Seeking an End to the ‘Scandalous Disunity’ Between East and West

Robert Moynihan was inspired by St. John Paul II to create the Urbi et Orbi Foundation.

by VICTOR GAETAN
National Catholic Register
01/29/2015

[Linked Image]
Robert Moynihan, founder of the Urbi et Orbi Foundation and editor in chief of Inside the Vatican magazine.

Robert Moynihan, Ph.D., founded the Urbi et Orbi Foundation two years ago to deepen relationships between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. He is also editor in chief of Inside the Vatican, a magazine he founded in 1993, and has provided commentary on the Church for many media outlets, including CNN and Fox News. Moynihan divides his time between Rome and Annapolis, Md.

Register correspondent Victor Gaetan interviewed Moynihan during a recent foundation-sponsored retreat in Washington, D.C., attended by Catholic and Orthodox clergy and laypeople, including representatives from Rome, Ukraine and Russia.



You have been working toward the creation of this foundation for 15 years, especially timely now with tensions growing between Ukraine and Russia, between Ukrainian Byzantine-rite Catholics and Orthodox. What inspired you?

I was deeply influenced by St. John Paul II, who spoke of the need for Christianity to “breathe with two lungs,” meaning East and West, Constantinople and Rome, Orthodox and Catholic. At the center of John Paul’s hope was overcoming differences between East and West with the hope of eventual reunion.

Even in the 1980s as a graduate student at Yale, I felt this scandalous disunity should end. My adviser, Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, the great historian of the development of Christian doctrine, an ordained Lutheran pastor who became Greek Orthodox at the end of his life, told me this explicitly. He said if this schism were not overcome, Western Christianity would not have sufficient strength and depth to withstand the new, modernizing culture we call “post-Christian secular humanism.” We needed to join forces.



When was the first time you went to Russia?

In December of 1999. I traveled to St. Petersburg, then Moscow, to attend a ceremony of re-consecration of the Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. The cathedral had been closed for decades. The communists built three floors of offices in the nave.

During the 1990s, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz restored the cathedral. The day of the re-consecration, I went into the sacristy and saw Cardinal Angelo Sodano, John Paul’s secretary of state at the time. I realized John Paul would not have sent Sodano if this were not an important, symbolic event. And I began to reflect on the Fatima prophecy, the Blessed Mary’s reference to the consecration and eventual “conversion” of Russia.

What would it mean if this very secular, militantly atheistic society rediscovered its Christian roots? The question fascinated me.

The Russian Orthodox Church also sent two representatives to the consecration. I met Archimandrite Hilarion Alfeyev, a young composer, 33, and a young layman, Igor Vyzhanov, who later became a prominent priest in the Russian Orthodox Church.

By chance, they were sitting next to me during the Mass of re-consecration. Later, we spoke at some length.

It became clear to me that, despite the decades and centuries of suspicion and distrust between our Churches, it might be possible to make friends with the Orthodox. Today, Metropolitan Hilarion serves as the Russian Orthodox “foreign minister,” in effect, and Father Igor is in Naples, Italy, after serving for some years in Moscow, then in Rome, in key roles for relations between our two Churches.

So, clearly, we do have the heavy burden of history, a terrible burden, but I think we must try to overcome it.



Since then, you’ve been to Russia 15 times, developing successful collaborations. I understand you played a role arranging the return of the Icon of Kazan.

I visited the city of Kazan in 2000 and heard a fascinating story of a precious 16th-century icon, a wonder-working icon, of Mary and the Child Jesus. The Czar also heard of the miracles brought about by the icon, and said, “Bring this icon to Moscow.” And it was brought. And, over the centuries, a cathedral was built to house it. Whenever the Russians were in dire straits, the Czar would call for the icon, and pray before it. In 1918, the Bolsheviks broke into the Basilica and stole it to sell, supposedly for the Revolution. And in 2000, after the fall of communism, the people in Kazan wanted to get the icon back. I said I would look into it.

Back in Rome, I told the story to a group of friends. Standing with us was Jesus Colina who founded Zenit news agency. He said, “I know where it is,” and pointed to the apostolic palace. “The icon is in the pope’s apartment.” Apparently, the icon had been bought by a British nobleman, then, in the 1960s, sold to the Blue Army of our Lady of Fatima, which put it in a small chapel at Fatima where it stayed during 1970s and 1980s. After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Pope John Paul II ordered the nuncio of Portugal to request the icon be brought to Rome. And it was brought to his apartment in 1992.

So I went and talked to the pope’s secretary. We ended up in the pope’s study and I saw the icon. The face of Our Lady was splendidly beautiful. I felt she was speaking to me. The secretary said, “Mary is saying that she wants to return to Russia, but we aren’t sure how.” The pope had wanted to deliver the icon personally, but it was not looking likely. The secretary said, “You do all you can do, try to make contact to see if there is a channel.” So I went to Russia and I started talking to officials I had known for two or three years in the External Affairs Department. It was 2001, 2002, and 2003.

At one point an Orthodox bishop, Bishop Mark, said, “We know all about the icon, we don’t want it to come. We believe it is a forgery, not authentic, and we aren’t interested.” He opened the door, and I took a few steps out, then he called me back. He said, “Sit down again. We do care, very much. But we can’t beg for it. It is against our sense of dignity to beg for the icon from Rome. If they give it to us freely and generously, we would be generous in return, but we can’t exchange a papal visit for the icon.”

I visited Pope John Paul II’s secretary and told him the story. He said, “Trust is difficult. We have so often been in tension with the Russians and we sense they are competing, not cooperating, with us.” But in the end, John Paul II decided to give the icon of Kazan freely to the Russians. It was entrusted to Cardinal Kasper and in August of 2004, he carried back to Moscow and handed it to Patriarch Alexey II. It was then transferred to Kazan.



Pope Benedict continued the dialogue with the Orthodox Church. How did your work proceed under his papacy?

Pope Benedict is a theologian, interested in the theological issues dividing the Churches. St. John Paul II was more of a philosopher, interested in human dignity and anthropology. He had confronted the Soviet Union. Benedict is more receptive in some ways to the way the Catholic and Orthodox Church must work together to confront secularism.

Soon after Benedict was elected, Metropolitan Hilarion contacted me to say he thought we needed a “strategic alliance” between the Churches, despite the theological issues still dividing us. “Let’s concentrate on ideas around values and morality,” he said, “and make this the basis for better relations.” I agreed with him, and put it into Inside the Vatican. Thinking about this idea, I was part of a group that went to Turkey when Pope Benedict went in 2006 to see Patriarch Bartholomew. Witnessing their embrace, I felt my path was being directed, that I could assist in some small way.

