Last summer I taught my fifth iconography class at the Romanian Catholic cathedral in Canton. Every year yields a harvest of fine first icons, varying widely according to the natural ability and experience of the student. But while each of them has been worthy of the Church’s blessing and of private veneration, every year I have been blessed with one or two students whose first icon looks like the work of an experienced iconographer.
Last summer I had several obviously gifted students, none less than Paul, a fortiesh Orthodox layman, and a convert from evangelicalism. As the class was the first week of August it fell during the beginning of the two week fast preceding the Feast of the Dormition, which Roman Catholics celebrate as the Assumption. We were both observing the fast, so we took lunch together, seeking vegan meals. And so we got to know one another, and on the Sunday following the week of the class Paul invited me to his friends’ farm for a potluck meal. I had met the family – also evangelical converts to Orthodoxy- some time before, and while I did not really know them I instinctively liked them and considered them kindred: six children, a small farm, and the dad, Mel, is even a letter carrier, like me. Still, I hardly knew any of them, and knew Mel’s brother, who was visiting, not at all. As my family and I were the only Catholics at an otherwise Orthodox gathering, I was a little apprehensive. But the children immediately hit it off and headed outdoors, the women gathered in the kitchen to talk of babies and herbs and to prepare the meal, and the men in classic form retired to the living room and passed out the beer.
Mel’s brother began what I assumed would be small talk: “So, as a Byzantine Catholic where do you come down on the Palamist controversy?” I was a little stunned. I had not studied St Gregory Palamas in any depth, nor did I have any but the sketchiest knowledge about his teaching on prayer or his theory of the divine essences by which God worked in the world. And I didn’t know much about the details of the resistance that his ideas had met in the West, though from what I had read his basic thought was not incompatible with the teaching of St Thomas.
But what the heck kind of way was that to initiate a conversation?
So I stammered that Byzantine Catholics commemorate St Gregory in our calendar, and that we are free to be as Eastern as we wish, so long as we refrain from calling the West heretical. Paul, clearly embarrassed by this turn of events, steered the conversation to topics less likely to strain things, to iconography and Tolkien and Wendell Berry.
Then it was time for dinner: a fasting feast of homemade pesto pasta, salad, and fruit. After dinner and cleanup the women drifted out to look at the gardens and the men settled back into the living room.
Mel’s brother again began the conversation: “So, as a Byzantine Catholic do feel like” and here I cannot remember if he said “a fish out of water” or “like you are in no man’s land?” Caught offguard again, I fumbled through another answer, saying that I felt just fine, thank you. I then spoke of what I perceived as the affinities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, emphasizing the saints. I mentioned the often-noted kindred spirits of St Francis of Assisi and St Seraphim of Serov, the 18th century Russian starets. I figured no one could argue with manifest holiness, but I underestimated this guy. He started in on how St Francis exhibited every sign of spiritual delusion, and I for once was rendered speechless. St Francis, it seems, could not have been a genuine saint because he often made dramatic gestures and experienced ecstasies and visions, all of which contradicted the goal of the true hesachyst, which is stilling the passions. Just as gnostics and manichees misunderstand St Paul’s condemnation of “the flesh” as a rejection of the body and of the physical world, my new friend mistook the holy fathers’ struggle against the passions as a damning of the emotions. I can only assume that as a convert of only a few years he was unfamiliar with the visions and ecstasies of the Eastern saints and the affective nature of their devotional lives. They were and are not Dr Spock at prayer. And the antics of the holy fools of Orthodoxy make St Francis look restrained.
But as I said, I was speechless. But I didn’t have to defend poor St Francis. Paul did a good job of holding up the ecumenical end of things while I listened. Finally someone asked me what I thought. I said that I was dumbfounded by his attack on St Francis and asked if he had read any of the source material on the saint, the Little Flowers, or the works of Thomas of Celano or of St Bonaventure (he hadn’t). And I mentioned St Paul, who had been taken up in ecstasy into the heavens and experienced things beyond human utterance. Then I excused myself, as my very pregnant bride no doubt needed help by now keeping up with Michael Seraphim, who was two and quite a handful.
