www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Should Rome tell BC's to return to Orthodoxy?

Dear Friends,

Someone mentioned the fact that Rome refused to accept the Macedonians into communion with itself.

Rome is sensitive to the whole "uniate" issue and the EP has recently reiterated Orthodoxy's stand that "uniatism" is, in addition to other matters, a point of pain and contention with it.

Since Rome has already set a precedent in not accepting "new uniates," do you think it is time that it reject the "old uniates" too?

Since Rome affirms that the Orthodox are sister Churches and that the "Unias" of old were a wrong way of achieving true church union, should Rome not go "full circle" here and declare the canonical status of the Eastern Catholic Churches to be null and void?

Should Rome not tell the Eastern Catholic Churches to return to their Mother Orthodox Churches as ecclesial bodies?

And, if not, is Rome not talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to ecumenism with Orthodoxy?

Alex

"Since Rome has already set a precedent in not accepting "new uniates," do you think it is time that it reject the "old uniates" too?"

I don't think this would serve a good purpose from the Catholic perspectives. For starters, what if the Eastern Catholics don't want to go "home", but like things where they are? Surely you can't just kick them out?

"Since Rome affirms that the Orthodox are sister Churches and that the "Unias" of old were a wrong way of achieving true church union, should Rome not go "full circle" here and declare the canonical status of the Eastern Catholic Churches to be null and void?"

I don't think this is in accord with Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching per Dominus Iesus would be that the Eastern Catholics are "fuller" churches than their sister Orthodox churches, and specifically that the Catholic Church subsists in them just as it does in every other particular church of the Catholic communion. Under such a teaching, it would be wrong from Rome to suggest that these churches should reject the fulness that Catholicism teaches is only present in its fulness in the churches of the Catholic communion.

"And, if not, is Rome not talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to ecumenism with Orthodoxy?"

Maybe, but I don't think so. I think that Rome's position has been often misunderstood because there are many well-meaning ecumenically-minded Catholics who have, at times, expressed things that have been misunderstood by many within and without the Catholic communion. "Sister churches" is one such issue. Yes, Catholicism believes that there is a "sister church" concept ... but Dominus Iesus and other contemporary documents clarify that this means that the particular churches of the Orthodox communion are sisters to the particular churches of the Catholic communion, rather than the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church being sister churches (on the eminently sensible theory that there is only one Catholic Church, and that Catholic Church is not divided ... and that therefore the term "Orthodox Church" is misleading and one ought to properly speak of "Orthodox churches"). I think this has to be the case if one believes in Catholic ecclesiology, but I think there had been a lot of confusion among many about what the implications of that ecclesiology were, or whether, in fact, that ecclesiological thinking had been supplanted by something else in light of the various ecumenical discussions over the last few decades.

So, I don't think that Rome is talking out of both sides of its mouth, but I do think that it didn't clarify, for some time, its eclessiological position vis-a-vis the non-Catholic churches, and so when terms like "sister churches" were used without further clarification in documents like Balamand, people were drawing all sorts of conclusions about the use of such terms without really thinking through the ecclesiogical implications of those conclusions.

One thing that Rome could do fruitfully with the Eastern Catholic Churches would be to restore true fraternal communion as the basis of relations, rather than direct universal jurisdiction. If that were to happen, muh credibility could be restored, I think, and it could be very good for both Eastern and Latin Catholics.

Brendan

The Byzantine Catholic Churches should make their own minds up. If they are the sister Churches of the Roman Catholic church then that sister church cannot declare them nul and void.

The Byzantine Catholic Churches should be true to the conclusion that, if they are sister churches, then the fulness of Catholic truth subsists in them, even though the the fulness of Catholic oecumene includes that of the sister churches of all rites.

The Eastern understanding of Catholic is one of fulness, not simply universality, and that fulness of Catholic faith is to be found in the local church aroiound its bishop. It is for leaders such as Patriarch Lubomir and other 'first hierarchs' of the Byzantine Catholic Churches to address the issues at the very root of their existence, not the first-hierarch of a sister communion. This would be imperialism and spiritual piracy.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Everyone Here,

I personally did not expect the kind of what I consider positive and comprehensive responses to this thread that Brendan and Fr. Mark gave.

It confirms for me that Orthodox Christians are true friends of Eastern Catholics who both understand us and can make positive suggestions to us while taking us seriously at the same time.

