www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Cardinal Dulles Article

Okay let's pick up where the discussion left off. My thought is just like Dr. John's: easterners not even on the radar.

The audience for both the lecture and the article are Western Christians. The Cardinal is referring to the [Roman] Catholic Church over the Protestant churches. Orthodox aren't considered.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Tasos,

Even though Cardinal Dulles is speaking to a Western audience about Protestants, why is he equating the "True Church" with the "Roman Church?"

What would he tell an Orthodox audience then and how would he describe the True Church to it?

Is the implication that Orthodox are members of the True Church = Roman Church, but not completely as they are in "rebellion" (rather than "schismatic")?

What's your take on that?

Alex

Dear Guys:

Let me rePost my Posting which I tried to post in the middle...anyways: here's what I said:

[and I encourage Dr. John to repost his Excellent Post on this renewed thread for our convenience]

Dr John has hit the nail squarely on the head. In other words, I agree with him completely.

I can only add a few half baked thoughts.

The fact that we are not on their radar, the fact that they are mentally unable to keep us on their horizon is, in one sense THEIR problem. I experience it as a kind of quasi-benign ecclesial racism on the part of a great many of my "Un-Separated Brethren".

Protestants are "real", Hindus are "real", but somehow Orthodox [even Not "inComm...." Orthodox] are not real. Ecumenism means Protestants [and now Hindus, etc. {many have a hard time distinguishing ecumenism and inter-faith (which betrays another whole set of problems, I think)}] but not Orthodox. We are for many a mere blip on the radar but no emotional signficance.

We "InCommunionWithRome" Orthodox have an even more difficult time being recognized and taken seriously for What We are, and not just an ethnic/quaint/eccentric subset of them. What had been ideological and theological hegemony in the days of the policy of Latin Rite paramountcy, is now a kind of cultural, psychological hegemony and exclusion.

Heck we can't even get all our own people to acknowledge that we are Orthodox or at least not an ethnic subset of the Latin Church, so how can we expect a cleric of our sister Church to clue in?

I attribute it to a sort of monolithic cultural psychology that has difficulty encompassing what they consider [or what is socially constructed as] "weird".

They will admit to our existence intellectuall, theoretically, and when pointedly reminded [as in "Oh yeah, the Orthodox, of course..." with the subtext "Ok, now back to reality..."].

This is my experience anyways. And in so far that it is true, it's too bad....for them. They are the ones who are missing out.

I don't conjecture that His Grace Vladyka Avery is trying to impose Older Rome on the OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome; when he thinks "Catholic", he thinks the Latin Church, full stop, point final, period. Ergo his equation of the Catholic Communion to "Roman." [Unless we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that when he says ":the Catholic Church is Roman", he is saying no more than that the Latin Church is Roman, and the OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome Churches are Alexandrian, Antiochian, New Roman, etc.]

However I don't think he has revised his "Models of the Church" book to make the chapter on "Church as Communion" refer or even acknowledge the Catholic Communion of Autonomous Churches or the Communion of Miaphysite Churches. If reminded, he would, I am sure, graciously acknowledge us [probably as "rites" but he would probably be surprised that our theologians are calling us [and calling us to be] "OrthodoxInComm..."]

Even some of the most kindly, well-intentioned, politically correct Latins have trouble with this. I have a Latin acquaintance, who sang for years in a ROCOR choir [in Slavonic], who despite correction and despite being sent Der-Ghazarian's articles [Churches not Rites], consistently still thoughtless and artlessly refers to the "Eastern rite" [not even plural].

Of course there are exceptions: the shining examples of our Latin Sister-Church siblings who Post on this Forum, who support us by their words and prayers, who help us develop our consciousness as Orthodox, etc. etc. They not only know who we are and treat us with respect as siblings in real live legitimate sister Churches, but they also encourage us in our eccleisal spiritual journey toward Being [our own in God and God's in our own].

Would that all Latins have their "sentire". Indeed if they did, we would not need this thread. And I hope they know the gratitude and esteem we have for them. May God increase their numbers and preserve them among us for many years!

On the other hand there are perhaps aspects that this business reveals that makes it OUR problem.

Perhaps we should not always feel that we need "THEIR" ACKNOWLEGEMENT for us to feel validated [and perhaps many of you do not, but I think there is some truth to this, maybe].

As a minority culture/group/society [if you will], it is almost inevitable or at least pretty natural to see ourselves through the eyes of the majority, dominant culture [in our case the Latin Church] and to define [or distinguish] ourselves vis a vis the Latin Church.

