.
From the website of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations [with a couple of my comments in blue]:
.
On 27 August 2010, the eve of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk officiate at the All-Night Vigil at the church of the “Joy to All the Afflicted” Icon in Bolshaya Ordynka Street in Moscow.
.
Concelebrating were Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, a vicar of Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain (Patriarchate of Constantinople), president of the “The Friends of Mount Athos” charity society, clerics of the church, and a well-known Swiss theologian, hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge) who became an Orthodox before the divine service. [Presumably he was “vested” and concelebrated, according to the long-standing Russian custom.]
.
Many parishioners worshipped at the church together with the members of “The Friends of Mount Athos” representing Great Britain, the USA, Greece and other countries. The object of the society is to promulgate knowledge about monastic tradition and the Holy Mountain and, promote restoration of the monasteries there, and to attract pilgrims. The delegation is on a visit to Russia with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. The pilgrims venerated holy sites in Uglich, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Rostov the Great, Nizhniy Novgorod, Gorodets, Kalyazin, and the Laura of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius.
.
Many parishioners worshipped at the church together with the members of “The Friends of Mount Athos” representing Great Britain, the USA, Greece and other countries. The object of the society is to promulgate knowledge about monastic tradition and the Holy Mountain and, promote restoration of the monasteries there, and to attract pilgrims. The delegation is on a visit to Russia with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. The pilgrims venerated holy sites in Uglich, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Rostov the Great, Nizhniy Novgorod, Gorodets, Kalyazin, and the Laura of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius.
.
After the divine service, Metropolitan Hilarion addressed his archpastoral words to the worshippers, congratulating them on the feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God. He said: “Today we glorify her Dormition and contemplate our life and death. Our life on the earth should be full, spiritual and divine, while our death should not be a tragic event, but a natural passing to life eternal; it should be dormition, rather than death.
.
By her tomb that emanates grace, peace and love, the Most Holy Mother of God testifies that the mortals can pass from death to life, from sin to grace, from human life to divine life.
.
The Church believes that the Mother of God never sinned even in her thoughts. We are sinful people, but the way to the Heavenly Kingdom is not closed to us. This way leads through death that could become Dormition in case we live in accordance with the commandments of God and pray to the Lord and His Most Precious Mother to grant us shameless and peaceful death leading us to life eternal.”
.
Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk addressed Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, saying: “I cordially greet Metropolitan Kallistos, a hierarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and a teacher at the University of Oxford in Great Britain for over forty years. Fifteen years ago I was fortunate to be his student. He was my supervisor when I worked at my thesis on St. Simeon the New Theologian. Today Metropolitan Kallistos is a most renowned theologian of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He has arrived in Moscow as head of the group of pilgrims that includes clergymen, professors, and laymen. For ten days they have visited Russian cities, venerated holy sites of our land, and have get to know our religious culture. Tomorrow Metropolitan Kallistos will concelebrate with His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Moscow Kremlin.
.
“I greet you not only as a hierarch and an outstanding theologian, but also as my teacher and friend. I wish you a blessed stay in Russia and God’s help in your archpastoral ministry and scholarly work. May He keep you for many and good years.”
.
Metropolitan Hilarion presented Metropolitan Kallistos with a mitre made at the workshops of the Moscow Patriarchate.
.
The DECR chairman cordially greeted hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge) who has lived a solitary life in the Swiss mountains for over thirty years. [I believe he was a monk of Chevtogne, who was blessed to pursue the eremitical life in 1980. A noted patrologist, he is the author of numerous books and articles on Eastern Christian monasticism and spirituality.] Metropolitan Hilarion said to him, “Your have been a Catholic, but an Orthodox deep in your heart. Today, before the All-Night Vigil, you have become an Orthodox, thus naturally completing a long spiritual way.” [My best guess is that this is a conversion akin to that of Lev Gillet or George Maloney S.J. In other words, don’t expect a stream of anti-Roman tracts or the standard convert rhetoric coming from Fr Gabriel’s kellion. I sincerely hope that Orthodox will not capitalize on this to score a couple of cheap points.]
.
While congratulating Fr Gabriel on this move, Metropolitan Hilarion presented him with an icon of the Mother of God called “Joy of All the Afflicted” to which the church in which Fr Gabriel joined the Orthodox Church is dedicated.
.
Metropolitan Kallistos said to Metropolitan Hilarion that it was a great joy and privilege to concelebrate with him on the eve of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God. Adding that Metropolitan Hilarion’s ministry in this church and for Orthodoxy in the world will be blessed with grace from the Lord through the intercession of the Most Holy Mother of God.
Eirenikon 
It is common in the Moscow Patriarchate to receive Roman Catholic priests through confession and vesting.
I have never known them to “re-ordain” a cleric. However, this is not the practice with the Russian Church Abroad which is now part of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Hieromonk Bunge is a well-known expert on Evagrius of Ponticus, ( unfortunately most of that work is in German).
He is very much a expert on early monasticism.
I think Metropolitan Hilarion should realize that Catholics are, essentially, Orthodox.
Fr. Bunge just went next door. He didn’t cross a major freeway.
hmm…. @Evagrius
If you think Catholics are orthodox, then why should they convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church, rather than stay in the Catholic Church? If he’s into Eastern Church Tradition he could as well have become Eastern Catholic. I just don’t understand this
I think the term “convert” is what bothers me.
I think it wasn’t a matter of theology per se, ( Catholicism isn’t just “Latin” but also Byzantine. Fr. Bunge was, I understand, a Byzantine Benedictine).
I think it may have to do with church politics/ ecclesiology, ( which is extremely confused at present in the R$oman Catholic Church).
It may also have to do with “comfort levels”.
There is still a reluctance on the part of the Latin Church to deal with Orthodox theology especially its ecclesiology.
I laughed out loud at this comment concerning Hieromonk Gabriel’s conversion, left at another blog:
Mr. Bunge is now with the Sergianist graceless Renovatist so calle Moscow Patriarchat. A such “wise man” cannot find the path of salvation. From the sect of Mr. Ratzinger he he is now with Mr. Kyrill Gundajew, the so called fals Patriarch of Moscow. Kyrie eleison. He is now in communion with the Turkish heresiarch Bartholaios Archondonis of Istambul.
My apologies. Just had to post it.
We should perhaps not laugh too hard. This is pretty much how anti-Latin Orthodox seem to Catholics and why Catholics have difficulty taking them too seriously. Of course, no one actually sees himself in these shoes.
One can laugh or cry at such things. I used to do the latter; now I prefer the former.
Irenaeus,
Yes, I laughed too. I’ve actually seen worse on a blog that I won’t mention but which you’ve probably seen if you’ve googled “Gabriel Bunge” as I have. At least this one was funny!
Many years to Fr. Bunge.
Re the quoted comment above:
Radical Old Calendarists are at times amusing. Fortunately they are relatively small in numbers and from what I have heard (anecdotally) those numbers are declining. FWIW I have run across sede vecantist Catholics who refer to +Benedict XVI as “Fr. Ratzinger.” Fringe groups and schismatics have always been around, and probably always will be. Such is life.
Also I concur with Richard’s comment. While I second Irenaeus’ hope that we will avoid any unseemly triumphalism (I haven’t seen much so far in Orthoblogdom although this event has been noted); I do think that this is a bit more than simply a change in mailing address. Finally and for the record, I am fairly sure that Fr. Bunge was Chrismated as well as confessed prior to being vested.
In ICXC
John
In the interest of fairness, I was searching for a comparable anti-Orthodox traddie RC type comment. But the usual places (Angelqueen, Fisheaters) don’t seem to have caught on to it yet.
Angle Queen and Rorate Caeli are pretty mainstream traddie sites. One can and will periodically find obnoxious commentary directed at the Pope (and we Orthodox). But they are not generally sedevecantist and those sorts of comments are are rare there. AQ and Rorate are generally supportive of, or at least sympathetic to, the SSPX. As such they would be more comparable to our Moderate Old Calendarists, as opposed to the really hard core ones who have basically adopted a Christian Remnant mentality believing they are the last of the True Church.
There is an interesting list of sedevecantist sites here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism#Sedevacantist_sites). Many of these sects deny the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, including Holy Orders, since the post Vatican II liturgical reforms. There are also a handful of groups who have elected anti-Popes.
On an interesting side note (I don’t want to go off on a tangent) the SSPX bishop Richard Williamson is widely rumored to be a closet SV who is likely to break with the SSPX in the event they reach some sort of accord with Rome. Having met the man on a number of occasions, I am strongly inclined to take those rumors seriously.
In ICXC
John
I don’t really see Williamson as having much of a personal following. He really comes across increasingly as quite loony and steeped in conspiracy theories over a whole range of theological, social and historical issues. A number of Lefebrists consider him an embarrassment and his ordination to have been a serious error in judgment.
Michaël ,
…quite loony and steeped in conspiracy theories over a whole range of theological, social and historical issues.
You just described 99% of sedevecantists. And your description is completely accurate with respect Williamson (I am speaking from personal knowledge). How much of a following he has is widely debated. I do know that there are more than a few in the SSPX who are definitely in his camp and will follow him out if they concluded the SSPX was selling out to “modernist Rome.”
In ICXC
JOhn
Additionally, interested readers might check out the latest issue (September 2010) of the journal *Culture Wars* wgich has a long article by the editor (E. Michael Jones) on “Catholic Traditionalists” and includes a long account of his visit to Bishop Williamson in June of this year:
http://www.culturewars.com/TOC.htm
Ad Orientem,
Fr. Bunge would not have been chrismated according to Moscow Patriarchate procedures. A Roman Catholic priest being received into the Orthodox Church is ONLY received through confession and vesting. This is official policy.
Why Roman Catholic laity are received through chrismation is beyond me.
I should add that this is the policy of the Moscow Patriarchate. Other jurisdictions also receive priests in this manner, however, it is not universal.
How very sad! Did Fr. Bunge have to renounce the evil errors of the papacy and all that sort of rot?
Sigh.
Off-topic but related: Someone said at another venue that ecumenical relations with fundamentalist Protestants are more heartening these days than ecumenical relations with hard-line Orthodox. I have definitely found this to be true. I know a fundamental Baptist (in Real Life) — a graduate of Bob Jones Univ., yet — who is pro-Catholic. Seriously. And I hang out with Baptists and Pentecostals who seem to have no problem with my Catholicism. (Hey, I live in the Bible Belt, what can I tell ya?) There is a lot of softening along the Catholic-Protestant divide, but the East-West divide, overall, seems as frozen-hard as ever. Very, very sad.
Diane,
I haven’t heard that Fr. Bunge “renounce[d] the evil errors of the papacy,” as you put it. Of all the people I know that make the journey East, I’ve not known one that did so.
ortho — I was personally informed by a Catholic convert to the OCA that she was required to recite a formula of renunciation of the papacy and its errors. But perhaps hers was an exceptional case.
Re “the journey East”: More and more I am wondering whether such a phrase makes any sense at all. We are journeying toward Christ. Is He “East”? I always thought He was everywhere, through His Holy Spirit. ;)
Yes, this is a serious comment. It gets to the heart of something that’s been nagging at me about contemporary Orthodoxy and conversion thereto: the parochialism factor. More on that below. Not trying to be offensive, but…well, in Christ there is no East or West, if you see what I mean. Seriously.
