At no time has the celibate Eastern Catholic clergy outnumbered the married on the North American continent. Until this present irritant most Eastern Catholic hierarchs were content to leave sleeping dogs (pit bulls? rottweilers?) lie. They simply quietly ordained married men or imported them from abroad. Now we see what this policy of appeasement has wrought. Weakness invites aggression. It's long past time for the Eastern Catholic Churches to fulfill the mandate of Vatican II that they rule themselves in accord with their ancestral traditions. The next time some Vatican functionary catapults himself into an Orthodox beard he should recall that virtually all the good man's parish are married and that he has no intention whatever to envision a change in what is an apostolic tradition.

How many members do the Eastern rites have in the United States? My guess is the main source of growth, if any, is from Middle Eastern immigrants (Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans). I don't know if the Ruthenians or Ukranians are growing anymore.

As might be expected, the words of Cardinal Sandri have raised quite a commotion in both Greek Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles. Allow me to share some comments I posted on the Byzantine Forum (http://www.byzcath.org) regarding this subject:

"An Orthodox bishop once noted that the Vatican seems to pay more attention to what Orthodox bishops say than what Eastern Catholic bishops say, and that, on more than one occasion he had been asked by an Eastern Catholic bishop to represent the concerns of Eastern Catholics to the Holy See, "because they don't listen to us".

"For that reason, I think it would behoove the Orthodox bishops of the United States to send an open letter to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches indicating just how distasteful and unhelpful Cardinal Sandri's comments were, with copies to the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI."

I also noted at the time that the entire concept of "ad limina" visits by the Eastern Catholic bishops was unseemly and not consistent with the concept of "Sui juris" Churches:

"By the way, I find the whole process of having bishops of one sui juris Church summoned to an interview with the head of a different sui juris Church objectionable. Does anyone think that, when communion is restored, the various Orthodox patriarchs will tolerate such a demand, or that they would allow their suffragan bishops to comply with it.

"Voluntary visits for mutual exchange of ideas and concerns is one thing. Mandatory ones are different, and imply a degree of subordination that is not consistent with the Holy See's repeated insistence that restoration of communion will not mean subordination or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit. Once again, the Vatican is tone deaf to Orthodox concerns and perceptions. How, precisely, can the Orthodox take the Holy See at face value about how good things will be when they are in communion with Rome, when they see the lack of respect extended to the Churches that are already in communion with Rome?"

A Roman Catholic participant in the discussion seconded my idea:

"I think both of your posted points should be joined in a letter to Rome by the Orthodox bishops and that it should also be made part of the discussion in any future ecumenical agenda about primacy and how it is exercised. All these academic discussions about primacy can go on until the Second Coming, but until the practical applications currently in place are brought up and labeled for what they are no serious steps to full communion will ever take place.

"While we're on that subject, how is it that this cardinal seems to have some sort of authority over heads of sui juris Churches and their suffragan bishops? I would think that the Vatican II documents would have long ago called for the Oriental Congregation to be downgraded in relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches if the documents were to be taken seriously."

Finally, an Orthodox member, the son and grandson of Orthodox priests who left the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church over the celibacy issue, wrote:

"While the Orthodox frequently complain about the Eastern Catholic churches in their midst (such as Metropolitan Hilarion's recent comments discussed earlier this year), the reality is that Orthodox leaders who open-minded to dialogue with the Church of Rome (as well as those who profess more suspicion) more accurately view the Eastern Churches as a 'canary' in the mine shaft. The recent developments were received by us with sadness as they indicate a lack of 'oxygen' in the process.

"There is no way that any definition of 'primacy' as Rome applies the concept to the Eastern Churches presently in communion with the Holy See would be acceptable to the Orthodox, as indicated by Stuart."

Another pretty fundamental concern is the habit of us Westerners of looking at the East and saying "man, if only the East would reunite, they'd be such a great source for solemnity and reform!" This is bad, for several reasons.

First, the East look at that and (in some cases rightly) think that we see them as a "shot in the arm", an epi-pen for our "failing", "Scholastic", "rigorous" version of Christianity. It serves to confirm all their stereotypes, and among the more circumspect, it still leads them to think that we are somehow suffering from not having them. In point of fact, we are, but not in the way that someone suffers from getting shot or having their kidneys stolen; the gates of Hell are not prevailing against the Church, far as I can tell, nor will they do so. It is rather in the way one suffers from the alienation from one's brother. In lacking full "communion" with them, we are separated from our brothers and sisters in Christ. (This seems to be a now-recurrent theme.)

We DO have solemnity, in our own Western way. We find it in our more ancient practices and we find it in living the faith, even in our modern, Western context, as well as we are given the grace to do so. It is a mistake to equate solemnity with the means of its coming-to-be, which is why the "Latin Mass only" folks always seem a bit cultish; as though somehow Latin is the language in which the mojo works. Latin is beautiful; I've taken eight years of it at this point; but Latin is not the ultimate cause of grace. God is the cause of grace, ordinarily through the offering of the Sacrament, and the species are consecrated whether the words are said in English, Latin, Greek, French, Swahili, or even Welsh. (My little joke. Shout-out to the Welsh Catholics! Y'all have a sweet unofficial national anthem. Big fan of "Gweddi Dros Gymru", etc.) Of course, it is important to properly ornament the Sacrament, because if the grace we get from God acts upon us, it is still because we participate in it according to our nature. He ordained it thus. And it should be our desire to commemorate Him in a solemn, dignified way, because that is the form according to which He went to His death for us. There were no guitars or lutes in the Upper Room. A good commemoration will reflect that fact somehow.

