Vatican cardinal calls on Melkites to be bridge between East and West

cna ^ | September 2, 2010

[NYer]

Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sep 2, 2010 / 02:06 pm (CNA).- The prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, called on Melkite Catholics in Argentina to be a bridge of communion between the East and the West.

Catholic Melkites, he said, “are very rooted in the Eastern world but they are also ‘traditionally’ united to the Petrine See.”

Cardinal Sandri made his comments during a Mass in the city of Cordoba, at which he was joined by the Greco-Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, His Beatitude Gregory III Laham; the Apostolic Exarch Abdo Arbach of the Melkites of Argentina; and Archbishop Carlos Jose Nunez of Cordoba.

Cardinal Sandri said unity always begins with Christ, but “it demands our personal conversion to unity.”

“Conversion to communion is a daily cross that we must bear so that the Church will be the unifying leaven of the whole human race.”

Likewise, he called on Melkite Catholics to remember their spiritual roots. “I think of the spiritual effort needed to help the second and third Melkite generation in America maintain their authentic Eastern identity, especially in the area of the liturgy, without failing to adopt a necessary openness at the same time to the new ecclesial and social context. 

"For this reason the renewal of family, youth and vocational ministries, even at the heart of the Church, is urgent,” he said.

Cardinal Sandri called on the Melkite faithful and all Eastern Catholics to continue defending the family and traditional marriage. 

[NYer]

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

Please freepmail me if you would like more information on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

[NYer]

Catholic Melkites, he said, “are very rooted in the Eastern world but they are also ‘traditionally’ united to the Petrine See.”

The same can be said of ALL 22 of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Each day, we pray for the Holy Father. Some of the Eastern Patriarchs, like mine - Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Peter Sfeir - are members of the College of Cardinals.

[Kolokotronis]

One of my very best friends, who is very, very Orthodox, is the grand nephew of +Maximos V Hakim of Blessed Memory on his mother's side. We have had many, many discussions about this bridge issue and those discussions have included his Melkite family members when they are here. They are uniform in their opinion that the Melkites will act, if anything, as a one way bridge only...for the Latins to return to Orthodoxy, not so much theologically (the Melkites pay at best lip service to the Vatican I, IC and Assumption dogmas) but rather ecclesiologically. That is certainly what is happening de facto in Lebanon where the Melkites and the Orthodox share just about everything. The fact of the matter is, but for the papacy of +BXVI and his Patristic ways, it is far more likely than not that the Melkites would have broken communion with Rome within the past five years or so.

Here's why:

“I think of the spiritual effort needed to help the second and third Melkite generation in America maintain their authentic Eastern identity, especially in the area of the liturgy, without failing to adopt a necessary openness at the same time to the new ecclesial and social context.

The world should conform to The Church, not the other way around. That's the way you get nuns in pantsuits, clown masses and liturgical dance.

[annalex]

for the Latins to return to Orthodoxy, not so much theologically [...] but rather ecclesiologically

Which would indeed be a necessary, and a salutary step for us to take, if a reunification should ever become a reality.

That is because just as the Western Church does not wish to dilute its particular character, so should the Eastern Churches fully retain theirs.

[Kolokotronis]

“That is because just as the Western Church does not wish to dilute its particular character, so should the Eastern Churches fully retain theirs.”

Indeed!

[don-o]

maintain their authentic Eastern identity, especially in the area of the liturgy, without failing to adopt a necessary openness at the same time to the new ecclesial and social context.

Can anyone explain to me what this means? Anytime I hear a "Yes, but..." type of statement, like this, my radar pings and defense mechanism is activated.

[annalex]

We worshiped at a Melkite Church, St. George, in Sacramento, for half a season two years ago. We needed to find a Catholic comminity closer to home so this experience did not last. However, I have the warmest memories of it. One thing they did in the area of confronting the ills of modernity was a very orthodox and rigid fasting discipline. I wish more (some?) Latin Rite churches could be found that faced the new social context of mass obesity in America as squarely as St. George.

So, no, I don’t know what the good cardinal means.

