Nichols: EC understood eschatologically

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I’m currently reading Aidan Nichols’s ‘Rome and the Eastern Churches’. In the preface to the second edition (2009) he asserts that the Eastern Catholic churches are ‘to be explained eschatologically.’ He glosses this very briefly over the course of a few paragraphs.

While I like Nichols’s work very much, I wouldn’t characterize him as an original thinker. So I’m guessing this thought has probably been developed more fully by other theologians.

Does anyone know where I could find a fuller development of this idea of Eastern Churches as eschatological sign?

To paraphrase Nichols’s thought: ‘Uniatism’ is a beautiful word that should be reclaimed, but it’s an even more beautiful concept (p. 19). ‘The transformation of a divided Christendom into a unitary communion is itself an eschatological aspiration.’ That every baptized Christian would be in full communion is ‘an ideal reference rather than a practical one.’ You strive for it but never fully realize it. It’s ‘a gift from the Lord’, ‘metahistorical.’ On this side of the eschaton, ‘such unity will be seen most fully in the representative gathering of apostolic churches and traditions around the figure of Peter, represented in his vicar, the Roman bishop (p. 20).

Is such a reading amenable to Eastern Catholics? Does it originate in or is it developed by any Eastern Catholic theologians? Or does it strike you as a ‘western’ reading of ecclesiology?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m currently reading Aidan Nichols’s ‘Rome and the Eastern Churches’. In the preface to the second edition (2009) he asserts that the Eastern Catholic churches are ‘to be explained eschatologically.’ He glosses this very briefly over the course of a few paragraphs.

While I like Nichols’s work very much, I wouldn’t characterize him as an original thinker. So I’m guessing this thought has probably been developed more fully by other theologians.

Does anyone know where I could find a fuller development of this idea of Eastern Churches as eschatological sign?

To paraphrase Nichols’s thought: ‘Uniatism’ is a beautiful word that should be reclaimed, but it’s an even more beautiful concept (p. 19). ‘The transformation of a divided Christendom into a unitary communion is itself an eschatological aspiration.’ That every baptized Christian would be in full communion is ‘an ideal reference rather than a practical one.’ You strive for it but never fully realize it. It’s ‘a gift from the Lord’, ‘metahistorical.’ On this side of the eschaton, ‘such unity will be seen most fully in the representative gathering of apostolic churches and traditions around the figure of Peter, represented in his vicar, the Roman bishop (p. 20).

Is such a reading amenable to Eastern Catholics? Does it originate in or is it developed by any Eastern Catholic theologians? Or does it strike you as a ‘western’ reading of ecclesiology?

The negative connotation of uniatism is not about simple communion between Churches, but the absorption of Eastern Churches into the Roman communion with the end goal that all Christians be Roman Catholics, that is the discarding of Eastern traditions. Uniates were seen as nothing more than transitional phases for the Orthodox to get used to the “Catholic way” so that they can be used to being under the Pope, and at a later time will accept also the Roman Liturgy.

The author here seems to be inserting a beautiful reinterpretation of uniatism that just wasn’t there.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m currently reading Aidan Nichols’s ‘Rome and the Eastern Churches’. In the preface to the second edition (2009) he asserts that the Eastern Catholic churches are ‘to be explained eschatologically.’ He glosses this very briefly over the course of a few paragraphs.

While I like Nichols’s work very much, I wouldn’t characterize him as an original thinker. So I’m guessing this thought has probably been developed more fully by other theologians.

Does anyone know where I could find a fuller development of this idea of Eastern Churches as eschatological sign?

To paraphrase Nichols’s thought: ‘Uniatism’ is a beautiful word that should be reclaimed, but it’s an even more beautiful concept (p. 19). ‘The transformation of a divided Christendom into a unitary communion is itself an eschatological aspiration.’ That every baptized Christian would be in full communion is ‘an ideal reference rather than a practical one.’ You strive for it but never fully realize it. It’s ‘a gift from the Lord’, ‘metahistorical.’ On this side of the eschaton, ‘such unity will be seen most fully in the representative gathering of apostolic churches and traditions around the figure of Peter, represented in his vicar, the Roman bishop (p. 20).

