Eastern Catholic Churches.

Onesimus

Do you think that many Catholics here in Ireland are largely ignorant of us Eastern Byzantines? I mean . . . many seem to even ask ''is it even Catholic? or is it Orthodox?''

If so, what can be done in your opinion that would help promote the eastern parish here in Ireland and educate the west upon the east?

I'm not canonically ( yet ) an EC but I am in the process of a transfer as much of my theology and lifestyle is eastern in practice. My son is also to be baptised as Greek Catholic soon.

www.ugcc.ie

Donatello

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you think that many Catholics here in Ireland are largely ignorant of us Eastern Byzantines? I mean . . . many seem to even ask ''is it even Catholic? or is it Orthodox?''

If so, what can be done in your opinion that would help promote the eastern parish here in Ireland and educate the west upon the east?

I'm not canonically ( yet ) an EC but I am in the process of a transfer as much of my theology and lifestyle is eastern in practice. My son is also to be baptised as Greek Catholic soon.

www.ugcc.ie

There can't be too many Eastern Catholics in Ireland. I've never met one.

I know that in America, many Latin Rite Catholics attend Eastern Rite parishes because of the scandalous liturgies and the heterodox teachings which have infested the Church there.

I know if I had the choice, I'd be very happy to attend an Eastern Rite Catholic liturgy, or one of the new ordinariate parishes in England.

I think the Latin Rite with all the wonderful traditions needs to be restored so that our patrimony is preserved. I wouldn't like to see the Eastern Rites taking up from where the destruction of the Latin Rite by Satan and his angels and his earthly minions left off.

The really sad thing is that the Irish Catholics have been deprived knowledge and experience of their own Rite because of the handiwork of the Modernists.

Onesimus

Donatello wrote: »

There can't be too many Eastern Catholics in Ireland. I've never met one.

I know that in America, many Latin Rite Catholics attend Eastern Rite parishes because of the scandalous liturgies and the heterodox teachings which have infested the Church there.

I know if I had the choice, I'd be very happy to attend an Eastern Rite Catholic liturgy, or one of the new ordinariate parishes in England.

I think the Latin Rite with all the wonderful traditions needs to be restored so that our patrimony is preserved. I wouldn't like to see the Eastern Rites taking up from where the destruction of the Latin Rite by Satan and his angels and his earthly minions left off.

The really sad thing is that the Irish Catholics have been deprived knowledge and experience of their own Rite because of the handiwork of the Modernists.

Donatello. There are thousands of Ukrainian Greek Catholics in Ireland. There just happens to be only one parish with one priest that is situated in Dublin. Many Ukrainians travel from around the country to attend at least for the big feasts like Easter and Pentecost and so on and reside in the nearby hotels for the duration of their stay. In fact the one priest is Irish, who speaks Fluent Irish, Ukrainian, Russian and French.

There are many attending the EC rite in America but not all attend just because of the downfall of their own Church. I agree that a restoration of the latin rite needs to be implemented here in Ireland but I'm speaking of promotion in the sense that Catholics be educated on the Eastern rite and its place in communion with rome. John Paul II said himself that its important that Catholics learn and be educated about each rite in the Church.

The Catholic Church is not ''Roman''. to think of it this way would be incorrect. The Church is universal Catholic comprised of 22 ritual rites of which the Roman rite happens to be the largest. I could have easier access to the latin rite here in Ireland as opposed to the UGCC but I prefer it's liturgy. Not because of modernism but because I like it. So why prevent other Catholics the same calling?

Donatello

Onesimus wrote: »

There are many attending the EC rite in America but not all attend just because of the downfall of their own Church. I agree that a restoration of the latin rite needs to be implemented here in Ireland but I'm speaking of promotion in the sense that Catholics be educated on the Eastern rite and its place in communion with rome. John Paul II said himself that its important that Catholics learn and be educated about each rite in the Church.

The Catholic Church is not ''Roman''. to think of it this way would be incorrect. The Church is universal Catholic comprised of 22 ritual rites of which the Roman rite happens to be the largest. I could have easier access to the latin rite here in Ireland as opposed to the UGCC but I prefer it's liturgy. Not because of modernism but because I like it. So why prevent other Catholics the same calling?

Yeah education by all means. As I say, if I had the choice, I'd probably go to an Eastern Rite parish in preference to the typical Novus Ordo offering. The thing is, and the current Pope acknowledges this, the new Mass was a rupture in the liturgy. In all fairness I don't really think it represents the authentic Roman Rite. I'd like to see it phased out and we can have the TLM instead.

I suppose my main concern is that might people jump ship from the (impoverished) Roman Rite, which theoretically could lead to its demise rather than its recovery in time, hopefully when all the Modernists die off. It might also ghettoise the Roman Rite as the preserve of dissenters for the time being whilst faithful Catholics have abandoned it in favour of Anglican Ordinariates and Eastern Rite parishes. That would be tragic. I don't think it is terribly likely, however.

So, can you tell us about the differences - what is the liturgy like, and how does it compare to the experience you have in your local Novus Ordo parish? What is the preaching like?

Onesimus

Donatello wrote: »

Yeah education by all means. As I say, if I had the choice, I'd probably go to an Eastern Rite parish in preference to the typical Novus Ordo offering. The thing is, and the current Pope acknowledges this, the new Mass was a rupture in the liturgy. In all fairness I don't really think it represents the authentic Roman Rite. I'd like to see it phased out and we can have the TLM instead.

I suppose my main concern is that might people jump ship from the (impoverished) Roman Rite, which theoretically could lead to its demise rather than its recovery in time, hopefully when all the Modernists die off. It might also ghettoise the Roman Rite as the preserve of dissenters for the time being whilst faithful Catholics have abandoned it in favour of Anglican Ordinariates and Eastern Rite parishes. That would be tragic. I don't think it is terribly likely, however.

So, can you tell us about the differences - what is the liturgy like, and how does it compare to the experience you have in your local Novus Ordo parish? What is the preaching like?

