True or False Unity

[mardukm]

When I first came on here to CAF, I came as a newly-translated Christian from the Oriental Orthodox communion (from Coptic Orthodoxy). I have always held to my roots, and there is absolutely no way anyone is going to get me to deny that I am not a genuine Oriental Orthodox (albeit in communion with Rome).

Given my identity, I am more cognizant of the distinctions between the Eastern Tradition and Oriental Tradition than perhaps Eastern and Oriental Catholics who have grown up together under the general umbrella “Eastern Catholicism” without, possibly, much recognition of the distinctions (not “differences”, but “distinctions”), in terms of theology and spirituality.

I have been accused of trying to sow division between Eastern and Oriental Catholics when I point out these distinctions.

Now, I’ve observed that among Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, there are generally four types of mindsets (there could be more in varying degrees of the following qualities, but the following four are the most easily identifiable):

1. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are the same. Unity is based on uniformity. The fact of unity is merely a formal matter, but not a material matter (to use some Scholastic terms). Any talk of differences or distinctions is quickly put down as nothing short of epistemological heresy (as distinct from theological) and anyone who would dare to bring up such matters is ostracized.
2. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are the same. This group has never really bothered to investigate the matter, but are merely content with the status quo of being named “Orthodox.”
3. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are distinct. This group recognizes the distinctions and seeks unity through understanding the distinctions instead of uniformity or simply pretending they don’t exist.
4. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are different. One group calls the other group heretics.

I am personally and solidly in the third group. I genuinely believe that the unity in group #1 is a false unity, and the only true type of unity that can and should be achieved is the one represented by group #3 (and this goes for our relationship with the Latins as well). Of course, the unity presented by group #2 can also be a true unity, but it is one that is not well-informed, IMO. As I stated several years back when I posted the thread “My Witness,” this has always been my purpose when pointing out the differences between Easterns and Orientals while pointing out the similarities between Orientals and Westerns (trying to consciously bring Latin Catholics into the fold).

However, it seems there are those who view my efforts at understanding and acceptance of our distinctions as divisive.

My question is: is your understanding of the unity between Eastern and Oriental Catholics based on the mindset of group #1, group #2, or group #3? I was just wondering how others feel about my witness here in this Forum. Do you think it is divisive, or is it OK?

I have thick skin, so don’t worry. If you think I am puffed up with pride for even suggesting this thread, go ahead and say so. No kid gloves. And I would ask the Mods to just let the comments fly. We are all Christians here, so I trust the Spirit inside all of us will temper the posts appropriately. I am not going to participate in the thread much, if at all. I just want to see what people think, if that is OK.

Also, understand that this thread is not really about me (heaven forbid). It is really about your own self-understanding of what kind of unity you (as an Oriental or Eastern Catholic) hold with your Eastern/Oriental brethren.

But before I let the comments fly, let me add one more thing. I have been told by non-Catholics that I have no right to call myself an Orthodox. If people perceive this is a cause of division (my calling myself an Orthodox - albeit in communion with Rome), go ahead and express that opinion. However, just let it be known, as I stated in the beginning, that there is absolutely no way anyone is going to get me to admit that I am not Orthodox (albeit in communion with Rome), for I cherish my Coptic Orthodox heritage just as much in communion with Rome, as when I was not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

I opt for none of the above and choose:
5. Oriental Catholics and Eastern Catholics are distinct and united. The ineffable transcendence of God coupled with the immanence of God in the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery and the mystery of Creation strikes me as only partially comprehensible by mere mortals, thereby inviting some level of distinction while calling us to a unity of faith. With the diversity of mankind and greatness of God, I see distinction and unity as wholly wonderful and to be expected.

It’s the same way I see the relationship with the Latin Church, too.

 

[mardukm]

I opt for none of the above and choose:
5. Oriental Catholics and Eastern Catholics are distinct and united. The ineffable transcendence of God coupled with the immanence of God in the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery and the mystery of Creation strikes me as only partially comprehensible by mere mortals, thereby inviting some level of distinction while calling us to a unity of faith. With the diversity of mankind and greatness of God, I see distinction and unity as wholly wonderful and to be expected.

