On the Romanian Catholicism and Orthodoxy relationship

I’ll comment on this blog post about the Romanian Catholicism and Orthodoxy relationship.

A. Theory

Theoretically, things are cool on the Orthodox site:

The Orthodox understand themselves to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; the true Church established by Jesus Christ and placed into the care of the apostles. As almost all other Christian groups are in indirect schism with the Orthodox Church, mostly as a result of the Great Schism with the Roman Catholic Church at the turn of the second Christian millennium (prior to the additional schisms of the Protestant Reformation), these other groups are viewed as being Christian, but who in varying degrees lack full theological orthodoxy and orthopraxy. As such, all groups outside of the Orthodox Church are not seen as being members of the Church proper, but rather separated brethren who have failed to retain the fullness of the Christian faith and theology, as was given to the apostles by Jesus Christ. These deviations from orthodoxy have traditionally been called heresy, but due to the term’s immediately pejorative connotations, some prefer the more technical designation of the term heterodoxy.

(via)

Also on the Catholic side:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing documents of the Second Vatican Council and of Pope Paul VI, states:

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis redintegratio 3). With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fulness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist” (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; cf. Unitatis redintegratio 13-18).^[10]
(via)

So, although not a perfect symbiosis, the two could coexist nicely.

B. How about the practice?

B1. Orthodoxy

The seventh rule of the Church is: you should not read heretical books (approximate translation from) -

44. Care este a saptea porunca bisericeasca?
Sa nu citim cartile ereticilor.
(via)

So, you have two rules: Catholics are (partially) OK, but you should not read any heretical books. The second part should be totally unrelated to Catholics. I doubt it really is in practice. Nobody states after the rule – “Oh, Catholics are excluded”. I may misjudge this, but I doubt the fact that average-Joe Orthodox can read the text above and exclude Catholics from the list.

I don’t go to many Catholic meetings, but on a recent occasion I went to a book launch about a prominent figure in Catholicism: Monsignor Vladimir GHIKA. Invited to speak were, among others, people who went (and suffered) through Communist prisons. I would have hoped that the subject would make a whole lot of people interested. I mean, only the subject (Communist prisons) should have gotten Orthodox people interested. Nope. Not so much.

When there’s an Orthodox conference at Sala Dalles / Facultatea de Drept, lots of people come (probably, mostly Orthodox). The room gets filled. When there’s a book launch on Catholicism, not so many people come (so, Catholics or Orthodox, there were few people present; had there been an Orthodox conference, the room – may – have been filled). Where are the Orthodox people at a Catholic conference?

B2. Catholicism

For the above-mentioned conference, there was a poster made. Bellu cemetery was mentioned. And, even more interesting, it was mentioned that it was an Orthodox cemetery. Why is the notice necessary? Should I interpret this as – “Uuu, you’re going into Orthodox land, beware!”?

Also, from time to time some speakers at the event felt the need to mention that, while in prison, person A (Catholic) had a good relationship with person B (Orthodox). Sometimes, the speaker referred to A as himself, other times it was another person. What’s wrong with this picture? Well, let’s use “The exception [that] proves the rule” and apply it, a bit wrong perhaps, to this case. I view the above affirmation, with A and B, as this: “A (Catholic) had a good relationship with person B (Orthodox), despite A being Catholic and B being Orthodox (i.) or despite historical something (differences/problems/conflicts)”.

Anyhow, to me, just saying “Oh, I met this guy, it was a Catholic. Things went fine” implies that something might be wrong. As long as you don’t need to say “I’ve met this guy, he had a name – Vasile. Things with Vasile went good, although his name was Vasile”, you don’t need to specify religion. Or if you do, you accept, in a way, that historical differences existed and should affect, somehow, the present.

Also, one doesn’t need to specify other than – “this person is from Poland”. There’s hardly any need to say “this person is from Poland, a country which, so-and-so many centuries ago had a different organization as a country/empire and did this & that thing to Romanians”. It’s over, forget about it. Just “it’s from Poland” is fine. The past is really irrelevant. But if you need to specify “oh, Poland and Romania had a bad relation X centuries ago”, then, to me, things are not that great.

C. Solutions

• Things will be just fine when (some) Orthodox nuns/priests will go to (some) other religion conferences, since it’s an allowed thing (see point A.); this happens, but too much as an exception to be held valid;
• The vice-versa is also true (when other confessions’ most involved persons will take part to Orthodox reunions);
• Avoid any “John, the Catholic” or “John, the Orthodox” affirmation; any.

Go change.