Michelle got a welcome break, and I followed little Michael around outside, intervening only to keep him from breaking his neck. Mel made his way outside too, leaving his brother and Paul intellectually duking it out. We talked, uncontroversially: postal shop talk, weather, gardening.
As the afternoon wore on Paul and his family left, and I said that we should be going too. Brenda, Mel’s wife, spoke up: “Do you have to go? We like you”. This was so sweet and guileless that we stuck around until dusk. As we left Mel’s brother shook my hand. “I hope I didn’t offend you”, he said. I told him that I didn’t believe he hoped any such thing, and that I would be happy to discuss the things that divide the Churches, that he might be surprised that on most controversies we would be in agreement, but that it would be wise to have such a conversation only after some trust and friendship had been established. I don’t know if I said it or just thought it, but it occurred to me that I would not insult a Muslim or a Mormon by attacking those they held to be prophets on a first meeting, but would try to find common ground (admittedly more difficult with a Mormon), let alone someone who in the great scheme of things shared so much on questions of faith.
As offended as I was by his approach to a new acquaintance, it did not occur to me until some months afterward that his question- the fish out of water or no man’s land one- hits pretty close to the mark. The Byzantine Catholic, as one who prays and worships in the way of the Orthodox, but who lives in communion with the bishop of Rome, really does feel adrift. Because of the spiritual life we live we feel great affinity with the Orthodox, who often view us with suspicion, if not hostility. Even the friendly ones no doubt wonder why we don’t just embrace Orthodoxy and get it over with. And Latin rite Catholics, if not downright suspicious, often misunderstand us. One priest friend insists on calling us “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite”, which misses the point entirely and runs counter to the Church’s own description, in the Code of Canon Law, of “autonomous ritual Churches”. But then popular Roman Catholic ecclesiology, with its absolute papal monarchy, veers pretty far from the Church’s official teaching.
I know that a year or so ago on this site, when we were discussing Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the conditions for reunion, my opinions led several posters to suggest that I was on my way out, that I was heading for the Orthodox Church. But that hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to. I may have found my spiritual home in an essentially Orthodox praxis, in the Divine Liturgy, in the Jesus Prayer, in iconography. And I may concur with Orthodox criticism of the West on a wide variety of subjects, from the decadence of its religious art to its arbitrary changes of ancient custom, to its tendency to over-define doctrines, and a host of other things. But I will remain Catholic. Why? In a word, ecclesiology.
While it is more accurate to speak in the plural of Orthodox ecclesiologies, as there are a variety of opinions on the various points of contention, it is very common to encounter the idea that Peter’s primacy was passed to all the apostles, not just to the bishop of Rome, and even that when Christ spoke of building His Church on “this rock” He was referring only to the newly renamed Peter’s (“Rock’s”) confession of faith. But while I might argue with the way it has been exercised historically, the continued primacy of Peter in the bishop of Rome seems pretty clearly an essential element in the structure of the visible Church.
And if one doubts this, one only has to compare the clarity and simplicity of Rome when it comes to any question of authority with the jurisdictional confusion of the Orthodox Churches, especially in this country. The multiplicity of Orthodox jurisdictions and their various ongoing squabbles in the US run counter to any Orthodox ecclesiology with which I am familiar and does much to temper any attraction to Orthodoxy I may experience.
And so I remain, a fish out in no man’s land, under a cloud of suspicion, content to be misunderstood.
Disclaimer: I apologize if anything I have written offends either my Roman Catholic or Orthodox readers. This is not a theological tract, merely an experiential reflection, and should not be taken as reflecting the opinions of any but myself.
—Daniel Nichols
Dan wrote:
“And I may concur with Orthodox criticism of the West on a wide variety of subjects, from the decadence of its religious art to its arbitrary changes of ancient custom, to its tendency to over-define doctrines, and a host of other things.”
Well, religious art in the Latin church is abyssmal today and has been for the most part for some time. Agreed. And there are many Latin Catholics who would agree, and indeed have been saying themselves, that the Holy See acted very unwisely in changing certain ancient customs.
But as to Dan’s last point, a “tendency to over-define doctrines,” I can’t agree. And Dan himself praises “the clarity and simplicity of Rome when it comes to any question of authority….”