[NYer]

Can anyone explain to me what this means? Anytime I hear a "Yes, but..." type of statement, like this, my radar pings and defense mechanism is activated.

I will take a stab at it. As I noted above, each of the 22 Churches has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective, IOW, its liturgy. As members of these churches have migrated to other countries, they asked for priests to celebrate their liturgy, initially in the language of their culture. Subsequent generations, raised in the language of their adopted country, then requested the liturgy be in the vernacular. To cite an example with which I am most familiar, I will use the Maronite Catholic Church.

The seat of the Maronite Church is in Lebanon, where the vernacular is Arabic and the liturgical language is Aramaic. Maronites have fled to all parts of the globe; there are large communities in Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, South America, Canada and the USA. Being a catholic church, the Maronites have applied some of the norms from VCII, such as turning the altar around and using the vernacular. In the diaspora (outside of Lebanon), the vernacular may be English, Spanish, Swedish ... you get the picture. There is a lack of consistency. In 2004, the Patriary of the Maronite Church convened a synod. The three-part (synod) text praised the success of the Maronites of the diaspora in preserving their identity and establishing missions and parishes wherever they went. It also lauded them for "becoming prominent citizens" in their countries of expatriation, mainly America, Australia, Europe, Arab countries and South Africa.

You can read more here.

That is my read on the statement. Perhaps others can offer some additional comments.

[verdugo]

re: “The prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, called on Melkite Catholics in Argentina to be a bridge of communion between the East and the West”.

whatis there, like 3 Melkites in Argentina?

[verdugo]

re: “I think of the spiritual effort needed to help the second and third Melkite generation in America maintain their authentic Eastern identity, especially in the area of the liturgy, without failing to adopt a necessary openness at the same time to the new ecclesial and social context.

"Come to America, loose the Faith", that's the way I read the history of Catholics the the USA. The Eastern Orthodox have fared / will fare no differently in their short span.

The Eastern Orthodox sects have nice liturgy, vestments, and appearances, but they are liberal according to Catholic dogmatic doctrines & laws, priests can marry, laity can divorce and re-marry three times, contraception, abortion etc. etc. Eastern Orthodoxy is a farce, just smoke and mirrors. Anyone can call a Catholic a CHINO, because the Church has precise, detailed rule of law, dogmas , doctrines, to which a Catholic must adhere. The Eastern orthodox have no such standard. Heck, there isn't even such a thing as an Eastern Orthodox Church! Eastern Orthodoxy is a farce, just smoke and mirrors.

re: The world should conform to The Church, not the other way around. That's the way you get nuns in pantsuits, clown masses and liturgical dance.

Agreed, the world must conform to the Catholic Church. The way that we got Eastern Orthodoxy in the first place, was those local churches conforming to the world. That is why they are all a bunch of independent national churches, like the Protestants. That is also the way the you get Eastern Orthodox inventing the 3 marriages allowed, lack of any coherence/order/foundations in doctrine on modern day errors. The Catholic Church went modernist in outward appearance "nuns in pantsuits, clown masses and liturgical dance", liberation theology, progressivism, BUT those nuts can't change doctrine or dogma. The Orthodox have no such bulwark, no standards to oversea the people.

[NYer]

whatis there, like 3 Melkites in Argentina?

More like 150,000+

[Kolokotronis]

“The Eastern Orthodox sects have nice liturgy, vestments, and appearances, but they are liberal according to Catholic dogmatic doctrines & laws, priests can marry, laity can divorce and re-marry three times, contraception, abortion etc. etc.”

Liberal? The Orthodox? Newbie, we Latins and Orthodox try to be precise in the way we use words here, especially when we are discussing disciplines and canons and canonical practice within The Church. First off, priests CANNOT marry; married men can become priests, as they can in all the particular churches in communion with Roman on NYer’s list. The married priesthood is 2000 years old. The broad based discipline of celibacy current in the Latin Church is about 1000 years old. The marriage/remarriage rules of the Orthodox Church are about 1400 years old, less an innovation than clerical celibacy in the Latin Church. The actual divorce rate among Orthodox Christians is about 25% lower than among Latin Rite Catholics. The bishops, for acceptable reasons and after a trial by a tribunal of priests, can grant an ecclesial divorce (not an annulment)and remarriage is allowed because the Church believes that it is better that people remarry than to live in sin as the latter is a greater sin, or so The Church reasons. A second marriage ceremony is penitential in nature, the third is positively funereal. Whether to use non abortifacient contraception is left to a couple and their spiritual father. The rate of such use is lower than that of Protestants which is, as you doubtless know, lower than that of Latin Rite Catholic women. Abortion is always condemned.