Second, it is an unfortunate fact that, for the most part, we don't (in the Catholic Church) have the habit in many Dioceses of TALKING to the Eastern Catholics in the area, considering their concerns as part of the concerns of the Diocese. To quote Douglas Adams, they are painted bright pink, and someone puts a "Somebody Else's Problem" field over them, so nobody looks at them, and if they do they make an effort to avoid doing so again. Typically only some great scandal causes us to bother. For example: How many of the Catholics here know that:

- it's considered pejorative in Orthodox circles to be called "uniate", which for some time was the technical term for Eastern Catholic converts and the phenomenon thereof?

- only recently, with Pope John Paul II, were the Eastern Rites no longer considered "inferior" in many official documents?

- many Orthodox who WOULD accept the Pope don't precisely because the Eastern Catholics seem to evidence that we have no idea how to deal with the East?

- the "history" expressed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia about the Orthodox saint Photios "the Great" is not only horribly bigoted but also nearly entirely false (cf. Fr. Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism)?

Third, most Catholics do not make an effort to understand infallibility and Papal primacy (they are two very different things!) in any kind of detail, and end up embarrassing themselves when, after having a heated argument with some Protestant in which they present themselves as some sort of authority on the early Church, they get themselves entirely tied up in knots by the Orthodox fellow who wanders in claiming "uh, guys, about that early Church, last I checked the papacy only really started 'doing its thing' after several Councils". Now in point of fact this is ground already trod in the major dialogue between the two Churches; it is like watching two foot soldiers try and discuss the wisdom of their generals. One lacks the whole picture. And when the Papacy comes up, often more harm is done than good by the Catholic who simply quotes Matthew 16:17-19 over and over again. This is ground that has been trod, although obviously it never ceases to be a subject of question as to whose interpretation is right. And this is important, because while some Orthodox (David Bentley Hart, for example) will doubt that the issue of the Filioque is really all that troublesome, and some will accept the Immaculate Conception, and some will even grudgingly accept Purgatory (Yeah! Many of them don't think Purgatory's a thing!) none of them, by definition, accept the Papacy, because if they did they'd be Eastern Catholics.

When the question of the Papacy comes up, most Catholics will blubber something about "faith and morals" and rarely enough "sacrament of unity." The rationale for NEEDING such an authority is never discussed, except as an argument from authority. And it should be discussed! (I am Catholic, in case anyone is wondering, and a devout Papist. But I also do my research and keep my eyes open.) Nor is what is meant by "sacrament" of unity discussed. Nor is the notion of the Mystical Body of Christ explored in any kind of rational way; it is asserted. (This goes for many Catholics, not all; but the ones who DO make these points tend to recognize that it's a problem.)

In light of this, expecting reunion to be this great thing in which everyone will be buddy-buddy and get along is absurd, because that implies that everyone will understand everyone. I daresay most people are not familiar (in the way they are with their own ritual parish or even ritual jurisdiction within a Diocese) with their local Eastern CATHOLICS. If they were, they might be surprised at some of the grievances being nursed. Personally, I've been surprised myself.

If the Orthodox were one day to become Catholic, say, (this is only one picture of reunion and a simplistic one in the conventional sense of "Catholic") I imagine the chief response among many Catholics would be to say "oh. That's cool." And this is a problem; it's acedia. We really should long for reunion. We have been separated from a vast part of our family across the entire world since 1054; that's over 950 years now. That's not just being separated from our brothers; that's being separated from an entire branch of the family. This is the longest separation between any two originally united associations in human history, a tragedy to the Church and a daily re-Crucifixion of Christ, Who died that we might have life, Who explicitly wished "that they may be one" as He and the Father are one, that is, as God is One in the Trinity.

This will never be productively addressed as long as a more fundamental issue lay unresolved. We should be discussing theology not ecclesiology. The Church is defined by its confession, not its polity.

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.” Mark 9

One of the reasons I switched to the Eastern Rite, I wanted to participate in the resuscitation of the Eastern Rite Church and its customs. I had hoped that if the Eastern Church healed, that God would heal the Latin Rite as well. I had hoped for unity. Even though I was raised Latin Rite, the attitude of the Western Church offends me greatly. I agree with Thomas Loya. His family stayed faithful to Rome even after the assault on the Byzantine Churches here in the States. If Rome persists in its arrogance, they may prove the Loya family to be wrong. So much for Rome and unity. It is becoming obvious the Vatican only wants to crush us, as well as Othodoxy. I already know Byzantine's that have had enough and that have gone Orthodox. I may be following them.

