Eastern Orthodox Church - Opus Publicum

October 28, 2015 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, World

The Road Ahead

Much to my surprise, “A Closing Comment on the Synod” became one of the highest viewed posts on Opus Publicum since I reset the blog last year, though it received far fewer comments than other posts related to, say, Catholic/Orthodox relations or liturgical reform. Perhaps people are tired of reading and talking about the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family. I know I am. Several worst-case-scenarios were proposed by observers over the past year; none of them, thankfully, came to pass. As I pointed out previously, however, that is no cause for comfort. Pope Francis, who has already revolutionized the annulment process, can still set loose more doctrinal and moral confusion within the Church with his pending Apostolic Exhortation. Liberal bishops, priests, and laity, despite their alleged defeat at the Synod, now appear emboldened to continue turning a blind eye to mortal sin in the name of “mercy.” As for the conservatives and traditionalists, the immediate future looks bleak. Those Synod participants who refused to get on board with the liberal reforms championed by the Continental prelates and backed by the Pope are now exposed. No, Francis cannot lay the hammer down on all of them, but he can continue to play musical chairs with the seats of power at the Vatican to help ensure that the orthodox hierarchy won’t get in his way in the future.

October 20, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Brief Comment on Rod Dreher, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism

In the combox to yesterday’s post, “A Comment on Synodality, East and West,” a reader by the name of Luke wrote the following:

That is a paradox that I still can’t wrap my head around: the Orthodox with a decentralized authority have no power to implement a Novus Ordo for example yet they have not turned in to Anglicanism East without a Pope. However, could you imagine the Catholic Church in the U.S without the intervention of JPII or BXVI?

Before I could type out a reply, Rod Dreher, over at The American Conservative, issued a similar query to his readers:

1. Why does the Orthodox Church, which lacks the centralized office of the papacy, and lacks magisterial offices, hold to historical, orthodox Christianity better than the Roman Catholic Church, which has these offices, and in theory ought to have a firmer hold on these things?

One can develop all sorts of sociological, historical, and psychological explanations for Catholic/Orthodox divergences, but they’re probably not terribly helpful. Certain Orthodox living in the (geographic) West enjoy grand narratives filled with Western philosophical-theological decadence and pristine Eastern mysticism, perhaps because it makes them feel like they have found a safe haven in Orthodoxy, free from the complications of (post)modernity. I have never had much patience for such “thinking,” as I have explained in various posts (see, e.g., “The Myth of Hart“). Whether Dreher buys into any of that stuff or not is difficult to say. Assuming he has read his Florovsky, Schmemann, and Meyendorff carefully, he knows full well that the Orthodox Church has never been isolated from intellectual developments and ideological upheavals which are, mistakenly, identified as exclusively “Western.” If there is anything distinctly “Eastern” in Orthodoxy, it is its occasionally obstinate refusal to be open, honest, and self-critical, particularly when it comes to its complicated, and sometimes tragic, relationship with both Roman and Greek Catholicism. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that Orthodoxy’s “closedness” has protected it from time to time against certain secular-liberal currents that have no business being imported into any Christian confession.

As for Dreher’s question specifically, it’s not even worth answering. It is not worth answering because it is formulated with the assumption that the institutional Orthodox Church “hold[s] to historical, orthodox Christianity better than the” institutional Roman Catholic Church. No Catholic in their right mind would accept that. What Catholics with eyes to see and ears to hear accept is that when it comes to priests and bishops — the body of individuals charged with preserving and passing on the Apostolic Faith — the Orthodox Church appears to have a relative advantage, at least at the global level. Anybody who has spent serious time around Orthodoxy in America knows that “exclusively Catholic problems” such as the so-called “Lavender Mafia,” clerical sexual abuse, lax discipline, moral and doctrinal confusion, and so on, and so forth, can all be found amidst the icons and incense, too. But American Orthodoxy is small and its representation in certain academic, ecumenical, and political circles is grossly disproportionate. Across the pond, ostensibly rigorous Orthodoxy has done no better job holding back cultural decline in Greece than allegedly lackadaisical Catholicism has done in Italy. Both countries are suffering from civilizational exhaustion. Then again, so is ours — and neither the Catholic nor Orthodox churches are doing a damn thing about it.

