Recently, I was involved in an interesting private discussion about the way that the Catholic Church has historically handled the individual conversions of Orthodox Christians to her communion.
One of the participants in the discussion maintained that, since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church generally frowns on such individual conversions, that she would rather Orthodox Christians remain within their own communion (since, after all, unlike Protestant bodies, the local Orthodox Churches are indeed “true particular Churches” in Rome’s eyes), and that the Orthodox Churches should be dealt with corporately. There may be instances in which individual conversion is warranted (that is, the Church would never turn away those who feel that they must convert as a matter of conscience), but generally speaking, individual conversions do not figure into Rome’s ecumenical programme with Orthodoxy, and in fact, they could be seen as directly counter to it – that is, as actually thwarting the true quest for corporate unity.
My question: Is this an accurate representation of the current Catholic* approach to Orthodoxy; and if so, where would one be able to find this approach expressed officially?
* Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic; or, to make things a bit more complex, are there different approaches here?
Update – I should have mentioned my awareness of the clauses in the Balamand Declaration (1993), dealing with proselytism:
5. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unit there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications …
But I am also aware that this statement, like all such joint ecumenical statements, does not officially bind either side to its recommendations. And the Balamand Declaration has its fair share of fierce critics, from conservative and traditionalists on both sides of the schism.
What I am looking for is some public teaching from the Roman magisterium to the effect that individual conversions of Eastern Orthodox Christians are not in line with the Roman Church’s current policy concerning union with the Orthodox Churches.
Eirenikon 
I know that Russian Orthodox like to accuse the Catholics of proselytizing in Russia – one response from Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz can be found here: http://www.zenit.org/article-3698?l=english
[I like his use of the word “umpteenth” in regard to the number of such accusations.]
There seems to be a general policy of non-proselytization, but I don’t know where it’s codified.
Irenaeus: Given the recent Anglican proposal, I think it is getting harder and harder to maintain that the Catholic Church discourages individual conversions. I think that meme is part of the flotsam and jetsam left over from the “Spirit of Vatican II,” but I do not see how it can be justified in light of the VCII documents themselves, much less recent documents such as Dominus Iesus.
Yes, I know the Catholic Church does not regard Anglican orders and mysteries as valid or the Anglican communion as a true particular church. Which means the Anglican situation is different from the Orthodox situation. Nonetheless, I think Pope Benedict’s recent overtures toward Anglicans show where he is coming from (and where the Church herself is coming from): We ain’t into “compelle intrare,” but we sure in heck are not going to turn people away. No, not even from Orthodoxy.
I’ve been told by a source who shall remain nameless that there are many individuals (including clergy) currently seeking to transition from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. We do not hear a lot about them — it is not a big huge noisy public affair like the Doxing of Rod Dreher or Alexey Young — precisely because the Catholic Church does not want to appear triumphalist or anti-ecumenical or what have you. So, it’s all very quiet, but it is definitely happening.
Meanwhile, I think the individual contemplating such a move is well advised to look at actual Catholic Church Teaching rather than at constantly changing and fluctuating currents of theological / ecclesiological thought. Lumen Gentium says (forget exact quote): He cannot be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church to be the True Church of Christ, nonetheless refuses to enter her. That sure sounds to me as if it applies to individuals! And it’s de fide Church Teaching, not speculation or opinion.
Diane, that’s precisely the sort of official teaching I’m looking for.
But, if I may play devil’s advocate, there is a school of thought within the Catholic Church, especially since Vatican II, which argues that the Orthodox Churches do in fact still constitute one Church with the Churches in communion with Rome, although this communion is severely impaired.
See, for instance, Louis Bouyer’s argument that “the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, though dreadfully tempted by the spirit of division remain one Church, in fact and by right, despite contrary appearances.”
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2006/04/are-catholics-and-orthodox-in-schism.html
Certainly this is not a magisterial statement, but there is a question about how one interprets the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Given the considerable development, over the centuries, of the Catholic understanding of the traditional ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ teaching, it’s hard to imagine that the mind of the Catholic Church really makes such a strict judgment of Orthodox as being “outside the Church” (that kind of strictness you’re much more likely to find on my side of the schism!).
The Catholic Church reserves the term “conversion” for those non-Christians who turn from sin and embrace the Gospel through baptism. One should refrain from describing the embrace of full communion with Christ’s Church on earth by baptized Christians as “conversion.”
I’m afraid that your friend my not be familiar with what Vatican II has decreed in this regard. The Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches of Vatican II, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, says, “Nothing more should be demanded of separated Eastern Christians who come to Catholic unity under the influence of the grace of the Holy Spirit than what the simple profession of the Catholic faith requires. And since valid priesthood has been preserved among them, Eastern clerics who come to Catholic unity may exercise their own Orders, in accordance with the regulations laid down by the competent authority.” #25
This requirement of a simple and private profession of faith to the local bishop without need for any formal reception or liturgical pomp and circumstance has not changed for centuries. Vatican II simply restated the Church’s teaching and practice in this regard.
Yes, indeed, “conversion” is not a good term here, but I use it for lack of a better one.
The quotation from the Decree on the Eastern Churches is, again, precisely the sort of official teaching I’ve been looking for. However, if I may play devil’s advocate once more, I don’t see here any statement about the necessity for separated Eastern Christians to return, individually, to Rome’s communion; only the possibility that there may be individuals who in good conscience feel moved to pursue this.
Part of the problem may lie in what exactly one means by “individual conversion”. Orthodox don’t need to “convert” in the strict sense to become Catholics. If they have been chrismated into Orthodoxy, the eucharist, penance, anointment of the sick are all freely available to them. I suppose a profession of faith would have to be required before actual ordination or acceptance into Catholic orders, but technically Orthodox don’t have to “convert” to become Catholics.
I know that for some Orthodox wishing to leave their Church, this isn’t enough. Some insist on being confirmed, but I can’t see a Catholic bishop performing a conditional confirmation/chrismation except with the utmost reluctance. The other question would be which rite in which to accept the new “convert.”
With respect to the former Soviet Union, there have been two distinct but related conversion issues:
1. The descendants of Eastern Catholics returning to the reconstituted Eastern Catholic Churches without having themselves been baptized and chrismated as Eastern Catholics. Ukranian Catholics in particular have been quite pointed in such recruiting, and this is seen as proselytism by some Orthodox.
2. Some post-Soviet ethnic Russians coming from an irreligious background have chosen to become (usually Latin) Catholics in opting for Christianity because they feel the Catholic Church was less compromised by collaboration with Communism. They, of course, are baptized and confirmed as Catholics, and the Russian Church considers this to be prosletysm, even when no active recruitment effort is involved.
Michaël, I’m shocked to hear that some Orthodox wishing to be in communion with Rome would want to be “re-confirmed”! I’ve never heard of such a thing. God forbid.
Well technically, they don’t want to be “reconfirmed”. They have just developed the view that the Soviet Church had so abandoned its mission and become perverse that its sacraments had become graceless. While the Catholic Church disagrees, it’s not really that extraordinary a mind frame in Russia: think Old Believers for example. Besides, Catholic converts to Orthodox are often admitted by chrismation.
There was a parallel case a few years ago of a Dutch princess who converted insisting that her Calvinist baptism had been invalid. She was conditionally baptized into the Church, but it still caused a scandal at the time, with Dutch Calvinists lodging a formal protest.
What “profession of the faith” would be required?
Is it the recitation of the Creed, with or without the filioque, ( since the Creed was recited by the Pope without it)?