But more basically, although I’m a Latin Catholic, I don’t understand why Byzantine Catholics would experience the angst that Dan seems to show. Yes, many Latins either are ignorant of them or misunderstand them. But the stupid and ignorant abound in this world, sad to say. And yes, I guess many Orthodox sort of dispise or pity them. But so what? The Orthodox have separated themselves from the center of unity (yes, there were faults on both sides in the original quarrel). But I think that if I were a Byzantine Catholic I would hold up my head proudly, knowing that I was an heir, so to speak, of St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus, who held unity with with the See of Rome as essential.
BTW, here is a catena of quotations from Eastern Fathers on the primacy of Rome.
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
Hello Daniel,
I agree with much about what you say, and I think you handled yourself with caritas in that situation.
On Tuesday July 14th the Youngstown-Warren Chapter of the Society of St. John Chrysostom will be having as speaker H. Paul Finley, Executive Director of Antiochian Village Conference and Retreat Center in Bolivar, PA. I believe Paul came to Orthodoxy from an Evangelical Baptist background. Having heard him speak once before it’s my opinion that it would be well worth it to be in attendance if possible.
Vito
Tom- Beware of apologetic sites that begin with exclamation points (!)
That is a nice list of quotes, but the Orthodox have their own lists of quotes to prove their points, often from the same Fathers.
I say this not because I am in sympathy with their understanding of things, but to emphasize to both sides that it is not that simple; if it were, if there were no ambiguity in the Fathers, there would be nothing to argue about.
And of course there is a lot of variety among the Orthodox. If you go to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website, you will read that the Orthodox have no problem with the Roman primacy in principle, only with what Rome claims that means. If you visit the Orthodox Church in America’s website (the heir to the Russian Metropolitan) you will find that the Roman, and even Petrine, primacy is denied in principle…
And the reason I believe that some doctrines have been overdefined? Twofold: one, because some of them rest whollly on a Roman theological construct, which is meaningless to the East. And second, because some of them, like Vatican I, create tremendous obstacles to the reunion of the Churches.
And don’t make too much of my “angst”; for the most part I am happily immersed in this spiritual way. I don’t lose any sleep over it, and I should emphasize that this encounter is the only one I have ever had that I was not graciously received. Orthodox clergy have been particularly kind; the priest at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, which I wrote about a year ago here, even took me up onto the altar, normally off limits to the laity, so I could get a better look at the iconography..
Vito- I’ll try, but as you know that is a long drive, particularly after a day’s work.
This is a test. Ignore. Or not, if you prefer.
The first part of your story reminds me of going to Saturday Vespers at Assumption OCA here with the nearby Greek Catholic priest (from whose church Assumption schismed more than 90 years ago) coming round and singing with us, then all the clergy and friends meeting up with the Italian priest from St Nicholas of Tolentine down at the Penrose Diner for dinner, talking about relics and other things in common.
The part with Mel’s brother reminds me why I can’t stand online Orthodoxy, which is almost all converts, and makes me wonder how bad his Asperger case is. The mix of book smarts and social cluelessness/rudeness made me think of that. Good to know he apologised; he’s not malicious.
That said I like Greek Catholics a lot but sorry, I agree they’re a Western church that uses an Eastern liturgy.
Converts to Greek Catholicism feel an affinity with the Orthodox and thus ‘angst’. Born ones don’t.
As I like to say the scope of the Pope is the only insurmountable difference between the two sides. Other than that we’re really the same church but one can’t blow off that difference. If you believe his office is divinely instituted as a channel of the church’s infallibility, and with universal jurisdiction, you belong where you are. If you believe it’s a perfectly good man-made rank of the divinely instituted episcopate for the good order of the church, be Orthodox.
It’s worth pointing out that RC traditionalists are often ‘papal minimalists’ putting more stock in local custom and the way things always have been done (much like the East) than the modern conservatives’ idea of papal monarchy. You’re right, the actual teaching isn’t that extreme. But it’s still a roadblock to union.
