Thank you for your fair analysis of my podcast. I really appreciate your tone. I left my phone number for you in response to your email. I will avoid quibbles in this response that I may have about some of your social commentary; that’s something I would love to discuss over the phone, if you like.
For what it's worth, I already agree with most of what you have written; I’m not convinced it challenges what I am arguing for. Here is what I am insisting on, and clearly, here is what I need to clarify. Forgive me if I was unclear in the podcast.
1. Phronema, the “mind of the church,” the “spirit of the church”, and other such terms/phrases that have been around for many years (phronema being the oldest and most popular in pop-orthodoxy) describe a state of mind produced from living the tradition. While there is the Catholic Tradition (I include Orthodox here), there are also multiple regional traditions; thus, there will be multiple phronemas, e.g., Carmelites, Franciscans, Basilians all have unique charisms, focuses on certain saints, certain pious practices. What I am addressing is that we, Greek-Catholics are often told we do not have THE phronema. Well, how is this supposed phronema that we are lacking produced? Arguably, living out the Tradition (and by Tradition I mean everything catholic); plus, living out the traditions of the Greeks, which we do. I do think a Byzantine Catholic’s phronema is going to be different than, say, a Greek Orthodox because we are still in communion with Rome. I agree, your tradition is living, but the tradition is more limited for you (I’m not arguing that is necessarily a bad thing, but I don’t want to go off topic). We are still in contact with the living tradition of the Latins, and others, of course. For us Catholics (especially Byzantines), all of the apostolic churches are living traditions and all of them are available sources for our spiritual and theological perspective, for better or worse; it's just a fact.
2. I just did a podcast on “What God is Not” where I talk a little about the Rosary and the Jesus prayer. I’m not sure when Fr. Mike and Mother Natalia will release it. They are not the same kind of prayer, so they really should not be compared as better or worse. The Rosary is meditation, while the Jesus prayer is more about contemplation/noetic prayer. You honestly just need to do a little more research on this; it's not the kind of imagination the hesychasts are worried about, namely fantacia. BTW, Westen rite Orthodox often pray the Rosary.
3. What I meant about the more orthodox than Orthodox: well, that is a regrettable way of putting it. What I mean to say is simply this: for the first millennium, all of the stuff that now divides us was already believed by the Latins, and we did not divide over it. Name it, it was already there. I think it is incredibly ill-fated that the Latins started dogmatizing things that are not historically dei fide, and I think it is incredibly unfortunate that so many Orthodox don’t realize they don’t have to make the differences dividing issues, or that they could not in some cases take a more Latin stance on a thing, if they wanted to (so long as it does not contradict the ecumenical councils). You don’t have to pick the Latin or Greek side just because you are Catholic or Orthodox. My podcast and perhaps future writings will hopefully bring more harmony to the big issues. I won’t argue further on this point. In my mind, I could answer almost any supposed difference, but I don’t have time to prove it. If you want to call me, I could privately argue what I am saying, but I’m not comfortable writing it down or podcasting it yet.
If I have missed something significant (from what I said in the podcast) that you wanted me to touch on here, let me know. I will do my best, given that I am pretty slammed. What's great about a podcast is how one can just jump right in without much prep so long as you read things, but reading or writing more than I already do is quite laborious at this point in my life.
Thought provoking article, I highly recommend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s talk on Eastern Catholicism that he gave at a Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Link here: https://youtu.be/Ancz-JZLRZU?si=1P74CPuOHkxW4uxj
Really interesting—and I don’t envy Eastern Catholics trying to defend their Eastern Catholicism. Post Vatican I, it is just a really difficult task.
I don’t quite know what to make of the idea that one suffers more as an Eastern Catholic and that type of martyrdom is a good reason to refrain from converting to Orthodoxy. On the one hand, sure, suffering is part of the Christian life (and for everyone really—suffering is universal). But on the other hand, are they remaining Eastern Catholic for the purpose of suffering itself? It’s a bit hard to tell. I have little, if any, spiritual insights to offer anyone, but I would strongly caution anyone from actively seeking out suffering—if you don’t think you are suffering enough in life, just be patient.
Regardless, these seem like two very well meaning and faithful Eastern Catholic priests, and I greatly respect their desire to unify east and west—which seems to be the best interpretation for the creation and continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. But being in communion with a Roman Catholicism that has guitar masses just isn’t Orthodox. If Vatican I codified the theological separation of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Vatican II (or its spirit) codified the experiential separation of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you can square those separations, then Eastern Catholicism is probably appealing, but the mental logic required to do so already tilts one towards a more Roman orientation.
With all of that being said, I still wish Eastern Catholicism had a larger impact on Catholicism as a whole.
That’s a really good summary and corrects a poor word choice on my part. I said “best” but intended something like “most generous interpretation.” I completely agree that the EC divorced child mentality makes little sense—especially as they still have to affirm RC dogmas (regardless of whatever machinations they use to “orientalize” them).
No, your comment was very good! I replied to you in haste; I spent an embarrassing amount of time writing the linked comment.
Your point about V1/theological and V2/experiential is a very good one. From an Eastern Catholic perspective, Vatican II was a good thing because it walked back some of the more strident "papalist" claims. And maybe it helped Catholics relate to the Orthodox more easily. But I don't think it really helped the Orthodox relate to Catholics. Alas.
I, too, learned to love Orthodoxy through an Eastern Catholic Church, and I remain very fond of Eastern Catholics in many ways. We share so much in common and they are the principal means by which many Latin Catholics learn anything about the Byzantine liturgical tradition and Orthodox thought. I’ll add a couple of things to your perceptive observations:
(1) There is a real tension between ECs’ desire to embrace their own religious patrimony on one side and Latin habits, practice, and doctrine on the other. The emphasis on de-Latinization really ramped up only after Vatican 2. And much of that process involved reincorporating the teaching and practice maintained in the Orthodox Church. The more that process progressed, the greater the tension grew. Granted, you will find ECs who are happy to assent to any Latin dogma or doctrine found in Denizger, for example, only embracing elements of Orthodoxy that do not conflict. But many (most?) of the ECs I came to know go so far as to outright reject a lot of Catholic doctrine, up to and including papal supremacy as defined in Pastor Aeternus. The Melkites even have a compelling story about how they never really agreed to PA. I sympathize, but they are in communion with a church that most definitely teaches it as dogma. When, as an EC, I would express such opinions, most of my Latin Catholic friends were taken aback, wondering how ECs could just reject the parts of Catholic doctrine that did not square with “eastern” teaching as we understood it. Their reaction was entirely understandable. There was a habit of rationalization, of squaring the circle, that always seemed to be operating in my mind.
