www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Father Alexander Schmemann on papacy

ChristTeen287,

Maybe for a convert it is hard to understand but plain and simple, Roman Catholicism is Roman and European. Latin is an ancient language spoken by a tribe of Italians and became the language of the Roman Empire (and hence the Roman Church). Its customs and traditions are based on practices, institutions and structures of the Roman Empire.

Read St. Paul, somewhere he states that he would not set up a Church in the place where another apostle had already set one up.

Indian Orthodoxy is Indian because it evolved and lived its trajectory in the Indian cultural context. It foundation and orientation is Indian and has been Indian from the beginning. It was started in India at the start of Christianity by Mar Thoma (St. Thomas). It has provided Indians with salvation and deep spirituality for two thousand years. It is also a source of pride and inspiration for present and future generations of Indian Christians. Through the Indian Church they see a long succession of Indian Saints and Church fathers; the Roman Church offers Saints and Fathers from elsewhere.

The Roman Church arrived, shamefully, with colonization and oppression. They tried to co-opt and take over the Indian Church. They created the fictitious "Synod of Diamper' and persecuted and killed Indians who tried to maintain the faith of their fathers. The Indian Orthodox faithful revolted and made the Coonen Cross Pledge in 1653. That is heritage! That is Indian! And as a person of African descent I fully support the Coonen Cross Oath and stand by that Jewel of Christianity as represented by the Mar Thoma Christians. This great gift to Oriental Orthodoxy will see its day and play its rightful role and the forces of subversion and proselytization will never stop it. NEVER! Get it now?

I did not intend to imply that the Catholic or Orthodox Churches have been willing to strengthen each other. I was being theoretical.

OK. Thought you were not being theoretical.

Naturally, I wouldn't [i]support an Orthodox mission in Italy, but that in no way means I would not respect the rights of the Orthodox to spread their faith. Just because I don't support it doesn't mean it's not their right and that it should be prohibited.[/i]

Read the original questions again. I was not talking about the right to spread a faith, because Orthodox in India don't generally have a problem with Catholics in this regard...if people are going to be anything that isn't Orthodox, better to be Catholic than a Pentecostal. I was talking about the less than charitable things that are done over there, and about your feelings were such a thing to be done by us in Italy or any other Catholic nation.

How can I accept this as a worthwhile explanation? Just because a religious group "claimed" a country first (whatever that means, it certainly makes no sense to me) doesn't mean they are necessarily more indigenous.

I am not talking about any claims. Latin Christianity in India is still Western. Walk into an RC church in South India. The churches are built on European models (for example, Gothic). The interiors are European (Portuguese more than anything else). There are no images or statues that I've ever seen of any of the Indians beatified by the present Holy Father, but there are plenty of images of Saint Sebastian, Saint Aloysius, Saint Francis Xavier, and other Western saints dressed in Western clothes/vestments, etc. The Masses and other liturgical services are celebrated in English and not the native language (at least in the places I've heard of; whereas the Eastern Catholics will at least use the native language[s]). Roman Catholicism in southern India is basically a copy of its European manifestation. Up North, it is more Indian, but this is accomplished by incorporating certain Hindu rites. No where in Indian Roman Catholicism is there recognition in any way of India's pre-Vasco da Gama Eastern Christian heritage. Indian Roman Catholicism is not Indian, but Western...even the attempts at incorporating Hindu elements are post-Vatican II Western attempts that were not very organic liturgical developments.

And many Catholics would state that since Orthodoxy is schismatic (as most Catholics believe), the Catholic Church was in India before the Oriental Orthodox Churches were (not that this claim would matter at all).

Fair enough. Of course, you also would acknowledge that the Orthodox see Catholics as schismatic at best.

If we went by the standards of who got here first, then Hinduism is much more "Indian" than Oriental Orthodoxy, which is more "Indian" than Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Certainly, Hinduism is as Indian as you get. Perhaps that's why it is Hindu elements, and not elements of pre-Portuguese Indian Christianity (as influenced by Syrian traditions as it was by Indian ones) that the Roman Catholics have chosen to incorporate into the Mass in India.

