Rumors or actual possibility? (Constantinople/Rome Union)

[melkite]

I don't see from what place you see yourself able to judge my soul.

Ok. You present a very cantankerous persona online.

 

[Katechon]

Ok. You present a very cantankerous persona online.

Given that you are "Eastern Catholic" I could imagine that you mistake holding multiple contradictory and nonsensical doctrines at the same time for peace of the soul.
You should back that up with looking at how the Fathers confronted this however.

 

[melkite]

Given that you are "Eastern Catholic" I could imagine that you mistake holding multiple contradictory and nonsensical doctrines at the same time for peace of the soul.
You should back that up with looking at how the Fathers confronted this however.

Is that kind of deflection typical of Eastern "Orthodox"?

How did the Fathers confront bitterness and spiritual pride? I imagine many of them would have suggested to go spend some time in a monastery.

 

[Katechon]

How did the Fathers confront bitterness and spiritual pride? I imagine many of them would have suggested to go spend some time in a monastery.

That is the second time in this thread alone that you see yourself in the position of judging my soul.
You should take care that the accusation of spiritual pride does not backfire on you.

 

[melkite]

That is the second time in this thread alone that you see yourself in the position of judging my soul.
You should take care that the accusation of spiritual pride does not backfire on you.

You put Eastern Catholic in quotation marks. If you doubt the Eastern-ness of Eastern Catholics in the same light as most Orthobros, you should take care that you are not actually spiritually proud.

 

[Katechon]

You put Eastern Catholic in quotation marks. If you doubt the Eastern-ness of Eastern Catholics in the same light as most Orthobros, you should take care that you are not actually spiritually proud.

I put the term "Eastern Catholic" in quotation marks since U-word is not allowed on this forum. I am an Eastern Catholic myself, since I am Orthodox.

 

[melkite]

I put the term "Eastern Catholic" in quotation marks since U-word is not allowed on this forum. I am an Eastern Catholic myself, since I am Orthodox.

If someone asks you your religion, do you normally identify yourself to others as Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? If you identify yourself as Eastern Catholic, do you normally find others to misunderstand what you mean?

Being in communion with Rome, would it not be pretentious of me to identify myself as Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Katechon]

If someone asks you your religion, do you normally identify yourself to others as Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? If you identify yourself as Eastern Catholic, do you normally find others to misunderstand what you mean?

I don't see your point.
The misattribution of the term "Catholic" to the sects that associate themselves with the Vatican does not become valid by popular usage. That is a fallacious line of reasoning.

Being in communion with Rome, would it not be pretentious of me to identify myself as Eastern Orthodox?

Yes, since you are, in fact, not Orthodox.

 

[melkite]

I don't see your point.
The misattribution of the term "Catholic" to the sects that associate themselves with the Vatican does not become valid by popular usage. That is a fallacious line of reasoning.

My point is, no one outside of the Orthodox world - even many within the Orthodox world - would understand you to be referring to the Orthodox Church when you use the term Catholic. Virtually the entire world, when they hear the word Catholic, understands it to mean the church headed by the bishop of Rome. I understand that the Orthodox Church sees itself as the true Catholic Church, but using the term Catholic in a way that only some Orthodox would understand is going to cause misunderstanding to anyone else outside of that small circle.

Likewise, even though I believe myself to be a part of the true Orthodox Church, and that the church commonly referred to as Eastern Orthodox is not the actual Orthodox Church (regardless of whether I am right or wrong in that belief), referring to myself as Orthodox will only serve to confuse people, as the vast majority of people, when hearing the term, think of the churches commonly understood to be in schism from Rome since 1054.

Also, if I know I am using a term that is only going to cause confusion to anyone other than a select few, it does smack of spiritual pride. The only time I have known Orthodox Christians to refer to themselves as Catholic were converts who would say, "we're more Catholic than even you are!" They, of course, never had any desire to identify as Catholic at at any other time (in fact, they would be loath to do so!) - only when they could use it to make Catholics feel small in comparison. They were taking a cheap shot. That is certainly spiritual pride. And while you personally may not have intended it in this way, it is hard to believe that, unless you are either on the spectrum or have no first-hand experience in Anglophonic culture, you are not at least aware of the likelihood of it being understood in this way. So if you had that awareness, and still went ahead with it, it still kind of rings of spiritual pride.

