So says their Patriarch Sviatoslav. How many Orthodox agree?
(Youtube) - Remarks by His Beatitude, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (Святослав Шевчук, єпископ Української греко-католицької церкви), St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 28 September 2016.
Posts
Although the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) conducts its services based on Eastern Orthodox Church liturgy -- rather than on Roman Catholic Church liturgy -- the UGCC comes under the jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome, not the Patriarch of Constantinople.
ReplyDeleteMembers of the UGCC are sometimes referred to as "Catholics of the Eastern Rite" or "Uniates" -- Christians of Eastern Europe or the Near East who acknowledge papal supremacy but retain their own (Eastern Orthodox) liturgy.
Also, priests of Greek Catholic Churches are allowed to be married, while priests of Roman Catholic Churches cannot be married.
Perhaps the term "Orthodox" is like the term "Christian" - so elastic to be almost meaningless (I actually do not use the term "Christian" nearly as much as I used to, and only in a context when I have reason to believe the hearer will not fill it with their own arbitrary content). No, it is not that bad but really, words do have meanings...
ReplyDeleteIt would be useful for those who choose to respond to this question to also address the following--and (thoughfully) explain why (or why not):
ReplyDelete1) Is the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church an "Orthodox Church"?
2) How about the various groups of Old Calendarists?
3) Or the Copts, Armenians, Malankara, etc.?
4) The Assyrian Church of the East?
All of these have, or do, use the term "Orthodox," for the same reasons as "regular" Eastern Orthodox: a self-perception that they preserve correct forms of worship, and teach correct doctrine... Even the Roman Canon refers to "omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus."
I think the attitude here in Russia would be:
Delete1) No, they're a schismatic group.
2) See answer 1.
3) No, these are heretics. Very close, but still in heresy.
4) No, Nestorianism is a heresy.
This is just more Uniate propaganda. Metr. Sviatoslav will find out that if he makes these false claims about being Orthodox in public outside of Ukraine he will be held to account by the Orthodox Church. I pity the Ecumenical Patriarch for example who has suffered abuse at the hands of Uniates who falsely claimed that EP approved of "Dual Communion" allowing Uniates to receive communion in the canonical Orthodox Church. See this:http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=952&tla=en
ReplyDeleteHere is the quote that is being discussed:""We are a fully orthodox Church with orthodox theology, liturgics, spirituality, and canonical Tradition, which strives to live this orthodoxy in the spirit of first-Millennium Christianity--that is, communion with Rome. The Christian East and West are not only called to achieving some sort of abstract closeness, but are called by our Savior to live in one union within Christ's Body. We are called to live in union with one another, not in conquest for one another." - His Beatitude Sviatoslav
ReplyDeletehttp://news.ugcc.ua/en/articles/words_of_his_beatitude_sviatoslav_during_the_banquet_on_the_occasion_of_carrying_institute_meripolitan_andreysheptytsky_from_ottawa_to_toronto_university_september_28_2016_77610.html
Well, if and when Rome itself returns to living "the spirit of first-Millenium Christianity" then it and those in communion with it can be considered Orthodox - til then, nope.
DeleteBy the way St. Michael's College (Roman Catholic) is part of the Toronto School of Theology, a federation of various Christian theological colleges. And TST already offers Canada's only ATS-accredited Orthodox theological programmes.
ReplyDeleteYou can be sure that the professors in the real Orthodox program would not call the Ukrainian Catholic Church an Orthodox Church.
http://www.trinityorthodox.ca/
I think Dr. Butcher's argument is worth addressing, for those who care to disagree with his position. Anybody?
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the discussion he's not trying to say he's Oriental Orthodox or Nestorian. He's trying to say that he's part of the historic Church of the Slavs - that he and his organization are a continuation of Orthodoxy even though they broke communion with all the Churches of Orthodoxy in favor of union with Rome. In the same way some Anglicans say they are Anglo-Catholic even though they are subject to the Queen of England as head of their faith and not the Pope of Rome.
