Vatican II and the Eastern Catholic Churches - How Was Life Different For Eastern Catholics Before Vatican II?

[ByzCathCantor]

I would say Blessed John Paul II was very ecumenical, period.

Well, we could debate the spectrum of that which was Blessed JPII, but that was not the point here. He did indeed understand the Eastern Churches. My own ancestral family, and the so called Lemko Rusyns, resided in southern Poland in close proximity to the area where Blessed JPII himself grew up and lived. These Eastern Catholics were hardly unknown to him.

In his papacy, he went on to author Orientale Lumen, which certainly was meant to persuade the Universal Church to embrace and appreciate the Christian East. The separate Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was promulgated under his leadership, and the process of urging the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore their faithful traditions went into full swing in very visible, official ways. He wrote Slavorum Apostoli, tying his own Slavic heritage to the legacy of Sts. Cyril & Methodius who brought Christianity to the Slavic peoples. Duodecimum Saeculum focused on the veneration of sacred images, on the the occasion of the 1200th Anniversary of the Second Council of Nicaea which settled iconoclasm. He commemorated in separate Apostolic Letters the 400th and 350th anniversaries of the Unions of Brest and Uzhhorod, which brought Eastern European faithful in union with the Holy See (Ukrainians and Ruthenians, respectfully).

In the context of this discussion, his advocacy of the Eastern Catholic Churches would not be rightfully ignored, and contrasts greatly to the actions of some of his predecessors as previously mentioned.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hey Phillip,

Thanks so much for sharing what life was like. It certainly has given me a lot to think about.

Why must it be shed? Does being an EC mean you have to shed everything Latin? I can’t imagine that before the schism, there was not a co-mingling of ideas and theology. Certainly some who were in the East appreciated some Western thought and some who were in the West appreciated some Eastern thought.

Regarding Latin rite Catholics not understanding, my issue (and maybe this is a personal one) has always been that if something is dogma for one group, then it must be for another.

I actually admire Eastern theology and I would love for it to co-exist side by side. However, if something is defined as dogma for one set of Catholics then it must for the other set. Teachings that are not defined as dogma can use different theology.

I believe it is this kind of confusion over dogma for Western Catholics and dogma for Eastern Catholics eventually leads one to question Catholicism. And that in turns has a lot of Eastern Catholic converts eventually leaving for Orthodoxy, IMHO.

Okay back on topic.

I’m not so sure the rejection of all things Latin does not further separate Eastern Catholics from their Latin brothers.

I’m again wondering if before the schism there was such separation. Any links to more information on that?

I’m coming more and more to the opinion that what must be shed is not “Latinization” in the sense of everything Latin and every sort of Latin influence. What must be shed is “Latinization” in the sense of Latin theology, devotions, customs, liturgical approach, etc. replacing the authentic Eastern heritage. “Cross pollenization” of the two traditions can certainly bear great fruit for theological speculation, and I believe that such cross pollenization existed in the early Church. One need only look at how the writings of Pope St. Leo the Great and St. Jerome influenced the East, or those of St. John Cassian and St. Athanasius influencing the West.

The main difference is that a true cross pollenization of East and West seeks to take the insights of one tradition and absorb them into the other tradition. What happens with “Latinization” is that the insights (or devotions, or whatever) of one tradition are simply badly imitated in the other tradition, and those bad imitations then replace the authentic heritage of the one tradition and make a true cross-pollenization/fertilization impossible.

Case in point, there have been Orthodox theologians and Patriarchs who (rightly) greatly admired the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and even mourned the fact that he himself was not an Orthodox Christian. I personally love the writings of both Aquinas and Bonaventure, especially Bonaventure. But I don’t read their writings as the central axis of my own theological formation. Rather, I try to stick with the writings of the Eastern Fathers and supplement those with the writings of some of the Latin Fathers and Doctors, attempting to use their insights to bring a deeper appreciation and understanding to the writings of the Eastern Fathers. Does that make sense? I feel like I’m rambling now.

As far as dogma is concerned, all Catholics of East and West believe the same dogmas. Otherwise we have no foundation for communion. What differs is how we express those dogmas and speculate on those dogmas. These differences often give the appearance of different beliefs. But as Fr. Thomas Loya rightly points out, it’s not that we believe different dogmas, it’s that we emphasize different aspects of those same dogmas.

