At the Council - Chapter 6

Chapter 11

The Melkite Church at the Council

Discourses and Memoranda of Patriarch Maximos IV and of the Hierarchs of His Church at the Second Vatican Council - - - Introduction by Archimandrite Robert F. Taft

It was in the bosom of the Eastern Commission that the Melkite Greek hierarchy displayed its greatest activity. It was represented there, in the preparatory stage, by Archbishop Neophytos Edelby, Archimandrite Athanasius Hage, and Archimandrite Maurice Blondeel; in the conciliar stage by the patriarch himself and by Archbishop Edelby. As early as November, 1960, Archbishop Edelby presented to the commission a complete project of a schema “On the Rites in the Church.” Although modified many times in the course of the discussions, it continued to form the basis of Chapter I of the conciliar decree “On the Eastern Catholic Churches.” The lasting value of this project resides in its commentaries, which reflect very well the thought of the patriarch and his hierarchy on this point. One will notice that the author speaks of the “Rites in the Church,” and not of the “Eastern Rites,” for in the Church there are not only “Eastern Rites.” The Latin Church itself is one of the “rites” in the Church.

Relative to the Eastern rites, it seems to me more opportune for our commission to propose to the central commission and, through it, to the Fathers of the council, not by one or another article responding to a particular need (for example, the change from one rite to another), but the schema of a “decree,” that is to say, of a chapter that embraces all this question in an organic manner. For, in the first place, that presents a greater logical interest. In the second place, it is not every day that we have a council; now it seems that the very existence of “rites” in the Catholic Church, their content, their innate rights and obligations will remain material for discussion as long as, on all these points, the council itself has not manifested definitely and with ruling authority the thought of the Church. I propose that this chapter “On Rites in the Church” be composed of the ten following articles:

“The Holy and Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is organically composed not only of the individual faithful who are united in the same faith and the same Christian life, but also of many groups joined to the hierarchy, or particular Churches, which are improperly called ‘rites.’ These rites or particular Churches, even though they may differ in part in liturgy, intimate constitution, ecclesiastical discipline, and other proper qualities of the spiritual patrimony, yet in an equal manner are committed to the pastoral solicitude of the Roman pontiff, who divinely succeeds Saint Peter in his primacy over the universal Church.”

a. This affirmation of principle aims in the first place at dispelling an exclusively “individualistic” concept of the Church. The universal Church is not solely or above all a society of individuals, but also, and in the first place, a communion of Churches (in the particular sense of the word), that is to say, of hierarchical groups (eparchies. metropolitan jurisdictions, archbishoprics, catholicates). This remark has a great importance for the union of the Churches: union should not appear as the absorption of all the Christian communities by one of them, (the Latin community or Church), but as the communion of all the Churches (including the Latin Church) in the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same supernatural life, under the paternal and fraternal vigilance of the Roman pontiff, to constitute the “Catholica.”

b. In the second place, in dispelling this “individualistic” concept of the Church, the Eastern Churches, or, as they are called, the “Eastern rites,” no longer appear as a concession of the Roman Church, as a privilege, as a more or less inconvenient exception. Too many still consider the Latin Church as being, in brief, the Church, and the communities of Eastern rites as simply tolerated in the midst of Catholicism. They are, some say, “uniate” Churches, a sort of appendix, something annexed, and nothing more than that. This concept is absolutely false. The “Catholica” is composed of all the Churches in communion with one another and with the Roman pontiff. Among the particular Churches in communion among themselves and with the Roman pontiff, there are the Latin Church and a certain number of other Churches, of Eastern rite, today inferior in numbers, in the expectation of the universal reunion of all the Christian Churches.

c. In the third place, one wishes to dispel by the same act the concept—formerly dear to those around Pope Pius IX and still too widespread in certain Western circles—which makes the Eastern Churches a simple affair of “liturgical rite,” differing from the “normal” rite of the Church, which is the Latin rite. “Eastern Churches” is not at all synonymous with “Eastern rites.” The liturgical rite is only one of the points by which one Church can be distinguished from another Church. But the rite can be the same, while the Churches are distinct (for example, the Byzantine rite is common to a number of Churches); nothing prevents there being different rites in one Church (for example, at Toledo). What constitutes the different Eastern Churches is not only a difference from the Western Church in the liturgical rite. There can be also, and there are in fact, differences in spirituality, in theological points of view, in discipline, in constitution, in organization, in art, etc., so much so that when one “respects” the “Eastern rites” (in the liturgical sense), one has not thereby respected the “Eastern Churches.” Now, for the union of Churches, one would wish to arrive at respecting, in the “Catholica,” not only the different liturgical rites but also every other difference compatible with the faith and communion with the Roman pontiff.

d. Thus an organic concept of the Church is favored, in which catholicity is not synonymous with Romanism and unity not synonymous with uniformity, in which there is a place for different modes of being, of thinking and acting, not only in liturgy but also in organization and in discipline. Nobody can ignore how much such a concept is indispensable for every effort for union with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and not only with individuals.

