Byzantine Catholicism: Option and Opportunity?

On first consideration, the suggestion seems absurd that Byzantine Catholicism might be a real ecclesiastical option for American Episcopalians and other Anglicans seeking a fuller expression of their own catholicity. Why would Episcopalians, struggling with issues of parochialism, universality, unity, and the boundaries of legitimate diversity, even consider a tradition which has its own version of these problems, in addition to looming issues of ethnicity and inculturation within the American context? Surely for catholic-minded Episcopalians the only two real options are Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, either in their traditional forms or in slightly marginalized structures, such as a revised form of “Prayer Book” Roman Catholicism or Western-Rite Orthodoxy. All of these, of course, are genuine alternatives which a number of Episcopalians, in their search for more theological cohesion, have chosen. I, however, would seriously like to suggest the option which is the obvious subject of this essay–Byzantine Catholicism.

The existential reason for this suggestion is undoubtedly related to the fact that I am a Byzantine Catholic myself–a Byzantine Catholic of the Russian Rite, a priest, a married man, and one who has traversed the boundaries of East and West in my own search for an ecclesiastical home. My travels include a brief sojourn within the world of Anglo-Catholicism (I have an M.Div degree from Nashotah House) and a period of intense study of the Anglican tradition (my doctoral study focussed on the Eucharistic theology of the early Caroline divines). Consequently, I have a positive existential concern for Anglican Christians, for their experience, their theology and worship, their gifts to the universal Church, and their future. At the same time, my suggestion is also rooted in what I believe to be objective criteria, some of which I will try to develop in this reflection.

Historically, the Church of England (and by implication, it seems to me, her daughter churches) have been within the orbit of the Roman See, not only in terms of Rome’s universal ministry, but within her particular Western patriarchal care. Yet, in many ways, Anglicans are more similar to Byzantine Christians (Orthodox and Eastern Catholic) than they are to Latin-Rite Catholics, despite the obvious external similarities between the two Western traditions. This tension is both the rub of the matter and the very circumstance which establishes the rationale for how and why Byzantine Catholicism might be both an option and an opportunity for Episcopalians seeking to find a new place within the communion of catholic Christianity.

In this reflection paper, then, I shall attempt to look at the tension between 1) Anglican-Byzantine shared ecclesial experiences, discussed in terms of three themes–liturgical theology, the experience of beauty in liturgy, and a commitment to the central controlling themes of Patristic theology, and 2) the Anglican-Holy See relationship, considered in terms of the acceptance of the Petrine Ministry. These themes influenced my own willingness to live as a Byzantine Orthodox Christian-in-communion-with-Rome

One of the clearest links between the Anglican experience and the Byzantine (and indeed all Eastern Christian) experience touches on what is at the heart of Christianity- worship and liturgy. Both traditions have an overwhelming and dominant liturgical orientation. As William Wolf has pointed out, the major controversies within Anglicanism have not been directly on theological topics, but primarily on liturgical ones in which theological issues are present. A similar case can be made, I believe, for a great deal of the history of Eastern Christianity. Moreover, like Byzantine Christianity, Anglicanism has had no great single dominant theologian, such as Aquinas or Calvin, around which a comprehensive “system” of theology has been built. Rather, when Anglicanism has been its healthiest, the Prayer Book and the Creeds embedded in the liturgy have determined the shape of Anglican thought. Lex orandi has indeed been lex credendi.

This liturgical experience with its resultant liturgical theology, an experience common to both Anglican and Byzantine Christianity, was aptly articulated by the 1984 Anglican-Orthodox Dublin Agreed Statement: “(63) Anglicans and Orthodox hold that the liturgy and all worship are essentially for the expression, maintenance and communication of the true faith. Liturgical texts are thus fundamental doctrinal standards for both.” and “(53) Faith and worship are inseparable. Dogmas are not abstract ideas existing in and for themselves, but revealed and saving truths and realities intended to bring mankind into communion with God.”

While all forms of catholic Christianity embody to some extent this relationship between theology and liturgy and its spiritual end, it is certainly not always central within theological or pastoral consciousness. My experience of Roman Catholicism, for example, (I teach at a conservative seminary and serve as pastor in a liberal parish) is that in neither the liberal nor the conservative wings of the Church is the theological ethos authentically liturgical. Certainly, magisterial statements and some academic theologians assert the lex orandi lex credendi principle, but when push comes to shove, other concerns often shape and determine theology (even sacramental theology!), for example, justice and peace issues on the one hand, or the Thomistic theological tradition on the other hand. Moreover, while Roman Catholics tend to ask the question of what canon law requires of liturgical celebrations, Anglicans and Byzantine Christians tend to ask the question of how tradition should shape our liturgical celebrations.