So, whereas a Latin Catholic might focus on the “conceived without the stain of Original Sin” aspect of the Immaculate Conception dogma, an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic might be more focused on the fact that the Theotokos never committed actual sin during her life. What is believe by both, however, is that the Theotokos was so full of God’s grace from the moment of her Conception, that sin - whether actual or original/ancestral - never touched her.

I hope this makes sense. As I’m writing it I’m feeling like I’m not being very coherent.

 

[TrueLight]

Well, we could debate the spectrum of that which was Blessed JPII, but that was not the point here. He did indeed understand the Eastern Churches. My own ancestral family, and the so called Lemko Rusyns, resided in southern Poland in close proximity to the area where Blessed JPII himself grew up and lived. These Eastern Catholics were hardly unknown to him.

In his papacy, he went on to author Orientale Lumen, which certainly was meant to persuade the Universal Church to embrace and appreciate the Christian East. The separate Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches was promulgated under his leadership, and the process of urging the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore their faithful traditions went into full swing in very visible, official ways. He wrote Slavorum Apostoli, tying his own Slavic heritage to the legacy of Sts. Cyril & Methodius who brought Christianity to the Slavic peoples. Duodecimum Saeculum focused on the veneration of sacred images, on the the occasion of the 1200th Anniversary of the Second Council of Nicaea which settled iconoclasm. He commemorated in separate Apostolic Letters the 400th and 350th anniversaries of the Unions of Brest and Uzhhorod, which brought Eastern European faithful in union with the Holy See (Ukrainians and Ruthenians, respectfully).

In the context of this discussion, his advocacy of the Eastern Catholic Churches would not be rightfully ignored, and contrasts greatly to the actions of some of his predecessors as previously mentioned.

Thanks. Seems like he had a very special love for the East.

 

[TrueLight]

“Cross pollenization” of the two traditions can certainly bear great fruit for theological speculation, and I believe that such cross pollenization existed in the early Church. One need only look at how the writings of Pope St. Leo the Great and St. Jerome influenced the East, or those of St. John Cassian and St. Athanasius influencing the West.

The main difference is that a true cross pollenization of East and West seeks to take the insights of one tradition and absorb them into the other tradition. What happens with “Latinization” is that the insights (or devotions, or whatever) of one tradition are simply badly imitated in the other tradition, and those bad imitations then replace the authentic heritage of the one tradition and make a true cross-pollenization/fertilization impossible.

Hmm.

Case in point, there have been Orthodox theologians and Patriarchs who (rightly) greatly admired the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and even mourned the fact that he himself was not an Orthodox Christian. I personally love the writings of both Aquinas and Bonaventure, especially Bonaventure. But I don’t read their writings as the central axis of my own theological formation. Rather, I try to stick with the writings of the Eastern Fathers and supplement those with the writings of some of the Latin Fathers and Doctors, attempting to use their insights to bring a deeper appreciation and understanding to the writings of the Eastern Fathers. Does that make sense? I feel like I’m rambling now.

It does.

So, whereas a Latin Catholic might focus on the “conceived without the stain of Original Sin” aspect of the Immaculate Conception dogma, an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic might be more focused on the fact that the Theotokos never committed actual sin during her life. What is believe by both, however, is that the Theotokos was so full of God’s grace from the moment of her Conception, that sin - whether actual or original/ancestral - never touched her.

Gosh, I don’t want to derail, but this is what I have a problem with. Can I, as a Latin Rite Catholic believe exactly what you posted above? I think not. So because I am of a different rite, then I cannot believe what some other Catholics belief? Hmm. If we really think about this it doesn’t make much sense.

I believe this is what caused so much confusion years ago. How to have those of the Eastern Church become fully a part of the Catholic Church while retaining their own identity.

Blessed John Paul was all for what appears to be complete separation. Some of the earlier popes saw it more as the Eastern Church becoming part of the Catholic Church. In some ways they were wrong, but I think in some ways the current teaching raises some questions too.

