www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West no respect from Latin Rite Catholics

And what does any of that have to do with what is taught in the seminaries? Let us go back to brass tacks--since we already send many of our people to Orthodox seminaries, just what value added comes from having a distinctive Greek Catholic seminary system, other than incurring significant costs to produce an inferior product?

As for Kyr John Michael, I submit you have no idea what you are saying, and that the situations are utterly different. You owe him an apology, particularly as he has been quite outspoken in regard to the situation of the Greek Catholics in Romania.

So, I repeat, "Sheesh"! If you are a Greek Catholic, you are supposed to be Orthodox in all things and also be in communion with the Church of Rome.

Are you talking about "getting rid" of the SSMIs; the "sluzhebnytsi"? Stalin tried that and managed to produce martyrs for the Faith (like Bl. New-Martyr Tarsykia Matskiv).

Whatever latinisms they have embraced, they can always embark on a campaign to eliminate them - which is a far cry from eliminating the Sister Servants themselves.

All Eastern rites of Latin orders should be suppressed because their rule and spirituality are not compatible with true Byzantine monasticism and spirituality. The result is a continual tension and compromise between the rule of the order and the rule of the Tradition--and the rule of the order usually wins.

This post seems to make absolute sense to me.

When I was first learning about the Eastern Catholic Churches, one thing that never made sense to me, as a Roman, was the attitude of some Eastern Catholic's which seemed to lament their relationship with Rome.

And this, is probably another reason why the Latin Church largely misunderstands its Eastern sisters.

If you take an ordinary Roman Catholic, and present them with Eastern Catholics who prefer worshipping with the Orthodox rather than other Catholic's, this can raise red flags.

After all, the rules for worship and intercommunion, among all Catholics in communion with Rome, are the same.

I understand the patrimonial and liturgical similarities between the EC and EO churches, but they have a very distinct difference, which at this time, keeps them as separate churches, not in communion with one another.

LC2K

It isn't often that Stuart and I see eye-to-eye, so those keeping score may want to memorialize this date on their calendar. However, I submit that Bishop John Michael is not the first hierarch to voice that opinion and I'm aggravated that I can't find the quote I want to back up that assertion.

The idea of the EC/OC Churches as 'bridges' between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a failed one. Despite the fact that the concept virtually never worked, the notion was still being parroted until the 60's or 70's. There was a decided lack of subtlety that usually took the form of those advancing it going on to say 'it gives those Orthodox who want to convert a place that's familiar, where they can feel comfortable'. It was part and parcel of everything that the Orthodox found distasreful about 'uniatism' and contributed significantly to the long delay in our Churches being fully acknowledged as true ecclesial entities, rather than just 'rites'.

If you want evidence that even Rome understands that the 'bridge' role has no underpinnings just consider the fact that most discussions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have occured with the Catholic side represented solely by Latins. If we were truly a 'bridge', we'd have been sitting in the middle of those; as it has been, our presence has instead been deemed a roadblock and, therefore, we have often, until very recently, not even been invited.

Today, those who still put forth the bridge concept as a viable role for us are generally the same folks who have no trouble accepting second-class status for our Churches in the Catholic Communion and see ultimate unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Communions coming about, not on equal terms, but via submission.

Call my Church a witness - but not a bridge.

Many years,

Neil

Just a thought. As I look at the turn the thread is taking, I'm struck by the fact that, if we cannot even agree among ourselves as to why our Churches exist, it offers a hint as to the reasons why we don't get respect from Latins.

Many years,

Neil

Here, we'll disagree. Although I deplore the loss of the Eastern ethos in much of EC monasticism, to suppress the Eastern provinces of orders that are historically Latin would be an offense to the many of those same orders who have served our Churches with love and, often, their blood.

As an example, while the Jesuits and some other of the orders have a checkered early history with the East - mired by coercive 'conversion' and latinizations - that is best understood in the ignorance of the times and vowed never to be allowed to recur. There is also the later history of true commitment and service, as witnessed by the Servant of God, Father Walter, and many others, who have not compromised anything.