Catholic Profession of Faith
We believe in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels, and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.
We believe that this only God is absolutely one in His infinitely holy essence as also in all His perfections, in His omnipotence, His infinite knowledge, His providence, His will and His love. He is He who is, as He revealed to Moses, and He is love, as the apostle John teaches us: so that these two names, being and love, express ineffably the same divine reality of Him who has wished to make Himself known to us, and who, “dwelling in light inaccessible” is in Himself above every name, above every thing and above every created intellect. God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light. The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the Three Persons, who are each one and the same divine being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure. We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men to the unity of God, even though they know not the mystery of the most holy Trinity.
Catholic Profession of Faith in God the Father
We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales, the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always “there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity.”
Catholic Profession of Faith in God the Son
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. He is the Eternal Word, born of the Father before time began, and one in substance with the Father, homoousios to Patri, and through Him all things were made. He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was made man: equal therefore to the Father according to His divinity, and inferior to the Father according to His humanity; and Himself one, not by some impossible confusion of His natures, but by the unity of His person.
He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in Himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. Under Pontius Pilate He suffered — the Lamb of God bearing on Himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the cross, saving us by His redeeming blood. He was buried, and, of His own power, rose on the third day, raising us by His resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits — those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.
And His Kingdom will have no end.
Catholic Profession of Faith in God the Holy Spirit
We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church’s members if they do not shun His grace. His action, which penetrates to the inmost of the soul, enables man to respond to the call of Jesus: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48).
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding the Virginia Mary
We believe that Mary is the Mother, who remained ever a Virgin, of the Incarnate Word, our God and Savior Jesus Christ, and that by reason of this singular election, she was, in consideration of the merits of her Son, redeemed in a more eminent manner, preserved from all stain of original sin and filled with the gift of grace more than all other creatures.
Joined by a close and indissoluble bond to the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption, the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate, was at the end of her earthly life raised body and soul to heavenly glory and likened to her risen Son in anticipation of the future lot of all the just; and we believe that the Blessed Mother of God, the New Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven her maternal role with regard to Christ’s members, cooperating with the birth and growth of divine life in the souls of the redeemed.
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding Original Sin
We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents — established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, “not by imitation, but by propagation” and that it is thus “proper to everyone.”
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding the Cross and Baptism
We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, “where sin abounded grace did more abound.”
We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn “of water and the Holy Spirit” to the divine life in Christ Jesus.
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding the Church
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude. By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement. She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Heiress of the divine promises and daughter of Abraham according to the Spirit, through that Israel whose scriptures she lovingly guards, and whose patriarchs and prophets she venerates; founded upon the apostles and handing on from century to century their ever-living word and their powers as pastors in the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; perpetually assisted by the Holy Spirit, she has the charge of guarding, teaching, explaining and spreading the Truth which God revealed in a then veiled manner by the prophets, and fully by the Lord Jesus. We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium. We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful, and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium.
We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion. In the bosom of this Church, the rich variety of liturgical rites and the legitimate diversity of theological and spiritual heritages and special disciplines, far from injuring her unity, make it more manifest.
Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity, and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity, we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.
We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding The Eucharist
We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.
Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine, as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.
The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us.
Catholic Profession of Faith Regarding the Kingdom of God
We confess that the Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and that its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but that it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. But it is this same love which induces the Church to concern herself constantly about the true temporal welfare of men. Without ceasing to recall to her children that they have not here a lasting dwelling, she also urges them to contribute, each according to his vocation and his means, to the welfare of their earthly city, to promote justice, peace and brotherhood among men, to give their aid freely to their brothers, especially to the poorest and most unfortunate. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conform herself to the things of this world, or that she lessen the ardor of her expectation of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom.
We believe in the life eternal. We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ — whether they must still be purified in purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies Jesus takes them to paradise as He did for the Good Thief — are the People of God in the eternity beyond death, which will be finally conquered on the day of the Resurrection when these souls will be reunited with their bodies.
We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is, and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.
We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are attaining their purification, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion the merciful love of God and His saints is ever listening to our prayers, as Jesus told us: Ask and you will receive. Thus it is with faith and in hope that we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Where is this profession of faith found?
To be quite serious, I don’t think too many Catholics have even heard of this nor have they recited it, ( it seems a tad long and rather abstract).
Hallo.
Concerning this question, I know someone (only via her former blog) who converted from Romanian Orthodoxy to the Catholic Church and is now a Eastern Catholic.
She was told by the Catholic priest that conversion to Catholicism (instead of remainig orthodox) would not be necessary for her salvation.
I don’t know, though, if that’s official teaching, since an individual might see the necessity of being in union with the bishop of Rome and thus jeopardize his salvation if he does not join the visible Catholic church.
She was told by the Catholic priest that conversion to Catholicism (instead of remainig orthodox) would not be necessary for her salvation.
Well, strictly speaking, Catholics believe that even non-Christians can (CAN, not necessarily will) be saved. Let alone non-Catholics.
But, if your friend firmly believed that the Catholic Church was the True Church instituted by Christ, then she would imperil her salvation if she did not enter it.
That’s per Lumen Gentium. :)
Diane: Once again, I’ll take the role of devil’s advocate and point out that it doesn’t seem entirely clear, according to contemporary Catholic ecclesiology, that the Orthodox Churches can be spoken of as being flat out “outside the Church”, or that the Orthodox Churches are something different from that one true Church instituted by Christ.
Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) Vatican II
3. Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one body, and whom he has quickened to newness of life – that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be attained (Per solam enim Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam, quae generale auxilium salutis est, omnis salutarium mediorum plenitudo attingi potest).
I have found it extremely helpful to read the actual documents of Vatican II.
Irenaeus — Gil provides one answer from VCII. I can provide similar answers from recent Vatican docs but have a crazy deadline to meet first.
Bottom line: Per Catholicism, Orthodoxy is really really realllly close but not all the way there. :)
More later….
Convert is the right term in the example being spoken of, because it’s intellectual assent to a different set of guiding principles. Many “converts” of course are not really the recipients of evangelization efforts, they’re simply changing from one flavor of Christian belief to another.
In my own experience, I have found that avoiding convert oriented environments and discussion is usually a good plan of action.
The recent (year ago?) statement by the Vatican that the Orthodox are, in Rome’s view, true particular Churches with valid Mysteries and Apostolic Succession, did leave me wondering: what, then, does Rome suppose is missing? If we’re to take the Vatican II line quoted by Gil, above, then it’s the blessing of unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow upon His Church. Of course, the same can then be said about the Roman Catholic communion, even under its own self-understanding.
One could not blame an Orthodox considering Rome, perhaps skeptical about how, or why, the ark of the Apostolic Tradition had so radically altered its own life, liturgy and discipline in the space of a few short decades, from concluding it’s best to stay put for now. This would be true by Rome’s own teaching, as given above, as it places one in no spiritual danger (how can one be said to be outside the Body of Christ if one is truly communing of the Holy Mysteries of Christ?). And so, I think Irenaeus’ question is a good one; if what he states is the Vatican’s policy, it is consistent with its most recent teaching.
I look forward to Diane’s “more later!”
More from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
2. In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in perfect unity. Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone and shepherd of our souls.
Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter’s successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people’s fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.
The Church, then, is God’s only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it: for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.
More…
14. For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See *before separation.*
More…
15. These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.
More…
16. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.