(2) Another aspect of the disconnect you mention between ECs and a “living” faith tradition I think shows up in the cult of the saints. I know this is not true universally among ECs, but in my own experience, EC churches rarely embrace post-Schism western saints. Instead, they are much more likely to embrace modern Orthodox saints like St. John Maximovich or St. Nectarios. It seems rather odd for ECs to embrace saints with whom they were never in communion. I also remember studying Ware and Schmemann in my EC church and thinking “If these men were alive and visiting town, they’d be celebrating the mysteries down the street at the Orthodox Church, not here.” It was a feeling I couldn’t easily shake. But time and again, my EC church pointed to the Orthodox as setting the gold standard for faith, practice, and the continuing development of the cult of the saints. They didn't really look to the Latin church for much of anything.
The end result of both of these phenomena left me with an impression of disconnectedness. Rather than a bridge into two worlds, the EC church more often felt like an island or a walled garden.
I noticed early on that "cradle" Eastern Catholics tend to be comfortable with their identity.
On one end of the spectrum, you have cradle Melkites. They just don't think about the Schism. It means nothing to them. I remember a white guy from our parish became Orthodox. When I told one of our Lebanese friends, he shrugged. "It's all the same church."
On the other end, you have cradle Ukrainian Greek Catholics. They're extremely proud to be part of the Roman Communion. They also tend to have a rather low opinion of the Orthodox.
In my experience, most of this jurisdictional anxiety comes from Westerners who join Eastern Catholic parishes. Whether that's right or wrong, good or bad... I think it's worth pointing out.
Also, it annoys a lot of cradle ECs. Whether they're more pro-Orthodox or pro-Roman, they tend to see themselves as having a settled identity, which the "converts" don't really understand.
That makes it hard, as one of those "converts," to take this very exalted, missional view of Eastern Catholicism. Most ECs are not trying to heal the Great Schism. They're just going to Church.
I think that is a fair observation. My experience was mainly with the Melkites. And for many of them, their Melkite identify is more wrapped up in ties of family and community than with any set of theological commitments. The Melkites have, however, pressed the gas pedal on de-Latinization over the past few decades and that has had some impacts on cradles too. I personally know of one large cradle Melkite family who all became Orthodox basically for the same reasons as the two of us. The process of de-Latinization drove them towards Orthodoxy.
The EC churches were founded to heal the Schism. However, they were not founded to encourage corporate reunion. That sentiment is called UNIONISM. We tried it at Lyons and Florence, and it didn't work out so well.
As the divide between East and West continued to grow, Rome also developed a new theory of salvation—the one laid out in 'Unam Sanctam' (1302), which which says that one must submit to the Pope in order to be saved.
That's why Rome eventually gave up on unionism and embraced UNIATISM. They created parallel jurisdictions and "stole sheep" from the Orthodox churches. This makes perfect sense if you think that the validity of one's church—not to mention one's salvation!—entirely depends upon the Pope.
However, this was clearly not Rome's understanding at the time of the Great Schism. And Rome has since moved away from the 'Unam Sanctam' view of salvation. So, naturally, they have also returned to a unionist model. That's why Paul VI presented Athenagoras with a chalice at their historic meaning and referred to “the flock of Christ committed to your care.” It's also why Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical statements say that uniatism is not the path forward.
This is why Eastern Catholics don't like the term "uniate." They know the EC churches themselves were based on an ecclesiology and a soteriology that the Catholics have since abandoned, and which the Orthodox have always rejected. They're trying to reinvent themselves as unionist institutions. But they don't fit into that equation—as both Rome and Constantinople would tell them.
It's also, frankly, why I don't like it when ECs refer to themselves as "children of divorce." Fr. Nathan uses this metaphor. He says the Orthodox and Catholic churches are like two parents who are going through a messy break-up. Each of them wants their kid—the Eastern Catholics—to chose a side. But the ECs refuse, because they love their parents equally.
Firstly, we're all grown-ups here. No one alive today is personally responsible for the Great Schism, but we also can't be neutral. Secondly, the Orthodox and Catholic bishops don't hate each other. In the last fifty years, we've done more to work towards common ground than at any other point in the last ten centuries.
Granted, we're still far from a solution! But at least we're trying. We're trying to work out our differences. Simply pretending those differences don't exist (the Fr. Nathan model) isn't actually helping.
So, I think that—if they want to be consistent—ECs should abandon uniatism and become Orthodox unionists!
"That's why Rome eventually gave up on unionism and embraced UNIATISM. They created parallel jurisdictions and "stole sheep" from the Orthodox churches."
Except that historically, that is the origin of some Eastern Catholic Churches, but not of all of them. The Melkite Church, for example, viewed itself *as* the Antiochian Church corporately reuniting with Rome, not a parallel jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. There was a contested election for patriarch in the Church of Antioch. The Orthodox candidate, Sylvester—who happened to be the previous patriarch's designated successor—appealed to Constantinople, per the ninth canon of Chalcedon. The pro-Roman candidate, Cyril, appealed to Rome because... well, they were pro-Roman.
Cyril and his followes certainly knew they were breaking with normal procedures. They appealed, not to the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Communion, but to a patriarch with whom they had been out of communion for nearly 700 years. (Actually, Cyril was the first "Patriarch of Antioch" to commemorate the Bishop of Rome in about 1,200 years.)
Cyril and his party thought he was the rightful leader of the Antiochian Church and that appealing to Rome would allow them to protect that. They didn't think they were separating from the Antiochian Church, they thought that they *were* the Antiochian Church. As such, they didn't think they were setting up a parallel jurisdiction.
As a former Eastern Catholic, I appreciate this. I am not as good with my words, I am quite blunt which can come across as harsh. I share quite a similar experience and below is just a take from the experience I have had.
Like you, I joined the Orthodox Church because I believed in it. I also experienced the cognitive dissonance that exists within the Eastern Catholic world. Becoming Orthodox was "easy", when it most definitely is not. I, like you, lost friendships and people I deeply cared about.
