Here's my problem. What is our seperate identity? Outside of our own liturgical heritage do we have a seperate identity, really and truly? It appears to me that in certain quarters the approach taken by men like Newman and Von Balthasar (e.g. in his studies of Sts Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor) is seen as somehow betraying one's heritage.

I think we all have to give serious thought to what it means to be Latin and Greek? e.g. There are some people who genuinely think St Peter Moghila was a latiniser inspite of the success of his 'Confession' at the extraordinary Orthodox's synods of the 17th century.

Is it not possible for a Greek Catholic or even Orthodox priest to have a speciality in a Western Father or Theologian? Did Venerable Cardinal Newman betray Roman Catholicism because his speciality was St Athanasius Contramundum? It would appear that in some circles the popular conception of being faithful to one's own tradition is a knowledge basically limited to that tradition. Yet, I'd say thats one of the reasons East and West drifted apart in the first instance.

I mean lets grab the issue by the throat and go to the East-West varying ideas on the Trinity. Where did the West get its Trinitarian theology? Often people say Augustine but that is in fact errenous. The West's Trintarian theology comes from the East. It was filtered into the West by St Hilary of Poiters after his exile in the East in his two great works "the faith of the Easterns" and "On the Trinity". Augustine adapted it and developed it, no doubt, but my point is in the united Church prior to Chalcedon ideas were constantly being exchanged between East and West. St Jerome studied scripture under the tutelage of St Gregory the Theologian for instance. Does that mean we should regard his translation of the Bible into Latin as coloured by Cappodacian interpretations and not really Latin?

When we speak of identity what do we really mean and how much of our idenity is Latin or Greek and how much of it is Universal or Catholic?

Dear Myles,

Ah, you cut to the chase, Sir!

As an Eastern Christian, I see no "disconnection" with the notion of "Local Church" and "Universal Church."

We are members of the Universal Church THROUGH our membership in our Local,Particular Church (the Eucharistic ecclesial "holistic" model).

The East sees the "Universal Church" as a series of Particular Churches that are in communion with one another, sharing the same Faith, Mysteries/Sacraments, Hierarchy.

My identity as an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome is just that.

I have no other identity and no other Church than my own, the UGCC.

Unity is about the communion of the various Particular Churches with each other.

The Latin Church, big though she is, is just that - a Particular Church with her own internal theology, canons etc. much of which is not shared by other Particular Churches in communion with her - and those Particular Churches not in communion with her.

To be a "Catholic" is not to be without a Particular identity that has been washed away in a Universal sea.

To be a "Catholic" is to possess the fullness of Catholicity and Orthodoxy as a member of a Part of the Whole.

We can only be members of the Whole by being joined to it in Part.

Alex

Alex I'm not saying we should abandon our the theological traditions of our own particular church's. What I'm asking is how far is too far? How little is too little? How much is it legitimate to take from another local churches traditions? Is there a marker at which point a theologian corrupts the patrimony of his particular church by using methods of theology from other particular churches?

At which point does integration of ideas within the Catholic patrimony but outside of ones own particular church become 'latinisation' or 'hellenisation'? As I said before Venerable Cardinal Newman, the darling of post-reformation English Catholicism, was far more widely versed in St Athanasius (and for that matter the Greek Fathers) than he was in the Latin Fathers. Would you view this as forsaking the identity of his particular church in exchange for that of the coptic tradition?

Where is the line in the sand? Where do you say to the Roman Catholic theologian end your affair with the easterns? At what point do you say to the Greek Catholic theologian to stave away from the scholastics? How much exactly is ours because we are Catholic and how much is not because we simultaneously Occidental and Oriental?

Dear Myles,

The point you raise is an excellent one.

I think there are many methods of doing theology within Particular traditions and some come closer to ways that are prevalent in other Churches etc.

Lines need not be drawn - as you mentioned St Peter Mohyla as a "Latinizer."

In fact, he adopted Western scholastic models and, at the time, he warded off a serious challenge to Orthodoxy by Western scholastic Jesuits in the universities that Orthodox students were attending.

And, yet, the Orthodox Church canonized him and regards his "Catechism" as an Orthodox Catechism (albeit amended).

Fr. John Meyendorff himself wrote that, at certain historical times, Orthodox theologians tended to overlook even the Filioque when they saw a peace-loving Pope in Rome etc. There were Orthodox theologians who understood and accepted the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory, according to him as well. He refers to Orthodox scholars who privately venerated "Blessed Thomas Aquinas" and the like.

St Dmitri Tuptalenko of Rostov (of a Ukrainian Orthodox Kozak family) was the quintessential Kyivan Baroque man!

Over the years, I've come across a number of his devotions that he adopted from the West and that were used by various scholars and saints of the Kyivan Baroque period such as: The Dominican Rosary, the Brigittine 15 Prayers (translated into Slavonic at Venice in the 18th century), the chaplet of the Joys and Sorrows of the Mother of God (Tale of the Five Prayers), the way of the Cross (used also by St Tikhon Zadonsky), a form of the psalter of the Mother of God (based on St Bonaventure's work), a form of the "Little Office" of the Virgin Mary and the like.

