www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Re-establishing communion between east and west and the Slavic EC

Since the last thread collapsed, let's try this again from a new angle...

The divisions in the Body of Christ are scandalous. How can the Slavic Eastern Catholic Churches best be a bridge to unity?

First, please allow me to apologize for contributing to the collapse of the previous thread.

Secondly, John, thank you for raising this important question.

Let me see if I understand the situation, and please correct me if I am wrong! The Eastern Catholic Churches are full members of the Catholic Communion. They are called to live according to their ancient and venerable traditions and to bear witness to Catholic unity in diversity. However, it is recognized that many (but not all) Eastern Catholic Churches also represent a painful schism within the Eastern Churches whence they came. Therefore, the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches only partially healed the division between East and West, and, indeed, their creation led to new wounds which apparently are still raw. Furthermore, Latinization and other abuses have led to further separation and further wounds. These, as I understand it, are some of the reasons why "uniatism" is such a difficult and emotional topic to discuss. However, it is not a topic which can be avoided. It is, indeed, "the elephant in the room."

What, then, can be done? Here are three principles which I think are fundamental:

1. The Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches are separated sister Churches. All separation between Christians is the result of sin and can only be overcome by mutual asking and receiving of forgiveness.

2. The Catholic Church cannot accept demands for the "return" of the Eastern Catholic Churches. This would be a flagrant violation of the rights of Eastern Catholics as full members of the Catholic Communion.

3. A reunion of the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches therefore depends on a complete reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Since the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is the most important thing in the world, we must all pray and work for this to happen. But how this is to come about, I don't know, since the Catholic Church believes that in her subsists the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, and the Orthodox Churches believe the same about themselves.

Perhaps we should begin by recognizing that we know where Christ's Church is, but we cannot be sure where she is not, and that the lack of unity hurts us all. I should also recognize my own sins of arrogance and pride. And perhaps we should all recognize that to be a Catholic or Orthodox Christian is not an achievement to boast of, but a grace and a gift to be thankful for.

To return finally to John's question, my belief is that all the Slavic Eastern Catholic Churches can do is to be completely themselves: Orthodox Christians in full communion with the Catholic Church. They must demonstrate to all that full communion with Rome is possible without giving up anything which is truly Orthodox. And they must not lose heart even if their witness is sometimes not appreciated or understood either in the East or in the West.

As i have read through the following thread and now this one I am having a problem finding words to explaine what the Orthodox stance on such a thing as reunion should be.I have some basic questions that should be answered first. And these are mostly pointed at the World Orthodox.

1.How can we have union if we have never been divided.Does this mean that The promise of our Lord was not true?

2.Unlike the Latins the World Orthodox are members of the WCC and is it safe to assume that they are saying that the church has been divided?

3.Who will be the ones to compromise their faith for union?

I know that there is thousands of things that can be brought up here.But i would like just to discuess and not let it degenerate into a war of words.

--

When we are truly ourselves we offer an authentic witness to the world. To do this effectively, we need to understand who we are where we are going.

I have in hand a copy of the fascinating "Catechetical Directory of the Ukrainian Catholic Church." On p. 33... It notes that since the origins of Constantinopolitan-Kievan Christianity, the UGCC has had two dimensions in interacting with other churches--"particularity and communion." I wonder if this self-understanding of "particularity and communion" might also apply to the BCC? This might perhaps have a role in re-establishing communion between east and west.

How does the BCC see itself?

The last post on the previous thread said:

[quote]Rome has clearly condemned the method of communion now known as "uniatism". I would advise Latin Catholic to learn and understand the way Rome is seeking to re-establish communion with the Orthodox East.[/quote]

Is anybody able to share with us the ways by which Rome is now seeking to re-establish communion? Can you give the specifics?

The main point of bilateral contact in the theological sphere is the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church." This is the group which met in Ravenna (the 10th meeting of this Commission) and produced the Ravenna Statement on ecclesiology in late 2007. However this major work of the Commission has been rejected by both Catholics and Orthodox. The Commission is loosing its integrity in the eyes of the Orthodox. One imagines that in future the Orthodox participants will take greater care to formulate their positions with greater regard for more authentic Orthodox ecclesiology. The Ravenna Statement was likewise rejected by the Vatican as contrary in some points to authentic Latin ecclesiology. The Vatican has refused to ratify it and says pointedly on the Vatican website that it is not Church teaching but only the opinion of theologians.

However I am digressing.... the point of the messages is to ask what you see as the specific ways which the Catholic Church is working on as more successful in achieving unity.