DeleteAs a litmus test, let us ask all 14/15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches. "Is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Orthodox?" If not a single one of them says they are, I don't see how they could be in the same way claiming you are on a basketball team if neither the coach or the players will let you on the bus even if you are wearing the outfit and can dribble the ball. Being Orthodox is not about a self-determined state, it's about a relationship and synodality. Right now there is none.
To add to Josephus Flavius excellent points (and as a reply to Dr. Butcher & AJC), as Patriarch Bartholomew (no doubt in an unguarded moment) stated once, there is an "ontological" difference between canonical and even "oriental" Orthodox theology and life/praxis and the theology and life/praxis of those in communion with Rome. Whatever the "self understanding" of the term "Orthodox" might be within uniatism, it is simply not true that the term is commensurate with how the Christian East understands and uses the term. Thus, the cognitive dissonance (that in this case signifies a Real difference - a difference in fact and Reality) when "His Beatitude" says that he and his flock are "fully Orthodox"...
DeleteJake: The most unfortunate part of the EP's claim of "ontological" differences, is that he never detailed the claim. He discussed his ideas of the Orthodox church, but did not provide evidence of an ontological difference with RCC, let alone with Greek Catholic churches. I am doubtful that the eP would make that claim, however, unsupported, about Greek Catholics.
DeleteJF: Your discussion and litmus test are interesting. EOs apparently are willing to use the Orthodox for all sorts of people with whom they are out of communion - even those that adhere to heresies declared by ecumenical councils. Except Greek Catholics. That speaks volumes.
DeleteAs to the historical lineage, that is not in doubt. The EOs have every right to create their self-identification of "Orthodoxy", but they have no standing to invent or deny history.
By the way when did Rome grant the title "patriarch" to the Archbishop Major of the Ukrainian Catholic church? Another myth of unaiatism?
ReplyDeleteDavid J,
ReplyDeleteThe claim is partly an "if you have eyes to see and ears to hear" claim. The East never went down the metaphysical/scholastic rabbit hole (though it went down other holes - Origenism for example) so it is difficult to explain to a western (i.e. RC and Protestant) exactly what we mean when we speak of "ontology" because in the west ontology becomes mere "ontisms" - in other words it becomes a branch of metaphysics. A westerner would have to recover Symbolism from a nominalistic worldview to even begin to understand ontology, and this is very very difficult for westerners to do because nominalism IS the presupposition to everything the west has to say (to paraphrase Paul Tillich of all people).
This fundamental (and irreconcilable) difference between East and West (RC & Protestant) is obvious to those of us who live it but almost impossible for a western Christian to really "get". It is why we recognize a certain commonality between the ancient Eastern heretics and ourselves - they are closer to us (i.e. Christianity as it is Revealed) than RC/protestants - and why RC dressed up as Eastern Orthodox "speaks volumes" to you... ;)
Eastern Catholics are not "RC dressed up as Eastern Orthodox." To think that is absurd and historically false.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"It is why we recognize a certain commonality between the ancient Eastern heretics and ourselves - they are closer to us (i.e. Christianity as it is Revealed) than RC/protestants - and why RC dressed up as Eastern Orthodox "speaks volumes" to you... ;)"
DeleteFr. Georges Florovsky, much revered by Elder Sophrony and St. Justin Popvic, who is not known for his ecumenism, would disagree with you. Most Orthodox favor the Orientals and other uncanonical schismatic just because they look and smell the same. Such is the oppressive tyranny of "phronema" as the final criterion of who's in and who's out.
Jake, ontology *is* a branch of metaphysics. To deny this is a metaphysical claim. Your language reeks of Heidegger, not the pristine patristic mind of the East which you aim to preserve. Also, nominalism is fundamental to Protestant theology but not Catholic theology. Thomist realism dominates in most academies today, and Scotism is seeing a resurgence. But these thinkers were emphatically not nominalists.
DeletePerhaps if you'd condescend from those vertiginous heights of hesychastic philokalia so as to actually study metaphysics, you'd be able to tell what it is and what it is not. Otherwise you are just spouting pietistic gnosomachy, which St. John of Damascus (author of the Octoechos, funeral canon, and the first scholastic) catalogued in his heresiology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome of these comments demonstrate a comprehension of church history and Catholicism that is about as charitable and accurate as a Chick tract.