It is the Liturgy of St.John Chyrsostom which dates back to 4th century. The Liturgy is extremely spiritual and ''long''. But it varies. The Liturgy can last for 2- 3 hours. The preaching is in Ukrainian and then English and sometimes In Irish. The preaching of the Gospel is in Ukrainian and then in Irish. Bl.Nicholas Hieromartyr CSSR visited Ireland in 1932 for the Eucharistic congress and set up a parish here in Dublin. He wanted also the Irish element in it so he requested that the Gospel be also read in Irish.

You'd have to attend the Liturgy in order to really experience it though. Communion time is extremely lovely and you receive both Body and Blood of Christ from a spoon into your mouth.

There is also a video of Pope John Paul II celebrating the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy on youtube.

I love the new mass and dont see a problem with it. All masses are great. I just happen to prefer the Greek Catholic Liturgy of worship.

visit www.ugcc.ie to find out Liturgy hours on Sunday which is just 9:30am onwards.

Donatello

Onesimus wrote: »

It is the Liturgy of St.John Chyrsostom which dates back to 4th century. The Liturgy is extremely spiritual and ''long''. But it varies. The Liturgy can last for 2- 3 hours. The preaching is in Ukrainian and then English and sometimes In Irish. The preaching of the Gospel is in Ukrainian and then in Irish. Bl.Nicholas Hieromartyr CSSR visited Ireland in 1932 for the Eucharistic congress and set up a parish here in Dublin. He wanted also the Irish element in it so he requested that the Gospel be also read in Irish.

You'd have to attend the Liturgy in order to really experience it though. Communion time is extremely lovely and you receive both Body and Blood of Christ from a spoon into your mouth.

There is also a video of Pope John Paul II celebrating the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy on youtube.

I love the new mass and dont see a problem with it. All masses are great. I just happen to prefer the Greek Catholic Liturgy of worship.

visit www.ugcc.ie to find out Liturgy hours on Sunday which is just 9:30am onwards.

I find the new Mass very hard to pray. Especially with versus populum and all the abuses. I have to constantly remind myself I am here to worship God.

Is it the case that the consecration takes place out of sight? Mass offered ad orientem in the Roman Rite had the same effect of creating sacred mystery.

Onesimus

Donatello wrote: »

I find the new Mass very hard to pray. Especially with versus populum and all the abuses. I have to constantly remind myself I am here to worship God.

Is it the case that the consecration takes place out of sight? Mass offered ad orientem in the Roman Rite had the same effect of creating sacred mystery.

I find the new mass grand if you can attend one without the abuses.

Yes the consecration of the Holy Mysteries is taken place behind the iconatosis. Then the doors are opened and a procession of the Mysteries are taken place around the congregation.

Its the same Liturgy the Eastern Orthodox celebrate so you should google it. Very good Liturgy if you can attend it some Sunday.

If you are new to the Liturgy there is a man in charge of the music who is always welcoming to newcomers and will run you through it all.

It's also a good idea to introduce yourself to the priest beforehand giving him your name. As before they give you communion they pronounce your name when giving you Holy communion. I'll pm you with more details if you would like?

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

. . . many seem to even ask ''is it even Catholic? or is it Orthodox?''

That's the big problem for ER Catholics really. For Roman Catholics they are Orthodox, for Orthodox they are Roman Catholics. No here, no there.
And this is probably for a reason.

I'm not canonically ( yet ) an EC but I am in the process of a transfer as much of my theology and lifestyle is eastern in practice.

Best of luck with it, I hope it will go smoothly for you. Can I ask you why you decided to change the rite? To be honest if I were a Latin Rite Catholic I probably would not do it.

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

The thing is, and the current Pope acknowledges this, the new Mass was a rupture in the liturgy. In all fairness I don't really think it represents the authentic Roman Rite.

I agree completely. It's good to see that some steps are being made in the right direction now. Maybe small steps but healing usually takes much more time then getting injured. I hope that Benedict XVI's successors will keep the ball rolling. On the other hand I'm not sure how far Roman Catholics are prepared to go that route...

Onesimus

Slav wrote: »

That's the big problem for ER Catholics really. For Roman Catholics they are Orthodox, for Orthodox they are Roman Catholics. No here, no there.
And this is probably for a reason.

Best of luck with it, I hope it will go smoothly for you. Can I ask you why you decided to change the rite? To be honest if I were a Latin Rite Catholic I probably would not do it.

Yeah I think that the west forget that the Catholic church is One with many rituals such as Coptic Catholics, Maronite, Antiochian, Byzantine and so on.

I dont know. I was very eastern in practice and had a great love for the philokalia, chotki, Our Lady's Rosary, and Eastern books and dvds by Metropolitan Kallistos ware not to mention eastern chants. and I googled the eastern Catholic Church in Ireland. Found the UGCC, attended the Liturgy, befriended the priest and that was that really. I fell in love with St.John Chrysostoms Liturgy and there was no going back for me.

I think I have to wait for at least three years involvment in the parish before the process of canonical movement would be allowed but the priest said that can be shortened and we can discuss that at my sons baptism and fill out the appropriate forms. I'm supposed to write a letter for my reason of transferral to the EC Bishop in Ukraine and then he approaches my local Bishop. If both agree that my reasons for joining this rite are sincere and not a passing whim ( since such a transferral can only canonically be made once meaning no return ) then my transferral will move smoothly.

I'm not transferring because I dislike the roman liturgy but because I feel more at home with the Eastern practice of things and its lovely Liturgy because my spiritual disposition is one of Eastern than western. Even my family think that I'm changing religion and there was a big hoo ha over it here for a while and it took me a while to educate them on the fact that it is Catholic and not Orthodox.

Christos Voskrese

Onesimus

alex73

I don't think you will find many eastern Greek Catholics in Ireland (active Greek Catholics) The Unite church (united to Rome) is mainly in countries outside EU like Ukraine. Catholic Church does not actively encourage people to move between rites. But I have a Friend in the states who is married and is ordained a priest in the Catholic Church (Eastern Greek Rite). I know lots of Orthodox in Ireland, Romanians, Bulgarians.