More…
18. After taking all these factors into consideration, this Sacred Council solemnly repeats the declaration of previous Councils and Roman Pontiffs, that for the restoration or the maintenance of unity and communion it is necessary “to impose no burden beyond what is essential”.
What is essential to union is a simple profession of faith in the role of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter and the Catholic Church as the Church that Jesus founded on earth. A simple hand-written profession of Roman communion is what each new Eastern Catholic Patriarch sends to Rome upon enthronement as was the custom in the first millennium. Such a simple profession is what accomplishes union for individuals or for Eastern Churches.
OK, I met my deadline and had a stress coronary in the process. I am so stressed my hands are shaking and my pulse is racing. (I love the advertising biz, really I do….NOT!)
I will wait till I get home tonight to add to Gil’s excellent responses (if that’s even strictly necessary at this point).
Mmmm…glass of wine…Eirenikon blog….
Here goes (re those relatively recent Official Vatican Documents I mentioned):
First, an article re one of these documents:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Now the document itself:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
Needless to say, this bad boy ignited some controversy when it was released. But what can I say? It is what it is. Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, makes certain exclusive claims. Ain’t no getting around it.
Now here’s Dominus Iesus:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
And a relevant excerpt therefrom:
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
(emphases added)
“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
This should be good for a start! ;-)
Diane
Gosh!! Suddenly I’m being moderated. Is it something I said? ;) Just providing some innocuous links…
Diane, I didn’t place you under any form of moderation. My comment policy stands:
https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/comment-policy/
Sometimes WordPress will automatically kick comments with multiple links into moderation. I’m guessing that’s what happened.
Gil Garza
It is evident from the teachings of the Roman Church that the Orthodox Church fully possess all that is necessary for the attainment of salvation in her Mysteries. She also has maintained communion with all the other ancient patriarchates which Rome has not, that is, until Rome established eastern rite equivalents which cannot be considered as valid successors to eastern patriarchal or metropolitan thrones. If the Orthodox were to establish an Orthodox Latin Rite Pope of Rome in Rome through one of Rome’s priests or bishops through the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople, would any one with common sense take this Latin Rite Orthodox Pope seriously? Would it even be prudent? Was the “unia” prudent? It is time for Rome to send the eastern rites home, as well as the Orthodox to send her western rites home. The “unia” (please forgive me if this offends because I’m at a loss for any other word) in my opinion has failed because until Vatican II the eastern rites were often treated poorly by the Romans and it also caused tensions in eastern rite/Orthodox relations which are still felt to this day, but are getting better thank God. I know of a priest (sad but true) who had to sleep with a gun in Hawk Run, PA during the court battles for Church property in the 1940’s! There were people in the same families trying to commit acts of violence on each other in the 1920’s to the early 1960’s! It really was a civil war between communities and families. Many in Rome had hoped that the eastern rite communities would be a bridge to build communion between east and west, but sadly this has not been the case in my opinion. The forced mass conversions of many, but not all Orthodox brought communion to Rome but at a terrible moral cost which yielded poor results numerically in the long run. In the wake of Vatican II I believe it is time for the eastern rites to come home because to maintain them is a sore spot for many Orthodox still. We are no longer viewed as schismatics and heretics as we once were by most in the Roman Church, however I know the SSPX still believes we are and would question our mysteries. Rome still has not restored St. Gregory Palamas Sunday to the byzantine rite Lenten calendar locally. The west can disagree with him but to take him away from the east in an attempt to “erase” a saints teachings which are at the core of eastern spirituality does not allow the eastern rite to be themselves. You can worship in the eastern rite within the communion of Rome but you can not be yourself. And the western rite Orthodox have experienced this but on a far lesser degree. Some of our people go nuts when they here they say the rosary because this is a post schism form of prayer. Yet the criticizers never take the time to listen to the words because if they did they would find nothing heretical. In my Cathedral we still have the old babas praying the rosary on Sunday and I like it, just like I like Latin high mass because they are beautiful. And yes, I know some of my brethren are far to uncharitable when it comes to speaking about the Roman Church, and we are far worse in this area then the Romans which is shameful.
The “unia” has failed in that the desired results have not been achieved and it was in many instances done in a terrible way. There must be communion between east and west because to divide Christ’s body is sinful. Quite possibly the greatest gesture the Roman Church could do would be to send our people home, which I admit, is doubtful. And the Orthodox have admitted officially that the Pope of Roman has primacy over the Church which is a “no brainer”, but how this primacy functions is still up for debate.
The Western rites of the Orthodox Church are not “unia”–there are philosophical differences between them. One is obvious: the Eastern Catholic “rites” are actually Churches, while our Western rites are under the Eastern rite bishops. The other is that the Western rites grew out of a desire within Orthodoxy to practice apostolic Christianity of the western tradition while the Eastern Catholic Churches did not develop in this way (I don’t know how each and every Eastern Catholic Church came to be, but I think it’s safe to say it didn’t happen like that!). So we don’t need to send them home…they are home.
There are criticizers of the Western rite, but really we’re all trying to work out our salvation and we are reconciled by the Chalice. Besides, only online people “go crazy” about Western rite Orthodox saying the rosary. I haven’t met someone yet who has the nerve to say be too harsh to their face.
Sorry everyone I hit the wrong button.
In closing the Orthodox possess the full means to attain salvation and lack nothing in this regard. There is no need to have communion with Rome in order to attain salvation. When the Orthodox confessed the primacy of Rome recently this was on the one hand a “no brainer”, but on the other hand the bishops have flocks to contend with in the east where some see the Pope as anything from Arch-Heresiarch to a forerunner of the Antichrist, which I admit is ridiculous. Nonetheless everything comes with a cost. If the east are in no need of Rome for salvation, and if the eastern rites are a large impediment in the path to communion then why have them now. A westerner will never be truly himself in the east and easterner will never be truly himself in the west. Your people and my people need to first be themselves before they can get “remarried” again. In my jurisdiction there are still some “latinizations” which you can tolerate but the greater Orthodox world frowns on. If communion was restored the Orthodox would flip out at what goes in the eastern rite churches and the eastern rite would flip out and think we are trying to take a tradition away from them and chaos would ensue. I know this to be the case because there are still Orthodox parishes in my jurisdiction where they knell for communion and will not give it up because that is their “tradition” when in actuality it is their “latinization” and they are the talk of the Orthodox town and are still stinking “papists” as far as the greater Orthodox world are concerned. The eastern rite must come home in my opinion if communion is ever going to practically work for the east as a whole. Sure we will have communion with Rome and we will once again be at each others throats because of it.
ZSC
I would argue that they are a type of “unia” for the following reasons… 1) Orthodox Bishops changed your anaphora prayer. 2) Orthodox Bishops changed your creed. 3) Orthodox Bishops changed your calendar to either Julian or Revised Julian. 4) Orthodox Bishops took dogmas away from you believed in the west but not held int the east like original guilt. 5) Orthodox Bishops took away your use of unleavened bread. 6) None of the western rite parishes have a western rite bishop they are all under eastern rite bishops. Sure looks similar to the unia to me.
You haven’t met the Orthodox lunatic fringe in your parish where the rosary is said is obvious. Why would they come? You said that western rite orthodox wanted to practice apostolic christianity of the western tradition… my question…can’t that be done with Rome? Or is Rome not the natural expression of western apostolic christianity in your mind?
Subdeacon Joseph
Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate the emotion that fills your post.