Celibacy follows from the obligation of clerics to practice perfect and perpetual continence, a discipline definitely originating in apostolic times and definitely preferable. All other things being equal, I believe the discipline of the Latin Rite in this regard is to be preferred and shows great reverence for the Eucharist and the absolute centrality of the Eucharist, for the priest. Today, perhaps more than ever, celibate chastity is of extreme value and reflects the supernatural motive of the priestly vocation and conforms the man to Christ in a particular way. Asking married Eastern priests to be continent is probably out of the question; one problem with that today is that younger married clerics who practiced continence would be thought today to be contracepting. With celibacy there is no problem or conflict with an obligation of continence that existed in the early Church and still exists in the Latin Rite. It is clear that when married clerics were not permitted to the Eastern Catholic churches in the US this caused terrible division, and (anecdotally) when they began to be allowed again this may have contributed to confused expectations in regards to priests among Latin Catholics, many of whom seem to believe married clerics would understand their lives better, or (again I am talking about Latin Catholics) fairly often believe married priests would be more permissive in regards to sexual morality, or perhaps have a false secular belief that sex is necessary for self fulfillment or even physical well being and thus consider marriage more humane for priests. It must be difficult having a family and also leading a parish. If the Church discerns that the interest of the common good truly calls for celibate Eastern priests in the US, for instance if that is the will of the Holy Father, can Eastern Catholics consider that that might not be demeaning to them, and that they maybe should not take offense? The sacrifice of the good of marriage is a real sacrifice, but can't the Church ask that sacrifice of her candidates for priesthood when the common good calls for it, because can't God ask that? To me that principle is perhaps more important than what specific choice is made in regards to Eastern priests for the US, which I don't know what is best.

All Catholic Rites are equal but the Roman/Latin Rite is more equal than the others? Is that what Cardinal Sandri was saying during the ad limina visit of the Eastern Bishops? What rite does the Cardinal belong to? Does anyone know? At a minimum, one would think the Vatican would appoint an Eastern Rite bishop to head up the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and then promote him to Cardinal.

There is the possibility that Cardinal Sandri spoke on his own and was not given any instructions. He has now embarrassed the Vatican. That happens more often than we think. This idea of a tight Vatican ship is a bit of an illusion. Unfortunately one thing that the Vatican will not do is retract what was said or apologize. They will let the bad air of this unfortunate incident evaporate. That is normal, political behavior for Vatican diplomats, not helpful for good ecumenical relations. I believe that Eastern Catholic bishops should muster up enough encourage and formally address Pope Benedict and ask him to respond directly to this issue. The Bishops should not relent until a direct answer is received.

If only that were true, Pastor! Unfortunately, we must deal with both. Theologians listen to each other, but bureaucrats play passive aggressive games and resist all change. The latter category are the ones who are going to keep the churches apart.

I also want to say what an excellent response Fr Roman has given!

Thomas Sundaram:

I've read your comment with interest. As a fellow Roman Catholic, I would like to opine that the general response from the Orthodox Churches (leaving the Eastern Orthodox out of this) to Pope John Paul II attempted approach has been underwhelming.

This is a two way street, and I simply do not see the initiative nor the interest being reciprocated by the Orthodox Churches, be they Greek, Russian, Serb, Romanian, Bulgarian, and so on. Pope John Paul II even offered a heart felt apology for the historical sins of Catholics (and even took some criticism from his fellow Catholics for doing so) - what was the response?

I think we should always keep the door open to dialogue, as charity teaches, but if there is no interest expressed by the other side, we need to move on.

Sincere thanks to Tim Kelleher for a wonderful piece, and to Fr. Tom Loya for his leadership. May I recommend a lengthy editorial of mine entitled “Married Eastern Catholic Priests: The Continuing Saga of Identifying ‘Latin’ with ‘Catholic’” that appeared two years ago in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 51 (2010), 219-228. (I’ll send a PDF version to anyone who’s interested.)
I’ve just arrived in Ukraine (where the Potemkin village is faltering) for a conference on Vatican II. In the discussions at the conference it will be interesting to see how the village holds up once we start discussing the fate of Orientalium ecclesiarum. Of course, all of these burdensome problems surrounding Eastern Catholic polity could be solved overnight if only the leadership of the Eastern Catholic Churches had the courage – and vision – of a Tom Loya and Tim Kelleher. This might mean losing a fair amount of Western-generated financial support. But “what does it profit a man…?”
p.s. Thanks to Tim Kelleher for citing Adam DeVille – a great mind!
Fr. Peter Galadza, Ottawa, Canada pgaladza@ustpaul.ca

Thomas Sundaram writes a very irenic and compelling bit of food for thought, and it is of the kind that tends toward healing rather than the "clanging cymbals" we usually hear in east-west discussions. I thank him; I confess to occasional cymbal clanging myself and ask the forgiveness of all who contribute here.

There is a way that these discussions often go that seems to overlook something very vital, something the VC2 fathers seemed to understand, or seemed poised to understand at any rate, and that is the occasionally unreflictive use of "rite" and "church" that often seems to cloud discussion.