Closely associated with this emphasis on the relationship between liturgy and theology is the role which beauty plays in both liturgy and spirituality. As Pope John Paul II has pointed out, this is a distinctive accent within the Eastern Christian experience. The Byzantine devotion to the beauty of form is at the service of the Divine Mystery. The sense of liturgy as a mysterious participation on earth of the heavenly liturgy is expressed through the beauty of sounds, colors, lights and scents, all of which touch the whole human person, body and soul, and enable a progressive identification of the whole person with the mystery celebrated. The liturgy, according to John Paul II, is “the royal gate through which one must pass, if one wishes to grasp the spirit of the Christian East.”

Much the same, it seems to me, can be said of Anglicanism. The liturgy is the means by which one grasps the Anglican genius and “sense”. Moreover, cultural differences not withstanding, Anglicanism at its best, like the Byzantine tradition, has a deep sense of, and commitment to, beauty in the liturgy. For many Anglicans, as for many Easterners, questions of “validity,” “correct form” and “minimum requirements” are trumped (at least in terms of experience) by concerns for beauty, a sense of transcendence, and mystery. Both Byzantines and Anglicans often look at contemporary celebrations of the Roman Mass with a certain sense of dislocation and puzzlement when its horizontal dimensions (good and appropriate in themselves) seem to hide its vertical, transcendent character. The community of the liturgical congregation often seems to be disconnected from communion with the community of the Trinity. While this situation is beginning to change in some places within the Roman Church, reflected in repeated calls by the Holy See for more careful and dignified celebrations of the liturgy, the “low church” character of much parochial liturgy is still very dominant. This is reflected in a quip by a Roman Catholic friend of mine: “After the Council, there must have been a pact between Anglicans and Catholics to divide things up: we got the truth; they got the beauty”.

These issues, I think, are something that Episcopalians who value the ethos of a liturgical theology and an experience of beauty in the liturgy need to think very carefully about. Here, it seems to me, Anglicans and Byzantines have much more in common in terms of a shared approach to theology and its rootedness in the transcendent worship of the Church than either group has with many of their contemporary Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

Another link between Anglicanism and Byzantine Christianity has to do with their relationship to the Patristic heritage and the value which that heritage has within the two traditions. Certainly, the Protestant Reformation impacted English Christianity, often more deeply than Anglo-Catholics have been willing to admit. Yet, it is also true that through various “revivals”, most notably among the Caroline divines of the early 17th century and the Tractarians of the 19th century, Anglican Christianity has periodically experienced a recovery of Patristic theology. By appealing to the 17th century Anglican theologians, the Tractarians and all subsequent high-church Anglicans, it can be argued, have been advocating in effect a return to the primitive catholic Church and to the theological vision of the Fathers. When Anglicanism has been most faithful to this recovery, she has been able to present a vision of God, humanity and salvation that has been remarkably balanced, orthodox and catholic, one, moreover, which has had the capacity to avoid the sharp edges and foibles of both late medieval Latin thought and Reformation exaggerations.

The reason for this, it seems to me, is that the Patristic consensus and ethos upon which “classical” Anglican theology has been built contained the decisive interplay between three essential and central elements: Trinity, incarnation and deification. The doctrine of the incarnation is clearly at the heart of all of catholic Christianity as the necessary doorway to the right understanding of both God and humanity. In a particular way it has been especially emphasized within the Anglican tradition.

The Puritans of New England were extraordinarily perceptive, as William Wolf has pointed out, about how to be most “un-Anglican” by outlawing the celebration of Christmas. Even into the 20th century, the contrast between Anglican England’s festal celebration of Christmas and Presbyterian Scotland’s reluctance to observe it as a public holiday is very telling. An incarnational vision and piety can be traced throughout the hymns, sermons and liturgical celebrations of Anglicanism from its early period until today. Moreover, it was the 20th century challenge to this central feature of Anglican faith and piety in the “myth of God incarnate” movement which was instrumental in creating theological chaos within Anglicanism.

It has been the great strength of Byzantine Christianity that she has continued to accent the doctrine of deification, our becoming partakers of the divine nature by God’s grace, as inseparably and necessarily bound up with the doctrines of Trinity and incarnation and as standing at the heart of Christian faith and life. Without the doctrine of our deification by grace, the doctrine of the incarnation loses its ultimate meaning and finality as the revelation of the possibility of restored communion with the Triadic God. In fact, the source of both the entire Christian theological tradition and Christian social activism is to be found, I am convinced, in the Church’s and the individual Christian’s mystical relationship with God.

