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

[TrueLight]

In terms of the persecutions that existed for the EC’s prior to Vatican II, were there similar persecutions of Catholics by Orthodox or of Orthodox by Catholics?

Is it just that that neither churches were comfortable with the idea of Orthodox becoming Catholic?

 

[TrueLight]

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.

Does everyone agree with this statement?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In terms of the persecutions that existed for the EC’s prior to Vatican II, were there similar persecutions of Catholics by Orthodox or of Orthodox by Catholics?

The only thing that comes to mind are the Catholic Croatians persecuting the Serbian Orthodox in WWII

 

[Peter_J]

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.

This is something I’ve thought about a lot; unfortunately, that hasn’t led me to any definite solution, but I do occasionally like to contribute a thought or two.

Here’s something you may find interesting (if you haven’t read it before that is: I quoted it recently for a different reason). “A Pillar, not a Bridge” is a subsection of an article that contrasts Eastern Catholicism with Western-Rite Orthodoxy, and explains why the author doesn’t regard the latter as uniatism (or “reverse uniatism”):

A Pillar, not a Bridge. Eastern Rite Catholics long believed, as an Eastern church in the Roman Catholic communion, they enjoyed a special and “unique position” as a “bridge” to Orthodoxy. At its most hopeful and imaginative, this line of reasoning saw Byzantine Catholics as the first-fruits of a reunited Christendom, leading the way to undoing the Great Schism. More to the point, they often call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” a phrase most misleading. However, this vision has since been abandoned by Roman Catholic hierarchy. More than a decade ago, The Balamand Statement declared flatly, “‘uniatism’ can no longer be accepted…as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.”

At our most hopeful, Western Orthodox dream of whole denominations accepting the Orthodox faith in either of our Eastern or approved Western rites. We pray for it. Yet we do not see ourselves as a “bridge” to the Papacy. (He just never calls anymore.) And we certainly do not see ourselves as “Roman Catholics [or Anglicans, or Old Catholics] in communion with Orthodoxy.” We are simply Orthodox, and our appeal to other denominations will come only when they, too, have embraced the Orthodox Faith. We don’t feel primarily that we have left our homeland so much as that we have found it. We do not wish to distinguish ourselves from it, and even though we celebrate different liturgies than others in our communion, they impart the same theology, often in the same way with nearly the same words. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) To put a fine point on this conversation: Byzantine Catholics seem to look primarily outside their communion to the Orthodox Church for inspiration (including saints after 1569, or the appropriate date of union with Rome); Western Rite Orthodox look primarily within our communion. We are not a bridge; we are a pillar of the Church that we love. As one who has many friends and acquaintances in Byzantine Catholicism, it saddens me to see them looking longingly at a Church to which they do not belong.

westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/05/western-rite-is-not-reverse-uniatism.html

 

[TrueLight]

This is something I’ve thought about a lot; unfortunately, that hasn’t led me to any definite solution, but I do occasionally like to contribute a thought or two.

Here’s something you may find interesting (if you haven’t read it before that is: I quoted it recently for a different reason). “A Pillar, not a Bridge” is a subsection of an article that contrasts Eastern Catholicism with Western-Rite Orthodoxy, and explains why the author doesn’t regard the latter as uniatism (or “reverse uniatism”):

westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2007/05/western-rite-is-not-reverse-uniatism.html

That is an excellent article.

Thank you.

 

[dvdjs]

Here’s something you may find interesting (if you haven’t read it before that is: I quoted it recently for a different reason). “A Pillar, not a Bridge” is a subsection of an article that contrasts Eastern Catholicism with Western-Rite Orthodoxy, and explains why the author doesn’t regard the latter as uniatism (or “reverse uniatism”):

A Pillar, not a Bridge. Eastern Rite Catholics long believed, as an Eastern church in the Roman Catholic communion, they enjoyed a special and “unique position” as a “bridge” to Orthodoxy. At its most hopeful and imaginative, this line of reasoning saw Byzantine Catholics as the first-fruits of a reunited Christendom, leading the way to undoing the Great Schism. More to the point, they often call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” a phrase most misleading. However, this vision has since been abandoned by Roman Catholic hierarchy. More than a decade ago, The Balamand Statement declared flatly, “‘uniatism’ can no longer be accepted…as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.”

