If the Holy Father disbanded the Eastern Churches

[Peter_J]

Can you explain what you mean by “a net 5% generational attrition”? Wouldn’t that refer to the difference between departing members and new members? If so, I didn’t say anything like that.

 

[dvdjs]

Can you explain what you mean by “a net 5% generational attrition”? Wouldn’t that refer to the difference between departing members and new members? If so, I didn’t say anything like that.

But suppose that just 5% of each generation switch to a different church or denomination (in reality its likely much higher than 5%).

Yes, there is a difference, and my insertion of “net”, writing fast, confused things even more.

You were baselining with the 5% (at least) loss. I don’t see that idea as having any justification. There is no basis for assuming that level of loss, or that such losses would be cumulative. Nor the idea that the replenishing to hold the levels largely constant come from the EOC, nor that there was a program to recruit from the EOC. Not sure that any of this was purposefully implied; I admit that I remain confused by the post.

 

[Peter_J]

… nor that there was a program to recruit from the EOC.

That’s my understanding – well, if not a program per se, then at least a general philosophy that Orthodox should be encouraged to come into communion with Rome. Although I admit I can’t think of a source for that statement (to be fair, it’s pretty late where I am) so it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s my understanding – well, if not a program per se, then at least a general philosophy that Orthodox should be encouraged to come into communion with Rome. Although I admit I can’t think of a source for that statement (to be fair, it’s pretty late where I am) so it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong.

I think that you are right about a general attitude, and that attitude was formally acknowledge as something to be abandoned at Balamand.

In the old country, it was rare that there was a mix of ECs and EOs in a region. For the most part, it was one or the other. So individual movement was rarely possible. Until the end of the nineteenth century. Then things got very complicated.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s a good point – one that I admit I neglected in my earlier posts.

Nevertheless, I think we can at least say that, *in *the particular areas where the unions had taken place (e.g. Transylvania, then part of the Hungarian Kingdom, and Kiev, then part of the Polish Kingdom), there was an ongoing effort to shall-we-say “complete the union” by “bringing over” the rest of the Orthodox of that area.

 

[Vico]

Here’s something else to keep in mind: it’s easy to imagine that all of your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc, will belong to the same church that you belong to.

But suppose that just 5% of each generation switch to a different church or denomination (in reality its likely much higher than 5%). That means that after several generations, only a fraction are in the church of their ancestor.

Numbers of Eastern Catholics have stayed high* over the generations since the Union of Brest because of policies of encouraging Orthodox to become EC. But such policies were rejected by the Balamand Statement in 1993.

• Consider what the ratio of Eastern Catholics to Western-Rite Orthodox would be … 25:1? 50:1? More?

In accord with what you posted on avoiding proselytizing we have a statement from the Holy See:
Proposition 10 : RIGHT TO PROCLAIM AND TO HEAR THE GOSPEL

        To proclaim the Good News and the person of Jesus is an obligation              for each Christian, founded in the Gospel: “Go, therefore, and make              disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,              and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28: 19).

        At the same time, it is an inalienable right for each person,              whatever one’s religion or lack of religion, to be able to know              Jesus Christ and the Gospel. This proclamation, given with              integrity, must be offered with a total respect for each person,              without any form of proselytizing.

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_25_xiii-ordinaria-2012/02_inglese/b33_02.html

Yet, the Balamand Statement was issued by The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, which was a commission announced in 1979 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I, and any “agreed texts produced by the international dialogues are issued on their own authority and are not binding on the churches they represent”. +

The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue (Catholic-Orthodox) has had twelve sessions. The focus of the last five meetings, after 2000, has been authority in the Church and the role of the Bishop of Rome. But it does seem that Uniatism is the blocking issue currently, since participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the sessions is desired. In November 2011 Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (of Volokolamsk) reminded that discussion of the issue of the unia was a precondition for return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the dialogues.

• cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID…de=US&pageno=1

During USSR:
1980 (Patmos/Rhodes), 1982 (Munich), 1984 (Crete), 1987 (Bari), 1988 (Valamo), 1990 (Friesing)*

After USSR (25 Dec 1991):
1993 (Balamand), 2000 (Emmitsburg), 2006 (Belgrade), 2007 (Ravenna)**, 2009 (Paphos), 2010 (Vienna)

• Uniatism topic
  ** Russian delegation walked out of the meeting (protest to presence of Estonian delegation).

 

[Peter_J]

Yet, the Balamand Statement was issued by The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, which was a commission announced in 1979 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Dimitrios I, and any “agreed texts produced by the international dialogues are issued on their own authority and are not binding on the churches they represent”. +

Agreed. Many on both sides aren’t too keen on the Balamand Statement.

In accord with what you posted on avoiding proselytizing we have a statement from the Holy See:
Proposition 10 : RIGHT TO PROCLAIM AND TO HEAR THE GOSPEL

        To proclaim the Good News and the person of Jesus is an obligation              for each Christian, founded in the Gospel: “Go, therefore, and make              disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,              and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28: 19).

        At the same time, it is an inalienable right for each person,              whatever one’s religion or lack of religion, to be able to know              Jesus Christ and the Gospel. This proclamation, given with              integrity, must be offered with a total respect for each person,              without any form of proselytizing.

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_25_xiii-ordinaria-2012/02_inglese/b33_02.html

Good quote; although I think it would be more relevant if we were talking about Jews, or Muslims, or Hindus, etc. rather than Orthodox (who are Christians and preach the same Gospel we do).

 

[Thomas48]

If perhaps by some chance the Eastern Catholic Churches were to be disbanded, what would happen to those churches without Orthodox counter parts? For example the Syro Malabar Church. Would they just become independant ritual churches?

 

[Peter_J]

If perhaps by some chance the Eastern Catholic Churches were to be disbanded, what would happen to those churches without Orthodox counter parts? For example the Syro Malabar Church.

This is one reason that I said that the people UncleBill referred to may (perhaps) have been using the term “Eastern Catholic” to mean only those who are Greek Catholic (UGCC, Melkite, etc.)

 

[Nestor_kea]

Under the communist rule the regime in many (not only) European countries made Eastern Catholism illegal. It was nothing unusual when bishops and priests adviced their faithful to behave as Roman Catholisc (if Roman Catholicism was legal): attend Roman rite masses, confess, comune, marry, batise… there. And it was “pretty” OK for many Easterns because it was way how to remain Catholisc in situation when their own sui iuris church was hardly pesecuted and in probably the only way how to public identify as Catholic (e. i. in a population census) without being arested immediately.

But if Pope decided to do something like throwing this hardly examined churches out, it would be completelly different situation. Personally, I hope hierarchs would be couragious enough to tell something like “we remain in existence and we will try to be Catholic as much as possible and when Pope’s madness is off, we will hope to be in standard unity.” This would be disunity because of Pope’s stupid decision, not because of EC will. So EC would be in way still Catholic and in “unity”, just unwanted by Rome.