You seem to think this is merely about "who got there first", and that is not it. Comparing Hinduism to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, then, is a nonsensical argument for those who truly believe Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

And so what if it's been there longer? I'm truly not trying to offend you (or anyone else), but I do not understand why, because a group "claimed" an area before the other did, that it's only theirs and that others have no right to spread their faith. If that were to be universally enforced, American would be nothing but Anglicans, Puritans, deists, and what-have-you. American Catholicism and American Orthodoxy would be non-existent.

Again, this is not merely about "who was here first". And, along the same lines as my remark above, there is a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Any apostolic Christian should be able to see that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is preferable to Protestantism, and so no one should really care too much whether more become Catholic or Orthodox, as long as they're not Protestant. With that said, when it comes to dealings between Catholics and Orthodox, being (estranged) members of what used to be one family, if they are sincere about reunion, things need to be done in a gentlemanly way. The Orthodox in general have been very tolerant of Catholicism in India, and I suspect it has been that way in other places as well. But, while Rome has gotten a lot better in her dealings with us "schismatics", she still has a long way to go.

I cannot verify or accept your explanation until I have visited an Indian Orthodox Church in India and somehow find it "more Indian" than a Roman or Eastern Catholic church (Malabar and Malankar churches included), or until someone explains to me why claiming "Well I was here first" matters at all.

Leaving aside the "who was here first" thing, I will say that I suppose you are justified in not necessarily believing me until you visit an Orthodox church and a Roman Catholic (not Eastern Catholic, I haven't added them in this really) church in India, although, unless you plan on visiting Kerala, it is probably good to lend me the benefit of the doubt, since I've been there a few times, know the people, know the language, know the situation, hear the stories firsthand, etc.

Where did I state this?

I'm sorry. I realise upon re-reading this that you may not have necessarily stated this, but it is certainly the impression I and others I've spoken with got.

In terms of numbers of people across the globe who adhere to Catholicism, the numbers are factually much higher than those of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy combined.

True.

However, I don't necessarily view Catholicism as more universal than Orthodoxy (are we talkin' Eastern or Oriental?). I sincerely apologize if I have offeded you; it is never my intention to do so. Please accept my apology.

I'm glad we have come to an understanding. If I have given you the impression that I think ill of Roman Catholicism, let me apologise and assure you that I have no such impression. But I do have a bad impression of some of the things Roman Catholics do, with at least the passive approval of their hierarchs (who do not speak out against certain things), if not with their active support.

For the sake of Christian unity, the positions on ecumenism should change with the circumstances; why should they be frozen in time?

I'm not talking so much about ecumenism as I am about doctrinal differences. On this, nothing but the highest standards of honesty should be expected from both sides. There can be no real Christian unity apart from the truth.

[i]Have they been frozen in time? If by the "Orthodox position" you mean refusing to try to work things out with Catholicism, then I thoroughly reject this position.[/i]

As do I. But again, I was talking about doctrinal issues.

And Catholics have to be willing to do their part to prevent some of those non-doctrinal issues that need to be worked out between our Churches. They are not always doing that, at least in India.

If by the "Orthodox position" you mean refusing to change doctrine for the sake of reunion, then I applaud this position; Catholicism has done this as well.

I agree with you.

Bending the will and changing doctrines are completely different things; you seem to equate them.

No, I'm not equating them. I think I must've worded what I said inaccurately, or otherwise not got my point across. What did you mean by the Catholics being more prone to "bending their will to the will of the Orthodox"?

Naturally Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy, will stay clear of what each group deems to be "heretical innovations", but that doesn't mean they can't be flexible and cooperate with the others (I'm not occusing Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy of refusing to cooperate or of not being flexible).

I agree with you, and there are some great initiatives between Catholics and Orthodox, in India and elsewhere. SEERI is one such theological initiative in India.