It’s the same way I see the relationship with the Latin Church, too.

That is true, and I agree, for Catholics already ARE united. I realize the wording would indeed have to be different in the context of Catholicism.

For instance, #2 would have to be reworded: “…merely content with the status quo of the umbrella designation Eastern Catholic.”

And #3 would have to be reworded as you stated.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would further like to point out that it is true that I, as an Oriental, do view some things within Eastern Christianity as developments. Of course, I don’t see anything wrong with developments (unlike the Orthodox). I am wondering if my understanding as an Oriental that there are developments within Eastern Christianity in general is a divisive thing from an Eastern perspective. I mean is it insulting to Easterns Catholics if I call certain things in Eastern Christianity a development (with the added emphasis that I don’t see anything objectively wrong with development)?

When I speak with Eastern Orthodox, I use the word innovation, since there is no notion of development in EO’xy, or so I have heard. And they would probably jump all over me if I use the word “development” anyway. So that is the only way I can express to them that there are some things in their theology/spirituality that is distinct from Oriental theology/spirituality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

True unity is respectful of the differences while recognizing the inherent shared truth. Only now is true unity coming to fruition, as the false unity of forced latinization is being both undone and prohibited.

Heck, I know a couple of Ukrainians who don’t respect that the Ruthenian Church isn’t the Ukrainian Church, and that polyphony is actually in violation of the rubrics for the propers. (In the Ukrainian Church, polyphony is encouraged…)

 

[antgaria]

Within the Catholic Church definitely united… but outside of the Catholic Church to say that Eastern and Orientals are the same is either: 1- misguided and has no bearings of historical reality, 2- due to ecumenical proceedings that foster the similarity while trying to minimize differences, and hopeful of future reconciliation, or 3- a recognition by groups within the two that are polemically and vehemently anti-Catholic, and want to further alienate people away from the Catholic Church by saying that they are more alike in that they are anti-Catholic.

That being said, brother mardukm, no reason to stop calling yourself Orthodox. We are members of the Church, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic.

 

[antgaria]

Might I add, in the third category I listed fall groups from my own tradition… the Assyrian Church, which is looked at as heretical non-Christian by the EO and the OO, has many that consider themselves as being basically one with the EO and OO but want never to be called Catholic.

But, as you have pointed out often in the past, the CotE shares much with OO in what they both share with the CC, especially in ecclesiology.

 

[jimmy]

I am not quite sure yet where I stand. I am either in 3 or 4. I might opt for 4 because I think that a lot of times modern theologians are dismissive of the differences out of an ecumenical spirit.

 

[yeshua]

Marduk,

I have never put limits on what you decide to call yourself, I merely said that you have no right to claim representation of Oriental Christianity and then dictate to members of the Oriental Orthodox Communion what they believe when you so vehemently detest others telling us Catholics what our Churches believe. Were you once a part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, yes, does that give you a unique perspective as how you see yourself as a Coptic Orthodox in communion with Rome, yes, does it give you the right to tell others what their church believes, dictate to them what their heirarchs meant to say or misunderstand/stood, I personally do not believe so.

Furthermore, I only believe you are divisive when you approach these discussions with that double standard, as you certainly do not speak for me as Maronite and Oriental Catholic, and many others. You are more than entitled to your own opinion, but it does not stand as truth, nor does it trump itself over the spiritual counsel of priests and bishops, which by your very strong assertions you do by claiming that “this is what the Catholic church believes.” Gather the contemporary (and out-dated) cathechisis materials of the different Churches, the Code of Canon and the Oriental Churches, the Latin Canon, and the transcripts of the Councils, and you won’t find the unified understanding that you say we believe, no matter how much we in dialogue try to elucidate it; there are accusations of contrary belief on the part of Latins and Eastern/Orientals alike, there is no answer as to what we as Eastern/Oriental Catholics are to believe (if the disunity within particular churches is any indication), and so I disagree with your staunch adherence to your one perspective as the answers. I don’t disrespect what you have to say, just your arrogance to claim it as the patent on the Catholic faith, it is insulting, and that is what I find is divisive. You know and I have told you before that some of what you believe has helped me understand our Communion better, but I won’t stand by claims that I believe are faulty.