Is such a reading amenable to Eastern Catholics? Does it originate in or is it developed by any Eastern Catholic theologians? Or does it strike you as a ‘western’ reading of ecclesiology?

It’s great to see a thread on an attempt to define “uniatism”; that tangent on the Fr Taft thread, made it clear that everyone has their own definition. I think that the idea of “unity”, and the idea of “unity” as expressed through communion will elicit no argument, The idea of as expressed through communion with Rome is a strong Catholic idea, and even the most vostochnik Greek Catholics seem to underscore it with the “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

But none of this has much of anything to do with the idea of “uniatism” in particular as it appears of late. The key issue in the Balamand statement is the rejection of “uniatism” as a “missionary apostolate”, as a means by which the CC aims to proselytize EOs and bring them into the Catholic communion. Rather, we see the EOC as a true church in schism, and seek to end the schism through an integral reconciliation the catholic and orthodox churches. The word “uniatism”, whatever other significance people might attach to it, is connected with proselytism rather than reconciliation, and that, aside from historical use as a pejorative by opponents, makes it useles, even if it nicely expressed the idea of unity.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Thanks for the above contributions.

Just in case I summarized Nichols poorly (I’m afraid I might have), you can read the relevant pages of ‘Rome and the Eastern Churches’, pages 19-21.

 

[dvdjs]

The negative connotation of uniatism is not about simple communion between Churches, but the absorption of Eastern Churches into the Roman communion with the end goal that all Christians be Roman Catholics, that is the discarding of Eastern traditions. Uniates were seen as nothing more than transitional phases for the Orthodox to get used to the “Catholic way” so that they can be used to being under the Pope, and at a later time will accept also the Roman Liturgy.

This idea of transition to Roman practice may have had some traction, by some people, in the earliest days after Brest. In the era of cuius regio, eius religio there may have been a expectation of bringing Easterners into Roman practice. But the union of Brest was developed by the Eastern Bishops as a means to circumvent this prospect. (Fr Taft has a nice article on this, from which I excerpt, below). Whatever the perceptions on the part of the local RCs, it was clear already by Uzzhorod, that was not the way things would play out.

In reality, it was pretty much the opposite idea that was seen as the problem by the EO, who made a pejorative of “uniate”. The concern was that the fidelity to Eastern traditions could be confusing to some, or even be used to confuse people who might not get the difference between EO and EC churches, and thus - in a perceived competition for faithfiul - were seen as as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In fact, in the later years of the Romanov’s, when there was enough religious freedom that the RCC was permitted in the empire, GC’s in lands Ukrainian lands conquered by the czar were given a choice to practice as RC’s or as EO’s, but the GCC was liquidated. These regions now how the odd distinction of having more RCs than GCs.

 

[dvdjs]

From Taft’s Anamnesis not Amnesia:

… Classical “Uniatism” originated in a similar context, though this time it is not the foreign but the home missions, during the Catholic Reformation and the struggle with the Protestants for the soul of Europe. In this struggle the Orthodox Church was in a sense a bystander caught up in the crossfire of the main belligerants. The scenario is the 16th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where on October 19, 1596, in the church of St. Nicholas in the city of Brest in what was then the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, five of the seven Orthodox bishops in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth entered into union with the Holy See.[10] This union, far from being “forced” or “imposed” on the Orthodox, as one always hears said, was the outcome not only of long negotiations, but also of a parallel religious movement tirelessly propagated for twenty years by the Polish Jesuit Peter Skarga. One of the great literary and religious figures of Counter-Reformation Poland, Skarga was for his homeland what St. Peter Canisius was for Germany. Skarga’s book On the Unity of the Church of God under One Pastor, published at Vilna in 1577, was without equal in promoting the cause of conversion to Catholicism.[11] Second only to Skarga as a vigorous promotor of the Catholic cause was the ubiquitous Italian Jesuit Antonio Possevino, better known to history for his more spectacular missions as a Papal Nuncio, especially to the Court of Ivan the Terrible, to whom the subject of Church Union was broached only to be rudely rejected. In the famous scene that has become a familiar part of history, as well as an active prophecy of the level of later Orthodox-Catholic relations, the Tsar insulted the pope and raised his scepter against the papal envoy who had pressed the cause of Church union.