And now I will sign off before I get any more obnoxious….
BTW, re the prospect of polemicists making hay out of this conversion: My cyber-friend Simple Sinner tells me that there has been a stream of Orthodox converts to Catholicism in recent years, and the stream is still running. But the Catholic Church takes extreme pains NOT to publicize these conversions, precisely because she does NOT want to engage in triumphalism. Virtually the only people who know about these conversions are those who are very close (personally) to the converts.
I think that’s pretty much the way it should be, on both sides.
I agree with evagrius re the inappropriateness of the terms “convert” and “conversion” in this context, but off the top of my head I can’t think of better terms.
“reconciliation”
I like this.
I wonder if Fr. Bunge said anything at the liturgy.
I agree it’s inappropriate for either side to engage in triumphalism in such journeys.
Actually, the word “convert” needs to be used, otherwise there will be no true ecumenism, just feel good self-delusion.
Consider that Fr. Gabriel had been living as a hermit within the Byzantine tradition for the last 30 years. It is not as if he were some sort of Eastern Catholic living in a city where there were no Eastern Catholic parishes or something like that. There must have been something about being Orthodox that he found necessary for her salvation.
Catholics must understandably be disappointed–after all, whenever a Catholic ceases to be Catholic it is as if a family member has died, but given Fr. Gabriel’s scholarly and spiritual achievements, his conversion cannot be seen as anything other than a rebuke. Nevertheless, it does a disservice to ecumenism in truth to pretend that this was some sort of administrative shuffle rather than a profound spiritual event in Fr. Gabriel’s life.
The Moscow Patriarchate is free to use whatever terminology it wishes, but Catholics believe that trinitarian baptism in universally valid. Ergo a Catholic becoming Orthodox (or vice versa) does not “convert.” This has nothing to do with ecumenism (true or otherwise) but sound sacramental theology. As Diane is Catholic, I was reminding her of the term that had escaped her.
Are you saying that anybody who was validly Baptized doesn’t convert if they join another church with valid baptism? So a Southern Baptist who becomes Roman Catholic, or a Roman Catholic who becomes a Presbyterian, or a Methodist who becomes a Copt doesn’t convert? Because in all of these cases, nothing has actually happened, right? It is no different than if one stopped going to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel across town and started going to Our Lady of Loretto down the street? Really?
Sacramental Theology has nothing to do with it. It isn’t like “convert” is some sort of term of art, it simply means to turn around or to turn the other way. The refusal to call a spade a spade is not an exercise in Sacramental Theology. It is rather a way for the convert to soften the blow his own ego (e.g. “my being an Evangelical is fully lived out in the Catholic Church”) or to soften the blow to the feelings of he former coreligionists (e.g. “even though I have joined the Catholic Church, it was my experiences as an Evangelical that made me the Christian I am today”). It would be more honest to simply proclaim Fr. Gabriel an apostate, so that the psychological blinders are off when evaluating whether there is anything to be learned from the conversion of such a man.
May I ask a question? What is a sedevecantist? I searched for it online and couldn’t find a definition. Thanks!
Sedevacantism (empty-chair-ism) is the belief that, as a result of apostasy, the see of Rome and thus the papacy is currently vacant. Sedevacantists come in a myriad of groups (just like Eastern old-calendrists and old-believers) but are mostly associated with groupings claiming that Vatican II represented a fundamental rupture from apostolic (Catholic) Christianity.
Some of the more over-the-top have “ordained” their own anti-Popes and so I guess are not technically “sedevacantists” anymore. :-)
Father Gabriel Bunge, after he left our Community of Chevetogne in 1980, celebrated in his hermitage in Roveredo (in Ticino, the Italian speaking part of Switzerland) acording to the Ambrosian rite (at least for the Eucharist). For his personal prayer, of course, he was very free in adopting a prayer life of a hermit. Only since about one year, he returned to the byzantine rite. Here in Chevetogne, where he lived for about 20 years) he was of the byzantine (slavic) rite.
As a hermit, until his recent conversion to Orthodoxy, he was affiliated to the benedictine monastery of Einsiedeln (in Switzerland). In fact, his life and faith of the last 50 years was that of an Orthodox.
Fr Antoine
Thank you, Fr. Antoine, for taking time from your busy life at Chevetogne to explain the circumstances for us. May I add that I have always appreciated the mission of Chevetogne and cherish the recordings of services I have that were made there.
I do not know if Fr. Antoine will be able to respond, but I wonder: does he mean that Fr. Gabriel saw himself as an “Orthodox” Christian who was in communion with the pope? Or something else?
Han,
Your examples are not illustrative of what happened. They show someone moving to or from a liturgical tradition to one that is not liturgical, ( liturgical traditions are sacramental as well).
There is a commonality between liturgical/ sacramental traditions that non-liturgical/ sacramental traditions do not have.
Fr. Bunge is not an apostate nor heretic nor heteredox. To most Catholics, ( outside the very conservative), he is just Orthodox but therefore not not Catholic.
According to Mr. de Verteuil, it is the validity of Baptism which made Fr. Gabriel’s move not a conversion, not the existence of liturgical tradition (which the Methodists have, by the way). That is why I used various protestants as examples.
You are correct, “apostate” was hyperbole. I was trying to make the point, however, that the fact of conversion is simply a reality. While Rome currently likes to pretend that Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians) are Catholic, and state that the only thing needed for intercommunion is intercommunion, such positions prevent us from dealing with the reality of a conversion. That reality is that the convert, by virtue of his choice to leave one communion and join another, necessarily declares that his former communion was defective. Only when we accept the fact that conversions necessarily involve the convert’s belief that he was not part of the true Church, can there be any conversation about re-union. We dislike the painful reality that a person’s conversion from our own church is necessarily a statement that we are wrong, so rather than deal with it and ask, “Does this guy have a point and I need to examine myself, or is he deluded and now putting his salvation in peril?” we try to paper over it and pretend that the conversion is simply an administrative shuffle.
To answer your question, yes it is a term of art for Catholics. Someone who has willingly received trinitarian baptism is a member of the Church catholic… full stop. This is what Catholics believe, which is why post-baptismal migration to or from one Christian denomination to another is not termed “conversion.”
As you don’t claim to be Catholic, you don’t have to agree with the terminology or the distinction. As I indicated in my earlier answer to you, the Moscow Patriarchate is free to use whatever terminology or theology it wishes. Knowing that Catholics see a fundamental distinction, Diane was groping for the proper Catholic term, and I reminded her of it.
For Catholics, the distinction between “conversion” and “reconciliation” has nothing to do with wanting to be ecumenically fuzzy-luvvy with heretics and schismatics. It has everything to do with taking Catholic sacramental theology seriously.
“That reality is that the convert, by virtue of his choice to leave one communion and join another, necessarily declares that his former communion was defective.”
It seems to me that here we have an argument that is of an “all or nothing” type.
I don’t that that it’s necessarily that way. One could hold to a “pluralist” view, seeing each tradition as not defective, just different.
The same arguments are made with regards to non-Christian religions.
I have known several priests and laity who decided to leave the Byzantine Catholic Rite and come into the communion of the Orthodox Church. They have all universally said that there is a difference. They feel that they are more solidly grounded in the fullness of the Byzantine traditions. Often the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome become corrupted (not the best word to use but I couldn’t think of a better one) with Latinizations, which I know the Vatican has tried to correct.
Yet, I also know a priest in my jurisdiction who decided to enter into communion with Rome, and he is now a married and functioning Roman Catholic priest in the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. He believed he could do greater work for the Church by being a Roman Catholic priest. Some Orthodox decide to enter into communion with Rome because of the unfortunate practice in the Orthodox Church of contemporary ethno-phyletism.
What is most important in my opinion is that we respect these deeply personal decisions made by these individuals.
I agree with you that these are deeply personal decisions, and that persons who go through the spiritual upheaval of a conversion are entitled to our respect for enduring such upheaval to pursue what the believe to be the truth. All I wanted to say was that we need to accept that conversion is a change. The least respectful thing we can do for the convert is to continually declare that conversion is an illusion that has no spiritual, theological, ecclesiological or soteriological consequences.
The question of “conversion” is a tough one. In my jurisdiction we receive Byzantine Rite Catholics through confession only, whereas Roman Catholics are received through the Mystery of Chrismation. Strictly speaking the Byzantine Rite Catholic did not convert, whereas the Roman Catholic did. Of course all protestants would be received through Chrismation and possibly baptism because sadly many protestant sects, and even clerics in mainstream denominations no longer baptize in the name of the Trinity.
Just curious. Which jurisdiction is this?
I wonder if there are any examples of Orthodox Christians being led to Catholicism through Chevetogne?
I wondered the same thing. There seems to be an assumption hereabouts that all the “reconciliations” go in one direction only. I would respectfully suggest that there are plenty that go in the other direction. We Catholics simply choose not to make polemical hay out of them — even when they involve fairly famous people (including a number of clergy).
Mr. de Verteuil–
Except that it is termed conversion by Catholics. For evidence I would direct your attention to the Coming Home Network: http://www.chnetwork.org/. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm. From what I understand, “reconciliation” refers instead to Confession: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt2.shtml#art4
Evagrius–
You are right that it is possible to take a “pluralist” view of things, but I submit that persons who convert do not take this view–otherwise, what would be the point of switching communions.
The issue isn’t whether one CAN use the words “conversion” and “convert” in a wider sense, but rather whether one MUST in the narrower context we have been discussing, which is, let me point out, what you have been maintaining.
I refer you to the CCC:
1427: “…Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion….”
1428: “Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion [italicized] is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, [quoting Vatican II] ‘clasping sinners to her bosom, is at once holy and always in need of purification, and follows constantly in the path of penance and renewal’…”
As you can see, the Catholic Church DOES make a distinction.
Now I suppose Catholics intent on expressing this distinction (which Diane was) could go around referring to “fundamental converts” and “secondary converts,” but it’s rather inelegant and confusing to the uninitiated. As such, the preferred way of making the distinction is to refer to “converts” strictly speaking in the first case, and to “reconciled” in the second (extended in this case as a matter of courtesy to someone “reconciled” to Orthodoxy). And yes, “secondary conversion” (i.e. “reconciliation”) is intimately tied to penance and confession. Is that not how Fr. Bunge became a “secondary convert” to Orthodoxy?
Do you really have nothing better to do than try to argue with Catholics over what terms they should use and what distinctions they can or cannot make?
“…., what would be the point of switching communions.”
Han- Because one tradition fits one’s spiritual needs better than an other, not that it expresses more theological truth in general.
That is a possible explanation. Furthermore, this explanation is likely the preferred explanation for Fr. Gabriel’s conversion on this blog, since the mission of this blog is to head “towards Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation.” But what were the responses to this article? Your first comment was to essentially scold Met. +Hilarion for not holding that Catholics are Orthodox, then minimized what Fr. Gabriel did with, “well, he just crossed the street”–nothing serious. Then despite the lack of any examples of it either in the comments or by way of links to other sites, dianeski raised the spectre of “hard-line Orthodox triumphalism.” Then, Mr. de Vertueil decided to twist the word “conversion” far beyond any rational or normal usage of the word in an attempt to banish the thought of it from the collective memory of this thread.
