Category: Eastern Orthodox Church

February 16, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Chirovsky on the Pope/Patriarch Meeting

Fr. Andriy Chirovsky, Director of the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, has a new piece up at First Things reflecting on the recent meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. The article provides some much needed historical context to the meeting and corrects a number of errors floating around in the mainstream and Catholic press, including the idea that the Moscow Patriarchate is 1,000 years old (it was established in 1589). Here are some excerpts.

The spin will be important to watch because much of the world press is hopelessly confused in its reporting about the historic meeting between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Moscow. Endless references to the thousand-year estrangement between Rome and Moscow display ignorance of the fact that 1,000 years ago the Patriarchate of Moscow did not exist. It was created in 1589. Even the position of Metropolitan of Moscow goes back only to 1448. The creation of the Moscow Metropolitanate was a direct reaction to the fact that the Church of Kyiv (Kiev) had re-established full communion with Rome at the Council of Florence through Metropolitan Isidore. The Metropolitan of Kyiv, Petro Akerovych, had attended the First Council of Lyons in 1245. Moscow cannot claim the history of the Kyivan Church as its own and simultaneously ignore such momentous moments in that history. Furthermore, the Kyivan Church re-established full communion with Rome in 1596 through the Union of Brest, an explicit revival of Florentine models of unity, only to be beaten back by rivals who did not accept this Union. Even so, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Petro Mohyla in the 1640’s, made contacts with Rome and was the author of yet another proposal for renewing communion with Rome, on what he considered slightly better terms. Now, either the history of the Church of Kiev is a separate reality from that of Moscow, or it is part and parcel of Russian Orthodox identity. Moscow cannot have it both ways. Alas, Moscow does do its best to obfuscate matters. The Moscow Patriarchate (founded 1589) claims to be the Mother Church for the Church of Kiev (founded 988). George Orwell would smile at this sort of Double-speak. That is why Moscow does not correct commentators who talk about the thousand-year estrangement. It all makes Moscow look more exotic, more like a great prize to be wooed at all costs.

. . . .

In paragraph 25, the Moscow Patriarchate finally acknowledges that Eastern Catholics actually have a right to exist and to minister to their flocks, something the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Balamand Declaration in 1993 clearly stated. Twenty three years later, all of the Eastern Catholic Churches can breathe a sigh of relief that the Church that co-operated in the destruction of Eastern Catholic Churches under the Czars and under Stalin, has finally come into line with world Orthodoxy and no longer denies their very right to live. Interestingly, this paragraph does not mention Eastern Catholic Churches, but only “ecclesial communities.” Anyone versed in Catholic ecclesiological and ecumenical vocabulary will be alarmed at this, since this signals something less than full stature as a Church. There is no doubt at all that Rome views the largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches precisely as a Church. In fact Rome refers to 22 Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, a term that means “of their own law” or self-governing. How, then, did this anomalous terminology creep into the document? There is only one answer, I believe. It was inserted by Moscow and Vatican ecumenists either missed it or knowingly made a concession in order to please Moscow.

. . . .

The definition of uniatism given by paragraph 25 is rather ambiguous and thus (and I’ll say this with a smile) it appears not to apply to the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church. The text says: “It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity.” Apparently, Ukrainian Greco-Catholics can sigh a great sigh of relief, since this Church came into being through the decision of the bishops of the Orthodox Metropolia of Kiev, and not through “the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church. This was an action of the whole Kievan Church. Ironically, the two last bishoprics to join the Union (a hundred years later) were those in Westernmost Ukraine, today the region in which Ukrainian Greco-Catholics still constitute a majority of believers. The 1596 Union of Brest was precisely a corporate union of one Church with another, not some peeling off of communities from another Church. Of course, the faithful of this Church have paid a very high price for their choice of unity with Rome, openly persecuted by Russian imperial governments, whether czarist or Bolshevik, whenever they acquired another slice of Belarusian or Ukrainian territory. The narrative presented by most Orthodox authors is that all of this was a plot by Polish Jesuits against the Orthodox Church. Such a narrative denies subjectivity to the Orthodox bishops of the Metropolia of Kyiv. In fact, they were shrewdly acting against plans that many Poles had for turning the Orthodox into Roman Catholics and Poles. None of this is to say that the Union of Brest is a model for Orthodox-Catholic unity in the future. It had numerous flaws, on the side of the Orthodox architects of the union as well as on the side of Rome. A good number—but not all—of them have been corrected. The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church does subscribe to the Balamand Statement of 1993. It has from the beginning.