For me I have the highest respect for Greek Orthodox, Mt. Athos for me is a great place to learn, pray and understand the east.

Onesimus

alex73 wrote: »

I don't think you will find many eastern Greek Catholics in Ireland (active Greek Catholics) The Unite church (united to Rome) is mainly in countries outside EU like Ukraine. Catholic Church does not actively encourage people to move between rites. But I have a Friend in the states who is married and is ordained a priest in the Catholic Church (Eastern Greek Rite). I know lots of Orthodox in Ireland, Romanians, Bulgarians.

For me I have the highest respect for Greek Orthodox, Mt. Athos for me is a great place to learn, pray and understand the east.

Why are you calling it ''the unite church''? it is the Catholic Church just a different rite. I'm always reproachable towards those who treat the EC's as just some different Church, ''united to Rome but with a funny Mass.''

There are plenty of Greek Catholics in Ireland as described above, just not enough parishes to accomodate them so they travel for the big feasts to Dublin and there are many who attend.

The Roman Rite just happens to be the biggest ritual rite within the Church. The Church is not ''the roman church'' it is the ''Catholic Church'' of which the Roman rite is the largest of all and one of many 22.

Bl.Pope John Paul II said that we are meant to learn and enjoy all rites in the church and promote them.

you dont have to transfer rites to enjoy it but simply tucking it away into the corner of the east like Ukraine and not introducing the eastern spirituality to the west ( which is badly needed if you ask me ) would be a horrible mistake to make.

Why do you think it is not encouraged alex?

Onesimus

Slav wrote: »

That's the big problem for ER Catholics really. For Roman Catholics they are Orthodox, for Orthodox they are Roman Catholics. No here, no there.
And this is probably for a reason.

Best of luck with it, I hope it will go smoothly for you. Can I ask you why you decided to change the rite? To be honest if I were a Latin Rite Catholic I probably would not do it.

Slav I forgot to address your last line. you said: ''To be honest if I were a Latin Rite Catholic I probably would not do it.''

Why wouldnt you do it?

alex73

Onesimus wrote: »

Why are you calling it ''the unite church''? it is the Catholic Church just a different rite. I'm always reproachable towards those who treat the EC's as just some different Church, ''united to Rome but with a funny Mass.''

There are plenty of Greek Catholics in Ireland as described above, just not enough parishes to accomodate them so they travel for the big feasts to Dublin and there are many who attend.

The Roman Rite just happens to be the biggest ritual rite within the Church. The Church is not ''the roman church'' it is the ''Catholic Church'' of which the Roman rite is the largest of all and one of many 22.

Bl.Pope John Paul II said that we are meant to learn and enjoy all rites in the church and promote them.

you dont have to transfer rites to enjoy it but simply tucking it away into the corner of the east like Ukraine and not introducing the eastern spirituality to the west ( which is badly needed if you ask me ) would be a horrible mistake to make.

Why do you think it is not encouraged alex?

Of Course. But lets face it, do you honestly think Rome will let the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Rite setup in Ireland and have Married Priests like in Ukraine. The Church says all Rites are equal, But when it comes down to it, they are rites that are tied to regions. We don't celebrate the Ambrosian Rite in Ireland, Its basically only in Milan.

The Unite Church is called unite because it united to Rome, But it still retains its Autocephalous Church Traditions, The Synod elects the Bishops (The Pope confirms him).

I would very much Welcome a Greek Catholic Church in Ireland. We have thrown out our own Rite and replaced it with a Service that I find so lacking in devotion. I know Christ's message transcends traditions, Languages, Rites, But the way the Mass was celebrated by Early Christians is far removed from how we celebrate it today. It always impressed me to see the Catacombs in Rome and to understand how the early Christians celebrated the Mass on the tombs of early Christians in Small spaces. The Irish thing is IF you go to mass half the congregation is sitting behind the church, We have completely broken the Linguistic link to Latin. Most Irish priests forget they were ordained in Persona Christi, they spend their time playing Golf, Marriages and Baptisms seem like a commercial enterprise.



BTW,

Also the Orthodox Church also professes to be the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"

Onesimus

alex73 wrote: »

Of Course. But lets face it, do you honestly think Rome will let the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Rite setup in Ireland and have Married Priests like in Ukraine. The Church says all Rites are equal, But when it comes down to it, they are rites that are tied to regions. We don't celebrate the Ambrosian Rite in Ireland, Its basically only in Milan.

The Unite Church is called unite because it united to Rome, But it still retains its Autocephalous Church Traditions, The Synod elects the Bishops (The Pope confirms him).

I would very much Welcome a Greek Catholic Church in Ireland. We have thrown out our own Rite and replaced it with a Service that I find so lacking in devotion. I know Christ's message transcends traditions, Languages, Rites, But the way the Mass was celebrated by Early Christians is far removed from how we celebrate it today. It always impressed me to see the Catacombs in Rome and to understand how the early Christians celebrated the Mass on the tombs of early Christians in Small spaces. The Irish thing is IF you go to mass half the congregation is sitting behind the church, We have completely broken the Linguistic link to Latin. Most Irish priests forget they were ordained in Persona Christi, they spend their time playing Golf, Marriages and Baptisms seem like a commercial enterprise.



BTW,

Also the Orthodox Church also professes to be the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"

Rites are not tied to regions, The Greek Catholic Church is set up in almost every country in europe. The priest of the one in Ireland has both Irish parents and is himself Irish. There is nothing wrong with being Irish and transferring to the Greek Catholic Parish. It would be a mistake to transfer just so you can be a married priest and there are canons set up to prevent a latin Catholic who transfers to be a priest.

If you want to talk about rites that are tied to regions then ( according to your reasoning ) the ''latin rite'' should presumably be tied to Italy and stay there should it?