What are you implying?

Not implying. I am flat out saying that the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been the most gentlemanly Church in India. I've already presented a couple of modern examples of that, leaving nearly four hundred years of history aside.

Dear Aklie,

Simply brilliant! Again, I can't emphasise how happy I am to be in agreement with you, and glad that we're not adversaries. :p

A Modest Proposal a la Archimandrite Robert Taft SJ:

dear ZoeT, Thanks for standing up for the Jesuits! I too am a big fan of the Society and am very gratefuly for the ministry and their courageous stands for the poor and downtrodden. In India, I am especially impressed with their commitment to help the Dalits [the "Untouchables", who suffer not only at the hands Caste Hindus but even from Caste Catholics!!!]

And for their courageous stand, not a few Jesuits have been martyred or are Confessors.

But this later part of this Thread tweaked an idea I had, so here goes...

My Modest Proposal [for all of us here] would be this: [maybe we can try it and if it doesn't work, we can go back ... ]

Let us not be afraid to confess and admit to the ecclesial sins of our own Church. Let us trust in God's forgiveness and the forgiveness of our fellow Christians, members of Sister Churches.

Archimandrite Robert Taft SJ gave a great lecture a couple years ago [I'm sure that the Byz Forum has had many a discussion on it, but I'll provide the Url for our convenience:
http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm

He started the lecture with a detailed litany of all the terrible sins committed by the Jesuits against Eastern Christians!

His point was this:
Clearly I am not proposing that our Orthodox confreres do this - I can only speak for my own Church.

[Moreover in Kerala and Ethiopia, I am not aware of any wrongs committed by our Orthodox Sister Churches against us, certainly nothing on the scale that we Catholics did to themm- which Archimandrite Robert sj talks about too!]

Besides which I went to pray at the Coonan cross and lit a candle there...

But I am proposing for my own Communion, the Catholic Communion, we do this [or continue to do this].

[Now there were reasons, other than imperialism, why the Jesuits acted that way in India and Ethiopia, e.g. a Counter-Reformation midset that some of the missionaries brought with them and just holus bolus equated the Orthodox with Protestants; but the reasons were no excuse.]

Indeed, the Orthodox are not the only ones in India who have a complaint. The Eastern Catholics in India [who are the majority of Catholics I believe, certainly by far the majority of clergy and monastics] have really been kept in a subservient position by the Latin Church. But, since I have not confessed my own Church's sin, but accused my Sister Church, I have just broken my Modest Proposal already [maybe it's not so modest after all]...

Historically, we Eastern Catholics have sometimes and in some aspect been pretty screwed up. E.g. We have neither been Orthodox [but Very Latinized, a good part of it our own doing despite what the Popes of older Rome had wanted], nor "In-Communion-With-Rome" [but rather "UnderRome", a good part of it our own choosing too], and not Bridges to the Orthodox [but sometimes Barricades against the Orthodox or even points of Prosylitism against the Orthodox]. And sometimes we blame everyone but ourselves for our woes.

So I would say to us Catholics, we need not fear having been wrong. Mercy encompasses us all. If we can admit the truth about ourselves, then we can also speak the truth about ourselves. We trust not in our own virtue, but only the Lord's mercy... And if mercy is our basis, then ecumenical dialogue has great hope.

herb., just rambling a bit...

Herb,

Very well stated and as usual a hard hitter. I am extremely happy that we have people with minds like yours on the other side. It is reason to be confident that reunion is possible.

Now there were reasons, other than imperialism, why the Jesuits acted that way in India and Ethiopia, e.g. a Counter-Reformation mindset that some of the missionaries brought with them and just holus bolus equated the Orthodox with Protestants; but the reasons were no excuse

The point you make about the Jesuits is well taken. Fr. Tekle-Hymanot of the Ethiopian Catholic Church (who is so critical of the Vatican many of us thought to ourselves "is he a Catholic, did he really leave the Orthodox Church?' Then I met Alex and I am not that surprised anymore )makes the same point; for us to understand the Jesuits in their historical context as defenders of the Roman Faith in the age of the reformation.