“While retaining the honor due to the Roman Church, all those particular Churches that constitute the universal or catholic Church possess equal holiness and dignity, enjoy equal rights and privileges, and are held to equal obligations. No superiority or domination or hegemony is allowed in the Church by reason of rite. Therefore all Churches or Rites are with equal right entitled to a just increment and are held by an equally grave obligation of preaching the Christian faith in the whole world, under the vigilance of the ecclesiastic pastors in the place, and also under the moderation of the Roman pontiff.”

a. This article aims first at affirming vigorously the equality of all Churches in the bosom of the universal church. If the Church is catholic by right, one cannot deny that it has nevertheless to make efforts to be always more catholic in fact, that is to say, to realize always better a greater universality of spirit, of tendencies, of representation, of authority, of service, etc. The Catholic Church is not a monopoly for any person, any race, any nation, any continent, any rite. It is the great gift of God to all humanity, and all humanity should equally share in its cares, as well as in its honors, its services, its representation, etc. Too often, the Catholic Church appears to be allied to the human interests of certain fixed groups. It would not be difficult to draw up a list of grievances that could be asserted by certain groups that feel that they have been injured or that have the impression of being like poor relatives in catholicity. It is enough for us to affirm the principle of the equality of all the faithful and of all the Churches in the bosom of the “Catholica.” Its concrete realization will require many years and much effort. In other words there is in the Church a “pre-eminence of the Roman pontiff,” but there should not be a “pre-eminence of the Latin rite.”

b. The article aims equally at eliminating from the discipline in force every measure discriminating against a particular Church. An equality of rights should correspond to an equality of situation, of needs, and of aptitudes. Nobody in the Church should feel himself impaired because of the rite to which he belongs.

c. Finally, the article aims at eliminating the intolerance that still weighs, here and there, on Eastern Catholics, and that unjustly deprives them of the right, insofar as they are Eastern Catholics, to evangelize the infidels of a particular region, as if the Eastern Churches were closed communities, destined to disappear rather than expand. No human authority can forbid a bishop to preach the Gospel to the infidels of his eparchy, to baptize them, and to incorporate them in his Church. If, in fact, two or more Catholic bishops are established in the same territory, all and each equally have the right and the duty to evangelize, to baptize, and to incorporate in their Church. The prohibition of evangelizing the infidels should not, above all, weigh upon the hierarchy that represents, better than the others, the native Church.

“This diversity in the Church, rather than harming its catholicity, instead declares it and makes it concrete. For the Church greatly wishes that that nearly infinite abundance of ecclesiastical traditions remain uncorrupted and entire, as it wishes its rule of life to adapt to the various spiritual needs of each and every Christian community.”

The article affirms the usefulness of this diversity in the Church. One will note that it concerns not only a diversity of liturgical rites. Even the diversity of disciplines in the Church is a good thing in itself, and one should not seek to minimize it or to make it disappear for the sole reason of a greater uniformity. The variety of rites and disciplines responds to a natural variety of needs and of mentalities. To wish to reduce everything to uniformity is to deprive oneself uselessly of the charisms of each Church and to close catholicity to every culture other than our own. Pope Saint Leo IX said it so well in his first letter to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, no. 29 (Mansi XIX, 652): “For [the Roman Church] knows that customs differing according to the place and time are no hindrance to the salvation of the believers, when one faith, working through love the good things that it can do, commends all to the one God.”

“The Roman pontiff, in his capacity as successor of Saint Peter in his primacy over the universal Church, is not bound to any liturgical rite.”

The sovereign pontiff is first the Bishop of Rome, and it is according to that title that he succeeds to the blessed Peter in his primacy. Nobody is astonished that he is a part, from this point of view, of the Western Church, and thus of the Latin rite. The principle aims only at affirming that the Holy Father, insofar as he is father of the universal Church, is not more Western than Eastern, for many of the Westerners have drawn the argument in favor of the “pre-eminence of the Latin rite” from the fact that that rite was that of the Pope of Rome.

