http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7133

Here is a glimmer of hope. Although the Orthodox bishop is in question.

This already happens regularly between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Melkites in Syria, and in this country, between the Romanian Orthodox and Romanian Greek Catholics.

It is interesting to compare the translation circulating among the many Orthodox websites and blogs with the official Vatican translation of the same document. Here is the translation given on this page with the highlighted part from the earlier post.

The mission that the Greek Catholic Church has undertaken, being in full communion with the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is two-fold: on one side, it must visibly preserve the eastern Tradition inside the Catholic Church; on the other, it must favour [b]the merging of the two traditions,[/b] testifying that they not only can coordinate between themselves, but that they also constitute a profound union amid their variety.


Here is translation from the official [url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060222_husar-ucraina_en.html]Vatican website.[/url].

The mission entrusted to the Greek-Catholic Church in full communion with Peter is two-fold: its duty, on the one hand, is to maintain the visibility of the Eastern tradition in the Catholic Church; on the other, to facilitate the [b]meeting of the traditions[/b], witnessing not only to their compatibility but also to their profound unity in diversity.

Even I, a mere Roman Catholic layperson, can observe that these two translations do not say the same thing. Now, of course, if I were of a conspiratorial mindset, I might presume the Vatican deliberately distorted the translation to hide its true intentions.

Of course, I would never believe that the translation originally given here was selectively edited to deliberately convey a meaning consistent with some bias on the part of parties with their own motives.

Ok I have a question. Will the "Greek Catholics" survive reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholic churches?

I hope not. Our destiny is to disappear, to return to the Mother Churches whence we came. We exist only to manifest the possibility of being fully Orthodox while in communion with the Church of Rome. If communion between Rome and the Orthodox Churches is restored, we become utterly redundant.

The Melkite hierarchy has already stated, explicitly, that in event of a reconciliation between Rome and the Orthodox Church of Antioch, its patriarch and bishops will resign their positions in favor of their Orthodox counterparts. For what greater commitment could one ask?

Chad,

This gets back to what I was saying about Christian tradition always having a human element (i.e. our manner of expressing divine truth) as well as a divine element (i.e. the divine truth itself, as expressed in the lives of real Christians).

Since we can only *see* the divine truth as it is manifested to us in our traditional liturgical and theological expression, it is obviously quite difficult to perceive the distinction between the divine truth and its expression. Once we recognize that distinction, however, we allow that there can indeed be multiple ways of expressing the same inexhaustible truth.

The filioque is a good example. (I'm talking here about its theology--its inclusion in the Creed is a separate issue.) In the context of Augustinian theology, it is perfectly acceptable, while in the context of the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, the same expression would make the Holy Spirit a creature--which would, of course, be heretical.

In other words, different modes of expression may at times appear to be in conflict, even if the truths that underlie them are not. However, this does NOT mean I can come along with any new mode of expression I want and insist that everyone accept it as valid. While Modernists often embrace ecumenism (because they really believe all religions are the same), they cannot be authentic representatives of any tradition because they do not believe in any tradition. Let us not be confused with them! Authentic modes of expression (liturgical and theological) were always brought about in the context of a believing and worshiping community.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I'm glad to know the Melkite hierarchy has stated this. I agree that's what should happen in the case of an eventual reconciliation between Rome and the Orthodox Church.

I wonder about the Byzantine Ruthenian hierarchy, though, whether they would make that same decision. What do you all think?

Also, I know a fair number of Byzantine Catholics who I would say see themselves as Catholic first and Byzantine second. It seems to me these folks also tend to be more latinized than the Byz Caths who see themselves as Byzantine first and Catholic second. I have to say given a scenario where the Byz Cath Church returns to the Mother Church, I think many of these folks would choose Rome.

Sadly,over the years numerous Ukrainian and Rusyn Catholics have left their Byzantine churches and joined Latin Rite parishes.
Reasons: Mass is shorter, Latin Rite church is located closer to home, attitude of "what's the difference, we're still Catholics", lack of identity with the Eastern Rite and traditions, etc., etc.

Some will, some won't. How they relate to Rome might change.