“…reminds me why I can’t stand online Orthodoxy, which is almost all converts…”
I hear that. I’ve probably mentioned this before here, but in case I haven’t: The first serious conversations I heard between Orthodox & Catholics were online, and they rather traumatized me. It was on a pre-web online service. Someone had thought it made sense to create, within the Religion category, a Catholic-Orthodox forum. Probably a Catholic did it–”oh, there’s hardly any difference, we’ll get along fine and learn from each other.” Right.
It was almost funny to see a Catholic jump into the forum. “Hi! I’m looking forward to learning about Orthodoxy! We have so much in common! :-) :-)” It was like seeing a puppy bound into a room full of angry alley cats–pretty soon he retreats with his tender little nose bleeding.
I did figure out that most of the meanies were converts with really big chips on their shoulders, and that my impression was wrong, but it was a striking experience.
Dan wrote,
“Beware of apologetic sites that begin with exclamation points (!)
That is a nice list of quotes, but the Orthodox have their own lists of quotes to prove their points, often from the same Fathers.
I say this not because I am in sympathy with their understanding of things, but to emphasize to both sides that it is not that simple; if it were, if there were no ambiguity in the Fathers, there would be nothing to argue about.”
I admit that I am not a patristics scholar, although I have read some of the material which supposedly shows that the Catholic Church’s claims about the papacy, as defined at Vatican I, are not grounded in tradition. Needless to say, I did not find it persuasive.
The mere fact that there are two sides to a question doesn’t by itself mean that each side has good arguments. Evangelical Protestants are pretty set in their ways, but in my opinion their arguments and claim of sola scriptura are easily shown to be false.
I think Mr. T. Y. Fogey :) said it well, “If you believe [the Pope's] office is divinely instituted as a channel of the church’s infallibility, and with universal jurisdiction, you belong [as an Eastern Catholic.]” To me this seems pretty incontestable from Scripture, Church history and even reason.
I’ve thought for a long time, that the best ecumenism would be for a group of knowedgeable Catholics and knowedgeable Orthodox to sit down and read the Fathers together and see, OK, what did they really say on the subject of authority in the Church. When Cardinal Bessarion studied the sources at the Council of Florence, he left Orthodoxy and became a Catholic.
And, btw, to sit down with a group of Protestants and read the New Testament with the same sorts of questions in mind.
[...] you want to know what life is like as an Eastern Catholic, read this. It is by Daniel Nichols, an Eastern Catholic living in Ohio. ECs live between two worlds: [...]
Hello, Daniel. We know each other from St. N.
I am a Catholic. If I could change rites by filling out a postcard, I would be Byzantine Catholic. As it is not that simple – and I would contend, not that important – I expect to remain a Latin Rite Catholic who worships by preference in the Byzantine Rite. The accidents of history give me this option and I am happy to take it.
I do not feel like a fish out in no-man’s land. If I were Eastern Orthodox, I would feel imprisoned in a Byzantine Rite ghetto isolated from the universal church in all its variety and glory. I am not proposing that the Orthodox ought to feel this way. I am just saying that our feelings in this matter can be driven how we think about our history and our present circumstances. Certainly the millions of Eastern Catholics who publicly and joyfully resumed the practice of their ancestral faith after the fall of the Soviet Empire do not feel like fish out of the water.
To be Byzantine Catholic means to be in communion with the Pope and with the Latin Church. We have been enriched and we have suffered greatly for the choice our bishops made centuries ago to restore communion with Rome. The fact that we have suffered greatly for this does not mean that they made the wrong choice. I believe that all we have suffered has been God’s will and furthers the ultimate re-union of the Eastern and Western Church. If nothing else, dealing with us has taught the Vatican how not to deal with the Eastern churches.
The Eastern Catholic churches of the Ruthenian Rite are a legitimate development of apostolic Christianity. If one accepts the Latin Church as a full and authentic expression of apostolic Christianity, then Latinization ceases to be, per se, a corruption of the Byzantine Rite. If the Orthodox wish to dismiss us, so be it. After the Orthodox accept the legitimacy of the Latin Church, we can calmly discuss just what we Byzantine Catholics are. Until then it is moot.