The Eastern rites are churches that are Catholic with a different rite. Not ''Catholic but linked to Rome''. If you care to search on you tube you will see Pope John Paul II celebrating the Ukrainian Greek Catholic rite. The Church is universal, not just ''Roman''. Preceding the Roman ritual we had that of St.Basil the great which is still celebrated in the Eastern rite. The Church is therefore Universal with different rites of which the Roman one happens to be the largest.

Onesimus

Above is an interesting first part documentary upon Ukraines return to Rome.

alex73

Onesimus wrote: »

Rites are not tied to regions, The Greek Catholic Church is set up in almost every country in europe. The priest of the one in Ireland has both Irish parents and is himself Irish. There is nothing wrong with being Irish and transferring to the Greek Catholic Parish. It would be a mistake to transfer just so you can be a married priest and there are canons set up to prevent a latin Catholic who transfers to be a priest.

If you want to talk about rites that are tied to regions then ( according to your reasoning ) the ''latin rite'' should presumably be tied to Italy and stay there should it?

The Eastern rites are churches that are Catholic with a different rite. Not ''Catholic but linked to Rome''. If you care to search on you tube you will see Pope John Paul II celebrating the Ukrainian Greek Catholic rite. The Church is universal, not just ''Roman''. Preceding the Roman ritual we had that of St.Basil the great which is still celebrated in the Eastern rite. The Church is therefore Universal with different rites of which the Roman one happens to be the largest.

Well Anything that brings people to understand better the Church, its history and traditions is a good thing.

I will try and make it to one of the masses.

Asry

What the hell are you on about with the latin rite, and the eastern rite, and the Novus Ordo and the New Mass or what? I mean. What? Has this got to do with Vatican II again? Sure that was years and years ago like. I read Onesimus's explanations but I need tiny words and perhaps a powerpoint presentation because, may I remind everyone yet again, I have a very limited intellectual ability.

Though I've been in churches in Moscow and St Petersburg and they do seem to do things ... quite differently. In a really cool way. I wish I was Russian! :rolleyes:

Quo Vadis

This is not directed at any particular poster here btw, but sometimes people think faraway hills are always greener instead of making the most of what they already have, and wanting / appreciating / building on what they already have. They never find peace or contentment.

Onesimus

Quo Vadis wrote: »

This is not directed at any particular poster here btw, but sometimes people think faraway hills are always greener instead of making the most of what they already have, and wanting / appreciating / building on what they already have. They never find peace or contentment.

This is true. And even though not directed at anyone here I must come forth and admit that I do not appreciate what I already have and could appreciate it more than I do but I love what I already have. But I do believe my transferral is down to vocation and calling and preference as opposed to being discontent. The Ukrainian Church has its problems as well as the Roman rite.

Quo Vadis

Onesimus wrote: »

I do believe my transferral is down to vocation and calling and preference as opposed to being discontent. The Ukrainian Church has its problems as well as the Roman rite.

I appreciate that, it's clear you do, you're not going very far anyway, if at all, and so best of luck and God Bless.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

Slav I forgot to address your last line. you said: ''To be honest if I were a Latin Rite Catholic I probably would not do it.''

Why wouldnt you do it?

In short, UGC is more like Orthodoxy with Pope rather than Catholicism with Eastern rite. I know a number of LR Catholics who researched the Eastern Rite; my statistics is probably not very accurate but generally they either moved on and eventually became Orthodox or remained in Latin Rite. Those who "converted" to Eastern Rite and remained there are in minority.

This is a big and complicated issue to put in a forum post but I'll do my best:

Onesimus wrote: »

Even my family think that I'm changing religion and there was a big hoo ha over it here for a while and it took me a while to educate them on the fact that it is Catholic and not Orthodox.

I think when people think of ER as of something "non really Catholic" this might have a grain of truth it in. De jure UGC subscribe to all Catholic dogmas and theology but do you often hear the Creed said with filioque, or Purgatory mentioned, or satisfaction atonement? One party politely avoids airing controversies and the other party politely keeps a blind eye on it as long as Papacy is not questioned. All for the sake of unity.

Historically, Eastern rite was not always an integral part of the Roman (here in sense of being in communion with Rome) Church with the only exception of a small group of Greek rite Italians who managed to avoid "latinisation" of South Italy and Maronites who came out of isolation during the Crusades. In fact, since the great schism the modern Ukrainian ER Catholics spent more time in Orthodoxy rather than in Catholicism. By eleventh century East and West had already been too far apart so no surprise six centuries later (by the time of first unions) they were even further apart. Adding to that, it was not like after so many centuries of schism some Orthodox bishops (who by co-incident were oppressed by Latin interventionists at the time) started to think that Western theology and Papacy actually makes more sense than Eastern theology and conciliarity. Those Unions, including the Union of Brest of 1596 in case of UGC, were caused purely by political reasons and Roman proselytism in Orthodox dioceses. The goal for the bishops who joined the union was to keep their Eastern traditions which meant that they were not all that open to acquiring Western theology and even to some extent the Western ecclesiology.

Also as we know from history, the union was soon isolated to the Western pasts of modern Ukraine and quickly became something that was helping Western Ruthenians to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity and relative independence. It was something that while being the Eastern Christianity maintained a distance from Muscovites and on the other hand maintained distance from Poles and other Latin rite Slavs as well as Lithuanians (again, integration to the Western Church was not on the agenda as we see). Until the twentieth century the UGCC mainly remained localised in a relatively small area around Northern Carpathians and only the two world wars and Communism made many Ukrainians move out of their home land and settle in Western Europe, North America and Australia where the Church continued to play the same important role of preserving the cultural identity. So their focus on Ukrainian culture and almost exclusive use of Ukrainian language would be another reason why I would think twice before moving canonically to ER, especially giving the fact that there is no way back. On a positive side, Ukrainian is by far the most beautiful among slavic languages (if not world languages) plus I've heard many many good things about this particular UGC church in Dublin. From what people are saying, they are very open to those who don't speak Ukrainian and this ethnic focus of UGC is not really an issue there. Those "converts" who had to move out of Ireland said that nothing compares to the Dublin parish and they really miss it.

