www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Apologetics guidelines?

A friend shared this material with me awhile ago. It might be of interest here due to recent discussions. Perhaps more could be said?

The Eastern Churches and Catholic Apologetics

How should Catholics view the Eastern Churches?

"Everyone should realize that it is of supreme importance to
understand, venerate, preserve and foster the rich spiritual
heritage of the Eastern Churches in order faithfully to preseve
the fulness of Christian tradition, and to bring about
reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians."
[Decree on Ecmenism, Chapter 3, Part I, Paragraph 15]

Catholics should avoid an attitude that would suggest that the
Latin Church is superior or is normative Catholicism. Due to the
East/West Schism the Latin Church is the largest particular Church
within the Catholic Church. Catholic apologists should not forget
that even within the Catholic Church itself there are other
Churches with differing liturgical and ecclesiastical traditions
and theological approaches which are equal in dignity with the
Latin Church.

Catholic apologists should follow this counsel of Pope John Paul
II for a fuller understanding of the Church:

"Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient
tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the
heritage of Christ's Church, the first need for Catholics is _to
be familiar with that tradition_, so as to be nourished by it and
to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for
each."
[Orientale Lumen, section 1]

"I believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding
and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of the
other. The children of the Catholic Church already know the ways
indicated by the Holy See for achieving this: to know the liturgy
of the Eastern Churches, to deepen their knowledge of the
spiritual traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian
East..."
[Orientale Lumen, section 24]

The "heritage of the universal Church" is preserved and *grows* in both
the West and East

"Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of
being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our
Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church
of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this
treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that
_the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity_ be restored
to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single
tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the
other: and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely
revealed and undivided Church which is preserved and grows in the
life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West."
[Orientale Lumen, section 1]

The full manifestation of the catholicity of the Church is
hindered by pitting East and West in opposition to each other. As
it stands, the Pope feels the "full manifestation of the Church's
catholicity" needs to be "restored to the Church and to the
world." This catholicity is expressed by *both* East and West.
Catholic apologists should strive to avoid contrasting Eastern and
Western approaches to theology and spirituality. (John Paul, for
example speaks appreciatingly of the "apophastic" approach of the
Christian East which contrasts with the "systematic" approach of
the West--Orientale Lumen, section 16.)

Are the Orthodox Churches part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church"?

"These [particular Orthodox] Churches, although separated from us
[administratively], yet possess true sacraments, above all - by
apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby
they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." [Decree on
Ecumenism Part I, section 15, paragraph 3]

"Hence, through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in
each of these [Orthodox] Churches, THE CHURCH OF GOD IS BUILT UP
AND GROWS IN STATURE and through concelebration, their communion
with one another is made manifest." [Decree on Ecumenism Part I,
section 15, paragraph 1]

It follows from this that if the Orthodox have apostolic
succession and valid sacraments, and if through their celebration
of the Eucharist the Church of God is built up, then the Orthodox
must be within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Could the Church of God be built up by those outside the Church?
Could apostolic succession and the Eucharist exist outside the
Church? It doesn't seem possible.

In speaking to the Faculty of the Pontifical Oriental Institute,
John Paul said:

"The Church of Christ is one. If divisions exist, that is one
thing; they must be overcome, but the Church is one, the Church
of Christ between East and West can only be one, one and united."
[Orientale Lumen, section 20]

Does Orthodoxy share in the *fullness* of Catholicity?

"Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion
with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity"
[St Ignatius]. For with this church, by reason of its
pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere,
must necessarily be in accord" [St Irenaeus]. Indeed, "from the
incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere
have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be
their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's
promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her [St
Maximus the Confessor].'"
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 834]

Under the heading: "Who belongs to the Catholic Church?," the
Catechism goes on to say:

"Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are
put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic
Church." _With the Orthodox Churches_ this communion is so
profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would
permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 838]

This is why the Second Vatican Council could say that the Eastern
Orthodox Churches

"are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore some
worship in common (_communicatio in sacris_), given suitable
circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely
possible but is encouraged."
[Decree on Ecumenism, Chapter 3, Part I, Section 15]

A balanced Catholic apologetic will recognize that the Eastern
Churches while not sharing in the principle of Catholic unity and
thus not "fully catholic" are nonetheless "in closest intimacy"
with us. By their celebration of the Eucharist and possession and
use of the Sacraments (Holy Mysteries) "the Church of God is built
up and grows in stature."

