www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West role of the Eastern Catholic Churches in an Undivided Church?

Peace of Christ!

I am trying to do a paper on Eastern Churches that are in communion with the See of Peter and I came across this essay written by Yves Congar entitled "Church Structures and Councils in the Relations between East and West."

Yves Congar wrote:

"The Uniates (a pejorative term in our present context) have a legitimate place so long as full communion has not been established between the Orthodox Church and the Roman See; for, by all rights, it is the Orthodox Church in communion with the See of Peter which ought to be considered the Eastern Church."

I would like to know what is your take on this matter? From what I gather, a thorny issue in ecumenical dialogue is the question of the Eastern Churches in communion with the see of Peter. How do the Eastern Churches envision themselves today? Do they consider themlves as bridges? And if so, where do you think is the traffic going - to the Roman side or the Orthodox side? Are we going to see those "bridges" abandoned, removed, destroyed once full communion has been established?

I hope I am not asking you too much by raising these questions. I also hope these questions are not landmines? If they are, please know that my only motive is to learn what the churches are saying?

Thanks.

Mark

I envision our BC church primarily as our church, the mission of which is the theosis of its members. The nature of our church also offers an special opportunity for ecumenical witness. If full communion occurs, then given the concept of particular churches within present-day Catholicism (where communion already exists), and likewise the communion of autocepahlous churches that exists within Orthodoxy, I do not forsee an immediate change in the nature and primary mission of our church. I think it is a stumbling block to communion to imagine that it immediately implies merging of ecclesiastical structures, and/or a trafficking in souls. I am hopeful that the concept of churches in mutual communion continues in a unified church.

The given quote contains an outrageous comment on the legitimacy of our churches. First, it is not all at clear to me that, absent the great schism, something akin to the unions of Brest or Uzhorod would not have occured anyway. Given the decline of Constantinople after its being conquered by the Turks, the rise of the West as the center fo culture and learning within Christendom, and geo-political situation our people as residents of "Western nations" (Poland and Hungary), it is certain that we would have developed increasingly close relations with the West and increasingly estranged relations with Constantinople. This situation may even have lead to soul-trafficking between the Patriarchates. In such a situation. I think that we would still have ferocioulsy adhered to our way and insisted on maintaining our particular traditions and rite. In this scenario, a modus vivendi very similar to the Unia might have occured anyway.

In any event, the idea that we have a "legitimate" place only "so long" as the schism continues is outrageous. Both he Vatican and the Orthodox signatories to the Balamand Agreement recognize our right to exist as particular churches, however we originated.

Fr. Congar has been a very important figure in the progress of the Churches and the history of ecumenism.

I generally agree with what he is trying to say.

I would only nuance his statement somewhat as it may appear rather politically incorrect, now that history has outstripped Father's prophetic thought.

Obviously we no longer refer to ourselves as "Uniats" - though originally it did not have a pejorative meaning, but meant only to refer to the " 'United' Orthodox", i.e. the Orthodox who together with the Latins, "united" into one Communion.

While, as a Church, we are commissioned to be the Body of Christ, ergo to: preach the Gospel, gather the lost, etc., etc., we are also called upon by our Hierarchs and our Sacred Tradition to the ministry of reconciliation with our Orthodox Mother Churches [without breaking our Communion with those sisters Churches we are presently in Communion].

This, if for no other reason that we recognize the anomalous position we are in: viz. we are in Communion with Churches that are alien to our rite AND we are NOT in Communion with our Mother Church and its Sisters [e.g. the Church of Kyiv and the Church of New Rome]. We are Orthodox but not in Communion with the majority of the Orthodox but rather in Communion with and in ecclesial federation with the Latin Catholic Church and others.

Ergo we do have a special role in reconciling with our Orthodox Mother Churches. As Vatican II put it: "The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special role to play in promoting the unity of all Christians, particularly Easterners...."

So yes, we are called to be "Bridges". His Beatitude, Patriarch Lubomyr of Kyiv though thinks "bridge" is too passive an images and wants something more active.

Nevertheless historically and even presently - for various reasons - we have not always been "bridges" but sometimes obstacles. And some of our people [and clergy/hierarchs] are still not interested in being "bridges" alas. But this fortunately is changing for the better.

For example, the Ukrainian Church has begun [under its own initiative] an informal dialogue directly with its Mother Church. Whatever problems the Church of New Rome had with the Church of Old Rome - those are the problems between those 2 Churches and not necessarily our problems. We are trying to see from our point of view how we may seek reconciliation - without assuming the baggage and history of other Churches.