 

[Katechon]

My point is, no one outside of the Orthodox world - even many within the Orthodox world - would understand you to be referring to the Orthodox Church when you use the term Catholic. Virtually the entire world, when they hear the word Catholic, understands it to mean the church headed by the bishop of Rome. I understand that the Orthodox Church sees itself as the true Catholic Church, but using the term Catholic in a way that only some Orthodox would understand is going to cause misunderstanding to anyone else outside of that small circle.

Likewise, even though I believe myself to be a part of the true Orthodox Church, and that the church commonly referred to as Eastern Orthodox is not the actual Orthodox Church (regardless of whether I am right or wrong in that belief), referring to myself as Orthodox will only serve to confuse people, as the vast majority of people, when hearing the term, think of the churches commonly understood to be in schism from Rome since 1054.

Also, if I know I am using a term that is only going to cause confusion to anyone other than a select few, it does smack of spiritual pride. The only time I have known Orthodox Christians to refer to themselves as Catholic were converts who would say, "we're more Catholic than even you are!" They, of course, never had any desire to identify as Catholic at at any other time (in fact, they would be loath to do so!) - only when they could use it to make Catholics feel small in comparison. They were taking a cheap shot. That is certainly spiritual pride. And while you personally may not have intended it in this way, it is hard to believe that, unless you are either on the spectrum or have no first-hand experience in Anglophonic culture, you are not at least aware of the likelihood of it being understood in this way. So if you had that awareness, and still went ahead with it, it still kind of rings of spiritual pride.

Dude, I have clarified when using the term in a self-referential way what I meant with that. Stop pretending that I am ambiguous just because I do not play by your desire to be seen as being in anything more than a sect.

This is, btw, the third time in this thread you have judged my soul and associated me with people I do not even know. This kind of piety signaling filibusters cloaking the very spiritual pride you accuse me of fire back in any forum besides the Tradcat echo chambers you usually present your opinions in.

 

[melkite]

Dude, I have clarified when using the term in a self-referential way what I meant with that. Stop pretending that I am ambiguous just because I do not play by your desire to be seen as being in anything more than a sect.

This is, btw, the third time in this thread you have judged my soul and associated me with people I do not even know. This kind of piety signaling filibusters cloaking the very spiritual pride you accuse me of fire back in any forum besides the Tradcat echo chambers you usually present your opinions in.

I'm just calling it like I see it. You can accuse me of piety signaling and pride cloaking all you want.

 

[Katechon]

I'm just calling it like I see it. You can accuse me of piety signaling and pride cloaking all you want.

You see nothing, dude. That's the whole point.

 

[Tzimis]

Una faccia, una razza (same face, same race), we say back home.

That's what Mussolini said before he invaded Greece.

 

[Arachne]

That's what Mussolini said before he invaded Greece.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Tzimis]

Strawman Bro, try to keep to what I actually wrote.
There were Heretics and Apostates even among the 70, mind you.



Stop piety signaling just because you don't want to see the propable results of the tendencies I described (I said it was a propable btw, not that it is cut in stone or that it already happened, so stop insinuating that). Athos hasn't been in a good place all it's existence, which you may know. And from my personal experience with spiritual children from there I can't really confirm what you might have found in one of Elder Ephraim's monasteries. Idolizing this place like Americans and even some bourgeios Europeans do won't help that either. It pains me to say that, but this kind of idolization won't help against the accusation of being part of a guruizing cult either, even though I know how entirely misplaced it is coming from a place like Goarch.
Athos CAN fall and WILL fall if it continues along the path Istanbul is headed, that is the only thing I tried to bring across.
If you are scandalized by how I worded that, fine, I take that. If you are scandalized by the very fact that it is that way and cloak that in being scandalized about my wording, you should get your priorities in order.

Not according to the bible.
Thessalonians 2
13 But we are [f]bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through [g]sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Not according to the bible.
Thessalonians 2
13 But we are [f]bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through [g]sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

The Thessalonians are Mt Athos monks? Interesting.