The next night, an email came from Hilarion, who was then posted in Vienna. He said he had been driving his car toward Budapest and started hearing melodies in his head. He described how he rapidly completed a composition and wrote, “I want to offer it as a sign of mutual love of Christ. Would you be willing to present it in March 2007, just before Easter in Rome?” Working with his best friend, Alexi Puzakov, a choral director in Moscow, we secured the very last night available in the March 2007 calendar at the Santa Cecilia Auditorium near St. Peter’s Square. I didn’t have enough money in the account of the magazine, so I put a deposit down for the hall on a personal credit card. And the concert, Hilarion’s Passion According to St. Matthew, was magnificent.



Yet Metropolitan Hilarion has said he thinks Greek Catholics in Ukraine are promoting war in Ukraine. How do you see the crisis in Ukraine?

I am sorry for the loss of even one life in Ukraine. The situation has grown more tense and worrisome with each passing month. The United States and Russia had no direct confrontation of this type during the Soviet time, and in the past 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, it seemed that we were increasingly collaborating, meeting, talking, working together. We even now depend on the Russians for the rockets, which bring astronauts to the international space station. Yet events in Ukraine have now brought us to the brink of war. There are already economic sanctions, already soldiers are engaged and dying, and the threat of an escalation is very real.

The situation in Ukraine is enormously complex. It involves national aspirations, ethnic tensions, linguistic rivalries, and all of this right on the border of Russia, in a country which Russia regards as intimately connected with her own history.

What is happening is literally a tragedy. During the 20th century, powerful ideological movements, like Nazism and communism, emerged and came to dominate large sections of the earth. But in our own lifetimes, as recently as 1945 and 1991, these ideologies disappeared.

Many thought, after 1991, that Christians and the Christian faith could flourish, that Eastern and Western Christians could flourish together. But what has happened? In the West, not a religious renewal, but an increasing “de-Christianization.”

The Christian garments that clothed our culture have been rejected and removed in public life, in education, in media, in the universities. It is a rejection of the historical Christ and the Church, but also of the Hellenistic idea of logos, of reason, as Pope Benedict repeatedly warned; and in the East, in Russia.



The Russian Orthodox today and President Putin make reference to Alexander Solzhenitsyn and say, like Solzhenitsyn, they are defending Russia against “Western secular aggression.”

Well, that’s the point. Yes, I heard Solzhenitsyn deliver the Harvard commencement in 1978. I was there that day. Part of his message was disappointment with the West. He felt we had all the freedom and opportunity to seek the deepest things in life, but instead we went after the glitter, the superficial, the made-up, the shallow.

Solzhenitsyn told us that he was saddened by what he found in the West, when he hoped for so much, and I felt that deeply. I felt that whatever there was of the “ancient West,” whatever there was that our forefathers fought for when they fought for freedom but also for faith, still needed to be fought for. I was moved by what Solzhenitsyn said that day.

In the East, in Russia, the Russians have had a different path to travel. This is not the place to try to explain or interpret all of Russian history, with its authoritarianism, its tsars, its anarchists, its vast spaces. Suffice it to say that the Russians passed through decades of Bolshevism, after 1918. And the Soviet regime created a philosophy of life and politics in which the individual and the Church, the Christian faith, were viewed in a much different way than in the West. All that came to an abrupt end in 1990, but it left its mark.

So what am I trying to say? I am saying that, reflecting on Solzhenitsyn, reflecting on the Soviet experience, and reflecting on the end of the Soviet Union, I came to believe that we in the West might learn something from the East. That was the point.

I went to the East to learn something from the East. Even today, I think the Byzantine tradition, the Russian and Greek traditions of Christian faith, tempered and tested by all sorts of historical vicissitudes, can teach us very much.

But the Ukraine crisis complicates all this. And part of the complication is that the basic facts are quite difficult to apprehend.

For instance, there is no doubt that President Viktor Yanukovych was extremely corrupt. That seems clear. Change was necessary. Even Putin made some joking remarks about this fact, before Maidan Square became violent. I think Yanukovych had more than $1 billion squirreled away abroad. So his hands were not clean.

But then, what suddenly replaced him was a government that is also very imperfect, and Ukraine, with its ethnic tensions and the linguistic tensions between eastern Ukraine, where Russian is spoken, and the rest of the country, with the complexity of the country’s history — this complex situation cries out for thoughtful negotiation, not bloodshed.



Americans are told this is all Russia’s fault. The Russian Orthodox Church is also blamed, indirectly. From your experiences in Russia, do you think the Russian Orthodox Church is a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

You’ve asked two different questions: Is Russia to blame for what is happening in Ukraine, and is the Russian Orthodox Church simply a manifestation of aggressive nationalism. I would say No, and No.

What is happening in Ukraine is not entirely due to Russia. There is plenty of blame to go around. And the Russian Orthodox Church is not simply a tool of the Russian state. No. It is a real Church.

In Russia, I have met many believers who, in the past, gave up their personal advantage to hold to the Orthodox faith. And they still seek to do the honest thing, the good thing, to be fair. They are quick to say that human beings are sinful and they are aware that even members of their Church can be sinful. Of course. But the fact that Russians remember Jesus Christ after 2,000 years and after 70 years of atheism — this matters. It is a moving witness of faith. And the fact that some Christians use the faith as a protective cloak for mafia-like dealings, or that people use the cloak of the moral code to engage in profitable political and economic activity, does not invalidate the witness of the Russian Orthodox. Such false believers, or sinful believers, are present everywhere.

So, what is the “bottom line”? It is this: that I believe that the Russian believers, Russian Orthodox believers, have preserved and borne witness to a profoundly Christian understanding of the human predicament, to the fact that human beings must be oriented to the eternal if they are to achieve a certain measure of earthly happiness and social justice. Human beings need this orientation toward the eternal, in the sense of Christ’s words that “man does not live by bread alone…” And this orientation is presented in Russia and defended in Russia by the Orthodox Church, as entrusted to that Church 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ.

I know there are some Catholics who believe, with Western (and Russian) secularists, that the Orthodox faith is a nationalist faith and not an authentic, deeply held faith, merely a form of national identity. This is certainly the position of many secular critics of the Russian Church. But this position does not take into account the sanctity of Christian life in so many families and so many individuals in Russia.



In Ukraine, how do you read the tension between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, based largely in the West, and the Russian Orthodox Church?

I shake my head in sadness. My birthday is Nov. 12, the Feast Day of St. Josaphat, an Eastern-rite bishop in the late 1500s and early 1600s who spent his life trying to reconcile the Orthodox Church with Rome. His vision and work led to his death. The Orthodox killed him.

We are all suffering from the effects of many sins committed centuries ago. Once the unity of Christians was broken, it was certain that it could only be restored by heroism and sacrifice. We all recognize the profound wounds Christianity has suffered due to the actions of believers on both sides — mutual excommunications, the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians in 1204, the use of faith for political purposes so many times over the centuries.