It goes without saying that the Roman pontiff can use one or another of the Eastern rites, according to what he judges opportune.

“All and each of the faithful ought to preserve the proper rite that they have, and cultivate it, and, unless they are legitimately impeded, practice it wherever they are located. Therefore all attempts of any rite to absorb other rites is to be severely condemned.”

a. Since diversity in the Church is a good thing in itself, this article wishes to affirm the perpetuity of this state of things. The existence of the Eastern Churches is not a transitory concession, in the expectation of the definitive passing to the Latin rite.

b. The article also affirms that this diversity is admitted throughout the world, that it is not limited to the East alone.

c. Finally, this article forbids any Church, Latin or Eastern, to develop at the expense of other Churches by absorbing them. Through it there is a particular condemnation of the latinization of the East, which has been pursued for centuries, often contrary to the directives of the Holy See of Rome.

“In restoring unity with the Catholic Church, the faithful who have been up to now separated ought to be received in their proper rite, and to keep it. Therefore, every attempt to draw them into another rite or to admit them to a foreign rite is to be severely condemned.”

This article recommends the return to the discipline of “Orientalium Dignitas,” as opposed to the dangerous innovation of canon 11, No. 1, of the motu proprio “Cleri Sanctitati.” The subject deserves being studied a bit more closely.

a. The innovation of canon 11, cited above, is contrary to the declarations of popes and to the legislation in force before now.

-Benedict XIV, in the constitution “Allatae Sunt” of July 26, 1755, no. 33, intended to summarize the constant norm followed by the popes by declaring: “Never have the Roman pontiffs required from those who return to the Catholic faith that they abandon their rite and embrace by obligation the Latin rite. That would be, in fact, the disappearance of the Eastern Church and of all the Greek and Eastern rites, something that not only has never been attempted, but has always been and today still is absolutely alien to the spirit of the Holy See.”

-The Propaganda equally replied, on June 1, 1885 (Collectanea II, No. 1633, second) that missionaries, in receiving into the Catholic Church those who were born in schism, must inscribe them in their own Eastern rite, and not in the Latin rite, except by special authorization of the Holy See.

-The Easterners who return to Catholic unity may choose, among the Eastern rites, that which they prefer. See the Decree of the Propaganda dated November 20, 1838 (Collectanea, I, No. 878). Likewise, Letter of the Propaganda dated February 4, 1895.

-Apostates who, abandoning the Catholic faith, have become heretics or schismatics, cannot, on returning to the Catholic faith, enjoy the liberty of this choice, but remain enrolled in their former rite. See the letter of the Propaganda of April 7, 1859.

-Eastern Catholics who have previously passed over to a Western heresy (for example, Protestantism) cannot on reconverting embrace the Latin rite. See Instruction of the Propaganda of July 15, 1876 (Collect. II, No. 1458).

-"If, among the dissidents, a community, a family, or a person shall return to the Catholic unity, while a necessary condition has been set down that they embrace the Latin rite, let them remain for the time being enrolled in that rite, with the ability to return one day to their original Catholic rite. If such a condition has not been set down, but the said community, family, or person are served by Latin priests because of a lack of Eastern priests, they are obliged to return to their rite as soon as there is an availability of an Eastern priest" (Leo XIII, Constitution “Orientalium Dignitas,” No. 11).

-If no condition has been laid down and no choice of another Eastern rite has been made, the convert must be admitted into the Eastern rite corresponding to his own.

b. The new canon, it is true, does not oblige non-Catholics to pass over by obligation to the Latin rite. But for the “latinizers” it is sufficient that such is permitted for them to redouble their fervor to deprive the Eastern Catholic Churches of all new help of a nature to nourish them. Certainly, there is nothing improper in that the Holy Roman See, taking into consideration the particular needs of certain individuals, authorizes them to change by exception to the Latin rite, whether at the moment of their return to the Catholic faith or even after they have adhered to it. For the ultimate goal of all legislation must be the good of souls, not a satisfaction of self-love. But, to permit the Latins to admit to their Latin rite the Eastern non-Catholics who wish to return to unity is, under the present circumstances and given the considerable means at the disposal of the latinizers in personnel, in works, and in resources, to condemn the Eastern Catholic Churches to an inability to expand. Thus the equality desired by the canon is equivalent in practice to delivering the weak to the mercy of the strong.

c. Leo XIII had prescribed severe sanctions against those who pushed Easterners to adopt the Latin rite. The sanctions have in practice remained without execution, and the movement of latinization of the East has continued as before. Now, what the severest sanctions have not been able to prevent, will a simple wish, stealthily set at the end of the canon, to encourage the Easterners to remain in their rite, do any more to prevent?

d. While the new canon authorizes the Eastern non-Catholics to pass over to the Latin rite, the law presently in force forbids the Western non-Catholics to pass over to the Eastern rite. Is it normal that the Protestants of Rome, for example, in converting to Catholicism, should pass over to an Eastern rite? It is not more normal for Eastern non-Catholics to pass over to the Latin rite.