Are the differences fully able to be reconciled in all instances? No. Father Archimandrite Orestes (Karame), of blessed memory, albeit he loved the Society, felt that his Eastern heritage and spirituality could not be fully nourished within it and left in favor of becoming a priest of the patriarchate. He did not, however, deny that the Society had, in modern times, served the Eastern and Oriental Churches well. In a discussion that we had on the matter, he said that Jesuits serving in the Society's Oriental Mission (its 'Eastern province' as it were) were committed and essential. He felt that his personal need to separate from the Society was more a matter of being isolated from both the Society and his religious heritage - because the Society was not as strongly represented in the Melkite and other Churches of the Greek Tradition as it was in the Churches of the Slav Tradition.

So, I would concur that latinizations need to be purged from Eastern religious communities and, if those communities are to continue in existence, they need to embrace historic Eastern forms of community.

However, to suggest that those provinces of Latin religious communities that are fully committed to Eastern spirituality should be suppressed is akin to suggesting that we will no longer allow those to worship with us who are not cradle EC/OC. I know - one can ask why don't these Eastern religious of Latin orders depart the orders and formally transfer to the eparchial presbyterates? I don't know the answer - ask Father Archimandrite Robert or any of several other prominent Jesuits, including the Society's former Father General, but that they serve as they do is sufficiently a blessing in my mind.

Many years,

Neil

An even more important question to ask: Why should we care about getting respect from Latin Catholics?

I agree with this position, but of course I want to see the complete de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I care about it because I want them to know and understand what Eastern and Oriental Christians - Catholic and Orthodox - offer to the Apostolic Communions, just as I would hope that we respect our Latin brethen and what they bring to the Lord's Table. If respect is lacking, it gets hard to see beyond that lack and fully appreciate the spirituality in all its aspects.

Many years,

Neil

When I was a Roman Catholic I did not care one iota what Eastern Catholics thought about the Apostolic Communion to which I belonged, and since becoming an Eastern Catholic in 2005 I really do not care what Latin Catholics think about the Eastern Churches, or about Eastern Christianity in general.

I found my spiritual home by embracing the liturgical, doctrinal, and spiritual patrimony of the Orthodox East, and so the views of Latin Catholics is not all that important to me.

These are the kinds of arguments that fail on both sides for circuity - which is why I generally avoid them like the plague and will be retiring from this one. I leave it with the thought that we cannot best serve God's peoples or fulfill His mandates in isolation, particularly in this modern world. And, I would submit that one has a duty not only to respect one's Church, but to seek respect for one's Faith and Church and to respect those of the other Apostolic Churches as fellow Christians committed to worship of our common God.

Many years,

Neil

Respect really is a non-issue. It is best to simply remain faithful to Tradition, and not worry about what other people think.

Respect requires knowledge; without knowing of the EC's, many RC's will presume us schismatic.

The Romans NEED to be educated, just as much as the EC's need to be educated about Rome, to prevent persecutions triggered in ignorance.

Apotheoun,

I saw your comment: "I found my spiritual home by embracing the liturgical, doctrinal, and spiritual patrimony of the Orthodox East, and so the views of Latin Catholics is [sic] not all that important to me."

I, too, came from the Roman tradition but adopted that of the East. I disagree with your statement that "views of latin Catholics are not important to me." Are not Latin Catholics our brethren in the Body of Christ? To quote St. Paul: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Now I am not happy with everything that goes on in the Latin tradition. That is why I became an Eastern Christian. That said, there are innumerable fine Christians in the Latin tradition, and it is not right to disparage or reject them because their liturgical practice is different from ours. The best way to improve relations with Latin Catholics is, first, to respect them and, second, to live humble, exemplary lives to the best of our ability.

Christians are under tremendous assault in this modern world. We must be charitable to each other, and we must stick together. The Lord does not will that there be differences between Christians. He wants us to be one body.

May the Lord bless you this Theophany.