Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by Dan-Man916

Hesychios,

I believe there is a Macedonian Orthodox Church in Burr Ridge. Have you ever been there? Are they an autocephalous Church with their own Metropolitan or Patriarch? It is my understanding that they are a very small Church.

They are totally canonically isolated.

I went to the dedication of their cathedral in Columbus and recieved the blessing of their Archbishop as well as a small gold-tinted cross... I went with some confusion as to who they were - I was friends with a girl of the (let's not get into a word fight, I am using this for expedience) "Hellenic Macedonian" community in the GOA - and I thought these were them.

When I arrived it was a church full of Slavic Macedonians + me. At first they looked at me quizacally and tried to figure out who this non-Macedonian was, and what did he want from them. I told them I was a Rusyn Greek Catholic (almost winced after I heard myself say it - unsure of how it would be recieved...)

THEM: "So are you Russian?"

ME: "No, Rusyn. (Kinda - not really)"

THEM: "So do you speak Russian?"

ME: (in my best OSU Russian 101): "I studied Russian in college, vladyka!"

That got me a high-five, a bear hug, and a demand to come to the reception hall and get some whiskey and something to eat. So what was I to do but oblige? Beautiful people, marvelous food.

I don't know the whole backstory of the overtures, but the jist of what I have heard by those more in the know is that the "gains" would far outweigh the cost, and more than a few of the folks approached got the sense that this was more expedience than conversion... That is to say, left out in the cold, they were considering seeking Roman protection... But if the situation between mom and dad is already tenuous, and you get the impression junior wants to come live with you to make mom mad and perhaps get a better counter offer...

There would have been no winners in that scenario.

[antgaria]

Dear Marduk,

I'm not sure about the situation with the Macedonian Church, so I cannot say about the difference between their situation and ours.

I will just say about us that by the whole, the Assyrians who were recieved into communion were already Catholic in their faith. We were in a Church that was moving to that re-union, and then for unwarranted reasons and unjustifiable motives, the movement to unity was stopped. When we were accepted into the Catholic communion, we were not in the ACotE church any longer, nor could we go back to it since it conflicted with our faith and that of our fathers -- you yourself have pointed out how strongly the Syriac tradition emphasizes the Petrine office.

Hopefully, someone else who is familiar with the interaction between the Macedonian Church and Pope John Paull II can elucidate what took place there. I can't comment on that... but for our case, the salvation of souls at stake, the Catholic Church could not, would not and did not refuse us to enter into communion.

In Christ,
Anthony

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Dan-Man916

Hesychios,

I believe there is a Macedonian Orthodox Church in Burr Ridge. Have you ever been there? Are they an autocephalous Church with their own Metropolitan or Patriarch? It is my understanding that they are a very small Church.

I pumped gas next to their priest at the gas station...does that count?

No, I never attended, although (aside from the ethnic focus) I would like to at least see it one time. It is very nice from the outside. I used to drive by frequently on my way to Homer Glen. It is essentially between Annunciation and it's sister parish Ss Peter and Paul (although much closer to the Orthodox parish) . Since my parish is the cathedral in Chicago I don't normally go in that direction any more.

Actually, their members don't have any problems attending other Orthodox churches as far as I know. The problem is not one that impedes the laity all that much.

Michael

[mardukm]

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

They are totally canonically isolated.

I went to the dedication of their cathedral in Columbus and recieved the blessing of their Archbishop as well as a small gold-tinted cross... I went with some confusion as to who they were - I was friends with a girl of the (let's not get into a word fight, I am using this for expedience) "Hellenic Macedonian" community in the GOA - and I thought these were them.

When I arrived it was a church full of Slavic Macedonians + me. At first they looked at me quizacally and tried to figure out who this non-Macedonian was, and what did he want from them. I told them I was a Rusyn Greek Catholic (almost winced after I heard myself say it - unsure of how it would be recieved...)

THEM: "So are you Russian?"

ME: "No, Rusyn. (Kinda - not really)"

THEM: "So do you speak Russian?"

ME: (in my best OSU Russian 101): "I studied Russian in college, vladyka!"

That got me a high-five, a bear hug, and a demand to come to the reception hall and get some whiskey and something to eat. So what was I to do but oblige? Beautiful people, marvelous food.