We are, all of us in history, on a Via Dolorosa, a path with the wounds of the past centuries on our backs and in our faces, the slaps, the spitting, the whippings, the executions.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholics were a persecuted Church, illegal under communism after 1946. It was legalized again in the early 1990s. And members of this Church -– our Church, because they are Catholics — were very active in the Maidan protests.

Most of the Catholics in Ukraine celebrate according to the Byzantine liturgy, and belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. They represent, from the Catholic perspective, a sign of the possible unity of Eastern liturgy and Petrine office.

But as long as the rest of the Orthodox world is not prepared to accept unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of Peter, then these Byzantine-rite Catholics, might seem like a provocation. And that is the position the Russian Orthodox have taken.

So what do I think should be done? Not to denounce and condemn. No. How will that lead to anything good? We need to talk. Maybe is some way to find an unexpected solution. And this is the underlying goal of everything I’ve done: to meet together, Catholics and Orthodox, to attend a concert together, to think about the human effort that goes into expressing beauty and faith.

Perhaps we could put that same effort into creating a certain friendship between our divided Churches. I’ve always thought full reunion would only occur far in the future. But this simply persuaded me all the more of the necessity now to create personal friendships and connections so that, over time, over decades, perhaps unity might be reached.



The Ukrainian-Russian conflict has extended to the Catholic-Orthodox relationship as seen in the escalating rhetoric between two charismatic, profound believers, and young leaders of their respective churches: Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of the ROC and Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. You know them both. What would you do to alleviate what could be misunderstandings?

I am not sure. Perhaps we could bring them together under circumstances where a conversation might occur. I can imagine inviting them both to Rome or to Washington, so that they could meet and talk, listen to music, pray, walk in a place like Rock Creek Park together with people like you. Then talk more, pray more, and thus allow their faith to join with reason. Perhaps that seems too unrealistic. But sometimes only “on the way,” as it was for the disciples on the road to Emmaus, can we see Christ.



When you look at recent history, where did this clash between the U.S. and Russia come from?

A few years ago, President Bush met with Vladimir Putin, looked into his eyes and said he could see his soul, that he was a good man. That was not that long ago. … And there was a moment, it was in March of 2012, when President Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Dmitri Medvedev he could be “more flexible” after his re-election.

In those cases, it did not seem the two countries would slide toward confrontation. And in recent years in America you could go into an ice cream shop in many cities and the girl or boy scooping ice cream was from Russia. So I’d say that for 23 of the last 24 years, it seemed the U.S. and Russia could be close friends. Was that all for show?

What happened, apparently, is that Putin during the past decade began to consolidate a certain authority or power in Russia that turned this relationship toward conflict. But it isn’t clear where the blame lies, precisely. Was it due to Russian paranoia or was it due to Western actions, as Patrick Buchanan has argued, extending the NATO border closer and closer to Russia, despite pledges not to do so?

We have to ask, in any case, what is the reason for this ratcheting up of war in Ukraine, in whose interest is it? Is it what Russia wants, or what the U.S. wants?

There is something odd in this entire situation. It is as if people have suffered complete amnesia. Two years ago, Russia was preparing to host the Olympics. The world was no longer in two camps. Now, a war is escalating, the ruble has crashed, Putin is depicted as the new Hitler.

The pieces on the chessboard are in place. The world’s financial markets are extended to the extreme. The U.S. debt is colossal. The EU is monetizing its debt. The Swiss just detached from the Euro. Ukraine’s national finances are in total disarray, near bankruptcy.

In such a troubled economic situation, political events can often be motivated by hidden economic reasons. But whatever the deep reasons for these political tensions, for these battles in eastern Ukraine, for these accusations and counter-accusations, there ought to be a way to call a halt to the escalating madness and create the basis for a concert of countries to work together. But such a result does not seem to be in the cards. Rather, there seems to be a drive toward war.



Is there any hope Pope Francis could step in?

I think the Pope is concerned about all of these matters. I believe he is informed about the tragic situation, the corruption, the shootings in Maidan Square, the desire for peace of ordinary people, and I think he would like to meet with people of the stature of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, a man Putin would listen to.

Being religious leaders, not political leaders, if the Pope and Kirill could get together, there might be an “off ramp” from Armageddon. I think it might be possible, through the grace of God, perhaps with help from Pope Francis. I still hope the drums of war will not lead to a devastating direct conflict, something we avoided throughout the entire Cold War.



Do you expect the Holy Father will do something, make a surprising move, regarding Ukraine?

I know it is a subject being evaluated by Vatican diplomacy daily, and they are aware of all of these elements. Pope Francis is not going to be easily tricked or fall into some easy PR ploy from either side. He is aware political regimes can become oppressive; he experienced that himself in Argentina. He also knows revolutionary regimes — and Ukraine is looking like an example of revolution — become infatuated with their own rhetoric.

Pope Francis deeply loves the “little people” who are rolled over by the tanks of the powerful. If he can find a way to do something more dramatic than anything he has done up until now, he’ll do it.

Victor Gaetan is an international correspondent

and a contributor to Foreign Affairs magazine.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ity-between-east-and-west/#ixzz3QEakL6mr

Wow. I suspect that the views of the Mr. Moynahan are NOT being saluted in certain quarters of the Catholic Church....

Or of the Russian Orthodox Church either . . .

His views on both ecclesial and secular politics are predictable - extremely naive.

His referral to the UGCC Primate as an "Archbishop" says much.

As for national identity and nationalism in the Eastern Churches - he is quite out to lunch.

Alex

I think it is strange how people like this, loyal and seemingly thoughtful Catholics, often use the popes as a screen upon which to project their wishes.

Very thoughtful and insightful, Mark!

Alex

I get Moynihan's e-mail newsletter. He seems very difficult to figure out.

I might need to read the interview again, but I definitely noticed that a couple parts of it (particularly the phrase "But as long as the rest of the Orthodox world is not prepared to accept unity with the Pope of Rome ..." and the part about
) strike a different tone from the rest of it.

Dear Peter,

One UGCC priest I knew struck this tone regarding St Josaphat: "The Orthodox killed him because he got so far under their skin . . . "

In addition, the Orthodox have their Martyr in the person of the Venerable Martyr St Athanasius of Brest (+1648). For defending the Orthodox against forced "conversion" to the Union, he was tortured for several days to get him to join the Union and then, when he steadfastly refused, he was taken into the woods and forced to dig his own grave. Then he was shot twice and was buried alive (this is known from the state of his body when it was recovered).

And because Eastern Catholics began to venerate St Athanasius for standing up to the RC's, the feastday of St Josaphat was established on September 16th, two days before St Athanasius' FD on Sept. 18th (to reduce the number of EC pilgrims to his shrine at Brest).

Moynihan is really out of his depths and in such a case he should just have remained quiet . . .