To conclude, I don't want at all to sound discouraging. All the above is my personal reflection on why I would not do it, mainly because of my own laziness and other weaknesses. If you feel a call for it then I sincerely wish you the best of luck! After all, maybe Eastern Christian perspective is exactly what West needs now, who knows...

Christos Voskrese

Voistinu voskrese!

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

Above is an interesting first part documentary upon Ukraines return to Rome.

I have not seen the whole documentary but the trailer does not look very promising. Looks like the whole tragedy of Ukrainan Church is reduced to how Greek Catholics always wanted to be with Rome but кляті москалі, be they Russian Empire or Soviets, always persecuted them only for being Ukrainians and Catholics. I'd like to be wrong here but the documentary trailer already has some understatements and half-truths.

In reality, the schism of the Ukrainian Church is very tragic indeed and it's far from peace there even now. From time to time a certain pieces of half-truth propaganda are produced by both sides where either Catholics are portrayed as innocent victims suffering only because they are Catholic, or the opposite, the Orthodox are portrayed as innocent victims only because they are Orthodox. Both does not do any healing.

Donatello

Posted by Slav:
I think when people think of ER as of something "non really Catholic" this might have a grain of truth it in. De jure UGC subscribe to all Catholic dogmas and theology but do you often hear the Creed said with filioque, or Purgatory mentioned, or satisfaction atonement? One party politely avoids airing controversies and the other party politely keeps a blind eye on it as long as Papacy is not questioned. All for the sake of unity.

What's the problem with purgatory and satisfaction atonement from the Orthodox perspective?

That's an anecdote. I'm not sure there is any truth to it so I don't want what I say here to be seen to be tarring an entire group based on forum hearsay.

Those who are in Communion with Rome must assent to all the beliefs.

My fear would be that with, for example, the Anglican Ordinariates, no less with any Eastern Rites, they may be signing up to be Catholic without actually truly subscribing to all the beliefs. I don't know if it is an issue or not. I hope not. Based on what you said, it might be an issue for some.

"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.' All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

(Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

If a person claims to be Catholic, then they are required to assent to all the teachings of the Church, not picking and choosing and being their own little pope. Their heart needs to be beating with the Church's, otherwise their 'communion' is mere lip service, and unity is by appearance only. Of course, this applies in a major way to Catholics, many of whom claim to be Catholic, all the while rebelling against the faith of the Church. I'm not sure your comments can fairly be applied to any Easter Rite Catholics, who are, in any case, required to assent to the teaching of the universal catechism - the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Slav:
In short, UGC is more like Orthodoxy with Pope rather than Catholicism with Eastern rite. I know a number of LR Catholics who researched the Eastern Rite; my statistics is probably not very accurate but generally they either moved on and eventually became Orthodox or remained in Latin Rite. Those who "converted" to Eastern Rite and remained there are in minority.

Given the insight (warning) offered by Slav, this is a pertinent quotation from Vatican II, Lumen gentium:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

What's the problem with purgatory and satisfaction atonement from the Orthodox perspective?

It's a whole new topic on its own but in short East just don't hold any juridical views on atonement in general and in particular it does not see it as the satisfaction of God's wrath. This is the root cause of our differences: as a result of that things like Purgatory, indulgences as well as Catholic interpretation of Original Sin or Immaculate Conception don't make much sense in Orthodox theology (and on the other hand I guess many Catholics are genuinely puzzled why would we reject those things).

That's an anecdote. I'm not sure there is any truth to it so I don't want what I say here to be seen to be tarring an entire group based on forum hearsay.

No this it not an anecdote. Rome, more then anyone else in Christendom, has always been seeking Christian unity and compared to others it has always been rather flexible in negotiations. You only need to recognise supremacy of Pope of Rome and acknowledge that the Roman faith is orthodox. You don't need to express your faith the same way as Rome does in order to be united with it. Check documents of Florence, it's a good start.

Today the approach (as I understand it) is to a) concentrate on what is common, b) postulate that when things do look different in East and West it's just two different ways to describe the same thing, and c) think positive and hope that sooner or later the theologians will clarify everything. I don't know is it a good approach, it's definitely would not be acceptable for Orthodox Church, but maybe it does make sense in Catholicism, I really don't know.

My fear would be that with, for example, the Anglican Ordinariates, no less with any Eastern Rites, they may be signing up to be Catholic without actually truly subscribing to all the beliefs. I don't know if it is an issue or not. I hope not. Based on what you said, it might be an issue for some.

Nothing to worry about for you I guess. Let the Magisterium decide (you are not a bishop are you? )

And speaking about Anglican Ordinariates, I think they are Catholics already with effectively only one thing missing: communion with Pope. I don't think that for example the evangelical wing of Anglicanism is interested in becoming Catholic.

If a person claims to be Catholic, then they are required to assent to all the teachings of the Church, not picking and choosing and being their own little pope. Their heart needs to be beating with the Church's, otherwise their 'communion' is mere lip service, and unity is by appearance only. Of course, this applies in a major way to Catholics, many of whom claim to be Catholic, all the while rebelling against the faith of the Church.

Well, things probably do seem that black and white when you look at them from within the Roman Church and until you bring in to equation another tradition. But the fact of the matter is that under Catholicism there could be a number of different teachings as long as they mutually recognised as orthodox and agree on Papacy. The Churches within Catholicism can enjoy a certain degree of independence or even autonomy so what applies to you as a Latin Rite Catholic does not necessarily apply to Ukrainian Greek Catholic for example, and vice versa. However due to only a tiny proportion of Catholics being Eastern Rite, this feature of Catholicism is usually not taken into account or simply is not known to many.

I'm not sure your comments can fairly be applied to any Easter Rite Catholics, who are, in any case, required to assent to the teaching of the universal catechism - the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I think they have no objections to CCC but strictly speaking, they don't have to assent to it. Catechism is an educational material, mainly for catechumens, plus it does not have any promise of infallibility as far as I know. In inter- and intra- Church dialogue mentioning CCC is not really serious - usually the people involved are not catechumens and they are mature enough to work with primary sources.