What is the Catholic theological and ecclesiological position with regard to "uniatism" and the search for unity with the Orthodox Churches? A good starting point may be the Balamand declaration, but this must also be seen in the light of other authoritative documents.

As I understand it, the Balamand declaration, recognizing the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches," condemned "uniatism," defined as an approach to unity that seeks to convert Orthodox to Catholicism, or Catholics to Orthodoxy, either individually or in groups, i.e. "proselytism." At the same time, the Balamand declaration affirms the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist and carry out their pastoral work, something which I notice is still disputed by some Orthodox.

The Balamand declaration must be seen in the light of various other documents, including Vatican II's Declaration on religious freedom (Dignitatis humanae), the Declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Note on the expression "Sister Churches" by the same Congregation.

Dignitatis humanae declares "that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits" (2).

Therefore, while Balamand condemns "uniatism" understood as "proselytism," individuals and groups are free to convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy or vice versa in accordance with their own conscience. This is because "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power" (1). Yet the Council does not mean to endorse indifferentism or relativism: "Religious freedom, in turn [...] has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" (1).

According to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) of Vatican II, reaffirmed by Dominus Iesus this "one Church of Christ" subsists "in the Catholic Church" (4). Thus, while no one can be forced to become or remain a Catholic, everyone is called to full communion with the Catholic Church, and indeed this call is a moral duty.

Finally, this moral duty should not be obscured by the expression "sister Churches," which according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cannot be applied to the Catholic Church on the one hand and to the Orthodox Church on the other:


It is in this light that we must read the Balamand declaration's statement "that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity" (14). Notice that it is not the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which recognize each other as Sister Churches, but "the Catholic Churches" and "the Orthodox Churches," something which corresponds to the Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It is more difficult to understand how the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches can be "responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity." Indeed, this statement can cause confusion because it seems to "imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured," which is exactly what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has warned against.

The important thing, however, is that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as true local or particular Churches, even though they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Each particular Orthodox Church is a sister of each particular Catholic Church, e.g. the Churches of Rome and Constantinople are sisters, but the one Church of God, which subsists in the Catholic Church, is the mother and teacher of all. Nevertheless, in some way, according to the Balamand document, the particular Catholic Churches and the particular Orthodox Churches are together responsible for the unity of the whole Church of God, something we must all pray for.

Sources:

Lumen Gentium [vatican.va]

Dignitatis humanae [vatican.va]

Dominus Iesus [vatican.va]

Note on the expression "Sister Churches" [vatican.va]

The Balamand declaration [vatican.va]

Hieromonk Ambrose,

I have looked on the Moscow Patriarchate website, but I have been unable to find the official response of Moscow to the Ravenna Document. It is my understanding that the M.P. issued a document on the doctrine of primacy that highlighted its rejection of certain aspects of the teaching contained in the Ravenna Document, while also highlighting the Russian Orthodox rejection of the Latin theory of primacy. Do you know if this document is available in English?

Todd

---

The pastoral work of the Greek Catholic Churches is important.

Let's just say for argument's sake that the Slavic Greek Catholic Churches returned to union with their Orthodox Mother Churches. I suspect that a sizable group of Greek Catholics would elect to remain with the Church of Rome and simply switch to a local Latin parish. This would cause great heartache for our church.

Moreover, at least here in North America, the vast majority of our parish members are elderly. The change would be especially difficult for them. Many have poured their time, talent and treasure into our Churches over many generations. The Latin Liturgy exiles would also likely jump ship too. Moreover, we would need a massive effort in catechetics before any move could occur.

I pray for reunion, but I anticipate weighty pastoral challenges will result.

I have been browsing through the Ravenna document and found that it contains one extremely important footnote. The footnote makes clear how the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church see themselves:


There is a certain symmetry here, but only up to a point. It is only the Catholic Church which acknowledges "that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion." I see no similar acknowledgement from the Orthodox side. I think this is significant. Will the Orthodox ever acknowledge "that elements of the true Church are present outside the Orthodox communion"? If so, that might be a step in the right direction.

Source:

Ravenna document [vatican.va]

I still believe that our only reason for existence is to help the two squabbling parents to reunite. If we no longer can serve that purpose, despite Balamand, I see no reason for us to exist. What say you?

Pope John Paul II had something to say about this:

[quote=Latin Catholic]What is the Catholic theological and ecclesiological position with regard to "uniatism" and the search for unity with the Orthodox Churches? A good starting point may be the Balamand declaration, but this must also be seen in the light of other authoritative documents.