The redoubtable Robert Taft (the favorite Jesuit of many Orthodox!) noted that at VC2 the eastern bishops had really done their homework, and the significant point they scored was that they truly were bishops of CHURCHES, and not, to paraphrase Taft, "Indian reservations called 'rites.'" The bishops made the point that they had rites because the rites belonged to Churches, and without a specific Church "rite" became a term of petty preference for groups of eccentrics. Just so, Eastern Orthodoxy as a communion of several Churches (with as many distinctive 'rites') does not exactly equate to Roman Catholicism's current papal model.

For many Orthodox, the idea of the ancient pentarchy is especially relevant in the sense that the tragedy of the Great Schism is more than just JP2's "two lungs" analogy. It is also the fact that the Roman patriarchate (we could use that term until just recently) was lost to the other four patriarchates, because each of those patriarchates was a "church" in exactly the same way that Rome was a "church." Many Roman Catholics seem to misunderstand, or at any rate mis-perceive, how this critical point plays into discussions about reunification for the Orthodox. For the Catholic, it is how Rome and the Orthodox can be reconciled via Constantinople; for the Orthodox, Rome ultimately must be reconciled to each of the respective Churches in the Orthodox world, in a sense, separately. A reunification effort that does not start with or include Constantinople would be of little value; a reunification effort that assumes Constantinople can speak for and therefore "herd" all of the various Orthodox Churches into reunion would be of equally little value. It is because each Orthodox bishop is the bishop of a Church in a way that Catholic bishops are not, in that the Orthodox bishops become bishops by some type of nomination by the diocesan faithful and the election by the local synod, not by patriarchal (i.e. papal) appointment.

Latin impatience with these details, well illustrated by William Tighe's dismissive review of Adam DeVille's book (mentioned by Tim Kelleher here) in a recent First Things review, is unfortunate. Among other things DeVille points us to an understanding of the pre-schismatic Roman Church that reflects quite nicely one important example of what I hope to get at here. Gregory the Great, before he could institute his reforms, had to secure the approval of the Roman Synod, a synod not made up of all the world's bishops, nor of a "curia," but of the local Roman provincial church, which likely would have included the bishops of the immediate vicinity such as Tivoli and Viterbo and Ostia. The hugely important thing DeVille illumines here is that this would have been very much like what any singular Orthodox Church of today (and thus any of the four other patriarchates of the pentarchy back then) would recognize as a synod of bishops gathered around their patriarch; more importantly, these were bishops in their own right and not, as those holding the same titles today, curial functionaries.

This is at least in part why Vatican officials, despite living in an age of the most heightened and deferential ecumenism, continue to stick their collective foot in their mouths when dealing with a significant segment of their own communion. And Fr. Roman is right, the Eastern bishops need to lead precisely as bishops and not as caretakers.

Thomas Sundaram wrote:

"… most Catholics do not make an effort to understand infallibility and Papal primacy ... in any kind of detail, and end up embarrassing themselves when, after having a heated argument with some Protestant in which they present themselves as some sort of authority on the early Church, they get themselves entirely tied up in knots by the Orthodox fellow who wanders in claiming 'uh, guys, about that early Church, last I checked the papacy only really started 'doing its thing' after several Councils'."

One can only assume such an "Orthodox fellow" is unaware of Pope Clement's authoritative letter to the Corinthians informing them they had no right to "fire" their bishop and replace him with one of their own choosing, and that Pope Clement authoritatively intervened in this matter while the Apostle John was still alive. The fact that the Bishop of Rome dealt with this rather than a still living apostle who was at the time geographically nearer to the Corinthian church than the Bishop of Rome indicates that the papacy had already "started 'doing its thing'” long before our “Orthodox fellow” seems to think.

Thank you, Thomas Sundarum, for your many cogent observations and insights. If your mindset (which I take to be essentially that of Pope John Paul II, and likely also of His Holiness Benedict XVI, though he has many other fish to fry) were to prevail among Roman Catholics, it would be a great step toward healing this terrible and scandalous schism.

Fr. Peter, could i get he article in the journal that you wrote? i am interested to read and learn from it. Thanks.

Alwyn

@Mark VA

I meant to add in my earlier post that I agree with Mark on the 'underwhelming' Orthodox response to JP2's overtures. I'm Orthodox and it disappoints me, too. One thing I suspect happened is that the pope held forth with such dynamic energy that it disoriented the Greek and Slavic Orthodox bishops, so used to the plodding Byzantine intrigue version of diplomacy. A guy like pope JP2 who just steps up and says, in effect, "boys, what we gotta do to fix this?" probably confused them. :)

"Latin impatience with these details, well illustrated by William Tighe's dismissive review of Adam DeVille's book (mentioned by Tim Kelleher here) in a recent First Things review, is unfortunate."

I object to describing my review as "dismissive;" rather, I rejected (and still do reject) his proposals, while respecting the perspective from which they come. The basis of my rejection is (1) that it demands that Rome adopt for itself an essentially "Eastern" notion of what patriarchs and patriarchates are, a notion which it has never in the past embraced and which is largely foreign to its own concept of "petrinity," and (2) that it premises that such "structural reforms" could contribute to Catholic/Orthodox reunion. As I wrote in my review, while the adoption of such a "reform" might, possibly, narrow the width of the chasm separating East and West, it would do nothing to lessen its depth -- unless one embraces the idea (which DeVille does not) that Rome might be prepared to repudiate the dogmas of councils such as, e.g., Florence, Trent and Vatican I, which would be nothing less than a capitulation whereby the Catholic Church would, per impossibile, deny itself.