The Orthodox or Eastern Church is "Sister Church" to the Catholic or
Western Church.

"In each local Church this mystery of divine love is enacted, and
surely this is the ground of the traditional and very beautiful
expression `Sister Churches,' which local Churches were fond of
applying to one another (cf. Decree _Unitatis Redintegratio_,
14). For centuries we lived this life of `Sister Churches,' and
together held Ecumenical Councils which guarded the deposit of
faith against all corruption. And now, after a long time of
division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord is enabling us to
discover ourselves as `Sister Churches' once more, in spite of
the obstacles which we once raised between us."
[Ut Unum Sint, section 57, quoting Pope Paul VI]

The Catholic Church is seeking unity with the East in a different way
than the model of union which produced the Eastern Catholic Churches.

"Because of the way in which Catholic and Orthodox once again
consider each other as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary
apostolate" described above, and which has been called
"uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be
followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking."
[Balamand Statement, Ecclesiological Principles, paragraph 12]

Catholic apologists should be aware that the model of union which
produced the Eastern Catholic Churches (and its reality) was flawed and that
these
Churches are now being encouraged to re-discover their full identity

"Of course, in today's outlook it appears that true union is
possible only in total respect for the other's dignity without
claiming that the whole array of uses and customs in the Latin
Church is more complete or better suited to showing the fullness
of correct doctrine; and again, that this union must be preceded
by an awareness of communion that permeates the whole Church and
is not limited to an agreement among leaders. Today we are
conscious--and this has frequently been reasserted--that unity
will be achieved how and when the Lord desires, and that it will
require the contribution of love's sensitivity and creativity,
perhaps even going beyond the forms already tried in history.

"The Eastern Churches which entered into full communion with Rome
wished to be an expression of this concern, according to the
degree of maturity of the ecclesial awareness of the time. In
entering into catholic communion, they did not at all intend to
deny their fidelity to their own tradition, to which they have
borne witness down the centuries with heroism and often by
shedding their blood. And if sometimes, in their relations with
the Orthodox Churches, misunderstandings and open opposition have
arisen, we all know that we must _ceaselessly implore divine
mercy_ and a new heart capable of reconciliation over and above
any wrong suffer or inflicted.

"It has been stressed several times that the full union of the
Catholic Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome which has
already been achieved must not imply a diminished awareness of
their own authenticity and originality. Whenever this occurred,
the Second Vatican Council has urged them to rediscover their
full identity, because they have `the right and the duty to
govern themselves according to their own special disciplines. For
these are guaranteed by ancient tradition, and seem to be better
suited to the customs of their faithful and to the good of their
souls.' These Churches carry a tragic wound, for they are still
kept from full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches
despite sharing in the heritage of their fathers. _A constant,
shared conversion is indispensible_ for them to advance
resolutely and energetically toward mutual understanding. An d
conversion is also required of the Latin Church, that she may
respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern Christians,
and accept gratefully the spiritual treasures of which the
Eastern Catholic Churches are the bearers, to the benefit of the
entire catholic communion; that she may show concretely, far more
than in the past, how much she esteems and admires the Christian
East and how essential she considers its contribution to the full
realization of the Church's universality."
[Orientale Lumen, sections 20, 21]

Catholic apologists who want to dialogue with the Christian East
should be aware of the problems encountered by those Churches
which entered into communion with Rome (latinizations, loss of
traditions, etc.) Aware of these, the Catholic apologist should
not imply that Orthodox Christians should just simply convert to
Eastern
Catholicism. This is not the type of unity the Catholic Church is
seeking today.

Scott,

Thanks for a well researched and excellently written post.

>>Could the Church of God be built up by those outside the Church? Could apostolic succession and the Eucharist exist outside the Church? It doesn't seem possible.<<

The Orthodox are not outside the Church! They are fully members of the Church even though there is a continuing squabble within our family. East and West are each Prodigal Sons and Roman Catholic apologists are wrong if they seek to entice the Orthodox to join the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, most Roman Catholic apologists have little or no knowledge of the Christian East and often wrongly maintain that the Latin Tradition is superior to the Byzantine and that we have some special dispensation to exist. Only education and prayer will correct this.

Moose, Scott,

Thanks to Scott for these wonderful posts, and for your thoughtful insights, Moose.

