www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West If Eastern Catholicism did not exist

Father,

I get tired of the whining that life on the boards seem to produce. That is why I'm in favor of a conference and said conference is being developed as we speak. There are whiners and there are doers. I wish we had more of the latter and fewer of the former. But we do have some doers as well. May their numbers increase.

CDL

PM, Father

DJS, I suspect you know at least some history as you are from Johnstown originally, St. Mary's to be exact, correct me if I am wrong. So then what church were you once part of, before the USA experience.. who's omophorion were the inhabitants of the Carpathian mountains under before the unias of brest or uzhorod?

djs

I don�t see how it could be that simple. So by that measure are the Eastern Catholic Churches now models of unity? Why have some in this thread said they are not? Would you agree with me if I said the jurisdictional situation among the canonical Orthodox churches in the United States was a model of unity? (They are all in Eucharistic union).

I have no idea who the ruling Metropolitan was at the time of union. My concern is more about the contemporary church. My hope is that Eastern Catholics would desire to become part of the existing Orthodox Church, and not simply add to the proliferation of entities (something all Orthodox acknowledge as a serious problem, though most everyone differs on how to solve the issue. Looking at this as an acceptable situation doesn�t make sense). That to me would be a model of unity. I also think it would go a long way to healing the sense of bitterness that exists in many Orthodox about the unions that happened during the Counter Reformation. I think the feelings surrounding this in the Orthodox world are much more pronounced and palpable than concern about the schism of East and West, whereas in the Catholic world the opposite seems to be true. I think a stated desire of Eastern Catholics to join in with existing Orthodox bodies, and to foster unity within them, would probably go a long way to giving confidence to the East that it can form a cohesive and unified body to balance out the power of the West. In some cases it may be clear who would be a natural fit, in others it could simply be a matter practical considerations like geographic location or the predominant language used.

Ultimately I think from an Orthodox perspective the question has to be asked what are the Eastern Catholic Churches meant to be. The answer in this thread was as models of unity between East and West. It was admitted though from the Catholic side that in their present state they are not, and it can be assumed from the Orthodox perspective they are not viewed this way. The alternative then seems to be for them to continue as distinct entities. I have done my best to explain why I think the Orthodox will not look to make that happen. My real question is where is the meaning in that if that�s the real goal of unity? What is the meaning of being somewhere between East and West, or aspiring to become more Eastern but remaining parallel and organically separate from the East itself.

I am struggling to understand.

Andrew

Rilian,

If you can honestly explain what the meaning of all of the various patriarchates and autonymous associations and the like within Orthodoxy not in communion with Rome we won't have to explain the answer to your question. It will be obvious.

CDL

I dunno? Why are we called Greek Catholics?

Eli

I don�t really know what you mean by �Orthodoxy not in communion with Rome�. It sounds like you�re saying something like �there are some tall people who are tall�. I don�t see what the point of the redundant descriptor is.

Anyway, you�re other question has no one simple answer. The reason there are multiple patriarchates is fairly obvious. Why there are multiple national churches is probably a process of history, beginning with the decline of the East Roman Empire. The process of multiplication of national churches probably has a good deal to do with the rise of national consciousness in the 19th century and the fracturing and then death of the Ottoman Empire. Immigration to the West introduced a new dynamic as various ethnic and national groups came to live side by side in one geographic area. The rise of autonomous bodies, which seems in large part to be a product of the 20th century probably has many causes. Reactions to modernism and the experience of life under Communism probably being the most significant factors that contributed to that phenomenon.

I said before, I don�t know of anyone who holds the current situation up as ideal. I think all sides in particular agree that the situation in the Orthodox diaspora is particularly troublesome. The only honest answer I could give for our current situation is to say it is a reflection of our weak and fallen human natures that prevents us from working together as we should.

Now after all that, I must admit I don�t have the answer to my question. The best I can glean is that the additional answer to the one originally proposed is the meaning of the Eastern Catholics is to become new Orthodox jurisdictions. I can�t say from a Catholic perspective if that is desirable or not, but I can say from an Orthodox perspective it is as undesirable as the idea that the Eastern Catholics represent a model of unity. Neither idea will move reconciliation within the East or between East and West anywhere. I will also say again it is my belief that the situation of the divided East must be resolved as a precursor to any reconciliation between East and West, it isn�t an afterthought; and if there is no impetus and desire to join back with Orthodoxy, the Eastern Catholic bodies will not represent models of unity but permanent fixtures of disunity.

Andrew

Your circularity is astounding. Well, your answer for Orthodoxies multiplicity is as good an answer as one can get for the EC's multiplicity. Our model for unity is at least as good as any "Orthodox not in communion specifically with the senior Patriarch of the Church." The ECs long for the day when we will be in communion with all of the Patriarhs. We don't reject the other patriarchs. But the Orthodox not in communion with the Roman Patriarch reject not only the Bishop of Rome but many of the other Patriarchs of Orthodoxy.

CDL

If that is so important, sufficient to maintain the sin of schism, Andrew, then I think my way out is most fair to all. Take the oldest known liturgy, and the jurisdiction that holds the patrimony to that liturgy and move everyone there.

If what you say holds the import that you say it holds, in theological and ecclisiastical fact as well as attitude, then there is only one answer and that is to unite all Catholics under ONE omophorion.

Eli

Here again is simply affirmation of my point. How many patriarchs should there be in the East that everyone is in communion with? Should there be two patriarchs of Antioch that exist side by side for instance? Should there be other parallel patriarchs in other places? Should Eastern Catholics remain under a western patriarch? These issues among others would have to be resolved in advance of any sort of reconciliation.

What I find astounding, aside from my own circularity, is nobody will answer my question of what the meaning really is of the Eastern Catholic Churches. I asked if it is not to be models of unity between East and West, what is their mission? What it seems like I�m getting back is now accusations of the �sin of schism�, accusations that Orthodox simply �refuse communion�, and lots of pointing to Orthodox jurisdictionalism.

Nobody wants to answer my question, and I�m at a loss to understand why not. It seems like instead people just want to point out things they think are wrong with Orthodoxy.

Andrew

This mission for any Church, Andrew, is to bring the people into the life of Christ in communion with the Body of Christ, to provide sacraments, primarily those of Initiation, to guide an initiate through mystagogy, to provide liturgies and a guidance on the Way.

Unfortunately, you and others of like mind have hammered at the Eastern Catholics and belittled them for so long that they feel as though they need to explain themselves. And here it happening again.

And you won't let it go, but will bully us into an answer and then beat us with the answer.

Foul, Andrew. Is now and always has been foul and nasty tactics on the part of the detractors of eastern Catholics.

The eastern Catholics represent the historic return of some bishops to union with the papal Church.

The purpose, Andrew?

Union.

Eli

I asked if it is not to be models of unity between East and West, what is their mission?

It is a model of unity. We have no other mission. Does it really matter that today both the Orthodox and RCs reject us? I don't think so. If we in fact cease to be that model, we cease to be.

CDL

Eli,

It's good to see that we are in agreement.

CDL

Actually we are not saying the same thing at all.

I make no claim for "model" anything. In fact I reject it as unnecessary and confusing.

I say:

"We exist, because our bishops sought union with the pope."

That is enough.

And like Orthodox jurisdictions now, ROCOR, Sourozh, for quick examples, we will continue to exist because we are and we have a right to be as long as we remain in union with the Body and do as we are called to be and do in the magisterial command of Christ the King.

Period.

Eli

If you insist. I can be as unlikeable as you wish.

CDL