My review of Prof. DeVille's book was subsequently published in a much expanded version in the December 2012 issue of New Oxford Review:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1211-tighe

And, in any case, I am, as a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, no more a "Latin Catholic" than is Prof. DeVille.

In writing this in my comment immediately above:

"... unless one embraces the idea (which DeVille does not) that Rome might be prepared to repudiate the dogmas of councils such as, e.g., Florence, Trent and Vatican I, which would be nothing less than a capitulation whereby the Catholic Church would, per impossibile, deny itself."

I somehow erased what should have been the ending "... deny itself to be what it claims to be, The Catholic Church; in which case one would be forced to conclude that the Orthodox, or perhaps the Oriental Orthodox, have been right all along in their respective claims to be The Church, and Rome, or "the Roman Catholic Church" mistaken. That would be a reason to become Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, however, and not to work for Catholic/Orthodox reunion."

Thank you Father Bohdan Choly! That should have been the FIRST reaction to the Cardinal's impertinent pressure on our bishops. Also your point on the need for our own bishops to be strong in the face of such pressure from Latin rite bishops is also well taken in this house.

But for an historical few who have not yielded to the pressure of Rome in the US and Canada, the rest have capitulated over and over and over again. I cannot speak for the European situation and do not pretend to do so here. Toward our own bishops is where our outrage should be directed first, not last.

We need to ask ourselves who has benefited most from turning the eastern Churches over to gross latinization. It is the men in the immediate and interested benefices of course, on both sides. It is a lucrative business, the business of episcopal sees. It always has been to some degree, but there are limits to what is good for good ecclesial order and what becomes self-serving and destructive of the Body instead. And those who cross the line can always count on the circling sharks in the pool eating each other. as is evident in the combox for this commentary. So your comment, along with Father Thomas' letter, are most welcome.

Mary

Dear Professor Tighe,

It would be interesting to see if contemporary Orthodox faithful could live with patriarchal power and authority in exercise in the first thousand years...You know, the years to which they always suggest that we return?

And I've been waiting these many years for someone to show me the Scriptural basis that indicates that conciliarity is the sole means for determining the truths of Tradition and Scripture, to the exclusion of primatial power in all of its forms, as it was and as it has become.

M.

The church of Rome walked away from the Church of Christ in order to become the single authority of Christianity. It has been the cause of wars and the splintering of the Church of Christ throughout Europe into thousands and thousands of Protestant churches. Meanwhile, the jurisdictions from the Ancient Church continue to thrive and settle in North America. Rome's Bishop would need to drop the need to be the sole, infallible leader of the Church. The Holy Spirit is the head of Christ's Church, not one man. As the Catholic Church continues to lose members and close churches throughout North America, it is the Ancient Church that will continue to bring the Eucharist and teachings of the Apostles to the people of the post modern world. Celibacy, like so many other misunderstood traditions of Christianity and heresies promoted by Rome, is not even an issue that will effect the Gospel reaching the unchurched of America. Rome needs to rejoin the true Church of Christ as it has always existed by taking their seat at the table with the Eastern and Western jurisdictions of Orthodoxy and abandon its desires for earthly glory.

This storm is symptomatic of a much greater problem within the Church - the centralisation of the Church onto the Roman Curia, and the destruction of the Episcopate.

Currently, bishops are being appointed not a leaders and pastors, but as middle managers for the corporate central office of Rome. And this latest storm is simply a reflexion of the expectation that bishops will shave their beards and follow their instructions. Ancestral traditions now how no weight against the current whims of the Roman Curia.

To Mary: "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit..."

As for the challenges of the Eastern Catholics; it seems the struggle of identity that is faced by both the Easterners and the Latins continues to hamper movement toward a common witness. The truth is this conflict of identity is a common challenge for we Orthodox in the West as well. Oh, and one more point in the discussion; ecclesiology IS doing theology, and remains "the undiscovered country" for too many.

As a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, I must say this scandal only confirms the predjudices that make those of us Orthodox sure Rome simply isn't ready to deal with communities not formed by Rome's particularities. This is unfortunate, especially in light of the modern need for a clear unified witness of the "faith, once for all delivered to the saints." in any event, we pray for unity at every Divine Liturgy.

I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time to comment here. I've frankly been surprised at the size of the response that continues in the form of emails, phone calls and reports that the piece has been picked up by other websites and blogs.

What's been especially gratifying is the respect people have generally shown others with differing views. I mean, let's be honest -- when it comes to religious debate, the tone can often get a little, shall we say, impious.

Finally, one of the many good things that's come out of this has been my "introduction" to Fr. Peter Galadza, and he's asked me to repeat his offer to provide the LOGOS article he referenced above. You'll find an email address for him at the end of his post.

Glory to God, peace to all. --tim

Kelleher: "Too many Eastern Catholic bishops behave as though their mandate actually is to allow their Churches to die a slow, palliated death."

Would it be too much to ask which Eastern Catholic bishops that this statement refers to?