I remember, being in the Eastern Catholic world, and being convinced that - "We are the glue between East and West, we are where the salt water ocean meets fresh water. We are the best of both worlds." Looking back, how is this not so incredibly prideful? "It is our calling to be misunderstood from both sides. We are called to heal the schism from the inside." Looking back at this - this is all absolute delusion and cultivates a strange mindset. Your correct in your observation that they don't have the Orthodox phronemea - with the above, how could they?
Also, that struggle with having to validate yourself all the time as a "real" Catholic and not second class Catholic, that these Eastern traditions are just as valid as Western ones, but in the Catholic mind... They aren't and never will be. Also the constant battling with anything that came from the magisterium - it has to be followed - even if it goes against teaching and tradition. Or having to justify it with, well that's for the West and not for us. At the his whim, the Pope could completely decimate the Eastern Catholic Churches. Not to mention, as you mentioned, the spectrum of Eastern Catholics that exist, from Zhobyites to those who just attend and don't really care much. Not to mention the spectrum that is found within the clergy as well. It felt no better than trying to jump around and find a good Roman parish when I was Roman, which parish is Eastern enough?
Eastern Catholics share the scholastic mindset with their Roman counterparts as well. I spent a lot of time reading and understanding these ancient Greek words that have these deep meanings, which is good, it's great! However - becoming Orthodox, there is a new struggle of actually putting these concepts to practice.
If I were to answer the question you posed, I would say yes, 100%, they are an Orthodox LARP. Not necessarily in a bad way, I think many of them may be in a position where they can't make a move or they are genuinely happy where they are at. They just don't have Orthodoxy. They may look like it, they may know the right words and the handshakes - but they are so far off. May God have mercy upon them and all of us.
Great article Michael. I suppose one thing to add is that not all Eastern Catholics are “Byzantine/Orthodox” style in their thinking, there’s also everything from the Syro-Malabars to the Chaldeans, Armenians etc. how do the more Ortho minded Eastern Catholics approach no just their Latin brothers but even these other Eastern Catholics?
Lots of interesting stuff in here, boy I wish I could respond more fully.
However, just one particular point that bothers me is when Orthodox boast about vernacular liturgy. This is rather anachronistic.
Yes, in many linguistic spheres the vernacular will be used (as when the Divine Liturgy is offered in English, as throughout the United States), but there are far too many exceptions.
Greek speaking churches/patriarchates use liturgical Greek, not vernacular. Some patriarchates use Arabic and others alongside Greek.
Slavic Orthodox churches have always used exclusively liturgical Church Slavonic. Recently, Eastern modernists managed to introduce vernacular, but not everywhere. Russians still use only Slavonic. Even though Serbians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Belarusians, Ukrainians use much vernacular, Slavonic is still in use.
The Romanian Orthodox Church used Church Slavonic/liturgical Greek from 10th to 17th century, when it was replaced by Romanian (which was nevertheless influenced by Church Slavonic, making it quite non-vernacular).
The Georgian Orthodox Church uses old literary Georgian as liturgical language.
The Coptic Orthodox use literary Coptic language as liturgical language. Even though its use diminished during long Muslim rule (replacing it by Arabic), it's still alive and it's being reintroduced.
The Ethiopian Orthodox use Ge'ez as liturgical language, not one of many vernaculars.
The Syrian Orthodox use classical Syrian and Arabic. Use of Arabic is related to centuries of Muslim rule.
The Armenians use a classical literary Armenian.
Moreover, what do we mean by "vernacular"? Old Church Slavonic, for example, was created so that the Slavs could understand the liturgy, but at the same time, it was created to translate a very fancy liturgical Greek. And historically, in most cultures there was by definition a large gap between literary language and spoken language, much larger than is typical today, both because more people today are literate, and because high literary language has basically disappeared.
So, yes, a great linguistic pluralism, but not the kind of mere localization implied in your comments about how the "American [Orthodox]" use English - as if that's to be taken utterly for granted.
FWIW, I am by no means opposed to sacred languages. Church Slavonic, Koine Greek, Ecclesiastical Latin—they're all good! As long as they have some deeper meaning for the folks in the pews.
In the USA, however, most folks who belong to parishes in the Russian tradition (like the OCA) are converts. Church Slavonic doesn't necessarily "mean" anything to us.
Now, that's not true across the board! Native Alaskans—the first converts to Orthodoxy in America—are keen to preserve the use of Slavonic in their services. They still refer to themselves as "Russian Orthodox," too. That's part of their history. They're proud of it. They want to preserve it. Glory to God!
My point was that such inculturation is impossible for the Eastern Catholic churches. Catholicism can be Western, of course. That goes without saying! But EASTERN Catholicism can't be Western. So, if you want to remain in the Roman Communion, you do have to choose between Orthodoxy and the West (so to speak). But we in the Orthodox Church have found—are finding—a uniquely American expression of Orthodoxy.
Kind of. I do think it's very sad when a huge heritage is lost because the language is not carried over and learned and appreciated, as can be done fairly easily - if there's a desire.
Thank God, Russian Orthodoxy survives in Russia. :) And the OCA still has Russian-style icons, Russian tones, special devotions to Russian saints. I think it's a good balance.
As regards your larger claim, here's what I think.
I think that you and I are highly educated people, and therefore we know a lot about the saints further afield. I know about Eastern saints and love them; and people like you, or the learned clergy, in Orthodoxy, know about the Western saints.
But I very much doubt that, on the ground, local Orthodox churches are any more broad-minded than any local Catholic church would be. Let's not fantasize. Seraphim of Sarov is no more a household name among Latins than (pick most Western saints) among Greeks or Russians.
Nor should this really surprise us or alarm us.
Thus, I question the claim that the Orthodox are somehow globally conscious while Latins are West-locked and Eastern Catholics are East-locked. All of us are tied to our places and only those who work harder will go beyond that.
Regarding the Orthodox: I'm not so sure. On Holy Saturday, we received a young woman who took St. Melangell of Wales as her patron saint. This year we also received a young man who chose St. Augustine of Canterbury. We have a catechumen, a professional boxer, who's taking St. Ninian of Scotland. I think that's pretty good for a random parish in Massachusetts!