St Dmitri wrote so movingly about the pierced Heart of Christ (also mentioned by St Nicholas Cabasilas) that one Basilian priest I know exclaimed in an article, "Truly that person was a Saint who knew to write so beautifully!" This was Fr. Ireneaus Nazarko, OSBM).

And yet St Dmitri was canonized by the Orthodox Church.

So I don't know where one draws the line.

Orthodox theologians have simply been telling the West to return "Ad fontes" in the Patristic tradition that is common to both East and West.

After that, it's anyone's theological game.

Alex

Not exactly. What I said was:

It is not my personal opinion that St Peter did betray Orthodoxy. However, there are people out there that seem to think he did simply because he adapted scholasticism to suit Eastern Christianity. It is criticism such as this that underscores what I see as the real issue: A great saint whose work formed the spine of two synods crucial to Eastern Orthodoxy is in some quarters unjustly vilified because of his theological method.

What I was trying to get across is that I dont believe there is a line. The Catholic Church is a family as St Athanasius wrote we became 'sons in the son'. Having inherited a spirit of sonship as the Apostle teaches we cannot look at each other as anything other than brothers. The Eastern Catholic patrimony belongs to me and the Western Catholic patrimony belongs to you: We all belong to God. We are like two children who have different toys. Yes, we should cherish our own possessions but our siblings have the right to play too. After all God is the one who bought the toys in the first place and who makes the rules in this house.

Christianity is not a dead faith but is alive, vibrant and resurgent. Since the vine is not dead one must expect the leaves to bear fruit according to season. We must be ourselves but what that means will change. Scholastic theology and Baroque theology are different. Aquinas and Bellarmine are different. Both are Roman Catholic. Our identity develops and it develops as we encounter new ideas and remould them to serve best the tradition we are part of.

This is what I see in St Peter Mohyla. He realised that sharing the possessions of the family household didnt mean that one had to give up ones own possessions. Indeed, having played with the toys of one's brother one can appreciate one's own toys better and come to see them in a new light.

Whatever particular church we're part of learning and adapting what we pick up from elsewhere helps us to grow and develop. As your example of St Dimitri illustrates one should have no fear of the things one comes across in the household of one's Father. The interchange of ideas can only foster greater understanding and appreciation of our status as God's covenant family.

Dear Ray,


I agree with Alex’ statement. I also agree with Alice’s wisdom.

Now, how to do that?


Clearly, in our apostolic Churches, the hierarchs must make the final decision and the official arrangements.

Clearly also, the laity must be willing to accept unity or else any reunion will simply be a legal fiction.

Growing the laity into reunion through love and understanding is a wonderful --and necessary-- thing. As you put it so well,

But, again, how to do that?

I understand now that your original proposal was simply to found a group that would foster mutual awareness, knowledge, forgiveness and love between Eastern and Western Christians, with the goal of growing the laity toward an eventual reunion of the Churches. (Ray, did I get that right?) I have no problem with that. Indeed, I laud that.

Yet, I must ask what specifically can such a group do that isn’t being done already at this Forum? Ray, I thank you in advance for explaining this to me because I am sometimes a dimwit, and therefore I still don’t see what this proposed group will actually *do* that this Forum isn’t already doing. We can’t achieve reunion by pretending that there is already union, and we can’t achieve reunion by ignoring our very real differences. Now, I do not accuse you of either of those things. And, I laud the situation you described in your area, where Orthodox and Catholics get along so well and so respectfully. But, I do say this: We (East and West) are different; and we are still separated; and therefore I am concerned that such a group which you propose will eventually end up erring by minimizing the importance of our differences precisely by seeking our commonality. I know that is not what you intend, but I suspect that is what would happen anyway.

And that is because of what you posted, Ray:

I disagree with you on this. Yes, both East and West have mystics. Yes, both East and West have scholars. Yes, both have produced saints of deep interior and exterior sanctity. Yes, both East and West have participated in each other’s development. Yes, both have some elements of the other in them.

Yet, East and West are different. I’m almost at a loss for words (imagine that ... ;-0 ) to express it. But, it is more than a difference in “church experience” as you wrote. There is something more basic underlying it all. There is the same Christ; there is the same Gospel; there are the same ecumenical councils; but we have become different in how we see these and interpret these and live these. The West really does have a more intellectualizing, legalistic and, yes, cataphatic view of religion. The East really does have a more mystical, more “economic,” and more apophatic view of religion. It’s not just in texts, although it is there in the preponderance of writings. It is also --mostly-- in the mindset, the practices, the liturgies, the whole way of life of Christian East and Christian West.

Hence, I must be concerned when you posted about what your group would do:

Ray, you have been charitable and patient and well intentioned. And, I thank you. But, for the life of me, I honestly don’t have a clue about what you are referring to here. What is this “unity which we have found here”? We are still members of different Churches. What is the “fruit” that is “understanding and appreciating each other”? As far as I can tell, we (all of us on this Forum, and I have only been posting for 10 months) have only established:

1. We once were one Church.
2. We know that Christ wants us to be one Church.
3. Many of us individually want to become one Church again. Also,
4. Theoretically, we could be one Church again because of our first thousand years together. But,
5. We have become really different since the schism of 1000 years ago. Hence,
6. We --especially our hierarchs-- don’t know yet how to put the Church back together again.