I don't know the whole backstory of the overtures, but the jist of what I have heard by those more in the know is that the "gains" would far outweigh the cost, and more than a few of the folks approached got the sense that this was more expedience than conversion... That is to say, left out in the cold, they were considering seeking Roman protection... But if the situation between mom and dad is already tenuous, and you get the impression junior wants to come live with you to make mom mad and perhaps get a better counter offer...

There would have been no winners in that scenario.

I've done some research and I have not found a reference to the overtures from the 1990's. However, I have found out some interesting facts:

1) The Serbian Orthodox Church were willing to accept the autonomous status of the MOC, but the MOC will only accept full autocephaly.

2) The MOC has approached the Catholic Church three times - twice in the 19th century, and the one about which I was asking. The other two times, the other Orthodox Churches were able to stymie the move. During the more recent indicent, it was the Catholic Church herself who stymied the move.

3) The two instances in the 19th century were definitely for ecclesio-political motives.

It is hard for me to imagine that after the past experiences of the MOC with the Catholic Church, that they would now seek communion on the basis of ecclesio-political motives once again. There is a Macedonian jurisdiction (Ohrid) that has canonical recognition by the other Orthodox Churches. Are you sure that the MOC ceremony you attended was not for a local arm of the Ohrid archbishopric? If so, it might explain the comments you received that the move was for ecclesio-political motives. It's hard for me to imagine that members of a Church that sought communion with the Catholic Church would forthrightly admit that their move was not sincere! I can understand it, however, from an opposing party, for such a comment would be disparaging. Further, I did read a website which seemed to allude to the 1990's overture. It was an interview with a Father Devnik (I think that was his name), a monk of the Ohrid Archbishopric. He was very critical of the idea of communion with Rome, judging it as a rejection of Eastern Orthodoxy. That might imply that the motives of the MOC in the 1990's overture was sincere and not merely expedient.

I would also like to add that I think there have been occasions in Church history when particular Churches were established by a rebellious self-recognition of autocephaly. I could be wrong. My point is that there might come a time when, by virtue of their long-standing existence, the MOC will simply melt into canonical Orthodoxy anyway.

Finally, I would like to ask what your sources could possibly mean by the Catholic Church offering them "protection?" I mean, what protection could the Catholic Church possibly offer in Macedonia?

Blessings,
Marduk

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

Originally Posted by antgaria

I'm not sure about the situation with the Macedonian Church, so I cannot say about the difference between their situation and ours.

I will just say about us that by the whole, the Assyrians who were recieved into communion were already Catholic in their faith. We were in a Church that was moving to that re-union, and then for unwarranted reasons and unjustifiable motives, the movement to unity was stopped. When we were accepted into the Catholic communion, we were not in the ACotE church any longer, nor could we go back to it since it conflicted with our faith and that of our fathers -- you yourself have pointed out how strongly the Syriac tradition emphasizes the Petrine office.

Hopefully, someone else who is familiar with the interaction between the Macedonian Church and Pope John Paull II can elucidate what took place there. I can't comment on that... but for our case, the salvation of souls at stake, the Catholic Church could not, would not and did not refuse us to enter into communion.

THANK YOU for the wonderful explanation. It really helped clarify your Church's position for me.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by mardukm

1) The Serbian Orthodox Church were willing to accept the autonomous status of the MOC, but the MOC will only accept full autocephaly.

Therein lies a key question with regard to their overtures to the Catholic Church as well. Namely, did they

(1) ask to join the Catholic Church and become part of an existing EC Church sui iuris or

(2) express interest in joining the Catholic Church on condition that they themselves would be a church sui iuris.

If (1), then a claim could be made that Popes JPII and BVI have been inconsistent; but if (2) then such a claim would be quite unfounded, because Mar Bawai Soro's group became part of the already-existing Chaldean Catholic Church.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by mardukm

DeThere is a Macedonian jurisdiction (Ohrid) that has canonical recognition by the other Orthodox Churches. Are you sure that the MOC ceremony you attended was not for a local arm of the Ohrid archbishopric? If so, it might explain the comments you received that the move was for ecclesio-political motives.

Brother Marduk,

I think that you are conflating two seperate experiences I related - namely the attending of the MOC cathedral dedication, and hearing comments on a different occasion through the grape-vine from other sources. (send me a private message if you want more details on the latter.)

In fact the dedication I attended was the isolated MOC and when I was asking for clarification the parish council president and pastor point blank said "No one recognizes us at this time." That also served as some explination for why on this major event there were NO non-Macedonian observers or clergy anywhere to be found (save me!). This is their website.