Why are you all so reluctant to call a spade a spade? If this blog is to contribute anything to ecumenical relations, it must be free of self-delusion. I suggest that the reason why you are all afraid of using the word “conversion” to describe Fr. Gabriel’s move, is that you feel it to be a rebuke to yourselves. For example, if I convert, who cares? Who am I? On the other hand, you all respect Fr. Gabriel deeply, and deep down, you know that his decision has nothing to do with administrative politics or “this feels better FOR ME” as if choosing one’s Church were the equivalent of preferring Coke of Pepsi. Deep down, you know that Fr. Gabriel must believe that unless he became Orthodox, he would be denying Christ. You know this because you know Fr. Gabriel’s writings and his history of mysticism, and it defies reason to think that he did not seriously examine his own conscience and think about what he was doing before doing it. Now this hurts, because he as expressly left your communion for another. Either it means that he knows something you don’t know, and therefore you might be in the wrong place, or that he has severely deluded himself, and by taking the action he took, he has drastically imperiled his soul.
I suggest that the comments that you all left above are a psychological defense mechanism designed to avoid dealing with what is essentially the death of a respected family member. I wrote what I wrote because I respect the host of this blog, and while not sanguine about its chances for success, hope it does make progress in improving relations. But nothing good can come of denying reality.
Finally, I strongly suspect that you will read this and accuse me in you own mind of presumption, but probably with more colorful language. Nevertheless, I beg you to seriously consider what I have written, and ask yourself if I am correct in my assessment of your reactions. If I am correct, and you decide that your own reactions to the blog post might have something to do with sorrow over the defection of someone you admire, then ask what this means for your own ecclesiology. Perhaps it means that from the Catholic side, this talk about really being one Church too pigheaded to recognize it might also be a lie–that from that Catholic side, Catholics do in fact believe that they are the true Church and that it is the Orthodox who need to convert.
Han,
One must consider also another possibility, namely that of sub-version. Dubbing Orthodox vestments in order to teach catholic doctrines. In 1924 the Pope Pius XI urged the Benedictine Order to work for the unification of the Catholic and Eastern Churches with particular emphasis on the Russian Orthodox Church. The result was the Abey of Chevetogne, a more sophisticated form of Uniatism. It had a role in creating the present confusion about the very notions of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Dear Seraphim, If You would take the time to read something about the history of our Monastery or a recent biography of our founder, Dom Lambert Beauduin, You would discover, that Chevetogne is not “a more sophisticated form of Uniatism”. Father Lambert Beauduin was for twenty years in exile in France, without permission to visit his community, for his refusal of catholic proselytism and ecclesial emperialism. He wanted us “to go to school in the East”, as he said, in order to better understand and more thoroughly love the Orthodox Church. This was and is the only justification of the presence of the byzantine rite in Chevetogne. Because of this fundamental attitude of our community towards Orthodoxy, and occasional catholic opposition, it has happend several times in the history of our monastery, that monks became orthodox (not to speak of so many guests who discovered Orthodoxy here and became orthodox afterwards): Fr Lev Gillet (“The Monk of the Eastern Church”, as he called himself), David Balfour, archbishop Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, Denis Guillaume (who translated all the orthodox liturgical books into French), and Father Gabriel Bunge, to name only the most famous. One can understand, that they found in Orthodoxy the “fullness” of the Church. But one may understand also those, who do not (yet?) see this fullness (only?) there.
As for Father Gabriel before his conversion, he did not see himself “as an Orthodox Christian who was in communion with the pope?”, as T. Chan, supposes, but as a Catholic Christian with an orthodox, patristic faith and way of life, with a great love for the orthodox Church. His conversion to Orthodoxy, as far as I understand, gave him indeed some kind of fullness, or confirmation, of this. And it gives him access to a full communion with Orthodox christians (and especially monks), a communion which unfortunately cannot be found otherwise. Unfortunately too, I think, this same conversion may move him away, or alienate him not only from his former spiritual children but also from the Catholic Tradition… This is the tragedy of this kind of acts, as long as Church division exists. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot consider this conversion as a “prophetic” act, although I respect it.
fr Antoine
Dear Fr. Antoine,
Thank you for your advise. I am not, of course, unaware of who Fr. Lambert was, albeit wary of his “theology of the Liturgy”.
What I found confusing, leading to cognitive dissonance, is the talk about the “fullness” of Orthodoxy. Can there be more “kinds of fullness”? If Orthodoxy is the fullness of the Church how can one understand also those, who do not (yet?) see this fullness (only?) there?
Fr. Antoine, thank you for that clarification. I offered that formulation only because I have seen other Eastern-rite Catholics describe themselves in that way. I would be curious then to know what Fr. Gabriel now believes is his ecclesiastical relationship to the Bishop of Rome.
An ecclesiological question then for all here — can one be personally be in communion with a bishop whom his own bishop has excluded from communion? I would think that this is not possible, at least with respect to external acts (sharing communion, etc.), but how about “internally”?
For those who read French and want to read something thoroughly on the history of Chevetogne, I can warmly advise You to read the most recent biography of Lambert Beauduin :
LOONBEEK, Raymond & MORTIAU, Jacques : Un pionnier : Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960). Liturgie et Unité des chrétiens. 2 Volumes (1600 pages !), Louvain & Chevetogne, 2001.
And a strongly abbriged version (but not less interesting) by the same authors:
LOONBEEK, Raymond & MORTIAU, Jacques : Dom Lambert Beauduin visionnaire et précurseur (1873-1960). Un moine au coeur libre. Préface d’Enzo Bianchi. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 2005 (280 p.).
Unfortunately, there is not yet an english translation, only a Dutch translation of the last one. A German translation is in preparation.
fr Antoine
Fr. Antoine,
I will look those up. Thanks!
Also, I wonder if you’ve familiar with Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck’s book His Broken Body? A review here:
http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/his-broken-body-by-laurent-cleenewerck/
His is one of the more irenic works from an Orthodox writer on the Catholic-Orthodox divide. He speaks French so I don’t know if he’s written anything in French or not, though he’s appreciative of the work of Olivier Clement also.
In my humble opinion, an Orthodox or Catholic should never, ever, “convert” or “translate” himself or be “reconciled” (whichever term you want to use) to the other communion unless he truly believes, in the depths of his heart, and in good conscience, after much prayer, that he must for the sake of his salvation.
Fr Gabriel, being, I am certain, a very wise and spiritual man, must have gone through a process very much like this. This doesn’t mean, as I suggested in the original post, that Fr Gabriel must now despise or begin to assail his former communion. It’s always possible that he will begin to write little tracts against the detestable enormities of Papism, but I would be very surprised indeed.
Archimandrite Lev Gillet (who, as Fr Antoine noted, was also associated with Chevtogne) was not a “hater” of his former communion: in fact, one might say that as an Orthodox, his love and respect for the Catholic Church grew stronger. Fr Lev simply found the “homeland of his heart’s desire” (as much as this can be found on earth) in the Orthodox Church.
This is not to deny that most “conversions” involve a whole array of differing motivations (intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, etc.) and are much more complex than the usual “convert story” template would have us believe (a la EWTN or Gillquistian-type Orthodox imitations). Nor is it to deny that some who make “conversions” for less than noble motives (e.g. a Lutheran guy wanting to get close to an Orthodox girl) often, over time, turn into more authentic “conversions.”
The point is that, at some point, a “conversion” must be about a very strong sense that one’s God-given vocation, and indeed salvation, is imperiled and that only a change in mind, heart, and ecclesiastical address can secure it.
Unless a “convert” has, in his heart, a strong sense that God desires this for his salvation: I say it’s much better to stay where you are, even if it causes great annoyance and heartache. Otherwise, “conversion” may be a form of self-delusion (“prelest” as the Russians call it), an intellectual game, a foundation built on sand.
Well, I ramble. Off to Liturgy.
Thank you Father Antoine for a powerful and inspiring statement about your monastic community and the men who have followed St. Benedict there. Chevtogne, in my option, is a light in the darkness of division. Many the Lord, grant you and the other monks many years.
Father James Hess, O.Carm.
a priest serving the Eastern Catholic Church
I am grateful to Fr Antoine for his contribution to this discussion which I think is very helpful. Fr Antoine speaks of those whose connection with Chevetogne led them to embrace Orthodoxy; I wonder if there are any examples of Orthodox Christians being led to Catholicism through Chevetogne? I cannot help also pondering Met. Kallistos’ remark, if it was faithfully reported (perhaps it was ex temporer) – that he hoped the cross of the Orthodox Christian which Fr Gabriel had taken up would not prove too heavy for him.
whereas Roman Catholics are received through the Mystery of Chrismation
You are a very irenical soul, Subdeacon Joseph, so I trust you appreciate how deeply offensive this practice is.
Adult Roman Catholics have (normally) already experienced “the Mystery of Chrismation.” It cannot be repeated, any more than Baptism can be repeated.
This is a real sore spot for Catholics, as I’m sure you can appreciate. If we Catholics reChrismated “reconcilers” from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, the Orthodox would rightly feel indignant, I’m thinkin’.
As for Eastern Catholics who become Orthodox because they want the fullness of Easternness: [warning, soapbox time]:
I cannot help asking, as our Protestant brethren might: “Where is that in the Bible?” Where does Our Lord ever say that the mark of the True Church is superior Easternness? Everything in the NT suggests quite otherwise: that the True Church is global, not confined to one cultural or geographic expression; that it includes many diverse spiritualities, not just one; that it comprises both Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free; that it is “a great throng which no man could number, from every nation, tribe, and tongue”… etc.
If someone “converts” just to find what he or she considers better or fuller or more authentic Easternness…well, I’m sorry, but this strikes me as extremely parochial. It also strikes me as completely out of keeping with the Bible’s depiction of the Church: “that great throng…from EVERY nation, tribe, and tongue.”
I know, I know…I cannot judge anyone else; I cannot see into someone else’s heart; I have no idea how varied and complex were the reasons for the conversion. “The heart has its reasons,” and so on. So, no, I am not saying that such a convert is a parochial person. I am simply saying that, if the convert gives “more authentic Easternness” as the reason for his/her conversion, then this (on the face of it) is a rather parochial perspective, a misunderstanding of the meaning of “Church.”
Are there too many Latinizations in Eastern Catholicism, and should they be stripped away? Absolutely. (I do think the local congregation should have some say in whether to jettison the Rosary or whatever; but in general, and in principle, yes, Eastern Catholics need to recover their tradition.)
But should such issues be a deal-breaker? Should “my parish isn’t Eastern enough” be a valid reason for leaving Catholicism? Absolutely not, IMHO. Jesus has called us to a global, universal Church, a Church of countless different cultures and spiritualities. He has not called us to parochialism, tribalism, or regionalism. Although He respects and understands our fidelity to particular traditions, He has not called us to EITHER Easternness or Westernness, any more than He has called us to be Jew vs. Greek or Greek vs. Jew. Yes, we have the tradition we feel most comfortable in, and that’s great. But the Church transcends that tradition, even as she incorporates it. And, from a Catholic perspective, membership in the Church Christ founded, the Church in communion with Peter’s successor, is far more important than my (or anyone’s) personal comfort zone.
cont’d….