Ideally, there would be enough similarities between Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics that they would not be completely alien to each other especially when it comes to theology.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

TrueLight, what would you change about the Eastern Catholic situation if you could? What would Pope TrueLight do?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I personally love the writings of both Aquinas and Bonaventure, especially Bonaventure. But I don’t read their writings as the central axis of my own theological formation.

I agree, and have also heard similar comments from other well read Eastern Catholics.

And I think you said it well. It is not that we, especially Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, should ignore all that it is Latin. Rather we should start with an appreciation of our own spirituality and theology, which in turn would be enriched by a healthy appreciation for the West.

As you know, many of the generation prior to ours was raised in a more Latinized era. Many attended Roman Catholic public schools. Their formation and experience excluded much of what we have now seen in restoration (e.g. true Lenten observance; Akathists; etc.). Those of us who were formed in the era of greater Latinization did, in fact, need re-catechesis, additional catechesis and the experience of more traditionally Eastern forms of prayer and worship to even begin to more fully appreciate our own heritage (myself included to a degree - I’m sure I’m a little older than you ). Call that a “shedding” if you will, but it certainly need not be an abandonment of all that we also learned and borrowed from the Latin Church. I still love to pray the Rosary and go to Stations of the Cross during Lent, but do so primarily with my uncle / Godfather in his lovely little “Polish” Church (RC church in a small town dominated by Polish immigrants and descendants).

 

[TrueLight]

TrueLight, what would you change about the Eastern Catholic situation if you could? What would Pope TrueLight do?

Okay, I’m going to assume you mean to ask this question in the most charitable way.

• Dogmatic teachings would be the same for all Catholics
• • In the U.S., Missals with English alongside whatever language is being used. I believe the Language issue discourage a lot of people from exploring the East.
    – More inter-rite activities
    – maybe every couple of years a Latin Rite Parish would have an Eastern Rite DL celebrated in the Church. Same goes for the Eastern Catholic parishes. This would foster appreciation for both Churches.
    – During RCIA, there would be a section on the Eastern Rite and vice versa.

Latin Rite Catholics need to learn to accept Eastern Rite Catholics as Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics should also understand that they are Catholics as well with an Eastern heritage.

 

[TrueLight]

I agree, and have also heard similar comments from other well read Eastern Catholics.

And I think you said it well. It is not that we, especially Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, should ignore all that it is Latin. Rather we should start with an appreciation of our own spirituality and theology, which in turn would be enriched by a healthy appreciation for the West.

As you know, many of the generation prior to ours was raised in a more Latinized era. Many attended Roman Catholic public schools. Their formation and experience excluded much of what we have now seen in restoration (e.g. true Lenten observance; Akathists; etc.). Those of us who were formed in the era of greater Latinization did, in fact, need re-catechesis, additional catechesis and the experience of more traditionally Eastern forms of prayer and worship to even begin to more fully appreciate our own heritage (myself included to a degree - I’m sure I’m a little older than you ). Call that a “shedding” if you will, but it certainly need not be an abandonment of all that we also learned and borrowed from the Latin Church. I still love to pray the Rosary and go to Stations of the Cross during Lent, but do so primarily with my uncle / Godfather in his lovely little “Polish” Church (RC church in a small town dominated by Polish immigrants and descendants).

I agree with this post.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Okay, I’m going to assume you mean to ask this question in the most charitable way.

Of course

• Dogmatic teachings would be the same for all Catholics

And how is this currently not so? I thought that the EC-Churches accepted all dogmas from the Church?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Gosh, I don’t want to derail, but this is what I have a problem with. Can I, as a Latin Rite Catholic believe exactly what you posted above? I think not. So because I am of a different rite, then I cannot believe what some other Catholics belief? Hmm. If we really think about this it doesn’t make much sense.

I’m not saying here that Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics believe two different things. What I’m saying is that in accordance with our own unique theological traditions we express different aspects of the same reality. Think of it this way: we can approach the description of a room differently. One person may choose to speak of the furniture, lights, and people that populate a room. Another person may choose to emphasize the shape and dimensions of the room. Both people are, in fact, describing the room (i.e. the same reality), but from different perspectives. Where we run into problems is when one person tries to absolutize their own description, saying that this way is the only way to describe a room.