I think the there is considerable merit, IMO, to the idea of a being a “Pillar not a Bridge”. This perspective is very similar to what I write when asked about the BCC. Whatever ecumenical implications our church may have, we are first and foremost a church, practicing in a manner and Rite that has been ours since there has been and “us”. I am not so sure the WRO can say that.

However, I think the author of the quote makes many sweeping statements about the ECCs that reflect little familiarity with them.

1. The idea that we imagined some special status as a bridge is, at best, an undocumented assertion. I think that we have always been focused on the salvation of the faithful in our church. There has been very little of any kind of missionary efforts to the Orthodox - indeed for much of the history of the Slavic ECCs, the issue has been resistance to the missionary efforts of the Orthodox. What I remember from before recent times is that we eschewed contact with one another. Now we are in close contact, we talk of “sister churches”, and are not interested in prosyletization but in cooperation with each other’s communities.Overall, this is a straw man argument.
2. The “flat” statement of Balamand, followed a nuanced definition of “uniatism”. What was rejected was a missionary apostolate and prosyletization among sister churches, while recognizing the right of ECCs to exist. It’s great to read a reference to Balamand from an EO, even though the provisions were too charitable for musch traction within the EOCs.
3. While I don’t see much point in the the OiCwR designation, in the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that its usage is recent and limited to a mall group of ECCs. If, by “frequently” the author means a few use the word all the time, whereas the vast majority never use it - well that is a very misleading use of “frequently”.
4. In discussing post-unia saints, the author has apparently missed the boat.
5. While many ECs are interested in other Byzantine churches with whom we share a ritual patrimony, should that be a cause of sadness? Do the WROs really think that they somehow are an island of WR practice isolated from all others? If so, why wouldn’t that a cause of sadness.

Comparison and contrast of the WRO and ECC experiences could provide some interesting insights. While the full article is better than the selection here, to reach that point, there would have to be some honest understanding of the two groups, and some clear definitions of, for example, what is meant by “uniatism”.

 

[dvdjs]

Here.

Pius X is also known for having taking the bold step of assigning a Greek Catholic Bishop to serve Greek Catholics in America. He also established the Eparchy of Hajdúdorog in Hungary.

 

[dvdjs]

Pius IX was another who was not very kindly disposed to Eastern Catholics. There is a famous story of some conflict he had with the Melkite Patriarch of his day. It doesn’t really bear repeating here though, as most people tend to discredit it since it is an “oral tradition” rather than something that was written down immediately (unless the story exists somewhere in an old Arabic text).

I am not sure how many discredit or credit the story, but the reason for discrediting it is not simply that the tradition was oral rather than written. First, as I have been able to find, this “oral tradition” was not heard until VII - long, long after the alleged event. Second, it is an unstable story that seems to get more elaborate with time. These attributes are more the stuff of urban legend than authentic “oral history”.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by TrueLight
So what was it like to be an Eastern Catholic, say in 1950?

I can only speculate as I wasn’t born for another 35 years. I’d imagine it depended on the area that you lived in.

For Eastern Catholics that lived on the Eastern/Western European fault line (i.e. on the boarder of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) life could be quite difficult. They were generally mistrusted by both their Roman brethren and their Orthodox Mother Churches. In areas where they tried to “prove” their Catholicity by adopting certain Latin customs, they were typically persecuted by their Orthodox counterparts. In other areas where they tried to be fully “Eastern” while also being Catholic, they were persecuted by their Roman brethren. I remember reading that many Eastern Catholics were actually put to death by Polish Roman Catholics who suspected them of being Bolsheviks and “Russophiles” since they clung to their Orthodox heritage. I remember also reading about Orthodox putting Eastern Catholics to death, clinging to various Latinizations as standards of their unwillingness to give up communion with Rome. The whole history of the Eastern Catholics in Slavic countries is very sad on this point.

This post is way off the mark. Life in this region ca 1950 was hell. Murdered and incarcerated bishops. Liquidated churches. Forced - really forced conversion. There were also deportations and re-settlements - not at all on suspicion of Bolshevism or Russophiles, but, in the contrary, of suspicion of partisan activities against the Russophile, Bolshevik regimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula
These events had precious little to do with Latinization, proving anything, or Polish RCs.