Conclusion: If one wishes that the Eastern Catholic Churches should grow and continue to fulfill their mission, it is necessary to forbid the latinization of the East, unless there is a personal exception.

Article 7. “The faithful of Eastern rites who, notwithstanding the instructions of the Roman pontiffs, for whatever reason have at certain times been enticed to desert their native rite in order to embrace the Latin rite, are paternally invited by this holy council to return to their former and original rite.”

That is, in other words, the intention of “Orientalium Dignitas” No. 11: “If, among the dissidents, any community or family or person shall return to the Catholic unity, while a necessary condition has been set down that they embrace the Latin rite, let them remain for the time being enrolled in that rite, with the ability to return one day to their original Catholic rite. If such a condition has not been set down, but the said community, family, or person are served by Latin priests because of a lack of Eastern priests, they are obliged to return to their rite as soon as there is an availability of an Eastern priest.”

“It is the prerogative of only the Roman pontiff, having heard from the interested hierarchs, to permit Catholic faithful, for grave and personal reasons, to transfer to another rite.”

There can be presented particular cases in which the higher good of a soul requires the change to another rite. In order to avoid all kinds of conflict and above all the abuse which a too easy procedure would produce on this point, it is thought that the best method would be to reserve these transfers to the judgment of the sovereign pontiff.

“As a Latin hierarchy has been set up in the East for the good of the faithful of the Latin rite dwelling there, likewise there will be a provision throughout the world for the safeguarding and growth of Churches of the Eastern rites through setting up an Eastern hierarchy wherever the number and the spiritual good of the faithful of Eastern rites require it.”

The Roman Holy See establishes everywhere in the world its own hierarchy for the benefit of the faithful of the Latin rite (no corner of the world lacks a Latin hierarchy), whereas it does not establish for the benefit of the numerous Eastern faithful of the diaspora its own hierarchy. The most frequent reason for this is the opposition of Latin ordinaries who do not wish a jurisdiction parallel to theirs in the same territory. The above principle aims to affirm the normal character of this multiplicity of jurisdiction everywhere in the world wherever the number of the faithful and their spiritual good require it.

The Orthodox have established a hierarchy almost everywhere in the diaspora. Prevented by the opposition of Latin ordinaries, Eastern Catholics are, in the emigration, almost everywhere without their own hierarchy, which causes considerable injury to them and slowly undermines their existence. While our Orthodox brothers are established in the emigration, we must state that we delay. Thus, for example, the Melkite Church has nearly half of its members outside the East, without a hierarchy, sometimes even without a parish priest. On this point, our union puts us in a position of inferiority compared with our Orthodox brethren.

“When there is a multiplicity of various rites of the Catholic hierarchy in the same territory, let more extensive faculties be granted, on behalf of the common good and for nourishing the coordination of apostolic efforts, to the synod of all hierarchs who possess jurisdiction in that territory.”

The multiplicity of rites can be, in the absence of organization, a regrettable dispersion of forces. Certain persons do not cease to extol the suppression of different rites and their replacement by a single rite precisely because of the inconveniences which result from the multiplicity of jurisdictions. Now these inconveniences can easily be avoided if there is installed in the Church a system of synodalism charged with all questions of general interest. Concretely, in a fixed territory with multiple jurisdiction, most serious questions will arise even if there is a single authority that, in the place of that of a single hierarch, becomes that of a synod of hierarchs: which is, to be definite, an excellent thing and introduces into the Church a moderated democratic element, more consistent with the traditions of the East. Naturally, all of this must be clearly specified in the future code of canon law.

Each of the propositions mentioned above, taken by itself, could be a subject for discussion, for there is no human institution that does not present some drawbacks. But if one has in view that the principal reason for the existence of us Eastern Catholics is to promote Christian union, these proposals acquire a capital importance and assert themselves on their own merit.

In conformity with the above project, the Eastern Commission prepared a draft of a distinct schema “On the Eastern Rites.” The patriarch approved it as a whole, but made a criticism of a detail. The text was read at the third meeting of the Central Commission, held in January 1962.

