www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Fr. Constantin Simon, SJ, vice-rector of POI, joins ROC

Dear Griego,

You raise a critically important point re: schism.

How can Rome (or yourself in the first instance here) maintain that Orthodox are not schismatics and yet affirm that someone, albeit a Jesuit of the Eastern Rite (descended from Eastern Europeans as you say) has "gone into schism" because he became Orthodox?

I've spent years reading about Catholic_Orthodox relations and how Rome and Catholic theologians speak about the Orthodox.

The word "schism" is not in their vocabulary.

If, at day's end, to join Orthodoxy is to go into schism - then isn't Rome's ecumenism with the Orthodox and all that it has said to date ... a farce?

Alex

Technically, if Fr. Constantin was Roman he would be "in schism" according to the Latin Code of Canon Law. As an Easterner under the CCEO, however, he is not in schism, as the CCEO has no recognizable 'formal act of schism'. Perhaps apostasy, but joining Orthodoxy is hardly that.

A question that came to my mind - did Fr. Constantin join the UOC-MP, if not, why not?

The closest thing to "schism" in CCEO, I've found in this instance is:


Canon 976

1. One is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself: (1) who has lost the clerical state; (2) who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the

Catholic Church; (3) a cleric who has attempted marriage even if

only civilly. 2. The removal from office referred to in 1,

nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

Excellent points and references!

But why would an EC who became Orthodox not be in schism, but a Latin Catholic (who believes in the same "deposit of faith") who became Orthodox would be considered to have gone into schism?

Is there not a double standard here?

Again, my reference is the very ecumenical attitude of Rome toward Orthodoxy - even to the point of being practically apologetic for Rome's historical "unias" which is universally now seen as being Rome's violation of Orthodox territory.

Is Rome not being hypocritical here?

Alex

I suppose it is because ECs are supposed to believe everything the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox believe; Latins would have to reject a lot of theological speculations and scholastic understandings which while not formally of the "deposit of faith", certainly do hinge that deposit within the Latin context.

??

The fourth vow of the Jesuits is, "I further promise a special obedience to the souvereign pontiff in regard to the missions, according to the same Apostolic Letters and the Constitutions."

Furthermore, not all Jesuits priests make this vow. There are two categories of Jesuit priests those that make this fourth vow and those that make the ordinary vows of any religious (called "spirtual coadjutors.")

The interview states that his mother's family is Ruthenian.


There are a number of kinds of Catholic educational institutions and a number of different levels of approval needed. To teach on a pontifical faculty, like that of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, one ordinarily needs a nihil obstat from the Holy See.

Dear Michael,

In fact, EC's accept, and are obliged to accept everything every other Catholic, of whatever Particular Church or Rite, accepts.

EC's can and do couch things in an Eastern way and they may drop the Filioque etc.

But in reality everything the Latins believe, we believe - whether overtly or not.

If we don't, why aren't we Orthodox? And to be in communion with Rome, from mainstream Orthodoxy's POV, would mean we are in communion with an excommunicated and heretical body . . .

Them's the facts . . .

Alex

Dear JBenedict,

Yes, thank you. I was only making a broad - and somewhat -comical - reference to the Jesuit vow of old (which our Basilians adopted, or were made to adopt).

The Jesuits have always had a special obedience to the Holy See and this is why when a Jesuit, with all his special training and education, decides to reject Rome - well, it does come as a shock to many.

Alex

"Nihil Obstat" can be interpreted widely however. As it is the Pontifical Oriental Institute where many Orthodox have taken their doctorates etc., there should be no reason why someone with such wide scholastic experience in the study of the Eastern Churches should be prevented from continuing his teaching there.

Alex

Just a couple of observations ...

Actually, while it appears that Father Constantin was raised in the UGCC, there is no clear indication in the articles that his father was a Hungarian Greek versus Latin Catholic, only that his mother was Ukrainian Greek-Catholic. So, the choice to raise him as Eastern, rather than as a Latin (the Church to which he'd have been ascribed based on paternal lineage, if his Dad was Latin) would have been a conscious one made by his parents.

I'd also note that he appears to have been accepted into the Society via it's Oriental Province post-ordination, as there is nothing to suggest that he was a member at ordination or by his first Divine Liturgy. Clergy in attendance at that Liturgy included then-Monsignor, later Metropolitan Archbishop, Stephen (Sulyk), Archimandrite Viktor Posposhil and Melkite Archimandrite Jim King, both of blessed memory. However, there do not appear to have been any members of the Society in attendance, which would have been most unusual, particularly since there were Oriental Province Jesuits at least as close as NYC, only 30 miles away.

Many years,

Neil

Addendum:


Here, I think there isn't any question that he's using 'Ruthenian' as descriptive of the liturgical rescension to which both the Byzantine (Ruthenian) and Ukrainian Churches belong. St Mary's, his 'home parish', was and is UGCC. St Elias Byzantine is also in Carteret and some 40 years older than St Mary's, but it was apparently not the parish with which his family affiliated.

Re the highlighted portion, I'd prefer to say "are supposed to" rather than the strict "are obliged to" (not to split hairs). Regardless I think what you saying greatly needs to be said, especially because many Latin (or CAF) Catholics seem to view ECism as a kind of ghetto.

I am sorry for being presumptuous.

An example: As an Oriental, am I "obliged" to accept the best expression of Christ's nature is duophysitism? I accept it isn't heretical and not Nestorian, although bordering on Nestorianism. I firmly believe the best expression of Christology is miaphysitism.

Im not sure if you're asking anyone or one person, but I would say: no, and neither are GCs or LCs.

Key word, in my mind, is almost complete. I would disagree that the Catholic perspective is that Orthodoxy is the true Church. If that were the case, why insist so much on the Roman primacy and not just drop the Papal claims?

I do agree that the Orthodox are true particular Churches but, from Rome's view, they lack communion with Rome.

So from that perspective, I can see why the POV would not want a former Catholic priest, now Orthodox priest, to teach at a Pontifical College (in Rome none the less). I also don't think it would be an ecumenical nightmare from the Orthodox point of view.