Alex

You bring up an often forgotten point. The Lemkos, Galicians and Rusyns (which include today's Ukrainians and American Byzantine Catholcis and Slovak Greek Catholics in Slovakia) who were brought into union with Rome for the most part did not have a harmonious relationship with the Roman hierarchy. At the village level clergy might get along, but not at the Chancery level. Much as the local folk put their trust in say the Empress Maria Teresa or their faith in the 'little father (i.e. the Tsar), they did not have similar feelings towards those below the imperial level. Likewise, they were extremely loyal to the Pope, as in if only the Holy Father knew....And unlike today where the pope can not be isolated by his Court and staff from daily reality due to the internet, it is quite plausible to believe that the Popes never heard of the issues with Father Toth in America and others in other parts of the world.

Great points, from you both, thank you.

> Seeking an End to the ‘Scandalous Disunity’ Between East and West

What if there were a conference for those who complain about scandalous disunity, and those who complain about scandalous unity, to meet and explain their thinking to each other?

Well and good at face value but it dead-ends, because the Catholic and Orthodox sides (when the latter bother to talk to us) have true-church claims, which are not negotiable. Them, when they're being ecumenical (many of them hate ecumenism): "Sure, we can recognize your sacraments. Now just dump your doctrine for the past thousand years and come into the true church." Us: "Our doctrine defends the core beliefs you and we share (God, Christ, Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, the Mass, and the option of images). We recognize your sacraments. Come home." They don't recognize our post-schism saints. We recognize theirs. Talking to Anglicans dead-ends for another reason: when they sound like they're agreeing with us, it's only an opinion to them. (Rather like how some Orthodox recognize our sacraments but others, legitimate in Orthodoxy, don't.)

Good points, DMD, about Rusyn and Galician Catholics' love of the Pope, and how, before the age of instant communication, he probably had no idea how Fr. Toth was being treated.

I don't think I project onto the Pope. Like for other Catholics for centuries, to me he's a distant figure whose name the priest whispers in the Canon at Mass and to whom I send Peter's Pence (money collected for charities of his choice) once a year. This or that Pope's personality have nothing to do with my faith. Francis seems a lovable goof at heart; not a great Pope but under a firm bishop he'd make a wonderful parish priest. He's very Italian. I don't think he's particularly interested in East/West talks.

I accept the church's decision on St. Josaphat; beyond that, the jury's out on my opinion.

Dear Fogey,

What do you mean by "option of images?" You mean Catholics and Orthodox can "opt out" of venerating images? Is that what the Seventh Ecumenical Council taught?

As for "True Church claims," is it unreasonable to accept that Rome makes allowance for a definite flexibility and variety in terms of how the Apostolic faith can be expressed without peeling away the essentials? To what extent are the Western additions to the faith of the first millennium an expression of specifically Latin theological colouring intended to simply amplify, within the Latin perspective, what the once united Church has always taught? Is this not what Pope Benedict XVI has alluded to in the past?

Also, one could see Russian Orthodox exhibiting the characteristics you describe - but is this necessarily the way all Russian Orthodox behave and especially Greek and Oriental Orthodox?

Are you coming down very hard on the Orthodox in a way that Rome itself (through the eyes of whichever Pope you like) would reject today?

I don't understand your statement that you accept the Church's decision on St Josaphat but the jury is out etc.

So, as a Catholic, you don't like the idea that St Josaphat is a canonized Saint? Is that your meaning? As for the "jury" - which jury and what is that jury to deliberate on - what is your meaning?

Alex

Yes. For example, outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in the Christian East the Nestorians often don't, coming from a tradition older than their use. Likewise the Armenians use images sparingly, most unlike the Orthodox. Neither bans images: I believe that is the right approach. The church could make a rule requiring their use but that's cultural, like making Eastern ordinands in Western countries be celibate; trying to make cultural stuff like that a universal norm can be a mistake.

Of course not. As you probably know, that's what the church teaches and I believe. As I like to say, everything in church polity except the papacy and the episcopate is negotiable. How the papacy operates partly falls under that.

Depends. Sometimes that's true. See me above. Much is negotiable; the basis really for Catholic/Orthodox and other Eastern talks. But the church and I won't dismiss our defined doctrine as cultural "accidents" (in the Aristotelian/scholastic sense).

For the purposes of the discussion I think I fairly covered them all, from those who think we're graceless (no real bishops, etc.) to those who recognize our sacraments and just want us to drop all our second-millennium doctrine and join them.

No. With the church past and present I say the Orthodox have bishops and the Mass; all of their few definitions of doctrine are true (that set of core beliefs we share that I named earlier). But there is only one church.

Personally I'm fine with him being a canonized saint as well as accepting the church's decision on that. I was just trying to be fair by conceding to his critics that he may not have been a nice guy. I don't know. Saints weren't perfect in this life.

What, that's not ecumenism?

Dear Fogey,

Thank you for your various clarifications!

As I understand the Faith and how the seventh Ecumenical Council defined the veneration of images, we CANNOT opt out of their veneration for that would be an attack on the Incarnation of God in Christ (which is why the Council defined it to begin with). As to how many icons etc., that is up to the local and Particular Churches, of course, and also to local monastic traditions. So I take your meaning but I think "opt out" in the sense of "not venerating at all" would be mistaken.

A Greek Orthodox monastery on Mt Athos has initiated an ecumenical experiment there by inviting some Assyrian monks to an abandoned monastery. They are still there but are seeking other premises simply because the plethora of icons is distracting to them . . .

The Nestorians/Assyrians do venerate the icons of the Cross, relics etc. That they didn't formerly have a developed iconography was due more to their iconoclastic enemies than to their ecclesial traditions. The more numerous Chaldeans and also those Assyrians who came into communion with Russian Orthodoxy do indeed have icons etc. I have visited our Assyrian parishes in my area and they have, in fact, introduced both icons and Latin statues.

(Also,, the term "Nestorian" by which we mean the heresy of Nestorianism is no longer applicable to the Church of the East given that they reject the idea of "two Persons" in Christ and also that their Patriarch has signed a Christological agreement with Rome.)

Your reference to the Orthodox Church's "few definitions" of doctrine SEEMS to contradict what you said earlier re: negotiability.

The fact that the Orthodox East doesn't accept the West's Latin theological dogmas and constructs does not, of course, mean they reject their "substance" even more broadly defined.

The West, for example, does not have the beautiful "lex orandi" liturgical tradition of the East wherein there are points of theology that, while not dogmatically affirmed, are nevertheless part of the Faith as we consent to the "lex orandi, lex credendi" principle. In the absence of that, I could see why the West would want to define the Most Holy Virgin Mary's total holiness and her Assumption to heaven. But this is what the East has always affirmed via its lex orandi liturgical tradition. Also, and as a result, the East never had theological disputes about Mary's sinlessness stemming from the Augustinian view of Original Sin etc. that the West had. Within that context of disagreement, it was inevitable that the West would move to dogmatically definte the two later Marian dogmas. This is but one example.