In the US, however, we were moving into what has been called the golden age of the BCC.

Today, sadly, not too much has changed. Although Eastern Catholics are no longer being killed and/or imprisoned by their Roman brethren, we are still highly misunderstood, often mistrusted, and our loyalties frequently called into question by well-meaning, but generally ill-informed Latin Catholics. I personally believe that this, in part, has contributed greatly to the slow process of de-Latinization not only in externals, but also the de-Latinization of the mind (i.e. the shedding of Thomistic/neo-Thomistic and Scholastic/neo-Scholastic theology in favor of our own theological approach, as well as a full embracing of our own spiritual and canonical traditions). HOWEVER, knowledge of Eastern Catholicism is on the rise among Roman Catholics, and I’ve encountered much more openness to learning about the Eastern traditions among our Latin brethren. There is less of a tendency to “correct” what we have to say, and more of a tendency to listen and learn than I believe existed in the past.

Wow. I would submit that everything has changed. In Eastern Europe, we emerged from the catacombs to the shock of the world - especially the Orthodox there who are still bemused and bothered by it. How could these monumental happenings be missed to dwell on comparative trivialities? Hospodi Pomiluj!

 

[TrueLight]

This post is way off the mark. Life in this region ca 1950 was hell. Murdered and incarcerated bishops. Liquidated churches. Forced - really forced conversion. There were also deportations and re-settlements - not at all on suspicion of Bolshevism or Russophiles, but, in the contrary, of suspicion of partisan activities against the Russophile, Bolshevik regimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula
These events had precious little to do with Latinization, proving anything, or Polish RCs.

In the US, however, we were moving into what has been called the golden age of the BCC.

Wow. I would submit that everything has changed. In Eastern Europe, we emerged from the catacombs to the shock of the world - especially the Orthodox there who are still bemused and bothered by it. How could these monumental happenings be missed to dwell on comparative trivialities? Hospodi Pomiluj!

This post is way off the mark. Life in this region ca 1950 was hell. Murdered and incarcerated bishops. Liquidated churches. Forced - really forced conversion. There were also deportations and re-settlements - not at all on suspicion of Bolshevism or Russophiles, but, in the contrary, of suspicion of partisan activities against the Russophile, Bolshevik regimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula
These events had precious little to do with Latinization, proving anything, or Polish RCs.

In the US, however, we were moving into what has been called the golden age of the BCC.

Wow. I would submit that everything has changed. In Eastern Europe, we emerged from the catacombs to the shock of the world - especially the Orthodox there who are still bemused and bothered by it. How could these monumental happenings be missed to dwell on comparative trivialities? Hospodi Pomiluj!

Okay. Now I’m confused. LOL.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This post is way off the mark. Life in this region ca 1950 was hell. Murdered and incarcerated bishops. Liquidated churches. Forced - really forced conversion. There were also deportations and re-settlements - not at all on suspicion of Bolshevism or Russophiles, but, in the contrary, of suspicion of partisan activities against the Russophile, Bolshevik regimes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vistula
These events had precious little to do with Latinization, proving anything, or Polish RCs.

In the US, however, we were moving into what has been called the golden age of the BCC.

Wow. I would submit that everything has changed. In Eastern Europe, we emerged from the catacombs to the shock of the world - especially the Orthodox there who are still bemused and bothered by it. How could these monumental happenings be missed to dwell on comparative trivialities? Hospodi Pomiluj!

dvdjs,

The era to which I was referring in my post wasn’t the era of Communist Russia, but the era prior to that (i.e. from the time of the Union of Brest up until the early 20th Century). I understand that life for an Eastern Catholic was hell under the Communist regime and I didn’t mean to come across as though I was downplaying their sufferings. Again, I was simply referring to a different time in history.

As to what has changed, I was speaking in regard to Eastern Catholic-Roman Catholic relations, not what has changed within the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves. Again, I believe that overall there is more of an openness towards Eastern Catholics among Roman Catholics, but there still exists a great deal of misunderstanding and mistrust. So, again, in that aspect not much has changed.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In the US, however, we were moving into what has been called the golden age of the BCC.