 

[malphono]

I can only say group 3.

Aramis:

Only now is true unity coming to fruition, as the false unity of forced latinization is being both undone and prohibited.

In truth, with the possible exception of the Syro-Malabars, there was very little forced latinization. The two Churches (other than the Syro-Malabar) most affected by latinization are the Maronites and Chaldeans. One of the few forced latinizations was the use of the Roman-formula of the Institution Narrative. The rest was mostly embraced for a variety of reasons, most of which had their roots in political reality. (Similar, in its way, to the Union of Brest.)

A certain amount of latinization persists both among the Maronites and the Chaldeans. Fortunately, the Chaldeans seem to have put the brakes on, with the remaining latinizations seeming to be limited. Unfortunately, the Maronites have done no such thing: on the contrary, latinization is actually growing by leaps and bounds.

I cannot really speak to the situation of the Syro-Malabars, and so will leave that for someone better able to address it.

 

[Aramis]

I can only say group 3.

In truth, with the possible exception of the Syro-Malabars, there was very little forced latinization. The two Churches (other than the Syro-Malabar) most affected by latinization are the Maronites and Chaldeans. One of the few forced latinizations was the use of the Roman-formula of the Institution Narrative. The rest was mostly embraced for a variety of reasons, most of which had their roots in political reality. (Similar, in its way, to the Union of Brest.)

A certain amount of latinization persists both among the Maronites and the Chaldeans. Fortunately, the Chaldeans seem to have put the brakes on, with the remaining latinizations seeming to be limited. Unfortunately, the Maronites have done no such thing: on the contrary, latinization is actually growing by leaps and bounds.

I cannot really speak to the situation of the Syro-Malabars, and so will leave that for someone better able to address it.

The forced latinizations within the Maronite, Ruthenian, and Melkite churches in the US are well documented; The Syro-Malankar would not exist were it not for forced latinizations within the Syro-Malabar. The Chaldeans recently revised their liturgies to delatinize them, for the first time in centuries not passing them through the pope for approval. That the Ruthenians suffered as much from their own misguided and poorly catechized Bishop + Elko, who was at least as at home as a roman auxiliary as he was as the Byzantine destroyer of Iconostasi…

Latinization, forced by misguided men, is forced upon the people whether the latinizer is Roman or Byzantine. His own priests objected to Bishop Elko’s changes; he was the culmination of 70 years of forced latinzations, some by the USCCB, some by local latin hierarchs. Even to this day, some Ruthenian churches lack an Iconostas.

 

[malphono]

The forced latinizations within the Maronite, Ruthenian, and Melkite churches in the US are well documented; The Syro-Malankar would not exist were it not for forced latinizations within the Syro-Malabar. The Chaldeans recently revised their liturgies to delatinize them, for the first time in centuries not passing them through the pope for approval. That the Ruthenians suffered as much from their own misguided and poorly catechized Bishop + Elko, who was at least as at home as a roman auxiliary as he was as the Byzantine destroyer of Iconostasi…

Latinization, forced by misguided men, is forced upon the people whether the latinizer is Roman or Byzantine. His own priests objected to Bishop Elko’s changes; he was the culmination of 70 years of forced latinzations, some by the USCCB, some by local latin hierarchs. Even to this day, some Ruthenian churches lack an Iconostas.

It was not, and is not, my intent to comment on things Byzantine, except to say that latinizations there were relatively minimal, at least when compared to others. And even then, there’s a question: were those latinizations forced or embraced? There is a difference.

And I know all about the relatively recent Chaldean reform, hence my earlier comment. Some latinization persist even there, but the situation seems now to be controlled (at least it will be when all bishops actually enforce the reforms.)