These kinds of statements aren't all that helpful unless they're substantiated in a meaningful way.

Good question, TUAD. But why stop there?

Can we have the full text of Cardinal Sandri's "injunction"? Of the little fragment that I have seen quoted, it would be a stretch to talk about "terseness", or any "expectation".

Yes, there has been loud reaction on the net to the little fragment, sadly taken out of its context, and without any indication that the remarks reflect policy in any significant way. No indication at all in anything written to date. Yet the loud reactions have oddly been taken as some sign of leadership.

I would be happier if we did not act as though we have nothing to do other than wait upon every word spoken by some Cardinal in Rome - let alone reacting by publicizing "private" letters that appear aimed to manipulate the new Metropolitan.

Maybe, instead of indulging in huffing and puffing about our victimization, we should have just thanked the Cardinal for his words on what we have to offer, and on our sacrifice - including the specific sacrifices we made in the diaspora. And reminded him of the great esteem that we have in Eastern churches for celibate vocations, an esteem that that we will continue to embrace as we select our clergy according to our own prudential judgement as sui juris churches. Then go about our business as we see fit.

Deliberate, dispassionate action, not undisciplined venting, is leadership.

I am very encouraged, suprised and humbled at what has been given voice as a result of my communication to my new Archbishop and which was also a communciation meant for all Eastern Catholic bishops. There is a burgeoning Eastern Catholic force simmering beneath the surface like a mighty army waiting for their leader to simply say, "Let's take that hill. I will be the first man to charge up the hill and the last man to leave." I believe that if this power is unleashed it would serve Eastern Catholic bishops well. They could ride the crest of a small but mighty Church that can make a difference certainly in America. I would hope that Eastern Catholic bishops would be very encouraged, motivated and inspired but the insight, zeal and energy revealed in these posts and in other communciations.

My own bishop, John Kudrick, kindly and graciously mentioned to me the potential of my message to Archbishop William being interpreted as rebellious or hostile to Rome, even taunting the idea of union with Rome. To help make sure that nothing of the sort would even enter my mind I appreciated and point to the message here by Mary Hicks about my family.

My family legacy and myself personally have always been and remain fiercely loyal to unity with Rome. I studied in Rome and loved every minute of it. Yet, it actuallly serves Rome, indeed the whole Church for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be the best versions of themselves, to function from a position of inner strength and absolute equality with the western "lung" of the Church. It is much like a marriage. It serves the marriage for both spouses to be strong. Even though, for instance, a husband may feel bigger and stronger and enjoy a certain feeling of dominance because of that, it does not serve the husband if the wife is in anyway co-dependent, to see herself in any way as inferior or lesser than her husband. I believe the "original sin" of the Eastern Catholic Churches has been a feeling of inferiority. I believe this accounts for ALL of our problems. I do not think that we have to "prove" that we are equal to the west. That should be automatic as a sui juris Church. We just have to believe it and live it.

I still prefer to say as I always have, that the Eastern Catholic Churches must be 'razed to the ground and rebuilt according to their authentic and best selves.'
Rather than gasp at this statement, hopefully the reader will simply recognize the basic death and resurrection rhythm of Christiantiy and of Jesus's teaching: "Unless a grain of wheat fall to the ground..."

The renewal of Eastern Catholicism must be this foundational, this "radical" and comprehensive. Every aspect of Eastern Catholic life, down to last detail, must be examined with scrutiny, honesty and courage. Nothing less will do and nothing less will serve the Church as a whole. I must paraphrase and apply one of my favorite points from G. K. Chesterton to our situation as Eastern Catholics: If we love something for a reason we will very likely destroy that thing for the sake of preserving that reason. But only the person who truly loves something is free enough to tear it apart and rebuild it into the New Jerusalem. My request to my Archbishop, to all Eastern Catholic bishops and to all Eastern Catholics is do we love God and our Church deep enough to walk the journey and pay the price that will turn it into the New Jerusalem?

Yes, indeed we need vision. But I think what we need most is courage. In our Ruthenain Church we extol our martyred bishops like Romzha, yet we do not follow their example. They paid the supreme sacrifice yet for us all intelligent discussion, creative thinking, all proposals for real change stop at the discomfort and fear of the first nasty letter of protest, the first threat that someone "will leave." We are a Church that allows ourselves to be held hostage by fear and in this sense we do not honor our Romzha's. We have enshrined convenience rather than committment, sacrifice and devotion all out of the fear that if we ask this of our people we will loose the few people we have. Yet, ironically, as a Ruthenian priest said to me just this week; "our Ruthenian Church in America is hemorraging people." Out of a sense of inferiority we think everyone else has a better idea, that we cannot clean up our own house, that we have so little to offer. Yet, I believe, as I mentioned in my letter, that we alone can supply what is lacking in the whole Church and in modern western society.

In light of what I see that must be for the Eastern Catholic Churches in our day and age and especially in America, and if anyone is taken aback by my thoughts, I will be so bold as to say, if anyone is not willing to 'raze our Church to the ground and rebuild it into the New Jerusalem,' I must question their degree of love and motivation for God and our Church. Do we love our Church or do we love our particular idea of it which although it is killiing our Church, it suits us pesonally just fine? No pain, no discomfort, everything conveniently predictable and manageable for me. Dying? Oh well. I hear from laity and clergyh alikein our Church: "As long as the Church is here to bury me, I don't care what happens after that. It is not my worry."