But these Jesuits, far from inventing “Uniatism,” as they are often accused, took a dim view of Ruthenian Orthodoxy and favored conversion of the Ruthenians to the Roman Church plain and simple. By then it was evident that the prospect of a general return to the Union of Florence had become impracticable, and Possevino’s exchange with Ivan the Terrible confirmed it. But the idea of a regional corporate reunion based on the precedents established at Florence in 1439 - the Ruthenians would enter the Catholic Church as a body, preserving their own hierarchy and rite - was not the invention of the Jesuits. Initially, at least, the Union was not viewed favorably by any of the three parties - Rome, the Poles, and the Jesuits - traditionally indicted in the mythological view.

Far from being the result of some preconceived Catholic strategy, “Uniatism” was wholly an invention of the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops themselves, and grew out of the difficult situation in which the Ruthenian Orthodox hierarchy of the day found itself, between Moscow and Poland, Reform and Counter-reformation. Of course these hierarchs did not see it as, nor desire it to be, a break with Orthodoxy. On the contrary, it aimed to protect the unity of the Ruthenian Orthodox Church, at that time under stress from a multitude of factors, including the desire of the Ruthenian bishops to preserve their independence over against the powerful independent Brotherhoods supported by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Ruthenian lands, the pretentions of Moscow from the East, and the pressure of Reformation and Counter-Reformation proselytism from the West. All of this has been amply demonstrated by the latest historical scholarship on the question [12].

[10] For an objective account of these events and their aftermath, the latest study is B.A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Harvard Ukrainian Institute, Harvard Series in Ukrainian, Harvard University Press 1998). See also A. Jobert, De Luther à Mohila. La Pologne dans la crise de la Chrétienté, 1517-1648 (Collection historique de l’Institut d’études slaves, Paris 1974). For briefer accounts of the situation with historical objectivity in Sophia Senyk, “Vicissitudes de l’Union de Brest au XVIIe siècle,”Irénikon 65 (1992) 462-487; eadem, “The Background of the Union of Brest,”Analecta OSBM 21 (1996) 103-144; Silverio Saulle, “L’Unione di Brest. Genesi e sviluppi storici,”Studi sull’Oriente cristiano 2/1 (1998) 137-164, 2/2 (1998) 137-167.

[11] It went through two editions largely because the Ruthenian nobles, enemies of the Union, had bought up and burnt so many copies of the first edition.

[12] See note 10 above.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This idea of transition to Roman practice may have had some traction, by some people, in the earliest days after Brest. In the era of cuius regio, eius religio there may have been a expectation of bringing Easterners into Roman practice. But the union of Brest was developed by the Eastern Bishops as a means to circumvent this prospect. (Fr Taft has a nice article on this, from which I excerpt, below). Whatever the perceptions on the part of the local RCs, it was clear already by Uzzhorod, that was not the way things would play out.

In reality, it was pretty much the opposite idea that was seen as the problem by the EO, who made a pejorative of “uniate”. The concern was that the fidelity to Eastern traditions could be confusing to some, or even be used to confuse people who might not get the difference between EO and EC churches, and thus - in a perceived competition for faithfiul - were seen as as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In fact, in the later years of the Romanov’s, when there was enough religious freedom that the RCC was permitted in the empire, GC’s in lands Ukrainian lands conquered by the czar were given a choice to practice as RC’s or as EO’s, but the GCC was liquidated. These regions now how the odd distinction of having more RCs than GCs.

But even before the union of Brest there were already missionary work by the RCs to convert the Orthodox into RCs. The union in fact tried to put a stop to that by proclaiming that the Eastern Christians coming into union with Rome would keep their traditions. But clearly it didn’t end there and there were a number of expectations that ECs would transition into RCs. Of course one of the big issues was clerical celibacy especially outside what is considered “traditional lands” of the ECs. But the EOs never stopped seeing the ECs as a transition period regardless of what has been agreed upon on because the practice always reflected something else.

