www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A Radical Proposal for Unity

Apotheoun

I don't know whether that is the case or not. I can say a couple of things from personal experience, which may or may not be reflective of some larger reality.

One is that I know a handful of people who come from Eastern Catholic families and/or traditions. All of them now attend Roman Catholic parishes. I don't know how common or widespread that is. In that case I think it points to what you're saying, although occurring through one might call the back door and not through an official change. It's essentially an organic absorption.

The other is I have been to services at a couple of Eastern Catholic Churches. They were certainly Eastern, but they were also clearly Catholic in a number of key ways; if presented with a theoretical choice between one side or the other, I have the feeling many would simply choose to remain on the Catholic side in whichever form that might take.

Fr. Deacon Robert

This is certainly a challenge, not least because neither church is like it was, and there are signifcant changes in governance that have come about that the two sides have participated with each other in.

Personally, I believe the hardest part to work out is not what happens in exceptional circumstances or in crisis situations, but how normal everyday governance works and what the stucture of a reconciled church would look like and how it would function. I have trouble believing anything but a very loose assocation is practical or desirable. One of the main challenges from my perspective is the Roman Curia, which didn't even exist as an institution during the first millenia which we take to be our model of a reconciled church. There have been several things I have run across which have led me to believe the current system would not work. One is this quote by the current Melkite Patriarch

Taken from this document [vatican.va] .

Another would be this post from about a year ago on the forum by Orthdox Catholic

Those are just a few examples. More recently what I have read about changes promulgated by the Oriental Congregation regarding the liturgy of the Ruthenian Church would simply add to my belief that inclusion of Orthodox Churches in to this system simply could not happen.

So while I agree that the first millenium is the model, I can't really say how that would work and as always the devil is in the details. Have concrete proposals been put forward on the Catholic side as to how this would work, or how the church would function (specifically how the West would relate to the East) if not bound the Curial system?

Andrew

I think an even MORE radical approach is one that I proposed awhile back. In that approach, we've got to stop thinking in terms of separate governing structures to the exclusion of some creative solutions to the situation we now find ourselves in. It seems to me we need to gather bishops together in given geographic areas to work out common problems and serve the People of God as they find them today.

Take Pittsburgh, for example. There we have a Latin, a Byzantine Catholic, a Greek Orthodox, and an OCA bishop all in the same city--not to mention the ACROD bishop a short distance away. It seems to me that they should form a synod of sorts and approach common problems: evangelization, missions, helping the poor, and speaking with a common voice when secular positions are voiced that are at odds with the Apostolic Faith. And even if the idea of a "synod" seems too radical, we need to do something even if it is informally. As a friend once said to me, "Separation is a luxury we cannot afford."

Take New York City as another example. Think about it: there are dozens of bishops there and many have parallel programs that duplicate effort and waste resources.

And even if we cannot, at present, share the Eucharist, we still need to meet regularly, get to know and love one another, and act in harmony in addressing the challenges of the culture.

None of this would preclude any bishop from also having bonds with his own greater jurisdiction, but it seems to me that the issue of having one bishop in one place simply doesn't work anymore and is a barrier to our thinking and acting as followers of Christ. Our unity in diversity can be expressed in new structures that serve the needs of this era and serve to strengthen the Church at the same time. At the same time, there does not have to be a complete reorganization of what already is.

We've got to get to the point where no one thinks of acting alone without inviting the rest of the family to any new initiatives under consideration.

In Christ Who calls us to witness to our love for one another,

BOB

I don't know about any specific proposals, but the points made by the Melkite Patriarch would be a good "jumping off" point.
As an aside, I think it is interesting that, a few years ago, in Eastern Churches Journal (edited by Fr. Serge Kelleher, a recent poster on this MB) it was pointed out that, at a recent Synod of Bishops in Rome, there had been a minor squabble pertaining to how Bishops would be seated. Some brilliant mind in the Curia had arranged for Cardinals (who are mere advisors to the Pope) to be seated in a spot which sent the message that they were in higher authority than the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs. I believe it was the Melkites who complained, and managed to get the Patriarchs seated in such a way as to indicate that they were in higher authority than Cardinals. While, to some, the story would appear to reflect childishness on the part of the subjects, it does give an indication that, in Rome, they know that this issue must be addressed. I am confident that Benedict XVI will come down on the side of traditional Patriarchal governance. I would be shocked if he didn't. The word I hear from contacts in Rome is that many visiting Orthodox Bishops had always made it a point to visit Benedict when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (because they respected him as a theologian), and that they saw his elevation as a good thing for Orthodoxy vis a vis the prospects of unity.