February 16, 2016 Eastern Orthodox Church

Fortescue on the Eastern Schism

Certain traditional Catholics are in a tizzy right now about “things Orthodox,” piously accusing their separated Eastern brethren of being “schismatics” and “heretics.” (“Behold, how they love one another.”) For the record, here is what the late, great Fr. Adrian Fortescue had to say on the matter in his 1912 entry from The Catholic Encyclopedia entitled, “The Eastern Schism.” If only present-day traditionalists could exhibit such care when approaching one of the most complicated and tragic situations in Christian history.

In this deplorable story we notice the following points. It is easier to understand how a schism continues than how it began. Schisms are easily made; they are enormously difficult to heal. The religious instinct is always conservative; there is always a strong tendency to continue the existing state of things. At first the schismatics were reckless innovators; then with the lapse of centuries their cause seems to be the old one; it is the Faith of the Fathers. Eastern Christians especially have this conservative instinct strongly. They fear that reunion with Rome would mean a betrayal of the old Faith, of the Orthodox Church, to which they have clung so heroically during all these centuries. One may say that the schism continues mainly through force of inertia.

In its origin we must distinguish between the schismatical tendency and the actual occasion of its outburst. But the reason of both has gone now. The tendency was mainly jealousy caused by the rise of the See of Constantinople. That progress is over long ago. The last three centuries Constantinople has lost nearly all the broad lands she once acquired. There is nothing the modern Orthodox Christian resents more than any assumption of authority by the oecumenical patriarch outside his diminished patriarchate. The Byzantine see has long been the plaything of the Turk, wares that he sold to the highest bidder. Certainly now this pitiful dignity is no longer a reason for the schism of nearly 100,000,000 Christians. Still less are the immediate causes of the breach active. The question of the respective rights of Ignatius and Photius leaves even the Orthodox cold after eleven centuries; and Caerularius’s ambitions and insolence may well be buried with him. Nothing then remains of the original causes.

There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.

That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one’s steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom.

February 15, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Concluding Unscientific Postscript on the Francis/Kirill Meeting

There has been so much excellent commentary on the recently concluded meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow that it seems unnecessary to add too much more to the pile. Clearly an event like this—and the Joint Declaration which emerged from it—wasn’t going to sit the same with all people. Although Eastern Orthodox commentary has been fairly sparse thus far (at least in English), there appears to be a fair amount of discontent floating around traditionalist Orthodox circles (the “pan-heresy of ecumenism” and all that jazz), prompting some to either declare that the sky is falling or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, that neither the meeting nor the Joint Declaration mean a whole heck of a lot. To some extent the latter view is correct. The meeting, in and of itself, won’t amount to a hill of beans unless the Moscow Patriarchate is committed to ongoing theological dialogue and rapprochement. However, as numerous commentators have already highlighted, the Russian state under Vladimir Putin has a definite geopolitical interest in keeping close ties with the Vatican, which may have had more to do with the meeting taking place than any desire to mend the Great Schism.

Continue reading

February 14, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Pope/Patriarch Joint Declaration – Further Commentary Roundup

With 48 hours behind us since the historic meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, a large number of (mostly Catholic) voices are sounding off on both the encounter itself and the Joint Declaration which came out of it. I have already posted the reactions of Patriarch Sviatoslav and Fr. Peter Galadza of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), along with a brief collection of pre-meeting commentaries here.

February 13, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church

Patriarch Sviatoslav on the Joint Declaration

Update 2/14: A full English translation of Patriarch Sviatoslav’s response to the Joint Declaration (sans Scriptural references) is now available from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s website here. My thanks once again to Fr. Athanasius McVay for allowing Opus Publicum to host his partial translation of the Patriarch’s words.

—————

His Beatitude Sviatoslav, Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych and All Rus, has issued an official statement on the Joint Declaration signed yesterday by Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill in Havana, Cuba. The full text of the Patriarch’s statement — in Ukrainian — is available from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church’s official website. While Sviatoslav offers words of praise for the Joint Declaration, that praise is tempered by the fact that he was not consulted on the text despite being a member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Fr. Athanasius McVay, a Greek Catholic priest, has kindly granted Opus Publicum permission to post his translation of the final three paragraphs of his Beatitude’s statement. He also added in Scriptural references at the end. Hopefully a full translation of Patriarch Sviatoslav’s words will be available in short order.

Undoubtedly, this text has caused deep disappointment among many of the faithful of our Church and among conscientious citizens of Ukraine. This day, many contacted me about this and said that they feel betrayed by the Vatican, disappointed by the half-truths in this document, and even see it as indirect support by the Apostolic See of Russian aggression against Ukraine. I can certainly understand understand those feelings.

Nevertheless, I encourage our faithful not to dramatize this declaration and not to exaggerate its importance to Church life. We have experienced more than one such declaration, and will survive this one as well. We need to remember that our unity and full communion with the Holy Father, the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is not the result of political agreement or diplomatic compromise, or the clarity of a text of a joint declaration. This unity and communion with the Peter of today is an essential characteristic of our Faith. It is to him, Pope Francis, and to each of us today, that Christ says in the Gospel of Luke: “Simon, Simon! Satan would sift you like wheat, but I prayed for you, so that your faith is not weakened, and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.”

