A
- Status
S
smad0142
Guest
Individual Popes surely have much to answer for before God. The Charism that is the Papacy does not.
C
ciero
Guest
As much as I believe in the importance of the papacy (it is why I am still an Eastern Catholic), if the choice was RC or Orthodox, I would have to go the Orthodox route…I really don’t believe I could work out my salvation in the RCC.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I wasn’t referring to Alexander VI or his ilk, but to the Vatican bureaucracy that will act in the name of the Papacy and will tell the Pope what to do.
Alex
C
chrisb
Guest
Grace and Peace,
To be honest, I don’t know if any of us can really answer this question unless we’ve personally experienced persecution first hand. I would hope that I would be faithful but if my sinfulness is any sign of how I would do when faced with true persecution… I doubt I’d fare very well.
To be honest, I don’t know if any of us can really answer this question unless we’ve personally experienced persecution first hand. I would hope that I would be faithful but if my sinfulness is any sign of how I would do when faced with true persecution… I doubt I’d fare very well.
P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
How can you say that? Rites and unique spiritual patrimonies are one thing, but Communion with Rome is a non-negotiable, no? Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Constantinopolitan liturgics and hesychasm notwithstanding.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Your Holiness,
Are you saying that the Orthodox Church does not have valid Sacraments, the Apostolic faith, valid Orders etc.?
And how does Rome thank Churches like the UGCC for its loyalty? Rome would appear to prefer to be with the Orthodox than with Eastern Catholics.
Do you not think that such actions by Rome speak loudly to Eastern Catholic ears? What is the message sent out by these actions?
I will tell you - the message that Rome itself is sending out is that the historic Unias were a bad mistake (even Pope Benedict himself told a ROC delegation that “we inherited the Unia” as if to distance himself from agreeing with its principles).
If the historic Unias were a bad mistake, and if the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine have been given limits to how far they may evangelize etc. (we started building our cathedral in Kiev and THEN informed Rome which then had to approve it in silence).
My problem with your words is simply that the Rome to which you refer is a different Rome than what it used to be.
Alex
Are you saying that the Orthodox Church does not have valid Sacraments, the Apostolic faith, valid Orders etc.?
And how does Rome thank Churches like the UGCC for its loyalty? Rome would appear to prefer to be with the Orthodox than with Eastern Catholics.
Do you not think that such actions by Rome speak loudly to Eastern Catholic ears? What is the message sent out by these actions?
I will tell you - the message that Rome itself is sending out is that the historic Unias were a bad mistake (even Pope Benedict himself told a ROC delegation that “we inherited the Unia” as if to distance himself from agreeing with its principles).
If the historic Unias were a bad mistake, and if the Eastern Catholics in Ukraine have been given limits to how far they may evangelize etc. (we started building our cathedral in Kiev and THEN informed Rome which then had to approve it in silence).
My problem with your words is simply that the Rome to which you refer is a different Rome than what it used to be.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
As for remaining in communion with Rome under a totalitarian state, the UGCC Patriarch-Confessor Joseph Cardinal Slipyj spent 18 years in Siberia for his loyalty.
He was the Rector at the seminary in L’viv where my father once attended. The then Rev. Dr. Prof. Slipyj was very dedicated to celibacy and wanted all of his students to sign a document binding them to life-long celibacy. He approached my father several times until my father left the seminary.
When the communist terror came on the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Joseph Slipyj became its Primate as Metropolitan-Archbishop.
In fact, he saw so many celibate priests so easily reject the Catholic faith and join the communist party that he became despondent. To his dismay, the married EC priests generally stayed true to the Catholic faith, encouraged as they were by their wives and children (yes, many EC priests escaped to the West as well).
For this reason, when the Hieroconfessor emerged from Siberia (thanks to the intervention of President John Kennedy and that great Man of God, Blessed Pope John XXIII - may he always intercede for us), he spoke at the Vatican Council and urged the Roman Catholic Church to allow for married clergy. And this from someone who was such a die-hard at promoting celibacy.
Just as an aside . . .
Alex
He was the Rector at the seminary in L’viv where my father once attended. The then Rev. Dr. Prof. Slipyj was very dedicated to celibacy and wanted all of his students to sign a document binding them to life-long celibacy. He approached my father several times until my father left the seminary.