Regarding the Catholics: I wasn't talking about the people so much as the canonical structure. But I don't want to pick that fight just now, and I'm sure you have better things to do than argue with me. :) So let me just say that I didn't mean to imply that either Latin or Eastern Catholics are chauvinistic. They certainly are not.
Michael specified the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) in that section. That’s a separate jurisdiction from all the various ones you reference in your comment.
Just recently started following you on here; Im Eastern Catholic myself. First of, thank you for name dropping Searchers for the Lost podcast. Theres a few personal reasons I dont follow What God is Not, so Im glad to know another EC podcast lol.
I am curious by what you meant when you claimed that Orthodox don't demand that you reject everything from Western theology. For myself, I actually think that was one of the biggest reasons I never became Orthodox when I was wrestling with it a year or two ago. I had tried getting plugged in to a Greek Orthodox church/community, and I generally got the sense that they really expected you to give up everything from the Western tradition, even before the Schism, and even going as far back as the origins of the Latin tradition - I understand you just have a "very complicated relationship with Augustine", but I felt like Orthodoxy expected you to leave your whole faith background at the door. I feel like if an Orthodox, or even an Anglican or Baptist, became Catholic, there are some things in their faith or "phronema" that they wouls need to convert or "baptize", but I felt like Orthodox, at least the people Ive met or seen on Youtube, are so attached to the idea that there can be no salvation or inspiration outside the Orthodox communion, and that everything from the Western tradition is a corruption. Of course I now there are Western or Antiochian Orthodox, and I dont know much about how that works. Of course, I guess its easy not to antagonize those who youve just forsaken or given up on,so Im not sure if thats what you meant?
I also feel like every Orthodox book Ive tried to read on theology, starts of by just giving strawman arguments against Catholicism, and half of these just make me go, "Ive literally never met a Catholic who believes that", because its taken from some obscure medieval writing on mysticism. Of course, Im sure Catholics can do this as well [like the toll houses]. But I feel like Orthodox get so caught up in defining their theology by conradictions. And i guess that is central to the idea a mystical, apophatic theology to some extent. But I just dont get why every Orthodox book or speaker always needs to start off with anathemas against Western theology, usually Catholic but sometimes Protestant. It sometimes makes me feel like it shows a certain insecurity in their own tradition, thatvthey cant simply put forth their own vision. And i get maybe its sometimes necessary when you are presenting to a Western audience that is culturally entrenched in Scholasticism and the Atonement. But like I said, its often not even done well and sometimes I feel like they are actually just exaggerating the divisions within the bloodied and bruised Body of Christ.
Hopefully none of this was unfair or mischaracterizing Thank you for sharing your perspective on the Uniate Church, I thought Id also share my own!
Also for your comment about the Eastern Catholics being bound by he Council of Florence, of course Im sure that you are aware of this, but the Council of Florence was conducted and concluded with consensus from both Latin and Orthodox clergy and representatives, and was only later rejected by Mark of Ephesus, to perpetuate rather than heal the Schism.
I am curious, in your opinion, if you think the Orthodox have any active interest in an eventual end to the Schism, and if you think the Orthodox would or should accept any resolution short of the Latin Church repenting of 1600 years of a theological tradition that started with Augustine?
Your points echo why I made the jump to Orthodoxy over 15 years ago. I spent a couple years with the Maronites and quickly learned Eastern Catholicism is okay as far as it goes, but it cannot go far enough for the reasons you mentioned.
Thanks for your comment, AM! Can I ask, how do you meditate on each mystery? I was always told that you're supposed to imagine the scene unfolding in your mind.
That’s very interesting that you have heard this — it is my practice to meditate upon the mysteries without visualizing anything, and to focus on the words of the prayers and perhaps how they relate to each mystery. As I have been taught to pray it, it is an entirely “word-based” affair, if that makes sense.
Oh and when you pray it in Latin, your mind is so busy saying the Latin, knowing the translation, meditating upon the meaning itself, and meditating upon how each word or phrase of the prayers relate to the mystery. Your mind goes empty, and deep mental prayer overtakes you. I have even known quite a few secular spiritualists who prayed it to eventually convert to Christianity simply because of the power of the Rosary; I believe all people on earth would benefit from daily prayer of the Rosary. And when you’re done, you can use the same beads to pray the Jesus Prayer too (that’s what I often do)
Andy, I also pray the Rosary this way. I took it up during a period of apostasy from Orthodoxy, when trying to find my way back to Christian faith. I don't "imagine" the scene; I just hold the reality of it in my heart while I pray. It is to me objectively, irrefutably grace-filled; I don't know what else to say. The Mother of God brought me back to the faith through it. I am home in the Orthodox Church and I would never gainsay the Rosary.
Nearly all the Saints you mentioned as largely “forgotten” by Catholics, are very much remembered by Catholics in England… (largely because most of them are from England). Indeed one of my Churches where I am the parish priest is dedicated to St Augustine of Canterbury, and my dog is named Cuthbert after “St Cuthbert”.
I was Ruthenian rite before taking the holy 'Plunge.' The priest's mindset in the article, like mine was, is a delusion born under threat of damnation by breaking from Il Papa. You do all the mental gymnastics necessary to stay in the cult of authority. In the end, decades ago already, it was seeing in person the Orthodox bishop, standing on the cathedra and surrounded by his own flock, that I understood what the Church is and decided to be joined to Christ's Body. Thanks, Michael, for your essay.
I would love to see more podcasts/ livestreams. whether with Kyle King or anyone else or alone - An Orthodox Catechumen from a Roman Catholic background
Dear Michael,
Fr. Nathan Symeon here: Searchers of the Lost
Thank you for your fair analysis of my podcast. I really appreciate your tone. I left my phone number for you in response to your email. I will avoid quibbles in this response that I may have about some of your social commentary; that’s something I would love to discuss over the phone, if you like.
For what it's worth, I already agree with most of what you have written; I’m not convinced it challenges what I am arguing for. Here is what I am insisting on, and clearly, here is what I need to clarify. Forgive me if I was unclear in the podcast.
