www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Relationship

I really enjoyed reading everything all of you have written about the relationship between the Orthodox and our Church. I have a video response about this topic here: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=62177293

This is such a important discussion because I believe it comes down to how we see ourselves as an ecclesiological reality.

Keep up the Good videos, very informative.

The Papal Letter of John Paul II Orientale Lumen speaks very clearly on how we are to view ourselves, as Eastern Catholics and not Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite- this latter mentality is a sickness, the sickness of Uniatism. Union with the Church of Rome is much different than Uniatism. Unfortunately many Eastern Catholics perpetuated the idea of Unaitism. Rome never really did this to us Easterners- it was ourselves in many cases. To be truly who we are, Eastern Christians we need to embrace Eastern theology and practice. For if we are jut Roman Catholics who follow the Eastern rite then we really should just be Roman Catholics, drop the Eastern. For the Church to be fully Catholic she needs the theology of the East, just as much as the west. She needs authentic, non-Latinized theology of the Greek Fathers. Only positives can be gained from this. For reunion with the Orthodox Church to take place the idea of Uniatism needs to be defeated, in my humble opinion.

I suggest reading Uniatism: Definition, Causes, Effect, Scopes, Dangers, Remedies, by Cyril Korloevsky and translated by our own Fr. Serge Keleher. (Unless there are two out there)

And also I think Fr. Abbot Nicholas of HRM speaks very well on this topic. HRM [hrmonline.org]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have read the Vatican II documents, Orientale Lumen and the 1990 Code, and used to receive the newsletter of HRM and find that few Byzantine Catholics are on the same page with them. Our identity is being worked out by the intellectuals in our Church; what we need is the laity coming to some sharper definition in regard to Byzantine Catholic identity in the broader Church--i.e. to find a way for the common people to help shape theological identity as community.

The multiplicity of ecclesiological opinions in our ranks only shows the confusion of ecclesial identity in relation to the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I think the latest idea of a "third way" in regard to our Eastern Catholic Churches as Father Robert Taft, SJ explicates, is probably the best ecclesiological position. That our Churches are unique in mission and praxis and they stand as a "third way" along side of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as a permanent fixture in the Body of Christ.

This goes beyond simply removing accretions and latinizations in liturgical texts, it is asserting how our autonomous Churches have sanctified praxis and customs along with a unique spirit and nature while being in communio with the Pope of Rome. This means that stripping away our unique liturgical and spiritual development is also an abuse as is wholesale latinization. It is a re-assessment of the notion of ecclesial hybridization as an unhealthy response to communio and sharing in the context of unity with another Apostolic community, the Latin Church. As a third way we would no longer stand in the way of Church unity because we could assert that we are not competing with the Eastern Orthodox.

By being honest with the Eastern Orthodox by saying we are a "third way" we assure them we have our own life and mission apart from them, although historically drawing from them. The "third way" notion is a effort at ecclesial honesty by admitting what we have become as a Church, in effect, our hybridization, and moving on the the path the Holy Trinity has for us within the Body. By accepting our own development in relation to communio with Rome, latinizations and all, we can steer our ecclesial path with integrity and honesty.

In Christ,


Robert

Except that Taft has never said that. If you have a document or speech that he has given that shows any acceptance of a "Third Way", I would appreciate a reference to it.

On the other hand, Taft has repeatedly indicated that unless the Greek Catholic Churches intend to restore and live out the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition in communion with the Church of Rome, there is no reason for us to maintain an ecclesial identity separate from the Latin Church. For one example, you can see "Liturgy in the Life of the Church", which I recently posted in full here.

I believed that it was Father Taft that explicated this vision of the third way, if not I will be glad to claim it, since it seems to be a coherent and realistic vision of what our Church is ecclesiologically. I have read so many books that I need to just footnote everything these days. I believe that stating one is Orthodox in communion with Rome is not historically or ecclesiologically honest. We are a third path, and if we do not assert this vision, then why not dissolve our Churches into either the Latin Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I only posit this as a possiblity for the future. That is why I hope that the future will give more chances for the laity to help define us as particular Churches and not just leave the hard questions and solutions to the theological experts. I am only a simple lay person trying to work with the questions this Church has given me. We have a long journey ahead of us, but God is in charge and will not let us down.

Why I don't fully disagree with you on the third way idea I must say then what then will happen when the Church is reunited? Will we just continue as this third way? I would certainly hope not. We would be reunited with our Orthodox counter part as one Eastern Church.

