On the East-N-West forum is a now dormant thread dealing with the Evangelical Orthodox. I realize I am coming late to the discussion, and I want to take it in a different direction.

First of all, I too read the books by Gilquist and others on their "conversion" to orthodoxy. Perhaps it is the BC in me, but the one thing that I kept thinking was: the reason they chose orthodoxy instead of Catholicism was that they would be able to maintain autonomy and, to a significant degree, leadership over their brand of Church.

To me this smacks of Uniatism. In fact, if you read this thread, it is interesting that the Orthodox participants supported it, and the Catholic participants condemned it. (It has a certain Twilight Zone dimension to it.)

Anyway, the whole arguement reminded me of Romans 11:24:

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated one, how much more will they who belong to it by nature be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Furthermore, upon reflection of this whole issue, uniatism seems inauthentic for the first generation who is grafted to the vine. The reason for grafting was political and not motivated for reasons of true love alone. This is the part of uniatism that everyone would (or should) condemn. However, the real problem is with the subsequent generations who have been grafted to the vine. This is where the biological analogy falls apart. While the grafted branch never becomes one with the vine (it does obtain nourishment and support) itself, I would submit that subsequent generations of committed and so-grafted Christians actually become one with the vine itself. This is the real problem of Uniatism, forced or artificial ecclesiology becomes real, the bread and wine become body and blood, the imperfect becomes perfect.

The ways of the Holy Spirit are strange indeed. That which derives from human motivation (power and control) becomes divine through the fruits of love (generation).

John

Dear Friend,

Yes, I can't stand Uniatism either . . .

Alex

Once again I am confussed.

I have been told that what the Orthodox do is not Uniatism.


David

Dear David:

The Balamand document implies at least two potential definitions for Uniatism:

First, union comes about at least partly due to "extra-ecclesial interests"

Second, uniatism can be identified by its fruits: it fails to achieve full unity between the East and West.

A third could be: an effort "to foment division,contempt, and hatred between the Churches."

John

Deacon John,

I have news for you, the Balamand Statement don't mean jack.

Dear Deacon John,

And yet, the Russian Orthodox Church referred to those Old Believers that returned to it as "United (Uniate) Believers" and those Assyrians that became one with it as "United (Uniate) Assyrians."

Personally, I believe RC theologians have gone overboard in joining with Orthodox in kicking sand on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I also agree with Joseph Thur!

Alex

et tu Alex?

That really hurts, that thing about making fun of the Balamand document! Next you will be saying that the Zoghby Initiative has no chance.

For those of you in the inner circle of Byzantine ecclesiology, please skip down to the "*"

(Editorial note for those not in the inner circle, you now know who you are and where you stand, Metropolitan Elias Zoghby, Greek-Catholic Bishop-Emeritus of Baalbeck, proposed that the answer to the uniate problem was a two-fold profession of faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, in the limits recognized to the first among the bishops by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millenium, before the separation.

For those still not in the know, this means that the second millenium was all a bad dream, like that one season of "Dallas" episodes.

*John

Actually Alex;

Your reply gave me the idea for two additional potential definitions of uniatism.

1) A separated church is brought into communion with a mother church and serves as a "bridge" to the mother. The ultimate goal of the new church is to bring the members of the previously separated church into the bosom of the mother church.

2)The relationship between the previously separated church and the mother church is not one of ecclesial equality. Rather, it is one of slave and master. Furthermore, this slave/master relationship can be defined by:

a. those within the church communion. The "lesser" church can see itself as secondary to the "greater" church. Alternatively, the "greater" church can see itself as having primacy over the "lesser" church.

and/or

b. those outside of the church communion. An observer can (mis)interpret the relationship of the two churches as having a slave/master quality even though the two churches in communio do not recognize their relatiionship as such.

I am intrigued by this second definition. It requires that equality has to be defined by everyone, father church, mother church, baby church simultneously.

John

Finally Alex;

In reply to the kicking of the sand.

We Byzantine Catholics should rejoice as the sand recipients.

If the last shall be first, and the meek shall inherit the kingdom, well who is more meek or more last than us.

Cantor Joe, I think that last quip was a chiasmus.

I'm trying to stay within the "Focus on Scripture" theme.

John

[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: Petrus ]