Byzantine Catholics?

[Serge]

As you know, I'm well aware of the parish you attend and your religious background.

So? Even if that's true, it doesn't give you the right to volunteer any such information online.

So you just pass off the opinions of a very highly respected (by ALL Orthodox jurisdictions) and well educated ROCOR priest because his views and opinions do not coincide with yours.

Yes, as is my right.

Do you also disagree with the opinions and views regarding the RCC of Bishop Anthony of Sourozh (sp?)

Regarding Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, the Russian Church's metropolitan in London, I think you're referring to his claim, which I read myself in either Sourozh or Sobornost, that Orthodox can't trust the Catholic Church because all the latter want to do is liquidate the Orthodox churches.

I'm undecided whether he's right.

Balamand seems to say no. I've met and read Catholics, entirely Catholic, who don't fit that description (such as Fr Serge Keleher) but I've also met and read some who do (such as the infamous H.W. Crocker III or New Oxford Review with its outrageous article a couple of years ago by 'Frank Kimball'). He may be right.

An online detractor of the Orthodox (who happened to be Catholic) once claimed that the metropolitan supports the ordination of women but I don't believe he holds that view, nor do I support any attempted ordination of women. (A bishop of the Russian Church? No way!)

The most 'liberal' answer on the question of lady priests I've read that is still reputably Orthodox is that the Orthodox Church is still coming up with an answer why or why not and that the western answers don't quite fit Orthodoxy, not a call to change the unchanged practice of ordaining only men to the apostolic ministry. (I think that's where Bishop Kallistos, ne Timothy Ware, the Greeks' bishop for Britain, is coming from.)

Roman Catholicism's view on what Serge? The Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, etc.? Please specify.

No problem. I thought it was clear from the context - sorry! I meant a view mirroring Catholicism's view that Orthodox sacraments have grace - are 'valid' in Western Catholic-speak. I can't supply a direct URL but I think I read the documents online. Try looking on the Russian Orthodox Church's (Moscow Patriarchate) site - the link is on my Faith page.

I cover the IC on my Q&A page.

IMO the only insurmountable difference is 'the Pope thing'. The current Pope is a great man, a voice of countercultural orthodoxy vs. the new order of things, against contraception, abortion, women's ordination, the war in Iraq... and the Popes in the 1500s were right vs. the Protestant 'Reformation'... but I agree with you that the current Catholic setup with universal papal jurisdiction historically has given the Roman Rite an unfair advantage over Eastern Catholics. (IOW, the trouble is the head of the Roman Rite is also always head of the whole shebang.) As much as I like the Catholic Church (and I don't have a problem per se with a patriarch of patriarchs leading the whole thing), Orthodox ecclesiology makes sense* and is fair to the Christian East.

If there are no temporal consequences for sin (I'll not use the westernism 'temporal punishment') then why do Orthodox pray for the dead? Why not a ticket directly to heaven after the particular judgement (the judgement some Russian Orthodox describe as the aerial toll houses)? IMO, the holding pen/sheol (not to be confused with gehenna, real hell) = purgatory.

*That is, when you understand it as a communion -

[OrthoDoc]

Anastasios:

May I remind you that two of the most important components of love are TRUST and RESPECT. Without them there can be no sincere love. Only superficial love.

You reply with the same answer I hear from all Roman Catholics when their past sins against us are brought up. 'It's in the past so it should be forgotten!' If that were true, then why bother to write and study history? Because history does have a way of repeating itself. And then what you is bring up the politically forced return of the UCC back into the ROC. (Perfect example of history repeating itself, is it not? Only this time in reverse! ) I ask you, isn't 1946 in the past? So in your last post you either contradict yourself when you chide me for bringing up past sins and then use another past issue to counterbalance.

But I am getting away from the point I'm trying to make. If 100 years is too far back to go, is within the past 12 years current enough? So let's go thru some current issues that question both the sincerety and trustworthiness of the Pope -

1) The Pope wants unity with Orthodoxy. Yet in the early part of the nineties when things were starting to heat up in the Balkans (prior to Bosnia) Patriarch Pavel sent a letter to the Pope to come and visit where they could make a joint statement to try and ward off any conflict. The Pope replied that things in the region were too unstable for him to come at that time. Yet EIGHT MONTHS LATER he suddenly travelst to Croatia. Upon landing he goes immediately to the grave of Cardinal Stepinac to pray! And while he's there announces the starting process for sainthood! This is a man who is looked upon by the Orthodox (especially the Serbs) as being complacent in the deaths and forced conversions of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Serbs. MANY OF THEM STILL ALIVE.

Lets not even get into a discussion on whether Stepinac was a saint or sinner. Can you explain why, if this Pope is so lovable, sincere, and trustworthy, he would do such a thing at this time? Why the rush to sainthood? Why does it have to be to be done NOW less than a hundred years after his death?

