www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

About suffering: Amy Welborn has a neat quip on her blog. My purple hearts are metaphorical only.

Dear djs of the purple heart,

And as St Thomas More told his wife, Alice, after she told him to "stay friends" with an angry King Henry VIII:

"Alice, this (pointing to himself) is not the stuff of which martyrs are made!"

O.K., so you are not a monarchist . . .

Alex

Perhaps some people might think me impudent on occasion, but I've never heard of anyone calling me an impediment!

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Are you a monarchist?

Alex

Dear DJS,



I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. Rome's approving Eastern Bishops for the US is based on the theory that the US is part of the canonical territory of the Latin Church. This is a canonical territory issue, not a primacy issue.


I think the main question we need to ask is whether canonical-territory principles are applied consistently, or whether they are applied selectively. For example, Rome does not ask permission from the Greek Orthodox Church before appointing Latin bishops in Greece. Is that an inconsistency?

I don't think it is. I think it is generally agreed that "respecting one another's canonical territory" applies differently for churches out of communion with each other than it does for churches in communion. Thus, Orthodox appoint there own bishops within Catholic territories without seeking approval from Catholics, and Catholics (EC and RC alike) appoint bishops in Orthodox territories without seeking approval from the Orthodox.

I certainly do not wish to suggest, however, that the fact of the schism means that Catholics and Orthodox need not respect each other's canonical territories in any way. In particular, we are not free to conduct "missionary activity" in another's territory (unless we have approval). But sadly, not everyone seems ready to abide by this principle. For example, I recently came across the following snippet in a 2001 issue of Catholic World Report (August/September, "Next Stop Moscow?"):

I'd like to know what seminary he went to!

Blessing,
Peter.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your post and your comments.

It is clear that Rome wants to have it both ways - when it comes to the influence of the LATIN (not Byzantine Catholic) Church in Russia, then any talk of jurisdictional boundaries is "against the Gospel."

But it is a different story when it comes to the jurisdiction of the EC Churches, including the largest EC Church around - the UGCC.

The UGCC has its Synod that is more than capable of nominating and consecrating its own bishops around the world.

Is this how Rome treats Eastern Churches? Then let's all stop talking about the Filioque and everything else as impediments to East-West reunion.

The REAL issue is Roman intransigence over ecclesial jurisdiction (in fact, it was always an issue throughout history).

The Orthodox, I will agree, are sending mixed messages on this matter. On the one hand, the Orthodox have always told Rome to give the Eastern Catholic Churches full autonomy to "be who they are" and the like.

But when it came to the UGCC in Ukraine, the ROC, joined by mainstream canonical Orthodoxy, complained to Rome that it wasn't doing its job of keeping the UGCC on a short jurisdictional leash.

On this matter, both Rome and Orthodoxy are wrong.

Alex

On the other hand, what exactly would be the motivation for the Roman Catholic Church? Would Rome be overjoyed to accept that many thousands more with eastern rites, traditions and disciplines?

I would say that the history of Rome's attempts to Latinize the Byzantine Catholic Rite is enough to make the Orthodox more than cautious.

Praying for unity.

Warm regards,
Alyosha

We are an impediment until we have the courage within ourselves and the respect from our own bishops and Rome to be completely faithful to our pre-Latinized roots.


Alex - I was recently asked about my political affiliation. This was my response: "Waiting for the return of a Justinian or Theodosius, but who would be satisfied with Volodymyr, Yaroslav, or even a decent Hapsburg or Romanov." So do I have monarchial tendencies?

Most excellent comments!

I have one speculation about the UGCC complaints to Rome from Moscow, although I cannot say how close I am on this point. I think Moscow wants Rome to owe up to the power it claims for itself consistantly in every document, or abandon the ruse. In other words Rome is also giving mixed messages as world Orthodoxy perceives it. Rome gives Moscow the impression of speaking "from both sides of it's mouth", restraining Eastern Catholics where it is to Romes advantage (and claimed right) and not doing so at other times.

I don't think Moscow would be quite correct on this point but this may be their perspective.

I think more likely the UGCC situation is one in which a respectably large Eastern Catholic church is attempting to assert itself in order to achieve a more balanced relationship with Rome. If the Melkite and the Kyivan Rus churches really achieve true parity with the Latin church, and have a relationship based upon communion only (and not control) this will have opened a new age in church relationships and possibly serve as a model for the future of Catholic Christianity.

+T+
Michael

a more balanced relationship with Rome is a good idea, and I wish the Ukrainians every success.If we Eastern Catholics are supposed to be on a parity with the Latin elements of Holy Mother Church, then Rome should not feel threatened if the Ukrainians (or any one else for that matter take a realistic approach in a healthy rapproachment with their parallel counterparts in the canonical Orthodox and Oriental bodies. I must confess, that I think of the Constitution of the United States where individual states are prohibited from entering treaties with foreign powers, but this is obviously not the same thing (but again, the Constitution thing did enter my mind). Rome has promised the Moscow Patriarchy that she will not set up a hierarchy for Russian Catholics in Russia, thus it makes it nigh unto impossible for a formal relationship between two identitical (save it be the Pope and Patriarch thing)groups of believers. Am I envious of the Ukrainians who can do what Russian Catholics should be able to do? No. Again, I wish the Ukrainian Catholics well. I do hope that if it can work with positive results that perhaps the Moscow Patriarchy will get over itself and allow an establishment of an eparchy for Russian Catholics in Russia (oh, there are no eparchies for Russian Catholics anywhere on the planet, we are under the rule of local Latin ordinaries, and this is true in Russia as elsewhere), and then rapproachment can happen for my Eastern church with Russian Orthodox believers.
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear Fr. DIAKon,

As a person of great class, of course you are a monarchist!

How can it be otherwise?

I think Incognitus is in favour of the Habsburgs too!

There's just no limit to class on this Forum!

Alex

Dear Michael,

Certainly, our UGCC patriarch would agree with you most strongly and thank you for your excellent comments!

Alex

Dear John,

Excellent!

In the case of the Russian Catholics, I really don't get Rome's attitude at all.

Russian Catholics have always enjoyed a close relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate and they have been admired for their scrupulous preservation of the Russian Byzantine heritage.

In fact, throughout our EC history in Eastern Europe, there were cases (as noted in Fr. Nazarko's book on the Kyivan Metropolitans) where EC hierarchs were deeply honoured by Orthodox for the same reason - for their unwillingness to become Latinized and their defence of the Orthodox populace (as in the case of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky as well).

Alex

Dear Friends,

I think that one of the first things we EC's should do to remove an immediate impediment with the Orthodox is to return to the Melkite tradition of commemorating the Pope of Rome once only during the Liturgy!

That is our ancient tradition (in fact, only the EC Metropolitan used to commemorate the Pope) and we could simply refer to the Pope as Rome would have us do, i.e. "The Holy Father" rather than what has been shown (by Fr. Keleher) to be a "mish-mash" mixture of the old commemoration of the EP: "The Most Holy Ecumenical PONTIFF __ Pope of Rome . . ."

Rome itself rejects those titles so why do we Eastern (more papal than the pope) Catholics insist on them?

Roman Catholics who hear all those papal commemorations at our Liturgies must have something to chuckle about!

Alex

Not really, I think it's nice to hear honorific titles once and a while. Especially, 'cause I'm a Monarchist. (Let's have a St. Louis IX, a St. Stephen, a St. Edward, or even Better a St. Eric IX!!! )

Most of the prayers for the Pope were in Ukrainian so I didn't catch any of them except one.