The only thing that Eastern Orthodoxy lacks is Roman communion which I believe is an essential quality of the Church that Jesus founded. To Peter and his successors Jesus entrusted His entire flock to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in unity.
The Byzantine communion of Churches are a family of sister Churches that were, until recently, ruled directly by the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Moscow. In some cases heavy handed rule from The Phanar or Moscow produced schisms within these Churches that led to portions or most of these Churches seeking a return to Roman communion. In the cases of Patriarchal Churches returning to Roman communion, each case involved Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs and their clergy seeking a return to Roman communion. Churches such as the Metropolitanate of Kiev that embraced reunion with Rome during the Synod of Brest in 1595-6 (and later the Metropolitanate of Przemysl at the Synod of 1692 & the Metropolitanate of Lviv in 1700) have not been established as a Patriarchates but as the Major Archbishopric of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Each Church was received by Rome as it was constituted when it originally sought reunion.
There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. Only two have never left Roman communion. The rest have descended from Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches or from the Assyrian Church of the East. Each Eastern Church must affirm Roman communion on its own accord every time a new Patriarch is elected as was the custom during the first millennium. Each new Eastern Catholic Patriarch sends a personal note to the Pope affirming his communion when he is enthroned. This fraternal unity is what binds the Catholic Church together. The Bishop of Rome doesn’t command the Eastern Churches.
Gil, that was a very informative post.
Subdeacon Joseph, I am enjoying your posts as well. Not agreeing with every word but appreciating them very much. You speak from personal experience and heartfelt emotion, and I think I can kinda-sorta see where you’re coming from, although I disagree with some of your conclusions.
And BTW, I never knew that old babas pray the Rosary. Only goes to show how ignorant we are of each other’s traditions.
Gil
I agree with you that inter-communion between east and west is a moral must because to both possess valid mysteries and bishops and not have communion with each other is sinful, and unfortunately we live with this sin to this day.
Most of the unions with Rome, at least in Eastern Europe were forced by the hand of royalty. By the second half of the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation had reached the territories ruled by the Hungarian princes including Carpatho-Russia. Lutheranism became widespread in Slovakia and Calvinism is Transylvania. The political wars between the princes of Transylvania and those who favored the Hapsburg dynasty became a religious war. The pro-Hapsburgs were Roman Catholic while the Transylvanians were Protestants. Caught in the middle were the Orthodox Carpatho-Russians, whose lands were divided by two opposing forces: Presov and the area around it was controlled by the Roman Catholics and the area around Mukachevo was controlled by the Protestants.
In the early 15th century the Patriarch of Constantinople led a delegation to Italy discuss union for political reasons because the Turks were gobbling up what was left of the Byzantine Empire. This Council of Florence failed in 1439. It was this failed council which Rome used as the vehicle to for union with the Orthodox of Galicia and the White Russians. The promise of a better social and political status in the in the framework of the Polish kingdom prompted the union more than any theological or spiritual considerations. In 1596, there was a meeting of several bishops from Galicia and White Russia at the town of Brest. A union with the Roman Catholic Church was proclaimed according to the principals of Florence. The former Orthodox, now “united with Rome,” and the laity were furious.
Next the Union of Uzhorod occurred at its second attempt in 1646 when 63 priests pledged their loyalty to Rome in a chapel. The question must be asked as to why the priest would do this…life was difficult as an Orthodox Christian and these men wanted better lives for their families and children and not to be third class citizens in a Catholic kingdom.
Eventually Orthodoxy was outlawed and as late as 1914, 94 Carpatho-Russian peasants were given stiff fines simply for professing the Orthodox faith at the infamous Marmaros-Sighet trials. Their Orthodoxy was held to be “high treason against Hungarian state.”
Thank you Diane.
Most of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, even many in Eastern Europe, did NOT come about by royal fiat. There was no royal hand (if anything quite the opposite), for example, in the unions with Rome of the Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian Greek Catholic Churches, the Greek Byzantine Church, or the Russian Catholic Church. The numbers in these Churches are not huge, but then neither is Western Orthodoxy.
I could also point out that the “royal” unions in Eastern Europe you allude to had to survive infinitely more brutal state attempts at suppression, and are not currently sustained by Polish and Austrian muskets.
Orthodox polemicists and finger pointers also seem keen to dismiss the fact that the majority of a whole ancient patriarchate (Melkite Antioch) went over to Rome without any coercion whatsover, and this despite Ottomon efforts at supression instigated by Constantinople. Given the religious history of the last 300 years, I don’t see that the Orthodox side has much to teach the Catholic Church in the area of religious freedom.
Surely it is time to treat Eastern Catholics with some intellectual respect, and allow for the possibility that Easterners (whether from the Byzantine tradition or other) can freely accept union with Rome in good conscience.
Most of the unions with Rome, at least in Eastern Europe, were forced by the hand of royalty.
And it is precisely here that the main and fundamental difference between Orthodoxy’s Western rite and Catholicism’s Eastern rite lies.
Lucian
Yes the western rite was not forced into union with the Orthodox, but, the Orthodox take away from aspects of their liturgy and theology and subject them to certain liturgical and theological conformities which are foreign to their rite. The same thing which was done to the Orthodox by Rome are now being done by the Orthodox to the western rite. What is good for the goose is good for the gander in my opinion.
Michael
I don’t see myself as a polemicist. I only speak of the historical events which my people endured. Notice I only spoke about Eastern Europe and no where else geographically. Sure Rome can have her Eastern Rites but I still argue that if and when communion occurs, and if it occurs without the Easter Rite Catholics in Europe and the Orthodox first reconciling there differences, once again my people, not yours, will be sent into chaos whether they are Eastern Rite or Orthodox. Any student of history who studies the ‘unia’ in Eastern Europe and the ramifications of it, which were felt in America as late as the 1960’s is free to allow the facts to get in the way of their opinion.
I should clarify the regions of Eastern Europe I speak of as being Carpatho-Russia, White Russia, and parts of the Ukraine.
1. I am not suggesting you are a polemicist. I am merely pointing out that this style of one-sided historical discourse is used by polemicists.
2. Your words were “Most of the unions with Rome, at least in Eastern Europe…” Without your subsequent gloss, it wasn’t clear that “at least in Eastern Europe” was meant as the core descriptive rather than “most of the unions with Rome.” You have now clarified the context of your observation, and the scope of your point, so we can move from there in the knowldege that we are talking about the same thing.
3. Could you spell out in a bit more detail what you mean by “sent into chaos?”
It is my understanding that, generally speaking, the Byzantine Catholic Churches are expected to integrate with their Orthodox counterparts in the context of reunion. There may be some exceptions where, for historical or canonical reasons, an unqualified integration might not be desirable or appropriate from the point of view of the Byzantine Catholic Churches concerned; but these should be rare.
The Byzantine Catholic Churches are represented in the Orthodox Catholic International Theological Dialogue, so I don’t see how reunion could occur without reference to them. Similalry, I don’t see any theological differences between Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics that should a priori be addressed separately from, or prior to, those between Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally.
