The Orthodox and the Hail Mary

[Cecilianus]

Vatican II has been the most important and influential Council for Eastern Catholics since the Seventh. Thank God our bishops were emboldened to be authentically Eastern Catholic.

I am glad that Vatican II served the Eastern Churches well, as did the Popes both before and after (Pius XII and John Paul II). But its most obvious effects in general were on the Western Church.

Otherwise we would still be in the midst of latinized accretions under the influence of “staunchest ultramontanists”.

Why are you associating ultramontanism with Latinizationism? Provide me some evidence of Popes exercising authority over the Eastern Church in order to Latinize it - all the Popes have been the staunchest advocates of the Eastern tradition, including some of the strongest and most “ultramontane” popes - Innocent III, for example.

Nor can I reasonably call Vladimir Soloviev or Abbot Mekhitar “Latinizers”, nor for that matter. Nor St. Maximos the Confessor, who gave the “blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church” as much unconditional authority over his own church as over the west - "government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way.” St. Basil the Great and St. Theodore Studites, who were hardly Latinizers, complained that the Pope did not show enough solicitude in rooting out heresy in the East. And St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was technically on the Western half of the Empire but who would have used a (now-defunct) rite different from that of Rome, was over the top in his ultramontanism.

 

[Diak]

Why are you associating ultramontanism with Latinizationism? Provide me some evidence of Popes exercising authority over the Eastern Church in order to Latinize it - all the Popes have been the staunchest advocates of the Eastern tradition, including some of the strongest and most “ultramontane” popes - Innocent III, for example.

We can always start with the classic example of Pius IX putting his foot on the head of the Melkite Patriarch and adamantly refusing his objections which were based on Eastern ecclesiological thinking, and his ridiculous establishment of a Latin Patriachate for Jerusalem. And I would strongly disagree with “all the Popes have been the staunchest advocates of the Eastern tradition”. That is for another thread but can be amply demonstrated.

Nor can I reasonably call Vladimir Soloviev or Abbot Mekhitar “Latinizers”, nor for that matter. Nor St. Maximos the Confessor, who gave the “blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church” as much unconditional authority over his own church as over the west - "government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way.” St. Basil the Great and St. Theodore Studites, who were hardly Latinizers, complained that the Pope did not show enough solicitude in rooting out heresy in the East. And St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was technically on the Western half of the Empire but who would have used a (now-defunct) rite different from that of Rome, was over the top in his ultramontanism.

I’m not sure why you in the world mentioned any of those names, I certainly did not, and your argument, if there is one, is very difficult if not impossible to follow. Ultramontanism as a term did not even arise until the late Middle Ages and is only understood in a Western context, Therefore any projection before that time and outside of that cultural milleiu is tendentious at best.

Recognizing the need for strong primacy (as I and alll whom you named do) is most certainly not “ultramontanism”, not even close. .

 

[Diak]

No - I HAVE made a serious study of your (our) liturgy, spirituality, cultural history, and the teachings of your (our) Fathers, including post-schism Orthodox saints and fathers (Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Cabasilas, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Russian monasticism, modern Orthodox theologians, etc. - and I will read the Philokalia as soon as I can get to it), and I’ve been practicing your entire spirituality (the Jesus prayer, akathists, Rule of St. Pachomius, and a half-hearted occasional effort at some of the psycho-physical methods meant to aid hesychasm) for several years, not just going to Liturgy. But orthodoxy (by which I mean the traditional Faith handed down to us in its integrity; i.e., “right glory”) is a major and inseparable component of Byzantine Catholicism, and orthodoxy is central to our Faith - rather like the place of the Pope. Any distancing between the two doesn’t make sense to me.

(And, incidentally, I fully plan to get a canonical transfer as soon as I can handle the fasts - we’ll see how the next Great Lent goes - so please don’t call me a Latin. I still preserve my deep love for the authentic Latin tradition - the Tridentine Mass - but I love the Byzantine one even more. Again, though, I don’t see any reason for putting distance between those two either

Reading is fine, going to Liturgy is fine, but what is needed is complete dedication to what Rome and our Synods desire for our particular Churches. Not only reading but a living out of the received tradition in its entirety. As an Eastern Catholic that includes a complete embracing of what has been taught and reitereated in the Second Vatican Council and after especially concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches. The UGCC Synod has declared (besides the documents specifically concerning the Eastern Catholic Churches), that Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically needs to be taught to all of the faithful and clergy.

Those developments will take us further into particularity, not more “ultramontane”. Rome is our sister, not our master. If you are becoming “Eastern” to get away from the Novus Ordo, keep looking.

