www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Ecumenism

It was not unusual for dioceses to be multi-ritual in the first millennium. There were Byzantine churches under Roman jurisdiction, and Roman churches under Byzantine jurisdiction.

Sure. I think that excepting a massive collapse in the structures of the Church, people are unlikely to accept this. So I suppose maybe the massive collapse underway is kind of a good thing.

Heck, we Orthodox in the diaspora (and our parallel Eastern Catholic friends) can't abide the idea of one Bishop in a city and eliminating dioceses based on ethnic heritage. Ukrainians don't want Russian bishops, Greeks don't want Arab bishops, Russians want Russian bishops, Serbs don't want Romanian ones and no one wants Macedonian ones and so on. The idea of being governed by a Latin Rite bishop (and vice versa) is beyond hypothetical, it borders on fantasy.

Dear DMD,

Absolutely. I grew up near a Latin Catholic parish and my dad used to tell me that when I heard the Latin chant . . . "run as fast as you can away from it before Latinization sets in!"

And he was quite serious . . .

Alex

I think you might be right. It's not really clear how this would work out in an undivided church of the future. But I do think it's a huge question. It is a commonplace to say that unity must and would uphold diversity and that communion wouldn't mean absorption, but what would a visible unity mean? What would it mean locally? After all, the elaboration of parallel, overlapping jurisdictions for Eastern Catholics in North America emerged only to prevent absorption because it was a necessary provision to ensure their survival. (I am totally open to correction here.)

Perhaps the outcome would be the collapse of the original canonical pattern. The oddity that we have might be the best that can be hoped for, at least in a situation like North America's. Or, perhaps visible unity could be worked out on the ancient model. I would think that would be best wherever it's practicable.

One has to ask whether the emergence of non-ethnic, convert-driven, American Orthodox jurisdictions will change perspectives. If Kyr Kallistos is correct, and ethnicity alone is no longer sufficient to hold people to the Orthodox faith, and that it will require a conscious act of will to be Orthodox, then the ethnic barriers are already disintegrating. The AOA is now majority convert (and its clergy very heavily so), with the OCA now approaching that milestone. ROCOR is increasingly non-Russian, and the GOA is beginning to recognize it can't continue being Greek first and Orthodox second for much longer. So I think that the times they are a-changing.

Good point, for the Orthodox jurisdictions. Perhaps that applies to some extent too to the various Eastern Catholic jurisdictions? But what of a (re)united multi-ritual church?

Well that sews up America. Now for that pesky rest of the planet...

But it is in the United States that the problem of overlapping jurisdictions is most pressing, because of our history. And remember, until the 1920s, all the Orthodox in the U.S. were under one jurisdiction--the Russian Orthodox North American Mission. The Bolshies ruined everything.

In response to "Orthodox Catholic", it is indeed unfortunate that your family felt this way. A was an altar boy, even through high school and loved the latin. After Vatican II and its confusion (which still exists) I started going to a Ukranian Catholic Church (some of its members attended our parochial high school, and my parents asked why I was going to a "Russian" Church and I told them that I was impressed by the spirituality of the Eastern Church and loved the Church Slavonik. Unfortunately, there is no Byzantine Church near where I am but I love aspects of both churches and my heart lies more with the Byzantines than the latins, where so many don't even believe in the Real Presence or know hot to conduct themselves in Church. When I have the opportunity I do go to a Ruthenian or Ukranian parish where the sanctity of the sanctuary and the tabernacle seem to still be present.

Much of the Latinization of the Ruthenians in the United States was caused by Archbishop Nicholas Elko who discouraged the use of the iconostasis in new Church buildings, insisting on utilizing the Filioque clause in the Creed and many other Western ideas. I attended also Holy Spirit Church in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh and although it is a beautiful church they were not permitted to put in an iconostasis (Thank God they didn't install an organ). Archbishop Elko was recalled to Rome due to complaints about his Latinization of the churches and he never again returned to a Byzantine diocese, serving the remainder of his years in a Latin Rite diocese in Ohio.

And quite right!

I'll offer a correction based on my hearing it from my dad. The Rusyns/Ruthenians and Galicians(now Ukrainians) were originally served by one Bishop, +Soter Ortynsky, who was Galician. The Ruthenians didn't like him because he wasn't Ruthenian, the Galicians didn't like him because they accused him of catering to the Ruthenians and parishes continued to flip flop between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox through the end of the war (WWI). He returned to Europe and after the war ended Rome sent an ethnic Bishop for each American Eparchy.The rest ,as they say, is history. (The Ruthenians, who are rarely happy Halloween to this day, didn't all like him (Bishop Takach) as he was Magyarized, from Ungvar/Uzhorod and the predominant percent of the clergy were educated in Presov and didn't like Hunagarian influenced mannerisms.)

Thanks, DMD.

Besides the multiple overlapping Eastern jurisdictions, though, there is the question of the overlapping/parallel jurisdictions at all. Would a future united church preserve this reality of overlapping jurisdictions of different rite? Or would it restore the ancient pattern? Could one regional synod really support the diversity of tradition?

It would require a whole lot of patience, love and education. One only has to look back to Archbishop Ireland's inability to accept the Catholicism of Father Toth a century and a quarter ago.

The Archbishop and the priest were both highly educated men for their day and both were products of a long standing and esteemed Catholic university/seminary system in their respective lands. Each man was well versed in Canon law, each man had practical diocesan chancery experience, neither was young or inexperienced. Each was an accomplished, intelligent Catholic priest. Each thought that he was loyal to the Holy See.

History tells us how that encounter worked out.