Pope Says Eastern Catholic Churches Were A Mistake?

Rhamiel said:

not sure if you can say we gave up on it
in 2015 the Eritrean Catholic Church was accepted as a Sui iuris Church, before I think it was seen as simply a liturgical style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_Catholic_Church

Click to expand...

There was a document released sometime in the 1990s, the name of which is escaping me right now, that said something like "it is no longer the intention of either party (RC or EO) that the faithful of one community pass over to the other." The poster Peter J had the exact line as his signature over at CAF (I don't know if he still does, since they banned me forever ago, but maybe that'll help jog someone's memory out there). I thought that was more or less how Rome was operating these days.

Regarding the Catholic Eritrean, I'm not sure that's such a good example. They existed since the time of the Italians in Eritrea (late 1800s), so any subsequent changes to the RC approach wouldn't magically make them disappear or anything. In fact, I suspect that's why the statement you wrote about was phrased the way it was, so as to say (essentially) "we're not going to give up any of our gains, but we're not going to try to make any new gains using that same model in the future."

I don't know what else they could reasonably say, to be honest. The alternative would be that they basically disestablish all of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches...now that would be Pope Francis (or whoever did it) admitting that they were a mistake. But that's not going to happen.

dzheremi said:

There was a document released sometime in the 1990s, the name of which is escaping me right now, that said something like "it is no longer the intention of either party (RC or EO) that the faithful of one community pass over to the other." The poster Peter J had the exact line as his signature over at CAF (I don't know if he still does, since they banned me forever ago, but maybe that'll help jog someone's memory out there). I thought that was more or less how Rome was operating these days.

Click to expand...

Talk about unfair...to force someone to remain Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic if their heart is no longer in it. That is a real easy way to create people who turn away from God.

Er...okay. I only meant that as an example of what I thought was Rome's approach to matters these days when I wrote that I thought they had given up on Uniatism a while ago. I don't think any church -- Orthodox or Catholic -- can actually force anyone to remain in it (though thanks to Rome's indelible mark theology of baptism, I'm sure they still consider me a Roman Catholic; I don't care about that, though).

I just remembered it out of nowhere! It was the Balamand Document (a.k.a. Balamand Declaration, etc.), issued 1993 as part of the seventh plenary session of the joint EO-RC dialogue that took place at the Balamand school of theology (EO seminary) in Lebanon, June 17-24 of that year. The introduction to the text, which summarizes its objectives and purpose (the full text is much too long to reproduce here), reads as follows (taken from the Vatican website):


1. At the request of the Orthodox Churches, the normal progression of the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church has been set aside so that immediate attention might be given to the question which is called "uniatism".


2. With regard to the method which has been called "uniatism", it was stated at Freising (June 1990) that "we reject it as method for the search for unity because it is opposed to the common tradition of our Churches".


3. Concerning the Oriental Catholic Churches, it is clear that they, as part of the Catholic Communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their faithful.


4. The document prepared at Ariccia by the joint coordinating committee (June 1991) and finished at Balamand (June 1993) states what is our method in the present search for full communion, thus giving the reason for excluding "uniatism" as a method.

So it says right there that "uniatism" is to be excluded as a method to reunion.

dzheremi said:

Er...okay. I only meant that as an example of what I thought was Rome's approach to matters these days when I wrote that I thought they had given up on Uniatism a while ago. I don't think any church -- Orthodox or Catholic -- can actually force anyone to remain in it (though thanks to Rome's indelible mark theology of baptism, I'm sure they still consider me a Roman Catholic; I don't care about that, though).

Click to expand...

Sorry dzheremi, I hope it didn't come off like I was attacking you. I have the utmost respect for you.

I just don't like it when churches try to hold people in place against their will, faith is a journey, and we can never find the narrow road if we are chained to a fence. This has been a very personal struggle with me as of late, due to issues with my own parish, and my ever changing outlook on the Church and the world.

