Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has suggested that Eastern Catholics can return to union with the Orthodox without relinquishing their union with Rome. While both Melkite and Ukrainian Catholic hierarchs have suggested this in the past (and it apparently has occurred to some degree with the Melkites and the Antiochian Orthodox) this is the first time that it has been proposed at such a high level.
It should be noted that whatever authority the Ecumenical Patriarch has is moral rather than juridical; he is not the “Orthodox pope”. Still, if he leads by example, it is hard to imagine that some Orthodox jurisdictions would not follow him.
This seems very hopeful and something to pray about. From a purely practical point of view, it sure would be nice to walk to the Greek church down the street rather than drive half an hour to the Byzantine Catholic church we attend.
The story is discussed, with links, on the Eirenikon site: http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/ [direct link here--mh]
If you scroll down, there is also a discussion, with links, of the variance of marriage discipline in east and west, which we have talked about at some length here. I was unaware that the Council of Florence, where the approach to reunion was more or less “We are right and you are wrong, sign here”, which required among other things acceptance of the filioque, did not demand a change in eastern marital discipline… [direct link here--at least i think that's the right one--mh]
–Daniel Nichols
Dan said: Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has suggested that Eastern Catholics can return to union with the Orthodox without relinquishing their union with Rome.
I don’t understand how this means you could go to the Gk Church as well as the Byzantine Catholic Church unless the Patriarch means that this goes in both directions – Uniate churches can have dual affiliation, with Rome and Orthodoxy, and currently Orthodox churches can have dual affiliation, becoming simultaneously Uniate and Orthodox.
First, as I have said before, “Uniate” has become a perjorative term.
The logic is that if we are in communion with the Orthodox that means we can receive communion in their churhes (at least in those who go along with this). I don’t see what is so puzzling about this.
Sorry to be thick. Headache not very good today. I was picturing ‘Uniate’ as a type of congregation or church community. What you mean is that Uniate Catholics carry around their ‘Uniate-ism’ wherever they go, and into whatever Church they go. So you mean the Patriarch is saying ‘a Uniate’ (rather than Uniates as whole churches) can be in communion with the Orthodox, if he or she wants to be.
I won’t comment yet on what Dan said about Florence and divorce, as I don’t know enough about it at this point.
As to the inter-communion question, I would suppose that it depends on what we think of the Church. If the ecclesiology of Pius XII (and of subsequent documents too, up to the present) is valid, then I don’t see how it would be possible. If not, e.g., if a sort of loose ecclesiology, as Francesca has been suggesting (as I understand her at least), and which she calls “communio,” is valid, then perhaps?
But in that case, then the Catholic Church had better shut up shop and just admit that we’re joining the Eastern Orthodox.
After all, there are (or we used to think so) conflicting truth claims involved with all of this, however unpopular it is to say that nowadays. Truth claims, btw, that were made by both sides, Catholic and Orthodox.
Tom, I don’t think I’ve been advocating the ecclesiology you suggest.
Francesca- I’ll go easy on you because of your headache and because we are, more or less, on the same side in most controversies here, but please do not use the term “Uniate”, which has become a term of abuse, used mostly by hostile Orthodox Christians. It is almost as annoying as your continual use of “Roman Catholic” in describing the Holy Catholic Church. ;^)
Of course, it used to be the “Greek Catholics”, a term that has fallen into disuse, but which I prefer. Don’t know what ethnic Greeks think about it, though. I used the term once in a conversation with a Greek Orthodox priest and it drew a puzzled look. The favored term is “Byzantine”, also problematic. I mean we might not be Greeks, but we sure aren’t Byzantines either. And it has connotations of “elaborate, complex, sneaky, with intrigue and cunning”. Which describes some of the people I have met here, but by no means all.
But yes, I assume that the Patriarch was referring to individual Byzantine Catholics.
Although I refrain from using the term “Unitiate” because I know it was originally a term of abuse used by the Orthodox and many rightfully resent it, a friend of mine who is an ethnic Ukrainian Catholic and very active in the Ukrainian Catholic church here and in Ukraine – he’s taught at the Ukrainian Catholic University as well as the Ukrainian seminary in Connecticut and published in the Ukrainian language Catholic press and did his dissertation on Ukrainian history – sometimes uses the term without the slightest embarassment!
Dan, when you said
First, as I have said before, “Uniate” has become a perjorative term
I thought you meant that it was progress because the Patriarch wasn’t using the term perjoratively. Complete misunderstanding.
One reason for the terminological confusion of this discussion is that, in the books I read, none of these terms are problematic. I only come across ‘Uniates’ in works of Church history, and it is used liberally and without blench. In Britain, of course, many Anglicans regard themselves as ‘Catholics’, and everyone calls me a ‘Roman Catholic’ and I call myself one. In America, which could not accurately be called an Episcopalian country, my co-religionists may call themselves ‘Catholics’.
I don’t mean to start a terminology war. But, say, in historical works about Vatican I, historians of every persuasion talk about the ‘Uniates’.
Yes, “Uniate” was once a neutral term, and as Tom points out, apparently in some circles it still is. These days, in my experience, most Byzantine/Greek Catholics find it offensive.
And I wasn’t clear yesterday in my haste. If this comes to pass- and it is a big if- no doubt the model will be for individual Greek Catholic churches to reunite with their Orthodox counterparts. However, that would imply that individuals would be free to receive communion in participating Orthodox jurisdictions. So we wouldn’t join the local Greek church, but it would be nice once in a while. Of course what I really want is a monthly trip to Holy Trinity in Parma, the church I wrote about with the exquisite frescos. However, as that parish is OCA, which is historically affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is unlikely to go along with this, to say the least, that could be a problem, though the OCA itself is notable for an ecumenical spirit, as is Father Vladimir, the pastor.
This fellow Bartholomew is taking part in a Pallium Mass with the Pope today
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13034
Last time I checked, Benedict XVI is the only orthodox Pope out there.
Patriarch Bart denies that he wants ‘dual union’
http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=952&tla=en