Michael
Have you read my post above this, because, I deal with this issue there. The chaos would result in the many Latinizations which still occur in the Byzantine Catholic Rite in many parishes. In Byzantine Catholic parishes today you can still find the rosary being said, knelling for communion, Latin-Rite bells at the consecration, no iconostasis, non-Orthodox fasting, beardless priests, monstrances for benediction, knelling at the anaphora, stations of the cross, St. Gregory Palamas removed from his Sunday in Lent (His teaching are at the core of Orthodox Spirituality). The Orthodox have taken a reactionary stance against such things. I know because some of them still go on in my jurisdiction, and as a fellow seminarian said recently to me about a date with a Russian priest’s daughter where she said…”Yeah, you guys are Orthodox, but not really. You still are Greek Catholics.” The Russians and Serbs would rather have communion with Rome than with people who don’t know how to be themselves which is the case with many Greek Catholics. Many Orthodox still refer to my jurisdiction as Greek Catholic. Now we are not as “bad’ as some of the Byzantine Rite parishes with our remnant of Latinizations but there is tension nonetheless. The only thing the more conservative Orthodox like about us is that most of our parishes are on the Julian Calendar. If many of my intolerant brethren were forced into communion with the Eastern Rite Catholics without them being purged of their Latinizations I can assure you it would get real ugly. I know them all to well.
Joseph,
I am still not too clear on where you belong in all this, but surely all the Eastern Catholic rites can free themselves from Latinizations of this nature independently of Catholic-Orthodox reunion. Though why anyone would object to perfectly orthodox devotional practices such as saying a rosary or kneeling is beyond me. It’s not like Orthodox are ejected from Latin churches for crossing themselves the wrong way.
If what you mean is that some Eastern Catholics might want to keep such Latin practices as they may have acquired after reunion to the point of being rejected by their Orthodox counterparts, then I guess they will just have to be treated as separate rites. I don’t see how that would affect reunion one way or another.
Michael
I think it would be a bit ridiculous to have people who were once in the same rite to be separate rites. At that point, at least in my mind, you have union on “paper ” only. If you have the same chant, liturgy, etc. and cannot celebrate liturgy together what was the point of union. And as I said earlier the Byzantine Rite Catholics will never really get their own spirituality back until Rome gives them back their champion saint of Orthodox spirituality who is Gregory Palamas, because theosis makes no sense without him. Many of the Byzantine Rite Catholics are neither Byzantine or Catholic in the Orthodox mind but a hybrid. The only way they will be fully able to reintegrate into Orthodoxy is to come back to Orthodoxy. I would say the same about the Orthodox Western Rite. Living the apostolic faith within a tradition is not something you pull out of the air once you find an agreeable bishop. If Byzantine Rite Catholics are denied Palamite spirituality they are denied of their own Orthodoxy. They should either be Orthodox or Latin-Rite because, in my mind, they are neither currently. They only way they will be able to rediscover themselves, I argue, is through themselves, and that would require, in my mind, coming home to Orthodoxy.
Subdeacon Joseph, I think we may have reached an impasse. I don’t think most Eastern Catholics are interested in “coming home” (itself a loaded phrase) to Orthodoxy. And I certainly do not think they should be forced to do so.
The issue is this: If (as Catholics believe) the fullness of the Faith necessarily entails union with the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, then Eastern Catholics cannot retain that fullness (not in its plenitude at least) if they abandon communion with Peter’s successor in order to return to Orthodoxy.
There is no double truth, one for East, one for West. And there are not two separate Universal Churches, one for East and one for West, one without the pope and one with. That sort of smacks of “branch theory,” which means it fits neither Catholic nor Orthodox ecclesiology.
I dunno. As I say, I can see where you’re coming from, but I just can’t buy your conclusion. Jesus founded One Church, not two; and He has not divided His Body into separate Eastern and Western halves, not fully united with each other. (One with a pope, one without; one making ecumenical nice-nice while the other hurls anathemas ;-).)
I’m too brain-dead right now to really put my finger on what bothers me about your conclusions. But I do think they are problematical — from both the Orthodox and the Catholic POVs.
Sorry! ;)
Diane
beardless priests….
Well, our local Greek Orthodox parish has beardless priests, too. :) If this is a deal-breaker for Eastern Catholics seeking to be “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” then it should be a deal-breaker for Greek Orthodox seeking to be “Orthodox in communion with Constantinople.” ;)
Or something like that. (My head is spinning.)
Diane, what is also a loaded phrase is “return to Roman communion,” which has also been used. And that’s fine: it makes sense from the Catholic frame. But “coming home” makes equal sense from the Orthodox frame. It seems to me you’re subtly suggesting it’s only legitimate to think from the former. It’s important to understand that the Orthodox Church shares the self-understanding of the Catholic Church. It is really not useful for dialogue to assume that everyone knows Rome is the real thing, and non-Romans know they’re the schismatics, even if some dress up better than others.
Also, I see joint Orthodox-Catholic commissions putting out thoughtful reports every so often, and the Ecumenical Patriarch visiting the Vatican, and the Russian Patriarchate’s chief ecumenical official visiting Rome and talking in what certainly sounds to me like a “nice-nice” tone – but what do I know – maybe the translators botched that one.
Sure, some don’t agree with these statements, but that is the case on both sides. Maybe we could avoid these stark, false dichotomies? In any case, better anathemas than sacking and pillaging the other’s chief cathedral. The Church is a timeless institution, and it isn’t proper to limit the time period in which you mine for unfavorable comparisons to 50 years.
Diane
I never said those Orthodox reactions are logical like with “papist” beardless clergy, only that they are real and I have to deal with them. For example I used to live in Jordanville, NY home of the famous ROCOR monastery. When I returned to my former home clean shaven because my bishop demands it of men in minor orders the comments were less than kind. I looked nice and “Greek Catholic”. The conservative Orthodox by the way generally have a not to favorable opinion of the Greek Archdiocese in America because their bishops are to ecumenical. Yes there is only one Church with two distinct spiritualities under the one Saviour. Neither one superior just different. The Byzantine Rite follows neither discipline but a hybrid.
Subdeacon Joseph,
I would argue that they are a type of “unia” for the following reasons… 1) Orthodox Bishops changed your anaphora prayer. 2) Orthodox Bishops changed your creed.
As far as liturgical aspects go, I’d be surprised if we accepted the modern liturgies of Rome or England without any change. The very little (thank God) reading on the subject has suggested that Old Rome actually had a stronger epiclesis before we modern Orthodox came along.
I think there’s enough conversations about the Creed, so I’ll keep it short and say that if the Creed without the filioque was recited in the West before, I do not think the Western Orthodox exclusion of it is a change as much as it is a restoration.
Practically, we Orthodox recite the Creed as one (as much as different English translations will let us do, at any rate). Having slightly different creeds in the same Church would alienate the faithful, I assure you.
3) Orthodox Bishops changed your calendar to either Julian or Revised Julian.
I know of no (Antiochian — I have no experience with ROCOR) WR parish that is one the Julian Calendar (with the exception of Easter, which is, again, to not celebrate the Feast of Feasts differently from the rest of the Church). With all the WR liturgical cycles I’ve seen, you have your All Saints Day, Assumption, Ember days, etc, all on the same day as the Catholics do.
4) Orthodox Bishops took dogmas away from you believed in the west but not held int the east like original guilt.
I can admit that the doctrine of original sin (which is true) is misunderstood by alot of today’s Orthodox, but I don’t see what this has to do with the Western rite specifically.
5) Orthodox Bishops took away your use of unleavened bread.
Someone more knowledgeable than me can speak on that if they choose. I don’t know about that one.
6) None of the western rite parishes have a western rite bishop they are all under eastern rite bishops. Sure looks similar to the unia to me.
As you mentioned before, there is no Orthodox Roman Pope, but there is a Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria because the Coptic Catholics are their own Church under Rome. the Western rites are not their own Church who reunited with Orthodoxy from Catholicism, which is why they don’t need their own Bishop beyond the Vicarate (we’re already trying to solve our multi-Bishop issue in non-Orthodox countries). They are not unia.