It is for this unity with the Apostolic See [of Rome] that the martyrs and confessors of the Faith of the Church of the twentieth century gave their lives and sealed their blood. Precisely commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Lviv Pseudo-Synod, we share their strength of witness, their sacrifice which, in our day, often appears to be a stumbling block – the stone which the builders of international relations often rejected. But it is the Christ Stone of Peter’s faith that the Lord made the cornerstone of the future of all Christians. And it will be “marvellous in our eyes.” (Psalm 118:22; Mt 21:42; Lk 20:17; Act 4:11; Ep 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7)

February 13, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church

Galadza on the Joint Declaration

I fully expect a flood of commentary on Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill’s Joint Declaration in the coming days. A brief scan of the Inter-webs reveals a noticeable number of traditionalist Orthodox and Catholics rending their garments over it. Greek Catholics have also started to express mixed feelings, including Fr. Peter Galadza, Director of the Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies in Ottawa, Ontario. Here are his (brief) thoughts:

The inability to get any kind of reference in the joint statement to foreign aggression in Ukraine is a major flaw in an otherwise decent statement – Ukrainians worldwide will be very disappointed. And Antonii Pakanych’s (metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate) prominence in the Moscow Patriarchate delegation without anyone even remotely representative of Eastern Catholicism (not to mention Ukrainian Greek Catholicism) is also very unfortunate.

It’s debatable whether or not the absence of “foreign aggression” language constitutes a “major flaw” given that the central purpose of the Declaration — at least as advertised — is to rally support for the persecuted Christians of the Middle East. I would argue that the absence of stronger language condemning the role of Islamic extremism in these persecutions (and the persecutions of other religious minorities in the region) represents a bigger flaw in the document. After all, consider paragraph #26:

26. We deplore the hostility in Ukraine that has already caused many victims, inflicted innumerable wounds on peaceful inhabitants and thrown society into a deep economic and humanitarian crisis. We invite all the parts involved in the conflict to prudence, to social solidarity and to action aimed at constructing peace. We invite our Churches in Ukraine to work towards social harmony, to refrain from taking part in the confrontation, and to not support any further development of the conflict.

No, the paragraph does not “name names,” but that’s a prudent gesture considering the circumstances. While Russia’s activities in Ukraine are undoubtedly immoral and certainly illegal from the perspective of contemporary international law, the cost of the Declaration saddling Russia with a bulk of the blame far outweighs the benefits of bringing the Pope and the Russian Patriarch together with an eye toward real reconciliation between East and West.

Where I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Galadza is with respect to the lack of representation from the Greek Catholic Church at the Pope/Patriarch meeting. It seems that Rome is once again treating its Eastern Catholic brethren as second-class citizens whose existence is merely tolerated rather than celebrated. No doubt Moscow requested that no “Uniates” be on sight during the get-together.

February 11, 2016 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Francis/Kirill Meeting – Commentary Roundup

I doubt I will have much time to write on the upcoming meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow until after it happens. Not surprisingly, there is a small flood of commentary out there already. I have linked to some of it here and here. The following links are also worth checking out (all from a Catholic perspective). If anyone knows any solid Orthodox commentary, please feel free to post links in the combox or send them to me on Twitter (@opuspublicum).

February 7, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Brief Thoughts on the SSPX’s Position Regarding the Francis/Kirill Meeting

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has started to weigh-in on the upcoming meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (more here). Using excerpts from several sources, including John Allen’s thoughtful editorial at Crux, the Society appears concerned that the meeting will sow confusion in the Catholic Church and intentionally blur the lines about which way is the true path to Salvation. In particular, the SSPX objects to how “[p]ast ecumenical gestures with Orthodox have weakened not only the image of the Pope but his very function as defined by Christ Himself” and the Catholic Church’s de facto policy of not seeking to convert the Orthodox (more on this below). With respect to the first charge, the function of the papacy has been a hot-button issue for decades, not only among those concerned with keeping up good ties with the Orthodox, but among Latin traditionalists as well. Traditional Catholics have loudly condemned the “papalotry” which has emerged during the modern era of the “celebrity pope” and the idea that the pope is unlimited in what he can do with respect to faith, morals, liturgy, and so forth. I don’t think the Orthodox (particularly the Russian Orthodox Church) would disagree with this in the slightest. Where the SSPX and the Orthodox likely disagree is how far the pope can reach into the affairs of other patriarchal churches. In lamenting the Catholic Church’s rejection of two Orthodox bishops which wished to enter into communion with her in 1989, the Society decries this as false ecumenism while saying nothing about the fact that it’s just such an apparent overreach of authority which the Orthodox abhor. Had the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had its rights as a sui iuris church respected, the two aforementioned Orthodox bishops could have been received without incident. It’s somewhat ironic to think that the SSPX would likely defend the right of the pope to freely make such a flagrant incursion into the affairs of the UGCC even if it leads to very troubling results.

