Will there be EC in America in 40 years?

[Madaglan]

FWIW, my reading of the “First Millennium benchmark test” puts the EO and OO as the winners hands down, at least in the theology and praxis categories. In the ecclesiology category, the sole winner is the OO: it seems to me that both the EO and the RC fail miserably there.

Very interesting. What in their ecclesiology distinguishes the OO from the EO and the RC?

 

[malphono]

Very interesting. What in their ecclesiology distinguishes the OO from the EO and the RC?

Perhaps the major thing is that the OO continue to generally adhere to the “High Petrine” view which, (despite any noises the EO may make to the contrary), was the First Millennium reality. OTOH, the EO have come to insist on the “Low Petrine” view, and Rome, of course, sticks like glue to the “Absolute” view, (irrespective of any noises Rome may make to the contrary).

 

[Hesychios]

Perhaps the major thing is that the OO continue to generally adhere to the “High Petrine” view

This “high Petrine - Low Petrine” labeling is kind of bogus, but whatever …

Views notwithstanding, the OO churches are absolutely autocephalic. They respect each other’s traditions absolutely. One doesn’t see the Pope of Alexandria claiming to control the Armenian church, or the Jacobites, for example. They are in communion, and in agreement theologically with no 'higher power" but Jesus Christ to assure this, to this very day. It is an even more impressive achievement than the Orthodox.

This seems to me likely a reflection of the earliest ecclesiology of the church, which they inherited without modification after Chalcedon.

 

[dcointin]

FWIW, my reading of the “First Millennium benchmark test” puts the EO and OO as the winners hands down, at least in the theology and praxis categories. In the ecclesiology category, the sole winner is the OO: it seems to me that both the EO and the RC fail miserably there.

In what way do the EO fail this? I’m just beginning to investigate EO administrative models, and I’m curious what you think.

 

[Aramis]

In what way do the EO fail this? I’m just beginning to investigate EO administrative models, and I’m curious what you think.

Just look at the non-canonical system of governance of the Antiochian Orthodox… territorial auxiliary bishops directly under a metropolitan, and dioceses as little more than deaneries. Even Catholic ecclesiology hasn’t strayed so far afield.

 

[Hesychios]

Just look at the non-canonical system of governance of the Antiochian Orthodox… territorial auxiliary bishops directly under a metropolitan, and dioceses as little more than deaneries. Even Catholic ecclesiology hasn’t strayed so far afield.

You can’t be serious!

With religious orders having their own bishops (Hospitallers a fine example) … and how about personal prelatures?

For what it’s worth the Archdiocese of Chicago is organized in just such a way. I wouldn’t be surpised if most RC Metropolitan Sees are organized similarly.

 

[countertenor]

FWIW, my reading of the “First Millennium benchmark test” puts the EO and OO as the winners hands down, at least in the theology and praxis categories. In the ecclesiology category, the sole winner is the OO: it seems to me that both the EO and the RC fail miserably there.

Agreed!

 

[Aramis]

You can’t be serious!

With religious orders having their own bishops (Hospitallers a fine example) … and how about personal prelatures?

For what it’s worth the Archdiocese of Chicago is organized in just such a way. I wouldn’t be surpised if most RC Metropolitan Sees are organized similarly.

The Archdiocese of Chigago doesn’t call it’s deaneries suffragan sees, either, and has suffragan sees. The AO do. They stripped their diocesan bishops of vote in synod by declaring them auxiliary bishops of the metropolitan, and making them locum tenens, and leaving all the AO non-metropolitan sees technically vacant… which violates the conciliar system of governance.

 

[Vico]

Quite so.

So far as Poland is concerned, the pagan Prince at Gniezno (Mieszko) converted to Latin Christtianity under the unfluence of the Holy Roman (Frankish-Germn) empire in 966AD. This was about 100 (more or less) years after Byzantine Catholicism had been introduced into that portion of Great Moravia which was to become southern Poland (with the annexation of Krakow). One might suppose the Byzantine rite came to symbolically represent the old regime of Krakow. It seeems to me the the Holy Roman empire was intractibly hostile to the eastern rite, so it is also possible the king might have banned the rite in order to not give them an excuse to attack.