ReplyDeletePeregrinus says;
ReplyDelete"ontology *is* a branch of metaphysics. To deny this is a metaphysical claim."
Actually, the Fathers/Church in a sense redefine "ontology" - they co-opt for a Christian purpose and are not "philosophers" per se. Ontology or "being" then becomes a matter of the heart (nous - and of course God, etc.) and not a mere matter of discursive reasoning (head). If the Fathers/Church are wrong about this, then they are simply neoplatonists and the entire Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is in vain - heck, even Plato and Aristotle understood the limits of logic and had their own "mystical" side (as did the neoplatonists proper).
No, I will (and neither will Orthodoxy) "condescend" from the hysychastic heights in order to muck around in the scholastic, metaphysical mud - to do so would be to wallow in "the world" and you know what Scripture says about that (at least you do from a moralistic angle - the only one available to a metaphysician - my prayer is you can also descend into the Heart!).
If you are actually interested in Orthodox theology then you could start with just about anything from Fr. John Romanides, though you will find the last two essay's of Fr. Schemann's "For the Life of the World" (what is called "the Appendices" more accessible.
Interesting this thread is it not! I wonder what it says (if anything) about how far apart RC and Orthodoxy are and the inherent vagueness of current ecumenical "dialogue"...
What is actually telling is that you assume, because I disagree with your appropriation of "the fathers," that I am not Orthodox. In fact I am ordained in a minor clerical order (for what it is worth, I do not claim to be worthy of it) and blessed by my priest to catechize within my parish. If I do not have at least a basic enough grasp of Orthodox theology to talk about it meaningfully, then you impiously question his judgment. You poison the well, my Orthodox brother.
DeleteRather, your comment - with its evasive assertions, pious truisms, and presumptive tone - demonstrates just how much the will to power dominates in modern assertions of Orthodox identity. Enough, then. Indeed, pray for me.
Based on your reaction to my rather bland and non-controversial statement(s) of Orthodox theology, I have to assume you are not in fact a member of the canonical Orthodox Church - uniate perhaps? Am I wrong? My bishop is part of the synod of the EP - I am canonical (uocofusa).
DeleteNo, I can not give you a sound bite defense of ontology and the Fathers in a internet comment box. If you are sincerely interested, Met. Hierotheos writes about this extensively in his several books (most interestingly from the perspective of "personhood" {God and anthropos}), as of course do the other well known scholars I mentioned above - heck, if memory serves even Met. Kallistos Ware mentions this in his very basic catechetical "The Orthodox Church" though that work has been through so many revisions I don't know what's in it now (I stopped recommending/using it 15 years ago).
No, the Church will not be bullied into (your allegation of uncharity and "will to power" for speaking the truth over a basic difference(s) between RC and Orthodoxy) accepting this or that, or sweeping under the rug significant differences. Does this work at those high level "theological dialogs"? Perhaps I really don't know. What does not work is the sentimental and objectively wrong "two lungs" and similar obfuscations - these are not fooling anybody...
Your statement may have been bland but it was not uncontroversial. In fact, I think the controversy surrounding Vlachos at the event in Crete, regardless of its status as a "holy and great" council or not, is proof enough that his polemic presentation of the faith is not unanimously accepted either among the faithful or the hierarchy.
DeleteAs such, your presumption that I am 1) not Orthodox and 2) not canonical are entirely baseless, ad hominem irrelevancies which, again, entirely demonstrate my point: you are hiding behind a sectarian confessional "orthodoxy" that is basically gnostic: as if only the initiated can understand, fie on the Western heretics with their rationalism and their scholasticism.
It is obvious that you would discount me 1) if I was not Orthodox, because, well, I just can't get it; 2) if I was non-canonical, because, well I am schismatic, or 3) if I was canonical (which I am) because, well, so was Arius.
But be it noted that at no point in this discussion have I made presumptions about you: I have not called you a heretic, I have not refused to allow you to understand my point, I have not evaded your accusations, I have not even attempted to distance myself from you in the slightest ideological sense. You, on the other hand, will not even presume in good will that we share a common sacramental bond, much less a common faith.
