www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Eastern Catholics should pursue ties with Orthodox, Pope says

I just thought about my own question and I realized that it is silly. The Vatican under John Paul II has been very supportive of the Eastern Rites: encouraging them to rediscover and celebrate their own traditions and rituals. And, the Vatican has been genuinely seeking reunion of the Eastern Orthodox within the constraints of current Church realities and politics. So, I apologize for posting the previous question.

--John

Actually, it's a fair question. At what point does ecumenism become ecumania? I have thought myself that the West wants unity more than does the East. While the question is fair, I don't know the answer to it.

Dear Friend,

I agree with Charles, yours is an excellent question.

Roman theologians in discussions with the Orthodox have formally discarded the "unias" of previous centuries as an inappropriate means of reestablishing church unity.

At the same time, both sides agree that the products of those unias that persist to this day (namely, US! ) have a right to exist as such (how nice of them to say so!).

By the same token, the Roman Church has been bending over backwards on the subject of EC's to avoid "offending the Orthodox."

The silliness of this position becomes evident when RC dioceses are established in Russia and the MP gets totally dissed off by this - and Rome continue to maintain the attitude that as long as the EC's are kept on a short leash and under RC ordinaries etc. what are the Orthodox complaining about?

EC missionizing in Russia is bad, bad, bad. But RC outreach is fine (and my in-laws, among others I've spoken to, witnessed this personally when they were there).

One would think the prospect of a Russian becoming a Byzantine Catholic where he or she still has the spirituality of Orthodox Russia would be less daunting than the same Russian becoming a Latin Catholic.

Apart from the issues the divide Rome and Orthodoxy, there are still the issues that divide Rome and us:

1) Why is there still a Congregation for the Eastern Churches? Can't we govern ourselves? Hasn't Rome said we can? How can we witness to the ideal of "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" when, jurisdictionally, we're "Eastern Rite Catholics on a short leash?"

2) Why do the Melkites have greater rights than, say, the UGCC, that is the largest EC Church? Why can't we all enjoy the rights that Melkites enjoy? What makes them so special?

3) Why do we need to go through nervous tension on the score of ordaining married priests and other internal issues?

4) Why can't we be who we are and bring in our converts, no matter what their background, without having issues with the Roman Ordinaries? Are we not equal to the Roman tradition and church?

Alex

Rave on Dr. Roman!!! My thoughts exactly (I think we have both said these things approaching hundreds of times threads on this Forum).
Except I will say you probably said in a much more diplomatic way than I am capable.

Not to throw petrol on the fire, but at least the UGCC has bishops - can't even say that for the Russian GCC. Rome appoints a Latin ordinary when we have a synod and vote for our own man (Fr. Golovanov).

Rome still has a very long way to go, and we cannot give up on demanding our ancient conciliar rights as Eastern Catholics. Having Kasper cutting deals for but not involving the GCs doesn't help our "complex" with Rome. That's another whole story.

Soloviev and his students, the Russian Catholic clergy weren't about to become RCs, and saw no need to do so to exercise a truly Russian spirituality and Orthodox identity in Catholic communion.

Does not the Universal Church equally have the evangelical mission of our Lord? If so, let us Eastern Catholics do so unhindered ecclesiastically by Roman dicasteries.

As Patriarch Josyp said in response after one particularly emotional intervention by an ultramontane bishop at the VII Council when discussing Unitatis Redintegratio, "Have mercy on us for being Greek Catholics"!

Now, here is a cyncial question -- a wondering out loud. Is the Vatican, especially since the Balamand Declaration, essentially abandoing the Eastern Rite churches? Put another way, is the new (unofficial) policy of the Vatican to encourage the Eastern Rites to become Eastern Orthodox? Or, am I completely wrong on this?

--John

Dear John,

Actually I've wondered if this wasn't the case, too. If it were true, it would go a long way to explaining the inconsistancies found in policies with conversions and formation of Church structures in Russia for those in communion with Rome.

I pray that this is not the case, though. Like you, I cannot bring myself to believe that committment of all of our churches to communion with the Pope is in vain.

I hope that there are many in Rome who remember the martyrdom of our long suffering Byzantine brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe and because of this loyalty. It is inconceivable to me that it could be so quickly forgotten or so lightly dismissed.

So I wonder if there might be a more nuanced approach to things developing. While I am not in a position to do more than wonder and suggest that such might be the case, it seems to me that one thing is certain.