Rhamiel said:

Yes the title of this thread is strongly worded to get your attention
but that is how this statement sounded to me

this is part of the document that was signed
section 25
"It is our hope that our meeting may also contribute to reconciliation wherever tensions exist between Greek Catholics and Orthodox. 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. Nonetheless, the ecclesial communities which emerged in these historical circumstances have the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co–existence."

https://churchpop.com/2016/02/12/fu...-francis-orthodox-patriarch-kirill-of-moscow/

Click to expand...

That is really rather old news. All they have done is re-state the Balamand agreement. Have you not read the following document?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

This is the first I have ever heard of the Balamand Agreement...and what a fascinating document it is.

I have been following this process of ecumenism, The sign of the meeting of the head of the Russian orthodox church with the pope will help to advance the process of reunification.

Now, about the Greek Catholic Churches, they are Catholics and Eastern, they have advanced their process of comunion with the Bishop Of Rome centuries ahead from their Orthodox brothers out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. so to say it in short they have their government, their traditions, even their married priests, and their monastic orders, which are not ordered by the Latin Church.

As I see the process of comunion with the churches in schism, they have been claiming that the Eastern Catholic Churches which are alredy in communion with the Bishop of Rome imply a division of their Jurisdictional territories and thus imply a impediment towards full communion. "competing hierarchy" is thus an issue.

dzheremi said:

I thought the RCC itself had given up on Uniatism some time ago. I know that the word "Uniate" is considered to be very loaded and in some ways hurtful by some Eastern Catholics. It seems to me that Pope Francis is recognizing that the way they came about (separate from whether or not they should exist) is not something that he would like his church to emulate going forward, which is surely a good message to communicate to and with an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

Click to expand...

Uniate is inacurate, they are in Communion, But if we would love accuracy, in stead of Eastern Orthodoxy I would call them Schismatics.

Why is uniate inaccurate?

dzheremi said:

Why is uniate inaccurate?

Click to expand...

Bcause They are not something that Eastern Orthodoxy Lost who got "united" to the Catholic Church,, but they are Brothers who recovered their Communion with the Church of Rome. it is not that they Moved away from Eastern Orthodoxy, but that they recovered the communion which Eastern Orthodoxy lost.

The Church of Rome As Saint Cyprian said, is the Church with which all Churches MUST BE IN COMMUNION WITH, and eastern orthodoxy was in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and they lost it.

Rhamiel said:

I missed you dude
you are bold and you love your Church

Click to expand...

I'm sorry for participating lower than what I used to do. I missed you too

Alonso_Castillo said:

Bcause They are not something that Eastern Orthodoxy Lost who got "united" to the Catholic Church,, but they are Brothers who recovered their Communion with the Church of Rome. it is not that they Moved away from Eastern Orthodoxy, but that they recovered the communion which Eastern Orthodoxy lost.

The Church of Rome As Saint Cyprian said, is the Church with which all Churches MUST BE IN COMMUNION WITH, and eastern orthodoxy was in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and they lost it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. "Uniate" was the term used in Roman Catholic (not Eastern Orthodox) documents for a long time to describe these churches. It's not something the Eastern Orthodox invented to denigrate the Eastern Catholic Churches. Your own Church uses this word in its own documents on the Vatican website and elsewhere:

"In 1596, as a result of the Union of Brest, a number of Orthodox priests and believers recognised the Pope as the head of the Church and accepted Catholic dogma, while retaining the Byzantine rite. The Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church consequently came into being, which today has approximately 100,000 followers." (source)

"The ecumenical context is characterized by a disproportion of membership numbers between the respective churches. The following figures give an idea of the membership of different churches according to the results of the 2001 census: Roman Catholic 68,9% and Greek Catholic (Uniate) 4%" (source)

"Ever since We first became Pope, We have proven Our fatherly love in embracing in Christ Our beloved eastern clergy and people, the Uniates as they are called, who are in agreement with Us and are free from the stain of schism." (source)

Again, why is it suddenly inaccurate? (not "why do you consider it insulting?")

