some time), I’ll dig them up.
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
Having a mother who was an art history teacher as a child I viewed many art and architectural history books. I became very aware that there was a disconnection between the Catholic Church of today and that of yesterday. I could not see the apostles being satisfied with the Church as it was today. It seemed to me to be too culturally modern western, though I had no idea about what its original differences would have been, other than probably having more beautiful art.
The differences between eastern and western Christianity are evident from the moment you step into a typical Eastern church: Jesus looks down from his lofty perch in the central dome fully clothed, serene, and (by virtue of his placement at the highest point in the nave’s interior) in charge. This spiritual vision of Christ, in his aspect as Pantocrator, “All-powerful,” contrasts sharply with the western emphasis on the physical, ‘all-suffering’ Christ, which was reinforced throughout the Middle Ages in vividly-staged versions of the Passion. Christ’s suffering, while understood as an important part of salvation history, is largely absent from the Orthodox iconographical scheme. The area above the sanctuary, where western churches usually place a three-dimensional, sculpted Christ on the cross, features a serene Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus in her lap instead; the overall impression is one of spiritual presence and transcendence, not suffering or guilt.
I honestly became a Melkite Greek Catholic primarily because the music and images used by the Latin Church felt very protestant to me and I felt that it was almost impossible to get away from the modern latin version of sacred art/music while remaining in the Latin Church. So by becoming Melkite I have become what I had felt a Latin Catholic truly should be, as far as how sacred art, rituals and public prayers are done.
I was fed up with the music of Marty Haugen and David Haas such as “On Eagles Wings”.
Since attending a Melkite parish (and Orthodox ones too) and reading books about Church history, I found many other profound advantages over the present day Latin Church. I found the communities much more intimate and hospitable. I found that I could talk in a relaxed manner to eastern bishops as if they were my father rather than the more cold detached distance of many extremely overworked latin bishops. I found a place where I could start over again as a Catholic in hopes of eventually learning enough to share with the west the treasures that it has forgotten.
Although I am not Orthodox I can understand why some choose this instead very clearly. Orthodoxy is still the fullest manifestation of the Eastern Church because it is unhindered by western influence which contradicts its practices. It is very difficult to reconcile Eastern Catholicism with Western Catholicism. To some degree it is in the present circumstances impossible to reconcile them except by God Himself. I would speculate that if the Eastern Orthodox Churches had not remained separated from the West by partial schism, the Western Churche would have likely forced the East to use all the Western practices and there would today be no diversity left at all in the Church, so in this aspect the “schism” has generally been a necessary action in order to preserve what is holy. However I believe that since the 20th century the West has become mature enough to accept an Eastern Church as is without latinization. My view is that by being in communion with the Latin Church the Eastern Churches are doing a favor to the west. In a sense the east has a blank chank sent to the Vatican that is waiting to be cashed, the East is waiting for the west to fulfill its part of the bargain to become more in harmony with its ancient practices, unfortunately this is occuring extremely slowly. Although I personally have no difficulty being in communion with the Pope it isonly because I have hope that his role will change in my lifetime. I often think to myself: if the role that the Pope has in the west today has helped shape it culturally, his role must change so that the same disadvantages which emerged in the west do not some day emerge in that part of the east in communion with him. I will be happily visiting the Pope this April in Washingong because I can see him as an important holy bishop in a very flawed Church and I have mercy on him because I know he is doing perhaps the best he can under the circumstances he is in.
The differences between eastern and western Christianity are evident from the moment you step into a typical Eastern church: Jesus looks down from his lofty perch in the central dome fully clothed, serene, and (by virtue of his placement at the highest point in the nave’s interior) in charge. This spiritual vision of Christ, in his aspect as Pantocrator, “All-powerful,” contrasts sharply with the western emphasis on the physical, ‘all-suffering’ Christ, which was reinforced throughout the Middle Ages in vividly-staged versions of the Passion. Christ’s suffering, while understood as an important part of salvation history, is largely absent from the Orthodox iconographical scheme. The area above the sanctuary, where western churches usually place a three-dimensional, sculpted Christ on the cross, features a serene Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus in her lap instead; the overall impression is one of spiritual presence and transcendence, not suffering or guilt.