With respect to Latinizations, some distinctions are essential. First, there are Latinizations imposed by Latin Rite Catholics on our churches. Second, there are Latinizations adopted by us out of a sense of inferiority. Third, there is the shared folk piety that results from the fact that Ruthenians lived on the boundary between the Christian East and the Christian West and were in communion with the Latin Church for centuries. Categories one and two are problematic and we need to address them as the Vatican Council urges us. The third category is an authentic treasure of the Church and deserves to be treated with respect. Our hymns and many of our devotions fall into category three.
The bottom line here is that just as there is no place for a sense of inferiority vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism, there is no place for such self-contempt vis-a-vis Orthodoxy.
Sts. Cyril and Methodius brought us the Christian faith from Constantinople with the enthusiastic support of the Pope of Rome and it remains ours.
Let me say that this Orthodox Christian appreciates St. Francis quite a bit, enough to write my doctoral dissertation on him, titled “The Urban Asceticism of St. Francis of Assisi.”
You’re quite right-the antics of Fools for Christ do make Francis look almost like “Dr. Spock at prayer.”
‘That said I like Greek Catholics a lot but sorry, I agree they’re a Western church that uses an Eastern liturgy.’
I used to say this myself before my conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I think it applies to some Greek Catholics, but not to all. It’s too simplistic a charge as it stands.
It’s a bit like the Catholic who says Western Rite Orthodoxy is just an Eastern Church that uses a Western Liturgy. I would, perhaps, make that claim about the WR in ROCOR, but certainly not the WR as practiced by the more Latin-inclined Antiochians. They seem to have a genuine Western ethos at work.
“[W]e are free to be as Eastern as we wish, so long as we refrain from calling the West heretical.”
Dan,
I don’t understand what you mean here. In one sense, it is true — in a liturgico-cultural sense. Eastern Catholics may (and are encouraged) to follow Eastern devotional practice, liturgical sensibility, modes of theological thought, etc. But if it means that Eastern Catholics are free to agree with the Orthodox against Rome in areas of doctrinal disagreement (such as papal primacy and infallibility), then it certainly seems false. Your reference to heresy made me wonder if you might be speaking about doctrinal matters as well as liturgico-cultural ones.
The Church encourages Byzantine Catholics to be as Byzantine as they wish in the first sense. I know of no place where the Church has granted Eastern Catholics the right to hold views contrary to what has been defined either by the papal magisterium acting singly or by councils that followed the first seven councils.
Thanks for all your thoughtful comments. I don’t have time for an in-depth response to everything, but a couple of things I would like to address:
Mr Fogey; I was under the impression that you were Byzantine Catholic? No?
How exactly is a Church rooted in the Slavic, Arabic, Romanian and other eastern lands a “western church”? The roots are the same as the Eastern Orthodox, and while there are certain hybridizations that have occurred over the centuries, more or less purged, depending on which church you are talking about, that is not limited to the Eastern Catholics; Ukrainian Orthodox, for example, are known to pray the rosary and pray the stations of the cross, etc (at least in western Ukraine). These are eastern churches, rooted in the east, but in union with the bishop of Rome.
And Christopher- It is not true that the Byzantine Catholic is only free to embrace the east in liturgical and cultural matters. We can enter into the whole Eastern way of prayer, and we are free to hold theological opinions that are not those of western Catholics. For example, Rome has not imposed the filioque in our Creed; we are free to believe that it is a western theological speculation, but we cannot call it heresy. And the question of the later councils of the Church, in which the Eastern Churches were not represented, or only were represented by token bishops, sometimes western agents, would require more time than I have right now, and I know we do not agree…
Dan wrote, ” For example, Rome has not imposed the filioque in our Creed; we are free to believe that it is a western theological speculation, but we cannot call it heresy.”
It’s my understanding that what the Catholic Church – I do not mean the Latin church but the Catholic Church as a whole – decided about that point was that the same truth could be expressed either way, i.e., either with or without the filioque. The filioque doesn’t state any different idea about the Trinity, it just tries to express in a different manner a truth held in common by all Catholics. I suppose there’s nothing wrong with any Catholic, Latin or Eastern, in thinking that one of these ways is better, i.e., clearer, less likely to be misunderstood, than the other way. But either way means the same thing, at least when a Catholic uses it. I don’t think it’s properly speaking “theological speculation” in the sense that the Latin church introduced some new (possible) idea about the Trinity, rather it’s just a new way of trying to say the same thing about what is probably the most difficult of all topics to understand and talk about, the Holy Trinity.