When the communist terror came on the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Joseph Slipyj became its Primate as Metropolitan-Archbishop.
In fact, he saw so many celibate priests so easily reject the Catholic faith and join the communist party that he became despondent. To his dismay, the married EC priests generally stayed true to the Catholic faith, encouraged as they were by their wives and children (yes, many EC priests escaped to the West as well).
For this reason, when the Hieroconfessor emerged from Siberia (thanks to the intervention of President John Kennedy and that great Man of God, Blessed Pope John XXIII - may he always intercede for us), he spoke at the Vatican Council and urged the Roman Catholic Church to allow for married clergy. And this from someone who was such a die-hard at promoting celibacy.
Just as an aside . . .
Alex
H
Hesychios
Guest
Theseus’ Paradox.
P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
I would never deny the validity of Orthodox order, but, thats not the point. These graces are equally available in all Roman Catholic Churches, without the stain of schism.
And, you won’t find me defending the Vatican’s behavior towards the Eastern Catholics. To see them thrown under the bus for the sake of an almost certainly futile ecumenism breaks my heart, and you can be sure that if I were Pope, I’d recognize HB Sviatoslav in a heartbeat. But, and this is crucial, Rome is Rome, man. Whatever her faults, it was to her and her alone, not Kiev, not Moscow or Constantinople that Christ granted the Keys to the Kingdom. Communion with her is a non-negotiable in terms of salvation, and obviously your forbears held it to be so or they would have stayed Orthodox, no?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Thank you for your words (Your Holiness
).You raise an interesting point. Yes, Ukrainian Catholic Martyrs regarded the Papacy as non-negotiable.
However, I would raise a further point (which is a matter for discussion).
Those martyrs suffered for their Church in totum. This means that they defended their Church with its doctrines (Pope et alia) and also because, simply, it was THEIR Ukrainian Church. To submit to the Russian Orthodox would be to become a traitor (and I’m not saying anything about those who submitted for fear of Siberia/torture or other punishment - their descendants in the ROC were the ones who brought back the UGCC in the nineties, not the Underground Church).
So yes the Papacy was what they suffered for, but that wasn’t the only thing they suffered for. They suffered because they didn’t want to reject who they and their ancestors were.
One may also say that things could have been very different - and are different - with a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is uncanonical.
Rome’s actions vis-a-vis Moscow over the years (not just now) and the UGCC’s “coming of age” as a Particular Church with a renewed consciousness regarding its identity and Eastern tradtiions - all this may mean that one day the UGCC just might enter into communion with a canonical, but autocephalous UOC - Kievan Patriarchate.
Relations between the two Churches, although strained at first, have never been better in Ukraine. There was a case where Ukrainian Catholics actually destroyed a Ukrainian Orthodox parish church. They repented of their actions and began to rebuild it for their Orthodox brothers and sisters themselves.
In one case I’m aware of, and there are doubtless others, one single Church is being built for BOTH Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox (KP) in a town.
Even in my parish church, the bookstore we have has ALL the liturgical publications of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (KP) among others. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it (and I’m very happy that they have those books).
And also our Studite Fathers in their 'Svichado" publishing house issue liturgical texts that both Catholics and Orthodox can use at the same time (Akathists and the like).
This is also the policy of the Russicum in Rome where they will publish liturgical books under their aegis, but which are intended for Russian Orthodox in Russia.
I’ve also read UOC-KP articles where it is said that once a unified Ukrainian Church can be established with a single Patriarch (and they mean Orthodox Patriarch), then relations with other churches “including the Holy Father in Rome, the Holy Patriarch of Moscow” etc. can be reestablished.
Lots of new ideas being floated around by all concerned in the Ukrainian religious sphere, ideas one never heard of before.
Again, this is all fodder for observation, comment and discussion - nothing definite.
Alex
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Alex, is it possible that a united Ukrainian Church be in communion with both Rome and Constantinople/Moscow?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Number 2.
We have discussed this exact situation.