1. Phronema, the “mind of the church,” the “spirit of the church”, and other such terms/phrases that have been around for many years (phronema being the oldest and most popular in pop-orthodoxy) describe a state of mind produced from living the tradition. While there is the Catholic Tradition (I include Orthodox here), there are also multiple regional traditions; thus, there will be multiple phronemas, e.g., Carmelites, Franciscans, Basilians all have unique charisms, focuses on certain saints, certain pious practices. What I am addressing is that we, Greek-Catholics are often told we do not have THE phronema. Well, how is this supposed phronema that we are lacking produced? Arguably, living out the Tradition (and by Tradition I mean everything catholic); plus, living out the traditions of the Greeks, which we do. I do think a Byzantine Catholic’s phronema is going to be different than, say, a Greek Orthodox because we are still in communion with Rome. I agree, your tradition is living, but the tradition is more limited for you (I’m not arguing that is necessarily a bad thing, but I don’t want to go off topic). We are still in contact with the living tradition of the Latins, and others, of course. For us Catholics (especially Byzantines), all of the apostolic churches are living traditions and all of them are available sources for our spiritual and theological perspective, for better or worse; it's just a fact.
2. I just did a podcast on “What God is Not” where I talk a little about the Rosary and the Jesus prayer. I’m not sure when Fr. Mike and Mother Natalia will release it. They are not the same kind of prayer, so they really should not be compared as better or worse. The Rosary is meditation, while the Jesus prayer is more about contemplation/noetic prayer. You honestly just need to do a little more research on this; it's not the kind of imagination the hesychasts are worried about, namely fantacia. BTW, Westen rite Orthodox often pray the Rosary.
3. What I meant about the more orthodox than Orthodox: well, that is a regrettable way of putting it. What I mean to say is simply this: for the first millennium, all of the stuff that now divides us was already believed by the Latins, and we did not divide over it. Name it, it was already there. I think it is incredibly ill-fated that the Latins started dogmatizing things that are not historically dei fide, and I think it is incredibly unfortunate that so many Orthodox don’t realize they don’t have to make the differences dividing issues, or that they could not in some cases take a more Latin stance on a thing, if they wanted to (so long as it does not contradict the ecumenical councils). You don’t have to pick the Latin or Greek side just because you are Catholic or Orthodox. My podcast and perhaps future writings will hopefully bring more harmony to the big issues. I won’t argue further on this point. In my mind, I could answer almost any supposed difference, but I don’t have time to prove it. If you want to call me, I could privately argue what I am saying, but I’m not comfortable writing it down or podcasting it yet.
If I have missed something significant (from what I said in the podcast) that you wanted me to touch on here, let me know. I will do my best, given that I am pretty slammed. What's great about a podcast is how one can just jump right in without much prep so long as you read things, but reading or writing more than I already do is quite laborious at this point in my life.
In Christ,
Fr. Nathan Symeon
Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful reply, Father. I won’t say anything more; you should have the last word.
Please forgive me if I have misrepresented you, particularly the “more orthodox than the Orthodox” line.
Glory to God for all things!
No, I was being a bit of a rascal. I understand it to be my fault that you heard me that way.
Thought provoking article, I highly recommend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s talk on Eastern Catholicism that he gave at a Byzantine Catholic Seminary. Link here: https://youtu.be/Ancz-JZLRZU?si=1P74CPuOHkxW4uxj
Beautiful, edifying. Thank you!
Really interesting—and I don’t envy Eastern Catholics trying to defend their Eastern Catholicism. Post Vatican I, it is just a really difficult task.
I don’t quite know what to make of the idea that one suffers more as an Eastern Catholic and that type of martyrdom is a good reason to refrain from converting to Orthodoxy. On the one hand, sure, suffering is part of the Christian life (and for everyone really—suffering is universal). But on the other hand, are they remaining Eastern Catholic for the purpose of suffering itself? It’s a bit hard to tell. I have little, if any, spiritual insights to offer anyone, but I would strongly caution anyone from actively seeking out suffering—if you don’t think you are suffering enough in life, just be patient.
Regardless, these seem like two very well meaning and faithful Eastern Catholic priests, and I greatly respect their desire to unify east and west—which seems to be the best interpretation for the creation and continued existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches. But being in communion with a Roman Catholicism that has guitar masses just isn’t Orthodox. If Vatican I codified the theological separation of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Vatican II (or its spirit) codified the experiential separation of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you can square those separations, then Eastern Catholicism is probably appealing, but the mental logic required to do so already tilts one towards a more Roman orientation.
With all of that being said, I still wish Eastern Catholicism had a larger impact on Catholicism as a whole.
Thanks, Adam! This comment may be relevant: https://open.substack.com/pub/yankeeathonite/p/is-eastern-catholicism-orthodox-larp?r=4q1n41&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=112015266
That’s a really good summary and corrects a poor word choice on my part. I said “best” but intended something like “most generous interpretation.” I completely agree that the EC divorced child mentality makes little sense—especially as they still have to affirm RC dogmas (regardless of whatever machinations they use to “orientalize” them).
No, your comment was very good! I replied to you in haste; I spent an embarrassing amount of time writing the linked comment.
Your point about V1/theological and V2/experiential is a very good one. From an Eastern Catholic perspective, Vatican II was a good thing because it walked back some of the more strident "papalist" claims. And maybe it helped Catholics relate to the Orthodox more easily. But I don't think it really helped the Orthodox relate to Catholics. Alas.
I, too, learned to love Orthodoxy through an Eastern Catholic Church, and I remain very fond of Eastern Catholics in many ways. We share so much in common and they are the principal means by which many Latin Catholics learn anything about the Byzantine liturgical tradition and Orthodox thought. I’ll add a couple of things to your perceptive observations:
(1) There is a real tension between ECs’ desire to embrace their own religious patrimony on one side and Latin habits, practice, and doctrine on the other. The emphasis on de-Latinization really ramped up only after Vatican 2. And much of that process involved reincorporating the teaching and practice maintained in the Orthodox Church. The more that process progressed, the greater the tension grew. Granted, you will find ECs who are happy to assent to any Latin dogma or doctrine found in Denizger, for example, only embracing elements of Orthodoxy that do not conflict. But many (most?) of the ECs I came to know go so far as to outright reject a lot of Catholic doctrine, up to and including papal supremacy as defined in Pastor Aeternus. The Melkites even have a compelling story about how they never really agreed to PA. I sympathize, but they are in communion with a church that most definitely teaches it as dogma. When, as an EC, I would express such opinions, most of my Latin Catholic friends were taken aback, wondering how ECs could just reject the parts of Catholic doctrine that did not square with “eastern” teaching as we understood it. Their reaction was entirely understandable. There was a habit of rationalization, of squaring the circle, that always seemed to be operating in my mind.