A short story which goes a little way toward explaing how the southern Poles eventually became entirely absorbed into the Latin rite is here. The Rusyn in the mountains must have been largely out of reach of the king’s enforcers at that time, for they never gave up their dialect nor their religious practices and bishops.

I think that this earlier presence of the Byzantine - Methodian rite goes a long way to explaining how some of the minor customs of the Catholic church in Poland parallel the Orthodox practices of their neighbors.

One custom I can think of is the reception of the bishop with bread and salt ( a relic custom still practiced by the PNCC as a “traditional Polish” trait). The second I can think of is the blessing of Easter Baskets in Holy Saturday.

Yet 80 years before Sts. Cyril and Methodius were sent to be missionaries (862 A.D.), there were already missons in the Slavic lands due to the Charlemagne (lived till 814 A.D.) expeditions in those areas beyond the Elbe River (789 A.D.), and they were then in the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Regensburg, and also the bishop of Salzburg. A commotion occurred, with to the spead of the use of Slavonic for the Liturgy, due to the German bishops, and Pope John VIII reversed the prior approval of the Slavonic Liturgy given by Pope Hadrian II. Methodius was actually arrested by the Frankish soldiers and Pope John VIII got him free by threatening excommunication of the bishops.

books.google.com/books?id=ulHIeQ34fHMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=bishop+of+regensburg+rastislav&source=bl&ots=HLOe0DIWp6&sig=3zilWaa0U_xg4oYztBXe74yw7hk&hl=en&ei=I7qnTZmpBMPdtwfRsPzcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Hesychios]

Methodius was actually arrested by the Frankish soldiers and Pope John VIII got him free by threatening excommunication of the bishops.

After Saint Methodios died, the Franks broke up the Byzantine rite missions as far as they were able, no Pope would protect them. The close disciples of Saint Methodios and Saint Cyril fled to the Bulgarian Khanate, and continued to work.

 

[Vico]

After Saint Methodios died, the Franks broke up the Byzantine rite missions as far as they were able, no Pope would protect them. The close disciples of Saint Methodios and Saint Cyril fled to the Bulgarian Khanate, and continued to work.

When attacked by the Byzantines in 864, Bulgarian Khagan Boris I (852-884) decided to be baptized (in 865 as Michael). He had to decide between Constantinople and Rome. He choose Constantinople because it would recognize a self governing Bulgarian church. The Moravians, in contrast, accepted the Latin Church.

So unlike in the times of Boris I, many church traditions are allowed by law in the USA, yet will the various eastern traditions be able to retain enough members to survive for hundreds of years?

 

[sallyliao]

Our vocation as Eastern Catholics is to disappear. We should be working towards being reabsorbed into our mother churches (Orthodox). So hopefully within the next 40 years or so we will have disappeared.

Microsoft Office 2007Microsoft Office Home And Student 2010Microsoft Access 2010

 

[mardukm]

OOO! OOO! I was gone for 3 - 4 weeks and I missed this discussion! I want to comment!

FWIW, my reading of the “First Millennium benchmark test” puts the EO and OO as the winners hands down, at least in the theology and praxis categories. In the ecclesiology category, the sole winner is the OO: it seems to me that both the EO and the RC fail miserably there.

I would agree that the EO and OO are more faithful in praxis as far Liturgy is concerned. On theology, I believe the Latins, EO, and OO are equally valid, though the Latins are simply more apt to be misunderstood because of their different theological language and outlook.

On the matter of ecclesiology, I agree that the OO are the sole winner as far as praxis of the High Petrine ideal is concerned. But in terms of theory/doctrine, I believe the Catholic model is more perfect. That a head bishop can exist at a metropolical and patriarchal level, but not at the universal level, no longer makes any sense to me.

ALL Churches have had developments that have gone beyond the standard of the first millenium, and it would be silly for EO and OO do deny that. On the OO front (among other things), the idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is not a patristic concept or praxis, but has developed due to the exigencies of reality - a concept and praxis also present in the Catholic Church. On the EO front (among other things), the Essence/Energy theology of the EO is a development from the teaching of the first millenium Church. We need not speak of the Western developments here, which we non-Latins readily identify.