It is this:

The behavior of the various parties involved in working toward unity with our Orthodox brothers and sisters is not in lock step.

Progress is inconsistant and uneven. There is flux because of our human interests and understandings.

Some today may see the unia as a mistaken process, and I leave that judgement to those whose role it is to make such decisions to speed a new union among the churches.

I cannot believe that the Spirit made a mistake when He led our Churches to restore the communion that exists between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Western Churches around the Servant of all of the Chruches.

I dont't believe that the struggles of West and East, Catholic and Orthodox, today are signs of a mistake in the making. The moves and counter moves, as well as our protesting at what we see as mistakes by one party or another, are progress.

We and others like us question, discuss, rage, and pray. This is our witness to our faith in what it is that the Spirit is doing in the midst of the flux.

I think that we can be sure that we are progressing as long as we can point to the love with which deal with each other as we engage in our part of that flux.

It is that on which we will be judged after all.

Steve

Apart from the issues the divide Rome and Orthodoxy, there are still the issues that divide Rome and us:

1) Why is there still a Congregation for the Eastern Churches? Can't we govern ourselves? Hasn't Rome said we can? How can we witness to the ideal of "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" when, jurisdictionally, we're "Eastern Rite Catholics on a short leash?"

2) Why do the Melkites have greater rights than, say, the UGCC, that is the largest EC Church? Why can't we all enjoy the rights that Melkites enjoy? What makes them so special?

3) Why do we need to go through nervous tension on the score of ordaining married priests and other internal issues?

4) Why can't we be who we are and bring in our converts, no matter what their background, without having issues with the Roman Ordinaries? Are we not equal to the Roman tradition and church?

Alex


Dear Alex ( and Diak and Fellow Posters),

Amen to the truth presented in your questions!

Now, a couple of questions?

The Pope's role as the Pastor of all of the Churches is different from his role as the Patriarch of the West.

Is there any effort on the part of Eastern or Western Christians, especially Eastern Catholics, to separate out the Congregation for the Eastern Churches from the bureauracy the Pope uses to organize the Western Church?

Has there been any suggestion about what kind of structure he could employ to deal with issues arising from his role as universal pastor?

There probably has been, but I am unfamiliar with it. Could and would someone point me in the direction where I could find thoughts about this topic?

Thanks!

Steve

Dear Steve,

As for separating the Pope from the Vatican bureaucracy, I guess your crow-bar is as large as mine . . .

Alex

The great Greek theologian, Saint Gregory Palamas said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in one form, and from the son in another.

Actually, I would assume that the Holy Spirit would have to proceed through and with the Son in order for the 'Word' to be expressed, and then from the Father, in order for the 'Word' to be comprehended...But these are my thoughts.

The main thing though, is what would be the repercussions in the Roman Catholic world, if the filioque was to be removed? What would be the repercussions if other things were changed? Maybe the Pope is not as blindly obeyed as we would like to believe and the damage to the Roman Church would be irrevocable.

This is what the Orthodox do not seem to understand... and I say this as an Orthodox Christian.

Zenovia

Steve: you said that very, very well. Thank you for putting into words what I have been feeling.

--John

My filioque thoughts -

The Latin Church should remove it. The truth is, except for the very hard core traditionalists, it wouldn't even be missed.

Just my two cents.

Actually, the Orthodox seem to understand this pretty well. The Orthodox have preserved the fullness of the Gospel without relying on a monarchial, infallible papacy.

The Orthodox also understand what can happen if there is too much centralization in the Church. If the Church is too centrally organized, and then if that center is destroyed, chaos results. That happened to the Orthodox after the Fourth Crusade.

That is currently happening, gradually, over decades, in the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of a crusade, the papacy has lost much of its credibility and its authority (but not its appeal) in the minds of its members.

I don't want to sound all doom and gloom. Many Catholics like being Catholic, and they do listen to the Bishop of Rome. However, they don't automatically obey him anymore. Again, the almost universal rejection of the birth control teaching is evidence of that.

And there is the rub. The Catholic Church has a monarchial organization which people don't obey anymore. Catholics do have respect for the papacy, and they do regard the pope as their leader. It is more than nostalgia that they feel. However, they also regard him as a leader who can be ignored or disobeyed. Put another way, an Orthodox way, Catholics seem to be regarding the papacy more and more as a first among equals. However, the Vatican does not share that opinion . . .