When it comes to theological traditions, the reasons why one tradition may emphasize a different aspect of a dogma from another tradition are actually quite complex and filled with a deep theological history. The issue of the Immaculate Conception, to continue the example, was primarily a Western issue due to the Western concepts of Original Sin. It was something that just never really came up in Eastern thought. Does that mean, de facto, that Easterners believe that Mary sinned, or was conceived in sin? Of course not! But what it does mean is that we have speculated on the reality (the essential dogma) differently. In other words, we have described the room differently. The reality is the same, the perspective is different.

Again, it’s not that the different particular Churches of the entire Catholic communion of Churches believes different things. It’s that the different Churches (or better traditions) express essential fundamental Catholic beliefs differently. But in expressing those beliefs differently the entire reality is implied (including the expression/emphasis of another theological tradition). A famous Orthodox theologian (“A Monk of the Eastern Church”) once said something along the lines of, “The entire Eastern theological tradition is contained in the Western, and the entire Western theological tradition is contained in the Eastern.” So while we may be expressing different perspectives on the same dogmatic reality, those perspectives aren’t expressed in order to invalidate the perspective of another, but rather, when taken together, give a fuller vision of the dogmatic reality.

I still hope I’m making sense here.

 

[jam070406]

Okay, I’m going to assume you mean to ask this question in the most charitable way.

• Dogmatic teachings would be the same for all Catholics
• • In the U.S., Missals with English alongside whatever language is being used. I believe the Language issue discourage a lot of people from exploring the East.
    – More inter-rite activities
    – maybe every couple of years a Latin Rite Parish would have an Eastern Rite DL celebrated in the Church. Same goes for the Eastern Catholic parishes. This would foster appreciation for both Churches.
    – During RCIA, there would be a section on the Eastern Rite and vice versa.

Latin Rite Catholics need to learn to accept Eastern Rite Catholics as Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics should also understand that they are Catholics as well with an Eastern heritage.

During Lent a few years ago a Latin Parish near me invited different Eastern Catholic churches to celebrate a Divine Liturgy there, each Wednesday night. It was awesome! And well attended.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not saying here that Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics believe two different things. What I’m saying is that in accordance with our own unique theological traditions we express different aspects of the same reality. Think of it this way: we can approach the description of a room differently. One person may choose to speak of the furniture, lights, and people that populate a room. Another person may choose to emphasize the shape and dimensions of the room. Both people are, in fact, describing the room (i.e. the same reality), but from different perspectives. Where we run into problems is when one person tries to absolutize their own description, saying that this way is the only way to describe a room.

When it comes to theological traditions, the reasons why one tradition may emphasize a different aspect of a dogma from another tradition are actually quite complex and filled with a deep theological history. The issue of the Immaculate Conception, to continue the example, was primarily a Western issue due to the Western concepts of Original Sin. It was something that just never really came up in Eastern thought. Does that mean, de facto, that Easterners believe that Mary sinned, or was conceived in sin? Of course not! But what it does mean is that we have speculated on the reality (the essential dogma) differently. In other words, we have described the room differently. The reality is the same, the perspective is different.

Again, it’s not that the different particular Churches of the entire Catholic communion of Churches believes different things. It’s that the different Churches (or better traditions) express essential fundamental Catholic beliefs differently. But in expressing those beliefs differently the entire reality is implied (including the expression/emphasis of another theological tradition). A famous Orthodox theologian (“A Monk of the Eastern Church”) once said something along the lines of, “The entire Eastern theological tradition is contained in the Western, and the entire Western theological tradition is contained in the Eastern.” So while we may be expressing different perspectives on the same dogmatic reality, those perspectives aren’t expressed in order to invalidate the perspective of another, but rather, when taken together, give a fuller vision of the dogmatic reality.

I still hope I’m making sense here.

Okay. So then it should be perfectly okay for me to say that although I do believe Mary never sinned, I have come to appreciate the Eastern understanding of that and since I no longer have the same understanding of original sin, since it all comes down to the same thing, I’m good.

How long would it take for me to be branded a heretic?

But if I became an Eastern Catholic then it would be okay?

I just brought this up as an example of something that separates. If we were taught that one could have the Western understanding or the Eastern understanding, then it would make sense. If one teaching is dogmatic for one group (immaculate conception, which is dogmatic as far as I know), then it must be for another.

