Posted on 09/26/2015 6:03:54 PM PDT by NRx
I am normally disinclined to write about ecclesiastical gossip on Opus Publicum, especially when it involves the fringes of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches. However, this one is too good to pass up. Although there are very few concrete details at the moment, it appears that Bishop Ambrose (Moran), a (former?) member of the Old Calendarist Genuine Orthodox Church in America (GOCA), has aligned himself with the so-called “Resistance,” a very loose confederation of traditionalist Catholic priests de facto headed by former Society of St. Pius X Bishop Richard Williamson. Moran, as the story goes, was either “received” or “consecrated” by the head of GOCA, a move that initially sparked outrage among some traditionalist Orthodox due, ironically enough, to its “uncanonical” nature. The story later surfaced that Moran had already been a bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (a point that remains unclear), though the YouTube video linked above indicates that he was, in fact, consecrated clandestinely by Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, the saintly head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. One can easily imagine why hyper-traditionalist Orthodox wouldn’t want that fact coming to light.
Perhaps Moran had a falling out with GOCA since he is now pledging to assist the traditionalist Catholic movement and, aside from some remarks that he had worked with some Ukrainian Orthodox back in the 1970s and 80s, makes no mention of any direct Orthodox affiliation. Certain traditionalist Catholics are, naturally, going nuts over this, albeit for all of the wrong reasons. That the “Resistance” could even think of interacting with a bishop (loosely) associated with the Orthodox is beyond the pale. Beyond the pale—or beyond comprehension—as well is the reality that the borderlands between Greek Catholicism and Orthodoxy have shifted considerably over the centuries; if there is a wall between the two confessions, it’s a porous one. None of this is to say that Moran should have anything to do with the “Resistance” or any other traditionalist movement that routinely demonstrates flagrant contempt toward Rome, but there you have it.
Strange times these be.
(There is a video linked at the source page. -NRx)
(Note: This is a caucus thread. Only Catholics and Orthodox Christians may comment here per Religion Forum guidelines. Your respect for this limitation is appreciated.)
I am a zealot by nature, and I like hybrid groups (a la Alsace-Loraine), but this paragraph gave me a headache. I am a practicing Catholic who’d like to see the Catholic Church (meaning ALL the churches in communion with Rome, e.g., the Maronite Church) reconcile with all the Orthodox churches that are in communion with each other.
Actually, this seems a little less bizarre than the usual state of affairs in which the Latins’ ultratraditionalists of the sedvacantist strain inveigh against “Greek schismatics” for having come to the conclusion there isn’t a proper Pope of Rome and ceasing to be in communion with the person claiming that title a few centuries earlier than they themselves came to that conclusion and broke communion with the Pope of Rome.
I’d be happier to hear of sedvacantist Latins seeing to join one of the canonical Orthodox churches, or even the Greek Old Calendarists in Greece than one of the dubious Old Calendarist groups here in North America, but who knows, other folks have found their way to the Orthodox Church after sojourning in “Orthodox” groups of dubious canonicity for a while.
Mycuriosityispiquedbookmark
Isn’t there something in the NT to the effect of “The nutcases you always will have with you....” or words to that effect?
I don't know the story behind this Ambrose and his episcopal "line" but who knows--a drowning man will clutch at a straw. How many living Roman Catholic bishops are there consecrated before 1968?
For clarity: Sedevacantists believe in the supremacy of the papacy unlike the Orthodox who do not. Sedevacantists do not recognize the papal claimant as a true pope. So to equate sedevacantists with the Orthodox is to completely misunderstand the nature of their position.
Also, the OP involves the Resistance which is an offshoot from Bishop Fellay’s SSPX who also recognize (but resist) the pope. They are not sedevacantists. Also, the current happenings in the OP involve a couple of priests in the Resistance, not the Resistance as a whole.
The question is whether this man ever actually converted to the Catholic Faith. So far it doesn’t appear so.
I’m certainly not equating the sedvacantists with the Orthodox. However, there is something very odd about the fact that they tend to be even more hostile to us Orthodox than are Latins who are in communion with Rome.
I would also point out, that at least early on, the Orthodox position (at least in Constantinople) *was* non-recognition of a papal claimant. Rome was dropped from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople in the early 11th century, either in response to the inclusion of the filoque in the now lost election encyclical of Sergius VI (or possibly Benedict VII) or the use of the filoque in the still-extant coronation rite for the German Emperor Henry II. Cardinal Humbert’s ill-fated embassy, from which the West customarily dates the schism, had, besides the controversy over azymes, the restoration of Rome to the Diptychs of Constantinople as part of its remit.
The schism hardly has a fixed date. Removal from the Diptychs indicates non-recognition as an Orthodox bishop, so it would be fair to date the schism from that point if one is under Constantinople or any of the national churches that descended from Constantinople (Russia and the other Orthodox churches in Europe, the Church of Japan and the OCA), while for those of us subject to one of the other ancient Patriarchates or the Church of Georgia, the schism should probably be dated to the forcible replacement of Orthodox bishops still in communion with Rome with Latin bishops by the Crusaders.
It’s actually not odd at all. Vatican II changed things including Catholic response to the schismatic Orthodox. Sedevacantists and all Traditional Catholics who recognize issues with Vatican II do not recognize this newfound false ecumenism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.