So be it. The winnowing of the Spirit in time will judge between us. Let's pray for each other, that neither of us should go the way of the Arians, the Donatists, and every other sect deemed unworthy of the Church.
I found the back-and-forth between Jake and Peregrinus very interesting. I find Jake particularly interesting because here he takes such a hard-line anti-ecumenist, pro-Romanides approach whereas in another post he seemed to have a pretty balanced view toward what the fathers viewed as tolerable ecumenism. It just goes to show that even so-called Orthodox 'fundamentalists' are a diverse group each with their own specific views.
DeleteI have to agree, however, with Peregrinus. Jake did of course make some valid points, but usually those who like to talk about "Western scholasticism" don't know much about the period. "Heck, even Plato and Aristotle understood the limits of logic and had their own "mystical" side" - so did Aquinas, just read the first few chapters of the Summa Contra Gentiles, it's very clear. Yes, many later Thomists certainly are not free from excessive rationalism, but it is wrong to recklessly project that back onto their teacher. Also, I'm not sure how it makes sense to classify Augustine, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, etc. as nominalists. Have you read Orthodox Readings of Aquinas by Marcus Plested? If so, how do you respond to his arguments that Eastern theologians borrowed a not insignificant amount from Western theologians?
Scholarios, I have not read Plested's book but I have listened to some of his lectures. The work he is doing at the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies at Cambridge is tremendously important. Thanks for mentioning that.
DeleteGeorgios Scholoarios,
DeleteYou sure your last name is not Demacopoulos? :) I just love the use and abuse of term "fundamentalists" in Orthodoxy! It is true, I am swinging hard to the "this is this and that is that" dialectic in this thread but I judge it to be necessary here and now and at other times as well. In this context when you have the term "Orthodox" being stretched beyond all recognition, it's time for a little REALity check (get it?).
I have often said I don't have anything against ecumenism in principle, just most ecumenism as actually done. In the last few years, after reflecting on the fruits of the modern "ecumenical movement" (last 100 years or so) which of course Orthodoxy has always been right in the middle of, I now have to wonder about the principle itself. For myself, ecumenical activity has shown itself to be such a fruitless endeavour for all sorts of reasons (not the least of which is that our "partners" in dialogue are becoming so thoroughly modernized/secularized/and-just-plain-non-Christian) it now is really the province of politicized bishops and those in the academic space who (quite literally) make $careers$ out of it. Heck, even Met. Kallistos Ware said as much recently - although he will never be able to break his "ecumenical" habit before he falls asleep ;) When it comes to the actual business of the Church (salvation of souls), ecumenism does not even rise to the level of a footnote on the minutes of a minor committee. The recent meeting in Crete is yet another spoiled fruit - so much time and effort and squabbling on a document that merely states the status quo of the last 100 years! (Of course the EP desperately needs a stamp of approval on the failed ecumenical movement because that is his only reason for existence - he is down to less than 2000 actual souls now...)
It is true, I have been reading alot of Romanides lately! I am actually not interested in the minutiae of the story (e.g. who and who is not an 'orthodox' nominalist, etc.) so much as the the overall historical trend/consequence in the life of western Christendom. How the story turned and is now being played out is rather obvious and for delineating the consequences of this (and as a contrast to the Christian East) Romanides is good. Perhaps some day I will get around to a more nuanced view but that is neither here nor there for discussions such as these. I very much doubt it would be useful for the goals of any ecumenical dialogue/rapprochement. Why? Well, because the ontological differences between east and west are simply too great.
I send my daughters to the local RC school (we are not in a position currently to home school), where they receive a very fine moralistic education! It's not all bad of course, but then it is not Orthodoxy either...
Oops, I almost missed this post:
Delete"I have not evaded your accusations, I have not even attempted to distance myself from you in the slightest ideological sense. You, on the other hand, will not even presume in good will that we share a common sacramental bond, much less a common faith. "
Ok, so are we in communion? It is an exceedingly strange thing to say you are not evading the question and then go on and not actually answer the question. I repeat - are you canonically Orthodox (in communion with one of the 14 autocephalous Church's ( https://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churches ) - which as you say (guilty as charged) I confess as THE "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"...you see on any given Sunday, ALL Orthodox are "fundamentalists" ;)
Jake, I am going to answer your question if only for the sake of clarity. I already have, albeit parenthetically. But yes - we are in communion, by the grace of God. I am in the OCA.
