Are Eastern Catholics Moving Away From Rome?

[Seamus_L]

I don’t mean to sound deliberately antagonistic here, but in the last decade or so I’ve noticed a trend within the Eastern Catholic Churches that seems almost subtly hostile to anything perceived as Roman. I understand the desire by some in the East to restore there historic traditions, but what particular disturbs me is when I hear people speak with a Puritanical zeal to eliminate anything that originated in the West, or to advocate an Orthodox (and not Catholic) re-evaluation of Papal authority, or simply to look to the Orthodox Churches, most of whom regard us with varying degrees of negativity, as there models. Perhaps what I find most disturbing of all, is that many in the Eastern Rite Churches, who are already close to there Latin brothers and sisters in there theological and devotional lives, are now being asked to move closer to those we are not even in communion with.

 

[Formosus]

The VII document on Eastern Churches asked us to return to our traditions, and theologies. Our own particular theologies are just as legitimate as the latin theologies and we have every right to use them. As for looking towards the Orthodox, even Rome refuses to published authoritative liturgical books that are already in print under various Orthodox jurisdictions. So this is even something that Rome has encouraged us to do. An Eastern re-evaluation of the Papacy is also something the previous Pope had initiated in order to improve relations with the Orthodox churches. On devotions, no one is saying people can not practice latin devotions , but a Rosary before Divine Liturgy should not be done if its causing the parish to neglect the celebration of one of the Hours.

 

[mardukm]

Wow! You said everything I wanted to say!

I just want to add that one shouldn’t automatically view even a puritanical zeal to recover one’s Traditional identity as being anti-Rome. Though I certainly am not anti-Latin, I wouldn’t mistake anti-Latin with anti-papal either. We’ll have squabbles, but at the end of the day, we’re still family, and we need to respect that reality in each others’ Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

At the end of the day, Eastern Catholics moving away from Rome will have little impact on the average Roman Catholic. What I do find sad here however, is that many people, particular in Ukraine, are being told to look to a church that often viciously persecuted them, both in Tsarist and Soviet times, as it’s model. We are looking at the unity in faith that already exists between many Ukrainian Catholics, Ruthenian Rite Catholics, Maronites, Chaldeans and Armenian Catholics, and the Latin Church, and saying change what you believe and follow the Orthodox way, move away from us. The reality though, is that this will never satisfy the Orthodox, who have a night and day difference in the way they view us.

 

[Formosus]

Its only secondarily meant to satisfy the Orthodox. Its primary reasoning is because we are supposed to be following are legitimate traditions. I don’t understand why a byzantine being a byzantine, or a Maronite being a Maronite is going away from Rome. We are going away from being Latins but that doesn’t mean we are going away from Rome. Looking towards Orthodoxy for a way to return to our rightful spiritual patrimony and heritage doesn’t mean we are going into the arms of the muscovites whom persecuted us (which its really not fair to use Tsarist Russia as an example as the Catholic states of the west were not so friendly towards non Catholics either. It was the attitude of the era over all among Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox). The idea that Eastern Catholics should look to our Orthodox brothers and sisters even goes back to the great anti modernist, ultra montantist St. Pius X ,who told Russian Catholics to follow Orthodox liturgical practice completely, not adding nor taking away the slightest bit, and just as Benedict XIV said that everyone should be Catholic but not everyone should be Latin.

 

[Ghosty]

At the end of the day, Eastern Catholics moving away from Rome will have little impact on the average Roman Catholic. What I do find sad here however, is that many people, particular in Ukraine, are being told to look to a church that often viciously persecuted them, both in Tsarist and Soviet times, as it’s model. We are looking at the unity in faith that already exists between many Ukrainian Catholics, Ruthenian Rite Catholics, Maronites, Chaldeans and Armenian Catholics, and the Latin Church, and saying change what you believe and follow the Orthodox way, move away from us. The reality though, is that this will never satisfy the Orthodox, who have a night and day difference in the way they view us.

It’s definitely not about satisfying the Orthodox. In fact, in many instances some Orthodox prefer Catholics to be purely Latin. Eastern Catholics who are true to their traditions and also fully supportive of the Catholic Communion are a serious thorn in the side of those Orthodox who would rather have clear lines drawn and an easy way to distinguish themselves from Catholics.

As for being anti-Papal, as other responders have pointed out this “new” emphasis is in large part due to over a century of Popes pushing the various Eastern Churches to be authentic to their traditions. In some cases the shift back towards tradition likely wouldn’t even occur without strong Papal insistence, so strong is the “Latinizing” tendency in those communities.

