Ratzinger Proposal

At Eirenikon a post entitled Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative Dead? prompted my response which I have cross posted.

I think that Dr. Barstad has confused several issues in his paper, “Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby, etc.” I will try to explain how I believe he has misunderstood the fundamental nature of the proposal.

With a few notable exceptions, each of the Eastern Catholic Churches has Eastern or Oriental Orthodox origins. To claim that only now after Vatican II these Churches can begin to think of themselves as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” instead of mere “Eastern rites within the Roman Catholic Church” has it backwards. One of the chief complaints of Eastern Catholics over time and today is that they have felt like outsiders within the Catholic Church. Eastern Catholics have felt like the foster children living in a foster home rather than feeling like brothers and sisters. Being perceived as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” reinforces the fact that Eastern Catholics are somehow outsiders and perhaps not to be trusted. This is certainly not the goal of the Second Vatican Council.

Moreover, to claim that this identity as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome” is an enticing one to Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is also false. Many Eastern Christians distrust the motives of present Eastern Catholic ecumenism because of the historical circumstances that surrounded many Eastern reunions with Rome.  Catholic missionaries, political intrigues and war were some of the heavy-handed tactics used in the past to accomplish corporate reunion. These hard tactics of the past have created harsh memories that cause some Eastern Christians to mistrust the soft diplomatic tactics of the modern age. Furthermore, Eastern Christians can see that their Eastern Catholic counterparts are different. They are not just the same as “Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome.” Eastern law, customs, liturgy, doctrine, theology and history have all changed with Roman communion. Some changed to a greater, others to a lesser extent. The merits and reasons for change weren’t always good. However, to claim that no change shall be required seems duplicitous and causes more mistrust.

At the heart of the matter, Barstad appears to fundamentally misunderstand the Ratzinger proposal, in my opinion. The proposal is not an attempt to recreate the doctrinal landscape of the 1^st millennium. Barstad rightly laments that this is an impossibility. Rather, the proposal is an attempt to strip away the practical requirements of modern communion and recreate the orthopraxy of the 1^st age of the Church. The proposal seeks to eliminate the law and structures of the modern era and return to a form of communion based upon the episcopal fraternal embrace. This is precisely why, in my opinion, Pope Benedict XVI eliminated the title “Patriarch of the West” from Roman usage.  Not only was the title only used in Rome in recent times but also its usage creates an entirely new and imperial structure from which to manage Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Christian Churches. Rather, Benedict was deliberately choosing to return to the simple episcopal structure of his role as Bishop of Rome that is decidedly more biblical and historical.

Such a return to simple structures is difficult for Rome. Modern and liberal notions of the “efficiency” of bureaucracy have transformed the Vatican into a labyrinthine maze of often competing structures that constrict progress to the slowest crawl. The eradication of structure in favor of persons is perhaps Benedicts greatest challenge. Nobody knows the measure of the task better, however.

I find it interesting that the Melkite response to the proposal was what the proposal imagined. Orthopraxy requires orthodoxy, however. Antiochian response to the Melkite proposal was decidedly cool. A slow approach was prescribed. As interesting to me was the manner in which the response was crafted by both Antiochian and Roman institutions. Modern bone crushing bureaucracies began to come alive in order to bring “context and balance” to the bold Melkite proposal. Pontifical and Patriarchal Congregations Commissions, Consulters and Boards sprang into action to halt the “hasty” Melkite action.

Dependency on bureaucracy for fraternal communion between Eastern and Roman Churches is exactly what the Ratzinger and Melkite proposals wish to avoid. Only when these modern structures are eliminated will, in my opinion, real progress toward reunion be made.