 

[Katechon]

I have a more fitting passage from the letter to the Romans anyway:

18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, [d]goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

[sestir]

My point is, no one outside of the Orthodox world - even many within the Orthodox world - would understand you to be referring to the Orthodox Church when you use the term Catholic. Virtually the entire world, when they hear the word Catholic, understands it to mean the church headed by the bishop of Rome.

Is this way to reason itself an application of Catholicism, the way you understand the word?

 

[Samn!]

If you doubt the Eastern-ness of Eastern Catholics in the same light as most Orthobros, you should take care that you are not actually spiritually proud.

I mean, almost all Eastern Catholics I've known in the Middle East are quite adamant that they're not 'Easterners' like the Orthodox and see their Catholicism as a badge of Westernness... My Melkite Catholic landlady for a while when I lived in Beirut would complain, in the working language of her Holy Synod, about her Orthodox husband by saying 'Les orthodoxes, ils sont trop orientaux....'

 

[melkite]

I mean, almost all Eastern Catholics I've known in the Middle East are quite adamant that they're not 'Easterners' like the Orthodox and see their Catholicism as a badge of Westernness... My Melkite Catholic landlady for a while when I lived in Beirut would complain, in the working language of her Holy Synod, about her Orthodox husband by saying 'Les orthodoxes, ils sont trop orientaux....'

That's interesting. I can't deny that - I've never been to the Middle East. But I've never experienced that in my parish. If they see themselves as Western, I don't understand why they don't just become Latin.

 

[melkite]

Is this way to reason itself an application of Catholicism, the way you understand the word?

Sure. In this instance, it's basically the same as having a name. How can you claim something to be your name, if everyone calls you by a different name and even when they do call you by your name, you say that's not your name?

If someone were to stop you on the street and ask you, "Are you Catholic?" would you honestly respond "Yes, I am" or would you respond "No, I'm Orthodox"?

 

[Samn!]

If they see themselves as Western, I don't understand why they don't just become Latin.

I mean, the Maronites are for all intents and purposes lightly Syriacized Latins. A few decades ago much of their clergy, particularly their monastics, were willing to have blood on their hands to assert their Western cultural-political orientation.

Then as for Melkites, originally, under Euthymius Sayfi (uncle of the first Melkite Catholic 'patriarch', Seraphim/Cyril Tanas) they intended to do just that. He went so far as to translate the Tridentine liturgy into Arabic and intended for that to replace the traditional liturgy. Of course, this horrified both people who were loyally Orthodox and many of the Latin missionaries, who realized that it would severely limit their ability to convert Orthodox. In the event, of course, the movement that coalesced around Tanas eventually received recognition from Rome, but that took remarkably long and involved a much more toned-down latinization than had been intended. Add to this, of course, that those who converted did so largely because it gave them new legal status as sort of quasi-Frenchmen, so the core of the Melkite Catholic movement was always extremely Francophile and French has always been the working language of the hierarchy. The independent streak they sometimes have towards Rome in fact doesn't come from contact with Orthodoxy, but from contact with Gallicanism-- Germanus Adam translated Gallican texts into Arabic and strongly promoted that and Jansenism-- the Synod of Qarqafe (nullified a couple decades later in the Papal decree Melchitarum catholicorum ) was basically a Syrian localization of the Synod of Pistoia. Immediately after Vatican II, there was a rediscovery among the Melkites of their Byzantine heritage to a degree, which was part of what led to Bp Zoghby's movement, but that movement was always doomed to fail for a whole host of reasons-- including that it had very little lay support. Since then, even the Melkite Catholic clergy in the Middle East has come to place more emphasis on their Catholic identity than their ties to Orthodoxy and Rome has taken a much heavier hand in their clergy education-- which, at the advanced level, is all handled by Maronites and Jesuits at Kaslik.

 

[melkite]

I mean, the Maronites are for all intents and purposes lightly Syriacized Latins. A few decades ago much of their clergy, particularly their monastics, were willing to have blood on their hands to assert their Western cultural-political orientation.