Regarding the reception of converts via Chrismation–
No, the Orthodox would not be indignant if the Roman Catholics started receiving Orthodox converts to Catholicism by chrismation, because we do not have the same sacramental theology. I believe that the current Roman practice of not re-Chrismating converts is based upon two things: (1) the belief that Chrismation can only happen once, and (2) the “validity” theory of sacraments. We, on the other hand, do not have this sacramental theology.
First, reception of heretics back into the Church by way of Chrismation dates back to the 4th Century. The 7th Canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Counsel makes this clear where it lists certain heretical sects whose converts are to be received by Chrismation, and distinguishes them from the Montantists and the Eunomians who are to be received by baptism–the former because they baptized in the name more than just the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the latter because they only baptized with one immersion. Until the West separated Chrismation from Baptism so as to reserve to the former to the bishop, Chrismation was the final part of the Baptismal rite, so it is therefore reasonable to conclude that these heretical baptisms also included chrismation. At some point (the Scholastic era, I would guess), the West decided that Chrismation was, like Baptism, a once only sacrament. However, in light of Canon VII of Constantinople I, this must be a later development. Using the “soldier of Christ” metaphor for the sacrament, it is not difficult to see why the 2nd Ecumenical Council would have no problem with re-Chrismation. Chrismation is like enlisting in God’s army. If one deserts his post and becomes a heretic, it stands to reason that when he is received back, he needs to be re-enlisted.
Secondly, we do not look at sacraments through the lens of validity. We know where the Holy Spirit is (i.e. the Orthodox Church), but we cannot say for certain where is is absent. While it stands to reason that heretics would not have the Holy Spirit working in assemblies because their heresies are, by definition, opposed to the true faith, it also stands to reason that the Holy Spirit must be doing something outside the Church, otherwise how would heretics be able to renounce their heresies and return? Because all sacraments are efficacious only by the operation of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible, and quite imprudent, to say that any sacrament performed outside the Orthodox Church has “validity.” Thus, the theological system the allows Catholics to declare our sacraments “valid” is foreign to Orthodox sacramental theology, and we are unable to reciprocate the gesture (if it is even proper to call it that–after all the validity of our sacraments is dictated by your own theology and cannot be given or withdrawn as a matter of courtesy) because we simply do not think in those categories.
I can’t comment on your friend who had to renounce errors when she became Orthodox. Perhaps it’s used some places, I don’t know. I have encountered it among my friends. On a related note, I have a friend who when he made his profession of faith as a Catholic in 1974 had to declare other churches were “in error.” I’m guessing that is no longer used these days.
As to my comment about “the journey East.” I was just using that phrase in a literary fashion. If I was writing about Orthodox who become Catholic I could have just as easily said “the journey West.” No point was meant by that and I think your triumphalistic soapbox comment was ill advised.
As to your comment that Catholicism is universal while Orthodox is only parochial, a bit of historical perspective is needed here.
First of all, Eastern Catholicism is, in general, rather new as far as Church history goes: from 500 years down to about 130 years for the various Eastern Catholic Churches. Where was this universality you get triumphalistic about in 1550?
Secondly, when these Churches entered communion with Rome they were told in no uncertain terms that they had been outside the Church of Christ. (I realize a different ecclesiology obtained then.) It wasn’t until the last century that Roman Riters could receive the Eucharist in an Eastern Catholic parish. Before that, it was forbidden. This is universality? And, why when these various Eastern Catholic Churches were formed by entering communion with Rome did they start jettisoning many of their traditions? Some of it was internal — some of it was imposed by Rome. Granted, there’s a push in some quarters to restore some of these traditions which has only been partially successful overall.
Thirdly, as to parochialness. Talk to the average Roman Riter in the pew about the Eastern Catholic Churches and you’ll be amazed at the ignorance and comments made. For example, my Roman Catholic friends at work who I’ve talked to about the suppression of the Eastern Catholic right to ordain married men in this country get rather defensive. The Eastern tradition, according to them, is rather inferior and it would be better (they say) for Eastern Catholics to continue with celibate clergy in this country. I shared this video with one friend of a Ukrainian Catholic priest talking about his struggle as a seminarian with an expectation he remain celibate even though his Church’s tradition was to ordain married men:
Boy, did the sparks fly! There was a knee-jerk reaction against the Eastern view. Is this an isolated case? I don’t think so. Just 12 years ago it was the conservative Catholic backlash that led to the Ruthenian Catholic Church being forced to remove the statute from its Particular Law that restored the right to ordain married men in the US.
Parochialism? Catholics have it too.
Oops. Editing error. In my first paragraph I meant to say: “I have not encountered it among my friends.” Sorry about that.
I don’t want to turn this into the standard Orthodox-Catholic bunfest. There are enough sites for that elsewhere. There comes a point, however, when “Easterners” tend to pocket and exploit the greater willingness of Latins to both admit fault and exercise self-criticism.
To answer a few of your specific points:
“…a bit of historical perspective is needed here.”
I could not agree more.
“First of all, Eastern Catholicism is, in general, rather new as far as Church history goes: from 500 years down to about 130 years for the various Eastern Catholic Churches.”
Here is a clear example of historical “parochialism.” Your statement is true “in general” only if you ignore all the examples to the contrary. The Italo-Albanians (who are and always have practiced the Byzantine rite, nota bene) are hardly new and have NEVER been out of communion with Rome. The Maronites have been demonstrably in unbroken communion with Rome since 1182 (so for 828 years for the mathematically or chronologically challenges), and can make a powerful case for never having consciously been outside the Roman communion.
A Catholic could go further and point to Lyons and Florence as demonstrating an albeit ephemeral and fleeting reappearance of the ancient Eastern Catholicism that only faded from view in 1099. He or she could also point to the many historical instances of shared communion and concelebration between Eastern and Western congregations through most of the period in which you claim Eastern Catholicism did not exist.
I am not trying to make a moral argument here, or claiming that history in some way proves the Catholic case. I just wish to point out the irony of denying parochialism while unconsciously basing one’s argument on a polemic historical construct impatient, and so occluding, of inconvenient facts.
“Where was this universality you get triumphalistic about in 1550?”
I assume this refers to the Reformation. I am puzzled as to how you see this as relevant. Catholicity implies in part at least an intent to speak for and to the whole of the apostolic Tradition without privileging one cultural or ritual expression of it. The aspiration, in itself, provides no assurance against schism or heresy.
“Secondly, when these Churches entered communion with Rome they were told in no uncertain terms that they had been outside the Church of Christ. (I realize a different ecclesiology obtained then.)”
The acts of union are there for anyone to consult and have been so in some cases for hundreds of years. I invite you to point to some provision in any of them which describes the reunited Churches as ever having been “outside the Church of Christ.” Note, I say this without having checked any of them for such, and so will be amazed but not incredulous if you find any. On a prima facie basis, however, I find the prospect of your finding any rather remote. That some Catholic clerics (possibly including Popes) may have spouted bigoted and triumphalist personal opinions, and so deeply humiliated their Eastern brethren, is not easily denied. Your suggestion that these ever represented actualized teaching on the part of the magisterium is, however, mistaken. If Eastern Christians had ever been authoritatively considered “outside the Church of Christ,” then only their baptisms and marriages would have been treated as valid, and the term “Christian” would not have been conceded to them.
“It wasn’t until the last century that Roman Riters could receive the Eucharist in an Eastern Catholic parish. Before that, it was forbidden. This is universality?”
This is a grotesque falsehood. Evidence please! And blather about still being subject to the discipline of, and attendance to, one’s Latin parish will not do.
“And, why when these various Eastern Catholic Churches were formed by entering communion with Rome did they start jettisoning many of their traditions? Some of it was internal — some of it was imposed by Rome. Granted, there’s a push in some quarters to restore some of these traditions which has only been partially successful overall.”
The phenomenon is both unfortunate and complex. At least there is some counter reaction in the opposite direction, much of it pushed by Rome, and some effort to return to roots. I am still waiting, on the other hand, for any sign that the Churches of Mtskheta, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria are making any serious effort to throw off their “Byzantinization” and return to their original liturgical and disciplinary roots. I seem to recall something about motes and beams that might be applicable here.
Just as a codicil, by “complex” I mean that the phenomenon is not quite so straightforward as you describe. The misguided imposition of celibacy on Eastern clergy in the Americas was not, strictly speaking, an effort to Latinize the rite, else the same impulse would have been applied in Europe. It was instead a misplaced effort to avoid scandal to the overwhelming majority of American Catholics who were Latins. I would agree, of course, that in retrospect, education of Latins on Eastern discipline and ritual practice would have been the better approach.
“Parochialism? Catholics have it too.”
Yes, they do. But it isn’t inherent in Catholic theology, nor is it actualized in Catholic patristic studies, ecclesiology, or historicism to the degree it is in Orthodoxy.
If we all lay out our sins honestly on the table, we wouldn’t have the privilege of carping instead on the failings of the other.
Dear Dianeski,
If you noticed in my earlier post I said that it is beyond me why Roman Catholic laity are received into Orthodoxy through Chrismation and clerics are not. You are right that this is offensive. I am simply trying to reveal what the current practice is.
As for former Byzantine Rite Catholics who come to Orthodoxy…I take them at their word. It is not meant to be offensive. They all say they there is a difference. They have come home to the Eastern Church. They were never part of the venerable Latin Rite to begin with.
Oh my gosh, Michael, your response to orthocath was nothing short of perfect. I could never, ever, ever in a bazillion years have put it a fraction as well.
Subdeacon Joseph — I had not noticed your earlier comment, and all I can say is: Sorry!! And bravo!! (See, I knew you were an extremely irenical soul. ;-))
I too take Byz Cath converts to Orthodoxy at their word. I’m sure they are sincere. I just think that their reasoning is wrong-headed. “Feeling more at home” (i.e., finding one’s comfort zone) has absolutely nothing to do with seeking the Fullness of the Truth. The truth is not always particularly comfortable, and feelings are notoriously unreliable.
I happen to love old-fashioned Catholic churches crammed with statues and stained glass and reeking of incense and candlewax. I rarely get a chance to attend Mass in one, however. Should I leave Catholicism over this? Perhaps I would feel more at home or more fulfilled in an SSPX or sedevacantist church…? Maybe. But then I would not have the Catholica, the fullness of the Truth. No amount of incense and candlewax can compensate for that!
Part of me sympathizers with Han, although I think he takes it too far. But, with Han, I say: Let’s call a spade a spade. When someone abandons Catholicism for something else — even for something as “close” as Orthodoxy — there is a rupture, a loss, a sadness. It is not like choosing vanilla ice cream over strawberry. It goes a lot deeper than that.
Our Orthodox brethren believe that they have the fullness of the Truth. We believe that we do — and that, therefore, logically, they don’t. From the Catholic POV, the Orthodox are very very close to us, but they lack one thing, and it’s a pretty crucial thing: communion with the pope. (See Dominus Iesus and the recent Vatican clarification of the term “subsists in.”)
Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not two sides of the same coin. It is not six of one, half dozen of the other. There is a divide, however narrow. The current pope recognizes this; he is, after all, the author of Dominus Iesus. I think it’s high time the rest of us Catholics recognized it, too. (Just my two cents’ worth.)
(cont’d)….
(cont’d)
This does NOT mean a return to the hard-line polemics of an earlier age. (I am forestalling Michael’s response here. ;-)) Obviously, in dealing with the Orthodox, we are walking an ecumenical tightrope, precisely because Orthodoxy does comprise true particular churches with valid sacraments (in the Catholic view).
