Communion, not Submission

[Volodymyr_988]

I would like to hear from my Eastern brothers and sisters who use the phrase “we are in communion with, not in submission of the Pope of Rome.”

What exactly do you mean by that?:hypno:

 

[Ungcsertez]

I would like to hear from my Eastern brothers and sisters who use the phrase “we are in communion with, not in submission of the Pope of Rome.”

What exactly do you mean by that?:hypno:

The we:

1.) The Eastern and Oriental Particular Chuches in Union with the Roman Catholic Church, have our own Eastern Christian theology that isn’t Augustinian. We have a theology that we share with our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brethren.

That would be the first difference between “Communion, not Submission”.

Fellow Eastern and Oriental Particular Church brethren in Union with the Roman Catholic Church , please add your thoughts.

U-C

 

[Diak]

This is only my personal, informal response. Communion implies a mutual respect of each other’s tradition, practice, praxis, spirituality, theology, eccelsiology, etc. - existence as ecclesiological equals.

I would posit (in agreement with Soloviev) that this can be done in a full bond of fraternal love while accepting authority of the other to intervene. Our communion (that of the Union of Brest in my own particular Church) includes respect of the authority of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter to intervene in grave matters of faith and morals. Obedience, surely - but submission and obedience are not the same word.

From Rome it should also include respect of our own unique circumstances in governing our particular churches and allowing them to fluorish being faithful to the rich received tradition each particular Church should cherish and carefully guard. Only with complete freedom, respect, and trust from Rome to be faithful to our particular Catholic tradition can our Churches fully be who they are in order to carry out the evangelical mandate of our Lord. Our countless (millions) of martyrs over the centuries are the sacrifice to consummate this communion with Rome. We have done everything that has been requested of us, and more in the spirit of obedience.

Our existence as Eastern Catholics completes the Catholicity of the Church - I think it was Bishop Fulton Sheen of blessed memory who maintained the Church was not truly “catholic” in the full sense of universal without the Eastern Catholics.

It does not mean to be in a “submissive” relationship implying even by use of the term to a relation of submission of underling to master. I do not need to go into the sad chapters of misunderstandings and maltreatment from Latin hierarchs who have approached the Union in this way, in the spirit of praestantia ritus latinae which in this country alone have led to serious internal divisions in our Church, and largely responsible for the formation of three separate Orthodox jurisdictions who were largely formed by former Greek Catholics who only wished to be faithful to their own received traditions which were being denied them.

We look at the last forty years and often see liturgical chaos and sometimes even theological dissent around us in the Latin church - but we have maintained our communion with the successor of Peter nonetheless. In misguided zeal we have even gone so far as to allow aspects outside of our particular received traditions (“latinizations”) to creep in in the name of showing our fidelity to Rome.

But all is not negative, not at all - to her great credit Rome herself has exhorted our Churches to be ever more faithful to our particular received traditions. Rome blessing a book with the restoration of the liturgical veneration of St. Gregory Palamas, approval of our wonderful Ordo Celebrationis in the 1940s as well as other service books of our Church all speak well to her desire in this regard. Those are the sorts of things that for me keep hope and joy in my heart for the decision to enter into communion with Rome. That is the brotherly support of our elder brother Peter and not the actions of a master towards a submissive slave.

We accept the authority of Rome freely by virtue of our mutual agreement of Union and pledge our obedience - for the faifhtul this occurs every time they receive the Holy Mysteries - the visible sign of that full Eucharistic communion. I don’t think this should be looked at as a “submission”.

Since Vatican II, or I should even say since Leo XIII and Orientale Dignitas, Rome herself has made some very commendable strides in the development of this relationship as well, certainly most remarkable with our late Holy Father John Paul II. One example that comes to mind of a positive development is that traditionally Rome has stated for the election of diasporal bishops of Eastern Catholic Churches that the Holy Father has chosen so and so for this or that Eparchy. The last consecration of a Ukrainian Catholic bishop that I attended, the statement was read by none other than the Pro-Nuncio that the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has chosen Kyr (n.) for the Eparchy with the blessing of the Holy See.

Just some ramblings.
FDRLB

 

[Ghosty]

I would like to second all of Diak’s wonderful words and add just a few of my own about what “communion with, not submission to” means to me.

Sometimes it seems to me that some Latins are uncomfortable with this expression, because it may appear to indicate a less-than-firm relationship with the Pope. Personally I think it represents a much more firm relationship than “submission” ever could. Anyone can simply submit while disapproving in their heart, but to stand with someone in true communion is an act of real devotion. Sometimes there are rough spots, but historically when most Eastern Catholics have said, effectively if not in these words, “I am with Peter and the Pope”, they’ve meant that they were willing to die for the unity of the Church, and that they fully accepted the Petrine role of the Papacy while at the same time maintaining the dignity of their own Apostolic traditions (some of which also come down through Peter in different areas, such as Antioch, incidentally). Many of these people have died for this communion, and in the case of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (which is often at the forefront of this particular mindset we are discussing) it has been all but completely absorbed and disbanded by the Russian Orthodox only to be revived out of whole cloth spontaneously by the devotion of the Ukrainian Catholic people.

“Communion with” means accepting that Rome has a special role in the Church, which includes the heavy and unenviable burden of at times arbitrating for all Catholics from the standpoint of preserving our universal Tradition. Even then, however, it is not submission, but a “standing with the Pope”; he supports Tradition, and we uphold the bond of love, in love. He is not some authority figure that lords over the Catholic Communion, but an “elder brother” tasked with a particularily heavy cross on behalf of all of us. Sometimes we must remind him (and others) of the intererests and traditions of the non-Latin Churches, but this is not merely a hard-headed stance, but also one of defending and supporting the whole Catholic Tradition (in line with Bp. Sheen’s quote above).

So I would hope that every Catholic can say “Communion, not submission”, it’s a strong bond that does nothing to lessen the authority of the Church, and everything to highlight the fact that we are a family of Love who stand together in Faith and Hope.

Peace and God bless!