I take is as another reminder and Call to become what we are, Churches - fully Orthodox and [where applicable] fully inCommunionwithRome. ...and to go about our business as Churches, preaching the Gospel, serving the poor, liberating captives, offering prayer and worship, etc. with all zeal and charity.

just a "couple" rogue thought [albeit liberally expanded upon]

herb.

ps:
There a wonderful scene from "Passage to India" [sorry "only saw the movie" {as my students would shamelessly throw in my face}]: 2 of the bright young intellectuals in the story, riding their bicycles, their barristers's gowns flapping in the breeze behind them...one says to the other in frustration: "why are we Indians always discussing the British!!!????"

while we love and respect them and are in Communion [or not as the case may be],
mutatis mutandis: "why are we always discussing the Latins?!"

Dear Herbigny,

Well, I don't agree!

I don't perceive Dulles' comments as somehow ignoring the East at all.

He clearly sees the Orthodox Church as being PART AND PARCEL of the Catholic Church - and he is being consistent with his previous thought and writing on the subject.

For him, and I'll say for me too, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church are really one Church already.

When he says "true Church" he really DOES mean the Orthodox Church as well - integrally.

My question is about his seeing the "True Church" as being the "Roman Church."

Does this mean that the Roman Church is contiguous with the "True Church?" Or does it mean that the Roman Church is "part of" the True Church?

That is not clear.

Dr. John's points, while cogent, have a certain "knee-jerk" "Rome go home" quality about them that might or might not obtain with respect to Dulles.

This article, when it was first posted here, seemed to have been NIKnamed anti-Eastern on the face of it, but even when we read it entirely and in context, we need to compare it with how Avery Dulles the theologian has said before about Orthodoxy.

Alex

dear Alex:

I must confess I only know his "Models of the Church" and neither we nor the Orthodox figure into that at all.

But I would guess [and that's all it is] that for Vladyka Avery as for most Latin theologians the fact, the CANONICAL fact, that we are a Catholic COMMUNION of 22(?) autonomous churches is not their normal framework of theologizing - even cognitively, much less affectively.

The fact that he refers to the "Catholic Church" as such inter alia leads me to this conclusion.

And the "Roman" reference just confirms it for me.
...unless he is refering to New Rome.

But as I say, I am not well read in Dulles, esp. not in Dulles on Orthodoxy, so I await your gentle correction.

yours,

"why-are-we-always-talking-about-the-Latins" Herb.
I think I've got a new monacker. [Seneca, eat your heart out {this beats "Carthago delenda est"}]

Dear Herb,

Yes, my Latin teacher always began class with "Carthago delenda est!"

You are absolutely right - Particular Churches talk is not something the Latins are comfortable theologizing about.

Your point is the answer that satisfies my inquiry.

A priest of ours once based a sermon to criticize those UGC's who left the Church for other groups.

I had originally thought he also included the Orthodox Church but when I approached him he simply said, "Of course not - that's the real Church too!"

Perhaps we may just have to contact Vladyka Avery settle the matter, do you think?

Alex

Alex:

maybe you can give me the latin for: "why are we always discussing the Latins"! [actually if you could...]

And maybe we should contact Vladyka Avery [or was that Averky?] and just point out the misunderstanding his statement caused. Couldn't hurt. Then at least we'd have a real Cardinal [i.e. a Latin] who would know something about the Communion to which he belongs.

As far as what the Latins think about us, as you know already...

1. this is hardly news to us
2. That is their problem that they are so ill informed.
3. Heck, it's what some of US think about us :rolleyes:

OUR PROBLEM is the latter!

and that, I would suggest, should be our first priority: to get our own people to stop thinking that we are "Roman" etc.

I'm sure that you have had the experience of people having a hissy fit at the mere pronounciation of the word "Orthodox", not to mention some Religious [sic] who replace the word "Orthodox" to something else whenever it appears in liturgical texts!

How shall we go about dealing with OUR problem?

herb.

ps: and yes, I would agree with you [daring to anticipate some of your input] that there are historical reasons why some of our people have the visceral reactions that they do, and their suffering must be acknowledged.

pps:
- What a blessing to have such a farsighted cleric!

Friends:

To me Cardinal Dulles seems to be saying that the “True Church” divinely instituted by Christ already “subsists” in the Catholic Church (THE Universal Church), which is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as a “communion” of all Christian Churches and communities.

And it is “Roman” by virtue of its being centered in Rome under the Pope as Universal Pastor.

In a way it echoes the precepts contained in a Letter titled: "SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION" (pre-approved by Pope John Paul II) and issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Catholic bishops worldwide on May 28, 1992, which could be read in its entirety at:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfcomm.htm

It is worthy to note that, as far as the Eastern Orthodox Churches are concerned, the Second Paragraph of Section 17 of the Letter said:

However, I reserve further comments on Cardinal Dulles' views until the full text of his lecture is made available to the public.

AmdG

Dear Herb,

Right on!

And, as you know, it wasn't I who brought in that article or started that discussion - I don't mean to Nik-pick . . .

We need to take care of our own business without constantly and nervously worrying about what the Latins think about us.

