Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

[Aramis]

I think he meant, as opposed to being a bishop at all. That’s how I read it anyhow.

Antiochian Auxiliary Bishops-Vicar are, for almost all intents, bishops-ordinary.

In practice, the vicariate operates as a non-territorial diocese, with separate clerical enrollment. And the nearby parish is largely former Catholics and Former Lutherans, tho’ it’s now going into its second generation. (Mind you, the local AO parish is a former Evangelical Orthodox parish… and so may not be representative of the rest of the Vicariate.)

Parishes are attributed to the WRV as if it were a diocese.

And the Anglican Catholic Vicariate system is a step between a sui iuris church and an allowed sub-rite. It’s parallel to the Knanaya within the Syro Malabar Church - an independent diocese with separate ritual praxis and separate membership.

It’s all forms of uniatism, no mater what his Eminence Caspar claims.

 

[neokarny]

In practice, the vicariate operates as a non-territorial diocese, with separate clerical enrollment. And the nearby parish is largely former Catholics and Former Lutherans, tho’ it’s now going into its second generation. (Mind you, the local AO parish is a former Evangelical Orthodox parish… and so may not be representative of the rest of the Vicariate.)

Parishes are attributed to the WRV as if it were a diocese.

I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying that they are part of the WRV yet separate from their local diocese? Hence “non-territorial diocese.” But if that’s the case, why are WRV parishes still under their local diocese/bishop alongside non-WRV parishes?

Example: St. Vincent in Omaha is WRV, but part of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America alongside non-WRV parishes.

 

[Aramis]

I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying that they are part of the WRV yet separate from their local diocese? Hence “non-territorial diocese.” But if that’s the case, why are WRV parishes still under their local diocese/bishop alongside non-WRV parishes?

Example: St. Vincent in Omaha is WRV, but part of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America alongside non-WRV parishes.

Because the AO have a totally buggered ecclesiology. Every diocese is treated as a territorial vicariate, essentially an exarchate. They have no diocesan bishops. They have only archdiocesan auxiliaries as vicars.

The local parish does not talk about its diocese… only its WRV vicar… at least on a ground level. THe clergy are incardinated by the Vicar of the WRV, not the Vicar of the Diocese.

It’s a direct parallel to the model used for the Anglican Ordinariate and the ICRSS and FSSP… the parish exists within the diocese, but functionally belongs to a body outside the diocese.

In any case, the use of the WR is clearly aimed at attracting the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics, for whom the WR DL is extremely close to their familiar form. In exactly the same way, the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church is aimed at attracting Anglicans.

 

[neokarny]

The local parish does not talk about its diocese… only its WRV vicar… at least on a ground level. THe clergy are incardinated by the Vicar of the WRV, not the Vicar of the Diocese.

This interestingly doesn’t seem to be the case with the St. Vincent parish I gave as an example. See their website here.

On the website it says they are “part of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid America under the omophoron of his Grace, Bishop Basil (Essey).” And on their Clergy page, it says that Fr Theodore was ordained “by His Grace, Bp Basil (Essey).” Surprisingly, not one mention of the WRV on the entire parish website, which they are part of (as shown here).

 

[Nine_Two]

Because the AO have a totally buggered ecclesiology. Every diocese is treated as a territorial vicariate, essentially an exarchate. They have no diocesan bishops. They have only archdiocesan auxiliaries as vicars.

The local parish does not talk about its diocese… only its WRV vicar… at least on a ground level. THe clergy are incardinated by the Vicar of the WRV, not the Vicar of the Diocese.

It’s a direct parallel to the model used for the Anglican Ordinariate and the ICRSS and FSSP… the parish exists within the diocese, but functionally belongs to a body outside the diocese.

In any case, the use of the WR is clearly aimed at attracting the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics, for whom the WR DL is extremely close to their familiar form. In exactly the same way, the Anglican Use in the Catholic Church is aimed at attracting Anglicans.

What’s the model in ROCOR?

 

[Aramis]

What’s the model in ROCOR?

Identical to the Roman Rite in Ethiopia - all parishes, east and west, under the local bishop, but priests restricted to celebrating the rite(s) trained in; all trained in the eastern rite, a fraction trained in both, almost none purely western. At least, based upon publicly available sources.

Note that the Russian Greek Catholic model is similar, but reversed - the dioceses involved are almost pure Roman, but a handful of priests are trained for the eastern rite parish.

 

[Nine_Two]

Identical to the Roman Rite in Ethiopia - all parishes, east and west, under the local bishop, but priests restricted to celebrating the rite(s) trained in; all trained in the eastern rite, a fraction trained in both, almost none purely western. At least, based upon publicly available sources.

