Originally posted by Anthony:

“He is also critical of the slavish imitation of Orthodox theology that many of us are tempted to engage in. Why? Because it denies the reality of our situation.”

Exactly!

“Concerning this point, I think that he is right. Byzantine Catholics uncritically adopting Orthodox theology can lead to a certain peculiar identity crisis.”

For example, the misleading term: Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

“Like it or not, we are in communion with the West. This fact needs to have some place in our theology. Otherwise, we are hypocrites.
If we believe that the Orthodox ecclesiology is perfect and pristine, what the heck are we doing wasting our time being in communion with the heretical West? The only logical conclusion is to become Orthodox.”

Yep.

I believe many people who come to this Forum get quite confused with Eastern Catholicism. An outsider inquires: “What do Eastern Catholics believe?” Well, he or she ends up with ten different answers. Everyone seems to have an answer, but it is usually an answer that is deducted from a personal rational reconciling their acceptance of Rome with their life and love of Orthodox theology, piety, etc. For this reason, EC’s need to develop a distinct theology as their own. It cannot, however, simply be Orthodox theology. To do this is very misleading and can be very damaging to those who are interested in the Eastern side of Catholicism.

It is no secret that many people come to this Forum and have no idea what Eastern Catholicism is. If they try to discern what Eastern Catholic theology is primarily from posts on this Forum, I am afraid to say they might go nuts! Even if they go to other websites with some kind of “summary”, they will end up again with conflicting views or will end up mislead by thinking it is all Orthodox theology.

Just some thoughts of an accountant on a beautiful, 75 degree day in the breath-taking state of Rhode Island.

Greg

Dear Stuart,

Your point about Met. Sulyk is well taken.

But how can our bishops be "pro-Eastern" when the majority are chosen by Rome as Rome's men.

Isn't this a case of someone else having your own way (i.e. Rome's)?

It is O.K. for Father Professor Taft to criticize the Eastern Bishops.

But, excuse me, is he so naive about the episcopal selection and approval process in our Church?

Isn't he shooting the messenger(s) here?

Alex

Dear Stuart,

Exactly. That is why some believe that when it comes to Byzantine traditions vis a vis Rome, we've had too much of "monkey see, monkey do!"

Alex

In my opinion, a "productive" development (brrr .. sorry to use that word) in this area would be for the Eastern Catholics to redefine what it means to be in communion with Rome from the perspective of Eastern Catholicism, and not Latin Catholicism. This could be a potentially useful avenue, because the critical problem with the so-called "unia", for the ecumenical relationship and from the Orthodox perspective, is this contradiction problem -- the more that the Eastern Catholics can make of their present situation a relationship between sister churches in communion with each other, and not Eastern Churches "subject to Roman oversight" the less of an "obstacle" they will be to the larger discussion.

That, in my view, would be helpful for the overall discussion, because possibly it could create a different point of view regarding communion and what it means -- different from the present views articulated by both Rome and Orthodoxy -- that, therefore, could be productive (and it could be what Fr. Taft was getting at, I don't know) for the broader issues.

Brendan

"Concerning this point, I think that he is right. Byzantine Catholics uncritically adopting Orthodox theology can lead to a certain peculiar identity crisis. I believe that Father Taft included ecclesiology as a subdivision within theology (which it is). Like it or not, we are in communion with the West. This fact needs to have some place in our theology. Otherwise, we are hypocrites.
If we believe that the Orthodox ecclesiology is perfect and pristine, what the heck are we doing wasting our time being in communion with the heretical West? The only logical conclusion is to become Orthodox. This is especially clear to those who have no ethnic ties to the Byzantine Church."

Anthony --

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with your post 100%. Ecclesiology *is* important, and under the present circumstances choices must be made. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to persist in the Roman Catholic communion if one has views that are 100% Orthodox (including ecclesiologically). Frankly, I respect the integrity of those Eastern Catholics who accept that, and accept the ecclesiology of the Church that they are in at the present time (even if they periodically nudge it to change that ecclesiology, at least as it relates to the Eastern Churches). That is a position of integrity, in my view. As an Orthodox, I don't agree with the underlying substance, but I can respect it as a position of integrity.

Brendan

Dear Greg and Anthony,

I think you are absolutely right and so is the good Archimandrite.

For too long, BC theology could be characterized as: Take the train that says "Orthodoxy" but get off where it says "Papacy."

I don't have an identity crisis here, but I do have a problem with consistency.

To be truly "Orthodox" is to reject the juridical nature of the Papacy. That the Papacy is what it is flows from specific theological a prioris, just like the Orthodox rejection of it does as well.

One can't be "Orthodox" in total, but then somehow turn around and say "But we accept the Papacy and are in communion with Rome."

Why are we, then? Why do we reject all of Latin theology, but accept the Latin theology of the Papacy?

And please, let me say in advance that I don't want to hear from any BC who is going to soft-sell their union with Rome "along Orthodox lines."