The language and theology of deification has been popularized once again within Roman Catholic circles through the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is part of an attempt to re-incorporate certain Eastern elements in the Roman Church’s presentation of basic catechetical material. Nevertheless, the theme deification remains primarily an Eastern one, running through the liturgy, spirituality and theology of Byzantine Christianity. As Pope John Paul II asserted in his apostolic letter, Orientale Lumen, the theology of divinization is one of the achievements particularly dear to Eastern Christian thought.

The language of “divinization by grace” has often not been used by Anglicans because of certain fears of misunderstanding, yet Anglicans do not reject the underlying doctrine, and the teaching of deification can be found in Anglican liturgies and hymnody. Moreover, catholic-minded Anglicans who have been influenced by Caroline and Tractarian Patristic theology are very much at home within this Eastern theological and spiritual ethos. One of the great theological heroes of nearly all high-church Episcopalians is Bishop Lancelot Andrewes. In his 1605 Christmas sermon, for example, Andrewes described the Eucharist as the meeting point for the incarnation of Christ and the deification of man–the flesh which Christ took, together with the Spirit, is given back to us in the Eucharistic Mystery: “He taking our flesh, and we receiving His Spirit; by His flesh which He took of us, receiving His Spirit which He imparteth to us; that, as He by ours became consors humanae naturae, so we by His might become consortes Divinae naturae, ‘partakers of the Divine nature’ … With this act then of mutual ‘taking’, taking of His flesh [in the Eucharist], as He hath taken ours [in the incarnation], let us seal our duty to Him this day.”

In Andrewes, we find an Anglicanism very much rooted in the Patristic heritage and at home in the Eastern theological world. It is the re-appropriation and reassertion of the Byzantine doctrine of deification along the lines of Andrewes’ thought by catholic-minded Anglicans of today that can lead to a recovery of the deepest intuitions of their own incarnational heritage. What better place to do this than within the Byzantine Christian community.

Byzantine Catholicism (II)

At this point, the obvious question to be asked is: why not Eastern Orthodoxy? Everything that I have said so far can be found within the Orthodox Church–a liturgical theology, a concern for beauty, and the fundamental theological vision of the Patristic heritage. So, why should catholic-minded Anglicans not go really East? Why should they muck about with “hybrid”, confused “uniatism”? Why not go for the “real thing”? As I have tried to show, Anglicans and all Byzantine Christians share much in common. It is not without significance that at one point in the twentieth century some Eastern Orthodox saw Anglicanism as either being, or having the potential for being, an authentic expression of Christian orthodoxy in Western garb.

There is indeed a great deal which links the Anglican and Orthodox experiences, and yet despite deep similarities, there is a major historical difference with regard to how Orthodox and Anglicans have related to the centre of the universal Church, to the Chair of Peter. The Church of Rome, is not the “mother” of the Eastern Churches. She is the “elder brother” in relation to the Churches of he East. In addition to having a universal pastorate and solicitude for the entire catholic Church, Rome is also more immediately the spiritual mother of the Western Churches, including Ecclesia Anglicana. It, therefore, seems odd for Anglicans to seek a fuller expression of their inherent catholicity without reference to the Petrine See or by “by-passing” it in turning to the Orthodox East.

Moreover, there is an important theological issue at stake. The 1998 Agreed Statement of the second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, The Gift of Authority, issued significantly on the feast of St. Gregory the Great, represents the culmination of intense ecumenical work and a series of dialogues between the two communions dealing with the question of authority in the Church. One of the crucial elements within The Gift of Authority which needs to be taken very seriously is the way in which it deals with the issue of the primatial ministry exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

The 1998 Agreed Statement asserts that Anglicans (or at least, some Anglicans) can affirm that the Bishop of Rome has a “specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth, as an expression of universal primacy.” The document calls upon Anglicans to “receive” the teaching, that under certain circumstances, the Bishop of Rome has a duty to discern and to make explicit the faith of the whole Church from within the college of those who exercise episcope. This can be seen as authoritative teaching which has the same guarantee of the Spirit as do the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils. Moreover, the reception of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome “entails the recognition of this specific ministry of the universal primate. We believe that this is a gift to be received by all the churches.”

The “gift” of papal primacy, it seems to me, is not just about power, authority and jurisdiction (although at its worst, it must be admitted, it can be reduced to these). Rather, at its deepest psychological and existential level, it is about accepting the universal pastorate of Peter and the universal mission of Paul to preach the gospel to every nation. It is about the refusal to reduce the Church to an ethnic, tribal or cultural religious phenomenon. It is about accepting the Church as a life of communion and unity rooted in, and reflecting, the God who is simultaneously plurality and unity.