There is, to be sure, only one Church. But there are, by Latin theological a priori's, different levels of incorporation into it. The Orthodox Church is, from Rome's POV, the most incorporated, save the Papacy issue. As for Rome's later doctrines, stemming from its Latin, scholastic milieu, Rome could, as one possibility, simply affirm that what the Orthodox Church believes about the Trinity, Mariology, Eschatology etc. is the same as what it believes, although using different approaches. That the Papacy itself would need to be re-assessed in this context is also something that would have to be opened. Until such time, real unity is a closed issue.

In addition, the debate over the exercise of the Petrine Ministry today is something which the EC Churches would participate in as Churches like the UGCC want to have the same Particular rights they had before the Union (e.g. the right to glorify their own saints).

Your point on St Josaphat is well taken. He was, unfortunately, someone who was, after his death, used and abused by RC authorities, including UGCC authorities, to promote the Union of Brest. He remains a popular saint within the UGCC and very unpopular in other circles, as you know.

But there are voices within Ukrainian Orthodoxy, here and there, which indicate he is no longer the "dushekhvat" or "soul-snatcher" of previous generations. It is better not to poison the atmosphere by bringing him up in an ecumenical discussion, however . . .

Alex

What are you winking at?

Alex

Oh, just making sure nobody would think that my "What, that's not ecumenism?" was serious.

I'm not as well-read but I still disagree. A Catholic must believe that images are an option, that other Catholics who use them aren't worshipping idols. To force their use on everybody? Again, the church can make rules like that but they're not doctrine and would be a mistake. If one tried to byzantinize the Nestorians, for example, one would lose credibility complaining about latinization, for example. (Again, I hold that mother church offers both the unlatinized and latinized forms of the Byzantine Rite, which is great.)


No. Of course the church agrees that the first seven councils are true.


I'm all for expressing Catholic doctrine in Byzantine terms but won't throw out our doctrine. As for the other side, again, their doctrine is our doctrine. Their opinion, on the other hand, can and often does reject our substance.

Well put but the Catholic Church and I won't discard our doctrine. Two words to refute the idea that the West doesn't understand lex orandi: Tridentine Mass, the true analogue of the Byzantine and other Eastern liturgies.

The most incorporated while remaining outside indeed. As I say, born Orthodox are estranged Catholics.

The rest sounds a lot like what we teach: what Byzantine Christians who are good Catholics affirm, but without denying any doctrine.

That depends. Much is negotiable but the infallibility of his office as a subset of church infallibility is not.

Fine with me.

There have been very nice ecumenical Orthodox I can imagine sounding like that; from the Ukrainians, the late Archbishop Vsevolod, one of the nicest men I've met. They're eirenical and I appreciate that, but we've got the battle of the true-church claims. One side must surrender and join the other. Our mission as Catholics is to walk the talk, showing the Orthodox that to be Catholic is NOT to lose their customs. That includes making up for the times we haven't lived up to that (Cum Data Fuerit). I doubt anybody on this forum disagrees with me on that.

Peter - you rock!

And I'm very serious . . .

Alex

Dear Fogey,

Absolutely - no one would disagree with you on that.

Just a minor thing about your comment re: images. The Assyrians do indeed venerate images, even though they don't have the same iconographic tradition of the Byzantine East or Western statues. Ancient Assyrian churches do indeed have icons of their saints and teachers painted/written on the walls (I once found one with a depiction of Nestorius himself - as the tour guide, himself a professor of Assyrian antiquity, indicated).

But, yes, the seventh Council did in fact affirm the veneration of images which would mean no Christian may opt out of that practice - just as no Christian/Catholic may opt out of believing the later Marian dogmas and the like. The "how" and "how much" are indeed left up to individual Christians and Particular Churches.

Also, I would never assert that the West doesn't understand lex orandi (if I gave that impression, I apologise). It is just that the Byzantine liturgical hymnography is so highly developed with such integral theological nuances that what the West has been led to define dogmatically is contained implicitly in that Eastern hymnography. The East feels less of an impulse to define what is not explicitly and directly attacked from without, especially by heresy.

Alex

Alex, I don't take issue with most of what Fogey posted nor with the general context of your response, but I am surprised that this one sentence did not catch your attention: " One side must surrender and join the other. "

Such a sentiment is contrary to ALL of the work done over the past half century by the ongoing bilateral Dialogues among the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and in North America at least the Eastern Catholics as well as the expressed statements of the Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople during said period.

I realize that such reflects the opinions of many on both 'sides' of the divide, but it does not reflect the opinion of those involved in the process.

Dear DMD,

Yes, indeed . . .

I myself wouldn't put it that way, but others will and do!

The Rev. Fr. Professor John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) addressed this very issue a few times in some of his articles dealing with East-West unity.

You and Fogey have put your finger on what is probably THE most important issue to be resolved before East and West could ever reunify, that being, who will be seen to have been "right all along?"

If Orthodoxy should admit to a doctrine of papal infallibility, however it might be defined, as well as of papal jurisdiction - does that mean Orthodoxy has capitulated to Rome?

Conversely, if Rome removes the Filioque from the Creed and is ever able to say that what Orthodoxy believes now and what the united Church believed in the first thousand years is the sum of the Catholic Faith, later Latin additions be darned - does this mean that Rome has capitulated to Orthodoxy?

I do think that Fogey has expressed the ultimate crux of the problem of reunification - even after everything can be agreed on.

Some theological writers I read in university even went so far as to suggest that ideally when reunion occurs, both sides will exhibit a certain degree of self-satisfaction that their side "won out" when, in reality, both sides would have had to have constructed a new ecclesial paradigm that transcends the ones we have had since the Great Schism.

For me personally, the "true Church" does exist and it subsists in BOTH the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (including the Miaphysite and Assyrian Churches and the "High Churches" of the West). Both have the Apostolic Faith, true Sacraments/Mysteries, true Episcopacy which have produced true Saints on all sides. But the true Church is in schism, both sides being responsible for it.

While Rome continues to exercise her Primacy - the fact is that "Primacy" in the East is not the absolute thing it is in the West. The Orthodox East has its own Primate, although its focus is on Christ as the Head of the Church (which is also that of the Western Church).

I am with my UGCC. And Rome has apologised to the Orthodox for having had a hand in creating the UGCC in 1596 and later. This is confusing to me. Ultimately, the goal is not the maintenance of the UGCC against all odds, but a Particular and canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its Patriarch in Kyiv and in communion with the entire Church, including the Roman papacy and the Eastern patriarchs.

And there is nothing that Rome can teach my Church about Triadology, Eschatology, Mariology (Theotokology) etc. that we don't already believe or matain on the very best Apostolic authority of the early Church.