Onesimus

Slav wrote: »

In short, UGC is more like Orthodoxy with Pope rather than Catholicism with Eastern rite. I know a number of LR Catholics who researched the Eastern Rite; my statistics is probably not very accurate but generally they either moved on and eventually became Orthodox or remained in Latin Rite. Those who "converted" to Eastern Rite and remained there are in minority.

This is a big and complicated issue to put in a forum post but I'll do my best:



I think when people think of ER as of something "non really Catholic" this might have a grain of truth it in. De jure UGC subscribe to all Catholic dogmas and theology but do you often hear the Creed said with filioque, or Purgatory mentioned, or satisfaction atonement? One party politely avoids airing controversies and the other party politely keeps a blind eye on it as long as Papacy is not questioned. All for the sake of unity.

Historically, Eastern rite was not always an integral part of the Roman (here in sense of being in communion with Rome) Church with the only exception of a small group of Greek rite Italians who managed to avoid "latinisation" of South Italy and Maronites who came out of isolation during the Crusades. In fact, since the great schism the modern Ukrainian ER Catholics spent more time in Orthodoxy rather than in Catholicism. By eleventh century East and West had already been too far apart so no surprise six centuries later (by the time of first unions) they were even further apart. Adding to that, it was not like after so many centuries of schism some Orthodox bishops (who by co-incident were oppressed by Latin interventionists at the time) started to think that Western theology and Papacy actually makes more sense than Eastern theology and conciliarity. Those Unions, including the Union of Brest of 1596 in case of UGC, were caused purely by political reasons and Roman proselytism in Orthodox dioceses. The goal for the bishops who joined the union was to keep their Eastern traditions which meant that they were not all that open to acquiring Western theology and even to some extent the Western ecclesiology.

Also as we know from history, the union was soon isolated to the Western pasts of modern Ukraine and quickly became something that was helping Western Ruthenians to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity and relative independence. It was something that while being the Eastern Christianity maintained a distance from Muscovites and on the other hand maintained distance from Poles and other Latin rite Slavs as well as Lithuanians (again, integration to the Western Church was not on the agenda as we see). Until the twentieth century the UGCC mainly remained localised in a relatively small area around Northern Carpathians and only the two world wars and Communism made many Ukrainians move out of their home land and settle in Western Europe, North America and Australia where the Church continued to play the same important role of preserving the cultural identity. So their focus on Ukrainian culture and almost exclusive use of Ukrainian language would be another reason why I would think twice before moving canonically to ER, especially giving the fact that there is no way back. On a positive side, Ukrainian is by far the most beautiful among slavic languages (if not world languages) plus I've heard many many good things about this particular UGC church in Dublin. From what people are saying, they are very open to those who don't speak Ukrainian and this ethnic focus of UGC is not really an issue there. Those "converts" who had to move out of Ireland said that nothing compares to the Dublin parish and they really miss it.

To conclude, I don't want at all to sound discouraging. All the above is my personal reflection on why I would not do it, mainly because of my own laziness and other weaknesses. If you feel a call for it then I sincerely wish you the best of luck! After all, maybe Eastern Christian perspective is exactly what West needs now, who knows...


Voistinu voskrese!

Some poster had the same question on filioque here on Catholic answers and was told by an Eastern Rite priest Fr.Vincent Serpa that the churches position has not changed on the filioque and all churches in communion with her are obliged to say it.

Below are some other replies I found in the EC part of that forum.

The thing about the Filioque is the theological explanation behind the necessity for it comes from the Latin version of the Creed and the Latin philosophy. Thats the short explanation. The Eastern Catholics never used Latin, always Greek. The understanding of the Creed came from the Greek understanding of it which doesn't necessitate the Filioque.

The Eastern Catholic Churches preserve, as approved by the Holy See, the liturgical traditions of their Churches, which do not include the filioque, because it is not used in the original Symbol of Faith, and also their traditions did not adopt Latin. The Greek version of the Symbol of Faith includes "proceeds from the Father" using the Greek word that affirms the monarchy of the Father, as originally expressed. The Latin version affirms the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit, a different concept.

*******

Purgatory is always preached and believed by the EC's as is Satistfaction for atonement. If it isnt then it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Like I said to a previous poster here. The Roman rite has its problems just as much as the ER.

I'm not ''converting'' to the eastern rite, but ''transferring'' or changing rites. It is still the same faith.

Donatello

Slav wrote: »

It's a whole new topic on its own but in short East just don't hold any juridical views on atonement in general and in particular it does not see it as the satisfaction of God's wrath. This is the root cause of our differences: as a result of that things like Purgatory, indulgences as well as Catholic interpretation of Original Sin or Immaculate Conception don't make much sense in Orthodox theology (and on the other hand I guess many Catholics are genuinely puzzled why would we reject those things).

Yeah, that is odd, given that these things are in Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.

Well, things probably do seem that black and white when you look at them from within the Roman Church and until you bring in to equation another tradition. But the fact of the matter is that under Catholicism there could be a number of different teachings as long as they mutually recognised as orthodox and agree on Papacy. The Churches within Catholicism can enjoy a certain degree of independence or even autonomy so what applies to you as a Latin Rite Catholic does not necessarily apply to Ukrainian Greek Catholic for example, and vice versa. However due to only a tiny proportion of Catholics being Eastern Rite, this feature of Catholicism is usually not taken into account or simply is not known to many.

Disciplinary things, such as laws on fasting and suchlike yes, but not the truths of the faith. These are binding on all Catholics. It's not a pick n' mix.

I think they have no objections to CCC but strictly speaking, they don't have to assent to it. Catechism is an educational material, mainly for catechumens, plus it does not have any promise of infallibility as far as I know. In inter- and intra- Church dialogue mentioning CCC is not really serious - usually the people involved are not catechumens and they are mature enough to work with primary sources.

The Catechism is really a compendium of teachings. Its contents are as fallible or infallible as the Church has indicated. Within the Catechism are to be found Dogmas of the faith, as well as teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but also the odd opinion of a Pope here and there. It is, however, a norm for the faith, and I understand it is what Anglicans must assent to if they are thinking of joining the Ordinariate.

