« Help Wanted - Absolutely not a parody | Main | Silence on Eugenic Abortion »
July 18, 2005
A Short Guide to Eastern Catholic Churches
Excellent article from Crisis.
As presently defined, there are 24 Catholic Churches that can be grouped into eight different rites. A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony of a distinct people manifested in a Church. While each Catholic Church may have its own rite or customs, in general, there are only eight major rites. History, language, misunderstandings, nationalism, and basic human weakness have resulted in the current communion of 24 Churches.
With a few exceptions, the Eastern Catholic Churches result from incomplete reunions with the Orthodox Churches. In those instances, large numbers of bishops and faithful of the Orthodox mother Churches either held back or later rejected union with Rome. Today, many Orthodox are fearful of losing their distinct traditions in a world dominated by the Latin Church. Making matters worse, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted Latin customs and haven’t been very good examples of how union with Rome should work. This is tragic, since the traditions of these Churches are themselves apostolic and help preserve the catholicity of the Church with their own unique development of the gospel message. For example, unlike a good Latin parish, in a traditional Eastern Catholic parish you won’t find musical instruments, statues, rosaries, or stations of the cross. Indeed, the priest may well have a wife and children, and the church might be without pews or kneelers. In some circumstances, even the Bible might have a larger canon and include Third and Fourth Maccabees. Unity does not mean uniformity.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I read this entire article. It was very informative, even for those who already have had a strong understanding of the eastern rite churches.
Posted by: DJP at Jul 18, 2005 9:20:45 AM
Thank you Amy, this is just what I was looking for.
Posted by: LadyHatton at Jul 18, 2005 9:31:31 AM
"In some circumstances, even the Bible might have a larger canon and include Third and Fourth Maccabees."
They really need to clarify this. The Church has dogmatically declared which Scriptures are inspired. 3rd and 4th Maccabees are not among them.
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Jul 18, 2005 9:31:43 AM
"In some circumstances, even the Bible might have a larger canon..."
So what we commonly think of as the Catholic canon is actually a minimum?
"... and—interestingly enough—in 1553, the Italo-Albanian metropolitan archbishop was confirmed by the patriarch of Constantinople, with papal authorization. Thus, the Italo-Albanians have never formally broken communion with the Orthodox Church."
Does the Orthodox Church agree? Did that schism sort of end 450 years ago without anyone noticing?
Posted by: Terrence Berres at Jul 18, 2005 9:43:11 AM
There is an interesting critique of the article on the "Byzantine Forum" messageboard that is worth reading:
http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001411
(sorry, don't know how to make a direct link)
The thread questions some of the terms and statistics used in the article, for instance.
Posted by: Manny at Jul 18, 2005 9:50:58 AM
Unfortunately, the Orthodox cite the experiences of the Eastern Catholic churches as one of the main operational (as opposed to theological) arguments against union with Rome. All of the Eastern Catholic churches, to one degree or another, have become "Latinized," taking on western devotional practices and a western frame of theological reference. Monastisicm, the core and essence of Eastern Orthodoxy, has almost disappeared in the Eastern Catholic churches. Theoretically equal to Rome and self-governing, in reality the Eastern Catholics are subservient to Roman bureaucracies set up to deal with them. In short, the influence and domination of Rome has been too heavy to allow the Eastern Catholic churches to breathe freely. And ironically, this Latinization was desired by the Eastern Catholics themselves, who saw in Rome what was presented as "normal" and "ideal" in the western church.
Fortunately, the Eastern Catholic churches today recognize this problem and are trying to correct it. But the Orthodox ruefully noted, for example that it was Rome who gave the Eastern Catholics their code of canon law. Then there was the case of the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic priests who were in recent years ordered out of Poland because their presence supposedly confused the faithful on the subject of priestly celebacy.
In short, we Catholics have got to get our own house in order vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholics, before we will begin to look credible to the Orthodox.
Posted by: WRY at Jul 18, 2005 9:53:24 AM
Dear WRY,
With regard to Patriarchs answering to bureaucrats in Rome, I completely agree with you. Patriarchs should be given autonomy on most matters. That said there are some problems with some of the Orthodox "traditions." For example some Orthodox friends I know rarely go to communion, and can count on one hand the number of times that they have gone to confession. They tell me this is the norm. Also there is the matter of divorce, and allowing people to re-marry in the Church. There is also the problem of nationalism controlling the different Orthodox Churches. My point is that there is much work to be done on both sides.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Jul 18, 2005 11:39:29 AM
I've never heard of any Orthodox using 4 Macc, and I've heard that very few use 3 Macc. I doubt that the corresponding Catholic churches would. I think the writer needs to verify his facts.
