www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Some Reflections on Being a Byzantine Catholic

www.caelumetterra.wordpress.com [caelumetterra.wordpress.com]

Purely experiential, and I speak only for myself...

Welcome back - it's been a long while, hasn't it, since you were here?
CS

I suppose you might have said that it is our vocation to bridge the inter-Church expanse!

Fr. Serge

As long as we remember that bridges get walked over, regardless of which way the traffic is moving.

Which is precisely why the "bridge" analogy only works to a point. People do not live on bridges. I live in an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. Insofar as it serves to bridge, great. But it is no bridge. That is not the reason why we exist.

The only reason we exist is to bear witness to the catholicity of the Eastern Churches through our communion with the Church of Rome. Ultimately, our destiny is to disappear, for once communion is restored between Rome and the other Eastern Churches, there is no reason for us to remain separate from our Mother Churches.

Ahh...a nihilistic ecclesiology!

I do believe that we have a purpose - it is to fulfill the Great Commission, not to disappear or be a bridge Church. If the day comes, God willing, when our Churches can be reunited, I will welcome the reconciliation. But the notion that we are somehow a Church in abeyance denies our true reality as an equal member in the Catholic communion of Churches with equal standing vis-a-vis the Orthodox Churches. We have a destiny and it is not simply absorption.

Far from it! A reweaving of jurisdictions when reconciliation occurs in no way suggests that we are a Church in abeyance. Rather, it would testify to unity. One bishop. One Church. As best as is possible given the pastoral reality. Think of the example of the United States. Pittsburgh and Johnstown were once one. They can be one again. And parishes across the street would benefit from being in the same diocese. I can envision the full merging of all Orthodox and Greek Catholic dioceses in the United States into a single cohesive pan-ethnic structure. Full communion with Rome, Constantinople and all the ancient patriarchates.

As to being a bridge, I agree that the analogy can only be taken so far. We can honestly acknowledge that the method that brought us into existence was flawed and should not have been used even as we affirm the need for our communion with Rome. But I believe our task at present is not to be a bridge but rather a witness to both East and West. We need to witness the fullness of Orthodoxy within Roman Communion so faithfully that it shows the way for full reconciliation. Sadly, our witness at the moment is sorely lacking. We have much work to do!

John,

What you are presenting here, however, is not exactly what Stuart said:


We exist for a reason that is not simply in reference to any deficiency in catholicity on the part of the Catholic communion. This kind of reductionism smacks of a form of tokenism - "See? We are the Catholic Church. We even got an Eastern liturgy!"

And the notion of our destiny being to disappear...to me I think about children of a mixed family. Is it proper to say that in the new marriage one family "disappears"? Hardly! I think that this type of language around what will happen (God willing) as our Churches are reunited is very problematic. It should be neither absorption nor disappearing. We must stand as a Church qua Church among the Churches as an equal member with an apostolic mission to make disciples of all nations, to grow and to expand. We have a proper destiny to fulfill and it is not simply to reunite with the Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome. It is not a destiny only in reference to other Churches (either Eastern or Western), but rather as one in reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. To think otherwise tempts one to apostolic apathy! I think the type of language Stuart uses here - and I am not trying to pick on him - betrays a second-class mindset which I wholeheartedly reject (as I have to believe Stuart does as well).

I think we have to be careful about what we communicate about our destiny vis-a-vis our Mother Orthodox Churches. I completely agree with everything you have written here.

I hate to be pedantic, especially because I really do get the analogy here, but I think that people used to live on the old "London Bridge" at one tine. At least that was what I was led to believe. It was lined with shops with living quarters above. Perhaps only Greek Catholics lived there...

Fr David Straut

"And the notion of our destiny being to disappear...to me I think about children of a mixed family. Is it proper to say that in the new marriage one family "disappears"? "

Bishop John Michael (Botean) of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church would differ--he used the term "a vocation to disappear". So, too, for that matter, did the Melkite Synod, which has already agreed that, in the event of communion being restored between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the two hierarchies would be merged, with the Melkite bishops yielding to the Orthodox bishops wherever there is overlapping jurisdiction.

On what principle would you justify maintaining distinct hierarchies and organizations, assuming that both the Orthodox Mother Church and its Catholic counterpart are both in communion with the Church of Rome?

"I hate to be pedantic, especially because I really do get the analogy here, but I think that people used to live on the old "London Bridge" at one tine."

Quite true. Remember, though, what happened to Old London Bridge, which is commemorated in the well-known nursery rhyme.

Fr David,

Ponte Vecchio in Florence is a good example of a bridge lined with shops (jeweller's shops, to be precise), and there may still be living quarters above the shops too.

I think most people would agree that if (and when?) full communion is restored between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, then the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (and the Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox) hierarchies would be reintegrated in some way, in some places immediately, in others perhaps gradually.

With all due respect to the good Bishop John Michael and the Melkite Synod, that is not the terminology I would use to describe the reuniting of our spiritual families. And I am sure that more is involved in their descriptions of and aspirations towards union than simply "disappearing". Otherwise - why not just simply disappear now? If that is our destiny, why wait?

As to the second question, my apologies for not being clear. I would NOT advocate maintaining separate jurisdictions. One bishop, one city is just fine with me!