I honestly became a Melkite Greek Catholic primarily because the music and images used by the Latin Church felt very protestant to me and I felt that it was almost impossible to get away from the modern latin version of sacred art/music while remaining in the Latin Church. So by becoming Melkite I have become what I had felt a Latin Catholic truly should be, as far as how sacred art, rituals and public prayers are done.
I was fed up with the music of Marty Haugen and David Haas such as “On Eagles Wings”.
Since attending a Melkite parish (and Orthodox ones too) and reading books about Church history, I found many other profound advantages over the present day Latin Church. I found the communities much more intimate and hospitable. I found that I could talk in a relaxed manner to eastern bishops as if they were my father rather than the more cold detached distance of many extremely overworked latin bishops. I found a place where I could start over again as a Catholic in hopes of eventually learning enough to share with the west the treasures that it has forgotten.
Although I am not Orthodox I can understand why some choose this instead very clearly. Orthodoxy is still the fullest manifestation of the Eastern Church because it is unhindered by western influence which contradicts its practices. It is very difficult to reconcile Eastern Catholicism with Western Catholicism. To some degree it is in the present circumstances impossible to reconcile them except by God Himself. I would speculate that if the Eastern Orthodox Churches had not remained separated from the West by partial schism, the Western Churche would have likely forced the East to use all the Western practices and there would today be no diversity left at all in the Church, so in this aspect the “schism” has generally been a necessary action in order to preserve what is holy. However I believe that since the 20th century the West has become mature enough to accept an Eastern Church as is without latinization. My view is that by being in communion with the Latin Church the Eastern Churches are doing a favor to the west. In a sense the east has a blank chank sent to the Vatican that is waiting to be cashed, the East is waiting for the west to fulfill its part of the bargain to become more in harmony with its ancient practices, unfortunately this is occuring extremely slowly. Although I personally have no difficulty being in communion with the Pope it isonly because I have hope that his role will change in my lifetime. I often think to myself: if the role that the Pope has in the west today has helped shape it culturally, his role must change so that the same disadvantages which emerged in the west do not some day emerge in that part of the east in communion with him. I will be happily visiting the Pope this April in Washingong because I can see him as an important holy bishop in a very flawed Church and I have mercy on him because I know he is doing perhaps the best he can under the circumstances he is in.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Alexius, this is a bit of a red herring. I concede, easily so, that discontent in the Greek Catholic Churches have lead some to leave as they were rather easy pickings for those who felt this disconnect. If you are already feeling disgruntled in your existence and real and percieved failures to “maintian legitimate patrimony” a party coming along and saying “Well we haven’t failed there, join us!” we be attractive.
But invariably “ritual authenticity” must be a backseat/secondary issue. “Easterness” in and of itself is not an end goal. The fact that Greek Catholics of some jurisdictions have had Latinization only means, on the face of it, that they had Latinizations. But Latinizations (which I don’t generally like) are wrong why? Because “easterness” is always and everywhere sacrosanct. If one goes to EO because they have a better track record of “easterness” and one finds their dynamics more amenable in that regard, one leaves one church, and enters another for the WRONG reason.
In my city, the Greek Catholic church is arguably more “Eastern” than the Greek Orthodox (GOA) parish (so long as we are not handicapped for not being ethnic Greeks!) as we do not have kneelers or pews. But I don’t expect this morning to find a busload of disaffected Greeks at our door seeking to be “more eastern”. The truth or error will not rest of fall on the slavish devotion (or lack thereof) to sometimes arbitrary standards of “easterness” and patrimony.
I believe the big reason most EO will not become Catholic is the self-same reason most ANYONE practicing a faith of some sort will not become Catholic - the converts are exceptions to the rules! That is to say, people who are established and content stay where they are. Orthodox who ask Greek Catholics “Why aren’t you Orthodox?” are as often as not met with the response from the average Greek Catholic “Because this is what we are and this is where we are.”