I've visited Ukrainian, Melkite and Syro-Malabar parishes in the past year or so - and a Maronite Church is under construction close to my home.
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 11:53:10 AM
I've never heard of any Orthodox using 4 Macc, and I've heard that very few use 3 Macc. I doubt that the corresponding Catholic churches would.
I know both Orthodox and Catholics who use them.
Posted by: Cat at Jul 18, 2005 11:59:33 AM
Amy,
Please do come visit us at Annunciation Byzantine Catholic Parish (www.byzantinecatholic.com) some time, when next you are in Chicago. I promise I'll buy some of your books, although I've bought 3 or 4 already.
That's the parish Hieronymus visited last Sunday. (I'm sorry I missed you, Hieronymus.)
Posted by: Karl at Jul 18, 2005 12:00:18 PM
Ack. forgot a slash somewhere
Anyway - a Byzantine fellow who I talked to yesterday discussed the Lainizations he remembered from his youth (hand-washing, filioque, statues, no deacons, etc) and how most have been gradually removed after Vatican II mandated that the Eastern Churches follow their own traditions - so while Vatican II is hated by the Orthodox, it's beloved by the Eastern Catholics.
As for the Orthodox gripiong about "uniats", well, that's just the Orthodox being a bunch of asses. They don't "deserve" every Christian who follows the Byzantine tradition, and if they consider that an impassable obstance to reunion, then they can just go to hell.
As for the relative lack of monasticism in the Easten Churches, it may be due to the fact that Orthodox monasticism is often rooted in the virulently anti-Roman and possibly-heretical Hesychast tradition (a counterfeit form of which is peddled by certian foofy Roman-rite monks as "centering prayer"). I'm not sure how prevalent this is in the Byzantine Catholic monasteries, but I'd rather it not be introduced widely, as it represents a post-schismatic doctrinal development of the East that may incompatable with the Catholic faith.
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 12:09:54 PM
"3rd and 4th Maccabees are not among them"
I believe Pius X told the Russian Catholics to keep them and there are quite a few other Eastern Catholics who also use them.
Orthodox tend to follow the full version of the Septuagint, which includes these as well as 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manessah, and Psalm 151. These are nevertheless not used for doctrine and Psalm 151 is not used liturgically as the other 150 are (cf. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology).
Posted by: Justin at Jul 18, 2005 12:42:22 PM
"As for the relative lack of monasticism in the Easten Churches, it may be due to the fact that Orthodox monasticism is often rooted in the virulently anti-Roman and possibly-heretical Hesychast tradition"
Why then would Pius X tell the Russian Byzantine Catholics to be "Orthodox, nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter." Sounds like this sainted pope didn't agree.
Posted by: Justin at Jul 18, 2005 12:44:37 PM
What's heretical about Hesychasm?
One shouldn't throw around accusations of heresy so easily.
Gregory Palamas is a saint for both Catholic and Orthodox. I know he is, because I'm a Byzantine Catholic, and we commemorate him as a saint on one of the Sundays of the Great Fast.
Palamas is no heretic.
Posted by: Karl(1of1) at Jul 18, 2005 12:57:22 PM
Orthodox monasticism is often rooted in the virulently anti-Roman and possibly-heretical Hesychast tradition
If it were so "heretical," surely the Church would have stopped Eastern Catholics from practicing this form of spirituality by now? *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Cat at Jul 18, 2005 12:57:43 PM
Sorry, but being interested in Eastern spirituality, I've been reading up on Hesychasm. It's contrary to everything I love about authentic Catholic mysticism, where contemplation is an infused grace, not something that can be conjured by human effort. And it's challenging to the docrine (Lateran IV, Vatican I) of Divine Simplicity. It will take the endorsement of a full ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra statement and one heckuva convincing argument for me to accept it as legitimate, regardless of what St. Pius X was willing to tolerate.
Most of the doctrinal contoversies between East and West were suitable resolved at Florence. This one has not been, and cannot be dismissed as a semantic difference.
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 12:59:40 PM
Sorry, but being interested in Eastern spirituality, I've been reading up on Hesychasm. It's contrary to everything I love about authentic Catholic mysticism, where contemplation is an infused grace, not something that can be conjured by human effort.
You can't have been "reading up" much if you can't get the most simple facts right.
Posted by: Cat at Jul 18, 2005 1:07:52 PM
I said "possibly". I cannot, from what I've studied, see his teachings as acceptable. I may be wrong.