I think most of the major Hierarchy of the Byzantine Churches, especially the Ukrainian and Melkite Patriarchs see us as Orthodox in communion with Rome. Most priests that I have meet share this understanding.

Is Orthodox in Communion with Rome really what we are? Yes and No, I think. Since we do have unique things that have developed within our Churches that hasn't happened in the Orthodox Churches. But again many of things that happened because of Uniatism.

I think once we get over the Uniatism, we will can be an example to the Orthodox that yes you can be Eastern and Orthodox and be in communion with Rome. That’s what the "unia" should be about. The reality that Latin and Greek theology can co-exists and that communion with Rome will not destroy your identity as being an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It hasen't destroyed mine. (I came into the Catholic Communion from The Greek Orthodox Church)

When we read the Treat of Brest as well as the council of Florence we see that’s what Rome offers the Eastern Church. Of course today the Latin Church is even more serious about union with the Orthodox. Of course issues that divided the Church are agreeded to not be forced on one another.

Again, I agree that their are many different opinions within the Byzantine Catholic Churches but we need to root out the uniatism since it is a cancer on our Church, in my humble opinion.

To state it is not to explain it. Explain why it is not historically or ecclesiologically honest. How would you describe those Constantinopolitan Churches in South Italy and Albania that were always under Roman jurisdiction and were always Orthodox?


To quote His Grace, Bishop John Michael of Canton of the Romanians, we Greek Catholics have a vocation to disappear. That is, on that day, devoutly to be desired, when there is reconciliation between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, we shall return to the Mother Churches whence we came, since the only reason for our existence--to show the potential of being fully Orthodox while in communion with the Church of Rome--will have been fulfilled. We will have become redundant, for what need of two Byzantine Churches of Kyiv, or of Antioch, or of Romania, or of Russia, if all are in communion with Rome?

That is our profession, our reason for being--to be fully Orthodox and fully in communion with the Church of Rome. There is not, and cannot be a third way. Uniatism is not a model for the unity of the Church, and has been disavowed as a method of reunion. With the end of uniatism comes the end of all attempts at a "third way".


Underlying your entire approach is the assumption that the divisions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are permanent and irremediable, hence the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches is permanent and not contingent. Ironically enough, the Holy See has consistently taken a different view--that the separation is something which must and eventually will be healed, and that the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches is contingent on the continuation of the separation. When unity is achieved, we will go home.

I must say I agree with StuartK, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a historian and I am studying to be one.


Uniatism is a sickness that, thank God, we are working on curing!!

It's simple. We are in communio with the Catholic Church. We have the same faith and fidelity to Rome as Latin Catholics. We share in the doctrinal development with the Latin Church. In order for unity to occur the Catholic Church would have to repudiate dogmas, that will not happen without another schism in the Catholic Church. If Orthodoxy were to concede to Catholicism they would have more Traditionalists leaving their ranks. So for the price of unity at some future "Great and Ecumenical" Council with the Orthodox we will create more disunity by mutual repudiations then unity. The writing is on the wall. If we are to disappear into Orthodox Jurisdictions someday after the Great Council of Unity then that is what our Leaders negotiated, but not all Byzantine Catholics will go for that and will have a hierarchy that goes with them into schism. A simple analysis of our history shows that if our people will leave over bans on married priests we most certainly have schisms over ecclesiastical liquidation of our unique idenity as Church. Schism is the future word for all of this talk about an ecclesiology of liquidation for our Byzantine Catholic Church. We will split into smaller and more insignificant independent Greek Catholic Churches. The reality is that the Latin Church will never repudiate her distinctive dogmas and Orthodox will not concede to Rome; if it does occur then we will have schisms all around, human nature guarantees it. And as for events in history that demonstrated communion with both Rome and an Eastern Orthodox Primate, that is not a rule, but rather an exception, and in today's ecclesiastical climate would be miraculous. Now if God did perform a miracle and we all got along and became one Church again--then wonderful! A more realistic vision is to work on our identity as a unique expression within the Mystical Body of Christ. To be Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome is not a witness, but a contradiction. As one priest told me while I was in the OCA, "if they are Orthodox then why not return now to their Mother Churches," That is true; if the pro-Orthodox in our Byzantine Catholic Church, do not accept the developments in the Magisterium after the 7th Ecumenical Council--then why be Catholic? If one cannot accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility and Authority then why not become Orthodox, why wait. There are two sides and perceptions in ecumenism: our side and how we perceive ourselves, and that of the Orthodox and how they perceive themselves and us. No Eastern Orthodox Jurisdiction except a few independent Orthodox Churches, inc. that are not viewed as "canonical" will grant the attempt by us to "Dox" in our liturgy and ecclesiology as valid attempts at true union. For Eastern Orthodox, union is of faith first--not just in institutional attempts at restoration to an earlier or more authentic liturgical praxis. In Orthodoxy one cannot be in communion with heretics and remain Orthodox; and that is what we are to them. I am only advocating for a clear view and not just hopes that may or may not be realistic. As Catholics we have Divine Unity, one that is "already and not yet." I am for a realistic ecumenism, not just for a vision of Church formulated in the laboratories of ecclesiologists.

