www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenicism?

I was wondering what the general feeling is regarding ecumenicism amongst eastern Catholics?

I visited the website of the Holy Resurrection monastery and read the following as regards ecumenicism

Now I have to wonder why did Mgsr Ghika and St Josaphat convert and shed their blood for the Catholic faith if this prosleytism is wrong and really it doesn't matter which church someone belongs to? Both likewise laboured for conversions to The Catholic Church, I am sure they are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to eastern Catholic martyrs. Why then did all these people shed their blood when they could just have gone to a 'sister church' or why did they bother to prosletyse when that is supposedly wrong?

Leaving aside all the issues of ecumenical councils and papal teachings and focusing purely on the witness of eastern catholics over the centuries I cannot see why so many would willingly face abuse, harassment, torture or death if at the end of the day it didn't matter what church they belonged to.

I know this is controversial but its a topic I'm trying to get a grip on.

Hi Jmj. proseyltism means to force someone over to their church against their will. Muslims who give people the option of converting to islam or being put to the sword...this is prosletyism. so you picked him up wrong there I think.

However I would venture to say that Christs body has been severed and broken because of our division. and the need to be one is very important.

In all charity I wish I could agree however that meaning is neither the dictionary definition of the term nor does it make sense from the context. It appears simply to be the idea that we shouldnt try to convert eastern orthodox, an idea that I encounter now and then, and which as I said I simply don't understand.

Regarding division, truly it is sad that people have left the body of Christ, but let us not inflate our importance, the body of Christ IS the Catholic Church, they are one and the same thing, that can never be broken though of course groups can leave and join over time.

I'm not sure your definition of proselytism is correct wheelbarrow; I think that it's a relatively recent interpretation of the word, informed by secular predjudice against "bible bashers" as people who somehow are able to make people lose their free will and "push" people into believing against their will (aa Augustinian a view as I'v ever heard).

The Oxford dictionary instead defines to proselytise as to "convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another" or "to advocate a course of action", so JMJ is correct in his use of the term.

In regard to his post:

The figures JMJ mentioned acted honourably according to their conscience, formed in the context of their time; however, the context today is different, and in good conscience it would be difficult for individuals to act the same way today as the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox churches are true churches. These men weren't wrong, but they were a product of their time; the Church's teaching has developed since that time, which does not refute previous actions but does influence future ones.

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

May I suggest as a fellow Latin that you begin "to get a grip" by reading the documents of Vatican II regarding who our Orthodox brethren are in realtion to Catholics and the Catholic Church. May I then suggest that you read further and understand the Church's teaching about the relationship of others who are Christian and who are not in the communion of the Catholic Church. May I then suggest that you check out the word subsistit in Latin and see that the Council Fathers intentionally chose this word when describing the visible Catholic Church: it is not est; it is a weaker word that implies that the visible is not the whole picture.

May I also suggest that you turn the argument around and ask yourself why the Orthodox should not expect you to convert to Orthodoxy because the Catholic Church has persistently taught now for the past 50 years that the Orthodox Church is our sister Church--a fully Apostolic Church which both of us have a lack when we remain divided.

May I then suggest that when you come to understand what ecumenism is that you not read old polemics from history but begin with Blessed John XXIII who said that the Counter Reformation is over when he became Pope. He called the Council because the old polemics didn't and don't work. In addition, we all need to make a united front in the current world we all find ourselves in: highly secularized and hostile to religion but especially all forms of Christianity.

This is not the place to come with martyrs of another age. While Eastern Catholics may revere St. Josaphat, there are Orthodox believers who remember him as a butcher of Christians. Not to disparage any saints, but this age is vastly different, as Blessed Pope John noted and we need to look ahead together, not backbiting each other over the past. Blessed John Paul II also called for a purification of memories and that means we leave the polemics aside and find ways to (as the Byzantine DL says) "love one another that we might confess, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" together.

Bob

But this is exactly what troubles me, leaving aside the thorny issue of infallible and non infallible issues and what is and isn't legitimate doctrinal development, we are essentially saying they shed their blood for nothing. They did not shed their blood for honour or conscience, but for Christ, that is they were killed out of hatred for the faith. Can we honestly turn round and tell them that they were wrong? And do we suppose that they changed their minds in heaven and now advocate against the very things they died and were sainted for?