Note that the Russian Greek Catholic model is similar, but reversed - the dioceses involved are almost pure Roman, but a handful of priests are trained for the eastern rite parish.

Doesn’t sound uniate to me.

 

[Aramis]

Doesn’t sound uniate to me.

You’ve not paid much attention to the history then. It’s as much an expression of the uniate model as the vicariate/exarchate mode… but it’s the historical model for the Syriac under Byzantine rule, as well.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the term is somewhat up-for-grabs, at least at times.

There was a thread a few months ago (I don’t recall the title) on which a poster informed us that the real meaning of “uniatism” is: an Orthodox becoming Catholic by joining the Latin Church instead of the appropriate EC Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

You’ve not paid much attention to the history then. It’s as much an expression of the uniate model as the vicariate/exarchate mode… but it’s the historical model for the Syriac under Byzantine rule, as well.

Now the Syriac model under Byzantium is uniatism?

Exactly how are you defining the word?

 

[Aramis]

Now the Syriac model under Byzantium is uniatism?

Exactly how are you defining the word?

In a perjorative sense, Multiple separate lines of liturgical descent united under one hierarchy, with a tendency to reduce the liturgical diversity. Which, historically, was the side effect of the Syriac under the Byzantine Patriarchs of Antioch… and the Antiochians were syriacized a bit, too. And still, to this day, they bear syriacizations… both in the Melkite and Antichian forms.

In the non-perjorative sense, it’s any case where two or more rites are united under one bishop who likely wasn’t trained in both.

I don’t see the Catholic Church as inherently uniate - at least not since the formalization of the Churches Sui Iuris as autonomous churches - but do see the UOC-MP as a form of it. The Ethiopian Catholics are clearly unitate as their bishops are Ethiopian, but many of the parishes are Roman and under the Ethiopian bishops. The Anglican Ordinatiate is uniatism, since their ordinaries are subject to non-Anglican hierarchs.

Nor would I see the EO as inherently uniate for having had a French Orthodox Church using a WR. (Which they used to have. But the FOC has broken communion.)

 

[Nine_Two]

This is not how we would define uniatism when we say the model does not work.

In my mind having multiple rites under one Bishop would be inevitable. It happened before the schism, it will probably happen after.

 

[jwinch2]

The Anglican Ordinatiate is uniatism, since their ordinaries are subject to non-Anglican hierarchs.

The Anglican Ordinariates returned through the same door they left from. They were under Roman Catholic hierarchy to begin with, and that is what they have returned to.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Aramis. I’m sorry to say, I have to strongly disagree with you. The formation of the Anglican Ordinariates is not an example of uniatism.

As Cardinal Kasper said:

"In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers."

 

[Aramis]

Hi Aramis. I’m sorry to say, I have to strongly disagree with you. The formation of the Anglican Ordinariates is not an example of uniatism.

As Cardinal Kasper said:

His eminence is visbly and obviously mistaken about the nature of that union; I would presume his error is unintended.

It is explicitly a subjected hierarchy (rather than an autonomous church in union), with a distinct subrite, perhaps best described as a recension, with an explicit aim of bringing them into the Roman church. it’s not worded as a perpetual status, either - much like the unia pre-V II - and could be dissolved by any pope following.

Further, their liturgy has been latinized in the union (in the same way the Ruthenian was)

They are one-way restricted in membership exactly in the same way that the lateran discussion mandates for the East - Romans can’t become Ordinariate members, but Ordinariate members can abandon it for the Roman subrite.

The only real difference from classic Uniatism is that, like the AO WRV, it’s not a Corporate reunion.

The purported rationale for that, protecting it from latinization by the laity, failed in the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, and Chaldean churches. It is even less likely to work in a sub-rite so much closer to the Roman sub-rite of the Roman Rite. The Dominican Rite survives because they are not permitted even organic change. The Mozarabic and Bragan are almost dead - tho the spanish translation of the Mozarabic mass may result in revitalization. The Ambrosian has been revived since it wasn’t altered by V II, and the traditionalists in its allowed area have sustained it.

 

[Peter_J]

I think part of the problem here is that I didn’t provide a link: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y
Reading the larger context should take care of some of your objections – on the other hand, some of your objections may be correct. (I know Anglicans, including Continuing Anglicans like Fr. Hart, were pretty unhappy about the Ordinariates. If I have a chance later I might dig up and re-read what Fr. Hart says on the matter.)

Having said that, I felt like some parts of your post were more about Latinizations than they were about uniatism.