 

[dvdjs]

But even before the union of Brest there were already missionary work by the RCs to convert the Orthodox into RCs. The union in fact tried to put a stop to that by proclaiming that the Eastern Christians coming into union with Rome would keep their traditions. But clearly it didn’t end there and there were a number of expectations that ECs would transition into RCs. Of course one of the big issues was clerical celibacy especially outside what is considered “traditional lands” of the ECs. But the EOs never stopped seeing the ECs as a transition period regardless of what has been agreed upon on because the practice always reflected something else.

Is there source material for this perspective? Or is this just made up? There were other aspects of the relations between ECC and the Latins that are strongly at variance with perspective - most notably the formation of eparchies both in Austria Hungary and in the US.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is there source material for this perspective? Or is this just made up? There were other aspects of the relations between ECC and the Latins that are strongly at variance with perspective - most notably the formation of eparchies both in Austria Hungary and in the US.

The Jesuit has a history in promoting Uniatism. You can google for reading material, there should be a bunch out there. I am talking about way back in the past, before any Eparshy was established in the US.

 

[dvdjs]

The Jesuit has a history in promoting Uniatism. You can google for reading material, there should be a bunch out there. I am talking about way back in the past, before any Eparshy was established in the US.

The work of the Jesuits was discussed in the essay of Fr Taft. Collateral effects in the counter-reformation, really. As I pointed out, whatever they were thinking, that is not how things have worked. As Fr Taft noted, that was not the thinking of the Bishops at Brest and any and ll that followed them. That idea was spent quickly and has no continuing traction - especially in the current era of sui juris churches. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy,

 

[ConstantineTG]

The work of the Jesuits was discussed in the essay of Fr Taft. Collateral effects in the counter-reformation, really. As I pointed out, whatever they were thinking, that is not how things have worked. As Fr Taft noted, that was not the thinking of the Bishops at Brest and any and ll that followed them. That idea was spent quickly and has no continuing traction - especially in the current era of sui juris churches. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy,

Then why were the Jesuits eventually banned from the Russian Empire?

 

[SyroMalankara]

As most controversies, politics played no small role:
princeton.edu/~elman/documents/Jesuit_Role_as_Experts_in_High_Qing.pdf

In 1718, the Russians contemplated full normalization of Sino-Russian
relations during Rites Controversy, which was damaging Jesuit and Catholic
interests in China. Peter the Great, for example, expelled the Jesuits from
Russia in 1719 and tried to install a Russian “bishop” in Beijing in 1722.
Russian authorities unsuccessfully kept this effort secret from the Manchus
and the Jesuit enemies of the Greek Orthodox Church in Beijing, but Qing
suspicions prevented the appointment. Subsequently in 1728, the Zunghar
threat against the Manchus in Turkestan and Tibet revived. Again, the
Manchus eliminated the threat through the Zunghar wars in the 1750s,
which were facilitated by the Treaty of Kiakhta that ended Russian interference.
Since 1727, the Kiakhta treaty had established officially supervised
trade in Amuria that stabilized the Russian-Qing frontier until the nineteenth
century.

 

[dvdjs]

I think that the Jesuits were in and out of Russia many times, notwithstanding the general anti-Catholic posture of the Russian rulers, who saw themselves as absolute rulers of the people and the church, accountable to no one.

The Jesuits were, nevertheless, attractive for bringing learning to a backward nation, but whenever they began to seem too attractive, they were booted.

Not really relevant to the thread - especially the later expulsions.

 

[Aramis]

Is there source material for this perspective? Or is this just made up? There were other aspects of the relations between ECC and the Latins that are strongly at variance with perspective - most notably the formation of eparchies both in Austria Hungary and in the US.

A roman council following florence made it clear that the Roman bishops saw uniatism as nothing but a way to convert the orthodox to the Roman rite.

 

[dvdjs]

A roman council following florence made it clear that the Roman bishops saw uniatism as nothing but a way to convert the orthodox to the Roman rite.

