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

I understand brother, I do. But remember many in the OCA are decendents of Greek Catholics who only became Orthodox late last century. One of there monasteries has Icons of Greek Catholic and Western Catholic Saints.

I go to a libeal Catholic University, very liberal. In my opinion it is almost Catholic in name only.

One should be careful not to take the Ruthenian Church as normative for Greek Catholics either here or elsewhere in the world. It has been shaped by its unique and in many ways unfortunate history, and has not yet recovered either from the celibacy controversies or the Elko period. The controversy over the Revised Divine Liturgy is only the latest in a series of leadership decisions (one could honestly call them failures) that have resulted in the Ruthenian Church becoming the most latinized of the Greek Catholic Churches--not only in its liturgical praxis (though this is bad enough), but in its overall mentality.

The Ruthenian Church is suffering from latinization of the soul, and it is precisely because, in the aftermath of the schisms of the 1890s and 1930s, its hierarchs decided to pursue the kind of "Third Way" Robert has suggested (Archbishop Nicholas Elko was very explicit about this). The results speak for themselves, as the Ruthenian Church is but a pale shadow of what it was a century ago, and appears to be on the road to extinction if present trends are not reversed. The reason is a deep confliction of identity, the result of the kind of schizophrenia described by Fr. Taft in "Liturgy in the Life of the Church".

The situation in other Greek Catholic Churches, and particularly outside of the United States, is considerably different. The two great Patriarchal Churches of Antioch and Kyiv (yes, I know, Rome calls it a "Major Archepiscopal Church", but the Ukrainians call their primate a Patriarch, and so Patriarch he is) have become increasingly self-confident, independent and vocal in defining and supporting the authentic Byzantine Tradition, even against the Holy See. The Melkites, of course, suffered the least from latinization, because they came into communion with Rome a century after the Ruthenians (Ukrainians and Rusyn), and because they were much more isolated by geography.

The role of the Melkite hierarchs at both Vatican I and Vatican II is well known, and the Melkites continue to develop powerful theologians who are indeed the voice of the separated brethren in the counsels of the Catholic Church. Since the restoration of 1989, the Ukrainians likewise have seen revival of their unique spirituality and theology, particularly through the Studite monasteries, to say nothing of the Catholic Theological University.

These and not the Ruthenian Church in America should be seen as the centers of gravity for Greek Catholicism, and the main direction in which they are going is a more faithful adherence to the Orthodox Tradition and closer relations with their counterpart Orthodox Churches. The "Third Way" they reject, utterly.

I can comment a bit on the relationship between the Bulgarian Orthodox and Bulgarian Eastern Catholics - friendly disinterest essentially!

The latter were, I think, uniquely perhaps, never abolished or prescribed during the Communist times (perhaps as a result of the relationship with the previous Papal Nuncio who became John XXII (I think...). Whilst they suffered as did all religions in Bulgaria, they are in the same situations as Orthodox, Muslims etc in that they are still waiting for certain properties to be returned to them. The biggest obstacle placed on them by the Communist was that relationship with Rome was totally banned.

In respect of historic traditions, one of my suspicions why Eastern Catholicism provokes such reactions in Ukraine and Romania could be due to how they came to exist and all the political factors. The Bulgarian Byzantines really came into existence peacefully - a small group seeking freedom from the dastardly "Phanariots" but once the Bulgarian Exarchate was established, the overwhelming majority returned to Orthodoxy. The remainder were content to remain united with Rome and concentrated on their community so they never really came into "competition" with the Orthodox. In addition, the Eastern Catholics only number about 10,000 out of a Catholic population of 80/90,000.

