The Roman Apologist and the Uniate

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.

Why I didn't Convert to Roman Catholicism

     Growing up as heathen I always felt like there was more to life. Entering into my adult years I chased after this feeling finding myself going to a different church just about every day of the week, which included the Roman Catholic church. My grandmother with whom I lived with at the time( a devout Protestant) thought there was something wrong with me and hoped I would start going to church with her. Out of respect for my grandmother I started going with her but like the rest of the churches that I was going to there was always a sense that something was missing. After about 3 years of this cycle of churching I had an experience that brought me to my knees when I visited a Greek Orthodox shrine. After this experience and from many other factors I eventually found myself attending a Ruthenian Greek Catholic church. It was there where that sense that had about something missing left. I had found my spiritual home and place where I was able to experience Jesus Christ in a special way.
     Even though Roman Catholicism was part of my journey I did not remain there. There could be many reasons for this but the most important one was that I discovered something special about Jesus Christ in the Byzantine tradition. As much as I tried I could not shake the desire to get fully involved in a Byzantine church. In my heart I knew that Jesus Christ had something special for me there. Many people may not agree but I think it's important, even if you find out your wrong, to follow your heart. You will never know what God has for you if you're not willing to take risks. In my case I had found something that my heart had been longing for and an experience of Jesus Christ that I did not have in any other church.
     In any church that you wish to "convert "to the main reason should be JESUS CHRIST. If you join a church for any other reason you miss the whole purpose of that church. Whether it's the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church these traditions exists for the world to know Jesus Christ. Churches give people the power to love God, a sense of destiny, and a mission. They do not exist to be different from other churches. As I shared briefly I came to my Byzantine Catholic church because of only 1 main reason, which was Jesus Christ. Everything that makes my tradition beautiful is dust compared to the experience of knowing the person of Jesus Christ. If a person finds themselves converting to a church for reasons besides knowing Jesus Christ they are following the spirit of this world.
     The reason why I am sharing this is mainly in response to certain polemical literature that was written by a Roman Catholic about why they didn't convert to the Eastern Orthodox church. This kind of literature is nothing new but it demonstrates attitudes that keep Christians divided. In fact we can even find this attitude in scripture: 1cor 3: 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” aren't you acting just like people of the world?". The apostle Paul was astonished at how these people who witnessed the action of the Holy Spirit could find time to quarrel about who's in charge or why they follow a certain leader instead of the other. They missed the whole point of becoming a member of the Church, which is Jesus Christ .This is something that we need to keep in mind because we are not immune to falling in the same trap. If you are a member or a convert to a particular church because of flaws you find in another than you have become deceived.
     Recently, on the news I read how the Ecumenical Patriarch rebuked a certain metropolitan that called the Pope an arch-heretic. It is obvious that some of us will never get along but we need to ask ourselves what can we do to discover Jesus Christ. Will showing all the flaws of another bring about healing in my brother? Maybe we need to follow the command of Christ and work on removing our own errors before we help others. I'm sure if we are honest we will see that there are plenty of times where we have failed to live the commands of Christ and have kept people away from Him by these actions. It's time for some of us to do some serious repentance instead of writing why were not like those others.
     The reason why I am not a Roman Catholic is very simple. Its not because Roman Catholics are inferior in any way to the Byzantine tradition. Rather, I discovered Jesus Christ in a special way in my Byzantine church. I could say the same thing to why I am not Eastern Orthodox. Even though I share the same theology with the Eastern Orthodox Christians my Ruthenian Greek catholic church has given me a sense of peace that I did not have anywhere else. Jesus Christ has given me a family and a sense of mission in my church. There really is not any other answer to why I am not a convert to anything else nor should there be.