Then as for Melkites, originally, under Euthymius Sayfi (uncle of the first Melkite Catholic 'patriarch', Seraphim/Cyril Tanas) they intended to do just that. He went so far as to translate the Tridentine liturgy into Arabic and intended for that to replace the traditional liturgy. Of course, this horrified both people who were loyally Orthodox and many of the Latin missionaries, who realized that it would severely limit their ability to convert Orthodox. In the event, of course, the movement that coalesced around Tanas eventually received recognition from Rome, but that took remarkably long and involved a much more toned-down latinization than had been intended. Add to this, of course, that those who converted did so largely because it gave them new legal status as sort of quasi-Frenchmen, so the core of the Melkite Catholic movement was always extremely Francophile and French has always been the working language of the hierarchy. The independent streak they sometimes have towards Rome in fact doesn't come from contact with Orthodoxy, but from contact with Gallicanism-- Germanus Adam translated Gallican texts into Arabic and strongly promoted that and Jansenism-- the Synod of Qarqafe (nullified a couple decades later in the Papal decree Melchitarum catholicorum ) was basically a Syrian localization of the Synod of Pistoia. Immediately after Vatican II, there was a rediscovery among the Melkites of their Byzantine heritage to a degree, which was part of what led to Bp Zoghby's movement, but that movement was always doomed to fail for a whole host of reasons-- including that it had very little lay support. Since then, even the Melkite Catholic clergy in the Middle East has come to place more emphasis on their Catholic identity than their ties to Orthodoxy and Rome has taken a much heavier hand in their clergy education-- which, at the advanced level, is all handled by Maronites and Jesuits at Kaslik.

Was Patriarch Cyril's election considered non-canonical from the get-go by the Orthodox faction in the Church of Antioch, or was it not until he attempted to formalize union with Rome?

 

[Samn!]

Was Patriarch Cyril's election considered non-canonical from the get-go by the Orthodox faction in the Church of Antioch, or was it not until he attempted to formalize union with Rome?

It was never accepted by the Holy Synod of Antioch. That is to say, in the first place it was merely a local election by the laity of Damascus, not what's now called a 'canonical election' by the Holy Synod. He was a priest at the time and only one member of the Synod was willing to participate in the episcopal consecration, so the Latin missionaries in Damascus had to arrange for two more bishops to be 'created', which renders his status even as a bishop extremely dubious by Orthodox canonical standards. Even into the early 20th century, you have Melkite Catholic scholars like Paul Bacel who admitted that, even under Roman canon law, the election was illegitimate.

 

[melkite]

It was never accepted by the Holy Synod of Antioch. That is to say, in the first place it was merely a local election by the laity of Damascus, not what's now called a 'canonical election' by the Holy Synod. He was a priest at the time and only one member of the Synod was willing to participate in the episcopal consecration, so the Latin missionaries in Damascus had to arrange for two more bishops to be 'created', which renders his status even as a bishop extremely dubious by Orthodox canonical standards. Even into the early 20th century, you have Melkite Catholic scholars like Paul Bacel who admitted that, even under Roman canon law, the election was illegitimate.

That's interesting. Do you have a source? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to learn more about it. I read a book about the Patriarchate of Antioch many years ago, but it didn't mention any of this that I recall. It was also written from a Melkite Catholic perspective, so I can understand why this would have been ignored.

 

[Samn!]

Do you have a source?

In English, there's Robert Haddad's Syrian Christians in a Muslim Society and Constantin Panchenko's Arab Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans.

 

[sestir]

If someone were to stop you on the street and ask you, "Are you Catholic?" would you honestly respond "Yes, I am" or would you respond "No, I'm Orthodox"?

I would ask them what "Catholic" means to them. I think I know what it means when applied to an Ekklesia in ancient Hellas, but not what it means when applied to a single person, which is why I fish for information here and there. As an inquirer, I am not sure if I am more Orthodox than you.

In the region where I grew up, we have three different words corresponding to the English word "Catholic". The answer would be different depending on if they used "katolik" (=member of the Romish Church), "katolsk" or "katolsker". That last form is an adjective in masculine, but Church and Ekklesia are feminine, so it is used as a joke about persons. :]

There might be more languages, besides the Scandinavian, that make such a distinction.