There's a good background article here:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/ecumenism/article_71.shtml

The actual presence in the Catholic Church of many groups (rites) of the Eastern Churches is another indication that the separation of the Churches is not inevitable. Reunion is therefore both possible and desirable.

I fear, however, that it is not likely. There is a deep-grained dislike, which at times has descended into something like hatred, for Catholics on the part of the Orthodox. A heavy reliance on Tradition has kept alive the still-smoldering resentment arising from events such as the brutal sack of Constantinople in A.D. 1204 by the Latin armies of the fourth Crusade. An ineradicable sense of superiority, coupled with a contempt for what are perceived as doctrinal and liturgical corruptions, means that the Orthodox look upon any accommodation to Catholicism as synonymous with betrayal. Perhaps, too, the not insignificant number of Protestant, and Catholic, converts to Orthodoxy who want a traditional form of Christianity without an active papal or episcopal Magisterium illustrates the widening gap between us.

Finally it must be said that Orthodoxy's otherworldly liturgy and monastic spirituality have led to a neglect of the here and now that shows itself in moral compromise at the individual as well as the political level. Not only has the Orthodox Church departed from the Gospel and the early Church by allowing remarriage after divorce, but also it has begun to alter its teaching on contraception. In the first edition of The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin,1963), Timothy Ware (now Bishop Kallistos Ware) wrote, "Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church." The revised edition (1980) reads:

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church.

It's one thing to express eternal truths of the faith in slightly different but complementary ways; it's another thing altogether to fall into errors on matters of faith and morals, such as the above example illustrates.

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

There's a good background article here:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/ecumenism/article_71.shtml

Yeah, a good bit of background nonsense alright. Sorry.

It's one thing to express eternal truths of the faith in slightly different but complementary ways; it's another thing altogether to fall into errors on matters of faith and morals, such as the above example illustrates.

I know the whole contraception thing is very special for you but it would not be right to derail yet another thread into it (and discussing in this particular thread how Orthodox are lost without proper education and guidance on contraception would definitely be offtopic). However if you feel that we have not covered something before or if you want to discuss Catholic-Orthodox reunion in general then please feel free to create another thread and I'll be more then happy to reply there.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

Some poster had the same question on filioque here on Catholic answers and was told by an Eastern Rite priest Fr.Vincent Serpa that the churches position has not changed on the filioque and all churches in communion with her are obliged to say it.

Exactly. Everyone in communion with Rome are obliged to say it yet Eastern Rite rarely (if ever) do. BTW, do you say it during Divine Liturgy in UGC church in Dublin?

Filioque is just a small but I think a good example of how Western theology and dogmas are making their way to the Eastern Rite Catholicism. Once ER agrees on orthodoxy of Latin theology what's the big deal to say the Creed with fillioque? Because this is an issue of the least importance in East-West differences.

The thing about the Filioque is the theological explanation behind the necessity for it comes from the Latin version of the Creed and the Latin philosophy. Thats the short explanation.

Filioque dates to the late sixth century. Latin philosophy practically did not exist at that time. The reason why it was introduced at Toledo is pretty clear and not questioned: fighting against Arianism. "Upgrading" the Son in Trinity to proceed the Spirit like (and with) the Father was probably an effective way to affirm the divinity of Christ. It had nothing to do with finding a better theological explanation for the Latin translation of the Creed which allegedly had some mysterious problems that the Greek version did not.

The Eastern Catholics never used Latin, always Greek

The vast majority of Eastern Rite Catholics never used Greek either. For example, the Church that you attend had always been using Church Slavonic until it switched to Ukrainian not so long ago.

The Eastern Catholic Churches preserve, as approved by the Holy See, the liturgical traditions of their Churches, which do not include the filioque, because it is not used in the original Symbol of Faith, and also their traditions did not adopt Latin.

Yet in 1054 events cardinal Humbert accused East of removing filioque from the Creed and together with some other accusations it was the formal reason for the excommunication bull.
Later, the Council of Florence, which is the basis for all further unions, confirmed filioque as orthodox and mandatory.

The Greek version of the Symbol of Faith includes "proceeds from the Father" using the Greek word that affirms the monarchy of the Father, as originally expressed. The Latin version affirms the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit, a different concept.

This is the most common and in fact very promising theory now in East-West dialogue on the procession issue but saying that εκπορευομενον affirms some monarchy while procedit does not is a stretch at best (and let's not forget that the clause is about the Spirit; the monarchy of the Father is not really relevant here - we say a lot about Him in the Creed few clauses above). The formula "from the Father through the Son" is acceptable for East as at least it does not break the Trinity (although raises some new questions) but insisting that this was the original meaning looks more like reading this compromise formula into the Latin text. Why did not Toledo fathers use something like ex patre per filium if that was what they meant? I tthink ex patre filioque procedit with que at the end of filio implies that the verb equally and in the same sense applies to both patre and filio; by no means it's an equivalent to Latin ex patre per filium or English from the Father through the Son or from the Father through and with the Son and so on. Instead, it quite clearly identifies the Son as the source of eternal procession of the Spirit, exactly as it was confirmed by the Council of Florence.

Purgatory is always preached and believed by the EC's as is Satistfaction for atonement. If it isnt then it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

So after all is it preached or is it not?

You see, Eastern tradition takes many things very differently. The official Catholic position here is to say that East and West uses different expressions to teach the same truth. Personally I don't understand how exactly it works; my understanding is that on many issues it's either one or the other and cannot be both.

Again, I don't want to discourage you but you asked me why I would not change the rites and I'm just explaining why. Consider me playing a devil advocate. For me it looks like on the theological side the things are a bit more complicated than it might look initially. If I were a Catholic I'm sure I would have some concerns about it. Maybe that 3 years waiting period does actually make sense.

I'm not ''converting'' to the eastern rite, but ''transferring'' or changing rites. It is still the same faith.