DOGMA in the "strict sense"

     When I was in the process of becoming a member of my church I did not know what to believe in.  There was this new spiritual identity of the Byzantine tradition and it was being presented to me by conflicting sources. One source wanted everything to be in conformity with the Latin church and the other wished to throw everything Latin out. Being grafted into this new tradition I felt it was my obligation to be faithful to its roots and I really did not want to be involved in picking sides. In essence, much of the conflict I experienced was based upon how to apply the doctrines and official positions  that were exclusively developed in the Latin tradition. Eventually, I came to understand that just because an official statement or doctrine comes from Rome it does not mean that it exhausts all possibilities or theology.
     For those who have no experience with what I am saying, I believe some presentations by Byzantine Catholics can be threatening. For example, to hear things like, "we don't have a purgatory in our tradition" or even worse "the Pope is First amongst equals" sends up red flags. For some Catholics to hear such things goes against what they are "obligated" to believe. Unfortunately, this way of believing demonstrates a narrow experience of Catholic tradition. To this problem, I believe St. John Paul II offered a better model for all Catholics. As he says, "Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West (Oriental Lumen1)." Keeping the words of the saint in mind I don't think my tradition should be a source of conflict for any Catholic. I think the key to the saint's words is to understand that the Latin tradition is not the only tradition that has been birthed by the apostles. Nor do they have exclusive rights on how to express doctrines.
     In saying such things, I often here the phrase, "dogma is dogma" and all Catholics even the Eastern ones are bond to what comes from Rome. Well, as the noted Roman Catholic monk Fr. David Bird explains, "although the councils and dogmatic decrees of the Roman Catholic Church are preserved from error and express Catholic Tradition with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they reflect the Truth as seen by the Latin tradition and presuppose a Latin western context.The obvious fact here is that the Roman church does not exhaust all the possibilities of Catholic teaching through its traditions alone. In fact, as Fr. David also points out, "it must also be accepted that separation from Rome by itself is not enough to separate a church from Catholic Tradition: only separation from its apostolic past does that.   It must also be accepted that, in so far as a separated Church is living the tradition it has received, it is being guided by the same Holy Spirit that guides the Catholic Church, with its source in the Eucharist."  
     In addition to the "dogma is dogma" position, historically, at the Ecumenical councils the Latin tradition did not have near the central influence that some assume today. Nor did the Latin traditions theological expression become the criteria for how the councils formulated dogma. I think its worth mentioning that in the Ravenna document it says," the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term". This presentation by the Joint Theological Commission between Catholics and Orthodox opens a new perspective on Catholic dogma. Even though the Latin tradition went on as if it was the only true church and held councils with that point of view we find a totally relaxed understanding of Ecumenical available to Catholics. Consequently, some might say dogmas of Rome for the East must be received in a different sense rather than the strict sense. At least, this seems to be the theme of Joint theological Commission and Pope Francis.
     When it comes to dogmatic positions formulated by the church of Rome {alone} I think Pope Francis adds a new perspective. In speaking about unity with the church of Constantinople he said the following, "the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith". In past, before there was a schism or the concept of an eastern catholic church, shared faith came from the Ecumenical councils. For the Roman Catholic church these ecumenical councils continued after the schism.  As a result, not only did the doctrines from them became binding but also how they were expressed. For the Eastern Catholic such a position by Rome has been challenging because it often was assumed that Eastern Catholics had to forsake their own traditions. Unfortunately, to this day there have been Eastern Catholics with this assumption compelled to forsake their ritual churches. They either leave for the Orthodox or end up becoming Roman catholic. This of course is not the message  from the church of Rome, especially under Pope Francis. According to Pope Francis, its possible to be adhere completely to the diversity in Orthodoxy and be in communion with the Roman church. 
     Obviously the proposition of Pope Francis has brought up many questions. One thing for certain, at least in my case, is that I can fully embrace the theological diversity of my tradition with no reservations, even it mirrors theologically everything found in those churches not yet in full communion with the church of Rome. Also, I think its important to note that Rome's openness is not something new.  In the past, the evidence  demonstrates the Rome was naturally  open is some ways to the theological diversity found in my tradition, as witnessed by  the Treaty of Breast and Uzhhorod. As  this demonstrates, we are indeed a Catholic communion and one tradition is not in subornation to the other . I believe Saint John Paul II expresses this best when he said in ORIENTALE LUMEN that one tradition sometimes arrives a little closer at the meaning of the mysteries then the other.