Roman Catholic Church - Opus Publicum

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 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 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.

October 6, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Two on Orthodoxy and Catholicism

Two fresh items on Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy recently caught my eye, so I thought I might call attention to them both.

The first, Fr. Mark Drew’s Catholic Herald article “What Catholics Can Learn From Orthodox Synods,” covers in detail a topic I dealt with in Crisis last year, namely synodality. Fr. Drew is less skeptical toward the synodal model than I, though my position on the matter has softened due to current events. Some disparage the Orthodox synodal model as too decentralized, limited in scope, and ineffective. However, in the light of ongoing Extraordinary Synod on the Family in Rome, there are no doubt more than a few Catholics praying for a muted outcome to the proceedings. Where I disagree with Fr. Drew is how much Orthodoxy—or, for that matter, Catholicism—really needs centralization, at least in its current Roman manifestation. It is far from clear that Pope Francis truly believes in synodality, and his role as the guardian of the Faith has come under scrutiny in light of numerous statements (some, admittedly, off-the-cuff) which seem freighted with doctrinal confusion. Moreover, given the vast number of bishops in the Roman Church who routinely fail to uphold the Church’s indefectible teachings, providing them with greater doctrinal authority would be highly imprudent at this juncture. Of course, the Orthodox have largely left doctrine alone for the past millennium, which has not been an entirely bad thing at all.

Second, my friend Elliot Milco has written a thoughtful reply to my recent tweet asking why Catholics choose not to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. I should note that the point of my tweet was not to challenge Catholics on this, but rather to gain a better understanding of the matter. Not too long ago many Catholics I knew who had seriously contemplated Orthodoxy claimed that the absence of a central authority figure (the pope) and Orthodoxy’s approach to remarriage compelled them not to leave. Now, however, Pope Francis has cleared the way for what some are calling “Catholic divorce” with a process which appears to be less exacting than what certain Orthodox jurisdictions follow when granting marriage dissolutions. As for the papacy, it’s hardly breaking news to point out that many conservative and traditional Catholics are less than thrilled with Francis’s pontificate and the new style of Ultramontanism which accompanies it. Milco addresses these matters and more, and I thank him for taking the time to do so.

September 29, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Radical Traditionalism Breathes With Both Lungs? A Followup Note

Update 10/6/2015: The below statement that Bishop Ambrose Moran was part of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church appears to be a mistake. Please see the follow-up post on this matter for more details.

Last week I posted about the case of one Bishop Ambrose Moran, an Eastern hierarch who had been linked previously to the Genuine Orthodox Church in America and now, apparently, is aligned with the so-called “Resistance” traditionalist Catholic movement. After having the opportunity to conduct research both online and through personal contacts, it appears that Moran’s claims regarding his past ecclesial affiliation with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Patriarch Josyf Slipyj are fabrications. Not only is there no record that Moran had ever been consecrated by Patriarch Slipyj, but it appears that he was brought up and ordained in the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church — one of three Orthodox jurisdictions currently operating in Ukraine. Although it is likely that he has — somewhere along the line — been validly ordained, clearly the ordination did not come from the Catholic Church.

This is all very unfortunate for several reasons. First and foremost, Bishop Ambrose has willfully shattered any and all credibility which he may have had by fabricating an elaborate tale about his relationship with Patriarch Slipyj and his activities as a Catholic priest and bishop. Had Ambrose simply come clean about his prior affiliations with two (uncanonical) Orthodox jurisdictions before pledging to join the Catholic Church, none of this would be a big deal. Now, however, it appears that Ambrose is (opportunistically) looking for a new outpost to hang his hat, and he’s perfectly willing to lie in order to make it happen.

Second, by aligning with the “Resistance,” Ambrose is not so much joining the Catholic Church as he is assisting those who are effectively outside of her borders. Recognizing neither the authority of any legitimate Orthodox body nor the Catholic Church, Ambrose is vesting himself in the mantle of a true schismatic. If Ambrose honestly desired unity with the Catholic Church, his first order of business should be to submit himself to Patriarch Sviatoslav and go from there. Instead, he is lending his hand to the “Resistance” and attempting — unsuccessfully it seems — to boost their credibility. The irony here is that by letting themselves be conned, the “Resistance” appears even more deluded and foolish than it already was.