But, delicate and nuanced as the ecumenical situation may be, I do think we need to resist indifferentism. From the Catholic perspective, it is best by far to be Catholic, because Catholicism offers the fullness of Truth, Faith, Grace, and the means of salvation. And therefore it is sad when someone decamps for something else–even if it’s for Orthodoxy.
OK, off my soapbox now. And hoping, as always, that I am not misunderstood….
You needn’t worry forestalling me. I agree entirely.
I would go further and state up front that Orthodoxy is lacking because it fails to internalize the whole of the orthodox Fathers, having chosen instead to rest narrowly on those who wrote in Greek while dismissing those who wrote in Latin, Coptic or Syriac. As such, even its claim to represent “Easterness” has to be seriously qualified.
This lack plays an important part in the filioque dispute (wherein apparently the Latin Fathers count for nothing); it is entirely consonant with the flirtation with phyletism and iconoclasm (from which it had to be pulled back from the brink by Roman witness); it underlies the idea of national Churches as an organizing eccesiological principle, it is exemplified in the Greek ethnocentric leadership of the Patriarchate of Antioch until the end of the 19th century, and of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to this day; it also explains Orthodoxy’s inability to make inroads in reunion or reconciliation with non-Chalcedonian Easterners, and its inability to prevent the greater part of the Patriarchate of Antioch to “apostatize” (using Han’s terminology) despite recruiting Ottoman oppression to this end; it explains why Western-rite Orthodoxy gets such rough treatment; why the ancient liturgies of SS James and Mark; and finally, it explains why the ethno-religious theories of Khomiakov and Romanides have currency.
Basically, in Orthodoxy, anything that isn’t Greek or ecclesiologically Byzantine is treated as if of no account.
Where I do disagree with you, Diane, is that I don’t care how former Catholics are received into the Orthodox Church. It’s really none of our business unless it is a route we as individuals are contemplating. I can’t help but mention, however, that the inconsistency with which the various Orthodox Churches approach this issue points to an underlying incoherence in sacramental theology. Presumably it is one they will work out over time in the fullness of time without our assistance.
Before the standard accusations of triumphalism come flying back, let me freely acknowledge that the Catholic side has wallowed in its share of sin, pride, arrogance, and violence, though clearly it has enjoyed no monopoly in these domains.
“why the ancient liturgies of SS James and Mark…”
Mr. de Verteuil, is this missing something?
Yes, my bad.
These were the original liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria respectively which were dropped in the 12th century by the Greek-speaking Melkite (Orthodox) Patriarchs in order to conform with that of St John Chrysostom as practiced in Constantinople. There has been some embarrassment with regards to this suppression of the most ancient Christian rites by Orthodoxy, and some recent effort to revive more widespread occasional use, at least of the liturgy of St James (which is the parent rite for that of St John). I believe the Catholic Melkites have moved in this direction as well.
The liturgy of St Mark is so far as I know still dead in Orthodoxy.
The two liturgies are now in regular use only in non-Chalcedonian Churches and in their Catholic counterparts.
Mtskheta originally used what we now call the Armenian liturgy of St Gregory, itself derived from that of St James.
A couple of comments on your history of the Patriarchate of Antioch—
The periods in which the Patriarchate of Antioch was under Greek patriarchs is less than most would think. It and Jerusalem were the first churches to Arabize, and at least Antioch stayed predominantly Arabic (with well-documented local usages of Greek, Georgian, Syriac, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and even Persian!) until modern times. The main periods in which there were ethnically Greek patriarchs after the 9th century are three: Following the Byzantine reconquest of Antioch in 969, ethnically Greek and Arab or Syrian patriarchs alternated more or less (and this coincided with a massive, Church-supported translation of Greek patristic works into Arabic and Georgian). During the Crusades, when the establishment of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem forced the Orthodox to continue the Patriarchate in abstentia in Constantinople, when they were almost always Greeks, and from 1724 to 1900. While the last case is the one that sticks most in our minds, it should be noted that the ethnically Greek patriarchs usually spoke Arabic and were often cousined-in with the locals– the most striking example of this is the Patriarch Sylvester of Cyprus (1724-1766) who spoke Arabic and was godson of the previous patriarch, Athanasios Dabbas. Asad Rustum’s Arabic history of the Patriarchate of Antioch, published by the Catholic Paulist Press in Lebanon, though by the official historian of the Orthodox Patriarchate would shed more light on this, were it to ever be translated…..
The liturgical Byzantinization of the Antiochene liturgy is more complicated than you make it out to be, and prior to the 17th century had more or less been taking place organically. (One must also remember that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is itself practically itself a creation of Antioch). Not enough manuscript research is being done about it (apart from Fr. Elia Khalife’s Antioch Centre), but the more that’s discovered, the messier it looks.
While it’s true that the majority of the Rum community of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem became Greek Catholic, this is not really the case in Antioch— my source for this is the information and statistics in Fr. Ignatius Dick’s “Les Melkites”, a Greek Catholic source, which gives the number of Rum Orthodox as almost double that of the Rum Catholic in Syria and Lebanon. Also interesting in this regard is the research of Robert Haddad, who shows that most conversions among laity from Orthodoxy to Catholicism in Greater Syria during the 18th and 19th century happened because of much laxer fasting and cousin-marriage rules among the Catholics….
Dianeski,
Sadly I did not understand you at all. Fr.Bunge did not come to Orthodoxy because he was in search of more “Easternness”. Of course you would not find in the “Bible” Our Lord saying that “the mark of the True Church is superior Easternness”. He could not have said such silly things. What Fr. Bunge was searching was not more Easternness (superior or not) but the fullness of the Church, which, like it or not, is to be found only in the Church which kept unchanged the commandments of the Lord – the Orthodox.
I’m so tired of these “discussions” that are not true discussions but repetitive cliches.
When I read about the “fullness of faith” I can’t help thinking about whether this refers to a glass of water, “faith”, that is half-full or half-empty depending on attitude.
I think this is more germane to the focus of this site;
http://www.monasterodibose.it/index.php/content/blogcategory/288/918/lang,en/
“Communion and solitude” is the theme of the 18th International Ecumenical Conference of Orthodox Spirituality, which will be held at the Monastery of Bose from 8 to 11 September 2010. Organized in collaboration with the Orthodox Churches, for almost twenty years now the conference represents an important occasion of dialogue on the essential themes of the spiritual life, where the traditions of Christian East and West intersect the profound expectations of today’s men and women. The course of the conference consists of four intense days of study and fraternal comparison, during which theologians, historians, philosophers, and official representatives at the highest level of the Orthodox Churches, of the Catholic Church, and of the Churches of the Reform will take part, together with numerous other participants
…
This monastery in Italy has had an ecumenical conference on Orthodox spirituality since 1993.
Unfortunately, from what I can see on their website, the proceedings are available only in Italian. It would really be a tremendous deed if the proceeddings could be translated into English.
This conference looks very interesting: I hope at least some report of the proceedings will be available on this site?
Evagrius,
You are right. Is the cup full or half- full? If it is half- full it means that it is necessarily half – empty. The fullness is the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, attainable by the exact keeping of the content and the form of the means of Salvation – correct faith, correct praxis, as the Lord taught His Apostles. Our Lord gave us the cup full. The Orthodox Church is the one which passed that cup full from generation to generation. But the time came when parts of the Church decided that we need only half the cup and really halved it, throwing away the other half.
It is not only a metaphor. The RC stopped the faithful to commune with the blood of Christ, although the Lord commanded to “drink from it ye ALL”. The RC suppressed the prayer that the Holy Ghost changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord. They replaced the bread (the daily bread) offered in sacrifice by the faithful with azymes. RC impoverished the rite of Baptism, the very gate of entrance into the Church to the extent that one may say that they are not baptized at all. They changed the confession of Faith. But they claim that their half-fullness is the full fullness. Remember that among the accusations brought against the Orthodox, and which led to the anathema of Cardinal Humbert, was that the Orthodox suppressed the filioque from the Creed. They separated from the Church, therefore they are the schismatics, they are the ones who emptied the cup (and actually is more than half). They replaced the consensus of the Church with their own opinions (that is the meaning of hairesis=opinion), therefore they are the heretics.
This is the crux of the problem. The Orthodox don’t need to know more about their theologies and practices. The facts speak for themselves.
I didn’t know that Our Lord handed down any canons directing praxis. Of course, that may have been in the oral tradition.
I’m not knowledgeable about the practices you mention except to know thatmany Catholic practices originated quite a while before the “Great Schism” and were accepted by the East as Latin tradition.
I think that there was quite a variety of practices in the early Church, East and West. See below for the discussion about different liturgies. However, there began to be a push for uniformity, ( mistaking uniformity for universality and unity), by both East and West.
I think what is perceived as “Orthodoxy” really had its origin around the time of Justinian. The unfortunate tendency to associate the Roman Empire with Greek Orthodoxy and vice-versa, ( to be followed in the West with similar results), eliminated quite a few different practices and viewpoints which, had they been allowed, could have had a more beneficent result.
The loss of the “Asian East”, ( i.e; the first “Great Schism- that of the splitting off of Syriac, Persian, Egyptian and Indian Christianity), resulted in the rise of Islam.
Evagrius,
Of course it was oral tradition. Some practices were wrong, that is why the Councils were convened, to correct them, not to impose uniformity. The idea that the wrong practices were ever accepted is wrong.
There are several post schism liturgical devotions that exist in the Western Rite Orthodox Church. There is nothing theologically incorrect, or even heretical about these. I find it very sad that many Eastern Orthodox Christians are always ready to point out every little post schism act of piety that there own Western Rite Orthodox brothers and sisters do as “heretical”. Even worse is that some bishops in a jurisdiction which will remain nameless forbid there priests from allowing a Western Rite Orthodox Priest from communing at a Byzantine Rite altar unless vested as a Byzantine Rite priest. We Orthodox have a long way to go.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Luke says the Last Supper was a seder. Why would Orthodox find the use leavened bread necessary if Christ didn’t?
Are Orthodox now utraquists to the point of insisting not only that communion in both species is necessary but that the lack of a valid eucharist is tantamount to heresy?
If a valid utraquist eucharist is necessary for salvation are those allergic to even minute traces of alcohol or wheat flour damned?
If Christ just used the words of institution, why is an epiklesis necessary?
Just when exactly did all these deeply deficient Catholic sacraments become graceless?
Just asking.
Michael,
You ask wrong questions.
One should ask why the westerners found necessary to use leavened bread until the 8th century? Not because the Lord used leavened bread?
Why did they use communion in both species until late? Not because the Lord commanded so?
Why the westerners used the epiklesis in the first centuries? Not because the Lord blessed the bread and and wine first?
We can extend the list. Why did the westerners baptized by triple immersion? Not because the Lord immersed Himself?
When did these deeply deficient catholic “sacraments” became graceless? That is a matter of history and we know it pretty satisfactorily.
And a lack of valid Eucharist is indeed tantamount to heresy. It is at the best ineffectual.
I ask questions which apparently you can’t answer. So you evade them. Sorry but repetitive assertions are unsatisfactory as compelling arguments. I will attempt to answer yours, however.