You haven’t met the Orthodox lunatic fringe in your parish where the rosary is said is obvious. Why would they come?
I meant the Orthodox critics who are perfectly sociable human beings.
You said that western rite orthodox wanted to practice apostolic christianity of the western tradition… my question…can’t that be done with Rome? Or is Rome not the natural expression of western apostolic christianity in your mind?”
Because Orthodoxy isn’t just an eastern Church and Catholicism isn’t just a western Church. These are cultural assumptions that are easy to make. I can speak to only Orthodoxy, which is right belief, East-West-North-and-South. Until Rome and Orthodoxy are reconciled, we do not have to wait until this happens to practice the western way. To put it another way, the Church continues to live, and the Holy Spirit is not stifled because of the schism.
Subdeacon Joseph
Because there is only one Roman Church and one Roman Rite some people think that Rite and Church mean the same thing. They do not. A Rite is a coherent liturgical tradition. A Church is a self-ruling ecclesiastical body. There is one Byzantine Rite and many Churches that worship according to the Byzantine Rite. All Eastern Orthodox Churches worship according to the Byzantine Rite. Eastern Catholic Churches, however, belong to one of five Rites. These are the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Byzantine.
Since the mid 19th century (and Ottoman release of Mt. Athos to the Slavs and definitively in 1912) Greek Quietism has become associated with true and pure Eastern Orthodoxy and it is the only form of mysticism practiced in Eastern Orthodoxy. However, many other forms of mysticism are practiced in the Catholic Church. Moreover, not all Eastern Catholics are part of the Byzantine tradition. Greek Quietism does not have a long or constant history within the Byzantine tradition. It would be unfair to characterize it as the only Byzantine spirituality or Palamas as the champion Byzantine saint. Certainly there are many other ways to understand theosis outside Palamite theology.
I only speak of the historical events which my people endured.
Subdeacon Joseph
I think we’re bound to remain captive to history then by focusing on such things, and the comments I’m reading here just seem to be the same arguments re-presented over and over (and not solely what you are saying, but the whole stream of discussion).
Clearly as Orthodox Christians we will never have a completely common understanding with the RCC about elements of their own self identity; but to me it doesn’t really matter. If we can recognize they have maintained apostolic succession and have a common understanding of the Eucharist; then I think the basis exists for individuals to partake of communion. I would say the same for the Oriental Orthodox and Anglo Catholics.
If the goal is some sort of complete corporate reunion, or acknowledgement from one side to the other that their own self understanding has been lacking or deficient, then everyone might as well just give up now and go home.
Gil
I speak of the Ruthenian Rite for technicality’s sake in my other posts. I also disagree with your comment about Greek hesychasm because what Palamas did was explain what the Jesus Prayer and ascetical life does to a man when he is sanctified and becomes a partaker of God’s uncreated energies. And the Jesus Prayer and asceticism is at the heart of all Orthodox Monasticism, and thus at the heart of Orthodox/Byzantine spirituality. The Jesus Prayer and kenosis goes back to the desert fathers and there is ample evidence that the east have been “navel gazers” for a long, long time. To the Orthodox their is no other champion of Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic Spirituality that rivals him because no one ever presented what he had before, it had only been experienced. He is the man who ties it all together and his teachings are suppressed by Rome in her Byzantine Rite churches because they cannot deal with man being saved by participating and partaking of the uncreated energy and uncreated grace of God. It was St. Peter who said, “we are partakers of the divine nature,” the desert fathers then gave us the The Prayer and ascetical kenosis which allows man to do this, and St. Gregory Palamas explained how this mystery works. If Rome really wants to allow the Byzantine Rite to practice their own spirituality in the wake of Vatican II then at a minimum Palamas should be restored to the Byzantine calendar and be taught in their seminaries. One of my profs. also teaches at the Ruthenian seminary near mine and he assigned them a homily to write for Palamas Sunday in Lent and he was shocked when he heard that he was not on the calendar. In the Orthodox Church if you are a saint with your own Sunday in Lent you are huge, huge, huge! And Palamas has his Sunday and it cannot be denied.
Gil,
Palamism is not Quietism for the simple reason that it doesn’t posit absorption with or by deity and it doesn’t entail the suppresison of the human mind. This is admitted by Catholics such as Williams in her work on Palamas and Aquinas, not to mention other Catholic sources.
Further, Palamas’ teaching on theosis isn’t essentially different than that of St. Maximus, particularly in the denial that the divine essence can be seen by the human intellect even in the next life and by the angels. Ironically, Aquinas condemns such a view as heterodox as found in John Scotus Erugena without knowing that John got it from Maximus.
It is hardly charitable to insist on labeling anothers position in terms that are rejected and argued against by those persons. Palamism is not quietism.
Gil
if your basic point is that some neo-Palamite theologians paint a monolithic portrait of Eastern spirituality, or even of specifically Byzantine spirituality, then I agree with you.
However, to call Palamas or Palamites quietists is a bizarre confusion of categories.
I find it difficult to believe that Rome had a hand in removing Palamas from the Ruthenian liturgical calender. And if he is so central to Orthodoxy, what was Orthodoxy before his birth, amorphous?
I don’t wish to sound unkind or insensitive, but rites change or even disappear (even in Orthodoxy) in response to the preferences and spiritual needs of those using them. So long as the liturgy used remains orthodox and true to purpose I don’t see why such variations should be bars to reunion. If Orthodox really believe such things are insurmountable obstacles, then perhaps they should pause and consider whether they shouldn’t all be Old Believers or Old Calendrists.
What seems to be lacking here is a sense of proportion. Christ said “Let them be one”. He didn’t, so far as I know, say “let them venerate St Gregory Palamas on a Lenten Sunday.”
Michael,
The centralityisn’t Palamas per se, but the ideas taught, which were taught before him. When Christ said “Let the mbe one” he also didn’t mean that in terms of everyone being Augustinian either.
The Orthodox take issue with Blessed/St. Augustine’s exaggerations in his views on freewill, grace, and predestination. However we would never, God forbid in this day and age, demand that those Western Rite Orthodox under our omophor abolish him from the calendar. And many of our national Churches celebrate his feast also. To the Orthodox Augustine is a Father of Orthodox Piety, something with which he was filled to overflowing, and he had a deeply Christian heart and soul which is evident from his Confessions. This isn’t the best comparison and I admit it now (finals are coming and my time is limited!), but, if we had a Western Rite “unia” as large as your current Byzantine Catholic communion, and suppressed his teachings and removed his feast day, as Rome removed St. Gregory’s from the second Sunday of Holy and Great Lent, would it change your faith? I argue this is what is currently the case with St. Gregory Palamas and the Byzantine Catholics. Byzantine Catholics who have come back to Orthodoxy always know they have come home to the full expression and practice of their faith. Read there stories. It is rare when an Orthodox Christian goes into the Byzantine Catholic Church. If I wanted to come into the Roman communion I would become Roman rite because the current Byzantine Catholic Church, in my opinion, is neither Orthodox Catholic or Roman Catholic but a hybrid.
Perry,
I can’t speak as to why Ruthenian Catholics may have taken Palamas off their calender, except to say that such is their right, and to speculate that they might have been motivated to do so because he was not in communion with the broader Church to which they belong. I very much doubt it had anything to do with giving primacy to Augustinian theology. And even if it did, so what? It doesn’t make Palamas any more or less a saint. You have to accept eastern Catholics for what they are, not what you think they should be.