 

[Ariend]

This thread is a rollercoaster

 

[Samn!]

In English, there's Robert Haddad's Syrian Christians in a Muslim Society and Constantin Panchenko's Arab Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans.

It's come to my attention that Haddad's book is-- apparently legally-- available online here: https://archive.org/details/x-syrian-christians-in-muslim-society/

 

[Tzimis]

Sure. In this instance, it's basically the same as having a name. How can you claim something to be your name, if everyone calls you by a different name and even when they do call you by your name, you say that's not your name?

If someone were to stop you on the street and ask you, "Are you Catholic?" would you honestly respond "Yes, I am" or would you respond "No, I'm Orthodox"?

I would say both, but the catholic label is franchised by the west and then you have others like, byzantine catholic, Greek catholic etc. This question you ask is like walking through a house of mirrors.
The proper question would be, What does god call you and not what you are calling yourself? Saved, Justified, blessed, chosen, etc.

 

[Ariend]

This question you ask is like walking through a house of mirrors.

Huh? It's a very realistic question to be asked. Are you Catholic?

 

[Saxon]

The priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral in Ottawa reposed, and now the church announced that a Roman Catholic church is holding a memorial mass at the request of a Catholic women's league.

...why?

And the UOCC parish I currently attend is listed as a prominent financial donor to the Ukrainian Catholic church down the street. The church is identified as the donor, not any individual or member of the church. Why are my tithes to an Orthodox church directly or indirectly being used to support a Catholic church?

 

[LizaSymonenko]

The priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral in Ottawa reposed, and now the church announced that a Roman Catholic church is holding a memorial mass at the request of a Catholic women's league.

...why?

View attachment 20700

And the UOCC parish I currently attend is listed as a prominent financial donor to the Ukrainian Catholic church down the street. The church is identified as the donor, not any individual or member of the church. Why are my tithes to an Orthodox church directly or indirectly being used to support a Catholic church?

Is your parish wealthy?
If so, perhaps they are trying to build bridges. Is the Ukr Catholic parish poor and in dire need of financial assistance to remain open?
...if not... this is a valid question to pose to the parish administration.

 

[Saxon]

Is your parish wealthy?
If so, perhaps they are trying to build bridges. Is the Ukr Catholic parish poor and in dire need of financial assistance to remain open?
...if not... this is a valid question to pose to the parish administration.

My parish is financially secure because of some good investments providing interest, but has an aged and dwindling congregation. The Ukrainian Catholic church, as far as I know, has a larger congregation and is doing well. There's no need for this.

 

[Katechon]

My parish is financially secure because of some good investments providing interest, but has an aged and dwindling congregation. The Ukrainian Catholic church, as far as I know, has a larger congregation and is doing well. There's no need for this.

Cringe

 

[Stinky]

The priest of the Ukrainian Orthodox cathedral in Ottawa reposed, and now the church announced that a Roman Catholic church is holding a memorial mass at the request of a Catholic women's league.

...why?

View attachment 20700

And the UOCC parish I currently attend is listed as a prominent financial donor to the Ukrainian Catholic church down the street. The church is identified as the donor, not any individual or member of the church. Why are my tithes to an Orthodox church directly or indirectly being used to support a Catholic church?

But they are all Ukranian.

 

[Tzimis]

Cringe

Its the laws of the land we're in. It obvious you have no experience in governance.

 

[Saxon]

But they are all Ukranian.

There’s actually a Ukrainian Slavic pagan temple here in town. No joke. I wonder if they’re also interested in supporting them. Ancient Ukrainian culture, after all.

 

[Katechon]

Its the laws of the land we're in. It obvious you have no experience in governance.

Churches engaging in usurous business is cringe regardless what the law of a secular country says.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

But they are all Ukranian.

Not all Ukrainian parishes are Orthodox... and one should know the difference... although sadly people do jump around. But, that is on "us" who do know the difference... and the fact that we have not educated them to also realize the divide between us.