For the EC Churches, I believe, unity is not about faith matters but about a reintegration with our Mother Churches from which we came and their ultimate reintegration, as well as that of Rome, within a reunified, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don't know what the Catholic church and Fogey would say about any of this. One thing I do know is that I wouldn't move away from these conclusions despite it.



Alex

If my experience is anything to go by, I would say that quite a lot of Catholic bloggers think exactly as you do.

"One side must surrender and join the other." Sure, it's blunt, but that's what a true-church claim means.

Again, according to our teachings, "capitulating to Rome" wouldn't mean the Orthodox would give up their customs. How and why the Greek Catholic churches exist. I admit their self-latinization makes it seem not so, but again both that and the unlatinized forms are good; the Greek Catholics who have been doing it for centuries have rights. The unlatinized Greek Catholics need support, lest they be misunderstood.

Yes. No to that.

So they don't believe either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true church? Can't imagine a Pope or an Orthodox bishop making that statement.

Liberal ecumenism right after Vatican II sounded like that; then the Catholic liberals thought they'd work with the Protestants to build a new church. Again, no to that.

Almost Catholic and not Orthodox. There's our teaching on valid orders: basic credal orthodoxy, apostolic succession, and the truth about the Eucharist, a way the Orthodox et al. are connected to us that the Protestants (including the Anglicans) aren't. They have the Mass.

All "subsists in" from Vatican II means is, same as before, Orthodox and the other historic Eastern churches have bishops and the Mass, and Protestants have baptism, while the church "in its fullness" is the Catholic Church.

The world desperately needs more Western-Rite Orthodox ( ) if for no other reason than to finally -- finally -- stop Catholic "apologists" from endlessly trotting out the See? Greek Catholics prove that the Orthodox should join the Roman Communion! theme.

Dear Fogey,

Yes, but you omit the very important matter of the life of Grace that, according to Vatican II as well, can and does exist among non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians even with what little they do have.

It is what we do with what we have that determines our standing before God and our life in Christ in the first instance.

In terms of Western non-Roman Communions, there is the Polish National Catholic Church and also those Anglican priests and bishops who do have valid orders through ordination/consecration involving Churches, like the Assyrian, who either participated in their consecration, often on the principle of economia.

Alex

Dear Peter,

Generally speaking, the historic unias were often achieved by less than good methods from within a context of Roman triumphalism which simply does not obtain today. The official policy of Rome is that reunion with the Orthodox East will never be achieved along those same lines and Rome has been very apologetic to the Orthodox (usually the Moscow Patriarchate) for the "Uniates" of today.

Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, especially in Eastern Europe, was achieved primarily under pressure from their Roman Catholic neighbours who were also, at the time, the EC's political masters. Latinization was a way in which to get EC's to become not only Roman Catholic but also more pliant subjects of the RC kingdoms.

Conversely, when the Russian Orthodox Tsarist forces invaded those same lands, they initiated movements for "Easternization" which, at the same time, meant "Russification" - usually beginning with the removal of the Filioque. The same occurred with the Soviets in 1946 who forcibly "reunited" the UGCC with its "Mother Church" the ROC. This is why keeping the Filioque is so important in a number of UGCC circles - its removal is, to them, an expression of that imposed Russification via the ROC.

The Russian Orthodox hierarchs were just so very surprised that the UGCC had survived so many years under the Soviet anvil and, beginning in 1991, that so many Ukrainian clerics who were trained by the MP and ordained by the MP were now singing "Many Years" to the Pope of Rome and in their faces.

But none of this had ANYTHING to do with faith matters, canonicity etc. It had everything to do with politics, nationalism and culture.

Western Orthodoxy seems to have failed completely everywhere except in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. There are Western Orthodox Christians, of both the Roman and Anglican traditions, who are very serious about their commitment to Orthodoxy and who, in the case of the former, bring to it some very strong resentments. But if you meet a convert who doesn't do this, please let me know immediately!

Happily, the future of Catholic-Orthodox reunion does not rest with those Catholic trad bloggers you mention. The problem with many such Catholic Trads is that they really have zero knowledge of and experience with Eastern Catholicism, let alone Orthodoxy.

They should get out more . . .

Alex

'Tis a scary world, out there, though!

Maybe we're trying to say the same thing here. Again I hold that the church teaches that a Catholic may not condemn the use of images, calling it idolatrous. "How and how much" seems to mean the same thing as "the option of using images."

If you really think the Catholic Church is only "the Roman Communion" and that the Orthodox shouldn't be in it, then you're in but not of the church. "The Roman Communion": takes me back to my Anglican origins. "The Rrrrromans." Part snobbery, part "hey, we're Catholic too."

Western Orthodoxy is small because despite the Orthodox' doctrine being as universal in its claims as ours, in their hearts the Orthodox don't want it. It's small, many new communities are pressured into switching to Byzantine, and even those who don't switch have byzantinized themselves. To be Orthodox is to be Byzantine, just as it would be if the Orthodox came back to the church. Some say Western Orthodoxy's failure is a backhanded recognition of us. In a way you can say the same of small experimental Greek Catholic communities such as the Greek and the Russian: God's plan is to bring the real churches of Greece and Russia back to the church, not have us set up imitations. So in a way I understand the modern ecumenists' no to "Uniatism." We passively accept conversions from the Orthodox (as Fr. Serge Keleher told me, "quietly"); we don't solicit them. And that's fine.

That was understood from "the Orthodox have all the sacraments" and "the Protestants have some sacraments."

The PNCC has all the sacraments; the church doesn't recognize the Anglicans' "Dutch touch" claim, which the ELCA Lutherans now share. Makes the Christian East's point about orders being in the church being at least as important as a claim to apostolic succession.

Answering Alex's long post: "Sort of."

The Ukrainians were under some duress (harassed by the Poles); other groups have come into the church on their own, and don't forget how big the Ukrainian Catholic Church originally was. In the beginning, it included most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. As you note, westward tsarist expansion shrank it.

My understanding of the 1800s Easternizers in that region from reading Cyril Korolevsky's Metropolitan Andrew (translated by Keleher) is that it wasn't so much a Russian plot (although coercing the people to become Orthodox was meant to serve the Russian state, just like when Stalin did it in Galicia and Ruthenia right after WWII) but rather like many Greek Catholic converts we've seen online the past 20 years. Men like Siemaszko, a priest, tried to be good unlatinized Greek Catholics, were massively opposed in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, got fed up and 'doxed, which made the naysayers say "See? He wasn't a good Catholic after all."

When I bring up the true-church claims, it isn't just to promote Catholicism but, believe it or not, out of respect for what Orthodoxy teaches about itself.

I object to the painting-by-numbers caricature of Catholic trads. Educated ones knew about the Christian East and what the church teaches about it. Plus, after Vatican II, there's been an "ecumenism of the trenches" as conservative Roman Riters have found either a refuge or a new home, depending on what the person is called to, in Eastern Catholic parishes. For example, my first traditional Catholic liturgy, 30 years ago, was Ukrainian.