The ecumenical affirmations of the 1998 Agreed Statement are indeed highly significant. If at this time in history Anglicans genuinely can accept them and believe them to be true, then, it seems to me, to make no sense to side-step communion with Rome in favour of communion with the Orthodox Churches, which have yet to be able to make this kind of official affirmation regarding the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox Churches have yet to be able to respond in any kind of unified manner to the Pope’s invitation in Ut Unum Sint to discern with him a way to articulate the Petrine ministry which will genuinely serve the unity of the Church. For centuries, it has been the Orthodox gripe that Rome was unwilling to engage in dialogue on this issue. Now that Rome has issued the invitation for dialogue, the Orthodox Churches, unfortunately, seem ill-prepared to rise to the occasion. Hopefully, this will change in the years to come, first on the level of official theological dialogue and then in the internal life of the Orthodox Churches themselves.

Whatever further nuances, developments and synthesis may still be needed with regard to papal ministry, these, I would suggest, can best and most appropriately be engaged in from within the boundaries of communion, not in schism. This, of course, is the Byzantine Catholic approach, one that may be able to provide Anglicans with an ecumenical model for legitimate diversity in unity within catholic communion. Like historic Anglicanism, Byzantine Catholicism also accents collegiality and synodality, while still affirming the primacy of the pope. Former Anglicans might well find Byzantine Catholic Churches, especially the small Russian Byzantine Catholic Church or the larger Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchal Church, to be a conducive environment where continuing convergence in theology can be achieved within a framework of authentic plurality and communion.

The ideal situation with regard to Anglicans and the restoration of full communion would be, in my opinion, the creation of an entire “uniate” Anglican Ritual Church, similar to that the Eastern Catholic Churches. Since, however, this seems unlikely in the near future, the next best option, it seems to me, would be the assimilation of former Anglicans to a Catholic Church which is like them in ethos and is in full communion with the Holy See.

Of all the Byzantine Ritual Churches, my own, the tiny Russian Church, probably fits the cultural bill the best. The Russian ethos and the English ethos, even in their attenuated American forms, are very much compatible with one another. Russian Catholicism, moreover, is largely a “convert phenomenon” and does not suffer from the ethnic problems that other Eastern Churches frequently experience. Moreover, since it is the youngest member of the family of Byzantine Catholic Churches and did not go through the painful experience of Latinization, it has maintained the Byzantine Orthodox heritage perhaps more fully and more integrally than some other Byzantine Churches have been able to do. Ever since the 2nd Vatican Council, the Holy See has, in fact, repeatedly called upon all Eastern Churches to recover, where lost, their authentic traditions.

In any case, out of love for the unity of the Church, both Anglicans and Byzantine Catholics have had experience in living as “bridge communities,” striving to unite diverse, and seemingly divergent, elements and drawing them into “wholeness” and communion. Isn’t this in fact what the struggle for “catholicity” really means? The possibility of Christian communities bringing together and synthesizing the Anglican experience of living within the mainstream of Western culture and intellectual life, the Eastern tradition of theology, spirituality and worship, and real communion with both the Latin Church and the Petrine centre of Christianity bristles with truly exciting possibilities!

discussion? ping

Well, as Argus noted, there is a lot to digest here. But here is one suggestion that actually works. Instead of analyzing all of these churches, why not entrust this to our Lord and ask Him to guide you to where He needs you to be. Here's a practical approach that should be adjusted according to your own circumstances.

Make a list of all the Roman Catholic and Eastern (more on this below) Catholic Churches within a certain driving distance of your home. Include the Orthodox Churches as well.

Call each church for their mass times, then sit down and organize your schedule.

Begin with the church nearest to your home and plan to attend the following Sunday. You should commit to visiting each church at least 3 times. Bring home their bulletin. This will give you some insight into the various ministries at that parish. You should also stop after mass and chat with the parish priest.

Take a notebook and make three columns. In the left one, write down the name of the church. To the right, mark one column "Likes" and the other "Dislikes". After 3 visits, you should have a good feel for the parish and you can then move to the next one on your list.

Also check with the Catholic Diocese to see if they offer the old Latin Mass as an Indult. A word of caution in this regard. Make sure the church is offering the 'official' Indult Tridentine Latin Mass.