As for the Balamand Declaration—which the SSPX is, understandably, unhappy with—it’s, well, complicated. As Fr. Aidan Nichols discusses in his excellent book Rome and the Eastern Churches, Balamand “was well intentioned but underwent the unfortunate fate of pleasing no one.” The Eastern Catholic churches were not unanimous in celebrating Balamand, and the hardline Orthodox were wrong to think that the outcome of the statement would be the abolition of the so-called “Uniate” (Greek Catholic) churches. Whatever politics Rome has tried to play with the Orthodox East has not gotten in the way of Orthodox faithful converting to the Catholic Church. Both the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches and the particular law of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church contain specific provisions for the reception of non-Catholic Eastern Christians into the Catholic Church. Although some Catholic ecumenists may have hoped that Balamand would result in a “live and let live” approach to relations with the Orthodox, that hasn’t exactly been the case, as evidenced, for instance, by recent events in Ukraine. Moreover, the SSPX may, in its zeal, fail to see that the self-guided mission of the Eastern churches is not to simply “cherry pick” individual Orthodox from their confession, but to serve as a bridge to full ecclesiastical communion between East and West.

Although now is not the place to get into the “dirty details,” it is worth noting that “Uniatism,” as a practical policy, has left behind a mixed legacy which some argue has had more to do with East/West estrangement today than anything else. (Others argue that’s nonsense, but again, I leave that debate to another time and place.) That the Catholic Church has decided to step away from it is not surprising, particularly since very little good will come from Catholics attempting to setup “parallel churches” to those already established in the East. The “game plan” now, for better or worse, is to dialogue with those already established churches with an eye towards full ecclesiastical communion. It is unfair to the hopes and intentions of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI to say that they simply were looking for an “I’m ok, you’re ok” approach to the Christian East; they desired for the wound of schism to be healed. While the SSPX is entitled to its own opinion on how to treat that injury, it would perhaps be best if it wrote with more circumspection on the matter and with a wider understanding of the historical and political problems which have kept Christendom tragically split for centuries.

February 6, 2016 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Two Paragraphs on Frank and Kirill in Cuba

Despite the fact the always-correct and never-hyperbolic traditional Catholic website Rorate Caeli said it would never, ever happen, Pope Francis is set to make history on February 12 when he meets with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Two essential pieces of Catholic commentary on the event are Adam DeVille’s article from Our Sunday Visitor, “When Pope Meets Patriarch,” and the statement released by the Metropolitan Andrey Skeptytsky Institute, housed at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario. So far I have not been able to find (in English) any concentrated Orthodox commentary on the upcoming meeting, though a recent press conference held by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) seems to downplay the ecumenical significance of the event while reminding everyone that Moscow still has a beef with the “Unia” (that is, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine). No soberminded person—Catholic or Orthodox—should look on the meeting as much more than a small, but significant, step in warming relations between the two largest Christian confessions in the world and, hopefully, opening a pathway to establishing greater cooperation on issues of common interest in the future. The central (advertised) point of the February 12 meeting will be the persecution of Christians in the Middle East with a joint declaration expected to be signed.

Although the apparent aims and intents of Francis and Kirill’s meeting are quite modest, that doesn’t mean there aren’t nervous observers on both sides of the confessional divide. Some Ukrainian Greek Catholics are understandably worried that Francis will throw their interests under the bus in order to appease Kirill, a real (though hopefully unlikely) possibility given the Moscow Patriarchate’s decades-long insistence that the very existence of the UGCC was a barrier to any meeting between pope and patriarch. Francis—the “pope of surprises”—could cut the other way, of course, stating in clear terms that the violence in Ukraine must stop and the freedom of the UGCC be respected. Orthodox observers, particularly those who buy into the Moscow Patriarchate’s “Russian World” ideology, will not be happy if Kirill appears to budge on the (problematic) idea that Ukraine, by right, belongs to Moscow. End of story. At the same time, non-Russian Orthodox may find it disconcerting that the Moscow Patriarchate appears to be drawing closer to Rome (at least strategically) and surmise that it is little more than a power play on the Russian Church’s part. Arguably the best possible outcome—at least at this stage in the game—is for both men to build enough trust in each other that they can move forward on a number of prickly issues in the near future. For now, Catholics and Orthodox should be pleased if the two sides can speak with one voice on the atrocious violence in the Middle East and the fate of the region’s historic Christian populations.