I think the UGCC has taken some leadership on this issue that is sending some positive shock-waves outwardly.

After formally declaring itself a Patriarchate, the UGCC is receiving communications from Ukrainian Orthodox bishops (canonical or whatever) about them entering into communion with it!

It matters not if Rome recognizes the Patriarchate, it matters if there is a united front of the Patriarch and his bishops, backed by the Laity.

Even my in-laws' parish priest, a Basilian, has taken to commemorating "Patriarch Lubomyr" in the Liturgy!

You could have knocked me over with a perogy!

The UGCC is demonstrating leadership and is NOT waiting for Rome's approval.

Would that all Ukraine became "Orthodox in communion with Rome" in this way, voluntarily, without force.

Dare we dream - and pray?

What do you say, Herb?

Alex

Dear Amado,

Thank you for your informative post and your quotes.

Yes, I think we show a certain Eastern paranoia when we don't here ourselves mentioned each time a Latin Cardinal or other Vatican spokesman doesn't mention us over tea.

Ultimately, our being in communion with Rome doesn't depend on that. It depends on who Orthodox in communion with Rome think they are and their own internal Particular unity.

I think that Patriarch Lubomyr sets a great example in terms of true praxis with respect to this, something that is obviously starting to impress Ukrainian Orthodox.

I truly believe the Patriarch can become a focal point for Church unity in Ukraine.

He is the only leader capable of effectively challenging the ongoing imperialism of the Moscow Patriarchate there.

And he has shown himself more than capable of letting the Vatican know its place - in Rome.

Alex

A Miracle for sure!!!
Incredible!!!

Compared to that Orthodox-Catholic unity is a walk in the park - with golf-carts!!!

First Glasnot, then this! The Spirit is a-moving!

herb.

ps: seriously, that is incredibly significant sign re the change in self-conceptualization & self understanding in the UGCC. The "Patriarchate" was/is a shibboleth of sorts whereby one could separate the Orthodox from the Uniats. And the Basilians were the great leaders of the non-Patriarchal Latinizing party. Thus, when Basilians... Nothing is impossible with God.

Que Viva Patriarch Lubomyr

Dear Herb,

I really do love you, you know!

Alex

Dear Alex:

You said:

Your quoted statement sent me thinking about the Ukrainian situation!

I think Rome does not recognize a Patriarchate or her Patriarch. The Pope merely grants communion to an Eastern Patriarch and his particular Church, if the latter requests such communion.

In the case of the UGCC, this implies that:

#1. The elevation of the Major Archbishopric of L'viv to the Patriarchate of Kyiv by the UGCC herself, being a sui juris Church, does not need prior or ex post facto approval of Rome.

#2. The election of Cardinal Husar as Patriarch by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the UGCC, likewise, does not need the approval of Rome.

#3. If Cardinal Patriarch Husar wishes to request, or he has formally requested, the Pope to grant him and the UGCC communion with the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, then the ball is in Rome's court.

#4. But I am sure the Vatican, more particularly the "bureaucrats" at the Congregation for the Oriental Churches are now in a quandary: How to "regularize" the Patriarchate of K'yiv and the election of her Patriarch WITHOUT rumpling the feathers of the UOC-KP and the UAOC, and, of course, the UOC-MP and the ROC. It would help alleviate the situation if only the UOC-KP and the UAOC agree, or made to agree, to join the UGCC in a broader alliance versus the UOC-MP and accept the election of Cardinal Husar as Patriarch of K'yiv.

#5. The reverse of the proposition is equally true. Patriarch Husar may not want communion with the Church of Rome and nothing the Vatican can do.

Am I dreaming?

AmdG

Amada said,

Querido Amado,

I have always heard, from both Latin priests and laity, that the phrase "subsists in" means the exact same thing as "is."

sub�sist Pronunciation Key (sb-sst)
v. sub�sist�ed, sub�sist�ing, sub�sists
v. intr.

To exist; be.
To remain or continue in existence.
To maintain life; live: subsisted on one meal a day.
To be logically conceivable.

This is the way that Western Catholics define this. A priest on EWTN answered affirmatively that the phrase "susbists in" means the same thing as "is." �Tienes informacion contradictoria?

Alex,

How can the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both be "the same Church" when one Church denies a dogma that must be accepted to be part of the True Church (even though this dogma, Papal Infallibility, needs to be redefined/reformulated)? Doesn't the Catechism of the Catholic Church basically state that Catholics are so close to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox in faith that little is needed to attain intercommunion? As friendly as that may be, that's not the kind of language that would assert that these two bodies are really one Church. I'd like to hear your views on this; I'm sure you will make more sense than I do. Thanks.

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen:

"Subsists in" is the preferred term used by current Catholic theologians, especially George Weigel.

I think the term's meaning appropriate to our discussion should be: "resides in" or "inheres in."

AmdG