Moose, your post highlights a point that I think merits emphasis. The Orthodox are very, very much a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Pre-VaticanII, the Roman Church's teaching on this matter was somewhat contradictory -- on the one hand, the Orthodox were viewed as schismatics who wer "outside the Church", but, on the other hand, the Roman church did not deny that the Orthodox had valid succession and holy orders, and hence valid sacraments. Therefore, the pre-conciliar teaching was that the Orthodox were somehow schismatics who nevertheless had valid orders and sacraments -- this is a contradiction.

Post-council, the Church affirms that the Orthodox are, in fact, part of the Church in such a profound way that communion is possible (e.g., the American NCCB statement that explicitly allows Orthodox to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church). Your characterization of this as an intra-family dispute is 100% accurate, Moose.

The problem is that there are so many Catholics (clergy and laity alike) who are ill-versed in these matters and therefore have erroneous opinions that contradict the Vatican's position. There are many Catholics, particularly Latins, who feel that the Orthodox are still outside the Church, and that the Roman church is superior, in spite of all of the things that the Vatican has been saying to the contrary. This is a catechetical problem that needs to be addressed if more fruitful discussions of unity are to take place.

And lest we think that this is relatively unimportant, I think we all ought to remember that Christ's last wish in the Garden was for unity -- a unity that would be real and profound, as He and the Father are one. We must all first work for unity within our own hearts, as Thomas Merton said, and seek to realize this spiritual unity in the temporal world -- a tough thing, but a very worthy task, I think.

Wishing you and yours a blessed Nativity/Theophany season!

Sincerely in Christ,

Brendan

A most interesting thread! That the Eastern churches bear a "tragic wound" -- separation from their Orthodox brethren -- is an evocative image which resonates with me, as I live in an area where there are no Eastern Catholic churches, but there is an Antiochian Orthodox parish.

For most of last year, I held an internal debate about whether to attend the well-sung, vibrant Orthodox liturgies or the lackluster Roman liturgies. I described this dilemma in my "spiritual desert" post on the Byzantines.net message board.

Well, no compromise is perfect or very satisfying, but my solution for now is to occasionally receive Eucharist at the local Roman parish, but to offer up my true worship to God at the Orthodox parish where the liturgy indeed glorifies Christ. My situation is not "tragic" (okay - I do succumb to a bit of self-pity now and then), but I am pained to watch the Orthodox Christians file up to the priest to receive the Body of Christ; the Fount of Immortality --- which I am denied, for no fault of my own, but on account of the sins and schisms and pride of men long dead.

Apologetics and evangelism, in my case, must consist less in argument and polemic, than in simply trying to be the best Byzantine Catholic I can be -- while being watched by the Orthodox.

Forgive my slight digression -- the body analogies of "lungs" and "wounds" got me athinkin'.

To go off on another tangent, I think the work of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (of which I am happily a member) provides an excellent example of Catholic/Orthodox collaboration, and is advancing the cause of mutual love and communion more than any high-level council could hope to. While I've not yet found anything about CNEWA on the web, they publish a beautiful magazine, "Catholic Near East", which describes their charitable and spiritual work among Catholics of various eastern rites AS WELL AS Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believers.

Christ is born! Glorify him!

I know this is real old. I came across this and was wondering if perhaps this file could be edited and some citations from _Dominus Iesus_ added.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I know that this might be "politically incorrect" or "whatever", but when I read this stuff from the Apostolic See that purports to say that we are equal and not just an appendage to the Roman Church, my general reaction is "why do we need an affirmation from the Roman Curia" that re-affirms our Eastern existence? We're real. We've been around since time immemorial and don't need anybody's "mandatum" that we are to be respected. We have voluntarily adjoined our selves to the See of Peter because we believe in his earthly authority over the church as successor to St. Peter.

But when I read these pronouncements about our equality, I wonder why Roman Catholics need to be educated about our existence (what the heck is wrong with Roman ecclesiology!!!) and my other response is: "Oh yes, Massa. We be so grateful that you be willin' to accept us po' simple Greek Christians as worthy to be part of yo' church."

Bite me.

Blessings!

I understand where you are coming from, Dr John. I think things are improving, however. I watched the "Light of the East" episode on EWTN today and was encouraged that the Eastern Church is represented there.

In many parts of the world the Eastern Church is unknown among Roman Catholics simply because it's...unknown. The nearest Eastern Catholic parish to where I live is over 150 miles away. Yet I have been treated with the upmost respect by the Roman Catholics in this area. For example, at the adult discussion group today after Mass I mentioned some of our background in the Eastern Church and some of the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches and no one batted an eye. Most of the folks there are very much in tune with the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ which mentions most of these differences.