As for the Maronites, I stand by what I said earlier. And it’s certainly not simply a matter of in the US. You say “forced latinizations within the Maronite, Ruthenian, and Melkite churches in the US are well documented”? What’s the “documentation” about the Maronites? When did these *forced *latinizations occur? Why did they occur? Did someone put a knife to the Patriarch’s throat?

The bulk of those latinizations were, for better or worse, embraced. And even at that, they were a sight better than the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization monster that runs rampant among the Maronites.

 

[LumenGent]

I agree with Malphono. I am a Latin Catholic and was raised in both the Maronite and Roman traditions and from everything i have read, the Maronites weren’t forced into anything.

P.S: Malphono since you don’t recieve PM’s is it possible i can discuss matters concerning the maronite and Syriac tradiitions with you, you seem very knowledgeable in these areas. If so is it ok if you PM me your email to contact you that way?

Thanks

 

[jimmy]

I agree with Malphono. I am a Latin Catholic and was raised in both the Maronite and Roman traditions and from everything i have read, the Maronites weren’t forced into anything.

P.S: Malphono since you don’t recieve PM’s is it possible i can discuss matters concerning the maronite and Syriac tradiitions with you, you seem very knowledgeable in these areas. If so is it ok if you PM me your email to contact you that way?

Thanks

The problem with that is that there are specific times when there was strong Latinization forced upon Maronites. The Jesuits and Franciscans who were sent to the Maronites in the 16th and 17th centuries led to strong Latinizations. They even burned liturgical books of the Maronites. I just realized that I have an article by Seely Begianni that traces the history of the Latinizations. I could send it to you if you send me your email address. From what I recall (it has been a little while since I read the article) his interpretation of Latinizations is that at times it was forced on the Maronites and at other times it was the Maronites themselves who embraced them whether for good reasons or bad.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

I do want to say that there is a HUGE difference between:

1. Me presenting the facts of the Oriental Orthodox Tradition, making an interpretation that is open to discussion, and then asking people to suspend judgment on my Faith as a Catholic;

and

1. Non-Catholic polemicists quoting Catholic documents, imposing their own interpretations on them and refusing to listen to how Catholics themselves understand these documents, and then making a judgment of heresy on a teaching of the Catholic Church.

I hope you can eventually see the difference.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

I have never put limits on what you decide to call yourself, I merely said that you have no right to claim representation of Oriental Christianity and then dictate to members of the Oriental Orthodox Communion what they believe when you so vehemently detest others telling us Catholics what our Churches believe. Were you once a part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, yes, does that give you a unique perspective as how you see yourself as a Coptic Orthodox in communion with Rome, yes, does it give you the right to tell others what their church believes, dictate to them what their heirarchs meant to say or misunderstand/stood, I personally do not believe so.

Furthermore, I only believe you are divisive when you approach these discussions with that double standard, as you certainly do not speak for me as Maronite and Oriental Catholic, and many others. You are more than entitled to your own opinion, but it does not stand as truth, nor does it trump itself over the spiritual counsel of priests and bishops, which by your very strong assertions you do by claiming that “this is what the Catholic church believes.” Gather the contemporary (and out-dated) cathechisis materials of the different Churches, the Code of Canon and the Oriental Churches, the Latin Canon, and the transcripts of the Councils, and you won’t find the unified understanding that you say we believe, no matter how much we in dialogue try to elucidate it; there are accusations of contrary belief on the part of Latins and Eastern/Orientals alike, there is no answer as to what we as Eastern/Oriental Catholics are to believe (if the disunity within particular churches is any indication), and so I disagree with your staunch adherence to your one perspective as the answers. I don’t disrespect what you have to say, just your arrogance to claim it as the patent on the Catholic faith, it is insulting, and that is what I find is divisive. You know and I have told you before that some of what you believe has helped me understand our Communion better, but I won’t stand by claims that I believe are faulty.

 

[malphono]

The problem with that is that there are specific times when there was strong Latinization forced upon Maronites. The Jesuits and Franciscans who were sent to the Maronites in the 16th and 17th centuries led to strong Latinizations. They even burned liturgical books of the Maronites. I just realized that I have an article by Seely Begianni that traces the history of the Latinizations. I could send it to you if you send me your email address. From what I recall (it has been a little while since I read the article) his interpretation of Latinizations is that at times it was forced on the Maronites and at other times it was the Maronites themselves who embraced them whether for good reasons or bad.