(2) Another aspect of the disconnect you mention between ECs and a “living” faith tradition I think shows up in the cult of the saints. I know this is not true universally among ECs, but in my own experience, EC churches rarely embrace post-Schism western saints. Instead, they are much more likely to embrace modern Orthodox saints like St. John Maximovich or St. Nectarios. It seems rather odd for ECs to embrace saints with whom they were never in communion. I also remember studying Ware and Schmemann in my EC church and thinking “If these men were alive and visiting town, they’d be celebrating the mysteries down the street at the Orthodox Church, not here.” It was a feeling I couldn’t easily shake. But time and again, my EC church pointed to the Orthodox as setting the gold standard for faith, practice, and the continuing development of the cult of the saints. They didn't really look to the Latin church for much of anything.
The end result of both of these phenomena left me with an impression of disconnectedness. Rather than a bridge into two worlds, the EC church more often felt like an island or a walled garden.
I noticed early on that "cradle" Eastern Catholics tend to be comfortable with their identity.
On one end of the spectrum, you have cradle Melkites. They just don't think about the Schism. It means nothing to them. I remember a white guy from our parish became Orthodox. When I told one of our Lebanese friends, he shrugged. "It's all the same church."
On the other end, you have cradle Ukrainian Greek Catholics. They're extremely proud to be part of the Roman Communion. They also tend to have a rather low opinion of the Orthodox.
In my experience, most of this jurisdictional anxiety comes from Westerners who join Eastern Catholic parishes. Whether that's right or wrong, good or bad... I think it's worth pointing out.
Also, it annoys a lot of cradle ECs. Whether they're more pro-Orthodox or pro-Roman, they tend to see themselves as having a settled identity, which the "converts" don't really understand.
That makes it hard, as one of those "converts," to take this very exalted, missional view of Eastern Catholicism. Most ECs are not trying to heal the Great Schism. They're just going to Church.
I think that is a fair observation. My experience was mainly with the Melkites. And for many of them, their Melkite identify is more wrapped up in ties of family and community than with any set of theological commitments. The Melkites have, however, pressed the gas pedal on de-Latinization over the past few decades and that has had some impacts on cradles too. I personally know of one large cradle Melkite family who all became Orthodox basically for the same reasons as the two of us. The process of de-Latinization drove them towards Orthodoxy.
The EC churches were founded to heal the Schism. However, they were not founded to encourage corporate reunion. That sentiment is called UNIONISM. We tried it at Lyons and Florence, and it didn't work out so well.
As the divide between East and West continued to grow, Rome also developed a new theory of salvation—the one laid out in 'Unam Sanctam' (1302), which which says that one must submit to the Pope in order to be saved.
That's why Rome eventually gave up on unionism and embraced UNIATISM. They created parallel jurisdictions and "stole sheep" from the Orthodox churches. This makes perfect sense if you think that the validity of one's church—not to mention one's salvation!—entirely depends upon the Pope.
However, this was clearly not Rome's understanding at the time of the Great Schism. And Rome has since moved away from the 'Unam Sanctam' view of salvation. So, naturally, they have also returned to a unionist model. That's why Paul VI presented Athenagoras with a chalice at their historic meaning and referred to “the flock of Christ committed to your care.” It's also why Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical statements say that uniatism is not the path forward.
This is why Eastern Catholics don't like the term "uniate." They know the EC churches themselves were based on an ecclesiology and a soteriology that the Catholics have since abandoned, and which the Orthodox have always rejected. They're trying to reinvent themselves as unionist institutions. But they don't fit into that equation—as both Rome and Constantinople would tell them.
It's also, frankly, why I don't like it when ECs refer to themselves as "children of divorce." Fr. Nathan uses this metaphor. He says the Orthodox and Catholic churches are like two parents who are going through a messy break-up. Each of them wants their kid—the Eastern Catholics—to chose a side. But the ECs refuse, because they love their parents equally.
Firstly, we're all grown-ups here. No one alive today is personally responsible for the Great Schism, but we also can't be neutral. Secondly, the Orthodox and Catholic bishops don't hate each other. In the last fifty years, we've done more to work towards common ground than at any other point in the last ten centuries.
Granted, we're still far from a solution! But at least we're trying. We're trying to work out our differences. Simply pretending those differences don't exist (the Fr. Nathan model) isn't actually helping.
So, I think that—if they want to be consistent—ECs should abandon uniatism and become Orthodox unionists!
"That's why Rome eventually gave up on unionism and embraced UNIATISM. They created parallel jurisdictions and "stole sheep" from the Orthodox churches."
Except that historically, that is the origin of some Eastern Catholic Churches, but not of all of them. The Melkite Church, for example, viewed itself *as* the Antiochian Church corporately reuniting with Rome, not a parallel jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. There was a contested election for patriarch in the Church of Antioch. The Orthodox candidate, Sylvester—who happened to be the previous patriarch's designated successor—appealed to Constantinople, per the ninth canon of Chalcedon. The pro-Roman candidate, Cyril, appealed to Rome because... well, they were pro-Roman.
Cyril and his followes certainly knew they were breaking with normal procedures. They appealed, not to the primus inter pares of the Orthodox Communion, but to a patriarch with whom they had been out of communion for nearly 700 years. (Actually, Cyril was the first "Patriarch of Antioch" to commemorate the Bishop of Rome in about 1,200 years.)
That... doesn't contradict anything I wrote.
Cyril and his party thought he was the rightful leader of the Antiochian Church and that appealing to Rome would allow them to protect that. They didn't think they were separating from the Antiochian Church, they thought that they *were* the Antiochian Church. As such, they didn't think they were setting up a parallel jurisdiction.
As a former Eastern Catholic, I appreciate this. I am not as good with my words, I am quite blunt which can come across as harsh. I share quite a similar experience and below is just a take from the experience I have had.
Like you, I joined the Orthodox Church because I believed in it. I also experienced the cognitive dissonance that exists within the Eastern Catholic world. Becoming Orthodox was "easy", when it most definitely is not. I, like you, lost friendships and people I deeply cared about.