[quote=chadrook]http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7133

Here is a glimmer of hope. Although the Orthodox bishop is in question. [/quote]

Well, Yes somewhat. Again I think this example shows the depth of the problem, not necessarily optimism. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is building that Church in common with the Ukrainian Catholics is not canonically recognized by Moscow Patriarchate or the EP who may at one point have leaned towards recognition. This Orthodox Church (Ukrainian Orthodox Kyivan Patriarchate) is the LARGEST Orthodox Church in Ukraine, bigger than the faithful the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) have in Ukraine.

So the Big Gun, the Moscow Patriarch, could not care one bit for either church - Ukrainian Catholic or Ukrainian Orthodox (Kyiv) - and the example just illustrates the incredible difficulty one is to have in dealing with the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of which does not see or acknowledge that Ukraine is Not Russia; that is why on his last visit to Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarch kept on going about Secular goals like the interests of the "Russian World" (Russkyi Myr')as if "Holy Russia" was more important than providing spiritual sustenance to a population ravaged by communism and now a corrupt oligarchy running Ukraine's common people to the ground. The leader of this corrupt clan from Eastern Ukraine gets an award for service to Russian Orthodoxy by Patriarch Kirill.

So this illustration of the building of one Church by Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox merely highlights how the canonical Russian Orthodox would never even deem to see fit to build any church with Ukrainian Catholics, let alone deal with the 1946 pseudo-Synod.

So let's be clear about which Orthodox we are speaking of - the largest in Ukraine but not recognized by Moscow or the EP. But as Father Taft once pointed out, Moscow's interests in Ukraine are quite worldly - this is where most of the faithful Orthodox are; where the callings come from to a great degree, and these people will stay in our jurisdiction no matter how many millions refuse to join our canonical Church is the thinking in the MP and Kremlin. This is for real. So I think the Orthodox world really has to clear up its own problems first, particularly in Ukraine where the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox (Kyivan Patriarchate) can really speak a common Christian language, as long as Moscow stays in Moscow.

Btw, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada, which is canonical (EP), does not recognize the 1686 coerced transfer of the Kyivan Metropolitanate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to Moscow away from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

So yes, these things, amen, happen, when forces such as the Russian Orthodox have no say, sad to say. And I do not whatsoever like the fact that the MP says he has problems meeting with the Pope unless the latter deals with the Ukrainian Catholics first. What kind of dealing is that?

From the very beginning, they have sought to be the tertium quid, not Roman, not Orthodox. In general, they seem to want to be big fish in a small and continually shrinking pond. At the rate things are going, the question will become moot long before we have to think seriously about it.

Quote:
I wonder about the Byzantine Ruthenian hierarchy, though, whether they would make that same decision. What do you all think? StuartK

****
This is a wonderful thing to ponder. Remember that most of this discussion so far regards common traditions...Ukrainian Orthodox - Ukrainian Catholic and Melkite Orthodox and Catholic.
Along the same lines we have to initially limit cooperation and an eventual merger of Byzantine Ruthenian and Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox. When you think this way then this cooperation need not be extrememly difficult. With regard to Bishops "resigning" keep in mind that auxilliary bishops are desireable with larger eparchies.

To consider union of Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics with Greek or Russian Orthodox is much more difficult, for customs and traditions vary. This brings to mind formation of a new Orthodox parish wit which I am somewhat familiar with. My impression when they organized was with much Greek influence....eventually the Greek influence either left to acceded to the Slav influence. It didn't happen overnight. This was a more compatible "marriage" than EC and Orthodox.

The key is to be patient, but be vigilant to look for opportunities. We are living in a special time of grace when major unions are possible. As Church influence continues to shrink these unions will be ESSENTIAL. Then we can look forward to a blossoming of Christianity which has become full of grace though humbling.

Fr Deacon Paul

Jim,

Thanks for posting this! I think it makes it clear enough that it isn't so much a matter of deliberate mistranslation as it is of a translation done with certain biases and misconceptions in mind.

Furthermore, this is a textbook example of how these misconceptions are self-perpetuating, which is a reminder to all of us of what we need to do!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Every translator is a traitor, but when one so consistently chooses to translate in one particular manner, it is clear that the translator's treason is deliberate.

Are not most of the Ruthenian Priest and Bishops of other rites? We always had transfers from one of the Roman rites. Chad