October 19, 2015 Church, Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Comment on Synodality, East and West

There has been a lot of clamor (panic?) over Pope Francis’s alleged plan (or at least desire) to see the emergence of a “synodal church” where decisionmaking, including judgements concerning doctrine, devolve to the local or regional level. Edward Pentin, over at the National Catholic Register, offers a brief analysis of the Pope’s recent speech discussing this new structure, along with a working translation of the speech. Although Francis-speak, with its rambling references and clumsy formulations, is notoriously difficult to interpret, it does seem as if the Holy Father wants to inaugurate a radical change in ecclesiastical governance that could have far-reaching consequences for the Church. As Rorate Caeli notes, Francis already signaled this desire back in 2013 with his exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, a ponderous document with debatable doctrinal heft. Indeed, the signal was strong enough that I felt compelled to pen a few critical words about the synodal model as it plays out among the Eastern Orthodox for Crisis. My position on the matter has, admittedly, softened over the past year (see, for example, here and here), though not to the point where I believe that Roman Catholicism (as opposed to the Eastern Catholic churches) is in any way, shape, or form prepared for a revolutionary upheaval which will likely affect all aspects of her life.

October 15, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy

An Email Reply on Eastern Prayer Books

For those interested, a reader sent me a message recently asking which English-language Greek Catholic prayer book I use. My reply: None. This is the rest of what I had to say.

October 14, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy, Roman Catholic Church

The Traditional Roman Liturgy Question and Eastern Liturgics

By now most Latin Catholics with an interest in liturgical matters know the complaint: The so-called 1962 books (Missale Romanum, Breviarium Romanum, etc.) which are approved for official Church use are inferior to those in use up until around 1954. The litany of changes instituted by Popes Pius XII and John XIII were imprudent, sloppy, and, in the case of Holy Week, revolutionary. However, as I have argued many times before, the average Catholic in the pew would hardly know the difference. The primary difference between a Sunday Tridentine Mass served according to the 1962 Missal and one served according to a 1954 (or earlier) Missal is the absence of commemorations. The third Confiteor was technically eliminated too, though many traditional groups, including the Society of St. Pius X, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius continue to recite it. A noticeable number of diocesan clergy appear to as well. Where the 1955-62 liturgical changes are most noticeable is in the breviary, though due to the accidents of ecclesiastical history, the Divine Office is almost exclusively confined to the clergy. Public recitation has all but disappeared.

October 14, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Ecumenism

Some — though thankfully not all — traditionalists have taken umbrage with certain “ecumenical” posts on Opus Publicum concerning Catholic/Orthodox relations. According to common legend, the Orthodox have been “schismatics” since 1054, obstinately refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff while illicitly ministering to the Christians of the East. Anyone familiar with the actual history of second-millennium Christianity knows what a load of hooey this is. Although Catholics and Orthodox regrettably remain divided, that division is not as “clean” as some would like. Much to my delight, Fr. John Hunwicke, in a post simply entitled “Ecumenism,” offers up some important historical details on the positive and edifying interactions between Latin Catholics and Greek Orthodox in previous centuries. Wonderful it would be if things were still so.

For those interested, the following is an incomplete list of posts touching upon East/West ecumenical matters with a specific emphasis on the 21 New Coptic Martyrs and the elevation of the great Armenian saint, Gregory of Narek, as a Doctor of the Universal Church.

October 13, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

One on Orthodoxy, Two on Catholicism

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but I couldn’t help but notice that First Things posted a critical (some might say damning) analysis of Russian church/state mingling on the anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima’s Miracle of the Sun. Sergei Chapnin’s “A Church of Empire” will be a sobering read for those who believe “Holy Russia” has returned under the gaze of President Vlaidmir Putin and Moscow Patriarch Kirill. Chapnin, an Orthodox believer himself, does not buy the line that a great moral awakening is ongoing in Russia. Rather, the Orthodox Church has become “a post-Soviet civil religion providing ideological support for the Russian state.” It’s difficult to argue with that conclusion in light of both the Moscow Patriarchate’s “Russian World” rhetoric and the dreadful number of abortions and divorces which occur in the country each year. None of this is to say that all is lost, however. Even if the Russian Church lacks living links to its pre-Soviet past, the Russian Orthodox tradition itself holds the seeds for authentic spiritual, moral, and social renewal. The question now is when the upper hierarchy in the Russian Orthodox Church will have the fortitude to truly resist secular political influences on ecclesiastical life. Some are hoping it will come during this generation, but given current circumstances, it may still be a long ways off.