 

[Diak]

Nor can I reasonably call Vladimir Soloviev or Abbot Mekhitar “Latinizers”, nor for that matter. Nor St. Maximos the Confessor, who gave the “blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church” as much unconditional authority over his own church as over the west - "government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way.” St. Basil the Great and St. Theodore Studites, who were hardly Latinizers, complained that the Pope did not show enough solicitude in rooting out heresy in the East. And St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was technically on the Western half of the Empire but who would have used a (now-defunct) rite different from that of Rome, was over the top in his ultramontanism.

Soloviev most definitely was NOT an ultramontanist. He could have joined any number of Polish parishes in his lifetime in Russia where that sort of thing was tolerated. I wholeheartedly ascribe to the ideas of Soloviev, namely that the Eastern and Western Churches are like the two natures of Christ, and need to abide in a complete communion of love, not one of submission or subjection. I will also posit my own observation that ultramontanism (as classicly understood), latinization and the unfortunate trends of praestantia ritus latini can be often sympathetic to each other. As the conference communique from Gaming last spring stated “…Despite the tragic twentieth-century history of totalitarian repression and centuries of discriminated status of
their Churches (praestantia ritus latini)” to which I understand Cardinal Schonborn gave rousing applause, We don’t need any more of that sort of thing.

The Magisterial statement from the late Holy Father John Paul II in Orientale Lumenreiterating the previous declaration of the Second Vatican Council:

Wherever this occurred, the Second Vatican Council has urged them to rediscover their full identity, because they have "the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own special disciplines. For these are guaranteed by ancient tradition, and seem to be better suited to the customs of their faithful and to the good of their souls.

seems dissonant at best with any traditional understanding of ultramontanism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

The Curia IS the Pope’s “Executive Office”. The President’s Executive Office has absolutely no authority, or even a right to its existence, from the U.S. Constitution - all of its authority is delegated by the U.S. President, and they act in his name. The Curia is an exact parallel.

Brother Ghosty can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he is referring to legislative power. Legislative power cannot be delegated by a bishop (see your Latin canon 391-2). It is fine if the Curia acts as an executive office, but sometimes, it does not act that way, but rather acts as a legislative body for the Eastern/Oriental Churches. In that, it goes beyond its constitution (so to speak). As noted earlier, the Curia’s Latinizing tendencies during the 18th and 19th centuries was often at odds with the Pope’s own intentions. And that is the danger of the curial offices - to act as a legislative body when it has no authority to do so.

Having said that, I still maintain my position that the Curial department for the Eastern Churches is the most efficient way that the Pope (in fact, the whole Vatican machinery) can give aid to the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And this function of the papacy is well-enshrined in the Tradition of the Church, even since the time of St. Ignatius at the turn of the first/second centuries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

Having said that, I still maintain my position that the Curial department for the Eastern Churches is the most efficient way that the Pope (in fact, the whole Vatican machinery) can give aid to the Eastern and Oriental Churches. And this function of the papacy is well-enshrined in the Tradition of the Church, even since the time of St. Ignatius at the turn of the first/second centuries.

“Efficient”? It took centuries to get just the authority to grant changes of particular Church just to the laity rightly back to the Eastern and local Latin hierarchs rather than funelling everything through the Holy See, and that not so long ago (a few decades ago mine went through the Pro-Nuncio). The selection of bishops is another thing entirely.

Tracing the post-Medieval Curial development to St. Ignatius is more than a stretch. Asking the keeper of primacy to “make the call” in the more ancient sense is another thing entirely. The development of a very inefficient centralized bureacracy which had significant periods of rampant simony is another entirely, and I know of no Eastern Catholic hierarchs whom I have served under who would agree with that conclusion at all.

What is the purpose of a Synod if it acts only in name or honorifically?

 

[Diak]

Speaking of connections between ultramontanism and latinizations, Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit both come to mind and were partly responsible for the formation of three separate Orthodox Churches in the USA. Thankfully these have lapsed. To respect the opening poster, I think this discussion needs to be carried on in another separate thread.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Deacon Diak,

“Efficient”? It took centuries to get just the authority to grant changes of particular Church just to the laity rightly back to the Eastern and local Latin hierarchs rather than funelling everything through the Holy See, and that not so long ago (a few decades ago mine went through the Pro-Nuncio). The selection of bishops is another thing entirely.

Tracing the post-Medieval Curial development to St. Ignatius is more than a stretch. Asking the keeper of primacy to “make the call” in the more ancient sense is another thing entirely. The development of a very inefficient centralized bureacracy which had significant periods of rampant simony is another entirely, and I know of no Eastern Catholic hierarchs whom I have served under who would agree with that conclusion at all.

What is the purpose of a Synod if it acts only in name or honorifically?