I remember, being in the Eastern Catholic world, and being convinced that - "We are the glue between East and West, we are where the salt water ocean meets fresh water. We are the best of both worlds." Looking back, how is this not so incredibly prideful? "It is our calling to be misunderstood from both sides. We are called to heal the schism from the inside." Looking back at this - this is all absolute delusion and cultivates a strange mindset. Your correct in your observation that they don't have the Orthodox phronemea - with the above, how could they?
Also, that struggle with having to validate yourself all the time as a "real" Catholic and not second class Catholic, that these Eastern traditions are just as valid as Western ones, but in the Catholic mind... They aren't and never will be. Also the constant battling with anything that came from the magisterium - it has to be followed - even if it goes against teaching and tradition. Or having to justify it with, well that's for the West and not for us. At the his whim, the Pope could completely decimate the Eastern Catholic Churches. Not to mention, as you mentioned, the spectrum of Eastern Catholics that exist, from Zhobyites to those who just attend and don't really care much. Not to mention the spectrum that is found within the clergy as well. It felt no better than trying to jump around and find a good Roman parish when I was Roman, which parish is Eastern enough?
Eastern Catholics share the scholastic mindset with their Roman counterparts as well. I spent a lot of time reading and understanding these ancient Greek words that have these deep meanings, which is good, it's great! However - becoming Orthodox, there is a new struggle of actually putting these concepts to practice.
If I were to answer the question you posed, I would say yes, 100%, they are an Orthodox LARP. Not necessarily in a bad way, I think many of them may be in a position where they can't make a move or they are genuinely happy where they are at. They just don't have Orthodoxy. They may look like it, they may know the right words and the handshakes - but they are so far off. May God have mercy upon them and all of us.
Great article Michael. I suppose one thing to add is that not all Eastern Catholics are “Byzantine/Orthodox” style in their thinking, there’s also everything from the Syro-Malabars to the Chaldeans, Armenians etc. how do the more Ortho minded Eastern Catholics approach no just their Latin brothers but even these other Eastern Catholics?
“But wait! You don’t think the Orthodox should unite with the Pope because error may leak into the Orthodox Church?”
Game, set, match.
I remember thinking that way. It's a hard position to be in.
Lots of interesting stuff in here, boy I wish I could respond more fully.
However, just one particular point that bothers me is when Orthodox boast about vernacular liturgy. This is rather anachronistic.
Yes, in many linguistic spheres the vernacular will be used (as when the Divine Liturgy is offered in English, as throughout the United States), but there are far too many exceptions.
Greek speaking churches/patriarchates use liturgical Greek, not vernacular. Some patriarchates use Arabic and others alongside Greek.
Slavic Orthodox churches have always used exclusively liturgical Church Slavonic. Recently, Eastern modernists managed to introduce vernacular, but not everywhere. Russians still use only Slavonic. Even though Serbians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Belarusians, Ukrainians use much vernacular, Slavonic is still in use.
The Romanian Orthodox Church used Church Slavonic/liturgical Greek from 10th to 17th century, when it was replaced by Romanian (which was nevertheless influenced by Church Slavonic, making it quite non-vernacular).
The Georgian Orthodox Church uses old literary Georgian as liturgical language.
The Coptic Orthodox use literary Coptic language as liturgical language. Even though its use diminished during long Muslim rule (replacing it by Arabic), it's still alive and it's being reintroduced.
The Ethiopian Orthodox use Ge'ez as liturgical language, not one of many vernaculars.
The Syrian Orthodox use classical Syrian and Arabic. Use of Arabic is related to centuries of Muslim rule.
The Armenians use a classical literary Armenian.
Moreover, what do we mean by "vernacular"? Old Church Slavonic, for example, was created so that the Slavs could understand the liturgy, but at the same time, it was created to translate a very fancy liturgical Greek. And historically, in most cultures there was by definition a large gap between literary language and spoken language, much larger than is typical today, both because more people today are literate, and because high literary language has basically disappeared.
So, yes, a great linguistic pluralism, but not the kind of mere localization implied in your comments about how the "American [Orthodox]" use English - as if that's to be taken utterly for granted.
Hello Peter! Great comment, as always. Thank you.
FWIW, I am by no means opposed to sacred languages. Church Slavonic, Koine Greek, Ecclesiastical Latin—they're all good! As long as they have some deeper meaning for the folks in the pews.
In the USA, however, most folks who belong to parishes in the Russian tradition (like the OCA) are converts. Church Slavonic doesn't necessarily "mean" anything to us.
Now, that's not true across the board! Native Alaskans—the first converts to Orthodoxy in America—are keen to preserve the use of Slavonic in their services. They still refer to themselves as "Russian Orthodox," too. That's part of their history. They're proud of it. They want to preserve it. Glory to God!
My point was that such inculturation is impossible for the Eastern Catholic churches. Catholicism can be Western, of course. That goes without saying! But EASTERN Catholicism can't be Western. So, if you want to remain in the Roman Communion, you do have to choose between Orthodoxy and the West (so to speak). But we in the Orthodox Church have found—are finding—a uniquely American expression of Orthodoxy.
Does that make sense?
Kind of. I do think it's very sad when a huge heritage is lost because the language is not carried over and learned and appreciated, as can be done fairly easily - if there's a desire.
Thank God, Russian Orthodoxy survives in Russia. :) And the OCA still has Russian-style icons, Russian tones, special devotions to Russian saints. I think it's a good balance.
As regards your larger claim, here's what I think.
I think that you and I are highly educated people, and therefore we know a lot about the saints further afield. I know about Eastern saints and love them; and people like you, or the learned clergy, in Orthodoxy, know about the Western saints.
But I very much doubt that, on the ground, local Orthodox churches are any more broad-minded than any local Catholic church would be. Let's not fantasize. Seraphim of Sarov is no more a household name among Latins than (pick most Western saints) among Greeks or Russians.
Nor should this really surprise us or alarm us.
Thus, I question the claim that the Orthodox are somehow globally conscious while Latins are West-locked and Eastern Catholics are East-locked. All of us are tied to our places and only those who work harder will go beyond that.