2) Regarding the Ukrainian issue and the former Uniate parishes. To save time let me cut and paste from my files an article from 'The Journal of the Moscow Patriarch' regarding the Quadripartite Ageement the CC & the RCC church agreed to and turned thier back on within six weeks of its implementation -

STATEMENT:

[Anastasios]

I think it is a BIG stretch to call former Fr. Alexy Young, now Hieromonk Ambrose, a "respected priest" by all jurisdictions. I'm sure the Antiochians don't respect him for leaving their Church and stating he feared he would lose his soul in their "liberal" jurisdiction. His book The Rush to Embrace is a total joke and had a hard time separating fact from fiction in that hate-filled, bigoted book that presents the RCC in a false light. Clark Carlton's books are much more truthful, but I still prefer Bp Kallistos's analysis of the Western Churches.

anastasios

[OrthoDoc]

3) The Pope intitally announces that the Roman Catholic Church has no designs to proseltyze amongst the Orthodox in Russia. They only want to take care of their own which are mainly non Russians that live within the Russian borders. Yet construction of churches that could seat 3000 people are being constructed for parishes with current memberships of 300! If the RCC has no plans to proseltyze amongst the Russians in the area, they must be expecting one helluva baby boon amongst 'their own'. The Pope further sets up four RC dioceses within Russia and assigns bishops to area where there are only a minimual amout of RC's.

4) The Pope announces he would like to visit Russia and will return the 'Our Lady of Kazan' on his trip. Most people in the west take this as a wonderful jesture by the Pope. Yet few know that this is one of the most venerated and miraculous Icons in all of Russia. And the miracle it is best known for by the Russian people is repelling the advancement of the POLES from advancing into Moscow. As the POLES were advancing towards the city the Icon was brought out to the people to pray for protection from the Polish invaders. And no one can tell me that the Pope, as a Pole, isn't awrae of the Icons history. Yet he (a POLE) chooses to try and use it as his entry into Moscow and to act against its original significance.
Thank God it didn't work and the ROC told him to keep the Icon rather than acquiesce to his original stipulations. Last I heard the Icon will be returned without any strings attached. Which is what should have happened in the first place.

5) The building of a huge Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral and headquarter complex in Kiev the center of Ukrainian Orthodoxy where there are only a minimual amount of Uniates. Anastasios only comments he is against it but does not come up with a valid reason for it, if what the RCC & Pope deny any desire to proseltyze the Orthodox is true.

I'll cose on that even though I can probably come up with more.

Orthodoc

[Seraphim Reeves]

...thought that subject header would get your attention.

Honestly, I have many fond experiences from my RC days, and many friends and family (including a brother who is an RC seminarian with a "traditionalist" order) who are committed Catholics (some, I'd dare say, are "more Catholic than the Pope.")

However, it's hard to come to grips with what Catholicism fundamentally is, and not be a little ticked off. By what "Catholicism is", I do not mean the solemn services (long shelved in much of the RC world), Gregorian chant, or humble piety (which I know for a fact can be found amongst simple RC's). I mean everything inherent to Catholicism that separates it from the truth - the Orthodox confession. The deeper one delves into Orthodoxy, the clearer Papism's defection becomes. Call them "polemical" (since they are), but Bl.Justin's treatments on Catholicism (and western Christian confessions in general) is priceless, and without fault.

There are plenty of "nice" folks who are Catholics. However I could say the same thing of Islam, or Buddhism. This is one of the hardships of being in a multicultural society, or even being part of a "mixed religious" family; it tugs on your heart, and makes one ill at ease with outright rejecting a religious traditon which people you know and love hold so dear. It almost feels at times like you're rejecting them, by doing this.

Do I have a "chip" on my shoulder? Sure, in the same way anyone who has been ripped off has a "chip" on their shoulder; and hopefully I'm the wiser for it.

Seraphim

[Anastasios]

Seraphim,

The more I learn about Orthodoxy and the more I fall in love with it, the more I treasure the great Christian upbringing I received in the Lutheran Church, and later the Catholic Church. I feel no ill will towards my hopefully soon-to-be-former confession, but rather seek to provide a witness that nevertheless there is a more full and truthful form of Christianity--Orthodoxy. I like the attitude of Fr. Lev Gillet (a monk of the Eastern Church) and the attitudes of several of my formerly Catholic, now Orthodox friends here at St. Vladimir's, who show no animosity towards their former Church.

The Catholic Church to me is a great Church, yet sadly I must leave its communion because the Orthodox Church is the true Church. All the same, I love my Byzantine Catholic sojourn and will always cherish it. I can't join with others in condeming the Byzantine Catholic Church because it is what led me to discover Orthodoxy. Without it I'd be a Vatican I style Catholic fundamentalist! haha

In Christ,

anastasios

[OrthoDoc]

Anastasios writes:

[The Catholic Church to me is a great Church, yet sadly I must leave its communion because the Orthodox Church is the true Church. All the same, I love my Byzantine Catholic sojourn and will always cherish it. I can't join with others in condeming the Byzantine Catholic Church because it is what led me to discover Orthodoxy. Without it I'd be a Vatican I style Catholic fundamentalist! haha ]

And so it should be in your eyes. This is just what I mean when I originally said that as a non slav and a potential convert, you do not carry the wounds and history of the past because you or your family were never affected by it one way or the other like some of us have. It wasn't a criticism, it was an analysis on how our backgrunds effect our posts.

I still have Byzantine Catholics in my family. As individuals do I love and trust them? Absolutely! Just like I love and trust individual Roman Catholic friends and family. Many of them with my life. But do I trust either the Roman Catholic Church or its grafted Eastern Rite appendages?
Absolutely not! And with good reason. Because of what you call the 'past' all the way up until the present. I think you still don't understand what I am trying to convey because you keep relying that past issues are somehow irrevelant. Not so at all my friend. BY THEIR DEEDS THEY SHALL BE KNOWN.

Orthodoc