In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Theophan, I believe you have an excellent suggestion there along the lines of a local "synod" of hierarchs. While full communion may be a long way off, we should do all we can to further cooperation at every local level.

I'm still curious why some Eastern Catholics make their way to the Latin Rite while their spiritual home is to the East. It seems that if there isn't an Eastern Catholic Church available, the logical choice would be a local Orthodox Church and then a Roman Catholic church (as a last resort).

The Eastern Orthodox bishops in the US belong to SCOBA. Do the various Eastern Catholic jurisdictions have anything comparable? If not, why not?

I agree with BOB and that the Apostolic Bishops of major cities should be getting together and working out differences and solving problems.

I also agree that the curial system is outdated and that the Cardinals do not rank higher than the Patriarchs.

I still think that there is a way to "bring down" the powers of the Pope as it were and "boost" the powers of the Patriarchs and still not ruffle anyone's feathers and bring unity. I don't think that this is an unworkable problem. Humility is required for all who want to tackle this issue.

Finally, I want to write that all of the various different types of ECs and EOs should be brought together under one system of Bishops and not have different jurisdictions; ie OCA, GO, ACROD, etc... and UGCC, BC, Romanians. Obviously if there are different Liturgical "Rites" (no one get mad, I don't know what else to write) then the jurisdictions should be separate like the Maronites and the UGCC for example.

Hi,

Sorry it's taking me a while to answer your question -- actually, I haven't been online at all since Thurs, so I'm just now reading what's been posted here over the weekend.

I'm not familiar with Archbishop Quinn's writings, are they any good? I've found a lecture he gave 10 years ago. I'll post some more thoughts once I've read it. (Do you have a link to the document you read?)

God bless,
Peter.

Dear Sea Knight,

Your original question is certainly a challenge to the EC Churches.

One problem is that different EC Churches experience different relations with both Rome and Orthodoxy, relations that are also impacted by historical circumstances.

The UGCC situation is a case in point. As you know, this Church, as well as the Byzantine-Ruthenian and other East European EC Churches, have produced martyrs for loyalty to Rome.

For these Churches to become Orthodox (i.e. leave communion with Rome) would, in the first instance, involve a rejection of what these martyrs stood for and died for. That is not going to happen any time soon! When Patriarch Joseph had difficulties with Rome over the patriarchate, there were Ukrainian Catholic leaders who suggested to him that he leave communion with Rome. He said, "No."

In addition, the EC Churches have, in a number of cases, become "our Church," especially among western Ukrainians and the like. The persecution of this Church by, shall we say, historical national enemies, have only solidified the position of the specifically Eastern Catholic Churches among them.

So much so, that "EC" Church is largely a North American construct. It is never known as such by the people but only by the ethno-cultural name "Ukrainian Catholic" and the like.

To leave communion with Rome and become Orthodox, even if it meant to form part of a canonical, autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, would still be seen as a form of treason.

The Latin practices that persist among the UGCC, in Ukraine especially, are more like "visible walls of defence" against "Orthodoxization" that the people interpret as going hand-in-hand with Russification.

This is why, as I've been told too many times by visitors from Ukraine, especially priests and their presbyteras, that there are many parishes where, when the words "all you Orthodox Christians" are recited, parishioners there squint and otherwise make a sour face. We have such up here and I've still to discover who it is who crosses out these words in our new copies of the Divine Lturgy booklets!

This same situation, however, is NOT repeated in the Melkite orbit and has no application there.

As a matter of fact, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall even one Melkite martyr for union with Rome (is there?).

And when Rome's theologians who engage in ecumenical talks with the Orthodox come out and apologise for the Unia etc., the reaction from EC's reading about them is predictable - How dare you! - just about sums it up.

In addition, I don't believe that the return of the EC's to Orthodoxy will help bring Catholicism and Orthodoxy any closer.