That is something that exists in our minds, but in fact Orthodoxy doesn 't accept it and we are in de facto separation from it as a result.

Those promulgating intercommunion are among the worst of offenders in this regard, in my view, being neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

The "totally Orthodox except for the Papacy" perspective is tiresome, unreal and truly irrelevant to both Catholic and Orthodox worlds.

We try to move from the "Uniate" mentality and then get bogged down in an "ABP" one (All but Pope) with respect to Orthodoxy.

That is confusing and we shouldn't be surprised when so few parishes respond when our bishops ask their flock to remove the Filioque - or celebrate the Feast of St Photios.

Sorry for my honesty. This Forum is so precious in that it provides for open debate. But it also lets one get things off one's chest.

If I am wrong, then I would like to know how.

Brendan has shown me the error of my ways in the past. I have learned much from him and hope to continue to do so, as I have from Dr. John.

These are intensely pressing issues for me, and Anthony and Greg have brought them together rather nicely and pointedly.

I am ready to listen and to learn. But I will raise points straightforwardly as well.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for your kind words! In a very real sense you are correct -- for the average person in the pew this is "much ado about nothing" or, perhaps, a "tempest in a teapot." Yet, from the standpoint of the Churches it is important.

One of the mandates of Vatican II was for the Eastern Catholic Churches to discover who they are. As phrased it was to "rediscover" but, in reality, that's not possible as it means going backward. The Church does not go backward, even in rediscovery, for that which was must be applied in that which is.

This is a painful lesson that the Latin's are discovering as a result of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. They attempted to take that which was (or was thought to be) and apply it to today without thinking of that which is. Consequently there was a lot of confusion. There is no problem stemming from this that is so large it can't be solved with time -- but most of us won't live that long.

The same is true, in a way, for Eastern Catholics. We cannot revert to what we were because that's what we were escaping. Nor can we be Latin because that is not us either. Therefore, we must apply the reality of who we were (Orthodox) in the context of today (Churches in communion with Rome).

We are not some sort of theological halfway house, nor are we a testing ground for ways to incorporate Orthodoxy. We're unique! We have a mixture of Orthodox and Latin in us, and that is reality. Therefore, we need to determine how best to express that.

Clearly this is not the via media that says both live integrally in us, but rather it is a way in which, I think, Orthodox dominates, and the reality of communion with Rome flavors all that we are and do.

How powerful the flavor is depends on many things, most of which are certainly beyond my understanding.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Bless, Reverend Father Deacon Edward!

Yes, I see your point. We are both Orthodox and Catholic in a kind of amalgam.

Culturally, that makes eminent sense and, as a sociologist in the first instance, I think your paradigm will have the most chance of success in this.

In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, religious traditions were always tied to political statements.

For example, someone in the Carpathians carrying a Rosary would be called a "Pole" not a "Catholic" (since that means "Pole" there).

Being "Eastern" was encouraged, especially at the time of Sheptytsky, but if one was "too Eastern" one would be open to charges of being a Russophile "katzap" (a terribly offensive term!)

I had two cousins. Both married an MBA. One was a Master of Business Administration. The other - a "Man Behind the Altar." (It was a big hit when I first came up with it some years ago . . .).

Anyway, the clerical MBA sported a beard and some other traditions which somehow were interpreted not as being "Byzantine" but as being "Russophile."

The mixture of Byzantine and Roman elements in the Galician-Ukrainian scenario was often promoted as a way to become a liturgical "Chameleon" and prevent being "taken over" by either the Russian Orthodox East or the Polish CAtholic West.

Feelings in this regard still persist.

Even Fr. Lypsky, who was a true Ukrainian patriot (he gave the Anointing to Ukrainians sentenced to death for acts against the Polish state, for example), was, to his dying breath, called a "Russophile" by certain Ukrainian Latinist circles in Europe.

Even pro-Byzantine writers have come under attack for this. One such writer came under such heavy attack that he wrote an article deriding certain "Saints" venerated by "Orthodox in communion with Rome" parishes.

When I pointed out that those Saints were not only 100% Ukrainian (e.g. St Dmytry of Rostov of Kozak extraction no less), but were also recognized by Rome on the advice of Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky for the Catholic Orthodox Russian Church, he said he knew . . .

Liturgical renewal is certainly the stuff of the theologians' craft.

But religion is inseparably tied in with national culture, social issues and, yes, politics.

Theologians may write, Bishops may announce, but the priests and the people will do as they think they know best.

Some will even adhere to certain Latin devotions and say that, without them, they are afraid they will become indistinguishable from the Orthodox and therefore begin to think they should become Orthodox!

The Basilian Ukrainian Liturgy from Rome, by the way, omits the term "Orthodox" in the prayer "all you Orthodox Christians."

They use the "Filioque" too, which is probably just as well they don't call themselves "Orthodox!"