Moreover in Kerala and Ethiopia, I am not aware of any wrongs committed by our Orthodox Sister Churches against us, certainly nothing on the scale that we Catholics did to them- which Archimandrite Robert sj talks about too

The only wrong that could have possibly been done by someone from Kerala or Ethiopia would be if an Indian or a Ethiopian went to a Catholic country and behaved in the same fashion. To the extent that the Indians and the Ethiopians were defending themselves in their motherland means that the "equal blame' or "both sides are wrong' argument can not apply.

Likewise, if someone broke into my house and killed my brother and while he was trying to kill my sister I shot him while the end result would be two dead and one injured I can not be equally blamed for violence like the perpetrator because I was defending my home. For me to be equally wrong in this regard I would have to drive to his house and kill his brother, etc. and then you can consider both of our actions atrocities.

We ALL need to start off with self examination and self criticism. But Herb I am afraid that since you are a Byzantine you are not part of this history and you should not feel like the blame for any of it should fall on your shoulders. It is the doing of the RC. Even tough you are in Communion with them; this does not mean that your Church was historically responsible.

So I would say to us Catholics, we need not fear having been wrong. Mercy encompasses us all. If we can admit the truth about ourselves, then we can also speak the truth about ourselves. We trust not in our own virtue, but only the Lord's mercy... And if mercy is our basis, then ecumenical dialogue has great hope.

Amen. This includes everyone including Oriental Orthodoxy. We have plenty of things to clean up and have enough unsavory habits that need to be discussed honestly. Its all for the best.

In Christ,

A. Semaet

Mor,

I am happy we are not adversaries too, your humbleness would kill me and I would have to go hide my head in the sand like an ostrich.

Dear Aklie,

Could you write a little about the way Saints are honoured in Ethiopia? Their particular Shrines that I understand are quite unique - a number of which were destroyed by our RC brothers?

Alex

ZeoTheodora,
Congratulations on your post, precise and to the point. One that deserves to be pondered by all here. God grant John Paul, Pope of Rome, many years.

Stephanos I

Aklie said,
Aklie, I was speaking of Catholicism in general, not specifically Roman Catholicism.

First off, please take a chill pill, Ak! I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand y'all's perspective. Hopefully, Indian Orthodoxy will play a role in the reunion of the Oriental Orthodox, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.

[/QUOTE]
Mor Ephrem,

Mor Ephrem, I am not aware of the "less charitable things" or the specifics of the goings-on between Catholic and Orthodox in India, there I decline to comment.

This should be rectified, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point.

If these parishes consist mainly of English-speaking people, then this is justified. If not, then these parishes are disobedient to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to chanting/singing/speaking the liturgy in the vernacular language.

Well, this is because Roman Catholicism is Roman by definition. Conversely, I suppose one could state that the Indian Orthodox Church is, by definition, Indian, a statement with which I agree. From this perspective, I can see your point when you say that Indian Orthodoxy is more Indian than Catholicism.

Why?

I take your word for it.

I am not at all trying to start an argument, but I would like to know from whcih of my posts you got this impression, so I can explain my words. I hope you aren't speaking badly of me when you talk to others!

I've never gotten this impression from you, don't worry. There are a few on this board whom I feel have grudges against RC-ism, but not you.

I suppose what I meant was that, it seems to me, the Catholic Church is continually saying to the Eastern Orthdox something like: "Ok, we'll stop pushing our prerogatives on this or that, for the sake of unity." As I said before, I am quite unaware of the goings-on between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church, therefore I once again decline to comment.

This post cont. at a later date...

ChristTeen287

...this post continued from the last...

First off, please take a chill pill, Ak! I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand y'all's perspective. Hopefully, Indian Orthodoxy will play a role in the reunion of the Oriental Orthodox, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.

ChristTeen287