What grates the most about Joseph’s recent interventions is the inference I feel I have to draw that Byzantine Catholics mere are pawns to be exchanged over some ecumenical chessboard; that the scope of their views, preferences, practices and beliefs can only be predetermined by others; that they “belong” somewhere other than where they choose to be; and that their “home” is othCr than where they are. I find this to be just breathtakingly arrogant.
My expectation is that they will integrate willingly with their Orthodox counterparts, if and when broader reunion occurs. But this should be their choice. If they ultimately prove to be reluctant to accept such integration, it will be in large part because of the attitude Joseph is expressing, combined with the abusive treatment they suffered in and after their recent imposed former exile in Orthodoxy.
For our part, I don’t know a single Catholic who has ever expressed a burning desire to see Western Orthodox integrated into the Latin rite. Most of them were never Catholic to begin with. Whether to integrate or not will be their choice when the time comes. Only Satan trades in souls.
Michael
They are not pawns and I personally know some of their seminarians and are on good terms with them. If anyone has treated them as pawns in the greater part of history it was Rome. My Metropolitan and there Bishops in the Ruthenian Rite often attend joint services together (And Bishop John of Parma is fantastic by the way!). What I speak I speak out of love for them because they are my people. Many from the same mountain range and village in Slovakia where my family comes from. And I don’t predetermine their views, the dogma, liturgical services, and spirituality of the Orthodox Church does! I only want them to be themselves. At least since Vatican II they have been treated like equal Catholics and not second class ones which was often the case for the greater part of the “unia”. I love them and for you to suggest anything less is offensive. I’m scheduled to do some graduate work in their seminary in liturgical theology even. We work with them and see first hand the differences. The majority of the faculty is now Orthodox at St. Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary because they as Byzantine Catholics are beginning to see the differences too. It is not by chance they are hiring Orthodox profs.
Evagrius,
Help me out here. Are you aware of ANY evidence that Rome pressured the Byzantine Churches to remove Palamas from their calenders?
I look forward to a definitive answer, but I went over to the Byzantine Catholic Church website to look (I know this is only one of several you’d have to examine), and for 2010, February 28 is listed as “2nd Sunday of Great Lent – St. Gregory Palamas.” (http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/2010-liturgical-calendar-mainmenu-123)
Michael
My ecclesiology prof., who is a former Ruthenian Catholic priest now Orthodox, said he was removed when the “unia” would have been established with any given Byzantine Church because he was, and still is according to some Romans, heterodox.
With all due respect, I have to conclude that your ecclesiology prof. is mistaken. On so little are misunderstandings built.
The Catholic Church has never anathematized either the energy-essence distinction or Palamas. They are not part of the Western Tradition (or that of the non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches), but that doesn’t make them heterodox.
According to a Melkite website, St Gregory Palamas is commemorated on the Second Sunday of Great Lent since 1971, after approval by the Melkite the Holy Synod. This decision of the Holy Synod is mentioned in a footnote in a book published in 1992 and written in Arabic by the Liturigical Committee of the Patriarchate. A rough translation of the title is “The Holy Divine Liturgy”.
The website notes that John Paul II recognized Gregory Palamas as a saint in the months following his assasination attempt in 1981, citing Fr. Dennis C. Smolarski S.J.’s book, “How Not to Say Mass.” He reportedly referred to “Saint” Gregory Palamas when speaking before a group of Orthodox and Catholics.
This confirms my impression that the saints commemorated on the calendar are at the discretion of the Byzantine Churches concerned, and not the product of Roman fiat. The respect for Palamas expressed by both JPII and BXVI, and the fact that at least on Byzantine Catholic Church still has Palamas on its calendar leads me to dismiss Josheph’s suggestion as implausible.
Subdeacon Joseph
the problem which has led to the exclusion of Palamas from the calendar is not, I think, his spiritual teaching nor even necessarily the essence/energies distinction (which these days gets a much better press from RC commentators than it used to) but that he is post-schism (unlike Augustine) and above all that he wrote against Catholic doctrine.I myself, however, would agree with you that it would be a very positive step if he were to be celebrated by all Byzantine Catholics.
As for your observations on the hybridism of the EC Churches, well basically I tend to agree. It varies from Church to Church but there is definitely too much latinisation and in spite of half-hearted Roman opposition to it, the fact is that these days most of it comes from the will of the ECs themselves rather than from outside pressure. This is particularly true of the sillier post-Vatican II Catholic malpractices like facing the people, altar girls, and even (in the Maronite Church at least) the singing of ditties whose words are extraneous to the liturgy and whose musical expression is frankly contrary to its dignity. It is, after all, so much easier to abbreviate the liturgy, to sing something jingly instead of those difficult chants, to concelebrate in just rason and epitrachilion, etc etc, especially when you have imbibed the notion that the opus operatum is all that really counts…
If, by the will of God, reunion does come about, then the raison d’etre of the Byzantine Catholic Churches will cease to exist, and they should simply amalgamate lock stock and barrel with their Orthodox counterparts. Undoing of latinisation is a prerequisite of a smooth transition, but it will be – is being – resisted by some. Recently a few Ukrainian priests received unanonical episcopal ordination because they were unhappy with the delatinisation being promoted by their official hierarchy. Being willing to start a schism in order to keep the Stations of the Cross is absurd to the point of hilarity, but it shows how strongly feelings run. However, perhaps the best answer to that is for those brave souls who oppose latinisation to stay in the Easter Catholic Churches (or join them, if they are Orthodox convinced of the truth of Roman Primacy) and press their case with serence perseverance.
Phil
If that is the case it is very recent because I said earlier my homiletics prof also teaches there and when he scheduled them to do their Lenten Sunday themed homilies the students all said “we don’t celebrate him.” My heart leaps for joy if this recent change is indeed true because it means great and much needed progress is finally being made.
Phil
I would only ask which Byzantine Churches celebrate his memory? It is possible, and I’m speculating, that the Melkites possibly would and the Ruthenians still do not.
Michaël
if you bear in mind that the opinion of Jugie that Palamas was basically a new heresiarch, expressed in his DTC articles and elsewhere, was once representative of Catholic scholarly opinion, it is not at all implausible that the Ruthenians or others were pressured to “drop” him. Nor is the example of the Melkite Church an obstacle to believing this – latinisation has never been a uniform or indeed logically consistant process, and has varied enormously between jurisdictions and epochs.
Fr. Paul,
Theologians, even Catholic ones, are capable of considerable foolishness, but to my knowledge they have never been authorized either as individuals or collectively (barring episcopal ordination) to anathematize anyone or anything.
Specifically with respect to Ruthenians and Joseph’s claims of Roman calendrical scrubbing, I would have to ask:
1. Did Palamas figure on the liturgical calendar of Ruthenians prior to reunion with Rome, or did the Moscow Patriarchate place him there subsequently?
2. If he was removed, who made the decision and on who’s advice? And,
3. On what basis would this decision have been made?
It strikes me that Joseph has all the answers, but none of the evidence.
As for the vocation of the Byzantine Catholic Churches to reintegrate “lock, stock and barrel” with their Orthodox counterparts, would you intend to break communion with them if they insisted on maintaining separate sui juris status?
Subdeacon Joseph,
That is absolutely possible. I was simply curious and didn’t mean to imply you are propagating a falsehood here. Clearly there appears to be at least some smoke, and, therefore, a fire here somewhere, but it doesn’t appear to be universal.