It did not seem to be so in the RC world in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the document I took that last quote. In fact, the way he wrote 'as they are called' indicates that it was normal to refer to them by that name, and not considered pejorative. I understand that it is considered to be so now, but pejorative is not the same as inaccurate. Is it not accurate to say that the majority of the Eastern Catholic Churches came into being as a result of various unions at particular times (as mentioned in the first quote re: the Greek Catholic Church and the Union of Brest)? I suspect that's why they were called that in the first place.

dzheremi said:

It did not seem to be so in the RC world in 1756, when Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the document I took that last quote. In fact, the way he wrote 'as they are called' indicates that it was normal to refer to them by that name, and not considered pejorative. I understand that it is considered to be so now, but pejorative is not the same as inaccurate. Is it not accurate to say that the majority of the Eastern Catholic Churches came into being as a result of various unions at particular times (as mentioned in the first quote re: the Greek Catholic Church and the Union of Brest)? I suspect that's why they were called that in the first place.

Click to expand...

Given that it came from Benedict XIV, the same Pope who encouraged Eastern Catholics to adopt Latin practices, and wrote the controversial and mostly overturned (by his successors) encyclical Allatae Sunt, I would not be surprised if he was using it as a pejorative.

As you note, most Eastern Catholic churches resulted out of union with Rome, but what do we call the Maronites and the few remaining Sicilian Eastern Catholics?

You call them Maronites and Italo-Albanians. (...?)

I'm not sure what the point of that question is. And I'm also not sure how saying that the Pope who wrote that encyclical is controversial means that Uniate is an inaccurate term. That doesn't follow. Again, I'm asking how this is an inaccurate term despite the fact that most Eastern Catholic churches came into existence as the result of various unions, and in reply I'm seeing insinuations that the Eastern Orthodox are bad people or that this particular Pope is a bad person. Okay...

Well - i was going to make a thread... they signed a joint declaration of unity.

http://catholicsay.com/pope-says-meeting-with-the-patriarch-of-moscow-is-clearly-the-will-of-god/

Patriarch Kirill exclaimed “Yes, things are much easier now," as they met in a lounge at Havana’s José Martí International Airport.

“Finally," the Pope said in his native Spanish, “We are brothers, It is very clear this is the will of God."

Pope Francis stopped in Cuba for just a few hours before continuing on to Mexico for a five-day-visit where he signed a joint declaration on religious unity with the Patriarch of Moscow.

The division of the church between East and West was rooted deep in church history. For more than 25 years the Catholic Church tried to resolve the differences they had with the Eastern Orthodox Church but the Russian Orthodox patriarchs had refused to meet with a pope because of what the Moscow Patriarchate claimed was “proselytism" on the part of Ukrainian Catholics, one of the Eastern churches in full union with Rome. This is one of the numerous achievements of Pope Francis; the beginning of a new era in the Christian-Orthodox relations.

After his meeting with the Patriarch, Pope Francis out of excitement, opened up and shared with the reporters his emotions saying: “I felt an interior joy that truly came from the Lord. It was a conversation of brothers," Pope Francis said. The conversation was marked by freedom and “complete frankness."

A question: Is it possible that the Pope is apologizing for the rift that may have been widened between the Catholic and the Orthodox by welcoming the Eastern Rite Churches into fellowship... and for the separation of the EC from the EO? I don't think he is expressing regret for what is now, but more for what was in the past.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

A question: Is it possible that the Pope is apologizing for the rift that may have been widened between the Catholic and the Orthodox by welcoming the Eastern Rite Churches into fellowship... and for the separation of the EC from the EO? I don't think he is expressing regret for what is now, but more for what was in the past.

Click to expand...

There already has been a rift in the fact of the Schism. It's a contradiction to say that reuniting causes a rift. And there is at least one Eastern Catholic church I know of that never separated from Rome—the Maronite Church.