www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Motu Proprio: Can Eastern Catholics be bridges after all?

Re the (in)famous Motu Proprio, Father Abbot Nicholas and I were discussing how it might relate to Eastern Catholics. One idea that struck us was that there is a tremendous opportunity here for Easterners if we choose to avail ourselves of it.

Clearly the Catholics of the Latin Rite remains deeply divided over many aspects of their liturgical heritage. This delicately nuanced papal initiative is one of the most significant official acknowledgments of the division imaginable. These divisions will certainly not be healed by this document; if anything, it merely sheds greater light on them.

Ironically, just when the idea has been discarded that Eastern Catholics might be a "bridge" between the Catholic and Orthodox communions, it seems that that tired old metaphor might take on new life within the Catholic Church. So many of those divisive liturgical issues--formality versus informality in worship, public prayer versus private devotions, clerical leadership versus popular participation and so on--are ones we approach in the East from very different perspectives. Perhaps, if only they become more aware of this perspective, Latin Catholics might begin to find ways of truly resolving their differences.

Of course there are two conditions to this. First, we Easterners must actually be true to our own traditional perspectives. Second, Westerners must have access to our authentic worship and spirituality. By access, I do not mean just physical access. We must be truly accessible on every level: welcoming, charitable, comprehensible as well as genuinely traditional.

What do others think?

In Christ

Hieromonk Maximos
Holy Resurrection Monastery
www.hrmonline.org [hrmonline.org]

Who could object?

Fr. Serge

Fathers, your blessing.

I also share your view that the Moto Proprio is an opportunity for both east and west. I've said elsewhere here that it is a calling to us to be authentic to our own worship. As you know, many of the Eastern Catholic parishes cater to traditionally-minded Latin Catholics. What they desire is the traditional Latin Mass, and now they have the opportunity to have it. Instead of viewing this as a loss, I see it as a gained opportunity.

We have the opportunity right now to return to our traditions. We have the people calling for it, we have the diminished numbers making change easier, we have the traditional Latins now taken care of within their own jurisdiction, we still have little publicity meaning our changes can be done quietly, the Vatican is engaged in public higher-level talks with the Orthodox making our reclamation of our Eastern faith a positive for all sides, and we have been encouraged to regain what is rightfully ours. Now is the time for us to act!

On another thread here, we have discussed the possibility of forming a Byzantine Village. (I believe the previous rendition had the monastery located some distance from the main village and overlooking a lake. If you have any modifications, please let us know! ) The importance of living the fullness of the liturgical life of the church was stressed as a basic need to make such a venture a success. I believe the same thing is true for our Church as a whole as well as for our communion of Churches.

Before the Eastern Catholics can form any kind of bridge between the differing camps in the Latin Church, there must be a bridge between Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics. As a person who lives in both camps (I am an extermely orthodox Latin Catholic but I also attend a Ruthenian Catholic Church once a month and help to run the Youth group at this parish) I find that there is a huge gulf between many in the East and West. There are number of problems with regard to this matter that I enumerate below:
1) Moderninsm in the Western Church
2) Liturgical Chaos in the west (something both traditional latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics want to distance themselves from).
3) Ignorance in the west of Eastern/Oriental Catholicism in general.
4) Eastern Catholics who profess Eastern Orthodoxy rather than an Eastern articulation of orthodox Catholicism.
I think number four is a biggie. Those of Latins who are orthodox/traditional know that the Church cannot profess two different faiths. Although there are many good and Holy Eastern Catholics, such as those at Our Lady of Perpetual Help here in Albuquerque, there many that I have encountered here on the internet who do not hold to the Catholic faith. They deny papal infalliblity, the existence of purgatory, the immacualte conception, many of the Ecumenical councils, etc. Until this is resolved in the East, most orthodox Latin Catholics will see the East as highly suspect. In which case, the East will not be able to heal the problems in the West.

I remember at an Orientale Lumen Conference several years back his Beatitude Patriarch Gregory made precisely that suggestion! In fact his suggestion was for a formal dialogue between the Latin Church and ourselves.

The rest of your post reinforces the need for such a dialogue precisely by its implication that Eastern Catholicism is simply another "articulation" of "orthodox catholicism." I would rather think that "catholicism" (note, the "ism") is simply an articulation of the orthodox faith rather than the other way around.