This is why I support the Congregation for the Eastern/Oriental Churches:

The assistance of the Congregation on behalf of Catholic Oriental clergy and faithful in Rome and in their different countries of origin is made possible thanks to the financial contributions from the Holy See, from international aid agencies and from private sponsors. The R.O.A.C.O. (“Riunione Opere Aiuto Chiese Orientali” that is the “Reunion of Aid Agencies for the Oriental Churches”) is a committee which unites funding agencies from various countries around the world for the sake of providing assistance in different areas of life from worship buildings to scholarships, from houses of study and formation to social and health care facilities. The President of the committee is the Prefect of the Congregation and the Secretary of the Dicastery functions as its vice-president. Apart from the “Catholic Near East Welfare Association” (C.N.E.W.A.) located in the United States of America and approved by Pope Pius XI in 1928, and apart from the “Pontifical Mission for Palestine” created in 1949 and also located in the United States, many other aid agencies from Germany, France, Switzerland, Holland and Austria are part of this committee.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/orientchurch/profilo/rc_con_corient_pro_20030320_profile.html

As stated, I share every other non-Latin’s apprehensions of the abuse of power to which Curial offices may be subject, but as far as aid to the Eastern/Oriental Churches, and as far as this purpose is maintained by the Congregation for the Eastern/Oriental Churches in particular, I fully support it.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

This is perhaps true for the Byzantines, but certainly not for the Maronites. Not by a long shot.

Some of us are members of Churches that, unfortunately, still are.

Could you please cite for us some specifics to verify your complaints - I believe you mentioned somewhere that it has not gotten better in the past 30 years or so?

Perhaps another thread would be better, or you can PM me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m not sure why you in the world mentioned any of those names, I certainly did not, and your argument, if there is one, is very difficult if not impossible to follow. Ultramontanism as a term did not even arise until the late Middle Ages and is only understood in a Western context, Therefore any projection before that time and outside of that cultural milleiu is tendentious at best.

Recognizing the need for strong primacy (as I and alll whom you named do) is most certainly not “ultramontanism”, not even close. .

Sorry. My argument is as follows: These people were very adamant Easterners and not “Latinizers”, and also strong ultramontanists - ergo, Latinization is not a direct consequence of ultramontanism.

Reading Soloviev’s Russia and the Universal Church he sure sounds like an Ultramontanist to me. Of course he did not join a Polish Catholic church - he, by some accounts, remained officially a member of the Orthodox Church rather than converting to Catholicism at all. He was Russian - why would he practice Latin Catholicism?

 

[Diak]

Reading Soloviev’s Russia and the Universal Church he sure sounds like an Ultramontanist to me. Of course he did not join a Polish Catholic church - he, by some accounts, remained officially a member of the Orthodox Church rather than converting to Catholicism at all. He was Russian - why would he practice Latin Catholicism?

Sorry. My argument is as follows: These people were very adamant Easterners and not “Latinizers”, and also strong ultramontanists - ergo, Latinization is not a direct consequence of ultramontanism.

Again, ultramontanism did not arise until the late Middle Ages and only in the west, therefore they could not have been as you say. While I would not place latinization as a direct consequence of ultramontanism (I didn’t state it this way), as I noted above I do feel that these two have sympathetic relationships that can be demonstrated.

Because ultramontanism (as traditionally understood) and Eastern Christianity with its traditionally synodal form of governance are not compatable. Soloviev’s becoming Latin would have confirmed your suspicions that he was an ultramontanist, as no other philosophical avenue would have been open to Vladimir Sergeivich of blessed memory to practice such beliefs, and with his extremely strong commitment to living out his own philosophical beliefs he would almost certainly have acted so. As I have also explained above, to acknowledge the need for a definitive primacy is absolutely not “ultramontanism”.

I would furthermore oppine that anyone holding strong, truly ultramontanist tendencies or beliefs should reconsider becoming an Eastern Christian in light of the guidance of the Eastern Catholic Synods and Rome especially in the last fifty years.

 

[bpbasilphx]

My own understanding about Soloviev is that he was seeking to free the Russian Orthodox Church from being merely a department of state–as established churches in Europe, including frequently the Catholic Church, had become by then.

 

[malphono]

Could you please cite for us some specifics to verify your complaints - I believe you mentioned somewhere that it has not gotten better in the past 30 years or so?

Perhaps another thread would be better, or you can PM me.

Thanks for the interest.

They’re not exactly complaints, but whatever one wants to call it, the fact of the matter is that the Maronite Church is very much in the thrall of the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” and the situation continues to get worse and worse. Indeed I have vented at least some of my frustration numerous times before in other threads on this forum: to do so again here would further derail this thread, while a new thread would amount to merely repeating what I have said before.

If there’s anything specific, we could try the PM route.