1. There is no evidence the West ever used exclusively leavened bread. But if you date the change to the 8th century, then you date to a time when the West and the East (at least the orthodox parts thereof) were in communion. Ergo making it an issue now is just polemic fault-finding.
2. It is specifically in imitation of Christ that the Latin rite chose to use exclusively unleavened bread (without denying the validity of the leavened kind). One doesn’t use leavened bread at a seder. If Tradition says Christ broke tradition in the matter (as you claim), the West never got the memo.
3. The Latin rite dropped communion in both species for practical reasons. It never understood Christ’s word “all” in Matthew as indicating “all communicants”. Furthermore Scripture also indicates that the species can separately give eternal life or (in blasphemy) eternal death. It’s a disciplinary issue that is largely irrelevant to the schism as it post dates the 11th century and is now in any case an optional practice.
4. Christ didn’t use the epiklesis. The Latin rite dropped it before the Schism. It wasn’t an issue when it did. Ergo the issue is a product of subsequent polemic fault-finding. If a rite can’t change, why are all Orthodox not using exclusively the liturgies of SS James or Mark? What’s your answer to Old Believers or Old Calendrists? Why do you not all recite the mass in the Aramaic Christ used, or at the very least in the Greek in which the original rite was set down in writing?
5. If triple immersion is necessary for valid baptism, why do Orthodox venerate saints who were never baptized even by single immersion?
I see we have a recalibration of your anathema. An invalid eucharist is now merely “tantamount” to heresy. I’m still waiting for the logic here. If, as Tradition teaches in both East and West, valid (grace-filled) communion is not necessary to salvation, how can its absence be even “tantamount” to heresy?
Dear Michael,
I did write what I wrote to indicate that Orthodox are superior. I do not hold that position. So, I did not come here to try to say we Orthodox are better than Catholics. I’ll leave that sort of approach to you and Diane. I freely admit we have our problems.
The reason I appealed to history is to counter the triumphalistic approach that Diane’s post took. I thought this site existed to try to foster ecumenism between our two Churches. It gets hard to come here and read that we Orthodox are just a bunch of parochial sectarians.
You are quite right about motes and beams. I am not saying we are better than you. I am reacting to my Church being called parochial on a site that is supposed to encourage ecumenism. Maybe I’m at the wrong place?
As to my uttering utter falsehoods. The documentation is in Fr. Laurent’s book which I’ve mentioned in this thread. Most of his work is online at Google Books. Take a look. Some of my Orthodox brethren will not care for Fr. Laurent’s approach but I find it refreshing. Of course, those Catholics who can’t think beyond Vatican I and II on the primacy of the Pope will similarly dislike his work.
There is always a risk of taking a post one is responding to as sui generis. Diane (who can certainly defend herself) was exasperated by what SHE felt was Eastern “triumphalism,” and countered it by pointing out how “parochial” Orthodoxy strikes the average Catholic. You in turn took up the torch against HER “triumphalist” universalism by stressing… and so it goes. I don’t have to repeat my own contribution to this chain. :-)
I am not sure I would describe this site as devoted to ecumenism, per se, but it is devoted to increased understanding between the two communions. For some Orthodox it seems that sharing “increased understanding” means recklessly misrepresenting Catholic beliefs and practices, berating Catholics with laughably polemic and unscholarly “history,” and “reminding” Catholics (in all charity, of course) of the assured outer darkness with much gnashing of teeth that awaits them. I suspect many Catholics would return the favour if their theology did not explicitly teach them otherwise with respect to Orthodox.
This said, we would all be better off if we restricted ourselves to explaining to each other our own respective theologies and praxis, and in seeking clarification rather than doctrinal submission from the other. Another obnoxious habit to be avoided and that is all-too-common here is trying to pretend to know the other side’s theology better than its adherents do. By all means, we can preface our inquiries with something like “I had understood from that Catholic/Orthodox belief/praxis was [X]. How is this to be squared with [Y]?” But you really have to live another’s faith or study it from its authoritative sources before being able to characterize it with justifiable confidence.
I am, of course, not accusing you of this litany of sins. I am merely pointing out my frustration at seeing an interesting discussion of what may or may not have motivated Fr. Bunge’s decision degenerate into yet another puerile “Your shit stinks, but mine doesn’t!” as Diane has so fragrantly put it on earlier occasions.
Thank you, Michael, for your response. I do want to say that I don’t know of any Orthodox who hold that “outer darkness” is the fate of Catholics, however.
As to documentation for the statements I made earlier about Roman Rite Catholics not being able to receive the Eucharist from Eastern Catholic priests until the past century, see pages 230-233 of Fr. Laurent’s book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&lpg=PA1&ots=pqY0cXz3n2&dq=his%20broken%20body&pg=PA230#v=onepage&q&f=false
Now that you know my context for responding to Diane’s charge of parochialism (not to point out that we are better but to demonstrate the problem exists on the other side as well), I’ll respond to your statements.
The Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church consists presently of 2 dioceses in Southern Italy. Yes, the Maronite Church claims to never have been separated. Does that prove that Catholicism is universal and Orthodoxy isn’t? That is where I was coming from in responding to Diane. In 1550 (50 years before the Treaty of Brest), this is all there was to the “Eastern Rites” (as they were then understood) in the Catholic Church. Is this evidence of universality?
True, we Orthodox have had problems akin to the latinisation that has permeated the Eastern Catholic Churches. Again, I was responding to the idea implicit in the approach that all we Orthodox have to do is get with it and repent and become good Eastern Catholics. From the Orthodox POV, something is not quite right. If we are just stubborn schismatics why the jettisoning of tradition by those who left the parochialness of Orthodoxy?
Again, remember, I am not here to say that we are perfect or without many of these problems ourselves. I am reacting to the charge that we’re a bunch of parochial sectarians.
“I do want to say that I don’t know of any Orthodox who hold that “outer darkness” is the fate of Catholics, however.”
You need look no further than Seraphim who graces us with his loving posts occasionally. You may wish to take up our eternal fate with him (at least I assume we are dealing with a “him.” Though as angelic folk have no gender perhaps I should not be so bold). :-)
As to your references, Fr. Cleenewerck is neither a Catholic (Eastern or otherwise) nor a trained historian (neither is his apparent main secondary source AB Vsevolod of Scopelos). If this never gave you pause for concern, it should.
If you look carefully at his documentary “evidence” you will find it open to a variety of interpretations (we can discuss these privately if you wish). For example, the Papal constitution Cleenewerck cites imputes the opinion of being outside the Church as held by the petitioning Eastern bishops, but offers no affirmative teaching of its own on the matter. The issue of whether schismatics were ipso facto outside the Church was an unsettled one at the time, and not one Rome would have been prepared to make an authoritative proclamation on in such a backhanded manner. Also, the example of denied communion offered in the text is confusing as the rite or even the obedience of the parents of the newly ordained priest concerned or any special circumstances which might apply to them don’t seem to be specified.
Dr Tighe who posts here occasionally is both an Eastern Catholic and a historian. I would be most interested in his opinion of Fr. Cleenewerck’s scholarship and conclusions. Frankly, the whole piece strikes me as a polemic hatchet-job.
I don’t happen to think that the Italo-Albanian and Maronite communion with Rome proves anything other than that “Eastern Catholicism” predates the Union of Brest. This says nothing about the universality of Catholicism or any purported lack of Latin parochialism. My objection was to your argumentation, not to the point you wished to establish.
(For the record, the Italo-Albanian community may be very small now, but it used to be the dominant expression of Christianity in Sicily and much of southern Italy until the 11th century. It’s subsequent atrophia despite the best efforts of the Papacy has much to do with the schism, as the rite’s survival depended largely on a continuing stream of Eastern monks to staff its monastic establishments. This stream progressively dried out after the last major infusions following the excommunication of the anti-hesychasts and the emigration to Italy of the Albanians.)
“I was responding to the idea implicit in the approach that all we Orthodox have to do is get with it and repent and become good Eastern Catholics.”
I don’t recall Diane suggesting anything along these lines. It could be that we are reading into each other more than can be justified from a plain reading of each other’s words.
“If we are just stubborn schismatics why the jettisoning of tradition by those who left the parochialness of Orthodoxy?”
You aren’t “stubborn” schismatics, merely “mistaken” ones. ;-) We recognize that your schism is in good faith.
As to the “why” behind Latinization, the reasons are complex. My own view is that it reflects a number of factors: the small size of many of the Eastern Catholic Churches resulting in the training of many seminarians in Latin institutions; the rather overwhelming weight of the Latin rite’s prestige associated with its intimate relationship with the universal primate; bitterness and resentment towards often hostile and even violently oppressive Orthodox co-ritualists; a failure to keep up with changes and new standards and currents within their Orthodox counterparts. At no point, however, did Rome just decide to just wrap up an Eastern rite like Orthodoxy did in Antioch and Alexandria. I am not trying to score points here, as even Catholic Melkites seem quite happy with their “new” rite even though it is not their ancestral one. I just think it is important to apply a sense of proportion to what has occurred on the Roman side.
“I am reacting to the charge that we’re a bunch of parochial sectarians.”
Fair enough: if you call to order those of you who do come across as parochial sectarians, we will try to rein in any triumphalist Orthodox-baiters from our side. I don’t think that would be a fair description of Diane, however. :-)
I’ll wait for Seraphim to speak as to whether he believes he can tell the fate of Catholics. The Orthodox I know personally believe that such judgments belong to God.
I never said Fr. Laurent was a Catholic. Nor do I believe he claims to be a trained historian. Having said that, as to the denial of communion mentioned in the reading from Fr. Laurent — I have no reason to disbelieve it. The relationship between Eastern and Western Catholics has gone through many changes over the years. If you have any evidence there was inter-communion between Eastern and Western Catholics in that era I’d love to see it. My understanding is that the view was that the Roman Rite was the Mother Church of all Churches. Therefore, it might be appropriate on occasion for an Eastern Catholic to receive Communion in a Roman parish but not for the reverse. I could be wrong on that detail but that’s what I remember at the moment. I believe Fr. Laurent is correct on the point of a lack of inter-communion.
As to whether they were “outside the Church,” I’ll grant the question could have been unsettled. I’d be interested in further input from you on that as you offered. You can contact me via instructions on the “About” page on my blog.
Re: the latinisations. Again, I’ve never denied our own problems in that area and I fail to see the reason for dwelling on it. There’s something odd about the triumphalistic claims of “universality” vs. our supposed parochialism when those of us who went over to Rome ended up jettisoning their traditions. Rather, I think it illustrates the reverse of “universality.” Separated from each other, our Churches are wounded.
orthocath,
I am in agreement with these Orthodox you know.
The Divine Liturgy of St. Mark is currently served annually on the feast day of the Apostle Mark at Holy Trinity Monastery (Jordanville, New York) of the (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts). The text authorized by the Holy Synod of ROCOR is the translation of Protopriest John Shaw, (now Bishop Jerome of Manhattan), and is based upon the 1586 edition of Patriarch Meletios Pegas of Alexandria and the 1890 edition of St. Nectarios of Aegina.
Sources
Orthowiki states that the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark is the primary liturgy for the Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Church of Alexandria. I’m not so sure about this, however if true, it is interesting.
Subdeacon Joseph,
Earlier you mentioned that your jurisdiction receives Eastern Catholics by confession. I was wondering what jurisdiction you belong to. I’m guessing ACROD or Ukrainian Orthodox?