To what my friend and brother, Bob, has said, I would only modify his statement by inserting the word some prior to Eastern in this sentence:


Now, to the OP's point:


First off, my brother, Edward/Otsheylnik, in addition to clarifying the definition of proselytism, has offered a remarkably generous commentary on the actions of St Josaphat Kuntsevych (for whom proselytism was much more of the ilk that Stephen described). Edward's characterization, albeit accurate, was much more understanding than would be offered by many.

As to the Servant of God Monsignor Vladimir Ghika, his martyrdom in odium fidei, uti fertur had nothing to do with proselytism. It had everything to do with the Romanian Communist persecution of Catholicism, its particular desire to eradicate the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, and its hatred in general of religion, which it tolerated only to the extent that religious entities could be manipulated to serve as puppets and instruments of the state.

The OP asks:


You are certainly correct that the two men whom you mentioned are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Eastern Catholic martyrs. But, what makes you think that martyrdom was visited upon all or even most Eastern Catholic martyrs as a consequence of proselytism? Or, that their fate might have been different were they of a sister Church?

Take a look here, where you'll see photographs and icons representing the 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches and 7 distinct constituent groups of such Catholics. Of those 29 images, 15 of them depict martyrs; as I skim them, I don't see a one whose martyrdom, albeit in odium fidei, was as a consequence of proselytism.

Your other point suggested that their fate would have been different had they been of a sister Church. You really need to become better read on the Nazi and Communist persecutions in modern times, the Armenian and Greek Genocides of slightly less than a century ago, or any of several other wholesale persecutions before you seek to offer or justify any such statement.

You mentioned Monsignor Ghika, are you also familiar with Părintele Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa, of blessed memory, a Romanian Orthodox priest? He belonged to a sister Church. Although he survived the Romanian gulag (and was ultimately allowed to emigrate to the West), he did so despite incredible torture over a period of many years, such that he truly deserves the title martyr.

The Soviet gulags were full of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs, many thousands of whom died as martyrs or survived only to die later as a consequence of what was done to them during their imprisonment - what the Catholic Church would term as martyrdom ex aerumnis carceris (from wounds inflicted during imprisonment) or ex acertatibus et vexationibusque pro fidei quibus pertulit (as a result of violence endured for the sake of faith).

Catholics, Eastern or Western, have no monopoly on martyrdom - and while it is certainly true that many martyrs were involved in missionary work (prosleytism) at the time of their martyrdom, let's note that 'prosletyizer' isn't one of the titles that are suffixed to saints' names.

While the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do accept into communion individuals and small groups of faithful which, of their own volition, request to translate from one ecclesia to the other, neither 'seeks' to 'convert' the other's faithful. End of story.

You can disagree with it, you can find it heretical should you choose, but, it is reality - direct all disagreement therewith to Rome. It's one point on which you'll find few Eastern Catholics disagreeing with Rome's position (probably because the impetus for its adoption came from our patriarchs and hierarchs at VII).

Finally, as to


The answer is simple - pro fidei - for their faith - which is more than simply the church to which they belong. Note that the Catholic Church terms martyrdom in odium fidei - in hatred of the faith - not in odium ecclesiae - in hatred of the church.

I could invite any of our members who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox to list clergy of their Churches who were martyred in hatred of the faith. Do you really think God believes people like Lutheran Pastors Dietrich Bonhöffer and Kaj Munk, or Bishop Juliusz Bursche of the Evangelical Church, all of blessed memory, are less marytrs because they didn't sit in our pews?

Many years,

Neil

[quote-theophan]

Understandably, this isn't what I've heard about St Josaphat. Curiously I checked Orthowiki which confirmed this description. Then I looked at wikipedia and the biography was completly opposite and the perfect example of holiness. The exception is the entry about Josaphat's appeal to the Polish king which resulted in the confiscation (by the King?) of Orthodox churches, among other things.

A perfect example of bias. Most likely the truth is somewhere in between the two versions.

Perhaps when all of us totally unbiased saints enter Heaven we can look around to see whether Josaphat or his detractors are there. So that we don't dwell on this, let us pray that we won't do our search in Hell.

It was a nasty time, with sins enough to go around. St. Josaphat's faults were those of his time, but his virtues were his own. The same can be said of most holy men of that era.

Those who want to know why the Kyivan bishops entered into the Union of Brest are advised to read Father Borys Gudziak's magisterial Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metr...e, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest [barnesandnoble.com] .

