www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Card. Koch on the Dialog Between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches

In addition, the idea that there are no national(ist) churches in Roman Catholicism is just silly as well.

We can look into that, but clearly the Cardinal has a reified view of the world (which unfortunatley seems to characterize Vatican ost-politicians).

The problems of national Churches, as the Cardinal indicated, cannot be extrapolated in general.

I know for a fact that he offended a number of church leaders in Ukraine.

Charity begins at Rome, one could say.

The Cardinal's visit was an ecumenical "Koch-up"

JBenedict,

I agree that we must interpret charitably.

I admit that upon rereading the Papal Nuncio's comments, for example, I thought that maybe I had misjudged his words the first time through. Perhaps he had only introduced the Latin liturgy and its English versions to make a connection to a very different subject that he knew much less about, namely Slavonic liturgy, which he said he had only experienced in English versions. Maybe he had meant to make no comparison at all between the Byzantine and Roman liturgies.

Perhaps, there is some further context to Cardinal Koch's remarks that might make them appear in some better light. Nevertheless, in their present context, I do not believe I am being unfair or uncharitable in concluding that they do not appear in a very good light at all.

Alex,

He may not be an authority, but as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, he certainly has access to people who are authorities, and it's his business to consult with them. His failure to do so is not merely a faux pas, but a serious dereliction of duty, and an egregious disservice to the entire people of God.

(having expressed angry thoughts here, let me now wish everyone peace!)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

He clearly didn’t compare the quality of the Byzantine and Roman liturgies. Read his comment [deovolenteexanimo.blogspot.com] carefully. This is the section in question:

"When it comes to beauty, the little bit of Byzantine Liturgy which I have experienced in English pales in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian. No doubt there are some beautiful renditions of the Lord Have Mercy or the Holy Holy or the Lamb of God out there, but how can they compare with some of the Kyries, the Sanctus' or the Agnus Deis which we have in our Gregorian chant treasury, if not amongst the wealth of polyphony at our disposal?"

He doesn’t say that he only experienced the Byzantine liturgy in English, he said that he had only experienced a little bit of the Byzantine Liturgy in English and that it “paled in comparison to Old Slavonic or Ukrainian [which he had also experienced].” That he had also experienced the liturgy in Old Slavonic and Ukrainian is necessary logically for him to make this comparison. I bet that as nuncio to Ukraine, he’s experienced quite a bit of liturgy in Ukrainian!

The comparison to Roman liturgy is to compare the treasury of Ukrainian and Slavonic liturgical music to the treasury of Roman liturgical music in Latin and say that they are both superior to their English counterparts.

But people are so quick to be offended that they think he’s said something negative about Ukrainian-language liturgy when he has in fact said precisely the opposite, extolling it over English-language liturgy.


Given the radical misunderstandings put forth of both Cardinal Sandri and Archbishop Gullickson’s remarks I don’t see how we can’t refrain from condemning him (and others in this thread have used very harsh terms like “dereliction of duty.”

Ok, fair enough...I think I was more or less conceding that basic direction.

But that doesn't make Cardinal Koch's comments any more helpful. I am not accusing him of anything, merely responding to the report of his comments. I agree that we should pause and make sure we haven't misunderstood what he said, but I don't believe that that obligation somehow prevents us from forming a critical opinion.

Peace be unto you as well, Father Deacon!

Alex

Amin!

Dear DMD,

I've read and re-read your post and have only one thing to say . . . BRAVO!!

I'll re-read again later today . . .

Alex

Dear desertman,

I have translated it and have created a new thread on Church News with it.

Alex

I've been wondering about that myself. (I'm reminded of the phrase coined by, I think, Dr. Dragani: "Byzantine bitterness".)

A Russian Orthodox priest once told me that he felt it was nonsense to have a Ukrainian language liturgy since that language is "graceless."

The question is why the Vatican didn't send one of their excellent professors of the Christian East who, in fact, know more about Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism than anyone?

Alex

And there is a difference?

No, there are many differences. Some that make the situation better, and also some that make it worse.

This is the part of the text that I find truly problematic, because it reveals two very different views of the nature of the Church. The Orthodox hold to a patristic viewpoint, while the Roman Church continues to support the late medieval scholastic viewpoint.

The Eucharistic and Trinitarian ecclesiology of the Church Fathers is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology advocated by the Cardinal in his talk.

I think it might be relevant that our Major-Archbishop/Patriarch Sviatoslav was in Rome Thursday, June 13, and con-celebrating with Papa Francesco at the Domus chapel. I'm sure they had a good chat at breakfast. Perhaps they touched on the Cardinal Prefect's remarks. In any case, on another occasion that day the the pope acknowledged his oversight in not appointing to his advisory committee on reforming the Curia a representative from the Eastern churches. He will soon do so. To those who can go, I look forward to seeing you at OL Conference on Monday!