When Orthodox Christians, like our two Revered Colleagues here, can make such statements to us here, then I think there is ground for much optimism for the future of our relations as Churches and as Brothers/Sisters in Christ.

And I want to thank them!

Alex

Dear Alex,

And will the Orthodox then turn over the "uniat" Western Rite Orthodox churches to their true patrimony?

in Christ,
Marshall

From this observers position, the so-called Western Rite Orthodox churches (what few of them there are) are just that, reverse uniatism. It would be much better for Orthodoxy to restore ancient, indiginous Orthodox rites (like the Sarum Rite) than to call warmed over Anglicanism and Catholicism "Western Rite Orthodoxy." Then no one could complain of uniatism, on either side.

Priest Thomas

Alex,

My personal opinion is that many BCs (do you mean all Eastern Catholics, or just Byzantine ones?) would feel cheated by Rome by being traded like the millions of souls at hand are some part of a sick barter system. I also think that many ECs would turn Roman before leaving communion with the Holy See. I just don't think it's a good idea at all.

Logos Teen

Dear Marshall,

Before I go, I wanted to respond to your challenging comment.

Western Rite Orthodox, like them or not, were not formed via the kind of missionizing efforts and other real political pressure that led to the development of Eastern Rite "Uniatism."

But I think Brendan answered the premise of this thread and certainly individuals and individual Churches can and do maintain Communion with Whomever.

I've met Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Old Catholics who wanted to be Orthodox, but who also wanted their Western Rites.

Only the Antiochian Orthodox Church was willing to be accommodating, rightly or wrongly, I don't know.

When I visited their Toronto Conference some years back, I witnessed numerous representatives of Western Church parishes come before their bishops asking to be received into their Western Vicariate.

I know a former Anglican who became Antiochian Orthodox of the Western Rite of St Tikhon.

He follows a revamped Book of Common Prayer, but is also studying the Sarum Use and is coming to an ever deeper understanding of this ancient Orthodox Catholic tradition.

So I think the answer to both your and Fr. Thomas' issue with "Uniatism" is that when it is voluntary - it just isn't "uniatism."

But what do I know?

See y'a later, Big Guy!

Alex

Your point is well taken. Maybe uniatism is not the best term here, but I still find it to be an awful subsititue for true Orthodoxy using Western Liturgical rites. To take an Anglican rite and somehow "fix" it by adding an epiclesis or changing a few words, taking out the filioque, etc... is not going to give a living, breathing experience of Christian Orthodoxy. Instead, a Western liturgical rite which florished within the first 1000 years would be much more Orthodox and much more authentic. Let's face it, although I think the people that find shelter within the Orthodox communion are obviously seeking something that they cannot find elsewhere (in most cases, theological integrity) much of the modern Western Rite movement within the Antiochian Archdiocese has more to do with preserving the old Book of Common Prayer than the living experience of Orthodoxy.

Priest Thomas

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Yes, I agree!

But the people in the Western Rites of Orthodoxy that I have come across are truly interested in the pre-schism traditions and are slowly recovering these for themselves.

I think they start from "where they are" with the BCP and RC Tridentinism and they move from there - which is a good sign.

And the Sarum and Celtic traditions of pre-schism Western Orthodoxy are truly as holy and great as anything the East has ever produced, as you know.

I remember reading about the English Sarum rite of prayer for a bishop who reposed - the Psalter was to be recited 600 times . . .

When a layperson died, the Psalter was immediately recited over the body, and then people took turns to say it four more times through the night etc.

The Celtic Celi De traditions call on the monks to pray the 150 Psalms daily between 3:00 am and 3:00 pm (and if they didn't finish, they recited the Beatitudes twelve times).

Quite the Spartan regimen, no?

Alex

This is not Western Orthodoxy; it is Western Catholicism.


:p
Logos Teen

Orthodoxy is Catholic. :p

Catholicism is Orthodox.

And welcome back to the Forgotten Forum!

Logos Teen

Alex,

XB!

What exactly is the above about?

Tony

Dear Teen Logo,

The point is that that was the spirituality of the pre-schism Western Churches that is recognized as "Orthodox" by Orthodoxy today.

The modern RC Breviary calls for the recitation of the Psalms once a month, does it not?

Not exactly the ancient practice of the pre-schism Church - but identical to the Anglican practice!

And this is not the "Forgotten Forum."

It is perhaps forgotten by some individuals .

But like Orthodoxy itself, the Forum is expanding and growing more than any other.

Alex