I know the journey that I am proposing is frightful to many. But I say what I say because in cetain ways I have walked the journey that I propose, especially at my parish of Annunciation. I can assure everyone that the New Jerusalem is worth the pain and effort. So let us "be not afraid."

-Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.,MA.

Here is a response to this First Things post, which was written by Fr. Thomas J. Loya.


“First Things” submittal—Fr. Thomas J. Loya, May 31, 2012
I am very encouraged, surprised and humbled at what has been given voice as a result of my communication to my new Archbishop and which was also a communication meant for all Eastern Catholic bishops. There is a burgeoning Eastern Catholic force simmering beneath the surface like a mighty army waiting for their leader to simply say, "Let's take that hill. I will be the first man to charge up the hill and the last man to leave." I believe that if this power is unleashed it would serve Eastern Catholic bishops well. They could ride the crest of a small but mighty Church that can make a difference certainly in America. I would hope that Eastern Catholic bishops would be very encouraged, motivated and inspired but the insight, zeal and energy revealed in these posts and in other communications.
My own bishop, John Kudrick, kindly and graciously mentioned to me the potential of my message to Archbishop William being interpreted as rebellious or hostile to Rome, even taunting the idea of union with Rome. To help make sure that nothing of the sort would even enter my mind I appreciated and point to the message here by Mary Hicks about my family.
My family legacy and myself personally have always been and remain fiercely loyal to unity with Rome. I studied in Rome and loved every minute of it. Yet, it actually serves Rome, indeed the whole Church for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be the best versions of themselves, to function from a position of inner strength and absolute equality with the western "lung" of the Church. It is much like a marriage. It serves the marriage for both spouses to be strong. Even though, for instance, a husband may feel bigger and stronger and enjoy a certain feeling of dominance because of that, it does not serve the husband if the wife is in anyway co-dependent, to see herself in any way as inferior or lesser than her husband. I believe the "original sin" of the Eastern Catholic Churches has been a feeling of inferiority. I believe this accounts for ALL of our problems. I do not think that we have to "prove" that we are equal to the west. That should be automatic as a sui juris Church. We just have to believe it and live it.
I still prefer to say as I always have, that the Eastern Catholic Churches must be 'razed to the ground and rebuilt according to their authentic and best selves.' Rather than gasp at this statement, hopefully the reader will simply recognize the basic death and resurrection rhythm of Christianity and of Jesus’ teaching: "Unless a grain of wheat fall to the ground..."
The renewal of Eastern Catholicism must be this foundational, this "radical" and comprehensive. Every aspect of Eastern Catholic life, down to the last detail, must be examined with scrutiny, honesty and courage. Nothing less will do and nothing less will serve the Church as a whole. I must paraphrase and apply one of my favorite points from G. K. Chesterton to our situation as Eastern Catholics: If we love something for a reason we will very likely destroy that thing for the sake of preserving that reason. But only the person who truly loves something is free enough to tear it apart and rebuild it into the New Jerusalem. My request to my Archbishop, to all Eastern Catholic bishops and to all Eastern Catholics is do we love God and our Church deep enough to walk the journey and pay the price that will turn it into the New Jerusalem?
Yes, indeed we need vision. But I think what we need most is courage. In our Ruthenian Church we extol our martyred bishops like Romzha, yet we do not follow their example. They paid the supreme sacrifice yet for us all intelligent discussion, creative thinking, all proposals for real change stop at the discomfort and fear of the first nasty letter of protest, the first threat that someone "will leave." We are a Church that allows ourselves to be held hostage by fear and in this sense we do not honor our Romzha’s. We have enshrined convenience rather than commitment, sacrifice and devotion all out of the fear that if we ask this of our people we will lose the few people we have. Yet, ironically, as a Ruthenian priest said to me just this week; "our Ruthenian Church in America is hemorrhaging people." Out of a sense of inferiority we think everyone else has a better idea, that we cannot clean up our own house, that we have so little to offer. Yet, I believe, as I mentioned in my letter, that we alone can supply what is lacking in the whole Church and in modern western society.
In light of what I see that must be for the Eastern Catholic Churches in our day and age and especially in America, and if anyone is taken aback by my thoughts, I will be so bold as to say, if anyone is not willing to 'raze our Church to the ground and rebuild it into the New Jerusalem,' I must question their degree of love and motivation for God and our Church. Do we love our Church or do we love our particular idea of it which although it is killing our Church, it suits us personally just fine? No pain, no discomfort, everything conveniently predictable and manageable for me. Dying? Oh well. I hear from laity and clergy alike in our Church: "As long as the Church is here to bury me, I don't care what happens after that. It is not my worry."
I know the journey that I am proposing is frightful to many. But I say what I say because in certain ways I have walked the journey that I propose, especially at my parish of Annunciation. I can assure everyone that the New Jerusalem is worth the pain and effort. So let us "be not afraid."
-Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.,MA.