BTW, it’s probably hoplessly futile for me to make this plea, but I’ll go ahead and do it anyway. Words and terms are vitally important for clarity of thought. One very confusing term that I think has rarely any justification for use is the term “Roman Catholic.” It’s used to mean so many different things and with different motives.
When I was an Episcopalian, for example, I always spoke of the “Roman Catholic Church”, but meaning thereby to deny her universality, to limit her catholicity by the adjective Roman. Some (in my opinion mistaken) Catholics call themselves Roman Catholics seeking thereby to emphasize their loyalty to Rome. Thus Christendom College, calls itself a Roman Catholic college, but I don’t think when they do so they’re trying to state that they are Latin instead of Eastern. It’s just a misguided attempt to say, We are loyalists!
Thus Dan’s friend who calls Byzantine Catholics “Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” probably means by that simply that Byzantine Catholics are united to the Bishop of Rome. I doubt he is intending to say “Latin Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” which would be truly absurd and contradictory. But may I make the suggestion that if we speak of Latin Catholics instead of Roman Catholics we’ll be able to avoid the ambiguity in the adjective Roman and be both clearer and more accurate also? For the code of canon law refers to the Latin church not the Roman church, which latter term, strictly speaking, means only the Diocese of Rome.
Mr Nichols: No, just a displaced Anglo-Catholic (ACism inevitably has collapsed) who’s settled into being a non-anti-Western, non-convert-jerk Russian Orthodox for 14 years. My blog is not an Orthodox blog/part of ‘online Orthodoxy’, which Mr Horton has described perfectly.
Again most born Greek Catholics are RCs using a different rite and are happy with that. The mindset and culture are very much Novus Ordo with external differences. Only the converts ‘live in two worlds’ and feel ‘angst’ because they identify with the Orthodox. 100 years after the Toth split in America (for Russian Orthodoxy), 80 years after the Chornock one (for the Greeks, both caused by Irish mistreatment of Ruthenian immigrants and not about theology) and 60 years after the Communists in the old country tried born Greek Catholics don’t identify with the Orthodox at all.
So the Orthodox hard-liners have a point: the Greek Catholics started as Eastern but have ended up Western churches using an Eastern rite.
(Good point though about the fine very Western folk in the Antiochian Church. I don’t have an answer right now.)
If I were Eastern Orthodox, I would feel imprisoned in a Byzantine Rite ghetto isolated from the universal church in all its variety and glory.
I used to feel that way but I like the rite and outside of church, at home, can pray any way and venerate whoever I want. Rite regulates life in church and I’m fine with that. (The bishops don’t think it’s in their power to say yea or nay on the holiness of somebody outside their jurisdiction so the other side’s saints aren’t commemorated liturgically.)
Good point about different kinds of latinisations. (Most Greek Catholic latinisation isn’t Rome’s fault – in fact it disobeys Rome – but self-imposed.) I like the third kind too, also mentioned by Mr Nichols. In the US some Slav Orthodox parishes that were Greek Catholic 80 years ago are like that (complete with monsignori in red-buttoned black cassocks and ‘solemn First Communion’ parties for 7-year-olds) and it’s charming.
Dan,
It may be the case that, given particular questions, all Catholics have the right to be as Eastern as they wish. One may, for instance, think the Eastern discipline of infant chrismation and communion superior to the Latin discipline. I think this. It would seem strange, however, if Byzantine Catholics had rights to doctrinal disagreement that Latin Catholics do not have. That would intimate that truth is only binding for some and not on others, or that doctrinal formulations are some how forensic in character — revisable based on time, place, and circumstance.
Eastern Catholics certainly may hold theological opinions that differ from those western Catholics. The question is, however, may they hold theological opinions that contradict doctrinal decisions laid down by the authority of the pope or the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church? And if you say they may, by what authority do you say this?
