The
Catholic Church of our day is being dominated by the culture of “Roman”
apologetics. I say “Roman” because the ethos of the modern Catholic apologist
is built around the Pope and the superiority of Rome’s theological tradition. I’m
sure this type of apologetics is helpful when someone like Jack Chick knocks on
your door. However, it is totally unhelpful when it comes to the relationship
between Rome and the Eastern churches. Rome’s theological and ecclesiological
traditions are not the superior models for the rest of the Church. When they
are presented in this fashion they are actually contradicting the official relationship
that Rome has established with the Eastern churches.
Back
in 2016 Pope Francis said that Catholics should not convert Eastern
Orthodox Christians. He basically said it would be a grave sin against the
ecumenical relationship we have with the Eastern churches. By saying what he
did, he sent a shockwave through the culture of Roman apologetics. I recall
reading all kinds of wild explanations of what the pope really meant or just how
wrong he is, with of course the explanation of papal infallibility to reassure
the apologetics community that the pope can be wrong. Unfortunately, the people
writing these things failed to see that their version of Catholicism does not represent
the Roman church on the official level.
This
wasn’t the first time the pope upset the culture of Roman apologetics. In
2014 he said to an Orthodox church, “to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church
does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession
of faith”. Like in the other instance, what he said here was immediately opposed. However, what some in this culture got right was that this was not always the case. There was a time when Rome called for conversion to reach unity. The historical sins that led to
the schism between the East and West brought about a pseudo-tradition, which
was Rome believing it was the only Church. Consequently, the idea of the “uniate”
church came out of this pseudo-tradition. To this very day, the “uniate”
churches have been the bane of many Ecumenical talks between Rome and the
Orthodox churches. On the other hand, unbeknown to many the so called “uniates” have
been the greatest blessing to these churches.
There
will be no more uniate churches. This is the official position of the Roman
church, as witnessed in the comments of the pope and also in what is known as the
Balamand Document. As a so called “uniate” I believe that my church has a
special place in the history of the Church. As Fr. David Bird once expressed, “the
"uniate" churches, under the Providence of God, are not so much a
means of outreach by the Catholic Church to the Orthodox to convert them, but
they are really a means by which the eastern interpretation of our Faith can
reach the understanding of the predominantly western mind of the Catholic
Church. They are being used by the
Spirit as a means of bending the western understanding of the Catholic Faith to
understand the Eastern expression of the same faith”. As he says, I believe Eastern Catholics have a special role
in helping others to discover a theological diversity that can once again be realized in the Church.
Like
what Fr. David expressed, the retired Patriarch Gregory III,
of the Melkite Catholic church once said that the Eastern Catholics need to
help “the Western mentality to mature”. Its no secret that
there is still the mentality to convert us and to convert the Orthodox. To tolerate
us as Eastern as long as it conforms to what is being expressed in the culture
of “Roman” apologetics. I believe apologetics can be beneficial but not when it’s
based on the pseud-tradition of Rome being superior. When speaking about the Eastern Catholic churches Pope Benedict XVI once said,
“the union they have already achieved with the Church of Rome must not cause
the Eastern Catholic Churches to lose an awareness of their own authenticity
and originality”. What he is saying here is something we need to strive for. I believe
the future of the Church depends on that.
It is not surprising that Modern Catholic Apologetics is dominated by Roman Catholics with the supremacy of the Roman Church in view. They have the majority of the resources and are much better at organizing, not to mention the fact that a fair number of them come from protestant ecclesial communities, and chose the Roman Catholic Church over any of the Eastern Churches precisely because they perceived it to be the most correct.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we in the East often suffer from a certain inferiority complex which only tends to justify the view of the greatness of the Latin Church over the Eastern Churches. We often let ourselves forget about the fact that virtually all that the Church became, even in the West, came from the East.
Every time I participate in the Divine Liturgy, I see many people whose attitudes reflect nearly perfectly the attitudes of their friends in the Latin Church, ie. that they are only there to fulfill an obligation. Only a handful of the people there are actually present because they see the great treasure held in our Earthen Vessels. And even many of them do not know that they are actually seeking theosis!
Still, they are a good group to begin with. And we must strive to work with what and who we've got.
Ric,
ReplyDeleteNo one can dispute your point. Akathistos identifies part of the problem is Roman resources and organization (so Roman, lol!) Another facet is what is Eastern and what is Roman? In some areas you can cut a bright dividing line, others are much more mixed and confused. A good example is purification after death. East and west agree that there is a state after death were some are purified of their sins. The problem is in when people go into to much detail/speculation. For example, is Western view the traditional roasting away in a room of material flames until you paid your debts or get lucky when a relative has a mass said for you or somebody applies an indulgence to you? This is what St. Mark of Ephesus (died 1444) and Martin Luther (died 1546) appear to have dealt with. Or, is the proper western view that of divinization, whereby one is purified in spiritual fire (the spiritual fire being God's love) described by St. Catherine of Genoa in her book on purgatory (died 1510)?
I will add that I am aware that there are artifacts touched by the souls in purgatory and they appear to be burned. But, what do we, in this material world expect when something of a spiritual nature is allowed to touch our matter? It is a wonder we do not get burnt up! That is why we look with wonder upon the Virgin Mother of God, whose womb contained the spiritual fire of the only begotten Son of God - it takes a miracle/blessing of God's grace not to be burned and consumed, and thus our Lady was like the burning bush observed by St. Moses.
Funny enough, St. Mark played a major role in preventing purgatory being dogmatically described as a place of material fire. And, a review of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church reveals that St. Mark's position is the rule for Rome - no material fire in purgatory!
Mark, as an aside, who may want to take a look at the Ukrainian Catholic Catechism.
Ric,
ReplyDeleteYou made me think more of this. In the west, as in the eat, there are various subsets of spirituality, and it is no better than a general, but misleading, characterization to write off all western spirituality/theology as cataphatic and eastern spirituality/theology as apophotic. Some of these various spiritualities are more amenable to the other side than others. For many years, for example, there have been Jesuits, Dominicans, and Franciscans of the Byzantine Rite. Yet, I do not think any have been as successful as the Redemptorists that the venerable Andrew Sheptytsky founded in the Ukraine. On the surface, it seems very unlikely that an order founded in the time of the so called "enlightenment" would prosper in the world of Byzantine Christianity. Yet, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Redemptorists continue to grow and be fully Eastern. What makes the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori so suitable to eastern soil? Perhaps, it is in part because he comes across as a kindly uncle, Like St. John Chrysostom, who is lovingly looking out for you. Clearly, however, the great Sheptytsky saw the spirituality of the order as compatible with the spirituality of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and this can not merely be written off as a Latinization.
You are in my prayers, Ric, pray for me.