But I'd question the wisdom of Catholics venerating a "saint" who condemned the entire Latin church as heretical. You can criticize me for refusing to tolerate his teachings - but he would almost certainly reciprocate!
I'm not going to accept it just because the Easten Catholics do. They may be wrong, just as the Latin Church has venerated some questionable figures.
Meanwhile, Barlaam of Calabria, who was not virulently anti-Roman, and whose criticisms of hesychasm were entirely valid, and who actually favored recociliation between the churches and was therefore condemned and villified in the East, is not venerated anywhere, becasue he wasn't lucky enough to have gained the favor of Orthodox councils and to have become so ingrained in the Orthodox tradition that the reconciled Churches were allowed to "keep" him. Baarlammism and Hesychasm are mutually exclusive. So if Hesychasm is accaptale as Catholic doctrine, am I, as a Barlaamite, a heretic? Please, let me know.
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 1:15:25 PM
"Orthodox tend to follow the full version of the Septuagint . . ."
Aren't there several different versions of the Septuagint out there, only some of which have these extra books?
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Jul 18, 2005 1:16:32 PM
So tell me, Cat, what fact am I getting worng?
Hesychasts believe that:
a)That there is a distinction between Divine essence and Divine energy.
b)That Divine energy, the uncreated light of God, is visible to human beings.
c)That it can be seen by following a regular process involving particular postures, breathing, and other such autosuggestive methods.
?
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 1:28:37 PM
hieronymous,
Unless you are *very* well-placed, I don't think it is up to you to decide whether or not something is heretical. We have several commentors saying Palamas is revered by Eastern Catholics, who are in communion with Rome, an undisputable fact. It would seem wise to say no more than that you don't understand how it is legitimate, than to be your own magisterium and declare something out of bounds.
It is worth remembering, too, that sainthood means that someone is in heaven. It doesn't mean that every single thing someone did or wrote is to be approved. Right? Isn't it true that St. Thomas Acquinas denied the Immaculate Conception?
Posted by: WRY at Jul 18, 2005 1:32:04 PM
A and B are acceptable to Catholicism. C is one of the most ludicrous and unjust misrepresentations I've ever seen.
Posted by: Cat at Jul 18, 2005 1:35:51 PM
Hieronymous: Maybe you could write up a summary of the teachings of these two saints/spiritual writers ..and ask Amy to post it for discussion? Or at least provide a summary here? You feel strongly about this and it seems to be an interesting issue but I for one am not informed about it. I have been present at groups where "centering prayer" was taught and it seemed harmless as taught, just a way of quieting oneself down to be able to listen to God. Even though contemplation is infused, a person at least has to find a place to be quiet, whether "closet" or church..and stay there. I remember its being a tremendous effort to "stay there" in front of the Blessed Sacrament for at least the first 15 minutes...and then after a while, occasionally, for the whole hour. I believe of course that even the decision to walk to the church and the ability to "stay there" is all attributable to grace, but then so would the decision to use certain centering techniques as a way of getting there and staying there be attributable to grace. So what is it you are objecting to?
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Jul 18, 2005 1:37:18 PM
Dear WRY,
Allowing someone to continue to be venerated locally, is not the same as saying he has been canonized by the Church. The Orthodox Church has no grace from God to be canonizing anyone, only the Catholic Church can canonize. The new Pope has even emphasized that Beatifications are not infallible. I see no problem with any Catholic questioning whether a person, who lived in an objective state of mortal sin (schism is a mortal sin) his entire life and condemned the True Church as heretical, even saved his soul. Only Catholic canonizations are infallible.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Jul 18, 2005 1:45:57 PM
1) What part of the word "possibly" don't you people understand?
2) I'm allowed to have an opinion, just like everyone else. I think that Barlaam of Calabria was in the right. Since I'm neither Pope nor Patriarch, I have no authority to force that belief on anyone else, but I can express it nonetheless. Just because some good Catholics like something and are allowed to like it, doesn't place it above criticism! As anyone wh has read my comments on other threads knows, there is plenty that is currently accepatble in Roman-rite orthodoxy that I also think hugely erroneous.
3) Palamas, like many Latin saints of the Middle Ages, was never formally canonized by the Catholic Church. Which means that his sainthood is questionable. Palamas regarded the Pope and the entire Latin Church as heretical, and expressed that belief in clear and harsh terms. He was a staunch opponent of reunion. He would have called me a heretic if I had lived at the time. And I'm supposed to simply accept he's in heaven because some Orthodox council said so?
Posted by: hieronymus at Jul 18, 2005 1:48:10 PM