DeleteI recommend you consider reading Frederick Copleston's 2nd and 3rd (I think) volumes in his "History of Philosophy" for a survey of Thomism, Scotism, and Ockhamism. In case you cannot bear to read a Jesuit philosopher, make it a Lenten podvig. But if you are going to utilize the word "nominalist" so freely, you will at least do well to know what the word entails. This is not minutiae - in fact, I think you will find it enriches your reading of the fathers to be aware of this. These books are not terribly long.
I think Dr Butcher's point is well worth noting. Nobody seems to have replied to it at any length, though...
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that makes the Ukrainian Greek catholic church not "orthodox"? Is it her commemoration of the pope of Rome? It can't be that reason because the Orthodox churches included the Pope of Rome in their diptychs for the first millennium, excepting intermittent schisms here and there before 1054. St. Maximos the Confessor had no qualms about communion with Rome, and I think he would meet your litmus test for "Orthodoxy ".
This didn't just happen to the UGCC. When they signed the Union they knew they were at the same time dissolving another. I am either a resident of Texas or Quebec. I can't claim to be both.
DeleteQuite right—what is now called the UGCC did have to make a choice in 1596.
ReplyDeleteBut that choice was in no way for something called 'Orthodoxy' or 'Catholicism.' Those terms are confessional terms that emerged only in the modern period. If you look at the texts from the around the period (e.g., the articles of the union), there is no idea that bishops of Ukraine are breaking with 'Orthodoxy' and joining 'Catholicism.' What is clear: they are entering communion with the Church of Rome. By the time of 1596, unfortunately, that meant that they would no longer be in communion with the Greeks (NB: the 'Greeks,' not the 'Orthodox'). In the light of the modern situation in which there is now an entity called 'Orthodoxy' (with a capital 'O'), some may be free to question the extent to which the UGCC can claim the descriptor for itself (if it indeed does claim to be so). But we are talking about a modern situation: no apostolic Christian of a church descending from the Roman Empire had exclusive rights to 'catholic' or 'orthodox' before modern times. And, in reality, the same remains true today.
A related note: in the Ukrainian version of the address (I am not sure of which language it was delivered in—perhaps Dr. Butcher can comment on this), His Beatitude says that the UGCC is not opposed to the Orthodox Churches (capital 'O'/'П'), because it is orthodox in its various aspects (lower-case 'o'/'п'). The text:
Українська Греко-Католицька Церква, найбільша зі Східних Католицьких Церков, ніяким чином не протиставляється жодній із Православних Церков. Ми є вповні православною Церквою із православним богослов'ям, літургікою, духовністю та канонічною традицією, яка прагне проявити це православ'я в дусі християнства першого тисячоліття - у сопричасті з Римом.
Again, if this text is more official than the English, then it is immediately worthy of note: perhaps his Beatitude is not trying to claim anything more than the simple fact that the UGCC, as a church with faith descending from the apostles, is an orthodox church because it is a church that practices orthodox faith.
This is a great comment. Reminds me: I once read a quip from an Orthodox seminary professor, "the Orthodox Church was born in the 1920's in a Parisian cafe." This is of course an overstatement, but alludes to an important historical contingency at work in how many of us have come to learn and identify with the faith.
Delete"But that choice was in no way for something called 'Orthodoxy' or 'Catholicism.' Those terms are confessional terms that emerged only in the modern period.... What is clear: they are entering communion with the Church of Rome"
DeleteI don't see how any of this matters - unless one wants to maintain the fiction that there are not significant differences of Faith/praxis/ontology going back to at least 8th century(Romanides puts it about here)between these "communions".
"And, in reality, the same remains true today."
Nope - unless words don't have meaning (i.e. a nominalistic account of the terms). Many RC believe this (they invented it - at least as it is lived in our culture - western Christendom) but the Faith of the Orthodox sees past this...
"I am either a resident of Texas or Quebec. I can't claim to be both." Huh?
