Bridge churches?

[Nine_Two]

Actually I’m an English teacher so my grasp of the English language is just fine. Again, you seem confused. I said over and over again that I’m only giving my take on what I see as-in many cases-hatred towards the Catholic Church by Orthodox Christians.

Apparently you are not in that camp, but the hate out there is real.

You’re an English teacher, then you should know that saying that** “In order to be considered a faithful Orthodox, you must despise the Catholic Church and consider all Catholics heretics on the way to hell.”** is not how you state an opinion.
But if you insist, I’ll take you at face value, that you meant to preface this with a comment that “some seem to believe that…”

 

[Nine_Two]

Can you explain this? I don’t see it myself. In what, precisely, does this “much better light” consist?

Catholics officially believe Anglicans, by and large, do not have some of the sacraments.

We have no such stance toward Catholics.

Perhaps “much better light” is an overstatement, but nonetheless it is better.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics officially believe Anglicans, by and large, do not have some of the sacraments.

We have no such stance toward Catholics.

Perhaps “much better light” is an overstatement, but nonetheless it is better.

Don’t you believe, officially, that neither Catholics nor Anglicans have any grace-filled sacraments at all? That our sacraments are accepted purely by economia?

Catholics believe that our baptism is valid.

If you can affirm this unequivocally without invoking “economia,” you are at odds with much of the rest of your Communion.

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

Don’t you believe, officially, that neither Catholics nor Anglicans have any grace-filled sacraments at all? That our sacraments are accepted purely by economia?

Edwin

No.

Officially we believe that they may or may not, and that if they don’t that when they are accepted it is by economia.
The majority position on whether they do or not has changed throughout history.

If we believed that the answer was “they don’t”, and we were relying completely on economia, then we would treat Baptist baptisms (which we don’t believe to be grace-filled) the same way we treat Anglican and Catholic baptisms.

 

[MarkosC]

Going back to the OP…

Whether or not Eastern Catholicism is a “bridge” or not depends on many different assumptions.

First, from the perspective of the ecclesiology that was prevalent in Rome from, say, 1400-1960 or so, yes Eastern Catholic churches were to be bridges, in the sense of being means/fruits of attempts to get the entirety of local Orthodox Churches into union with Rome. This becomes more the case when you view the thought process of contemporary Latin theology/culture as mandatory and try to impose those ideas on the Eastern churches (Uniatism, according to both the definitions of Father Cyril Korolevsky and the Balamand Agreement) - where “Eastern Catholicism” is really just an externally Eastern form of Latin Catholicism.

Second, the two cases I’m most familiar with (The Union of Brest as discussed in Father Borys Gudziak’s book - which is IMO mandatory for any discussion of the event- as well as the Melkite reunion of the 1700s) - the purpose, from the Easterners coming into union, was not to serve as an ecumenical bridge, but to preserve the integrity of the “eastern” religious culture in the face of challenges from all sides (Brest) or as a show of support to a particular Patriarch and his pro-Roman stance (Melkites).

Third, yes some folks in contemporary Byzantine-rite Catholicism like to think of themselves in terms of the ecumenical separation between Rome and Orthodoxy, and hope that their existence can help serve the cause of reunion. Maybe so, maybe not. Many are pessimistic since the Orthodox aren’t amenable to our current status in relation with Rome. I personally believe the best we can do about this is to educate Latins about the Christian East, which I think we can generally do as long as we avoid directly and immediately challenging newcomers on controversial issues.

My biggest problem with the “bridge church” idea is that it defines Eastern Catholicism functionally. IMO, we don’t exist to serve a function in East-West relations, we exist as a church of the “Byzantine” tradition: the elect of Christ united into one body with the deacons, the presbyters, and under the successor of of the Apostles, the bishop. We have all chosen the “Byzantine tradition”, either as adult “converts” or as those who continue to worship in the tradition of their fathers. Our choice implies that there is a divine wealth in the “Byzantine tradition” of Christianity; our job is to find this and to live this.

Markos