This schema “On Rites in the Church” corresponds to the ideas that I have always defended on the situation and the mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the bosom of Catholicity. Thus I am happy to approve the main part of this schema.

I shall make only one criticism of a passage in the preamble where it is said that the Catholic Church does not place any limits to the recognition and expansion of the Eastern rites other than those “that produce a danger for souls and derogate from ecclesiastical respectability.” This phrase, borrowed from the Fourth Lateran Council, is not fortunate. It is indelicate, in fact, and also absolutely false, to suspect that only in the “Eastern rites” as such there is a “danger for souls” or a “derogation of ecclesiastical respectability.” The Eastern rites are an integral part of the Catholic tradition. They are not heretical or schismatic rites. Likewise, in the Eastern discipline there is absolutely nothing that constitutes a danger for souls or a violation of ecclesiastical respectability. This phrase of the Fourth Lateran Council is explained by the mentality of the epoch.

Observations of the Synod on the First Conciliar Schema “On the Eastern Churches” (1963)

The first schema “On the Eastern Churches,” distributed to the Fathers of the Council, was submitted to an intensive review by the Holy Synod of August, 1963. The text of these first observations of the synod deserves to be published in major part, because of its historic importance. It follows step by step the text of the conciliar schema.

The council considers itself as belonging to a Church which venerates the Eastern Churches, as if they were not part of the Church. Thus this preamble should be done over, according to the following observations:

-Eliminate the interpolation: “the very large and honorable crown of the Eastern patriarchs and prelates.” This expression seems a bit hyperbolic. It is true that at the Second Vatican Council the number of Eastern prelates is greater than at the First Vatican Council, but it still remains only modest, compared with the first councils of antiquity, and also with the total of the Fathers in attendance, who are about 95% Latin.

-"Earnestly desiring therefore to manifest its solicitude for these venerable Churches." These words are paternalistic. Besides, they have been used too frequently. The Eastern Church should not be pampered like a weak child or coaxed like an unmanageable child. There is no need for special “solicitude.” It is a branch of the Church, which wishes only that it be granted a just place in Catholicism, which is presently too massively Latin in constitution and in mentality.

-Omit the expression: “Among the people of the East.” In fact, the proper mission of the Eastern Church is not limited to only the people of the East. The Church of the East is not today a geographical expression. It is a branch of the Church, nowadays spread out a bit everywhere. It is fitting, therefore, that it display its activity everywhere. The schema reveals, here and there, a mentality that is not very favorable to the East, as we shall see. For the schema, the Latin Church is the rule, the norm. The Eastern Church, the Eastern discipline, the patriarchs are the exception, which it is fitting to limit as much as possible. There are favorable wishes that the Eastern Church live and work, but “among the people of the East.” Outside the East, it has nothing to do, and its faithful of the diaspora are normally destined to be latinized. It is necessary to react against this mentality.

-Omit the clause: “proposed by the Eastern patriarchs and prelates.” For, to begin with, it is not true. One should not attribute to the patriarchs and prelates of the East this schema, which is not their work, and which is, to be definitive, not very favorable to them. In the second place, it is not fitting that the council be content to affirm what a portion of its members has proposed. The conciliar texts are the work of all the Fathers, even if they have been prepared by one group.

Commence this portion with this affirmation of principle, which has as its aim showing that the epithet “particular Churches” applies not only to the Eastern Churches, as it is said, but to all Churches, including the Latin Church: “All Churches of the apostolic tradition, of whatever rite, whether Eastern or Western, are particular Churches.”

-Omit the word “Orientalium.” In fact it is not the variety of Eastern Churches that, “far from harming the Church, demonstrates its Catholicity.” It is the variety of all the particular Churches. It is not only the Eastern Churches that are particular Churches. Even the Latin Church is a particular Church in the universal Church.

-Replace “of the nation or of the region” with “of the Church.” Indeed, it is not a matter of safeguarding the traditions of each “nation or region,” but of each “Church.” It is not a matter of folklore, but of ecclesial traditions.

One cannot say that all the particular Churches are “in an equal manner” entrusted to the pope. The Church of Rome is entrusted to him as its immediate bishop. The Western Church is entrusted to him as its patriarch. But the Eastern Churches and all the Churches are entrusted to him as the successor of Peter.

Add the following phrase: “Where indeed an ordinary of any rite has jurisdiction over the clergy and faithful of another rite, he should rule them with paternal love according to the spirit of their own rite. The spirit of the rite is that which thrives in the patriarchate or in other superior authority of that rite.”