ReplyDeleteThrough the first millennium and one would have been in communion both with the Pope and the EP. One also could have been a member of one particular, ritual church, living in a territory of and being under a bishop of another particular ritual church. The situation even at the time of Brest was not black and white. Indeed it was only after the fall out from Brest that the lines were so clearly drawn.
Thank you all, for your interested--and quite impassioned!--comments. One could surely have a similar discussion over the use of the term "Catholic": EO happily recite the Nicene Creed, identifying themselves as the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church," without, of course, feeling that communion with the Catholic Church is thereby implied or necessary.
ReplyDeleteByzantine-Rite Catholics similarly use a liturgy in which the celebrant commemorates "all you Orthodox/orthodox Christians," without our feeling that communion with a specific group of self-described Orthodox--whether canonical EO, or Old Calendarist, or Oriental Orthodox for that matter (all of whom also use the descriptor, without being in communion with each other)--is implied, or necessary...although it is certainly desirable!
We naturally wish for such communion, not only with the EO (and their "non-canonical" offshoots), which the Catholic Church recognizes to be a federation of true apostolic Churches, but also with the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.
"Orthodox" surely cannot be tautologically defined as simply those who are (currently) in communion with the Orthodox: were there not Orthodox in good standing while embracing iconoclasm, or monotheletism or monoergism, during the periods that such views enjoyed official, hierarchical approval?
Can we not agree that such terms as "Orthodox" and "Catholic" are as important for what they prescribe, as what they describe? We are all to strive to be fully orthodox and fully catholic, are we not? As an Eastern Catholic I feel blessed to be in a communion of Churches in which all the ancient apostolic liturgical traditions are, in some measure, represented: East and West Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Byzantine--as well as Latin. Catholicity of this sort is not presently available in any other communion. Of course the situation is not ideal, since we remain painfully out of communion with our Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East brethren. Villifying one another, however, does nothing to remedy the situation; we have all suffered persecution, whether from Islam, Communism, or each other! It is perhaps time to live and let live, while seeking patiently, charitably, kenotically, to restore the full communion of all the Churches--a situation that none of us has enjoyed since the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus!
"Can we not agree that such terms as "Orthodox" and "Catholic" are as important for what they prescribe, as what they describe? We are all to strive to be fully orthodox and fully catholic, are we not?"
DeleteYes - there is a spiritual "realism" in the very heart of Christianity (think Paul) that allows us to see this life as our "time of repentance" and that we are all pilgrims and struggling and not-yet-with-with-the-lord.
The *paradox* (and it is real - not a mere dialectical/logical conundrum) is that this (this salvation) can only be in the Church! Scripture/Tradition is quite clear on this - that one can not put oneself (willingly) outside AND on the inside. It does appear that God (being God) will of course blow where He wills, but that is His work. Nevertheless the Church is *REAL* and now and sufficient and present...it is not "mystical" or in the future and in a process of becoming. It is this and not that...
What does this mean? That we (as penitents) can not invent and justify our own ecclisology and our own "mystical" Church. That is of course exactly what you do here, essentially subscribing to the "it is all One Big Misunderstanding" theory of the "division of the Church's". I bet if I pushed, you would admit that you perceive an "invisible" unity that for historical/circumstantial/plain-old-human-sin reasons is not currently visible.
I submit THIS is the great tragedy of the ecumenical movement of the last 100 years or so, because this is what most tradtional-little-o Christians (e.g. all the traditional uniates posting here and your average man-in-the parish in any Orthodox Church on any given Sunday). The tragedy is that the fruit of the ecumenical movement or idea is that it has become a *doctrine* accepted by most (deeply deeply accepted - a thing of the heart) that is essentially (and frankly, even on the surface) a protestant ecclesiology.
No Dr. Butcher, there will never be an apokatastasis of "the full communion of all the Churches". This is not a matter of the definition of terms, or human frailty/sin, or historical contingency or fill_in_the_blank. Such a "restoration" is not logical/dialectical matter to be overcome because it is first and foremost a Spiritual untruth. It is like saying the Christ is not risen - it does not "fit" into the Christian story and Revelation not as a matter of the head but as a matter of God and the heart. The Church is already (in the past, here and now, in the future, and in the Eschaton) "one" and in "full communion". If it is not, then Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) is in vain and Christ died in vain. We might not perceive that and are not full part of that, but we also are not to justify ourselves and correct God and invent our own "mystical" Church as that is just plain-old-everyday-sin...