Naturally, when we do manage to reconcile with our Mother Churches we shall no longer need to keep our separate identity but will reintegrate with our Mother Churches. Our hierarchs will meet together in one Holy Synod, etc. [This of course would not in itself solve the other problems of autocephality or/and autonomy of daughter Churches in the New World etc. E.g. unity and autocephality of all those Byzantine Churches in Canada.]

I am not sure what you mean when you ask the direction of the traffic? We are not and we should not be converting the Orthodox to Latin Catholicism by acting as some sort of disingenuous "half-way house" - i.e. liturgically Orthodox but theologically and spiritually Latin. If this were true, our Liturgics would be have historically been a heck of a lot better and we would not have been so terribly Latinized [here I speak only for my own autonomous Church]. Nor are we here to convert Latins to Orthodoxy; they [the Latins] must follow their own path and idiom toward salvation.

I do agree that his treating of our "legitimacy" is an unfelicitous way of looking at the issue and seems rather highhanded - given that he is not a member of any of our Churches [as in "what gives him the right to...]. But I suppose it is an occupational hazzard of belonging to the dominant and hegemonous ecclesial culture and institution.

With respect to Fr. Congar's statement about "the Orthodox in Communion with Rome"...
1. that is who we are [at least presently and thus far]
2. if he means that at such General Councils as Vatican II we should not be considered the entirety of the Eastern Churches, I agree, because we are not the entirety of Eastern Churches. And we do not and should not pretend to be such.
2.a. Nevertheless I hope that, even in such exalted fora and anywhere else, we may speak with an authentic and accurate Orthodox voice [perhaps I am being optimistic?]
3. we do have a place and position during this anomalous time for the entire Body of Christ to work from our own unique stance "that all may be one". [the Anomaly I refer to is the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.]

And finally not to quibble, but when Fr. Congar refers to the "the See of Peter", I presume he means Old Rome rather than Antioch, which also is the See of Peter [indeed an historically prior See of Peter], to which the Patriarch of Antioch is Eparch.

Finally, to quote His Grace Bishop Elias Zogby: Nous sommes tous schismatiques!

cix

herb.

Shlomo Apo Mark,
Also, what needs to be considered are each of the Eastern Catholic Churches separtately. First within the Byzantine Tradition I would say it is not legitimate to list the Italo-Greek-Albanian Church as a uniate Church since there is no Orthodox counterpart to that Church. Also, the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the difference between poaching on their members which is wrong, and those members which wish to be joined in communion with the See of Rome, ie the Russian, Romanian, and Bulgarian movements.

Second, Eastern Orthodox lump all Eastern Catholic Churches as uniate, but is that legitimate in terms of those Churches that come from hetrodox (using Eastern Orthodox terminology) Traditions, such as the Coptic, Church of the East, and the Syriac? As well as the Maronite Church which has no Orthodox Counterpart in either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Lastly, Eastern Orthodoxy needs to explain why members of their faith can not have the religious freedom to choose to be united with the See of Rome.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

But it's worth contemplating the menaing of "others". As a BC I am in communion not only with Rome, but also with Armenians, Copts, Syrians, Chaldeans, Ukrainians, ... - churches representing every ancient tradition and rite of early Christianity. There is a unique catolicity of the Catholic church.

And what is the meaning of "need"? Within the Catholic communion there it is an apparent need for some administrative independence of from distinct traditions, rites, recensions, ... Also in Orthodoxy there is evidently a "need" for administrative separation of local churches from their Mothers to become autocephalous churches. It is difficult to see how the re-communion of Catholics and Orthodox would quench it. For very closely related churches e.g., BC and ACROD in the US, there may be in a united church a move for admistrative merger. Even this modest move, however, would be complicated by our sui juris vs. their diocesan status. IMO, it's not helpful to convolve disucssions of unity of faith required for communion with the politics of admistrative organization adn territory.

Yes I see your point.

If I may play "Congar's Advocate", I think his point is re the entire of category of "Eastern Catholic Churches" or "Uniate" Churches.

Should reconciliation be effected between the Churches of the Catholic Communion and the Churches of the Catholic Communion, then it is hard to see that there would still exist a 3d category of Churches composed of the former "Uniat" Eastern Catholic Churches, since we would be part of those Orthodox Churches now in communion with the Latin Church. Or they [the Orthodox] would be part of the "United Orthodox Churches".

I don't know that our earlier acceptance of inter-Communion with the Latin Church would create a perduringly distinct ecclesiological ontology? Am I missing something?

Thus e.g. the Syrian Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church [now no longer in schism from each other, from the Latin Church, or from any of the Churches in the Catholic and Orthodox Communions] would not be in separate ecclesiological categories but would be both Syrian Churches [of exactly the same spiritual, theological, liturgical, disciplinary, etc. tradition] not separated from each other [or from the Latins, the Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox]. Thus they would be at least categorically one rather than two, ecclesiologically speaking. No?