That would have to have been relatively recent. I don’t see any mention of this on the Alexandrian Orthodox Church’s website or its Wikipedia entry.
Here is a text from an ROCOR website which doesn’t suggest it is actual use. Instead it mentions that the Liturgy of St James is being slowly revived, and that St Mark is akin to it.
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgy-Mark.html
Michael,
Having lived at Jordanville for a year and a half they do perform both liturgies, or at least they used to. I also believe it to be true that at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary they also serve St. Mark’s Liturgy. It seems at the Fall Orthodox Inter Seminary Movement meeting last year in Brookline I remember this being discussed.
At our seminary we serve the Liturgy of St. James in the pure Syrian recension once a year. The priest was formerly Oriental Orthodox, and, much of the service he does in Arabic and Syriac.
Orthocath,
I would rather not say what jurisdiction because as a seminarian I try to remain low key. Also, our Metropolitan’s decision to receive Byzantine Rite Catholics through confession is unfortunately not a popular one with everyone in the diocese and world Orthodoxy, and, when we receive a new Metropolitan he could change this policy.
Even recently we received a Byzantine Rite Catholic priest into our jurisdiction, and as far as I know, it was simply a canonical release from them to us.
Thanks for sharing, however. If interested, perhaps we could continue the discussion in private email? If so, go to my blog and then follow the instructions under “About.” I’ve a few more questions.
Any revival of either liturgy in Orthodxy would help correct a serious historical error. I would freely recognize this as a positive counterpart to Eastern Catholics returning to their liturgical roots.
That said, incorporating features from other rites into one’s own can be a healthy and organic spirit-filled exercise if done within reason, and so long as nothing is lost thereby. As such it shouldn’t be demonized in the name of a sterile antiquarianism.
Ortho: Just one point among many:
If I was writing about Orthodox who become Catholic I could have just as easily said “the journey West.”
But that’s just it. Converts to Catholicism never talk that way. They say they have come home but not that they have journeyed West. This is because we do not think of Catholicism as exclusively Western–not by any stretch. Such a concept is foreign to the Catholic mindset. (Of course, when converts say they have crossed the Tiber, they do not mean that they have embraced a peculiarly Italian expression of the Faith. I assume you recognize this. :D)
I do not see how it can be gainsaid that Catholicism more fully expresses the Catholica — globalness, universality — than any other Faith. Not only East and West but North and South are more fully represented in Catholicism than in any other communion. That is why our American parishes are so polyglot.
Obviously the Schism ripped some portion of our Eastern Lung away from the parent Body. But not the entire lung…not by a long shot…and the remaining lung tissue is healthy and breathing and thriving (as a lung, in its lung-ish integrity, so to speak). As Michael noted, we have always had Eastern Catholics, long before the advent of “Uniatism.” And, while Eastern Catholics are far fewer in number than Latin Catholics, they nonetheless comprise a sizable chunk of the Church. The Antiochians’ Western Rite — of much more recent vintage — is far smaller and far less well tolerated by the rest of Orthodoxy, from what I understand.
The Schism was a huge tragedy that wounded both sides, Catholics and Orthodox alike. Yet, somehow, post-Schism Catholicism managed to become more and more inclusive (in a good sense), more and more multi-cultural (again–good sense), more and more global and universal. (Viz. the evangelization of Latin America, which brought a whole new array of vibrant cultures and perspectives into the global Church community.)
Someone once said that the (Catholic) West can accommodate the (Orthodox) East better than the East can accommodate the West. (We see this even in religious art, where icons are common in Catholic churches whereas Western religious art is disdained among the Orthodox.) I think it all boils down to a greater openness, within Catholicism, toward other cultures, other legitimate Christian spiritualities, and other socio-cultural expressions of the Faith. I am certainly not suggesting that Orthodoxy is a monolith; but I don’t see how it can be denied that its cultural scope is more limited, its array of permissible spiritualities narrower, than Catholicism’s.
Diane
P.S. A digression….
Sometimes, indeed, I wonder whether the whole East-West question will become irrelevant within the next few decades, as the explosive growth of Christianity in the global South tips the axis of Faith southward. (And then there are Korea and China, which do not seem to be embracing particularly Eastern forms of Christianity. But I digress….)
Another digression adn then to (belated) bed:
I think this whole “Journey East” stuff has always bothered me, but I couldn’t really put a finger on why. In a way, it reminds me of the hippies I used to know during my Boomer college days (late ’60s, early ’70s). I attended an “alternative” college, and many students there were heavily involved in Eastern religions, usually a sort of mishmash of Zen Buddhism and ersatz Hinduism. These kids were reacting against the Christianity or Judaism of their childhood by opting for something as foreign and exotic as they could get — the more Eastern the better, the more exotic the better, the more “mystical” and mysterious the better. And frankly they were rather elitist about it: They gave the impression that they considered themselves superior to the rest of us gross mortals, comfortable in the knowledge that they had penetrated the arcane mysteries of the Mysterious East. E.g.: I remember being told that I could never really understand this Eastern stuff without completely immersing myself in it, because the Western mind/soul was too linear and ratiocinative and unspiritual, etc. etc. (Sound familiar?)
Well, color me unspiritual, then, because I thought the whole thing was a bunch of hooey. (No, evagrius, I am not dissing Buddhism; just the faddish hippie varieties thereof. ;))
Sometimes, when I hear converts to Orthodoxy talk about Journeying East, I get a sense of deja vu. Of course I realize that there is a vast difference between Eastern Christianity (which has Christ), on the one hand, and non-Christian Zen or Hinduism, on the other. But I sense that same exclusivism and elitism, almost bordering on gnosticism, when converts to Orthodoxy tell me about the superior Spiritualness of the Mysterious Christian East, with its superior apophasis, superior mysteriousness (impenetrable by the non-Orthodox soul), and just plain superior superiorness. All wrapped up in a big shimmering bundle of Exotic Esoteric Eastern Easternness.
I am NOT saying that there’s anything one bit wrong about Eastern expressions of the Christian Faith. I’m just saying that they’re not the entire Catholica. The East is not the sine qua non. It is a Part, not the Whole. “The journey East” implies that the East is the whole–not only the whole, but the utter fullness of the whole. I dispute this. I still do not see where the Bible says anything about Easternness as the only — or even as the preferred — expression of Christianity. Nowhere does either Scripture or Sacred Tradition remotely suggest that the Gospel should be tied to only one set of cultural expressions associated with one cluster of geographical areas. Nowhere.
Dianeski,
Does the Scripture or the Tradition say nothing about East? What about the Magi? Why do we turn towards East when worshiping?
Had the drama of Salvation happened at Rome? in Spain?
The wholeness of the Church resides in the Orthodoxy of her Faith. That is Orthodoxy=right Faith. Where there is right Faith there the Church is (at the North or the South Pole, or East or West). Where there is not, there is no Church. The West was once as Orthodox as the East. When it stopped to be, it fell from the Church. The faithful remnant did not cease to be the whole Church. Those who “convert” are not “journeying East”, but returning to the Church.
Diane,
A long digression and you’ve taken some words of mine and tried to make me say something I never intended or implied. I was simply talking about people who choose to become Orthodox. You make statements using “never” which are not true.
I’m not going to continue this point. I come here in hopes of ecumenical sharing between our two Churches, not for theological one-up-manship.
I’ve followed this discussion because I was interested in Father Gabriel’s conversion, and have found that there have been some interesting and valid points made. I’ve been tempted to comment at times but refrained for fear that I’d just get involved in less than entirely helpful polemics. And seeing how it has evolved, I couldn’t agree with Orthocath more. While I have appreciated Irenaeus’ comments and his intention with this blog, I find the way discussions develop into point scoring and theological one-up-manship most distressing. Why do people need to be so defensive? While Diane may have some valid points about some Orthodox, it should be obvious that that is not where Orthocath is coming from. And some of us who convert do so not because of all the romanticism about the “East” and the myriad problems that Orthodoxy has, but in spite of it which. While I cannot speak for Father Gabriel, I’m pretty sure that is the case with him too.
I’m tempted to suggest that we should simply put Seraphim and Diane together on a desert island :-), but I fear that the problem is deeper than that.
And having now posted this, I also realise that I won’t be around to engage in any more discussion. But I wanted to support what Orthocath says above.
Macrina,
A core difference between Seraphim and Diane is that Diane doesn’t question the validity of Orthodox spirituality, theology or praxis. She merely objects to some arguments offered in support of the contention that the Orthodox product or brand is superior. Whether Orthodoxy is “parochial” or not proves nothing, ultimately, about its truth claims. It strikes me that that Diane’s “parochialism” is merely a pejorative characterization of Seraphim’s “fidelity.” What Orthocath protests, Seraphim glories in.
The underlying issue that started all this is still interesting. Specifically, what is the role or legitimacy of a personal experiential encounter with the numenous that an individual finds in one communion or rite but not in another?
It is hardly surprising that a non-Melkite Byzantine Catholic might find his ritual tradition (as opposed to Tradition) more impressively manifested on the other side of the communal fence where its greater centrality makes it more vibrant and confident. My question would be whether this experiential dimension is an appropriate basis on which to test truth claims which ultimately are what separate us. How are we to set this experiential phenomenon against that of those moving in the other direction who find a greater inner peace and divine love in Catholicism free from the backbiting ecclesiology-by-usurpation they claim to have experienced in Orthodoxy?
My impression, and I could be wrong, is that those who “convert” on an experiential basis seem largely indifferent to the conflicting truth claims, relativizing them as of little importance or as ultimately unresolvable through the application of reason alone.
I agree that the “East” is a catch-all word for anything exotic or “non-Western” and therefore superior to rationality, logic and linear thinking. Of course, it’s complete balderdash.
An interesting essay by Raimundo Panikkar on scholasticism shows that scholasticism was and is quite developed in the “mystic East”.
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/Common_Patterns_of_Eastern_and_Western_Scholasticism-by_Raimundo_Panikkar.aspx
Given his definition of scholasticism, Orthodox theology is just as “scholastic” as Catholic theology, perhaps even more so nowadays with the neo-patristic movement.
I’m not sure but I think the insights of Ormond Rush might be helpful in trying to understand one another. He has argued persuasively that in ecumenical dialogue the practice of explaining our positions to one another needs to give way to that of explaining how each tradition understands its faithfulness to the ancient apostolic Church*. Rush is a Australian theologian.
*See Still Interpreting Vatican II: Some Hermeneutical Principles (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2004).
I have no objection to such an approach in principle, but how does Rush propose we overcome the difficulty of not having a common picture of the “ancient apostolic Church?”
In my opinion wherever we find the Eucharist and the bishop we find the complete faith.
Seraphim,
As Orthodox Christians you well know there has never been a Ecumenical Council which has declared Roman Catholic Mysteries devoid of grace and validity. Thus it is only opinion of those Orthodox Christians who believe this.
Oh dear, now you have done it. Prepare to be cast into the outer darkness with much gnashing of teeth for giving comfort to heretics. Better have your toothbrush ready. ;-)
Perhaps it’s time to close this thread, as it’s reached 100 comments. I will close the thread in one hour, so any final statements need to be made now.
Am I within the one-hour window? I cannot figure out the time zone of this blog, LOL.