I am quite familiar with the work to which you refer, and am also quite familiar with the entire process of latinization, and I don’t deny that some latinizations were forced on the Maronites. But the bulk were embraced.

The liturgical books burned were those that Rome considered as having been “tainted” by what were then called the Jacobites. Whether there was any such “taint” is debatable.

One vignette about liturgical books that I find outrageously funny concerns the original printing of the Missal in Rome. The project was begun sometime in the 1570s in Rome and by Rome. (I’m not 100% sure, but I seem to recall that the project was originally placed in the charge of the Carmelites.) From all surviving accounts (albeit that it’s generally anecdotal evidence), the result was quite faithful to the source manuscripts, even including the Institution Narratives proper to each Anaphora. The Jesuits ultimately bested and displaced the Carmelites and took over the project, but not until a prototype of the Missal had been actually printed. That’s where the fun started. The Jesuits, along with some rabid dogs in the Holy Office, came up with the bright idea that there must be one Institution Narrative for all Anaphorae, and they further determined that it had to be a Syriac rendering of the text from the Roman Canon. They also determined that the Epiklesis had to be rendered non-causative. And so, Rome burned the original press run that Rome itself had printed. (Again, I’m not totally certain, but I think a small handful of the original prototype may have survived the flames of Rome.) They did the deed with the Institution Narrative and partly so with the Epiklesis, where they changed a verb here and there in some of the Anaphorae, but apparently missed doing it all of them. The final result was the Missal of 1594, which is considered to be the first official printing.

On the other hand, they didn’t much monkey with the rest of the liturgy. Yes, some rubrics were latinized, but that was pretty much voluntary. In short, the structural integrity of the qourbono survived, albeit with some rubrical oddities. It was not until the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations of the past 20-some years that the structural integrity was compromised, and very seriously so.

A very latinized ritual was promulgated in (I think) the 18th century. It was a horror that was not so much imposed by Rome as it was an attempt by the Rome-trained Maronite clergy to further embrace latininzation. As I mention in another thread some months ago, though, a beautifully restored Ritual was published in 1942 under the auspices of HB Mor Antonious Petrous (of blessed memory), after some years of painstaking work. But, the bad news is that, in these post-conciliar times, even that work has not been spared the knife of the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizers.

At this point, someone will undoubtedly start up with the usual argument about the use of Latin vestments. Yes, that happened. The reason it happened was that the Maronites were very poor and Rome, feeling charitable, sent a gift of used vestments. But even there, things were not 100% latinized: the used maniples were reworked and made into cuffs, the stole was never worn crossed, the amice was donned over the head and dropped back on the chasuble in the fashion of a capuce. But I find it very interesting that altar vestments are the one thing the Maronites have been able de-latinize: the renewed use of Syriac-style vestments began some 40 years ago and is now quite universal. But in reverse to the above, the restoration is not 100% authentic: the cuffs are no longer mandatory (just like the maniple in the Latin Church, altar slippers are a thing of the past, the chalice veil is often unused, the small veils (soft palls) are often still replaced with stiff Latin-style palls, etc.

To sum this up, again yes, some latinization was thrust upon the Maronites. But the fact is that the Maronites willingly embraced whatever Rome threw at them. The shame is that they still do, and now the situation is far worse than it ever was in the past: Rome no longer throws latinzation around, but now, it’s what I have in past threads called the Novus Ordo-inspired School of ne-latinization among Maronites that is running amok all by its lonesome.

 

[Aramis]

You’re ignoring that those Roman-trained clerics were Roman-Trained because Rome demanded it.