I appreciate your point between the Ruthenian Church in the US and Carp. Russ. Orth. diocese. From my point of view, it would seem odd than after reconciliation, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada and the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada would not form 1 common Holy Synod, would continue to need 2 bishops for Yorkton, Saskatchewan, or continue to split the Ukrainian community between 2 barely viable parishes in the village of Grimsby, Ontario along confessional lines.

This would not mean that 2 viable parishes should not continue to exist, but their existence would not be due to their being separate confessions but due to a pastoral need for 2 parishes. The same would be true, it would seem to me regarding eparchies.

what do you think?

cix

herb.

But apparently you forsee two enduring categories - in what sense would those two categories still exist? I would argue from a different perspective. I see not three categories presently, but 21 or so - particular churches - in the Catholic Church and a similar situation within Orthodoxy. Since these categories exist independent of communion, and are recognized as having a right to exist, then there is no reason to couple reconciliation with a wholesale revision of these categories.

Of course, there are many situations in which counterpart-churches could easily merge, and very likely would. In the three category system, however, the very idea that in the aftermath of such a merger a church belongs not to the single category of the unified church but to one or another of two categories the current, divided church is IMO a stumbling block. With this mindset, the quest or unity of faith can easily get bogged down by issues of turf and head-count, which are more manifestly more difficult to solve.

Dear Friends,

My two cents' worth is simply that we will disappear as churches once Rome becomes Orthodox in the eyes of the Orthodox Church.

Have a nice day

Alex

Alex...hmmmmm, in that case we have nothing to fear, we'll be around for a looooooooooooong time! Have a great day my friend. Don

thanks for your thoughts djs.

1stly let me agree with you that intercommunion would not [and should not] be contingent upon an antecedent reintegration of the Eastern Catholic Churches back into the Orthodox institutional family. [Although I doubt if the Orthodox would agree with me on that]

Thus, 1st, intercommunion.

I guess my point is that after Intercommunion, given the [hopefully] absolute similarity of ecclesiology, theology, etc. etc., such churches as the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada would merge - there would be no reason to keep 2 parallel structures. Likewise, e.g. the Coptic Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Catholic Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church.

The "categories" I guess I see are not 21orSo automous Catholic Churches and an equivalent number of Orthodox Churches.

The "categories" I envision [thinking out loud] working toward: would be a Latin Church [with its distinctive theology, spirituality, discipline, etc.], a group of Orthodox Churches [with its distinctive...], and the 2[?] categories of Oriental Orthodox Churches [e.g. Miaphytes and Chaldean/Assyrian]. All these would be in Communion one with another. The categories are distinct due to the distinctiveness of their "rite" in the fullest meaning of the term.

What would be the difference between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church "in Communion with 'Rome' since Brest-Litovsk" [for want of a better designation] and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church "in Communion with 'Rome' since more recently"?

How's that?

cix

herb.

Herb,

Your categories make a lot of sense, but the significance of making sense in this context is totally unclear. You are in, effect, imagining some degree of de-autocephalizing within Orthodoxy (depending on what you mean by a "group"). Hard to forsee this.

I would be happier with a structure that minimized the significance of these categories entirely. The more the lines are blurred the less likely can schism develop along them. There would also be a lowered probablitiy of messy internecine struggles. I am as happy (or more) to be in communion with Chaldeans, Armenians, Copts, etc. -who have never tried to tell us what to do - etc., as with Russians, who are ritualistically much closer.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Herb,

the term his Beatutude Husar uses to describe the role of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Roman-Russian diolague is not bridge but mediator.

I read his speech on it and it is very insightful. He basically, and rightly says that we are heirs to a majority Slavonic Culture but we also have that smidge of Latinization as well .

Bravo on your comments. DJS bravo as well.

Slava Isusu Christu!

I believe the distinction between Orthodox and Catholic Churches will disapear when Rome hits that right bit of Orthodoxy.

Thank you for the reference. Is the speech available on the "Net"? And if so, would you kindly provide the URL? Much Thanks.

And Happy Feast of St. Michael, 1st Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus'!

cix

herb.

When Eastern Orthodox "hits that right bit of" Catholicism, who will be the Patriarchs - - - the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs or the Orthodox ones? I do not think that in a United Church the E.C. Patriarchs should forfeit their rights as Patriarch to the Orthodox, but neither do I think that the Orthodox ones should forfeit their rights as Patriarchs in an Undivided Church.

ChristTeen287