@ William Tighe
In your FT review I referred to there is no mention of Dr. DeVille's undeniably helpful offering of what is unique in, and what is common to, respective Orthodox Patriarchates. DeVille understands what so many Latins don't: there is more than one way to do local Orthodoxy. Catholics, and not just Latins apparently, routinely ignore this "diverse unity" aspect of Orthodox Christianity. Regarding, the use of "dismissive," I had in mind your words: ".....based on historical considerations to which the papacy was, even in the first millennium, largely indifferent." It suggests you are at one with what is, both presently and historically, a bored disinterestedness toward "Oriental" concerns and perspectives. "Dismissive" would still seem to work.

@Mary E. Lanser
In my post I referenced the way Gregory Dialogos consulted with his synod of bishops, which took place in those "first thousand years," because it is a great deal like what Orthodox believers see in their own churches TODAY.

@Fr. Dn. Michael Heningham
We Orthodox should temper our remarks by remembering that, European and North American contractions aside, Roman Catholicism seems to be experiencing impressive growth in other places, and seems to be doing a commendable job of what we like to congratulate ourselves on about our own mission history, namely, cultural sensitivity. Western de-Christianization is not "their" problem, its all of our problem.

Similarly, while you and I may agree that the papacy was a peculiar medieval development rather than an apostolic "given," it was in no small measure a response to the presence of barbarian invaders (of whom I'm likely a descendant) and numerous other local peculiarities; the strongly centralized Church was the often only bearer of culture, law and order. In stating that the papacy was a medieval development, an Orthodox might ask himself what, exactly, the alternative might have been. Failing to consider these and other contingencies is no better than Roman Catholics failing to notice that Orthodoxy is not, nor never has been, the monolithic papacy.

And finally I really doubt, this long after most Orthodox and Catholics have recognized each others sacred orders as authentic and of apostolic origin, that it is either accurate or helpful to instruct them to "return to the true Church." It's a good deal more complicated than that.

I think it very likely that Cardinal Sandri is speaking for himself and not the Vatican. But I sincerely doubt that anyone at the Vatican actually cares about Eastern Catholics.

I also doubt that any Greek/Byzantine Catholic bishops have any sense of mission to anyone other than their own ethnic group. Last week Ukrainian Archbishop Soroka of Philadelphia did an interview with Zenit in which spoke as if the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was only for ethnic Ukrainians and maybe those who are willing to be ethnic Ukrainians. Ruthenian Bishop William Skurla, when he was in Passaic, forbid a parish near NYC from using Spanish in the Liturgy. He told the pastor that the Hispanics belonged to the Roman Rite and should be told to go there. The Ruthenians also lost 1/3 of their people in the past few years because of a mandated liturgical reform that is based on the same principles used to create the Latin Rite Novus Ordo. The Maronite Catholics just did the same thing with their Liturgy.

The root of the problem is that Greek Catholics still see Roman Catholics as Real Catholics, and aspire to be like them by copying them.

"The root of the problem is that Greek Catholics still see Roman Catholics as Real Catholics, and aspire to be like them by copying them."

Right.

No, the root of the problem is that every one seems to have highly idiosyncratic views of what the problem is - views that are usually highly reactive and frequently wrong on facts. And in turn, every one seems to have the right prescription of just what must be done, however weak the diagnostics, to be defended at any costs - scorched earth, my way/highway, etc. - because of the sure sense that any deviation from that prescription is obviously the worst idea ever.

Well, that is the problem in much of the blogosphere, anyway.

"The root of the problem is that Greek Catholics still see Roman Catholics as Real Catholics, and aspire to be like them by copying them."

Have you actually spoken with Byzantine Rite Catholics? This bold assertion is based on what?

There are many stories from the first half of the 20th century of converts in England and elsewhere approaching Irish priests for instruction and reception into the Church being asked what part of Ireland did their ancestors come from. So this is not a unique problem.

A Ukrainian bishop made some remarks that may be ill-considered, and may be out of context: but I can provide you with many ill-considered remarks made by Latin bishops. For example, recently in a debate with a new Atheist evangelist, a cardinal publicly denied the existence of the first human couple (Adam and Eve). Does this mean I can extrapolate to say that the problem of Latin Catholics is that they do not believe in original sin?

Among Byzantine rite Catholics there are a range of views - just as there are a range of views among Latin Catholics, Syrian Catholics, Copts, &c. Just because one belongs to one of the smaller Churches does not automatically mean that we conform to a single world view without variation.

One of the difficulties of being within a small Church is that large groups of Latins can migrate for a number of reasons. And while this is can be a good thing, there is also the danger that the authentic traditions of the Rite may be drowned out by the expectations of the new group.

There has also been a very long history of Latinisation of other Rites when they have come into contact with the West - this happened in Lebanon and also in Goa and India in the 16th century.

I have also been lectured at by a priest of the "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite" (what used to be called the Latin Mass), about how all Eastern Christians acknowledge the priority and superiority of the Latin Rite. This man is now in Rome building a career within the Curia, and has a great interest in Liturgy and the Oriental Churches.

With these attitudes abounding, is anyone surprised with the reaction to comments?

I pray that we may be one.