What I'm trying to say is I think there's hope!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dr John .... You'll have to excuse the ignorance of us Roman Catholics, especially here in the USA. A huge majority of us haven't been exposed to the Eastern Rites (as noted in Dave's comments). I should think the Papal messages regarding all the rites is more of a push in the right direction than a statement of acceptance.

The EWTN "Light of the East" series is opening our eyes and I, for one, look forward to the weekly episodes. I've attended Byzantine Masses and was encouraged by a fellow SFO of the magnificence of the Greek services.

From another site, I've been receiving teachings of the Fathers of our Faith. I've been awestruck many times by the Beauty and Truths of these teachings.

There's a lot for us RCs to learn, you'll simply have to be more patient with us

Loretta, SFO

I apologize for being so cranky about this issue. I do understand that our RC brethren need to be made aware of the existence of the Church in the East. Unfortunately, in trying to do so, the message given by the Roman Church says something different to the Easterns who hear it. Maybe the message needs to be re-formulated in some fashion so that the Roman community can get the message that the East "exists" (and has ALWAYS existed) but without the 'sub-text' that Easterns are kosher because Rome has said they are.

Sounds like some curial paper-pushers are going to have to take a course in rhetoric and linguistics.

Blessings!

Dear CAPTL, The website is www.cnewa.org [cnewa.org]
Vito

Dr John:

Speaking as a Latin Rite Catholic, I can tell you that I am rather ignorant of my eastern heritage (as it is a part of the Catholic -- universal -- Christian faith). I am so because I do not come from an eastern background and have never been exposed to it.

I think you have, perhaps, read into what the Apostolic See was trying to say. Here's what I mean.

The more I am reading and learning about the Eastern Church, those in union with Peter and those not, the more I see a lot of cultural, ideological, and liturgical indifferentism. Indifferentism leads towards alienation. Alienation leads to mistrust. Mistrust leads to anger. Anger leads to conflict. Conflict leads towards general suspicion and maltreatment in some cases.

When I read the Church's words regarding the east, I do not see it as a "Massa" validating the existence of his bastard child -- which is what your initial post seems to implicate. Rather, I see a Church who knows well the dignity and "existence" of the Eastern Church and is simply trying to communicate this to her ignorant children.

The part you seem to have had the most problem with is taken from the CCC section dealing with the relationship of Catholics with other Christians. It starts out as saying that the Orthodox are who they are (ref: the validity of their sacramental life) and that they are NOT to be confused with our Protestant brethren, who while real "existing" Christians do not possess the valid sacramental life, as it was broken with -- rejected would be a more accurate historical description -- completely.

Thus, the Church is trying to tell its faithful that a Catholic ought not place the Orthodox in the same boat as the Protestant. Again, as both are certainly Christians, but with the former being an ancient, "original" if you will, entity, while the later are a modern creation of men in response to their times.

In this light, I do not think it is a matter of the Master and Servant Churches implication at all, but really quite the opposite in that we are brother churches who are separated.

There is a family that has two brothers (we will call them east and west).

They are very much the same, as the same blood courses through their veins and they have the same parents (we'll call this God and BVM) and share a familiar family life (we'll call this the sacramental life).

However, they are separated over disputes (filioque) and do not come together to the parent's house for the holidays (separated services).

Eventually these two men get married and have sons. This goes on for generations. Sometimes these sons live close to the families ancestral lands (we'll call this the Holy Land and all other lands where Orthodox and Catholics are within arms length of each other) and sometimes at great distances apart. Occasionally fights break out between these sons of the first two brothers. Mistrust and suspicion settles in and begins to cloud their familial vision of each other.

Years down the road the descendants of the one brother have a similar split, only this time they willfully break off from the family in a formal way because they reject the familiar family life (again we'll call this the sacramental life). Then these sons replace it with their interpretation of this life. Then they go further and disavow their relationship to their father's father's father (we'll call them the communion of saints). They reject the life-blood (sacraments) of the family, but for the name. They establish themselves as their own legitimate family by proclamation (we can call these sons Protestant). Then the same happens to his sons and his sons and his sons.

Then the family starts to look like what Christendom looks like today. Certainly all family (Christians), but definitely separated by one degree or another.

This is where we are. I think the Church is trying to remind and in some cases inform these later sons that despite our differences magnified by time, space and lack of trust that we are all members of the same family. In these cases she is trying to point this out by saying these are your brothers in the faith. Some hold the family traditions and some do not. That is all Dr. John.

Donnchadh