When I used the word "Protection" it wasn't from the standpoint of physical protection - more from the standpoint of opportunities that one has if and when one becomes Catholic. (Study in Rome, benefit of the Pope's bully pulpit to draw attention to your plight, possible opportunity to recieve support via papal charities for clergy formation a la scholarships to seminaries in Rome, etc.)

But it is difficult for me to comment too much more on it otherwise for the simple reason that I don't talk much with the folks who were aware of the particular anymore, and I am not sure how much they are at liberty to disclose whatever details where out there. In the end, the best I can do is relay the asessment that the unity broached was not judged to be a good move for all parties involved.

Peter J - the possible difference with distinction for the Assyrians being welcomed in en masse are that the dynamics between the Catholic Church and the Church of the East are different, and the +Bawai group had already withdrawn from the CotE - a communion that does NOT have nation-state churches, but rather a singular patriarch. These folks were already out of it... To not take them would have resulted in a fourth split in the Assyrian Church community already divided between the CotE, the Chaldean Catholics and the ACotE...

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Therein lies a key question with regard to their overtures to the Catholic Church as well. Namely, did they

(1) ask to join the Catholic Church and become part of an existing EC Church sui iuris or

(2) express interest in joining the Catholic Church on condition that they themselves would be a church sui iuris.

If (1), then a claim could be made that Popes JPII and BVI have been inconsistent; but if (2) then such a claim would be quite unfounded, because Mar Bawai Soro's group became part of the already-existing Chaldean Catholic Church.

That is a great analysis. Thank you for your input. It has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

[mardukm]

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

Thanks for your response, especially your input on the inconsistency issue in relation to the Assyrians. It has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

Thanks for your response, especially your input on the inconsistency issue in relation to the Assyrians. It has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for that.

Worth noting is that when it comes to relations with different non-Catholic "Easterners" there is not a one-size-fits-all approach that would work well. People tend to conflate (and I am guilty of the same) all non-Catholics Eastern Christians (Apostolic/sacramental) as being essentially interchangeable. As we are coming to better understand, this simply is not the case.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

Thank you for that.

Worth noting is that when it comes to relations with different non-Catholic "Easterners" there is not a one-size-fits-all approach that would work well. People tend to conflate (and I am guilty of the same) all non-Catholics Eastern Christians (Apostolic/sacramental) as being essentially interchangeable. As we are coming to better understand, this simply is not the case.

An astute observation.

I would also say that the "one-size-fits-all" CCEO leaves something to be desired. It is definitely an improvement over what preceded it but it tends to reinforce the mistaken idea that all eastern Catholic churches are alike.

A good example might be: the idea that attending Vespers fulfils one's Sunday obligation. It is true that this is in the Code for all eastern Catholics, but I am baffled as to where it originated or why.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

A good example might be: the idea that attending Vespers fulfils one's Sunday obligation. It is true that this is in the Code for all eastern Catholics, but I am baffled as to where it originated or why.

An excellent question - I would encourage starting a new topic - I would like to know more about that myself.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by mardukm

That is a great analysis. Thank you for your input. It has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

[prodromos]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Can someone comment on my impression that it was inconsistent to refuse communion to the Macedonian Orthodox, while granting communion to the Assyrians? What was the difference in the situations?

It should be made clear that the so called Macedonian Orthodox Church is neither Macedonian nor Orthodox. The 'Republic of Macedonia" is a recent creation of the communist government of former Yugoslavia whose sole purpose was to foster a historical claim to the geographic region of Macedonia, a large part of which is in Northern Greece, in order for the communists to obtain a warm water port. They are primarily of Bulgarian descent though there are a fair number of former Greek communists who had fled Greece after the Civil war. The last few generations have been fed a constant stream of propaganda to the effect that they believe they are the physical descendants of the ancient Macedonians, and ancient Hellenic tribe. The creation by the communist government of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was just one part of a program furthering the creation of an ethnic 'Macedonian' consciousness where none existed before. Their church is a communist puppet, nothing more.
As a people they are to be greatly pitied for they have no knowledge anymore of their true past, it having been replaced completely with a fabrication.

John

[bobzills]

According to the latest news, there is in place on the drawing board
a plan for Eastern Catholics to have dual unity with RC and with EO. Since such is the case, then I don't see any problem with
an Orthodox having Holy Communion in a EC Chruch.