This addition is intended to prevent certain abuses: contamination of the rite, serious negligence in liturgical and disciplinary matters, etc. Since Latin ordinaries, for example, have jurisdiction over some Eastern faithful, they should govern them according to the spirit of their Eastern rite, and the source of this spirit should be the superior authority of the rite.

Add the following proposal: “among whom not only is the Eastern rite observed, but also the Eastern spirit prevails.”

To us, this proposal seems to be necessary. In fact, it is not enough for Latin religious institutes to open houses or provinces of the Eastern rite; it is necessary that these foundations be animated by the Eastern spirituality, and, above all, it is necessary that they have the love of the East. The rite does not make the Easterner. One has seen strangers make themselves Eastern in regard to the rite, and at the same time nourish much aversion for the discipline, spirituality, apostolate, etc. of the Eastern Church. One should rather forbid these persons to adopt the Eastern rite.

This number 9, as it is shown in the schema, is absolutely inadmissible. It constitutes a serious injustice, that we shall never tolerate, and a fatal blow to the Eastern Catholic Church. Therefore, given the gravity of the matter, we must expand a bit on this point.

First, it is appropriate to recall that this number, absolutely unexpectedly, has replaced a paragraph that the Eastern Commission had approved by a large majority, after long discussions. We thought that the affair was closed. But “certain persons”—we do not know which ones—have improperly replaced that former paragraph, favorable to the Easterners, with this new text, which constitutes a true injustice. Naturally, to cover up doing things in this manner, care was taken not to convene the conciliar commission, so that the Fathers of the council would be confronted with an accomplished deed. We protest vigorously against this abuse of confidence.

While awaiting the blessed general reunion of all the Churches, to which we aspire with all our hearts, and for which we are willing to sacrifice ourselves, we must state that there are inevitably in Christianity some individuals or groups not united to Rome who ask access to union with it. For these cases, which we cannot ignore, we must establish applicable norms that are provisional—that is to say, until the global union of the Churches—to regulate these individual or partial unions.

The working out of these norms should not offend our Orthodox brethren or be considered as an indication of a proselytism of a bad type that “nibbles away” at their Church. We proceed here as would the Orthodox Church itself, which, in its canon laws and in its liturgical books, legitimately decrees prescriptions to be applied to other Christians who come to Orthodoxy.

In this section, it is a matter of baptized non-Catholics who come to the Catholic Church. To which rite should they belong? For example, an American Protestant who becomes Catholic, must he belong to the Latin Church, or should he, at the moment of his conversion, be able to choose to enter the rite that he wishes, for example, the Malabar rite? Common sense will doubtless reply: an American Protestant, if he becomes Catholic, normally should only be made a part of the Latin Catholic Church of America. If particular circumstances require that he become Malabar or Armenian, he has only to make application to the Holy See.

And if it is a question of non-Catholic (Orthodox) Easterners, what should one think? For example, an Ethiopian Orthodox who wishes to become Catholic, to what rite should he belong? Common sense replies: Normally, he will belong to the Ethiopian Catholic Church. However, for personal reasons that are completely special, of which superior authority remains the judge, he will be able exceptionally to become Malabar, Armenian, Ukrainian, or Latin. This is the point of view that we have always defended: Eastern Orthodox, in becoming Catholic, must normally remain not only Eastern (that is to say, not Latin), but also, in a more precise manner, Easterners of the same rite to which they may belong in Orthodoxy, except for personal reasons which may require their change to another rite, with the consent of the Holy See.

Unfortunately, such has not been the opinion of those who wrote this last schema, who have succeeded in maneuvering in such a way as to let the text voted by the preparatory commission fall into oblivion, to avoid summoning the conciliar commission and thus to present, as if it were coming from the Eastern prelates, a latinizing theory which is contrary to the constant attitude of the Holy See on this point.

This requires some explanations. We shall show first the discipline that was in force until now, then we shall review the text that is presented to us now, to defend afterwards the text which was voted by the preparatory Eastern Commission of the council, and which we shall continually defend with vigor, for the very future of Catholicism in the East is involve

Until 1958, that is to say until the motu proprio “Cleri Sanctitati” of June 2, 1957, came into force, non-Catholic baptized Easterners who came over to Catholicism could choose, among the Eastern rites, whichever one pleased them. Thus, an Orthodox Ethiopian, on becoming Catholic, could become Armenian, Coptic, or Malabar, but he had to remain at least Eastern. To become Latin, he needed either an express indult of the Holy See, or to pose a condition, as it were a sine qua non, of not being willing to become Catholic except in the Latin rite. In practice, the apostles of latinization were not much bothered by this, and they counseled all whom they “converted” to set down this condition sine qua non. Entire regions were latinized in this manner. The Easterners protested vigorously, but the latinizers found powerful support at the Roman Curia and among the representatives of the Holy See in the locale. The most generous intentions of the popes thus remained a dead letter.