What do they teach them in these Catholic colleges these days?

For me it is not a matter of just book knowledge, but actual experience of being Byzantine Catholic going into Orthodoxy and coming back. Do you think that I did not at one time hold your position? I did. But it is not going to hold water in the future with the Orthodox.

What the Orthodox think of us right now is not of any import. It is what they will think of us going forward that matters. We have our marching orders, and they require us to be witnesses to the Orthodox faith in Catholic communion.

Besides, what makes you think that any future reunification requires the acceptance of Latin doctrines hook, line and sinker? That would make the Holy See a congenital liar, since repeated statements from every Pope since Paul VI have called for a reconciliation that does not involve either submission, or subordination or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit.

And, finally, being Orthodox in communion with Rome works very well for me, thank you. I catch a lot of grief from Roman Catholics and from some Greek Catholics (for not being "Catholic" enough, I guess), but very little from the Orthodox. Maybe those who succeed at being Orthodox in communion with Rome are accepted for what they are?

I am an Orthodox Christian who entered into Communion with the Catholic Church and I am just as Orthodox as I was when I in the GOA. In fact my Orthodoxy has grown since coming into Communion with Rome.

The Second Vatican Council and letter of the Popes makes it clear of what we are to be. Enough said.


Through out history when reunion happens there are those who will reject it. Sad but part of the human condition, so traditionalist on BOTH sides will leave because of it- an Orthodox/Catholic reunion.

What they teach in College, and sadly I have seen it on T.V, is that to be Catholic one must be Roman. This is sad but true. I attend a Catholic University and this is the case. EWTN still calls us Eastern Rite Catholics, not Eastern Catholic Churches. We need to shed Uniatism, for it is such a bad sickness.

Well I guess me and Stuartk are just followers of Zogbyism.

I pray you are blessed at your attempts. And being that you are a professor of history in a way you already know the future since human beings make the same mistakes and will repeat them. This means that our earthly realization of the Kingdom is only fleeting until we are in the Kingdom of Heaven with Christ. I think we have to re-evaluate our concept of administrative unity. In a way the Orthodox ecclesiological vision seems more practical than mere administrative unity. The vision of the Mystery of Unity united with an Invisible Head rather than a concret expression of it under a centralized polity in communion with a Vicar seems to lend to a more Localized expression of identity as Church. But, an adapted Papal model will do the Orthodox well in dealing with the issues of a contemporary society and the latent dogmatic possibilities within Christianity to develop and contemplate the Teaching of Christ within the contexts of modernity. Do we have unity when two or more groups come together or do we have unity when our hearts are truly united and does this last? Both models of Church work, we just need to bring them together. That is the challenge. But how again do we work on ecclesiology when the simple and moderately educated laity are so focused on distinctives within the tradition or culture of the expression of Apostolic Christianity they belong to? God bless the future work on these questions. Right now my reason for being Byzantine Catholic is that I see my Church as having a right to its own life interdependent with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. This keeps me Byzantine along with my fundamental psychological and spiritual need for the Pope of Rome. Just some thoughts...

Nelson:

I truly understand your situation. I go to a conservative Latin Catholic University and most here know about the East, but are not aware of the teaching of Orientalium Ecclesiarium, Orientale Lumen and some of the writings of the Eastern Fathers at Vatican II. I am also with Archbishop Zogby that we are all schismatics--"Tous Schismatiques?" I see the need for changes, but since coming back into the Byzantine Catholic Church from the OCA have tried to find a theology that can keep me here--aside from one rooted in mere sentimentality or an emotional connection to our tones, iconography, and the Ruthenian rescension. I am a work in progress...pray for me.