As most of us realize, the Church began in the East. Our Lord lived and died and resurrected in the Holy Land. The Church spread from Jerusalem throughout the known world. As the Church spread, it encountered different cultures and adapted, retaining from each culture what was consistent with the Gospel. In the city of Alexandria, the Church became very Egyptian; in Antioch it remained very Jewish; in Rome it took on an Italian appearance and in the Constantinople it took on the trappings of the Roman imperial court. All the churches which developed this way were Eastern, except Rome. Most Catholics in the United States have their roots in Western Europe where the Roman rite predominated. It has been said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are "the best kept secret in the Catholic Church."

Many people forget - or do not realize - that Christianity came from Judaism. As the church expanded beyond the realm of Judaism, it adapted itself to the people and cultures in which it took root. This cultural adaptation resulted in the 22 different rites of the Catholic Church today.

To this day, the Maronite Church retains its Jewish roots more than any other Catholic rite, as evidenced by its use of Aramaic/Syriac and by the prayers which remain faithful to Semantic and Old Testament forms.

It preserves the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith, administers the seven sacraments, follows all Papal rulings and is characterized by devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Mary, the Blessed Mother. The differences that strike a newcomer are mainly connected with the Divine Liturgy, which is reverent, beautiful and deeply spiritual.

To learn more about the Western and Eastern branches of the Catholic Church, CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

To locate an Eastern Catholic Church in your community, CLICK HERE

Kolokotronis and Kosta50, along with the other Orthodox members of the forum, are far more deft at explaining the differences between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Church.

All of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome, that is to say in submission to the Pope, are historical anomalies save for the Maronites as far as I know and have been for a very long time and are to this day a major stumbling block to reunion of the the Latin and Eastern Churches. Their Liturgies certainly look like Orthodox Divine Liturgies, but the theology behind them, if they are being faithful to the dogmas of the Roman Church, is in some important areas quite different. For us Orthodox, and undoubtedly for the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome, Lex Orandi is indeed Lex Credendi and thus while the "smells and bells" may be the same, the Churches are simply not. One quick example is the whole Roman concept of purgatory which as set forth in the Latin Church would seem to fly in the face of a professed belief in theosis by the Eastern Rite Uniate Churches. The dogmatic pronouncements of Papal Infallibility and the requirement that one submit to the Pope of Rome for salvation, the dogmatic requirement that one believe in the bodily assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos into heaven at her death, the dogmatic requirement of a belief in the Immaculate Conception, and on and on, bespeak a particularly non Patristic theology and a mindset which is not at all Orthodox.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if Western forms are important to any given Anglican and that person can embrace the systematic and scholastic theology and dogmas of the Roman Church, it makes little sense to go for the same thing in an Eastern overcoat. The Latin Church is where that person belongs. If patristic theology and praxis is what one wants, then Orthodoxy is the place to look. The early history of the Church in the British Isles shows that it was a Church in close communion with Constantinople and the other ancient Patriarchates of the East. It was not a Roman Church. It stayed that way for a very long time in Ireland and Scotland and Northern England. In much of England, however, after the Council of Whitby, despite the best efforts of Celtic monks, the Church became a Roman franchise and the remainder of the history of the Church there up to Henry VIII is very similar to that in the rest of Western Europe. Something of the old Eastern thinking persisted though and has been evident in historical Anglicanism and even in its people to this day. In my own experience, I can tell you that our converts from Episcopalianism seem to accept and live out the Orthodox phronema far quicker than converts from the Latin Church.

Byzantine Catholicism might be a real ecclesiastical option for American Episcopalians and other Anglicans seeking a fuller expression of their own catholicity.

As for the Greek being in Communion with the one, true Church of Rome, that depends on whether they are the eastern Catholic, or the schismatic orthodox sects. The former are, despite Rome best efforts since 'reform' and the mid-60s to say otherwise perhaps, in yet another misguided effort to appease the latter. And the latter are still in schism.

Rome has accomodated it

If "Rome" ever truly "accomodated" Cranmerism, or the like, then it would not be by the mind of The Church, but of certain churchmen cut off from The Church. There are certain ugly realities today. But to a lesser extent, they've always afflicted Holy Mother Church. Heretics are often those who once wore the collar. Now I understand your distaste for 'new order'. Obviously I share that, as well. I think the answer, also obviously, is not in the Greek necessarily, but in The Holy Mass.

There's also a problem just with the works of the Greek. Corruptions were found everywhere over the centuries in the Greek NT. Some scripts have been lost. But it was not by settling on just one that Martin, and those relocated to Rhemes, included this word and not another. Ideally, in other words, one would simply turn to the authorized copies of the Orthodox Greek. An irony, perhaps, where both Catholic Greek and Schismatic Greek sects lay claim to preservationism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.