This discipline, in force until 1958, had an advantage and presented a drawback. The advantage was that it aimed at normally leaving the Easterners in the Eastern Church, without excluding the possibility of changing into the Latin rite, if special conditions were realized in the judgement of the Holy See. The drawback was that it authorized the Easterners, at the moment of their passing over to the Catholic Church, to join freely any Eastern Church whatsoever. Thus an Ethiopian could become Ukrainian, an Armenian could become Malabar, and a Russian could become Malankar. In practice, that did not happen, for each one remained in fact in his rite, but the legislation was defective in theory. It called for an improvement, in the sense of greater precision.

The motu proprio “Cleri Sanctitati” of June 2, 1957, instead of improving the situation, aggravated it. Canon 11 of this motu proprio, in fact, gives to baptized non-Catholics of an Eastern rite, on becoming Catholic, the option of choosing the rite that they wish: “they can embrace the rite that they prefer.” And that is just as true in the East as outside it. It is well known what vigorous protests our Melkite Church has raised, since the Synod of Cairo in 1958, against this canon. Here we summarize them briefly for the attention of those who have not become aware of them:

i. Canon 11, which was an innovation, is contrary to the declarations of the popes and the legislation which was in force until then. In particular, Pope Benedict XIV, in the constitution “Allatae Sunt” of July 26, 1755, no. 33, intended to summarize the constant norm followed by the popes when he said: “Never have the Roman pontiffs required from those who return to the Catholic faith that they abandon their rite and embrace by obligation the Latin rite. That would be, in fact, the disappearance of the Eastern Church and of all the Greek and Eastern rites, something that not only has never been attempted, but has always been and today still is absolutely alien to the spirit of the Holy See.” And the Propaganda equally replied, on June 1, 1885 (Collectanea II, No. 1633, second) that missionaries, in receiving into the Catholic Church those who were born in Orthodoxy, must inscribe them in their Eastern rite, and not in the Latin rite, except by special authorization of the Holy See. Finally, it is clear, from what we have said under letter b, that canon 11 is contrary to the legislation which was in force until then.

ii. The new canon, it is true, does not oblige the Eastern non-Catholics to enter, by obligation, the Latin rite. But it is sufficient that they are permitted to do so in order for the “latinizers,” still very numerous in the East and in the West, to redouble their fervor and to deprive the Eastern Catholic Churches of nearly all new development. Certainly, there is nothing improper in that the Roman Holy See, taking into consideration the particular needs of certain individuals, authorizes them to change by exception to the Latin rite, or to an Eastern rite other than their own, for the ultimate goal of all legislation in the Church must be the good of souls. But Church law should anticipate what is normal, not what is exceptional. Normally an Ethiopian Orthodox will be an Ethiopian Catholic, a Malabar Orthodox will be a Malabar Catholic, etc. But it is not normal for a Greek Orthodox to become Latin or Malabar. Besides, to permit the Latins to admit into their Latin rite, on a normal and regular basis, non-Catholic Easterners who wish to come to unity, is in the present concrete circumstances, given the considerable means that the latinizers have at their disposal in personnel, in works, and in resources, to condemn the Eastern Catholic Churches not to develop normally. Thus the liberty and the apparent equality intended by the canon are in practice equivalent to delivering the weak to the mercy of the strong.

iii. Leo XIII had prescribed severe sanctions, going as far as the deprivation of office, against those who pushed Easterners to adopt the Latin rite. The sanctions have in practice remained a dead letter, and the movement of latinization of the East has continued as before. Now, what the severest sanctions have not been able to prevent, will a simple wish, stealthily set at the end of the canon, to encourage the Easterners to remain in their rite, do any more to prevent? Canon 11 says, in fact: “Baptized non-Catholics of Eastern rite, who are admitted into the Catholic Church, can embrace the rite that they prefer; yet it is hoped that they retain their own rite.” A platonic wish, which does not deceive anyone.

iv. While this canon 11 authorizes the Eastern non-Catholics to pass over to the Latin rite, the law presently in force forbids the Western non-Catholics to pass over to the Eastern rite! It is quietly admitted, in fact, that an Italian Protestant who wishes to become Catholic cannot normally adopt the Eastern rite, but will belong to the Latin rite. Besides, does it make good sense that Protestants of Rome, for example, in converting to Catholicism, pass into an Eastern rite? It does not make any better sense for Eastern Orthodox to become Latin.