Never heard that. Did anyone of note make such an observation and declaration? Was this under a given hierarch or hierarchs? What years? What made it a “golden age”?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am not sure how many discredit or credit the story, but the reason for discrediting it is not simply that the tradition was oral rather than written. First, as I have been able to find, this “oral tradition” was not heard until VII - long, long after the alleged event. Second, it is an unstable story that seems to get more elaborate with time. These attributes are more the stuff of urban legend than authentic “oral history”.

This is my fault, I should’ve been more clear hear. I would say that this oral tradition was not heard outside of Arab/Melkite regions until Vatican II, but that does not mean it didn’t exist in both an oral and written tradition among the Melkites well before Vatican II. It is entirely possible that it existed in an Arabic text - since I do not read Arabic, however, I don’t know whether or not such a text exists. I cannot imagine the Melkite hierarchs would maliciously invent such a story simply for the purpose of defaming and/or discrediting the papacy of Pius IX.

I’ve only heard two versions of the story, and neither of them are really that extreme or elaborate. But I do not really want to go into the background of the story here. We are free to believe it or not. I for one believe it because I’ve been told by others much more knowledgeable than myself that the actions were consistent with Pius IX personality. Still, even though I believe the story, it’s not one I give much weight to.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Never heard that. Did anyone of note make such an observation and declaration? Was this under a given hierarch or hierarchs? What years? What made it a “golden age”?

Amen! I too have never heard of such a “golden age.” As far as the 1950s are concerned, I’d always heard that this was a time when the Ruthenian Catholic Church here in the U.S. was under heavy Latinizations - lack of iconostasis, First Communions, statues and no icons, a Roman catechesis rather than a properly Byzantine catechesis, etc.

Fr. Taft himself would say that there is no “golden age” of the Mass/Liturgy except for the one in which we find ourselves.

 

[Peter_J]

– During RCIA, there would be a section on the Eastern Rite and vice versa.

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, “the Eastern Rite” is a misnomer. There are several Eastern Rites, e.g. the Maronite Rite (used by the Maronite Church), the Byzantine Rite (used by the BCC, UGCC, Melkite Church and others) etc.

Is it just that that neither churches were comfortable with the idea of Orthodox becoming Catholic?

Huh? Presumably the Catholics were comfortable with it, whereas the Orthodox weren’t (and still aren’t).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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

– 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.

TL - I found your list interesting and thoughtful. If I may offer a few thoughts on each …

We are indeed Catholic. Ask any Eastern Catholic deacon, priest or bishop, and their answer will be the same - we do not (nor cannot) reject the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. Being Eastern Catholic does not give one a pass that is not enjoyed by Latin Catholics. Rather, we are permitted and encouraged to teach and understand such in the context of our own spirituality and theological perspective.

On the Immaculate Conception, I would point out that there are a fair number of Eastern Catholic Churches in this country that are dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, and so named. Bear in mind that since 1847 the United States was declared to be under the patronage of the “Blessed Virgin, conceived without sin”, predating the dogmatic declaration by a few years. That patronage now is to Our Lady the Immaculate Conception, and our National Shrine in Washington, DC is so dedicated.

The CCC makes several express statements in explaining the Immaculate Conception, referencing Eastern thought, in an attempt to address this. For example:

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

495 Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

On another favorite subject, while we are now permitted and encouraged to recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as originally adopted (sans Filioque), we accept the Church’s teaching on the Filioque as being “reconcilable” to the intent of the original Creed and the understanding of the Holy Spirit agreed at Council. The CCC once again offers some express statements:

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

It will be interesting to read the UGCC’s Catechism, due out in English at the end of this year, to see how such and similar are handled.

On “missals”, I agree this can and would be useful. What you do see in practice varies from particular Church to Church. In my own Ruthenian Church, our previous (now superceded) pew book actually followed this format, with English alongside a transliterated version of Church Slavonic. I could not have learned Church Slavonic any other way (and I do miss that presentation and format)!

“Inter Rite” activities is also a great idea. The Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarch connect on the Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul. It might be nice to have some formalized program to offer a Mass/DL in a different Rite on a significant feast day associated with the particular Church that follows that Rite. The Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul would be suitable for West to come to East. Perhaps Corpus Christi would be a good choice generally for East to come to West. The problem is one of resources, of course, as the ECCs do not have the number of priests found in the Latin Church, and the Eastern Churches are not as geographically dispersed. We often have bi-ritual priest come to serve the DL when our priest is out of town. To me, it was always a shame that we didn’t somehow make this an opportunity to invite the substitute priest’s own parishioners to join us in worship.