The contraception situation points up an interesting and little known difference in the way the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church approach “dogma”. The innovative and modern Latin dogma of papal infallibility was quite a departure from the traditional way “dogma” was “established” within The Church. The obvious difference, of course, is that in the pre-schism Church dogma came from Ecumenical Councils and since the 19th century in the West it has come from the Pope. We all know this. What most people don’t know is that in the pre-schism Church, it was ultimately the laity who had the final say on whether or not conciliar declared dogma was “true” dogma or not. They did this by “living out” the dogma, or not, in their lives. Orthodoxy still holds by this practice. Rome does not. I suggest that given the clerical and hierarchial dissent against Humanae Vitae when it was proclaimed and the demonstrable fact that Latin Rite Catholic women use contraception at rates higher than any other Christian women, that the laity of the Latin Church have spoken and that +Paul VI’s innovative theological declaration is no dogma at all.

“Anyone can call a Catholic a CHINO, because the Church has precise, detailed rule of law, dogmas , doctrines, to which a Catholic must adhere.”

I’m sorry. What’s a CHINO; a pair of pants, a fellow who runs a noodle shop?

“The Eastern orthodox have no such standard.”

Oh? Who told you this absurd nonsense? Did you get this from a Latin source or did you just make it up?

“Heck, there isn’t even such a thing as an Eastern Orthodox Church!”

Once again; Who told you this absurd nonsense? Did you get this from a Latin source or did you just make it up

“The way that we got Eastern Orthodoxy in the first place, was those local churches conforming to the world. That is why they are all a bunch of independent national churches, like the Protestants.”

Do you know anything at all about Church history, newbie?

“That is also the way the you get Eastern Orthodox inventing the 3 marriages allowed, lack of any coherence/order/foundations in doctrine on modern day errors.”

Like I said earlier, the divorce/remarriage rules of The Church are hardly modern or a reaction to anything modern. They are a reaction to the fallen nature of humanity. The Church, newbie, is best seen as a hospital for sick souls, not a court to crush and condemn. The Orthodox Church believes that within the appropriate parameters, the exercise of economia in this situations is conducive to theosis. Rome disagrees which is it’s prerogative; it’s laity’s high (compared to Orthodoxy’s) divorce rate speaks volumes about what they think or what concerns them.

“Eastern Orthodoxy is a farce, just smoke and mirrors.”

Great way to start off on the Religion Forum, newbie!/s

[bronx2]

Once again you reply leaves much to be desired.

The question of divorce was settled in Mt 5 32 and Mt 19 8. I do not believe Jesus took any polls when seeking to illuminate the world on God's desires. But now the “Bishops for acceptable reasons and after a trial by a tribunal of priests can grant an ecclesial divorce “ Can you assure us no money changes hands? How is this reconciled with the aforementioned bible commands? The Kennedys et al have demonstrated the problem with money /annulments . So first now this is somehow a more God orientated way? Did Jesus grant the women caught in adultery a divorce for the second or third time?

“The church believes that is is better to remarry “ and “The church reasons”. All this reasoning and believing without an Ecumenical council? Give me a break

The hilarious part comes when you describe the “Penitential and Funeral” atmosphere surrounding the second and third marriages. Are you sure the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well whom Jesus addresses wasn't an member of the Orthodox congregation? Are the Orthodox gluttons for punishment?

" It was the laity who had final say on whether or not conciliar declared dogma was true dogma. They did this by living out dogma or not in their lives". In this description of how dogma was decided pre schism you conveniently omitted salient factors to assist your effete apologetic of the position presented. In claiming that the laity were the final determinants of dogma thru lives led, you conveniently failed to mention that the laity in those ancient times had almost no freedom to exercise free will and so when doctrines were pronounced they were obeyed under pain of death. But of course that is a small matter.

