www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Bridge over troubled waters

What do you think about the Eastern Catholic Churches beeing a kind of bridge over the troubled waters thinking about the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?!?
Or are the Eastern Catholics simply the third way...

Eastern Catholic as a bridge? I doubt it.

I've only been Catholic since 4/2003 and I've been attending the Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Rite (Ruthenian parish) since 12/2004 ... and I have to say that since realizing my calling to the Eastern Rite ... I've never felt like more of a red-headed step-child.

I've felt more at home as an Roman Catholic with my family full of Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutheran relatives.

The Roman Catholics by and large don't even know that the EC churches exist. If they do know of the existence of the EC, they misunderstand them. I've been accused of no longer being Catholic for attending and EC Divine Liturgy.

It seems that the Orthodox consider us to be non-existant as well.

I think that it is unlikely that EC will be the bridge of which you speak. It is hard to be a bridge when no one can or will see you.

But that is just my weak, probably ill-informed and highly personal opinion.

Carole

Dear Friends,

Yes, so many think of EC's as being a pain in the ecumenical butt . . .

Soon, we EC's might start thinking that way too!

Hopefully not, though . . .

Alex

Dear Alex of the Great White North,

Is it not possible though that we can be that bridge? With the request from +Blessed John Paul II that the Eastern Catholic Churches return to original heritage (purging of the Latinizations), and the recent positive attitudes coming from Rome, could we not restore our Theology as a group, and more importantly, demonstrate that the UOCC (Ukranian Orthodox Catholic Church) can be fully independant and yet still remain in communion with Rome (not subservient though)?

If you believe, truly believe, anything can happen.

Michael

We are being honest here and the truth is if we are to have such a role we have some serious housekeeping to attend to first. Because if we are what union with the Pope looks like it not looking too go in some places right now. A quick reading for the documents of union between Kiev and Rome show quite clearly that both parties never stuck to it for very long. I also dont think there is terribly much knowledge of Orthodoxy in the Eastern Catholic camp either. Having said that I dont think judging from what I have read that Orthodoxy has any idea of the actual state of the various Eastern Rite Churches and the poor relationship between the 2 parties here may have something to do with this. I am confident that as the relationships between the parties improve and changes direction that new bridges will be built over the valleys that took so long to form.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear Michael,

If Rome truly believed we were that bridge, then Rome wouldn't act as if it were ashamed of us, as if it needed to keep us on a short jurisdictional leash, as if we were an embarassment to the Russian Orthodox Church.

But that's not the point. Rome seems to have bought into the "uniatism" argument and that is that.

Alex

Dont blame "Rome" for everything. More Uniatising has been done by Easterners to Easterns than was ever done at Rome's instruction in my view. Metropolitan Andrew was reported to Rome by his brother Greek Catholic bishops. Blessed Theodore had the same problem.
They were inclined to be too Eastern and thus suspect, by their own. It has been over 100 yrs of Popes telling the Eastern bishops to have faith in themselves that has fallen largely on deaf ears. 40 yrs after Vatican II the bishops are only NOW restoring baptism by imersion. Where have these bishops been!!! They are so RC is not funny. They have no idea what is expected of them and if it was not for the RC's telling them what is expected we would still be back there with mixed up liturgy etc etc.

Time for me to get of high horse and go for a good walk.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear Pavel,

Ah, but that is how Rome divides and conquers us after all!

Rome prefers EC's to do its own dirty work for it.

When Josef Slipyj pushed to have a patriarchate for the UGCC, Rome hit the roof.

But it sent two Ukrainian Basilian priests to the Hieroconfessor to tell him to "forget about it, old man."

As obedient servants of Rome, they went and did as they were told.

Rome at least did not have the gumption to tell Patriarch Slipyj itself.

This is truly the "uniate" mentality on the part of our own at its worst.

This is also why I strongly object to Orthodox using the term "uniate" when describing all EC's.

The Orthodox, forgive me, have no idea whatever what the "uniate" mentality truly is.

It is something that many EC's bemoan when they see it in their clergy and among the lay ranks.

It is pernicious and baffling.

Again, the Orthodox have no idea what it really is.

Alex

Dear Alex,
Might I be so bold as to request that you refrain from attributing surnames to Patriarchs? It's disrespectful to whatever Patriarch might be in question, and offensive to pious readers.

Incognitus

Please forgive my seemingly boundless ignorance, but why is it disrespectful to use their surname? And why is it offensive to pious readers?

Do they abandon their surnames when they become a Patriarch?

Again, please forgive my interruption. I hope I am not derailing the conversation too much.

Thank you,

Carole

Dear Incognitus,

I understand that - but when I'm talking church politics, anything goes!

And the press, including the RC press, use his surname quite regularly.

Many EC's use his surname, at least in my neck of the woods. And Orthodox don't care what we call our EC hierarchs . . .

But O.K. if you say so!

Alex

I dont agree Alex. In some eastern Churches changes are made to the liturgy. If 'Rome' was so keen on these uniatism, why does it's own Rome based publishers print such good quality texts that even Orthodox use them, keeping in the bits that others take out for fear of offending their own local Latins (at least thats their story). As I say for over 100 years popes have encouraged the eastern churches to get back to where they should be but what happened it that 100 yrs. Metropolitan Andrew was right on the money and did respond and started the ball rolling in the right direction. The diocese he stepped into was a mess. It was he who wore the white klobuk of a Metroplitan or the first time and tackled the liturgical mishmash and did a very good job (understatement).

As for the Patriarchal thing. There were and are many things at play there. The use of other channels is not unknown for communications but I suspect that there are many stories of what happened that not quiet correct. He was not referred to as the 'Ecclesiarch' by the Pope in reference to Patriarch Joseph after he had died for nothing.

It is too easy to blame Rome for all the ills when the cause is I suspect more often closer to home.

ICXC
NIKA

There is Russian orthodox church outside Russia.
Could we see ec churches as orthodox churches outside orthodoxy?!?