There have been several threads here on RCIA. This is an obvious place for formal catechesis, but does not cover the many adult Latin Catholic who have little or no exposure.

Not bad, Pope TL!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Okay. Now I’m confused. LOL.

Suffice it to say we’ve been talking mostly of the Eastern Catholic Churches from an American perspective. The plight of our sister and mother churches in Eastern Europe under communisim is a whole other story in some respects.

Firstly, these are mostly churches in countries of origin, the so-called historical canonical territories. Even to this day, the Eastern & Oriental Churches suffer as they exist in less than ideal condition. The Copts of Egypt are threatened by a new government. Conditions in Syria continue to deteriorate. As mentioned, the churches in Eastern Europe suffered greater under Communism, and are only now beginning to recover.

Secondly, the “Old Country” churches were not generally impacted by some of the restrictions placed on the churches here in the U.S., as regards the married preisthood, for example. While the Eastern Christians that settled here felt they as a people had a pact with Rome protecting their rightful traditions, Rome took the position that this was only true “in the canonical territories”.

It’s a tale of two cities, so to speak …

 

[dvdjs]

Suffice it to say we’ve been talking mostly of the Eastern Catholic Churches from an American perspective. The plight of our sister and mother churches in Eastern Europe under communisim is a whole other story in some respects.

Looking back over the posts there was a great mix of here and there. The actualconfusion came from PR’s response to TL’s question: what was it like to be a Greek Catholic in 1950. That response arguably has problems even if the question was about pre-WWI tiems. As for the 1950’s, however, it just missed the boat.

 

[dvdjs]

Never heard that. Did anyone of note make such an observation and declaration? Was this under a given hierarch or hierarchs? What years? What made it a “golden age”?

No, of course no one would make such an official statement, looking to the past. I saw it on a parish website as part of a caption of a picture of the Saint Nicholas Charity Day Banquet from the 50’s or early 60’s. The term may have been picked up on a article in the BCW about the golden anniversary of the Banquet.

This era, was a golden one, however. It was a golden time between all of the problems of the recent past and those of looming in the near future.

In the past, we were foreigners brought into small communities for hard labor. We faced suspicion and difficulties in all aspects of life - even in establishing a Greek Catholic Eparchy here and developing a modus vivendi with all of our neighbors.

The next generation, however, was part of the Greatest Generation. Fully Americans living upwardly mobile lives within our tight communities. Strongly integrated into our local parishes - with just about every aspect of our lives - religious, educational, social linked to the church. We were grateful that the turmoil of the past was behind us. We were at peak in numbers of faithful and vocations. We just built a seminary that was bunking three in a two person room. We were building new church buildings to accommodate our numbers, and new school buildings for the boomers. We had begun new mission parishes for those adventurous souls just starting to move to something called suburbs - or to remote places like Phoenix or Los Angeles. We had already begun regular celebration of services in our new vernacular, English, but we still were brilliant in our Slavonic and our music. And our food and our dancing - our own religious and cultural traditions. We were good people, engaged, and devoted to our church.

Then what? The industries that were a foundation for these communities together, began to wither. Fortunately, many of us were no longer looking for those blue collar positions. Unfortunately, we were all being re-dispersed. It was no longer adventurous to move to another community, it was just a necessity of life. And the moves were increasingly to the south and west where there were few parishes, and mainly as individuals, not groups, thus hindering the opportunities to establish new parishes. Many, many went RC. Add to the that the cultural trend toward secularization, and much smaller families, and the net effect is that, 50 years later we are at 1/3-1/4 of the numbers of the “golden era”. In many places we see slow but steady decline, in others we are slowly moving forward, but are small. The energy is far less - as especially noticeable in big parishes of the northeast that now seat so few. Short on critical mass, everything is harder to do brilliantly. We certainly do not sound like we used to.

Sure there were many problems in those happy days. But at the level of church life - and church life as our life. It was a golden time. I hope that we can keep that good of that time in mind as we look to prepare our future.

 

[TrueLight]

Thanks Byz for your answers in posts 76 and 77. And thanks dvdjs for your summary and insight in your last post.