Now, there is a lot of love at this Forum, and that is a “fruit.” Perhaps, that is the best fruit of all.

But, how is that fruit going to be put to practical use, absent the participation of the hierarchs and distinct from the work that this Forum performs? Put another way, what else can we --the laity-- do except become holy ourselves and get to know each other better and learn to love each other more? How and what *can* a new lay organization do, practically, when the six points I mentioned above still remain? I don’t mean to be flippant nor disrespectful, and I hope you can sense this from this post. Yet, I honestly do not see what good this proposed group would do; and I honestly fear that such a group can confuse people into thinking that greater unity exist than is really the fact.

Somehow, in a way I haven’t worked out yet in my own mind, the apostolic Churches of East and West, by and through our hierarchs, must maintain a dynamic tension that would balance our commonality with our particularities. That seems to be the real issue (after overcoming pride) for reunion.

And that, I think, is a topic that was well expressed by Myles, to wit:

Exactly. How do we maintain our particularities while rediscovering our unity? How do we *do* that beyond “love” -- how specifically, how practically? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I can and do recognize the validity of that question. And, I can recognize that it is an urgent question too, because there is an urgent push for reunion. Right now, we as laity can communicate with each other and share with each other and learn from each other and love each other and pray for each other and become holy for each other and ourselves. Beyond that, I do not see what else we the laity can do. More than that, we risk overlooking our real differences and distinctiveness: which is not only our current disunity but which would also be our particularity within a one day reunited Church. In close, if we don’t maintain the distinctness of the Churches while we reunite, we will not have reunion; we will have instead an eviscerated mess.

--John

Dear Zenovia,

I agree: the Churches would have to be the same as they are now . . . except with an agreement to disagree about the last 1000 years, and some kind of recognition about the pope, and some kind of recognition of the particularity of the Churches and the rights to their own jurisdictions, and so on.

My objection isn't to the end goal of reunion.

My objection is to the apparent view by many (not just you or Ray) that it can be done with love and the grace of the Holy Spirit. Sure, those are necessary, but then *we* have to do something with those gifts. And the scope of the task boggles my mind because of the very real differences between us. Hence, I think reunion now is premature. We can discuss it --like we are here-- and we can socialize and so on more with each other. But, we must maintain our distinctiveness *while* we explore the potential and practicalities of reunion.

God Bless.

--John

John,
"Deus Vult"
The only way separation will continue is if "we"
allow it and perpetuate it. I for one refuse to enter into that separation any longer.
Stephanos I

Dear John,

The point is also that nomatter what we say or do here, unity will only be real unity if the Churches and the hierarchies formally establish it.

We could have perfect unity in matters of faith - it matters not a wit unless the union is restored via a sacramental act of some sort, via Council or what-not.

For example, Alice as an Orthodox Christian represents her own (advanced ecumenical) views here.

Other Orthodox Christians will and have rejected them and otherwise distanced themselves from Alice's perspective.

This is what is also happening on the ecclesial level too.

Also, in our "rush to embrace" (that sounds like a good title for a book or something . . .) we may overlook issues that we may consider unimportant but that the other side considers important.

Pope Benedict's perspective that unity can be based on a kind of "fusion" of two different but also contradicting perspectives, while ecumenical, won't fly in the East.

Alex

Hi Alex,

More Orthodox than you might think would like some sort of *spiritual* reconciliation and communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, atleast in the laity of my jurisdiction. I have heard it over and over, albeit in hushed tones which are much less vocal and ecclesiastically involved than mine.

Eight out of ten marriages in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese are mixed marriages of Orthodox to non-Orthodox. Most of the non-Orthodox are Roman Catholic--and this is no mere coincidence, there is a real affinity and understanding between the Greek and Catholic religious cultures (ie: Irish, Italian, Hispanic).

Such official love and reconciliation between the Orthodox and RC Churches would make many a family situation happier-- trust me!!

And I will never forget the Greek Orthodox women from Greece standing infront of me on line at St. Peter's, that affectionately-- and without hesitation-- kissed the feet of the imposing statue of St. Peter!

I believe that a good majority of the Greek laity in Greece and in the U.S. want some kind of *spiritual* communion with the Pope. The hierarchy, monastics and clergy may indeed be another story--on this I sorrowfully concede.

Regards,
In Christ our Lord, and our unity,
Alice

Dear Alice,

If all Catholics and Orthodox were like you . . . there would be many more happy marriages!!

God bless you, dear Servant of Christ and the Theotokos!

Alex

Wow...

so many thoughtful posts from intelligent and well intentioned people.

I need to start at the start and read them all again.

If I get that done tonight I will comment. But my initial comment is "thank you" to all of you I need the pros and the cons.

-ray

deleted - as a premature reply

A tear in my eye for those priests who will be also sorted at the Judgment.

“But Lord.. Lord… etc…”

“I never knew you.”

-ray

also deleted as a premature reply