For the record the Ruthenian Rite only celebrates St. John Climacus on the Fourth Sunday of Lent and St. Mary of Egypt on the Fifth Sunday of Lent. All the other Lenten Sundays like Palamas and the Triumph of Orthodoxy have been removed from their calendar. The ByzCath website Phil references is an unofficial one for what that is worth.
Michael
I called St. John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Cathedral in Munhall, PA and asked them about their Lenten calendar days because I could not find one on line. By the way I tend to trust my profs., but I admit, all men are fallible and can communicate misinformation.
Fair enough, which Church is it associated with?
Please note that what I take issue with is the suggestion that Rome has been deliberately expurgating Byzantine rite calendars. This is a serious charge for which I would want to rely on more evidence than a prof.’s off-hand remark.
I take absolutely no issue with the suggestion that greater homogeneitiy of rite with Orthodox Churches would yield dividends, both ecumenically and in terms of liturgical coherence. That said, the various rites have always influenced and borrowed from each other. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not mere lesser creatures from Rome’s perspective, and should, within reason, be free to determine their own course, else all the fine words about individual religious freedom and respect for ritual autonomy mean nothing.
Uncritical latinization is unfortunate. Even Rome says so, and has said so repeatedly in the past. But to treat it, as you seem to, as some form of spiritual pollution has no legitimate basis in ecclesiology. To further argue, and without compelling evidence, that it is the result of deliberate Roman liturgical aggression is unconscionable. As a former Catholic you SHOULD know better.
Michaël
indeed theologians of all schools and Churches are capable of fooolishness – although to remove someone from the calendar is not necessarily to anthematise them. Thet are not the only ones. Sometimes the Roman authorities are capable of this too, and I do not think either of use would wish to deny this. I am told that there was once a flourishing monasticism in the Melkite Church, and that it ceased to flourish when the Congregation for Eastern Churches imposed upon it a Western model of enclosure. I understand that the Maronites had to change their anaphora in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, because it was judged to have been invalid theretofore. It did not seem at all implausible to the Roman authorities then that a Sister Church might have been devoid of a true Eucharist for more than a millenium as a result of non-conformity to a scholastic schema considerably less ancient. I do not, it is true, have documentation at my fingertips for either of these assertions, but anyone familiar with the curial mindset will not find them in the least implausible.
And as I have said, the foolishness is not all imposed from without. A Byzantine Catholic colleague tells me that his bishop forbids the addition of the Zeon in the liturgy, because the addition of too much water risks diluting the species of wine to the point of invalidity. I could go on, and on..
As for breaking communion, no I would not. I would simply be exasperated at their lack of coherence. I am in communion with many people who are pig headed and foolish, covering the entire spectrum of Catholic theological opinion and ritual practice, and thankfully they remain in communion with me when I myself exhibit these traits. No, thankfully, pig-headed foolishness is not a Church-dividing issue.
“pig-headed foolishness is not a Church-dividing issue”
Then we are of one mind. Would that our Orthodox friends be as forbearing.
St. John’s Cathedral is Ruthenian Rite. According to The Lenten Triodion by Mother Mary and Bishop Kallistos Ware says, “Since 1368 this Sunday has been dedicated to St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica (1296-1359).” It should be noted that the Ruthenians do not celebrate the First Sunday of Lent either which is The Triumph of Orthodoxy in her victory over iconoclasm. While this Sunday was not universally established on March 11, 843 when it was first celebrated, it soon afterward became the standard. St. Gregory’s feast is seen as a continuation of the Triumph of Orthodoxy because in Bishop Kallistos’ words,”His victory over Barlaam, Akindryos and the other heretics of his time is seen as a renewed Triumph of Orthodoxy.” From this evidence we can say for sure that Palamas was being celebrated by the Orthodox Church 228 years before the Union of Brest. Therefore, it would seem since Barlaam was from Italy and was St. Gregory’s foe, and that the Triumph of Orthodoxy and St. Gregory Palamas are feasts linked together, they almost certainly would have been removed by Rome and not the Ruthenians. The Orthodox are stubborn and don’t like change. History testifies to this.
Joseph,
I have reedited this post repeatedly in an effort to leave out uncharitable sarcasm. If any remains, please forgive me.
You wrote:
“Therefore, it would seem since Barlaam was from Italy and was St. Gregory’s foe, and that the Triumph of Orthodoxy and St. Gregory Palamas are feasts linked together, they almost certainly would have been removed by Rome and not the Ruthenians.”
1. Barlaam was indeed from Italy, but a Greek from thesouth. He was raised in the Orthodox Byzantine tradition and only came over to Rome after his defeat and excommunication at Constantinople. The suggestion that Rome would have taken his side out of some anachronistic geographical, loyalty and so sought to stamp out Palamas’ feast for this reason would be laughable, if it were not so offensive. You need go no further than the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia to see the utter bemusement with which the whole controversy was seen in Catholic eyes.
2. The triumph of orthodoxy was Rome’s triumph as well. You might wish to review the history of the iconoclast controversy and then ask yourself which episcopate faithfully and consistently witnessed the truth side-by-side with oppressed Eastern monks. What possible motive would Rome have to suppress this particular commemoration?
3. Your accusation that Rome is behind Palamas’ calendric suppression rests entirely on baseless conjecture. Intellectual integrity would require that you at least seek out scholarly sources once challenged. Instead, you choose to just repeat it like a mantra.
4. At Ungvar, Rome was willing to concede the creed, the date of Easter, communion in both species, episcopal election and clerical marriage. But apparently, a once-a-year commemoration of an obscure and incomprehensible (at least to Latins) Eastern divine would have been too much to bear?
Fr. Paul
You did a nice job of restating my basic point about Byzantine spirituality. Meyendorf and the other neo-Palamite theologians have had a profound effect on Byzantine spirituality. However, to characterize Greek Quietism as the sum total of Byzantine spirituality as some have would be a tragic mistake in my view.
I refer to Hesychasm or the Palamite tradition as Greek Quietism because Hesychasm means quietism in Greek. I understand that translating the Greek term into English sets some folks hair on fire but there it is. I do appreciate the many differences between Protestant Quietism and Greek Quietism.
Palamas has two commemoration in the Eastern Orthodox calendar: on November 17 and the second Sunday of Lent. He is not celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic calendar. November 17 is celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic calendar as St. Gregory the Wonderworker and the second Sunday of Lent is Sunday of Holy Relics.
Gil,
A more accurate translation of hesychia would be stillness vs quietism.
Interesting arguments but really a lot of verbiage also.
I’m not sure about the Ruthenians and Palamas. I do know the Byzantine Catholics commemorate him on the second sunday of Lent.
All of this just points to some confusion on many levels and a need for clarification about what is and isn’t “orthodox”. That clarification needs to be done from the “top” down.
Personally, I find no problem with someone wishing to use a prayer rope for prayer and someone else using a rosary. They are both means for prayer.
I think that, far too often, the minutiae of things, an obsession with ritualism, is an impediment to prayer.
This thread, while extremely interesting (I know I learned quite a bit, especially about the Byzantine Catholic Churches!), has strayed a bit too far from the topic of the post. I’m going to close this combox, but I’d like to direct conversation to these two very interesting documents:
https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/north-american-orthodox-catholic-response-to-ravenna/
https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/papal-letter-to-the-ecumenical-patriarch-feast-of-st-andrew-2009/