Essentially, the value of the eastern rites as eastern rites supporting eastern churches in communion and union with Rome really is a post WW II phenomenon. MANY 18th, 19th and early 20th century documents make references to using the eastern churches to convert the EOC/OOC/ACE… essentially, to be a way point on those churches journey to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox polemicists are speaking truth about those documents; they ignore the state change in the church starting in the 40’s, and culminating in V II’s permissions to go east and orders to delatinize the EC’s. (If there is one doctrinal element to V II, that’s it. It’s not a dogmatic definition, but an underpinning of positive valuation for the Eastern Rites as rites in and of themselves takes root from there, and is apparently become doctrinal).

 

[malphono]

You’re ignoring that those Roman-trained clerics were Roman-Trained because Rome demanded it.

No, actually Rome didn’t demand that either. The Maronites willingly accepted the offer of the Maronite College in Rome. One has to keep in mind the political climate in the Levant and the abuses that the Maronites endured under the Arabs and Ottomans both before and after the Crusades. Association with the West provided a little reassurance that they might survive. As I said in an earlier post, it’s similar in its way to the position in which the Ukrainians found themselves under the yoke of Russia.

Essentially, the value of the eastern rites as eastern rites supporting eastern churches in communion and union with Rome really is a post WW II phenomenon. MANY 18th, 19th and early 20th century documents make references to using the eastern churches to convert the EOC/OOC/ACE… essentially, to be a way point on those churches journey to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox polemicists are speaking truth about those documents; they ignore the state change in the church starting in the 40’s, and culminating in V II’s permissions to go east and orders to delatinize the EC’s. (If there is one doctrinal element to V II, that’s it. It’s not a dogmatic definition, but an underpinning of positive valuation for the Eastern Rites as rites in and of themselves takes root from there, and is apparently become doctrinal).

Yes, but just as many documents refer to the opposite: that the integrity of the Oriental and Eastern traditions was to be preserved. The Orthodox polemicists inevitably fail to recognize those.

And before getting into undue aggrandizement of Vatican II and the proponent of the “two lungs” theory, etc, lets face the fact: it was PP Pius XI (of blessed memory) who began the unfettering of the East and Orient in the 1920s. His work was interrupted by his demise and his successor (a) reigned during a war, and (b) was just a bit megalomanic in any case. The work begun by PP Pius XI was only taken up again during the reign of Bl PP John XXIII, culminating withe Council. And let’s face another fact: the process of de-latinization taken up in the past 40 years has not always done what it might have been expected to do. That is particularly true among the Maronites.

 

[LumenGent]

Malphono,

This is all wonderful and interesting information, where do you get all that from?

 

[yeshua]

I do want to say that there is a HUGE difference between:

1. Me presenting the facts of the Oriental Orthodox Tradition, making an interpretation that is open to discussion, and then asking people to suspend judgment on my Faith as a Catholic;

And here is my issue, and what has always been my issue: that you present the “facts” which are so often disputed by actual members of the Oriental Orthodox Tradition, and then making interpretations that are then deemed to be the actual beliefs of the Catholic Church. You trump your own experience of Oriental Christianity as the hallmark of our Tradition. In fact, you often write off others when they are attempting at your “open discussion” by simply stating that they have no right to tell you what the Catholic church believes. Is that not what this dialogue is about, even though they are our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters? Is it not the essential question in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic world of what we are to believe at this time in our history? It’s not a distinction between EO zealots and those who dutifully want to dialogue, it’s between those who agree with you and those who don’t, Orthodox and Catholic alike. And it is my wish that you some day come to see this distinction.

Marduk, I so wish that it was just as easy as you see it, I really do, but I disagree that our Communion is as romantic and ideal as you see it to be. And that’s okay! That is the point of discussing this issues. But what drives people away in discussion is stating that your one particular Catholic experience and knowledge is the tell all, and suddenly those who disagree with you become no less than “Non-Catholic polemicists.”

 

[yeshua]

Malphono,

I am curious as to your thoughts (perhaps on validity?) of El-Hayek’s “Maronite Rite: History of Romanization.”

Aramis, I must agree with Malphono on one point: the Latinization of the Maronites in the United States is not as documented as it might seem, in fact, there is a scholastic effort by some of us to determine when, where, how long, and consequentially, what to do. It’s a painstaking and pessimistic task.