We have discussed this exact situation.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But would the Orthodox come into communion with a Church that is in communion with Rome? I’m sure Rome doesn’t have as much of a problem. I mean, there will still be issues, but the way things are today I can see Rome being more open to accepting into communion a Church that is in communion with the Orthodox, than the Orthodox accepting a Church that is in communion with Rome.
A
Aramis
Guest
Unlikely unless some major changes occur in Russian popular ecclesiology. Not impossible, but unlikely enough to have major doubts.
Many Russian Orthodox seem to believe that the Russian Patriarchate not only is the “3rd Rome” but that Roman patriarchal primacy was lost to Byzantium, and Byzantium’s to Moskva. They’re certain Rome isn’t orthodox and doubt that the EP is. Russian ecclsiological actions show this very much in practice: rebaptism of Catholics, and insularity towards other orthodox churches… even ones that they themselves spawned during communism to preserve the faith!
At present, the Russian Orthodox’s Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate (UoC-MP) are the only Ukrainian Church recognized by the ROC. They don’t consider any of the other Ukrainian churches to be orthodox…
H
Hesychios
Guest
Of course, everyone knows the UGCC is not Orthodox.
But otherwise that’s not exactly true.
This is not like Catholics saying that churches not in communion with Rome are not really Catholic.
If a separated church, an uncanonical body, teaches the Orthodox Faith and does not commune with the heterodox it is going to be regarded in a whole different light than say, a church in communion with the Papacy. For one thing people move rather freely between them (one reason hard membership numbers are difficult to pin down).
The ROC considers churches like the Kiev Patriarchate Orthodox, but they are uncanonical - a situation that calls for rectification. It would be far easier to resolve differences with the UOC-KP than it would be to resolve differences with the UGCC. For one thing, there are no theological issues, it’s all about discipline … and politics.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No.
Anyone willing to commune with the heteredox cannot be admitted to fellowship at the table.
That’s a pretty serious issue.
I think it has been an almost insurmountable obstacle since the late 19th century, but that can be rectified if Rome is brave enough to try.
That is not true at all.
If you study the reason the Zoghby Initiative was rejected by Rome you will see that in Rome’s opinion the initiative would undermine the Vatican I dogmatic pronouncements.
First, the letter points out the seriousness of the theological concerns:
In those matters of a theological nature, it is necessary to work patiently and prudently, without haste, in order to help both parties to travel along the same path.
What path might that be?
Then it states that there is to be no ‘go it alone’ initiative:
A second consideration of implication necessitates that the sharing of details of the dialogue not be limited only to the two direct participants: the Patriarchates of the Catholic Greek-Melkites and the Orthodox of Antioch, but that it involve the Confessions with whom the two Patriarchates are in full communion: the Catholic communion for the former and the Orthodox for the latter.
This is actually exactly how the Orthodox would see it. Later, the obliquely states that Rome wants to be in the center of any such discussions:
As to the declaration of complete adherence to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy on the part of Greek-Melkite Catholics, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adherence is herefore not possible as long as there is not a full agreement in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties.
Sounds very “Orthodox”, doesn’t it? What is Cardinal Ratzinger suggesting here? … that we all must wait until Rome gives up on it’s own new theological constructs? No.
More than likely he is suggesting that we all must wait until these potential Eucharistic partners are ready to accept that Rome’s theology is valid. In other words they will have to accept the Papal Universal Jurisdiction is a reality, and these new Eucharistic partners will have to accept the Pope’s authority over them, at least theoretically.
The argument demolishes the Zoghby Initiative, which suggests that such a demand is unnecessary.
On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome,* one cannot ignore that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development* over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church’s faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day.
So much for being in communion as a church which only accepts a first millenium understanding of the Papacy. Neither party, the Catholic Melchites nor the Orthodox Melchites will be allowed to share communion unless both parties acknowledge the Papal dogmas of 1870AD as valid and true.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
You are correct, the Zoghby Initiative does undermine the First Vatican Council’s theory of the papacy, which is one reason why I as a Melkite Catholic support the Initiative.
T
The_Rock
Guest
Of course when it was Christ himself who built the ship and the Holy Spirit who replaces the planks there is no paradox at all…the ship remains the same ship and the church remains the church!
- Status