You're changing the subject a bit, though I can't really object since this is what it boils down to isn't it: we can endlessly say "The Catholic Church is only us." and they can endlessly respond "No the Catholic Church is only us." But I like to think that that isn't the sum total of the dialogue between us.

Dear Fogey,

First of all, let me say that it is just GREAT to have you here leading this forum debate with your articulate comments and insights! Reminds one of the good old days on this forum!

My comment about Catholic trads was a general one aimed at some online trads (and I was one a forum with a lot of them at one point) who demonstrated their "innocence" of Eastern Church anything. Certainly, there were and are educated/intelligent traditionalist RC's who are very conversant with the EC Churches. But even these would have views about the EC traditions which would be coloured by a certain Roman triumphalism in some cases.

For other Latin Trads, EC Churches were never "Churches" at all (and because Vatican II affirmed their Particular character, this made the whole enterprise extremely suspect in their eyes). Instead, they talked about Eastern Rites, giving the impression that EC's were Roman Catholics with a specific set of exterior rituals and liturgical traditions - that is all. For Latin Trads, "One Church" meant the old RC view that suggested the entire world was one great Diocese with the Pope as its Primatial Bishop.

Those Latin Trads who came into the EC Churches after the liturgical changes in the West, did so for reasons that were not all good. Nor was there impact on the life of the local EC parish all that good either.

Just when the EC Churches, and especially the UGCC, were "coming into their own" and claiming their Particular rights, the Latin Trads saw the EC's as "ritual allies" who maintained not only the same Catholic Faith, but, and this is where the problems crept in, the Latin mode of expressing it.

When it came to the Latin Trads that I've come into contact with at the EC parish level, they weren't about to let EC's "get conned" by the new Vatican II theology/ecclesiology - not realizing the distinction between what Vatican II taught (and it did accept a lot of Eastern theological terminology) and what was always the authentic theological/canonical/liturgical expression of the East.

It came as a great surprise to them that EC's were, for the most part, actually breathing a sigh of relief with the exit of what was formerly a suffocating, Roman ecclesial monolith.

Prior to Vatican II, the idea that Rome had always accepted the "Eastern rites" as equal to the Latin Rite was, of course, nonsense. I've EC trebnyks and other liturgical books published in the 19th century which include telling prescripts. In one Trebnyk from 1893, there is a section that says that while EC's may always approach Communion in an RC Church - not so for RC's (sic).

Even before that, two local RC synods in Eastern Europe (written up by the Ukrainian Basilian author Fr. Ireney Nazarko in his book "Kyivan and Galician Metropolitans") established rules that forbade Latin Catholics from ever adopting "corrupting" Eastern practices from the EC's. One synod mentioned by Nazarko even went so far to say the Eastern Catholics/Uniates were "worse than the Orthodox" because of their local influence on, for example, Latin seminarians who were seen to adopt certain Eastern practices, including beards and long-sleeved cassocks (not to mention, horrors, three-bar Crosses!).

Roman Catholic bishops in Europe demonstrated throughout the post World War II period that they had no qualms about not only "Latinizing" the EC immigrants but, in reality, seriously attempting to integrate them within the RC Church.

In the book about Bl. New Hieromartyr Basil Velichkovsky C.Ss.R. that our Redemptorists published, Bl. Basil mentioins several instances of RC bishops telling him that the "Holy Father is making a grave mistake by trying to spread the Unia" since the Uniates continue with their "schismatic rituals" (meaning the three-fingered Sign of the Cross etc.).

However, that is all from the perspective of a specific group of Latin Trads (a priest I know has done a great job of integrating his large group of Latin Trad parishioners and turned them into real Ukrainian "nationalist" as he says :)). They have learned to sing the Divine Liturgy in Ukrainian as well . . . Latin, Ukrainian - what's the difference?

As for Ukrainian Catholic historiography - it is not without its problems, the main one being that it tends to be highly uncritical of its own view of itself. And when there are Ukrainian Catholics of a highly Eastern perspective who venture to critique traditional UGCC histories today, such as one theologian whose critique I translated for publication, they are often set upon by UGCC "Trads" who regardd them as "traitors" which, from the UGCC perspective, means they are both disloyal to Rome AND pro-Russian - which is, of course, nonsense.

For certain, if not all, Latin Trads who came into the UGCC, the way politics and culture were intertwined with religion was beyond their comprehension and/or appreciation. It is for many within the UGCC as well. Again, I'm not saying trying to characterize all Latin Trads, only those who entered our parishes in this eparchy. It is a view based on observation and experience over forty years and I've done sociological papers on this in university as well.

As for Father Keleher (+ memory eternal!), even though he was an ardent Irish nationalist who theoretically understood the relation between religion and politics/culture, he became a very controversial figure in our eparchy when he was here.

Yes, he was a Russian Greek-Catholic, who had returned to Rome after a dalliance with Orthodoxy. Our eparch, Bishop Isidore Borecky (+ memory eternal!) appreciated him very much and learned much from him about Eastern traditions - as did I and many others. But he was truly and unfortunately "persona non grata" in the eparchy as felt by many. I am very sad about that history, he was treated unjustly. I am very happy that someone of strong Ukrainian as well as Greek Catholic roots as my late father were very warm towards him, always insisting that he stay longer at our house for coffee and cake when he wanted to leave earlier, perhaps because he felt uncomfortable thinking that "any time now" someone was going to say something to him.

I think I'll now go and say an akathist for the reposed for him or something.

Alex

I really hope that theologian is not Mikola Krokash, that you state is being refused ordination by his bishop. It is a pathetic shame, if this is the case due to his speaking the truth. The man is a PhD in Eastern Theology, our Churches could use more like him.

Alex:

Christ is in our midst!!

I had a discussion about this sort of thing with my spiritual father not long ago. His opinion was that those who pass up God-given gifts should be very wary because there will come a day when Someone will ask why. On the other hand, he ought to think of himself as being delivered from the hands of such a small-minded individual.

It seems to me, in general terms, that one only gets to be a bishop if he represents the most extreme positions in his Church. One who has a more nuanced view of things or who speaks the truth to authority is not likely to be asked to join the ranks--whether bishop or one of his delegates.

Bob

Yes sir, Dr Mykola Krokosh indeed! It is obvious our Churches can use more astute individuals like yourself too!

Alex

Dear Bob,

Very well said and you bring up an excellent point. I don't know if Dr Krokosh can be said to represent an extreme view (quite possibly).

The UGCC has always had all kinds of views on all manner of subjects in the past e.g. the Epiclesis. There are those who deny it has any direct role in the Eucharistic Canon, those who say it plays the entire role and those who are in-between.

I don't know. Alex

The bishop may well be persecuting Dr. Krokash but is this subject really appropriate for a Christian forum? Seems to slide into gossip. I don't know the bishop or this gentleman. It seems if he is being treated unfairly, this Internet talk would make it worse.