Orthodoxy has had a sordid history in the 20th century as evidenced by how easily governments have manipulated it in Russia and Greece and the Balkans the only sites were it has any significant numbers. Yes the legacy of Caesaropapism is the continuing curse of Orthodoxy.

[Cronos]

I'm not comfortable with Catholic/orthodox fights in an open thread. This particular fight has all the hallmarks of jumping from one topic to another and will only lead to a nasty fight that gets us no where and we'll get all sorts jumping on board to destroy our attempts at getting closer.

There is a lot that separates us, but there is much more that unites us -- we are both part of the One Apostolic Catholic Church, we can debate on a caucus thread -- sticking to one topic, one issue, or we end up in a free-wheeling, never-ending round of insults.

[annalex]

The bishops, for acceptable reasons and after a trial by a tribunal of priests, can grant an ecclesial divorce (not an annulment)

Well, that is certainly more permissive than the Western Church allows, precisely because as you say, it is a divorce of a valid marriage. So your opponent, despite the deplorable tone of his post overall, has a point.

I would agree, however, that the rigidity of the Catholic doctrine, salutary in itself, needs to take root in the Catholic laity, and to the large extent, it hasn't done so. At this point, the Orthodox system of "economia" has been producing a better fruit, although we don't know how much of it is really a reflection of the old-culture roots, stronger among the Orthodox comapred to the secularized American Catholics.

[Kolokotronis]

“At this point, the Orthodox system of “economia” has been producing a better fruit, although we don’t know how much of it is really a reflection of the old-culture roots, stronger among the Orthodox comapred to the secularized American Catholics.”

I hadn’t thought about the cultural influence. You may be right. I only know about one divorce in a convert couple. The wife got an ecclesial divorce, married a protestant (an Episcopalian I think) and promptly left the Church. The husband is still unmarried and a practicing Orthodox. I am being kind to say that they are both “odd” so their example probably doesn’t mean much. All the other divorced Orthodox I know of are of Greek, Slavic or Arab extraction. All but one have remarried and all but one of those are very happy in their second marriages. The one who wasn’t is on his third marriage and has gotten precisely what he deserves!

Do you know off hand what the experience is among Hispanic or Indochinese or other Asian Roman Catholics here? Those traditional cultures still seem pretty vibrant so far as I can see.

[annalex]

No, I don’t have any observations, let alone statistics.

Obviously, the recent-ethnic Catholics, the Indochinese and Latin American seem to have a better sense of Church discipline overall.

One statistic I know, although don’t have a source, is that among Catohlics who go to Mass weekly, as opposed to those whose name ends in a vowel, the adherence to the Church discipline is much better, in terms of incidence of cohabitation, divorce and fecundity of marriages.

[verdugo]

If it’s like the USA Melkites, they are 95% Roman Rite Catholic refugees from the Novus Ordo.

[verdugo]

re: The actual divorce rate among Orthodox Christians is about 25% lower than among Latin Rite Catholics.

Divorce/separation is not a sin, re-marriage while the other spouse is alive IS A MORTAL SIN, no church can change that. That marriage is "till death do us part", is revelation directly from Jesus Christ himself. In allowing people to re-marry in the church THREE TIMES, the Eastern Orthodox church is CAUSING others to sin, by promoting and or condoning adultery. They are thus the cause, and participants, in adultery. For that, the clergy that participates, permanently loose the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, till they confess their ongoing sin (just like someone living in adultery).

re: remarriage is allowed because the church believes that it is better that people remarry than to live in sin as the latter is a greater sin, or so The Church reasons.,

They have no authority to change revelation. Moreover, there is no difference if they re-marry, they ARE LIVING IN SIN, they are BOTH ADULTERERS. This just shows how blind the Orthodox are. What about the children of these people, nice life that your church condemns them to!

re: The contraception situation points up an interesting and little known difference in the way the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church approach “dogma”.....

You are totally winging it.