Ortho–if I came across as too triumphalistic, I apologize. I do get carried away sometimes. :) OTOH, as Michael has observed, you have made some incorrect statements about Catholicism, and it is appropriate to respond to these. (I defer to Michael’s responses, BTW. He has said it all, far better than I could ever hope to.) Also–I want you to know that your posts were merely the springboard for my soapboxy perorations. I ventured far beyond the points made in your posts; in fact, I was not so much responding to you as just, well, ventilating. Expelling hot air, so to speak. :D
The reason I reacted to the phrase “the journey East” is that this is far from the first time I’ve encountered it. I respect the fact that you used it only as a literary device, but of course other converts use it much more seriously. I was responding to this fact. Again, your post served simply as a pretext for my wordy disquisition on a topic that’s been vexing me for some time now.
Pax,
Diane
Michael is quite right: There is a huge difference between Seraphim’s approach and mine, and I confess that I am surprised that Macrina fails to see this. I do recognize the validity of Orthodox orders and mysteries, and I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as very close to each other, not separated by an uncrossable chasm. How this view resembles Seraphim’s is beyond me. :)
My question would be whether this experiential dimension is an appropriate basis on which to test truth claims which ultimately are what separate us.
Eggzackly!!!! Michael, you put things so well. Yes, that is the question in a nutshell.
I think we all tend to absolutize our subjective experiences. Those who find aesthetic and spiritual fulfillment in Eastern Orthodoxy seem to assume that the rest of us would feel the same way if only we were to shed our Latin blinders and pursue the Orthodox Way. But, believe it or not, the Orthodox Way leaves some of us quite cold. For some of us, statues and stained glass and Novenas are in our blood…and, as the old song goes, “No, no, they can’t take that away from me.” That is why (IMHO) it is a good thing to have a diversity of spiritualities and cultural expressions of the Faith. Something for everyone, so to speak, because we’re all very different.
Anyway…God bless, all. I’m sorry this thread is closing; I was actually finding it fascinating and thought-provoking, especially WRT Michael’s question which I quoted above at the head of this comment….
Diane:
I am acting according to the old Pontifications rule, to the effect that when contentious Orthodox-Catholic combox discussions go over 50 comments, they tend to generate more heat than light. And we’re now at over 100.
But … I’ll let it go a bit longer today. So, have at it, folks! :-)
Having a buit-in conflict of interest in seeing this thread continue indefinitely (as it postpones any need for me to finish the next conference report), I will withdraw from the jousting lists and limit myself to reading admiringly from the sidelines unless someone has a pointed question for me that is worth answering. ;-)
It is about time. One gets dizzy going in circles.
One final point. The Last Supper was NOT a seder.
Dianeski- What you state about the need for a diversity of spiritualities, cultural expressions and even liturgical diversity is quite right.
One of the major problems in Orthodoxy is precisely that- the need for a diverse approach. What makes the seminar “Orthodox Constructions of the West” interesting is the examination by , ( mainly Orthodox), scholars of how Orthodox have, in reaction to “the West”, reduced their expression to a seemingly uniform pattern.
One can see this in the neo-patristic movement. While Florovsky was right to point to a need for a re-examination and reappropiation of patristic theology, ( which should include but often doesn’t among more strident writers the Latin “fathers”), merely creating a “theology of repetition” is not resolving anything.
Orthodox theologians such as Bulgakov, Frank, Schememann and others, who, while basing themselves on the patristic heritage, tried to create a theology conversant with the West and modernity have been attacked by fellow Orthodox as “modernists”, heretics and the like.
Even someone like Yannaras has been accused of this.
The present picture of Orthodox theology is that it is still struggling with its self-identity.
Of course, one can also point to Roman Catholic theology having the same dynamics at work. There are some theologians wishing a neo-neo-thomism, or a revived Augustianism. On the other hand, theologians trying to grapple with modernity have been silenced and those who seek a deeper theological ground, one beyond the Greco-Latin metaphysical assumptions have also been ignored or silenced.
We live in “interesting times”.
At present, I’m reading McGuckin’s biograpgy of St. Gregory Nazianzen. The situation we are in is amazingly like the times he lived in. I recommend the book as good material for reflection.
Dianeski,
You make a great point that I have been pointing out to many of my uber eastern brethren, which is, many in the west would walk into an eastern rite liturgy and just not get it.
Right faith can be reflected in poly-cultural liturgical expressions.
It was Saint Augustine who said, “Unity in essentials, diversity in non essentials, and charity in all things.”
Oh no I just called Blessed Augustine Saint Augustine. I’m sure the attacks will soon come over that one. :)
I will disappoint you.
Not sure if this is still open to post or not.
Thanks, Macrina, for the support and thanks, Diane, for the apology.
I’m not convinced that I said anything not factual in my posts above. Michael and I have carried that to private email. I only offered them to give pause to the thought that Orthodoxy was parochial. Both our Churches have problems — of that I am sure.
For Michael, I believe truth claims are important and have tried to live my life in a way recognizing that. Still, I admit I have failed often in my life in many ways and if I may quote a Protestant hymn on a blog that is dedicated to the Catholic – Orthodox dialogue: “simply to thy cross I cling!”
I look forward to more irenical (or perhaps I should say “eirenical”) discussions here in the future.
ortho–I certainly apologize (again and again) for the offensiveness of my tone but not for the substance of my arguments.
I confess that I am still in shock at your seemingly new-found objections to doctrinal and historical realities you once vigorously defended (not only on your erstwhile site but in private emails to me). I cannot help suspecting that there is more here than meets the eye…and that it is not all about Church history or theology. I hope I do not sound offensive here; I am simply expressing what I sincerely feel.
Obviously I believe with all my heart that the True Church subsists in the Catholic Church in union with the successors of Peter. I also believe that (as Vatican II puts it) all people are called to belong to this same Catholic Church in union with the popes. If you expect me to surrender this belief or to stop supporting it, then I’m very sorry to disappoint you, but I cannot go there. I pray for reunion between our communions, but I am not going to wait for that blessed day before daring to encourage my separated brethren (Orthodox included) to “come home to Rome.” If this POV in itself offends you, then I can only quote Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls: “Sue me…sue me…what can you do me?” ;-)
In the meantime, I am praying hard for this intention. My poor prayers are pretty worthless, but by God’s Grace they have borne fruit before, and I hope that they will do so in this case also….
Diane,
Thanks again for your “again and again” apology for “the offensiveness of your tone.” It is appreciated. I have never expected you to give up your cherished beliefs.
As I’ve said in the past, I appreciate any prayers said in my behalf — so thank you for these.
I do think, however, your statements questioning my motives for my spiritual journey like you have just done in this public arena are totally inappropriate. Please, in the future, could you refrain from such personal questionings on a public bulletin board? You have my personal email. You can write me such questions there if you want to.
Thank you.
And, I should add a request for forgiveness to any (both Orthodox and Catholic) that I’ve offended here with my comments. I can get carried away with the best of them.
Also–ortho: I totally understand your aprpeciation for Macrina’s support…but do you really think that my arguments are the Catholic equivalents of Seraphim’s? That was the substance of Macrina’s last post, and I think Michael was entirely correct to point out the problems inherent in such an assessment.
BTW, I want to thank Michael for his support. He completely understands where I am coming from. I may be a bit of a hot-head, but I also think I concede much more to the Orthodox side than any Orthodox here concedes to the Catholic side, with the exception of evagrius and Subdeacon Joseph.
And now I will sign off…things get sour when they gat personal.
I’ll plead ignorance on this as I have not read all the posts here. I’ll try to look at them later.
While I’ve objected to how you say things (and some of your conclusions), I still think I’m rather friendly to the Catholic Church. I disagree, of course, on some issues (otherwise I’d be Catholic) but I freely acknowledge that we Orthodox have some major shortcomings and I pray for the ecumenical dialogue going on between our Churches.
Since the thread appears to be still open, let me point out that honest dialogue implies distinguishing fact from opinion. In the case of historical matters, this is perhaps easier to do than is the case of dogmatic propositions.
Seraphim, you say that the Last Supper was not a Seder meal. How do you know? It is my belief that exegetes (an august company to which I do not belong) have not arrived at any consensus on this question. If you do not want readers to suspect that, with regard to a quaestio disputata, you have simply chosen the opinion which you would like to be correct (because it corresponds better to your polemical position on Latin practice) and presented it as a fact, then it were advisable to present some arguments. For my part, I do not know whether the Last Supper was or was not a Passover meal. Nor do I consider it a vital one to answer for our purposes: given the typological link between the Jewish Passover and the Paschal Mystery, the West’s choosing of unleavened bread for the Eucharist can be seen as understandable and legitimate, although not normative for other Churches.
A similar point needs to be made about the Epiclesis. Michael concedes too much to you about it’s being supressed in the West. There is not a shred of evidence that it ever existed there, at least as far as Rome is concerned. The evidence is that the most primitive anaphoras did not uniformly posess either Institution Narrative or pneumatological Epiclesis. The evidence as I understand it sugggests that the invocation of the divine blessing over the communicants led quickly in the East to an explicit invocation of the Spirit over the gifts, which became normative there. In the Roman Canon, the older practice was preserved; the paragraph Supplices Te would seem to be an epiclesis in the more primitive sense, which the Roman Chrurch in its conservatism retained without ceding to the new fangled trend.
The insistence on the developed Epiclesis of the Spirit (which leads Western Rite Orthodox to mutilate the historical Roman Canon by graftinhg onto it an extraneous and unnecessary limb) is an Orthodox equivalent of the West’s contrary error in treating the Words of Institution as being effectively “magic words” divorced from their context in a what is essentially a prayer (a point forgotten in much Latin devotion theologizing until and recently, and still not totally disapeared). The fact is that the Lord said :do this in memory of me” and not “say this in memory of me”. The Church is of course entitled – and indeed obliged – to discern criteria for the validity of sacraments, and attention to the Tradition is essentially what this means. But let us not too hastily decide that our particular tradition is identical to THE Tradition. If our Church be in reality a Church, its practice cannot be contrary to THE Tradition, but that does not mean that it exhaustively and exclusively defines the latter. The church of Rome has made a positive step towards recognising this by recognising the validity of the Anaphora of Adai and Mari. It would be good to see an analogous step by those Orthodox theologians whose concern is not to disqualify the West in advance by means of criteria designed for the purpose.
In the end of course (here I suspect Seraphim would agree) the ecclesiological question is paramount. True Sacraments or Mysteries are what the Church does, so only by deciding where the Church is can we be sure where they are to be found. I will admit that my starting point is that the Church may be realsed in a particular place more or less completely, and that a priori both my Chiurch and that of Seraphim do realise the Church (adequately though not necessarily perfectly in both cases) as do the Churches not in communion with either of us which use the Anaphora of Adai and Mari. Seraphim, if I have understood correctly what he thinks, believes that the Church is realised exclusively by those in communion with him. That is a position I can respect and engage with seriously. but only to the extent that it is honest and attentive to historical reality in defending its case.
p.s. I anticipate shrieks of shock and outrage from Western scholastic fundamentalists in reaction to my assertions concerning the the Words of Institution as “form” of the Eucharist. Bring it on – I am willing to try to show that there is nothing irreconcileable with the decrees of Trent and Florence in what I write. But one debate at a time, please!