I wonder whether your encounters with Eastern Catholics are really with people who deny the faith statements you enumerate, or who are simply have no use for such concepts within their own theological and liturgical tradition. I am one such!

The classic cases are purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. I would not deny them, I would simply say that they rely on concepts that are foreign to my theological and liturgical tradition. Faith in the sinlessness and unique status of the Mother of God is what we share; the notion of the need to pray for the dead who are undergoing the trials of the next life is another shared belief. This shared faith is witnessed by our mutual liturgical traditions. Why make it more complicated than this? Forgive me, but it seems to me the only motivation would be a misplaced desire for conformity in dogmatic formulations and the oppressive (and decidedly un-Catholic!) mental lockstep this will cause.

I would say this even applies to the notion of papal infallibility. Why impose a Latin authoritarianism on Churches who continue to demonstrate that their internal, liturgical, ascetical and fraternal resources are more than sufficient to fight back the waves of heresies?

In Christ,

Hieromonk Maximos
Holy Resurrection Monastery
www.hrmonline.org [hrmonline.org]

Here is a great article on the subject of this discussion:

�Overcoming the Schism,� Chicago, May 8-10, 1998


THE SCHISM: GROUNDS FOR DIVISION, GROUNDS FOR UNITY

"A LATIN'S LAMENTATION OVER GENNADIOS SCHOLARIOS"

Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem.

This article shows that East and West are not foreign but in fact complimentary--how could it be otherwise? The world, however, is opposed to this common faith which we share. Fr. Barbour writes:


By liturgical authenticity, and intellectual honesty, we can enjoy real communion. Eastern Catholics have a unique role to play in bringing forth this communion.

http://www.balkanstudies.org/1998/barber.htm

PS - What is most interesting to see is the praise that Gennadios (anti-Latin zealot) bestows on Thomas Aquinas:

As ONE, holy, catholic, and apostilic church, we must profess one faith and two.

The problem here is that they have failed to recognize that it's no longer possible to talk about a single expression of Christianity (the Latin Rite).

The differences in discipline, practice, liturgy, even faith between the Latin Traditionalists and those who follow the Modern Church are as wide as those between Latins and Byzantines for example or probably even wider.

The elements of the Latin Tradition and the Byzantine or Malankar tradition are Apostolic, Orthodox and Catholic while some of the elements of the Modern Church in the West are clearly secular and even Non-Christian.

Exactly. Given all that Pope Benedict has written about the need to restore the sense of the sacred in liturgy, I think he is preaching to his own congregation, not condemning any other group. Many in the modern Latin church have practiced an anything goes, I'm ok you're ok type of Christianity for too long. I believe he is sending a message to these folks that the church is an organization with rules and they can't do as they please.

A interesting article by Carl Olson who is a Roman Catholic but...


http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/07/disappointment-.html

james

James, an excellent article. I have wondered also what people mean when they talk about the need for the laity to participate and be active in the liturgy. What is prayer? I always thought that it was an activity. And what is the Liturgy? It is one, long 2 hr. (approximately) prayer. If anything, have lay persons perform too many external functions could serve as a distaction to prayer, not an aid. My own feeling is that all of this "need to participate" is the influence of American protestant culture.

I revere Pope Benedict XVI. I think that the cardinals could not have made a better choice. Personally, well I also esteem Pope John Paul II highly, I think that Pope Benedict XVI will have more of a lasting and important impact on the Roman Catholic Church.

Joe

I wanted to add that now that the Motu Proprio is out, I have a strong urge to get out the 1962 missal I bought last year and a do comparison with the Divine Litugy. Then, do a comparison with Novus Ordo, and a comparison betweeen the Divine Liturgy and the Novus Ordo.

Joe

Papa Benedetto is a liturgist at heart. He reveres the Liturgy in all its forms as expressed in the Catholic Church.

He is also someone who has little patience for naysayers.

Pope John Paul II of blessed memory did give the first indult for the TLM and did write Orientale Lumen. Looking at what he had been through in his life, it cannot be a surprise that there are differences between JP II and Benedict. I am grateful for both of them.

Now, now. Pope Benedict is by no means an impatient man.

Fr. Serge