As I understand it, the Balamand declaration, recognizing the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches," condemned "uniatism," defined as an approach to unity that seeks to convert Orthodox to Catholicism, or Catholics to Orthodoxy, either individually or in groups, i.e. "proselytism." At the same time, the Balamand declaration affirms the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist and carry out their pastoral work, something which I notice is still disputed by some Orthodox. [/quote]

Thanks, Latin Catholic. I was not aware that Balamand has been ratified by the Catholic Church, which of course makes it a valid document of reference and action for Roman Catholics. I am not sure how Eastern Catholics relate to it? They were not participants at this meeting nor have they been at any of the meetings of the International Orthodox-Roman Catholic Orthodox Theological Commission.

The Orthodox signatories of the Balamand Document were only two. One was an EP bishop. The other was a layman from Alexandria. In neither case was the document subsequently ratified by their respective Synods of Bishops.

1. Metropolitan Damaskinos, of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Professor Vlasius Fidas, Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria


No other Orthodox present at Balamand signed the Document.


The other Orthodox who were present at the meeting but did not sign were:


Prof. Athanasius Araniti, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Peristria, Prof. Fr. George Dragas - Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Fr. Tadros Malatii, Fr. George Kondorfa, Metropolitan Khodr, Metropolitan Eustaphius - Patriarchate of Antioch.

Mr. Nikolai Zabolotsky, Mr. Grigory Skobei - Patriarchate of Moscow.

Prof. Stojan Gosvec - Patriarchate of Serbia.

Dr. Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov - Patriarchate of Bulgaria.

Metr. David of Sukhumi, Mr. Boris Gagua - Patriarchate of Georgia.

Metr. Peter of Aksum - Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Bishop Barnabas of Salamis - Church of Cyprus.

Prof. Andreas Papabasiliu, Metr. Meletios of Nicopolis, Prof. Fr. John Romanides - Church of Greece.

Bishop Jeremiah of Wraclaw (Breslau), Bishop Christofor of Olomouc - Polish Orthodox Church.

Fr. Joseph Hauser - Church in Czechoslovakia.

Fr. Heikki Hettunen - Church of Finland.

If you search through documents from the various Orthodox Churches you will find denials that the representatives were empowered to sign such Agreements. Such authority belongs only to the Synods of the Churches.

For example we have this statement from Bishop Artemije of the Serbian Church:

"I think that the fashion that some representatives of Serbian Orthodox
Church, regardless empowered or not, signed on our behalf something
without the authorization of the Council or Synod, is not binding to
anyone in Serbian Orthodox Church, as long as it didn't pass through
the meeting of the Holy Council."

http://josephpatterson.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/ecumenicism-and-the-ravenna-statement/

I don't know that their existence makes a difference either way. I suppose some would say they help, and some they don't.

Personally they don't affect how I see the theological issues.

[quote=Apotheoun]I have looked on the Moscow Patriarchate website, but I have been unable to find the official response of Moscow to the Ravenna Document. It is my understanding that the M.P. issued a document on the doctrine of primacy that highlighted its rejection of certain aspects of the teaching contained in the Ravenna Document, while also highlighting the Russian Orthodox rejection of the Latin theory of primacy. Do you know if this document is available in English?
[/quote]The Ravenna document seems to have hit the void which is the usual Orthodox way of dealing with disputed things or things which do not achieve conciliar acceptance. Interesting also that the Vatican seems to be dealing with the Ravenna document in much the same way.

The Church of Russia has created a Commission to study the Ravenna topic - the matter of primacy in the early Church and the place of the Archbishop of Rome. It is their way of contributing to the Ravenna discussions in which they did not participate by their presence. I understand from Moscow contacts (in July last year) that it is full steam ahead and we can hope to see it published in the not too distant future. It is reasonable to speculate that it will reject a universal primacy in the Church but we may be surprised.

The bishops of the Church of Serbia have given it a negative appraisal, and similarly the Church of Jerusalem. None of the other Churches, as far as I know, have said anything - the usual Orthodox manner of quietly allowing something to sink into the sunset.

As to your question --- to my knowledge there has not yet been an official Moscow response to Ravenna. All we have is the statement that they intend to issue their own statement on primacy when a commission has done its work. Frankly, you have to ask, is it necessary? Both the Vatican and all the Orthodox Churches have been decidedly unaccepting of Ravenna.

Thanks Fr. Ambrose for you response.

God grant you many happy years.