After Florence? Where and when?

 

[Vico]

A roman council following florence made it clear that the Roman bishops saw uniatism as nothing but a way to convert the orthodox to the Roman rite.

Are you think of Lateran V or Trent?

There is one document from Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, 1755, and it also mentions keeping the original rite from 1624. The earliest re-unions are from about the time of Trent,1545–63, (beginning with the Chaldeans 1552, then Ukrainian/Belarusian 1595, Syro-Malabar 1599):Transferring from Latin to Greek Rite Forbidden

1. When Union was effected at the Council of Florence, some Latin Catholics living in Greece thought that it was lawful for them to go over to the Greek rite. They may have been attracted by the freedom retained by the Greeks for priests to keep wives after Ordination if they were married before being ordained. But Pope Nicholas V carefully applied a timely remedy to this abuse: “It has come to Our attention that many Catholics in districts with a Greek Catholic bishop are shamelessly going over to the Greek rites under pretext of the Union. We are greatly astonished, since We do not know what inspired them to leave the practice and rites in which they were born and reared for foreign rites. Even though the rites of the oriental church are praiseworthy, it is not permitted to confuse the rites of the churches. The holy council of Florence never allowed this” (constitution in Bullarii recenter Romae editi, vol. 3, part 3, p. 64).

Since the Latin rite is the rite of the holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches, the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites. It follows that it is not lawful to transfer from the Latin to the Greek rite. Nor may those who have come over to the Latin rite from the Greek or Oriental rite return again to the Greek Rite, unless particular circumstances occasion the giving of a dispensation (constitution Etsi Pastoralis 57, sect. 2, no. 13, in Our Bullarii, vol. 1). Such dispensations have sometimes been given in times past, and are still given in the Roman College of the Maronites. When a priest there enters the Society of Jesus, he is given a dispensation to transfer to the Latin rite, and sometimes he receives an additional dispensation to say Mass and perform his Divine Office in the church of this College in the Syrian and Chaldaean rite in order to teach this rite to the students there. This is quite clear from many Decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office, e.g. the Decrees of December 30, 1716; December 14, 1740; and the more recent Decree of August 19, 1752.

Transferring from Greek to Latin Rite

1. We have dealt with transferring from the Latin to the Greek rite. Transferrals in the opposite direction are not forbidden as strictly as the former. Still, a missionary who hopes for the return of a Greek or Oriental to the unity of the Catholic Church may not make him give up his own rite. This can cause great harm.

Melchite Catholics used to transfer willingly from the Greek to the Latin rite, but they have been forbidden to do so. Missionaries have been warned not to urge them to transfer. Permission to do so has been reserved to the private decision of the Apostolic See. This is clear from Our constitution Demandatam, 85, sect. 35 (Bullarium, vol. 1): “Moreover We expressly forbid henceforth all Melchite Catholics who observe the Greek rite to transfer to the Latin rite. We give strict orders to all missionaries not to encourage anyone rashly to transfer to the Latin from the Greek rite, nor even to allow them to do so if they want to without the permission of the Apostolic See, under the penalties which will be set out below and other penalties to be decided on by Us.”

The same teaching is conveyed in the Decrees of Urban VIII in reference to the GrecoRuthenian rite, issued at the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in his presence on February 7 and July 6, 1624. While it might seem fair to allow Italo-Greeks to transfer freely from the Greek to the Latin rite, since they live among us and are subject to a Latin bishop, it has nevertheless been laid down that the consent of the Apostolic See is necessary in the case of the transference of secular or regular clergy. If lay people want to transfer, the permission of their bishop is sufficient. He may give this permission with restraint to certain specified individuals, but never to a whole group. In the latter case the consent of the Apostolic See is required (see constitution * Etsi Pastoralis* 17, sect. 2, no. 14, Bullarium, vol. 1).

1. It is not difficult to respond to the claim that Orientals and other Greeks who reject their heresy and return to unity can be lawfully exhorted to abandon their own rite and accept the Latin rite on the grounds that approval has been given in the past and still continues for Orientals and Greeks to practice individual Latin rites.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm