kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Kurt R. Marko H-P Boise Site) (05/05/91)
(Greek) Catholics and Orthodox:
Responding to my assertion that Byzantine Catholics are `under' the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, Rich states:
: Heh. Most Roman Catholics who are even aware of the Byzantine Churches
: in union with Rome think we are "under" the Roman Church. Hogwash. Our
: Church is the canonical equal of the Roman Church.
Could you clarify this? I will admit that the term "under" is not the
most precise, however, for those other readers not familiar with this
debate I was trying to indicate the Byzantine Catholic Rite's
recognition of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Out of curiosity,
are any Byzantine Rite clergy represented in the College of Cardinals
in the Vatican?
Rich goes on to describe the origins of the uniate (Byzantine Catholic)
rite in Eastern Europe at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk:
: had no rights as non-"Catholic" citizens of Catholic domains. The understand-
: ing was that their Church would be recognizing the universal primacy of the
: Bishop of Rome. Period. Nothing about dogma, theology, ritual was implied.
Sorry, but by recognizing the universal primacy of the Papacy you're
implying quite a bit about dogma. I believe your statements above,
concerning the origins of/motivations for the uniates echos my own
synopsis with a somewhat lighter tone.
: Over the years, many Roman practices were introduced into liturgics because
: of pressure from the Polish Jesuits. Many of these practices were adopted
: in Hungary as well. Catechesis promoted the particular Roman doctrines be-
: cause these materials were printed using Roman sources. Of course, the
: "Orthodox" dogma, in Russia anyway, was comparably Latinized under Metro-
: politan Petro Mohyla of Kiev.
In my original article, I characterize the Eastern Rite Catholics as
sharing the same schismatic "innovations as their Latin brethren". I
believe your comments above reiterate this point. Many of these
practices were not merely superficial liturgical changes.
: Fortunately, in the United States, our Church is throwing out the Roman
: doctrine and theology - several hierarchs have decreed that the ridiculous
: _filioque_ clause in the Creed has no place in our Church and have thrown
: it out. Infant communion is being restored. With our own American semin-
: aries, our priests are being educated in the best Byzantine theological
: tradition. Eventually the Byzantine Catholic Church should be truly
: the Orthodox Church in union with Rome. If we could just convince the
: Pope that he really has no right to tell the Eastern Patriarchs what to do...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen.
The above makes you sound quite Orthodox...
In response to my outline of dogmatic innovations of the Roman
Catholics subsequently adopted by the uniates.
: Well at least you didn't mention purgatory, cause we don't "have" that
: either.
Sorry, how could I forget! If the Byzantine Catholics are indeed
"throwing out the Roman doctrine and theology", why recognize the
primacy of the Pope? The Bishop of Rome traditionally (in the early,
unified church) held the honorary position of `first among equals',
but, as you say, had no right to dictate to the other bishops matters
of faith. These were subjects for the Eccumenical Councils and Synods
of Bishops.
Rich writes:
: I'd say we have larger dogmatic & theological differences with the Romans
: than we do the Eastern Orthodox. The amount of misunderstanding, suspicion,
: and _hatred_ that this idea of the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox being
...
:
: The point is that I can't wait to be reunited with the Orthodox Church.
Things must be quite different in your church than those of other
Byzantine churches I've attended. I was baptized into a uniate church
(Byzantine Catholic) as a baby, and attended this church through
childhood. It was only later that I became, and my parents returned,
to Orthodoxy. In my childhood Catechism in the Byzantine church, we
were taught all of the dogmatic innovations of the Latin (Roman
Catholic) church: Papal Infallability, Purgetory, Immaculate
Conception, the filioque, etc. I attended a Byzantine Catholic church
several times a couple years ago (in Pennsylvania as a matter of
fact), and there they still said the filioque, celebrated the
Immaculate Conception, named the Pope in their Litanies...so I had no
reason to believe things had changed in the Byzantine Rite. The
differences you state between the Byzantine and Roman Catholics seems
completely at odds with my own personal experience.
I, nor does any Orthodox I know, have no animosity towards Eastern Rite
Catholics. We are ready to embrace you into the true ``mother of the
Church'', however this cannot happen en masse without proper
ecclesiastical review. I am willing to trust the bishops in the
various autocephalus Orthodox Churches to assess the dogma and
theology held by the uniate churches to determine if reunification is
possible. Until that time, we as individuals are always able to make
personal decisions; to decide if the faith we profess is the same as
that professed by our spiritual fathers (the priests and bishops), and
to seek out those who have held to the beliefs of the Orthodox faith.
This is a complex issue; hopefully I haven't put the rest of the net
to sleep yet, since these issues are not limited to Orthodox/uniate
unification, but touch on the wider Ecumenical movement as well. We
Orthodox look upon the dogmatic changes made by Catholics and
Protestants alike with the same critical eye, and continue to hold to
our beliefs founded in the Holy Scriptures, expounded and clarified by
the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers and the Seven Eccumenical
Councils, and continuously guided by God the Holy Spirit.
Kurt Marko
kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com