Anyway, sorry to blow this thread farther from its topic, but while I understand that the ignorant, rude Latin trad is a favorite stock character here, it's never been my experience, particularly knowing Slavic Greek Catholics in person 20-30 years ago. I've found them friendly and "chill," only going as far as nicely correcting you if you call them Russian or Orthodox.

I've also known Roman Rite refugees as well as those who've made Byzantium their home, both at ethnic latinized parishes and ones that are very Orthodox (often run by priests trained literally in Rome); none has tried to impose. For example, I've met former SSPX parishioners at an "Orthodox" parish that is a local conservative Catholic magnet.

My guess is you're more likely to find hyperdox hermans in training, the kind of newbie convert fresh from reading Ware, Schmemann, et al., who maybe wants to be a good unlatinized Greek Catholic but 1) like many newbies is tactless and overdoes it, since it's not natural to him (yet) and 2) is massively opposed by the born ethnic members both for historical/cultural reasons (they chose exile over state-pushed Orthodoxy, so their latinizations are dear to them; to them it's part of their being Catholic) and because of 1). The person usually gets fed up and leaves, becoming a real hyperdox herman online for at least a couple of years before settling down or burning out. A type you see disproportionately online; probably rare in the real world but they're out there. I'll concede the same can be true of unpleasant trads.

Anyway, the online sport of putting down trads makes one seem snobbish, that one's churchgoing is a hobby: the few, the cool, the Byzantine; the great unwashed "Romans" can keep their distance. Rather like Orthodox anti-Westernism. Never my experience of born Eastern Catholics in real life.

I read in [i]Metropolitan Andrew[/i] that once there was no literal intercommunion between the Roman Rite and the Eastern ones; unity was only at the top as the patriarchs and Ukrainian major archbishop answered to Rome. (I'm fine with the Ukrainian one being a patriarch; just using his official title here.) If I recall rightly, Sheptytsky had to get permission to commune his Roman Rite parents at his first Mass and couldn't even use the Byzantine hosts he consecrated, giving them Roman Rite ones from a Roman Rite Mass.

Christ is in our midst!!

I have to agree with The young fogey here. If this thread is to continue, it must move back to its original topic. Otherwise it will be closed.

Bob
Moderator

Dear Fogey,

I fear you've misunderstood my comments completely as it was not my intention to engage in any online sport attacking traditionalnist Roman Catholics.

From my vantage point, two things: First, to be "critical" is not the same as "to criticize" in a negative way. Secondly, my comments drew on my own experiences (which present a partial and personal perspective limited to my own eparchy) and on EC historical commentary on "monolithic Rome" in the past.

If I came across as wanting to negatively criticize for the sake of such, I apologise to you and to anyone else I have offended.

I withdraw myself from this thread to avoid further offense.

Thank you for the privilege of conversing with you here.

Alex

Alex:

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you missed fogey's point. I don't think it was necessary to mention the gentleman who may or may not be having trouble with his bishop. Mentioning a story or problem on the internet is like carving a piece of granite--it's there forever and can be found by anyone looking for it.

That's why so many people get into trouble with their job searches--they think that things don't get found by employers, banks, credit agencies, and others who use the material they find to make employment, lending, and other decisions.

May I suggest that we leave personal stories out of these threads if they can harm someone. It's one thing if the gentleman had brought up his own story and decried his treatment, but it's quite another when we can harm another who may not want his problems aired.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Point taken!

In fact, this fellow's story is well publicized on the Ukrainian language internet including criticisms of his views and criticisms of me for being associated with him.

So that ship has has sailed quite a while ago.

(And I did get Fogey's point, but should have explained myself.)

Too bad I messed up so terribly - was actually enjoying this discussion! Now I'm afraid to participate for fear of screwing up again.

I'll take the advice of a colleague here and bow out for a while!

All the best!

Alex

And I've happily and proudly never considered myself a convert to Catholicism, but simply translated. I have maintained all my essential Orthodoxy as a Catholic.

Blessings

Dear Marduk,

I've never considered you as a convert either!

Cheers, Alex

+1.

Alex:

It's not necessary to bow out. I was suggesting a step back to take a second look before pushing "submit."

Bob

As you say, Mr. Moderator, I submit in more ways than one.

Alex

I apologize, it was me that brought up the name of the person. It is disheartening to me to hear such things occur so often. It's as if all this talk of "authentic Tradition" and such is merely window dressing. Which brings us back to the original topic.

Perhaps some disunity is not as much scandal as "unity" like that.

I don't want to get much involved with that topic, but I think I should say a word because my comment about "my experience [with] quite a lot of Catholic bloggers" seems to have brought it on. (My personal experience is more with "neo-conservative" Catholic bloggers, but I'm guessing some have more experience with trad-types. You perhaps, Alex?)

Also, calling the Catholic Church "the Roman Communion" to object to the intractability of our true-church claim (vs. Orthodoxy's?) is unfair because our claim is more inclusive than Orthodoxy's. As part of our doctrine, we partially recognize the other side: they have bishops and the Mass. Not so of the Orthodox. The ecumenical ones are allowed to recognize our sacraments, but the anti-ecumenical ones are allowed not to.

Actually I don't think the Catholic Church makes that claim any longer--at least as exclusively as in th epast--since Vatican II called us to expand our vision of what the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed means. In fact, I believe that the ecumenical approach taht we are called to asks us to look at our brethren as somehow part of us already and to look at Truth as Christ and not our own parochial vision.

We must take a more global view and get outside the strictures of history--or as St. John Paul II said, we must purify our historical memories, which I take to mean that we must see the good in our brothers and sisters and put aside the negative that we have carried for so long. No one in the history of the Church is without fault. On the other hand, it does no one--least of all us--any good to carry the weight of our predecsssors' negativity with us into the future.

Bob

I think we still make the one-true-church claim ... but we recognize that it isn't necessary to repeat it a thousand times at every step of the dialogue.

Likewise, I think we are less rigid than we use to be vis a vis the idea of having, if you will, a copyright on names like "Catholic" or "Orthodox". (And thank goodness! I find it utterly ridiculous to hear names like "Eastern Schismatics", "the Vatican Religious Organization", etc being used, or to listen to the endless back and forth "We're the Catholic Church ... No we're the Catholic Church ... No we're the Catholic Church ... No we're the Catholic Church" etc.)

All of the ancient apostolic churches (except the modern Nestorians, probably because of Anglican influence) claim this. The classic conservative Anglicans sort of do too, saying they're the best for being both "Catholic," claiming to have bishops and having a sort of liturgy and vesture, and "reformed." As do confessional Lutherans, holding that both we and other Protestants are in grave error. Again I think Catholicism's claim both makes the most sense and is the most generous (we don't claim that the non-Catholic Eastern churches are graceless).