I know, that's why I put it in quotes and actually I was not talking about you. However if I, for example, decided to move to Western Rite Orthodox I would not mind calling it "conversion" (to a different rite, not to a different faith) even though it's not such a big deal for us as it's not really any different from going to a different Eastern Rite parish and certainly there are no restrictions on the number of moves, etc. My sincere apologies if it did sound offensive.

alex73

I see the debate open again on the Filioque. Your average Catholic in Ireland would know little about the Trinity, never mind about the Filioque. Yets its a point that separates East and West. I travel between Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Churches and to be honest both share the central faith of the Church. East says the west pulled away, the west says the east did. Problem is that the East seem themselves as the keepers of the true faith, and any attempts to unit they see as a threat. Also the Orthodox is not 1 united church, but various churchs united in Faith and I can't ever see them united with the west. Sad to think its nearly 2000 years since the resurrection and the Faith as passed by the apostles is diluted, changed and separated.

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

Problem is that the East seem themselves as the keepers of the true faith, and any attempts to unit they see as a threat.

Do you see how from their perspective the problem is that the West see themselves as the keepers of the true faith?

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Do you see how from their perspective the problem is that the West see themselves as the keepers of the true faith?

The Catholics see the Orthodox as schismatics, whereas they see the Catholics as heretics. The truth is, it was the Orthodox who broke communion. They need to come home to Rome - they need to man up and come back into communion with the Holy See. Let's not forget Our Lord built the Church on Peter, the rock, and also the other Apostles in communion with him. This unity with Peter is vital for Catholicity.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholics see the Orthodox as schismatics, whereas they see the Catholics as heretics. The truth is, it was the Orthodox who broke communion. They need to come home to Rome - they need to man up and come back into communion with the Holy See. Let's not forget Our Lord built the Church on Peter, the rock, and also the other Apostles in communion with him. This unity with Peter is vital for Catholicity.

Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly.

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly.

As I understand it, all the Orthodox would need to do is accept the Pope's universal supremacy and primacy and accept the Magisterium. Then communion could be restored.

Unfortunately, cut off from this vital communion, we already see the Orthodox withering, most notably on their weakening stance on contraception and abortion.:(

I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.

We must remember that it was only to Peter that the promise was made - that his faith would not fail, and that he would strengthen the brethren:

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Cut off from Peter, disintegration and fragmentation of the faith are bound to occur - when the branches are cut off from the living tree of Christ's Church, built on the rock of Peter.

These are very strong arguments with contemporary evidence for their validity as regards the claims made by the Catholic Church.

alex73

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholics see the Orthodox as schismatics, whereas they see the Catholics as heretics. The truth is, it was the Orthodox who broke communion. They need to come home to Rome - they need to man up and come back into communion with the Holy See. Let's not forget Our Lord built the Church on Peter, the rock, and also the other Apostles in communion with him. This unity with Peter is vital for Catholicity.

Its not how the orthodox see it. The problem is we are 2 church's who walked away from each other and both of them have formed traditions, saints and teachings around the faith. I do think Christ intended to have an united church. As the 12 Apostles were united under him, Also there was always a primacy of Rome.

They take exception on how Rome has developed the role of the Pope and his infallibility. But the last time the Pope Spoke infallible was in 1950 and was to proclaim Mary assumption. The east takes exception that the west has proclaimed it as a Dogma, but to be honest they also believe in the same faith. So reality is, the Pope is only a caretaker of the Faith. A sign of unity as Christ united the Apostles.

I have the deepest respect for the orthodox church, Especially its Monastic Life. But they dismiss theological discussion or any discussion on Faith. Catholics are heretics, End of Story. Really sad to be honest because we have far more in common than what separates us. And Greece is one of the Jewels of the Church.

I think in an effort to unit the Church the Pope will probably clarify his role. At the end of the day he is not going to speak infallibly without the consent of the Church, and our faith is mature.. what is there to add?

The Patriarch of Constantinople is a very holy man, Bartholomew I, He was a lecturer in the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. But unlike the Bishop of Rome, he does not lead an united Church, and the same respect Catholics show to the Pope is not shown to him by the Orthodox. So it would require a miracle for the Church to unit. Difficult after so long.

Onesimus

Oh no!!! it's dwindled off topic um......

Onesimus

Found out some more info on the filioque with the Eastern Catholic Churches. In the Treat of the Brest Article one is says:

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

Treaty of Brest

So from the looks of it this was the agreement between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches and there is nothing wrong with the way they say the Creed.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

Treaty of Brest

So from the looks of it this was the agreement between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches and there is nothing wrong with the way they say the Creed.

Yes, this is exactly it. As I said the issue of filioque, while being a rather minor one, illustrates the approach to the union very well.

Without addressing the issue itself Brest just postulated that nobody wanted to understand each other (which is historically not true as at least the Council of Florence was the genuine attempt to understand each other). On this assumption it declares unity which is not the most strong ground IMO. But it even moves on essentially saying that we don't care what creed you Catholics are saying and then even inserting the Orthodox procession teaching directly into the Treaty clause, practically ignoring that very Council of Florence, for example.

This is something I don't understand and cannot accept, even leaving aside the issue of how both teachings can be orthodox: Spirit either proceeds from the Son or He does not, cannot be simpler then that. Anyway, if we, as a minority, join a much bigger Church and agree the teachings of our Western brothers are orthodox, how can we ignore them so bluntly? What's a big deal to say filioque if it's orthodox?

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that Rome learned from the previous lesson: the completely failed union of 1440ies where the main opposition came from the monastics and the laity while the agreement with the bishops was more or less reached. In its second attempt to convert Orthodox Rome had to be much more flexible so a different tactic was used: the laity and monastics would see as little difference as it only possible, even at the expense of doctrinal differences being swept under the carpet. This was the deal: you accept Pope and agree that we are orthodox and we leave you alone with everything else. Although this union still failed in the most parts of Ukraine and Belarus it did survive and still alive and well in the Western regions - arguably with the help of this tactic.