Anyway, I’m sure there is another thread on this somewhere.

 

[TrueLight]

During Lent a few years ago a Latin Parish near me invited different Eastern Catholic churches to celebrate a Divine Liturgy there, each Wednesday night. It was awesome! And well attended.

That is truly awesome.

Hmm. I’m getting ideas.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

But there is no such thing as original sin in the eastern churches, so they believe that Mary was conceived without this original sin. There exists something called Ancestral Sin, but that is entirely different than what the Latins since Augustine have taught and is barely comparable with it.

Besides, I don’t think that the Augustinian understanding of original sin is dogma, but you act like it is.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi True,

I believe this is what caused so much confusion years ago. How to have those of the Eastern Church become fully a part of the Catholic Church while retaining their own identity.

In the past the formula was simple: abandon one’s interior spirituality and learn the Roman way. Then one has permission to continue to worship like one’s grandparents and great-grandparents (it’s easier on grandma, who gets confused by all of this). But one was not really fully ‘Catholic’ until one thought like a Latin. Otherwise, one might be a secret schismatic, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Some of the earlier popes saw it more as the Eastern Church becoming part of the Catholic Church. In some ways they were wrong …

Yes, in those days they more than likely saw eastern Christians who had to be slowly converted into Latin Christians by stages.

…, but I think in some ways the current teaching raises some questions too.
Ideally, there would be enough similarities between Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics that they would not be completely alien to each other especially when it comes to theology.

Where there might be dissimilarities in theology it is mostly because the Latin Christian beliefs have changed much more over time. Theoretically they have not changed, but ‘developed’.

If they have actually only developed and not really changed, then there are actually no significant differences from east to west; therefore Latin Christian theologians, beliefs and practices can be safely ignored because eastern Christians have already got everything they need and do not require outside developments in thought.

 

[TrueLight]

If they have actually only developed and not really changed, then there are actually no significant differences from east to west; therefore Latin Christian theologians, beliefs and practices can be safely ignored because eastern Christians have already got everything they need and do not require outside developments in thought.

Now, now Hesychios…

 

[Hesychios]

Now, now Hesychios…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Okay. So then it should be perfectly okay for me to say that although I do believe Mary never sinned, I have come to appreciate the Eastern understanding of that and since I no longer have the same understanding of original sin, since it all comes down to the same thing, I’m good.

How long would it take for me to be branded a heretic?

But if I became an Eastern Catholic then it would be okay?

I just brought this up as an example of something that separates. If we were taught that one could have the Western understanding or the Eastern understanding, then it would make sense. If one teaching is dogmatic for one group (immaculate conception, which is dogmatic as far as I know), then it must be for another.

Anyway, I’m sure there is another thread on this somewhere.

Again, I’m not saying that Eastern Catholics deny the Immaculate Conception. Only that they express the dogmatic reality differently. But, again, their expression of it already contains and implies the Western expression of it. The various expressions of the same reality do not divide our understanding of that reality, but enrich our understanding. So embracing an Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception does not mean denying the validity or even truth of the Western understanding, but rather recognizes the greater mystery of said reality.

The same can be said of Original Sin. Just because we emphasize different aspects of that same reality, does not mean that our emphases and analyses are contradictory to one another. As Catholics we believe that they compliment one another and mutually enrich one another, while at the same time holding one another in a dynamic tension that prevents either camp from absolutizing their own position. Once one or the other camp absolutizes their own position, then we have erected an idol for ourselves. This does not mean that we cannot say anything definitive, but rather it recognizes that in proclaiming something definitively we do not so much shed further light on what we do know, as reveal just how much we do not know.

 

[TrueLight]

Besides, I don’t think that the Augustinian understanding of original sin is dogma, but you act like it is.

The Immaculate Conception - dogma.

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

As for original sin being dogmatic, see these pronouncements from the council of Trent:

If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.[8]
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm#1

Well of course unless there have been “developments”.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Your quotes are not at odds with the eastern understanding, not at all in fact. Eastern theology will never say that Mary had original sin.

Yet it doesn’t violate your Trent quote, since there is something called Ancestral sin, which came from Adam.