If I had to speculate as to why we don’t see more notable conversions at the clerical level from EO to Catholocism in the same fashion that we see from Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Evangelicalism… Well I would say that it is because Orthodoxy has so very much still - sacraments, priesthood, liturgy - and has largely been unplagued by some of the controversial issues Protestants deal with.
An Evanglelical may come to a point where he asks “why aren’t we liturgical, why don’t we have ecclesial authorities, why don’t we follow Christ’s literal teaching of ‘Amen I say to you unless you eat my Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you’?” And they won’t ask those questions because they ARE liturgical, they DO have ecclesial authority and they DO follow Catholic teaching on the sacraments. They have NOT been dealing with same-sex issues and women’s ordination (though the Church of Greece approved deaconesses, implementing it has largely been tabled!) So without these opportunities for “ah-ha” questions in the face of modernism and debacle, or barring some really extreme intra-communion disagreements on authority, most will well go a lifetime without questiong it. In the very same fashion most Catholics will do the same.
Now there have been clerical conversions to Catholocism from Orthodoxy (and vice versa!) but by and large, on the Catholic end, we don’t parade them around and they settle into Greek Catholic life quietly.
On the other hand, when Protestants become Catholic, often times Rome is the shadow over the denomination or the 900 pound gorilla in the living room to them in the same way Orthodoxy simply is NOT. As western Christians, an accute awareness is always before them that their patrimony includes a break with Rome… And midnight Mass from the Vatican (let alone the 1.1B Catholics of the world) is still out there serving as a reminder of something their community either directly broke from or still has some roots in. I mean heck, I have never heard of a US Evangelical congregation that uses any dating for Easter (if they celebrate it) BUT the Western (/Finnish Orthodox!
) dating. As Lutheran minister-convert turned Catholic priest John Neuhouse is known to say “To be a Lutheran is to everyday ask why you are not yet Catholic”.Frankly, most EO in my experience - especially cradle-born clergy - don’t live in this sort of shadow, have these sorts of doubts or are much confronted with a demand to make a decision about “which direction to go” as things disintegrate around them.
But I think it is worth noting that a lot of EO generally slowly integrate into the Catholic Church via marriage. I went to Catholic HS with 4 guys with Greek surnames who were RC - Greek dad married Catholic mom, and made the transition.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Alexius, this is a bit of a red herring. I concede, easily so, that discontent in the Greek Catholic Churches have lead some to leave as they were rather easy pickings for those who felt this disconnect. If you are already feeling disgruntled in your existence and real and percieved failures to “maintian legitimate patrimony” a party coming along and saying “Well we haven’t failed there, join us!” we be attractive.
But invariably “ritual authenticity” must be a backseat/secondary issue. “Easterness” in and of itself is not an end goal. The fact that Greek Catholics of some jurisdictions have had Latinization only means, on the face of it, that they had Latinizations. But Latinizations (which I don’t generally like) are wrong why? Because “easterness” is always and everywhere sacrosanct. If one goes to EO because they have a better track record of “easterness” and one finds their dynamics more amenable in that regard, one leaves one church, and enters another for the WRONG reason.
In my city, the Greek Catholic church is arguably more “Eastern” than the Greek Orthodox (GOA) parish (so long as we are not handicapped for not being ethnic Greeks!) as we do not have kneelers or pews. But I don’t expect this morning to find a busload of disaffected Greeks at our door seeking to be “more eastern”. The truth or error will not rest of fall on the slavish devotion (or lack thereof) to sometimes arbitrary standards of “easterness” and patrimony.
I believe the big reason most EO will not become Catholic is the self-same reason most ANYONE practicing a faith of some sort will not become Catholic - the converts are exceptions to the rules! That is to say, people who are established and content stay where they are. Orthodox who ask Greek Catholics “Why aren’t you Orthodox?” are as often as not met with the response from the average Greek Catholic “Because this is what we are and this is where we are.”
If I had to speculate as to why we don’t see more notable conversions at the clerical level from EO to Catholocism in the same fashion that we see from Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Evangelicalism… Well I would say that it is because Orthodoxy has so very much still - sacraments, priesthood, liturgy - and has largely been unplagued by some of the controversial issues Protestants deal with.