--John

I dont normally say things like this but America must be one strange island. I mean things are bad over this side of the Atlantic but we remember who we are. Maybe thats because we're in Europe, the ancient centre of the Western Patriarchy but wow the way you guys talk about Christianity its like...a shadow or a sheet. I mean yeah its like that throughout the West but you guys always sound so pessimistic, it makes me wonder can whats going in America be that much worse than whats happening in Europe?

I think everyone is over-reacting slightly too much over all this. Seriously. I mean for the most part obidience to the Papacy ceases every century and a half, undergoes a brief resurgence and the school goes cold until something happens to kick all the Catholics into high gear again. I mean just take a couple examples from Western Church History over the past millenia: 11th century Church wins investures crisis with the Kings of Western Europe enforced clerical celibacy great monastic reform. 12th century growth of Philosophical speculations Aberlardism, decreasing religious fervour, corruption, Albigenisianism appears etc. 13th century the Friars pull it back for us people return to the Church etc.etc. 14th whoops there goes another rubber tree plant. 2 anti-popes, a whole lot of confusion and loads of heresy. 15th All the Kings horses and all the Kings men put the Papacy back together again 16th oh no reformation 17th O yeah Catholic tridentine revival, missions to the Americas and the far east etc. 18th century the enlightentment...*pause for mourning* 19th century O look we're Catholic again can anyone say 'Ultramontane?' 20th century modernism, modernism, modernism.

We're on the back of yet another pendulum. Dont worry within 50 years some bunch of saints would've re-evangelised the West and all will be good for awhile before it begins to break down again and the cycle will continue. I guess thats what you get when the owner of the garden thinks its cool to let weeds grow with the good seed But alas, the Gates of Hell shall never overcome it.

Chill out people, this is just the pendulum swing of history. Its no worse than its ever been at any other time in Church history. I mean thank heavens there arent any major anti-Popes around etc.etc. Yeah there are many dissidents and rather heterodox clergy. But its not on a par with the Reformation or the shenanigans of the 14th and 15th centuries. Just give it time, you'll see the pattern will continue as it always does. You'll get a flourishing of feeling for like a century on the part of Catholics everywhere and then complacency will creep in.

Now then the change in the Filioque clause which will come later will probably not cause problems because by that time Rome will be in one of its high spots commanding the general respect of the Church. All the real Catholics and not just 'Sunday Christians' LOVE the magisterium. Like anybody been to the Ratzinger fan club webpage? They've got the coolest merchandise I heard from one woman today whose brother is a canon at Liverpool Cathedral that to annoy the liberal rector--who has now been removed, yay!--he used to wear the Ratzinger Tee that reads 'laying the smackdown on heresy since 1981' lol. I want one of those. People like me, young Catholics who take their faith seriously, will be the backbone of the Church when the non-committed one's fall away and it will be our families that form the majority of the Roman faithful thus dont write off obidience to Rome just yet. I, and many other Catholics my age, believe in Humane Vitae and the Theology of the Body. AMDG And we fully plan on carrying out the New Evangelisation too. I sincerely thank this websites 'Evangelisation' section. The whole praying unceasingly for the conversion of a land led me to investigate St Augustine of Canterbury's initial Roman Mission and I'm copying the methods he and his monks used to convert England.

The Pope is not simply blindly obeyed, he is loved and obeyed at least by the people who will still be going to Mass in 50 years time he is. The others will lapse so no worries there, we'll get them in the New Evangelisation. Amongst the pro-magisterialists nobody really likes married clerics for the Latin Church. Not because we think there's anything wrong with it (and I dont get how it would prove Rome was wrong its proved right for Western Church reforms time and time again) but because many people see it as unfeasible. There are 2,500 converted Anglican priests in the Catholic Church in England and Wales at the moment. Some married and for the younger ones its a tough life. I personally think restricting the priesthood to married men of between 45-50 years of age would be for the best. But heck, if Rome chooses to change it, she will have her reasons and if not we'll support her anyway.

As for the problems with Humane Vitae, well as I've shown from Church History its not hard to find other instances where obidience to Church teaching was disobeyed. I mean just look at the Middle ages. The Church said people would be excommunicated if they engaged in duelling but that didnt stop nobles stabbing the living hell out of each other. Adultery was also a sin but basically every man in Europe who could afford it had a mistress, some of them were even clerics themselves, some even Popes. So thinking that the disobidience shown to Humane Vitae is some sort of sign that the Papacy has become redundant displays a misconcieved portrait of history. As if up until now the Papacy somehow enjoyed unquestioned and mindless obidience from all Roman Catholics. If people really believed that then the Curial propagandists really did their jobs well over the centuries.