Regarding the Orthodox: I'm not so sure. On Holy Saturday, we received a young woman who took St. Melangell of Wales as her patron saint. This year we also received a young man who chose St. Augustine of Canterbury. We have a catechumen, a professional boxer, who's taking St. Ninian of Scotland. I think that's pretty good for a random parish in Massachusetts!
Regarding the Catholics: I wasn't talking about the people so much as the canonical structure. But I don't want to pick that fight just now, and I'm sure you have better things to do than argue with me. :) So let me just say that I didn't mean to imply that either Latin or Eastern Catholics are chauvinistic. They certainly are not.
Michael specified the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) in that section. That’s a separate jurisdiction from all the various ones you reference in your comment.
Just recently started following you on here; Im Eastern Catholic myself. First of, thank you for name dropping Searchers for the Lost podcast. Theres a few personal reasons I dont follow What God is Not, so Im glad to know another EC podcast lol.
I am curious by what you meant when you claimed that Orthodox don't demand that you reject everything from Western theology. For myself, I actually think that was one of the biggest reasons I never became Orthodox when I was wrestling with it a year or two ago. I had tried getting plugged in to a Greek Orthodox church/community, and I generally got the sense that they really expected you to give up everything from the Western tradition, even before the Schism, and even going as far back as the origins of the Latin tradition - I understand you just have a "very complicated relationship with Augustine", but I felt like Orthodoxy expected you to leave your whole faith background at the door. I feel like if an Orthodox, or even an Anglican or Baptist, became Catholic, there are some things in their faith or "phronema" that they wouls need to convert or "baptize", but I felt like Orthodox, at least the people Ive met or seen on Youtube, are so attached to the idea that there can be no salvation or inspiration outside the Orthodox communion, and that everything from the Western tradition is a corruption. Of course I now there are Western or Antiochian Orthodox, and I dont know much about how that works. Of course, I guess its easy not to antagonize those who youve just forsaken or given up on,so Im not sure if thats what you meant?
I also feel like every Orthodox book Ive tried to read on theology, starts of by just giving strawman arguments against Catholicism, and half of these just make me go, "Ive literally never met a Catholic who believes that", because its taken from some obscure medieval writing on mysticism. Of course, Im sure Catholics can do this as well [like the toll houses]. But I feel like Orthodox get so caught up in defining their theology by conradictions. And i guess that is central to the idea a mystical, apophatic theology to some extent. But I just dont get why every Orthodox book or speaker always needs to start off with anathemas against Western theology, usually Catholic but sometimes Protestant. It sometimes makes me feel like it shows a certain insecurity in their own tradition, thatvthey cant simply put forth their own vision. And i get maybe its sometimes necessary when you are presenting to a Western audience that is culturally entrenched in Scholasticism and the Atonement. But like I said, its often not even done well and sometimes I feel like they are actually just exaggerating the divisions within the bloodied and bruised Body of Christ.
Hopefully none of this was unfair or mischaracterizing Thank you for sharing your perspective on the Uniate Church, I thought Id also share my own!
Also for your comment about the Eastern Catholics being bound by he Council of Florence, of course Im sure that you are aware of this, but the Council of Florence was conducted and concluded with consensus from both Latin and Orthodox clergy and representatives, and was only later rejected by Mark of Ephesus, to perpetuate rather than heal the Schism.
I am curious, in your opinion, if you think the Orthodox have any active interest in an eventual end to the Schism, and if you think the Orthodox would or should accept any resolution short of the Latin Church repenting of 1600 years of a theological tradition that started with Augustine?
Christ is risen!
Your points echo why I made the jump to Orthodoxy over 15 years ago. I spent a couple years with the Maronites and quickly learned Eastern Catholicism is okay as far as it goes, but it cannot go far enough for the reasons you mentioned.
-Fr. Andrew
"we would consider the Rosary problematic because it encourages the use of imagination in prayer."
For what it's worth, I've had numerous very traditional Priests exhort me to NEVER imagine or visualize anything while praying the Rosary.
Thanks for your comment, AM! Can I ask, how do you meditate on each mystery? I was always told that you're supposed to imagine the scene unfolding in your mind.
That’s very interesting that you have heard this — it is my practice to meditate upon the mysteries without visualizing anything, and to focus on the words of the prayers and perhaps how they relate to each mystery. As I have been taught to pray it, it is an entirely “word-based” affair, if that makes sense.
Oh and when you pray it in Latin, your mind is so busy saying the Latin, knowing the translation, meditating upon the meaning itself, and meditating upon how each word or phrase of the prayers relate to the mystery. Your mind goes empty, and deep mental prayer overtakes you. I have even known quite a few secular spiritualists who prayed it to eventually convert to Christianity simply because of the power of the Rosary; I believe all people on earth would benefit from daily prayer of the Rosary. And when you’re done, you can use the same beads to pray the Jesus Prayer too (that’s what I often do)
Andy, I also pray the Rosary this way. I took it up during a period of apostasy from Orthodoxy, when trying to find my way back to Christian faith. I don't "imagine" the scene; I just hold the reality of it in my heart while I pray. It is to me objectively, irrefutably grace-filled; I don't know what else to say. The Mother of God brought me back to the faith through it. I am home in the Orthodox Church and I would never gainsay the Rosary.
This is typical of a lot of problems with this commentary, you take one version of a thing (Catholic or Orthodox) and universalize it.
Nearly all the Saints you mentioned as largely “forgotten” by Catholics, are very much remembered by Catholics in England… (largely because most of them are from England). Indeed one of my Churches where I am the parish priest is dedicated to St Augustine of Canterbury, and my dog is named Cuthbert after “St Cuthbert”.
I was Ruthenian rite before taking the holy 'Plunge.' The priest's mindset in the article, like mine was, is a delusion born under threat of damnation by breaking from Il Papa. You do all the mental gymnastics necessary to stay in the cult of authority. In the end, decades ago already, it was seeing in person the Orthodox bishop, standing on the cathedra and surrounded by his own flock, that I understood what the Church is and decided to be joined to Christ's Body. Thanks, Michael, for your essay.
Hey, just a heads up: be careful when you quote St. Philaret of Moscow as he (lovingly) plagiarized the French Roman Catholic bishop François Fénelon!
You don’t understand the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine on the Filioque.
I would love to see more podcasts/ livestreams. whether with Kyle King or anyone else or alone - An Orthodox Catechumen from a Roman Catholic background