I will add this: that Rome does not impose the filioque on the Eastern churches does not mean that she does not impose the essential idea expressed by the filioque. After all, it is far from falsehood to say simply that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father — for he does, as from the origin having no origin of the Trinity. To assert this does not deny that he proceeds from the Son as from an origin having an origin. Supposedly, too, the Greek equivalent for “to proceed” does not admit of the inclusion of the Son as origin.
I’m involved in the Antiochian Western Rite and I think that it’s perfectly accurate to say that we’re members of an Eastern Church with a Western liturgy. We’re not a separate sui juris church body; we’re under Byzantine canon law (although we are dispensed from some canons, e.g. having Mass on Lenten weekdays); we don’t have our own hierarchy; our clergy are ordained by Byzantine bishops in a Byzantine ordination service.
But, with all due respect to my friend the Young Fogey, because of the things mentioned above, it’s not accurate to call them (as many Orthodox do) “Eastern Rite Roman Catholics.” There are certain aspects of Western Rite Orthodoxy that are parallel to the Greek Catholic experience (e.g. what I like to call the psychology of ritual minorities, which leads to the parallel phenomena of Latinization/Byzantinization).
I suppose the French Orthodox Church, in its heyday, could have claimed to be a Western Church in communion with the Eastern Churches, and Overbeck (the pioneer of Western Rite Orthodoxy) had a grand – rather utopian and unrealistic – dream of having several national non-Roman Western Churches enter into communion with the East (he had high hopes for the Old Catholics, but those hopes were dashed when they started warming up to the Anglicans).
“But, with all due respect to my friend the Young Fogey, because of the things mentioned above, it’s not accurate to call them”
By THEM, of course, I mean Eastern Catholics!
But doctrinal formulations are in some sense forensic, and may need reformulation if addressing someone with a different doctrinal outlook.
For example, Tridentine formulations about purgatory are rooted in a legalistic view of justice and punishment; this is meaningless to an Eastern Christian. The essence of the doctrine is the same: that the soul’s journey to God does not end with death, and that souls may be aided by the prayers of the living. But talk of “temporal punishment” and the “satisfaction of God’s justice” meet with an uncomprehending stare.
(the CCC’s formulations re purgatory are much more accessible to the Eastern Christian)…
Daniel,
It is interesting that you, the Eastern fellow, are defending the forensic character of doctrine. It is interesting, because when Rome declares a doctrine to be held by the faithful, she promulgates it in the mode of a law.
Nevertheless, what I meant to say about doctrine not being forensic in character is that doctrine is not simply a positive law of belief to be held simply because the lawgiver demands it or for the sake of fostering unity or some such thing. The mode of expressing a doctrine may vary, but the essential meaning of what is being said by the formulation does not, for doctrine is about truth. We might try, for instance, to express the doctrine of papal infallibility in different words or using various analogies, but the essence of the doctrine must remain the same. It cannot be reformulated to make it mean, for instance, that papal infallibility is dependent on councils or the patriarchates or anything else sublunary. For to so reformulate it would be to make it a different doctrine. We can only seek to express in a way that, perhaps, better shows it to be in accord with the tradition of the Church, East and West.
From what I understand, an Eastern Catholic may not be as Eastern as he wants, if that means, for instance, that he denies papal infallibility. If this were the case, then any Catholic has the right to deny papal infallibility or, really, any doctrine not specifically defined by the first seven ecumenical councils.
And if we acknowledge the right of Byzantine Catholics to be as Eastern as they wish (even in terms of doctrine, if that is your position), what do we say about Coptic Catholics? Do they have the right to be as Coptic as they wish, as long as they do not call the Catholic Church heretical? Do they have to, for instance, acknowledge the ecumenicity of the councils after Nicaea I?
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the term “forensic”. I meant only that words can never pin down the mystery, which can be expressed in different ways, which at times even seem to contradict one another.
And how would the Copts make the case that because their one patriarchate did not participate in the other councils that they were therefore not ecumenical? (But at least they don’t claim that a council of only their patriarchate is ecumenical…)
And from what I have read the concensus is that the problems the Copts had, and the accusation that they were “monophysite”, derive precisely from the shortfalls of language in expressing mystery. We are not far from being in communion with the Copts, and welcome, if I recall, the Armenians, also non-Chalcedonian, to commuinion.