The truth of the matter is the Kyivan bishops reached out to Rome because, under severe economic, social and legal disabilities brought on by the extension of Roman Catholic Polish rule over previously Orthodox lands, they had no place else to turn: Moscow was hostile to Poland, while Constantinople was debilitated by its captivity to the Ottoman Sultanate. They did not see communion with Rome as severing their ties with the Orthodox world (though that is what happened); nor did their communion with Rome indicate in any way a subordination or subjugation to the Church of Rome; nor did it recognize in any way the superiority of Latin doctrine. What happened after the Union was nothing less that a tragedy and a missed opportunity--one reason why Rome has foresworn Uniatism as a model for reconciliation.

Great summary of a great book.

Thank you for a very informative post StuartK! I also agree with your former comments, there was enough blame to go around back then, there is also alot in our present period during the soviet regime's evil persecution of the Greek Catholic (and other) churches. I pray this will never take place again and wish more would always remember what the church went though in Slovakia, Ukraine, etc. Also please pray for the the Greek Catholics in Romania, they are greatly persecuted. A very interesting video done about a year ago regarding the GC Romanian church can be found at another is Unfortunately, this church is still being persecuted today.

My reference to Mgsr Ghika was to the fact he set up a religious congregation specifically to labour for the conversion of eastern orthodox christians and to reconcile them to the church. Aside from that it is well known that much more persecution was visited on catholics than orthodox particularly in Romania where greek catholics were forcibly converted into Orthodox. Those who refused to do so were persecuted and martyed so my statements regarding them are accurate.

At no point did I suggest that the catholic church had a monopoly on martydom, as you rightly say that is not true. My point was why were these people willing to be martyed when they could have been spared by converting to a 'sister church'? Mgsr Ghika I am afraid was most likely martyed because he was a greek catholic, if he had converted or been orthodox as the authorities at the time wished he would most likely not have been martyed. This is all well known and fairly uncontroversial so I am a little confused as to why it is being disputed.

And why is the issue of heresy being brought up? I said no such thing nor even implied it, I merely wished to know peoples opinions on this matter. I have no intention to argue or conduct catholic apologetics for that matter.

JMJ1991:

Chrsit is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Again, we've had a sea change in our approach to one another since the time of Blessed John XXIII. Prior to Pope John's "opening" to the world, the Catholic Church had a fortress mentality. We were "in" and everyone else was "out." Pope John made the statement that the Counter Reformation was over in our approach and relations with Protestants. He even dared to call them separated brethren--something that 50+ years later some still have trouble absorbing. He had experience up front and personal with our Orthodox brethren from his time in the papal diplomatic service in the eastern mediterranean where Orthodox Crhistians were in the majority. He had a gift for seeing others differently and tried to get us all in that vein.

Without that vision, this forum would not be possible. Many of us here have had experiences of the "bad old days" when people talked to each other in polemics, if at all.

The martyrs you mention were people of their time. And there were many on both sides of all these wars we've perpetuated on each other.

I find it extremely edifying to hear stories from people on this board whose mentors have had indirect contact with people who shared the suffering of the Soviet and Nazi gulags and persecutions. COmments about when the whole group is facing the firing squad in the morning our labels somehow seem to be suddenly of little importance. Clergy of both our Churches heard the confessions of anyone who asked. While that may not happen now that the persecution is passed, it stands as a great lesson to us. At some level of which we may not even be aware, we are brothers and sisters in Christ--all the baptised.

So we're here to try to forge the same kinds of bonds. Enough blood has been spilled; enough hatred spewed; enough harshness and bigotry made part of our lives.

The Holy Spirit moves where He wills. There are plenty of examples of holiness and martyrdom in all the Churches. Given Blessed John's insight, I think we need to look at the positive ways in which we either band together against the secular, anti-Christian world we live or perish separately.

BTW, the term "sister Church" is part of this entirely new way of approaching these brethren of ours.

Bob

I had the honor of meeting Father Gheorghe several times--his little parish of the Holy Cross is located only a couple of miles from my house. To be in his presence was to know a living saint; he glowed with the inner light, and his love for God and for all mankind was apparent in his every word and deed.

By the way, Holy Cross is now moving to a new and larger church across the Potomac River in Maryland. Their old temple has been turned over to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, to serve the large and growing Ethiopian community in the neighborhood. I thought it was a wonderfully generous action on the part of their congregation and of the OCA's Romanian Diocese.