The Greek Catholic Churches have diverse origins, but in essence there are two or three main types: those that emerged organically from among the Orthodox populations seeking the protection from social, political and economic disabilities; those that were in essence "created" by Latin missionary movements; and those that emerged from small "intellectual" movements within specific Orthodox communities. The Ukrainian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Romanian Greek Catholics are examples of the former; in those cases, groups of Orthodox clergy approached Roman authorities to establish communion and gain the protected status afforded to the Latin Church. The Melkites are a variation on this theme, insofar as having refused to accept a Patriarch endorsed by the Phanar, they elected their own candidate and approached Rome as a way of ensuring some degree of protection from Ottoman retaliation.

A number of the smaller Greek Catholic Churches are examples of the second, and the lack of a strong indigenous movement towards Rome is one reason these Churches have remained relatively small. The Hellenic Catholic Church is a classic example of this model. The Russian Catholic Church and the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church are examples of Churches founded small groups of elites appealing to Rome for communion. Since they never really made an appeal for mass backing, they started small and remained small.

Here is my dilemma with this whole situation. As a Catholic who follows the traditions of the East, both liturgically and spiritually. What if I moved to another state where there were no Eastern Catholic Churches at all. But there was a good number of Eastern Orthodox parishes around. My dilemma, either go to a Roman parish, and completely discontinue my Eastern liturgical and spiritual traditions. Since most Roman clergy will be unable to provide the liturgical and spiritual care I am looking for. Or start attending an Orthodox parish, where I can continue my liturgical and spiritual traditions. This is why I find it very important that Eastern Catholic clergy and Eastern Orthodox clergy come to some form of agreement for the care of Eastern Christians as a whole. I'm really sick of all the politics. I just want to practice being a Byzantine Christian, whether Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic is no matter to me. But having to go back and forth between two opposite traditions (Byzantine to Roman to Byzantine) does more harm to me than good.

I agree completely. It is hard to switch back and forth. Especially since many (not all, I must stress) Roman Catholics know very little of our Churches. (Orthodox or Greek Catholic) I am happy to note that in my home town, San Diego, I have meet a few Roman Priests who are very interested in our Tradition.


Prefect!

AGREED!

I'd just do what thousands of Greek Catholics do, and go to the Orthodox Church. After a while, they probably would let me receive communion, too.

Of course, many thousands more Greek Catholics, raised in the Catholic is Catholic tradition, would simply slouch into being Latin Catholics. A slightly smaller percentage would simply drift away from the Church altogether.

This was the essence of the agreement between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, which now have formal communicatio in sacris. But it takes an existential threat to focus the mind. They have that, we don't so I don't foresee any similar agreement regarding us.

I suspect you were actually replying to someone other than me . . . anyway, it says that that link is deleted.

hawk

I'm not sure what that would mean in some cases, particularly my church--the Pittsburgh Metropolia. It's sui juris rather than reabsorbed or merged into it's mother Catholic church.

What would we merge into? ACROD (which would create an interesting and circular chart :)). The Orthodox Church in our geographical origin--and if so, why are we separated rather than merged back into the Catholic component already?

hawk

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it--and if it should ever become a pressing issue, I will be ecstatic, since it will mean reconciliation is at hand.

But, to be brutally honest, and speaking as a non-Slav baptized into the Ruthenian Church, and thus with no dog in the fight, I really have to say there is no rational reason for the Metropolia to exist, other than the inability of the Rusyn and the Ukrainians got get along (OK, let's be honest--to be in the same room together and not fight like cats and dogs). In the beginning there was but one jurisdiction in the United States, and it was divided because you guys did not play well with each other.

I should think those days are, or ought to be past, and the Ruthenian Church should, eventually, be merged first into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate, and finally into the reunited Kyivan Church--with a reasonable degree of autonomy to allow for different liturgical customs. ACROD would also become part of the Kyivan Patriarchate, unless, of course, some agreement is reached whereby all of these Rusyn-based Churches become autonomous under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Frankly, though, the whole thing may end up moot. If there is no reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the next twenty-five years, i doubt there will be a Ruthenian Church--or at least one that matters--to cause puzzlement to people trying to realign the jurisdictions.