One final thought from my end: the 13th article of the Union of Brest:
ReplyDelete"And if in time the Lord shall grant that the rest of the brethren of our people and of the Greek Religion shall come to this same holy unity, it shall not be held against us or begrudged to us that we have preceded them in this unity, for we have to do this for definite, serious reasons for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further confusion and discord."
The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church is an Orthodox Church which tried to restore communion with Rome while preserving her communion with her fellow Orthodox. We failed to do, and have suffered the consequences... This does not, however, essentially alter our identity, nor negate the validity of the "project" which, as a previous poster observed, was also espoused by such worthies as Maximus the Confessor--as it still is by no small number of Orthodox churchmen today. Melkite archbishop Elias Zoghby famously lamented, "we are all schismatics"; or, to paraphrase the Byzantine prayer before Communion, "we have sinned without number--forgive us, O Lord!"
OK, Jake, you don't like ecumenism. (Incidentally, you may not want to read Jesus' high priestly prayer in John's Gospel.) But let's address Dr. Butcher's valid question: what does the term Orthodoxy prescribe and what does it describe? I'm posting a leading question to you or or there Who are reading this post. I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say about the description of Orthodoxy. I'm not sure myself how to define it in such a way as to include the beliefs of Sts. Irenaeus, Ignasius of Antioch, Cyril&Methodius, Maximus yet to exclude beliefs of the Greco Catholics. What is it about our beliefs, worship or practices that precludes us from that same communion these aforementioned saints enjoyed?
ReplyDeleteNope, it is not that I "don't like ecumenism" - it is that the Church rejects (on the very basis you point to: St. John's Gospel, Irenaeus and all the Saints, the praxis of the Church - everything) the presupposition (i.e. the beginning of thought that can not then be examined because all though rests on this first "thing" or ground) that allows an ecclisology and *doctrine* of the Body of Christ that says it is divided (i.e. there will be a "restoration" of the "communion of the Churches" some time in the future of present age or the age to come).
DeleteTo answer your question "What does Orthodoxy mean?" (even to begin) is not really possible in a comment box - I can suggest a few books that begin to answer the question (on a dialectical level only), or you could spend significant time (i.e. years) in the Church and then one can begin to "get it"... ;)
Everyone might want to view this:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy-gCEWh5-4
About 30 or 40 minutes in Fr. John explains the basics of presuppositions in dialectical reasoning and how heresy is really a different faith and not a different dialectical "interpretation" or sum of the same content of faith.
Jake if St Paul could summarize the Faith succinctly in eight short verses (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why is it that you tell me it will take years to get it? Surely you adhere to the same religion as Paul? Or, perhaps, it has mutated into an ideology for "the pure ones?"
ReplyDeleteI just noticed that in the title of this piece it states:Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (Святослав Шевчук, єпископ Української греко-католицької церкви)," Interesting that in English Shevchuk is called patriarch but not in Ukrainian. My question: has the pope approved of the title Patriarch or not?. Here is the official code:
ReplyDeleteCode of canons of Oriental Churchs
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM
TITLE 5 The Major Archiepiscopal Churches
153
Canon 153
1. A major archbishop is elected according to the norm of cann. 63-74. 2. After acceptance of the election, the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church must notify the Roman Pontiff through a synodal letter about the canonical conduct of the election; however, the one who is elected, in a letter signed in his own hand, must petition the confirmation of his election from the Roman Pontiff. 3. After having obtained the confirmation, the one who is elected, in the presence of the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church, must make a profession of faith and promise to carry out faithfully his office; afterwards his proclamation and enthronement are to be performed.
If, however, the one who is elected is not yet an ordained bishop, the enthronement cannot validly be done before he receives episcopal ordination. 4. If however the confirmation is denied, a new election is to be conducted within the time established by the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__P49.HTM