Last, Ambrose’s behavior has, sadly, inspired certain traditional Catholics to issue uncharitable and ignorant remarks about the Eastern Orthodox. Ambrose’s case is not normative. Most Orthodox bishops are upstanding servants of their respective churches who carry out their mission with honesty, integrity, and humility. No, the Orthodox Church’s episcopate isn’t perfect and, yes, there remains some substantial (but not insurmountable) disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox that need to be resolved before full communion can be restored. But the case of Bishop Ambrose should not be leveraged into an excuse to engage in needless, and indeed un-Christian, polemics against the Orthodox.

Pray for the man. Pray for his soul, and pray that he finds his way back into the flock of Christ.

September 25, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Radical Traditionalism Breathes with Both Lungs?

I am normally disinclined to write about ecclesiastical gossip on Opus Publicum, especially when it involves the fringes of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches. However, this one is too good to pass up. Although there are very few concrete details at the moment, it appears that Bishop Ambrose (Moran), a (former?) member of the Old Calendarist Genuine Orthodox Church in America (GOCA), has aligned himself with the so-called “Resistance,” a very loose confederation of traditionalist Catholic priests de facto headed by former Society of St. Pius X Bishop Richard Williamson. Moran, as the story goes, was either “received” or “consecrated” by the head of GOCA, a move that initially sparked outrage among some traditionalist Orthodox due, ironically enough, to its “uncanonical” nature. The story later surfaced that Moran had already been a bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (a point that remains unclear), though the YouTube video linked above indicates that he was, in fact, consecrated clandestinely by Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, the saintly head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. One can easily imagine why hyper-traditionalist Orthodox wouldn’t want that fact coming to light.

Perhaps Moran had a falling out with GOCA since he is now pledging to assist the traditionalist Catholic movement and, aside from some remarks that he had worked with some Ukrainian Orthodox back in the 1970s and 80s, makes no mention of any direct Orthodox affiliation. Certain traditionalist Catholics are, naturally, going nuts over this, albeit for all of the wrong reasons. That the “Resistance” could even think of interacting with a bishop (loosely) associated with the Orthodox is beyond the pale. Beyond the pale—or beyond comprehension—as well is the reality that the borderlands between Greek Catholicism and Orthodoxy have shifted considerably over the centuries; if there is a wall between the two confessions, it’s a porous one. None of this is to say that Moran should have anything to do with the “Resistance” or any other traditionalist movement that routinely demonstrates flagrant contempt toward Rome, but there you have it.

Strange times these be.

September 22, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Liturgy, Roman Catholic Church

Schmemann on Papal Visits to America

Matthew Schmitz, over at First Things, has a thoughtful piece up concerning the limits of papal celebrity. It indirectly reminded me of this October 3, 1979 entry from Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s journals, which is one of my favorites.

The Pope of Rome [John Paul II] is in New York. We watched him on television in Yankee Stadium. A mixed impression. On one hand, an unquestionably good man and full of light. Wonderful smile. Very genuine — a man of God. But, on the other hand, there are some “buts”! First of all, the Mass itself. The first impression is how liturgically impoverished the Catholic Church has become. In 1965, I watched the service performed by Pope Paul VI in the same Yankee Stadium. Despite everything, it was the presence, the appearance on earth of the eternal, the “super earthly.” Whereas yesterday I had the feeling that the main thing was the “message.”

This message is, again and again, “peace and justice,” “human family,” “social work,” etc. An opportunity was given, a fantastic chance to tell millions and millions of people about God, to reveal to them that more than anything else they need God! But here, on the contrary, the whole goal, it seemed, consisted in proving that the Church also can speak the jargon of the United Nations. All the symbols point the same way: the reading of the Scriptures by some lay people with bright ties, etc. And a horrible translation: I never suspected that a translation could be a heresy: Grace — “abiding love”!

Crowds — their joy and excitement. Quite genuine, but at the same time, it is clear that there is an element of mass psychosis. “Peoples’ Pope . . .” What does this really mean? I don’t know. I am not sure. Does one have to serve Mass in Yankee Stadium? But if it’s possible and needed, shouldn’t the Mass be, so to say, “super-earthly,” separated from the secular world, in order to show in the world — the Kingdom of God?