A lot of the venom you see often comes from a vocal minority, and isn’t necessarily reflective of a larger movement. Case in point, the Ukrainian Church is increasingly vocal and strong in restoring its traditions, but this is at the very same time that the Ukrainian Church has literally risen from the ashes of Soviet oppression and “come out” of the Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The push to restore authentic Ukrainian tradition has gone hand in hand with the push to restore unity with the Catholic Communion, a unity that was forcefully broken.

Peace and God bless!

 

[india_ker_pala]

You are right. I belong to syro malabar catholic church in India. We are moving much closer to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
A statement from our major Arch bishop Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says that "What is the authority of Rome? From where Rome got all these powers? What is the power of Rome in appointing bishops? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch, who is superior? "
After examining many historic documents I found that Patriarch of Antioch was the superior and seniormost of all the bishops in the then known and civilised world. He was regarded as the successor of Peter. Rome and Constantinople were elevated with superiority later because of political reasons. Also the superiority of Rome proclaimed by Catholic church comes from 8th century. During the reign of Charlemagne, a lot fake documents were created called as “Donation of Constantine” saying that pope got the powers from Emperor Constanine and he is the first among the equals and all these. Many historic documents were corrected.
Now in Syro malabar church many weeklies, calenders have started giving importance to Patriarch of antioch. After obeserving the diffrerent liturgies, it is seen that Antiochean liturgy and Antichean tradition are good than Latin. Since the jacobite priests marry and have a family, they are leading a happy life. Their celebration of mass is very good. But I cannot find a priest in Roman church who is happy with his life.

 

[benedictus2]

You are right. I belong to syro malabar catholic church in India. We are moving much closer to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
A statement from our major Arch bishop Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says that "What is the authority of Rome? From where Rome got all these powers? What is the power of Rome in appointing bishops? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch, who is superior? "
After examining many historic documents I found that Patriarch of Antioch was the superior and seniormost of all the bishops in the then known and civilised world. He was regarded as the successor of Peter. Rome and Constantinople were elevated with superiority later because of political reasons. Also the superiority of Rome proclaimed by Catholic church comes from 8th century. During the reign of Charlemagne, a lot fake documents were created called as “Donation of Constantine” saying that pope got the powers from Emperor Constanine and he is the first among the equals and all these. Many historic documents were corrected.
Now in Syro malabar church many weeklies, calenders have started giving importance to Patriarch of antioch. After obeserving the diffrerent liturgies, it is seen that Antiochean liturgy and Antichean tradition are good than Latin. Since the jacobite priests marry and have a family, they are leading a happy life. Their celebration of mass is very good. But I cannot find a priest in Roman church who is happy with his life.

Actually, I am not so sure about the superiority of Antioch.

From what I’ve read, Rome has always been the prime patriarchate followed by Alexandra then by Antioch.

More details are in this timeline
Timeline of the East-West Schism
of the Catholic and Orthodox Church

 

[benedictus2]

Since the jacobite priests marry and have a family, they are leading a happy life. Their celebration of mass is very good. But I cannot find a priest in Roman church who is happy with his life.

The fact the jacobite priests marry is not a good argument since St Paul himself said that he prefers it if men could remain celebate.

For someone to give everything up for God including the possibility of wife and family is a very great gift and it is not given to all.

A celibate priesthood means the priests primary occupation is dedicated towards God without having to think about family.

It is also modelled upon Jesus himself who remained un-married.

And you are so terribly wrong in your statement that celibate priests are unhappy. We have many wonderful and happy priests whose life is totally dedicated to God and not caught up with family matters.

The Saints are a very good example. The priests in my parish and the other parishes I know are happy with their lives. But like any other life, sure they get trials. No one lives a perfect life, but these men strive to devote their life to God and Him ALONE.

Also, the Christian life is not about the pursuit of happiness but rather living Christ like lives. Our joy is supposed to be Christ.

 

[Aramis]

The framers of the instructions to delatinize the East were largely Romans. Rome came to realize the error of latinizations.

Even to the point of keeping a massively pro-latinization Ruthenian Bishop away from his see pre-V II… (HG Nicholas + Elko). Said eparch was later incardinated as an auxiliary bishop and titular archbishop in the Roman church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

In the back of the 2009 Melkite calendar are fasting regulations from the Melkite Patriarch as of 2004.

They are every bit as strict as the traditional Orthodox rules.

One of the first–if not the first–pastoral letters of the late Abp. Joseph Tawil was entitled “The Courage to Be Ourselves.”

Things have come a long way for Eastern Catholics in the USA since the American Ecclesiastical Review printed, “The Ruthenian rite will always be in a position of inferiority to the Roman rite.”