An Evanglelical may come to a point where he asks “why aren’t we liturgical, why don’t we have ecclesial authorities, why don’t we follow Christ’s literal teaching of ‘Amen I say to you unless you eat my Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you’?” And they won’t ask those questions because they ARE liturgical, they DO have ecclesial authority and they DO follow Catholic teaching on the sacraments. They have NOT been dealing with same-sex issues and women’s ordination (though the Church of Greece approved deaconesses, implementing it has largely been tabled!) So without these opportunities for “ah-ha” questions in the face of modernism and debacle, or barring some really extreme intra-communion disagreements on authority, most will well go a lifetime without questiong it. In the very same fashion most Catholics will do the same.
Now there have been clerical conversions to Catholocism from Orthodoxy (and vice versa!) but by and large, on the Catholic end, we don’t parade them around and they settle into Greek Catholic life quietly.
On the other hand, when Protestants become Catholic, often times Rome is the shadow over the denomination or the 900 pound gorilla in the living room to them in the same way Orthodoxy simply is NOT. As western Christians, an accute awareness is always before them that their patrimony includes a break with Rome… And midnight Mass from the Vatican (let alone the 1.1B Catholics of the world) is still out there serving as a reminder of something their community either directly broke from or still has some roots in. I mean heck, I have never heard of a US Evangelical congregation that uses any dating for Easter (if they celebrate it) BUT the Western (/Finnish Orthodox!
) dating. As Lutheran minister-convert turned Catholic priest John Neuhouse is known to say “To be a Lutheran is to everyday ask why you are not yet Catholic”.Frankly, most EO in my experience - especially cradle-born clergy - don’t live in this sort of shadow, have these sorts of doubts or are much confronted with a demand to make a decision about “which direction to go” as things disintegrate around them.
But I think it is worth noting that a lot of EO generally slowly integrate into the Catholic Church via marriage. I went to Catholic HS with 4 guys with Greek surnames who were RC - Greek dad married Catholic mom, and made the transition.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Michael this misses utterly and totally the ecclsiology of papal authority and the serious difference with distinction of having overlapping jurisdictions and having somewhat competing ones.
What Rome has erected is settled and the case is closed. What does the Pope do to fix the situation? He canonically erected the jurisdictions and established what their status was and it is NOT up for debate now.
And here is the difference with distinction - in looking to the same Holy See for confirmation in their teaching and witness, you don’t end up with competing bishops attempting to assert jurisdiction over one or just ignore the other. In American Orthodoxy the competing episcopal sees will NOT be of one mind on the validity of Antiochian Western rite liturgy, the baptism of Catholic converts, how to recieve Catholic clergy, what if any forms of birth control are acceptable.
My ROCOR neighbor believes no birth control is acceptable - and his bishop says and Catholics should be recieved with chrismation. My Greek neighbor believes ABC is ok - no distinction is made for abortifacient contraceptions - and her bishop doesn’t allow the baptism of converts, except it DOES happen at monasteries. My Macedonian neighbor doesn’t have a problem with her RC cousins from Brazil taking communion when they are visiting. They ARE half Macedonian after all. huh?
But I think it odd that you try to present “Rome has all the same problems but really in fact it is worse!” by suggesting that the existence of jurisdictions that overlap in territory (but are actually unified in canon law, their source of appeal, and in communion!) as being the same as the jurisdictional messiness of Orthodoxy wherein the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the wake of the Ben Lomand affair actually erected his own diocese and re-ordained defrocked priests… +ANTHONY of San Francisco (GOA) - now of blessed memory - actually penned an encyclical questioning the veracity of the Antiochian Orthodox “western rite” directing his clergy and faithful to have NOTHING to do with it.
How is this comparable to Catholic co-existence?
Complicates it more than whom? The Orthodox with three overlapping Russian jurisidictions in the US or the PoJ setting up shop in the wake of an Antiochian difficulty? The Eastern Catholic situation is not just comparable but more complicated?
Which “more and more overlapping jurisdictions” are you talking about? Except for Oriental jurisdictions (which have no counterpart in your new communion), what more and more overlapping jurisdictions have been added?
- Status