This “high Petrine - Low Petrine” labeling is kind of bogus, but whatever …

With all due respect, I believe the “labelling” actually helps to identify what it is each Church needs to actually work at. I think the “labelling” itself is most upsetting only to those in the Absolutist and Low Petrine camps, because the labelling exposes their errors.

Views notwithstanding, the OO churches are absolutely autocephalic. They respect each other’s traditions absolutely. One doesn’t see the Pope of Alexandria claiming to control the Armenian church, or the Jacobites, for example.

Oh, we’ve had our struggles on that point, make no mistake about it. It’s just that the OO experienced/resolved the struggles of different Traditions within the same Communion earlier than the CC (i.e., after the turn of the first millenium). The CC is still in its birth pangs (though she’s already in the hospital and the baby is partly out) with regards to how to handle the exigency of different Traditions within the same Communion. The EO have only one Tradition and have not gone through this struggle, so its premature to sit on a high horse. I think EO uniatism is one of the weaknesses of EO’xy that it has yet to properly address because it has never been a communion of different Traditions.

They are in communion, and in agreement theologically with no 'higher power" but Jesus Christ to assure this, to this very day. It is an even more impressive achievement than the Orthodox.

A weak position. I know you’ve been around long enough to know that there were Low Petrine EO advocates here in the past who denied that there was even such a thing as a head bishop, using that same dated argument “our only head is Jesus Christ.” It just doesn’t work. Such an argument never reflected the ecclesiological reality of the first millenium Church.

In what way do the EO fail this? I’m just beginning to investigate EO administrative models, and I’m curious what you think.

The EO don’t seem to have a solid ecclesiology to point. So we really can’t pin down where it is the EO fail on this, because at any point, an EO apologist can appeal to the praxis of one particular EO Church to counter an accusation of “weakness in ecclesiology.” But the ecclesiological praxis and principles of the EO Church seems to run the gamut from Low Petrine (“no jurisdiction greater than that of the local bishop”) to Absolutist Petrine (a Metropolitan making all bishops under him mere auxiliary bishops, or the way the MP runs the ROC and its satellite “Patriarchates”). On the plus side, this range of ecclesiological principles includes the High Petrine view, which the EO-CC Ravenna colloquy definitely reflected.

Yet 80 years before Sts. Cyril and Methodius were sent to be missionaries (862 A.D.), there were already missons in the Slavic lands due to the Charlemagne (lived till 814 A.D.) expeditions in those areas beyond the Elbe River (789 A.D.), and they were then in the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Regensburg, and also the bishop of Salzburg. A commotion occurred, with to the spead of the use of Slavonic for the Liturgy, due to the German bishops, and Pope John VIII reversed the prior approval of the Slavonic Liturgy given by Pope Hadrian II. Methodius was actually arrested by the Frankish soldiers and Pope John VIII got him free by threatening excommunication of the bishops.

Thank you for this information. I know that Latin missionaries were even present in the Rus lands, such as St. Bruno, who brought Christianity to pagan peoples in the Rus lands who had not yet been evangelized by Eastern Christians.

I believe one (or both?) of the brothers even recieved the pallium from a bishop of Rome, very telling of the good ecclesiastical relationship between Easterns and Westerns during that time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecil_Corn]

I just purchased the Agpeya on my Kindle.

That probably won’t happen. What should happen is a cultural adaptation of EC Churches to North American mainstream culture (sans the liberalism in values etc.).

Our local Coptic Orthodox parish of St Mark of Alexandria has an English-language Liturgy and I know a Chinese neighbour of mine who attends, has become Coptic Orthodox and reads the daily, long Agpeya horological prayers in English.

They are quite beautiful and are available online, as you know: www.agpeya.org

Alex

 

[dcointin]

I think Eastern Catholics (I refer hear to those of the Byzantine tradition) would have more of a chance of survival in the U.S. if they would lay aside their nationalistic differences and unite under one Patriarch or Metropolitan with one Synod of Bishops in order to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with one voice (I suppose the same could be said for American Orthodoxy). Too often I hear of parishes that are dieing out because they are more concerned with maintaining the cultural atmosphere of the “old country” than they are with evangelizing and witnessing to the Gospel in this country. Believe me, I understand having nostalgia for the place of one’s birth. But that nostalgia ought not to prevent us from being fully present and fully evangelistic in the place we find ourselves today.

Hear, hear!