There are Orthodox who understand EC's and have little or no problem with us. I know a number and am privileged to work with them. When they come to my home, we eat the same Chinese food and, truth be told, we even forget that we are out of communion with one another, so great a time we have in each other's company!

The ones who do have a problem with us are usually Western converts to Orthodoxy who object to us on theological/ideological grounds or because our existence somehow gnaws at issues they have with the traditions they've left behind and which they have yet to completely resolve.

No, the issues that really divide Catholicism and Orthodoxy are issues neither side would yet like to look at and discuss.

For example, Fr. Thomas Hopko's presentation on another thread about what Rome needs to do as a kind of prelude to unity with Orthodoxy - I've discussed some of these with Orthodox priests I know and they expressed some shock at the issues Fr. Hopkos has raised that they themselves never thought were points of contention.

For my part, although no one asked me, Fr. Hopko's comments on Purgatory surely cannot be general to world Orthodoxy, can they? If they were taken literally, it would seem that he is somehow pulling the theological rug, so to speak, from under the Eastern theology of prayer for the dead. Or it could be that I'm too Latinized on the subject to say anything valid about it.

In any event, unity is something that is best left to Church Councils which is where it would have to be ironed out.

Most of what separates us, I would dare say, has more to do with sociology than with theology.

When we can all sit down together for some good Chinese food and North American discussion, then I think we have achieved more than many ecumenical commissions!

Alex

I think more realistic ideal would be for those two Churches (Catholic & Orthodox) to refrain from issuing automatic excommunication if one wishes to join to another Church.

(i.e. A Catholic wouldn't suffer excommunication if he/she wishes to join Orthodox Church and vice-versa).

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear spDundas,

Actually, this is a good point!

But I would be less afraid of ecclesial censure and more of what my relatives and community would say about me, if I changed Churches.

That kind of "excommunication" is the most painful and one that cannot be changed by episcopal decree.

Alex

To put it within a larger context, I would consider three questions that Catholics can, and do, disagree on:

(1) Which church councils were local and which were ecumenical?
(2) Which papal statements were ex cathedra?
(3) Which truths of the faith are dogmas?

These are all appropriate topics for intra-Catholic dialogue, but in all three cases the dialogue is, I would say, sadly underdeveloped. This is especially true in the case of question (3) � so much so that I�m not sure we can even say there is a dialogue.

On the other hand, I believe it is question (3) which is most in need intra-Catholic dialogue, particularly on the question of whether UOJ is a dogma or not. Hopefully we will see some advancement on this score once the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue resumes this fall.

Thoughts (just speculations really) on this dialogue �

For one thing, a certain amount of explaining/educating the public would be needed to avoid certain misconceptions to which Catholics would be prone. For example, it would have to be made clear that those Catholics who believe that UOJ has never been defined as a dogma are not denying the infallibility of the pope (much less denying the infallibility of the church) since they aren�t contradicting any ex cathedra statement. Also that, even if UOJ isn�t a dogma, it must nevertheless be believed in by all Catholics. (Note that a number of non-dogmatic beliefs are currently required for full communion with Rome, such as the invalidity of Anglican orders.)

That's all for now. God bless,
Peter.

I'm not really sure how to judge him, but when I asked someone a while in a different fora what the issues were with collegiality internally within the RCC I was pointed to this - The Claims of the Primacy and the Costly Call to Unity [ewtn.com] .

Andrew

Andrew,

Thanks for suggesting that document. I think it�s a very good discussion of intra-Catholic dialogue on the primacy, but it isn�t comprehensive. In particular, he seems to focus mostly on western points of view, and thus draws little distinction between the pope�s role with respect to the church universal and his role as head of the Latin Church.
Then there�s also Cardinal O�Connor�s point:
This, of course, ties in to my original point (that the question of whether UOJ is true is a matter for dialogue between Catholics and those of �other Christian persuasion�, but the question of whether it is a dogma is a matter for dialogue among Catholics).

And, of course, that no one is suggesting that something that was once a dogma could later be �un-dogmatized� (since the question is actually whether UOJ was ever a dogma at all).

how about an evening better proposal!...all the byzantine Catholics of north america unite to one jurisdiction. just my opinion! hehe

In response to Theophan, it would be interesting to see how everyone is working together already.
Anyone have any examples?