 

[Volodymyr_988]

It’s definitely not about satisfying the Orthodox. In fact, in many instances some Orthodox prefer Catholics to be purely Latin. Eastern Catholics who are true to their traditions and also fully supportive of the Catholic Communion are a serious thorn in the side of those Orthodox who would rather have clear lines drawn and an easy way to distinguish themselves from Catholics.

As for being anti-Papal, as other responders have pointed out this “new” emphasis is in large part due to over a century of Popes pushing the various Eastern Churches to be authentic to their traditions. In some cases the shift back towards tradition likely wouldn’t even occur without strong Papal insistence, so strong is the “Latinizing” tendency in those communities.

A lot of the venom you see often comes from a vocal minority, and isn’t necessarily reflective of a larger movement. Case in point, the Ukrainian Church is increasingly vocal and strong in restoring its traditions, but this is at the very same time that the Ukrainian Church has literally risen from the ashes of Soviet oppression and “come out” of the Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The push to restore authentic Ukrainian tradition has gone hand in hand with the push to restore unity with the Catholic Communion, a unity that was forcefully broken.

Peace and God bless!

I have to say that the Ukrainians I worshiped with were very supportive of the Holy Father and had a large display of John Paul II’s visit to Ukraine in the hospitality room. (Santo Subito!!!)

 

[mardukm]

I’ve never met an Eastern Oriental Catholic from the “old country” who had any misgivings about the Pope. I’ve met some who have had complaints about Latinization, but none about Rome. Of course, most of the ones I’ve met are Oriental Catholics (Indian, Copts, Maronites and others from the Middle East). I’ve met a few Romanian Catholics who are doggedly loyal to Rome.

Perhaps the appearance of “moving away from Rome” is an American phenomenon? Maybe the experience of being a “minority” in the States has something to do with it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother india_ker_pala,

You are right. I belong to syro malabar catholic church in India. We are moving much closer to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
A statement from our major Arch bishop Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says that "What is the authority of Rome? From where Rome got all these powers? What is the power of Rome in appointing bishops? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch, who is superior? "
After examining many historic documents I found that Patriarch of Antioch was the superior and seniormost of all the bishops in the then known and civilised world. He was regarded as the successor of Peter. Rome and Constantinople were elevated with superiority later because of political reasons. Also the superiority of Rome proclaimed by Catholic church comes from 8th century. During the reign of Charlemagne, a lot fake documents were created called as “Donation of Constantine” saying that pope got the powers from Emperor Constanine and he is the first among the equals and all these. Many historic documents were corrected.
Now in Syro malabar church many weeklies, calenders have started giving importance to Patriarch of antioch. After obeserving the diffrerent liturgies, it is seen that Antiochean liturgy and Antichean tradition are good than Latin. Since the jacobite priests marry and have a family, they are leading a happy life. Their celebration of mass is very good. But I cannot find a priest in Roman church who is happy with his life.

WELCOME!!! It’s always good to hear from other Traditions in this Forum.

I have read that there is discontent in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church since the Holy Father has not given heed to requests for Patriarchal status, a request that was given in 2006. From what I’ve read, even though there is discontent, a majority of your bishops want to remain faithful to Rome. I thank you for making me/us aware of the extent of this discontent.

If the reason for this move towards the Patriarch of Antioch is the discontent over the matter of Patriarchal status, I would just like to inform you sincerely that you will not get much sympathy from the Syriac Patriarchate. As you might know, a schism exists within the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate for this very reason. The Syriac Patriarch operates under the same ecclesiastical belief as the bishop of Rome, with all the same theological rationales for his headship based on St. Peter’s headship of the Apostles as the bishop of Rome does. The schism exists because the daughter Church in India wants Patriarchal independence from the Syriac Patriarchate. The Syriac Patriarchate regards such nationalistic tendencies as heterodox.

Now, will you join the Syriac Patriarchate which will probably grant you the same autonomous or semi-autonomous status you have in the Catholic communion, or will you join the schismatic
Church which has self-proclaimed patriarchal status?

Of course this is assuming that the reason for your discontent and building a rationale to move away from Rome is the issue of patriarchal status. If you have other reasons, I’m not qualified or worthy to comment on them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[eelpis]

If the easterners are moving closer to their respective traditions they are moving closer to Christ. The same Christ who promised to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail.
As a Latin I think we should do the same. Move closer to Christ that is.

 

[steve_b]

You are right. I belong to syro malabar catholic church in India. We are moving much closer to Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
A statement from our major Arch bishop Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says that "What is the authority of Rome? From where Rome got all these powers? What is the power of Rome in appointing bishops? In the first centuries there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch, who is superior? "
After examining many historic documents I found that Patriarch of Antioch was the superior and seniormost of all the bishops in the then known and civilised world. He was regarded as the successor of Peter. Rome and Constantinople were elevated with superiority later because of political reasons. Also the superiority of Rome proclaimed by Catholic church comes from 8th century.