It’s said that at least some of the differences between Latins/Greeks/Copts, etc. stem from language and modes of expression. I don’t have the competence to judge that, but it seems plausible. But if so, I think the Church has been aware of that potential problem for a long time and can deal with it, i.e., that our theological methods are sophisticated enough to do so.
On Purgatory, Dan spoke of the “Tridentine formulations about purgatory [which] are rooted in a legalistic view of justice and punishment…meaningless to an Eastern Christian.” Well, I won’t judge whether the entire Eastern tradition considers questions of “justice and punishment” as “meaningless,” but in fact what has the Catholic Church really defined on Purgatory? The following is from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Purgatory:
“The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.”
But the “tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen” are not infallible unless unanimous. I don’t see anything in this decree about either justice or punishment. Certainly in the Latin tradition the notion of justice and punishment is widespread, but the Catholic Church has been savvy enough to distinguish Latin (or Eastern) theological speculation from defined doctrine. I’m even aware of more than one Latin theologian who rejects the justice/punishment notion of Purgatory.
I think it’s very dangerous for an Eastern Catholic to claim that the councils after the first 7 are not truly ecumenical. If we think that Rome is the center of unity of the Church that Jesus Christ founded – and the evidence for this is overwhelming – then I don’t understand why that Church should be prevented from deciding things just because one or another group of Christians does not want to participate. It is true I’m sure that in her material aspects the life of the Church is hampered when certain theological and liturgical traditions are not fully present, but it seems to me that the promises our Lord made would be nullified if the actions of men were able to render the Church helpless to define anything. The Church did not consider herself unable to act after the Nestorians or Copts went their separate ways (whatever the causes may have been), and I don’t see why she should have been unable to act after the Greeks went their way, lamentable as all these divisions are.
Daniel,
As for whether the council of one patriarch could be ecumenical (and as if the pope of Rome were but one patriarch among many — surely you are not suggesting this) — I doubt the Copts or the Orthodox could say for certain, for neither have a commonly accepted (even in their own particular communions) definition of what constitutes an ecumenical council. And if the Copts were not present at councils subsequent to Nicaea I on the basis of misunderstanding of their language, and not on account of heresy; if their exclusion was based on a mistake or an unwillingness on both sides to understand one another or on sins of pride, or love of power, as is claimed to be the case for the estrangement of the Catholics and Orthodox — wouldn’t these considerations seem to render even councils 2-7 non-ecumenical — for they did not include the so-called Monophysites? For, it seems, the claim made by some Eastern Catholics about the lack of ecumenicity of the western councils is the same. So, perhaps, we’re left with only one truly ecumenical council, and there’s been no recognizable infallible teaching authority since 325.
So much for the Church. As far as teaching authority goes, I might as well have stayed a Lutheran.
But my point originally was not about the Coptic Orthodox but about those Copts in union with Rome, who even have a patriarch in Alexandria (one of three who claim the patriarchate.) My question was, if Byzantine Catholics are free to be as Eastern as they want, and being as Eastern as one wants includes the right to agree with the Orthodox on points that contradict the teaching of councils considered by the Catholic Church as ecumenical, why should not the same courtesy be extended to Coptic Catholics? Are they bound only by the Council of Nicaea? if not, why not?
And if Byzantine Catholics are not bound by anything but the seven ecumenical councils, and Coptic Catholics are not bound by anything but Nicaea, why are Latin Catholics bound by so much more? Just because they are Latins?
Allow me to add just this bit more. I will grant that one is not bound to accept something he does not understand. Thus, if it really were true that Orthodox could not make heads or tails out of Western formulations of doctirne, then they would not be bound subjectively to accept them. Nor is one bound to accept a truth that he thinks he has reasons to think untrue. (At best, I think the latter is true of the Orthodox, not the former; or their case involves a mixture of the two.) These two concessions could apply to Orthodox; but I don’t see how they could apply to Byzantine Catholics.
wow- I can feel the same way :)