God bless,

Alex

>>>But how can our bishops be "pro-Eastern" when the majority are chosen by Rome as Rome's men.

Isn't this a case of someone else having your own way (i.e. Rome's)?<<<

In the past, this was a problem. During the pontificate of John Paul II, there has been a real move towards allowing the Eastern Catholic Churches to be more truly autonomous in the selection of its leaders. For instance, within the Patriarchical Churches, new bishops are selected by the standing synod of that Church from a list of acceptable candidates. Patriarchs merely send their synodicon to the Pope to establish formal communion (One would wish that new popes would reciprocate, but that's another story). In the Metropolitan and Archepiscopal Churches, the synod or council of bishops provides a list of three candidates, from which the Pope picks one; this mirrors the practice of the Church of Constantinople during the Byzantine era (with the Pope standing in place of the God-Loving Emperor). In the so-called Diaspora, Eastern Catholic bishops are generally selected by the Pope (something else that must change), and in the past this has caused problems. Lately, however, the Vatican has deliberately been choosing new bishops for their youth, energy, and Byzantine spiritual and theological formation. This was not real possible before now, considering that authentically Eastern Christian theological schools did not exist in the diaspora prior to the early 1960s.

Dear Stuart,

That is all very good to hear!

In the experience of the Church I have the privilege to be associated with, most of our bishops are either Basilians or Redemptorists. Never before have we had such wides-spread representation from these illustrious Orders!

I think the current Pope has done much in this respect, but we still have a long way to go toward being a real Particular Church.

It sort of reminds me of when St Theodore of Tarsus was sent by the Pope to become Archbishop of Canterbury, even though he was a Greek of the Byzantine Church.

But the Pope was also sure to send along St Adrian, a Roman cleric, to make sure Theodore didn't screw up!

In any event, Theodore's period of time on St Augustine's throne is still called the "Golden Era" of the English Church.

That Adrian must have been something . . .

Alex

Christ is Risen!!!

Dear Friends,

Just a few observations. First, if the Ruthenian rescension is the most authentic current liturgy derived from the old Church of Kyivan Rus, then how can we recover our historical Patrimony by closer emulation of Russian Orthodoxy? Is it not more appropriate for Ukrainian/Ruthenian
Orthodox to adjust toward Kyivan Tradition and away from Moscow? Is not this happening in Ukraine today?

Second, it was very hard to keep a Church going in the catacombs, where the only visible Bishops existed in Eparchies that canonically should not have existed, in the territory of the Western Patriarchate. It seems quite reasonable that the Rome that set up these Eparchies appointed Bishops for them. Now that eastern Europe is "free" the Greek Catholic Church is increasingly running its own affairs. This seems a natural organic development.

Third, just as the Roman Catholic Patriarchate now has established itself throughout the world (and isn't going away any time soon) should we not have a Greek Catholic Patriarchate throughout the world, with the various Eparchies looking to the Patriarch for spiritual guidance while running their own affairs?

ISTM that we are not quite Orthodox, because they won't accept us as we have come to be.
We're not understood in the west, but we are probably the most loyal part of the Pope's flock, and they have done great things for us these past hundred years, so I can't see how we can leave.
I think Fr. Taft makes a lot of sense. We are us, and we are the elephant in the living room of the Church. Indeed, being part of the East and part of the West, we are possibly more Orthodox than the East (in terms of practicing the ideal of Church unity) and more Catholic than the West, in actually trying to find our ecclesial roots in the East, while staying in touch with the West. I look forward to hearing Fr. Taft's tape.

Christ is Risen Indeed!!!
John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Friends,

Let me just add to the discussion on episcopal selection, while improvements can always be suggested, the status quo is hardly something in conflict with our patrimony. In the past, our bishops were selected by a Hungarian prince of the Unitarian Church. At other times, all sorts of civil rulers of questionable faith made the selection.

Under the status quo in Noeth America, we have a process where episcopal sees are not patronage jobs given out to papal nephews, but a broadly consultative process. I know our cynical American culture like to sneer at anything that is not part of the formal process, but having participating in the consultation myself, I am convinced that bishops are selected based on the input from laity, priests, deacons, etc.

K.

Of course, his successor has stated "I *WILL* ordain married priests, and has been preparing the candidates at his seminary in DC for this. A priest source told me there will be married priests ordained in the US in the next 5 years.

anastasios

Dear Friends,

Our former Bishop once said he prefers married priests because they are "better behaved."

After all, he said, at home they have a "Bishop, Patriarch and Pope all in one (Presbytera)."

Let's have some married bishops next . . .

Oops! Did I say that?

Alex

Hallelujah!

"Of course, his successor has stated "I *WILL* ordain married priests, and has been preparing the candidates at his seminary in DC for this. A priest source told me there will be married priests ordained in the US in the next 5 years."

Would that we should see such courage among our Ruthenian Bishops.

Dan L