I'd say you're focussing too much on America my friend. The Catholic world is more than just the superpower in it. Yes people dont really understand the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist but neither did they accept it at large for the decades where Luther and Calvin were printing pamphlets unchallenged until the Tridentine fightback begun almost half a century after the Lateran Council of 1517 and Luthers first blast of the trumpet.

Wow, what coincidence, eh? In 1517 a Council of the West was called that could've stopped Luther but didnt and the results were a reformation, lots of wars, but a stronger Church as a result. Took 'em 46 years to get their house in order though and it wasnt until the 17th century that they really cleaned up their shops. And alas in our own own day a Council called mainly to moderate the modernist tendencies of some and dialogue with the world without being corrupted by it has led to similar crisis'. Give it time friends its only been 40 years this time round, normally to clean up all the muck it takes at least around almost a century. Dont worry too much about the somewhat depressing state of things.

After all its not like its nothing we havent seen before.

PS) John I would also be hesistant to think any Patriarch East or West would see disobidience to the magisterium of the Church as equating to their idea of primus inter pares. In matters of faith and morals, the Church demands assent to its teachings. Any member of the baptised faithful that disagrees with the teaching of the Church falls into a special category starting with the letter 'h'. And thats a statement I'm certain every Orthodox Patriarch in the world would nod their head at.

Thank you, Myles. You gave me a well-needed dose of historical perspective.

No problem John I mean what would be the point of learning all this stuff if not to share it. Ecclessiastical History is an excellent subject and if you ever have the time you should really study it. Looking at the history of the Church enriches one's understanding of how it got to where it is today, and can act to give us hope in the midst of dark times. I mean I look back at the life of St Athanasius and I wonder what he must've felt like...sometimes...sitting in a hermitry in the desert his eyes intently fixed upon his See far away. The Christians of his time must've thought Constantine's ascendancy was a God send. The Council appeared to secure their faith and yet Constantine became Arian as did his sons and within a decade of Nicea the Church in all places was being torn apart. East and West Bishops like St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Ambrose were being oppressed by military power to try and shut them up for speaking Catholic truth. Some like St Cyril of Jerusalem (who may've been semi-arian at one time) even tried to simply flee from the controversy by throwing themselves into pastoral work and still the heretics came after them. There must've been moments in the life of St Basil when he feared for the future. It happens time and time again my friend. But just rememeber:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall never previal against it"--Mt 16:18

The powers, principalities and all the angels of Hell will never overcome it. Even the Apostles had to deal with gnostics. Satan has been trying to undermine the Christian community from the start. Yet rest assured, for the one who can speak no lie and who is Truth, has guaranteed victory.

Myles, the history of the Catholic Church in the United States is unique in the world.

Quebec in Canada was founded by French Catholics and had a strong Catholic culture until the 1960s. Latin America was evangelized by the Spanish and Portugese.

The United States was founded as a nation without a state church but one that inherited Great Britian's hostility to the Catholic Church. At that same time, Spanish-held areas such as Florida, Texas and California were evangelized but never as successfully as elsewhere in Latin America.

As long as Latin Catholics believed themselves to be persecuted against, we stuck together, built churches, schools, universities and hospitals. The Latin Catholic treatment of Eastern Catholics was as shabby as Protestant treatment of Latin Catholics.

When JFK was elected, the "bunker mentality" went away, Catholics went mainstream, and many bishops and priests tried to turn the Latin Church into another Protestant-type denomination. While surveys have shown a "drifting away" of many Catholics, this is more a phenomenon of certain regions of the US, not the country as a whole. Decades ago, there were few Catholics in Georgia. Not anymore. In Texas the largest church is the Catholic Church. Some of it is due to Latino immigration but some of it is due to the growth in the Sun Belt.

These experiences are new for us as Americans. This is still a young country. It was built by people of many faiths. Recently, mainline Protestantism has been ravaged by modernism to the point where it is a shell of itself. This is really not a good thing. Evangelicalism has been filling the gap, but not everyone who becomes an Evangelical/Fundamentalist remains one.

Through it all, the Churches of Apostolic Succession will survive. For the Schism to be healed, we must learn about each other and learn to love each other - and to forgive - as Christ would have us do. The Schism will be healed, of that I have no doubt, but it will be in God's time, not ours.