Over at the site One Peter Five, a gent going by the alias Benedict Constable has some sobering words for Catholics. “Getting Real About Catholic History: A Brief Review of Papal Lapses” dumps a bucket of ice water on ultramontane sentiments by reviewing some fairly infamous moments in Church history where popes scandalized the faithful and, arguably, undermined the Catholic Faith. Perhaps it is too early to tell for sure, but there seems to be a slow — but steady — drift away from papal maximalism within certain circles of the Catholic Church, a drift that undoubtedly bodes well for the future as far as both preserving the Faith and improving relations with the Eastern Orthodox are concerned. It is interesting to see that while Pope Francis has done next-to-nothing to curb open dissent against Church doctrine during the ongoing Synod on the Family, several Greek Catholic leaders, including Patriarch Sviatoslav of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), have stood firm for the Apostolic Faith. The successor to St. Peter is not the only one available to shepherd the faithful in these troubling times.

Speaking of the UGCC, I made a brief mention yesterday of an academic article by Fr. Peter Galadza where, inter alia, he examines four 17th C. Kievan Liturgicons (roughly equivalent to a Missal for Latin Catholics), including the first printed 1617 edition which was edited in part by St. Josaphat Kuntsevych, the polarizing promoter of Orthodox reunion with Rome. This foundational liturgical text for the Greek Catholics, which was printed just 21 years after the Union of Brest, includes neither the filioque in the Creed nor a commemoration for the pope. Following proper Byzantine liturgical praxis, such a commemoration would have been reserved to the metropolitan bishop rather than parish priests. Today, regrettably, the pope is given primary commemoration during the litanies despite the fact that he is not the primate of the UGCC. The practice has no support in Byzantine liturgical history and will hopefully be eliminated in due course.

October 12, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy

The Ways of Greek Catholicism in the West – Liturgy

Note: This post is the overdue second part of the fairly subjective reflection I wrote last month, “An Opening Remark on the Ways of Greek Catholicism in the West.” This “installment” concerns liturgy.

October 11, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

Some Comments on Taft and Sister Churches

Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., retired professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute and world-renowned liturgical scholar, continues to vex some Catholics (mainly of a traditionalist variety) with his promotion of what he perceives to be Roman Catholicism’s new “Sister Churches” eccesiology. Taft’s most recent restatement of this position, “Problems in Anaphoral Theology,” 57 St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37 (2013), runs like this:

The Catholic Church considers [the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches to be] “Sister Churches,” which despite their rejection of communion with Rome, are ancient Churches tracing their roots, like those of the Roman Communion, to Apostolic Christianity, and are recognized by Rome as possessing the full panoply of what makes them merit the title “Church” as Catholics understand it: a valid apostolic episcopate assuring their apostolic heritage of valid Baptism, Eucharist, and other sacraments and means of salvation to sanctify their flocks.

Note that this new “Sister Churches” designation describes not only how the Catholic Church views those Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history and held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to her maternal bosom. But the Vatican II Council, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality.

October 10, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Four Uncontroversial Paragraphs for Saturday

The ongoing dispute among traditionalist Roman Catholics concerning the background of one Bishop Ambrose Moran (see here, here, and here) has brought back into the open how little some (perhaps many) traditionalists understand the Christian East—Catholic or Orthodox. While some traditionalists revel in referring to the Orthodox as “schismatics,” it is worth noting that no official papal decree, at least from the time of Blessed Pius IX’s 1846 letter to the Eastern Christians to the present day, uses that expression. Moreover, anyone with at least cursory knowledge of East/West relations since 1054 knows—or ought to know—that the “Great Schism” was not a singular event which neatly split the Church of Christ in two. For centuries following the Schism, Catholics and Orthodox continued to intercommune in various parts of the world up to the point when Constantinople fell to the Turks. And even after that cataclysmic event, “on the ground” cooperation and intercommunion continued in parts of the Middle East. The past century of strife in Eastern Europe, starting with the Soviet Revolution and continuing with the present crisis in Ukraine, Catholics and Orthodox have found themselves ministered to by each other’s clergy. Although none of this obviates the sad fact that Catholics and Orthodox are not in visible communion, this history is worth keeping in mind before proceeding to speak “authoritatively” on the status of Orthodoxy, the nature of its disagreements with Rome, and the disposition of the Orthodox faithful.