[snip]

Could you share what these historic documents are that you’re referring to? When the EO were posting here with regularity, I’ve asked a number of times for anyone of them to make the case for Antioch. I’ve asked the EO to put it all out there. If anyone of them took up my request, and did it, I unfortunately missed it.

Regarding place of honor, Who gave Constantinople head position of honor in the East ahead of Antioch,… Rome? No. Rome actually defended Antioch’s honor from being demoted in the East

When you speak of the 1st centuries, Who would you be speaking of? Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Irenaeus?.. ALL as you know, coming from the EAST,… ALL bishops, …Irenaeus originating from the East but becomming a bishop in the West.

I’ve always felt that if Antioch was in charge, as the EO often say, Corinth in the EAST would have sought Antioch’s assistance when sedition took place there with her bishops. Instead Corinth sought out Rome in the WEST to solve the problem. Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch were both bishops during this same time frame. So why didn’t they seek Antioch’s help if Antioch was in charge? As you know this incident with the bishops in Corinth took place in the first century DURING apostolic times. St John is still alive.

 

[rightandreason]

I personally think as an Eastern Rite Catholic myself that going back to the Eastern traditions are good, being that they are just as much a part of the Church as the Western traditions are. I also believe that the dialogue that is going on between the Orthodox is good and that is it is not drawing the Eastern Catholics away so much as it is moving the Orthodox closer. That is my personal thoughts on the matter. There are some good articles here that may be of some help regarding this topic of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches as well as some good weblinks to other resources as well.

 

[Seamus_L]

Moving closer to the Orthodox Churches will eventually lead to the acceptance of doctrines that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Our brethren in Eastern Europe, Ukraine in particular, maintained there church’s tradition’s that identified them as Catholic, in the face of over 350 years of persecution.
One can easily get the idea that we're nearly in Communion with the Orthodox when you read some of the statements by Pope John Paul II, but the oppinion from the Orthodox side is really quite negative. I see positively no good coming out of telling people to reshape there doctrinal and devotional lives in a way that will be more in line with Orthodoxy.

 

[malphono]

The framers of the instructions to delatinize the East were largely Romans. Rome came to realize the error of latinizations.

Rather a shame that some Easterners and Orientals haven’t come to realize the same thing.

Aramis:

Even to the point of keeping a massively pro-latinization Ruthenian Bishop away from his see pre-V II… (HG Nicholas + Elko). Said eparch was later incardinated as an auxiliary bishop and titular archbishop in the Roman church.

I know little or nothing about him, but I did read the following from the archeparchial web site:
archeparchy.org/page/history/bishop-Elko.htm

The only thing I can or will say is that I’m not a fan of the elimination (or at least sidelining) of staroslavenski or any other venerable liturgical language.

 

[Ghosty]

Moving closer to the Orthodox Churches will eventually lead to the acceptance of doctrines that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Our brethren in Eastern Europe, Ukraine in particular, maintained there church’s tradition’s that identified them as Catholic, in the face of over 350 years of persecution.

          One can easily get the idea that we're nearly in Communion with the Orthodox when you read some of the statements by Pope John Paul II, but the oppinion from the Orthodox side is really quite negative. I see positively no good coming out of telling people to reshape there doctrinal and devotional lives in a way that will be more in line with Orthodoxy.

There’s really very little in Orthodoxy that is contrary to the Catholic Faith. Acceptance of the Papacy is a big thing for Eastern Catholics, even if there is disagreement on exactly how the Papacy should operate (and it’s important to realize that Rome itself is currently evaluating this question, and asking for Eastern Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut), so it’s not as if the various Eastern Catholics are going to accept the Orthodox viewpoint on that issue. In fact, if it weren’t for the question of the Papacy many Eastern Catholics would simply be Orthodox already; one of the big reasons for our existence is that we do fundamentally believe in the Apostolic Petrine Ministry of the Pope.

Beyond the Papacy there are only a handful of issues, such as the filioque, which are pretty easily resolved, and in the minds of most Eastern Catholics already have been resolved.

All the restoration of tradition means is that the Patrimony of these various Churches is being brought back up to its proper place so that the Catholic Church can remain truly Catholic and not simply Latin with a variety of vestments. It means that rather than putting the Latin tradition against the others, as would happen if it was just the Latins versus the Orthodox, we are making sure that the Catholic Church is robust and that the various “theological disagreements” can be settled from within (as they already have been, by and large), rather than hardened by polemics. This is the very opposite of rejecting the Latin tradition.

Peace and God bless!