For all these reasons we have protested vigorously against the innovation of canon 11 of the motu proprio “Cleri Sanctitati,” and, benefiting from the fact that the Eastern Commission was studying this question anew, the Melkite delegate proposed an amendment to this canon to be submitted to the council. Here is how things have gone:

The Commission “On the Eastern Churches,” preparatory to the Council, approved by a large majority, in its session XVI, of April 21, 1961, the following text (See document No. 81-1961, pp. 2 & 3):

“Baptized non-Catholics, who are admitted to the Catholic Church, are obliged to retain their own rite, while the right is preserved, in particular cases, of having recourse to the Apostolic See.”

i. It does not set up any discrimination between the Latin rite and the Eastern rites. The rule that it proposes is equally valid for Western non-Catholics and for Eastern non-Catholics.

ii. It indicates that this must be the rule, the norm: each one must remain faithful to his rite, Western or Eastern.

iii. It sufficiently takes into account particular cases: the Holy See can give as many dispensations as it judges expedient.

Nevertheless, in spite of this opening that it allows for passing into another rite, the text has not pleased certain persons, who seem to wish at any price to favor the latinization of Easterners. Not taking into account the majority vote of the commission, they have tried, by the means at their disposal, to change the text, and that by stages, very cleverly, as one will see.

e. Modifications brought about successively to the text voted by the Eastern Commission

A first retouching, made in a photocopied communication entitled “Amended and Abridged Text,” and dated December 15, 1962, reduced the text to the following:

“Baptized non-Catholics, in regions of particular rites, who are admitted to the Catholic Church, must retain their own rite; outside the regions of the particular rites they can embrace the rite that they prefer, although it is hoped that they retain their own rite, while the right is preserved, in particular cases, of having recourse to the Apostolic See.”

Thus this first retouching, by interpolating very cleverly the addition “in regions of particular rites,” limits the norm voted by the commission to Eastern regions alone; outside the Eastern regions, Eastern non-Catholics, on becoming Catholic, are not held to remaining Eastern, and of their original rite, but could choose the rites that they should wish, that is to say, in practice to pass into the Latin rite.

Thus we have protested with extreme vigor both this interpolation and the proceedings that consisted of scorning the deliberative vote of the commission in order to substitute in place of its text a text made in secret by unknown persons.

The result of our protest: the same persons who interpolated the first text drew up a text still more unfavorable to the East, that of the present schema No. 9, which reads as follows:

“Baptized non-Catholics, returning to the Catholic Church, in regions of their own rites, are admonished to retain their own rite...”

Thus, not only has the rule of remaining in one's own rite been limited to the East (“in regions of their own rites”) but this obligation itself has disappeared; the verb “must” is cleverly replaced by the verb “are admonished”; after the admonishing, one is free to do what one wishes. And the prelates of the East, who had struggled so hard for the safeguarding of their rights, have been duped. And with the summit of the cleverness it is all presented as if coming from the Eastern prelates themselves: “to approve several chapters, proposed by the Eastern patriarchs and prelates.” There is no need to comment.

i. The text on which the preparatory commission “On the Eastern Churches” had decided by a large majority should be respected. It can only be changed by a formal decision of the Conciliar Commission, which has no meeting until the middle of September, 1963.

ii. Again we declare that it is the province of the Fathers of the Council alone to approve or reject the only text legitimately proposed by the competent preparatory commission, namely the following:

This discipline, which does not favor one or another Eastern Church that does not have an Orthodox branch, does not as such close to them the door to a wide apostolate of union. For they still have the possibility of recourse to the Holy See, and of working directly among non-Christians to lead them to the Catholic Church according to their particular rite. Happily, these Churches constitute an exception in the Christian East.

We regret that the study of this No. 9 of the schema has occupied us so long; but the question that is raised is of vital importance to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

One cannot say “thus and simply” that the patriarchal institution has been bestowed or recognized by the popes or by the ecumenical councils. That is historically false. It is not the Popes of Rome who have created the true and great Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It is not even the ecumenical councils that created the institution of the patriarchate. The first Ecumenical Council of Nicea, in mentioning the three principal sees of Christianity (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), already implied the patriarchal institution, not as to the name, but as to the reality. This supra-episcopal reality that is the patriarchate has its roots in the apostolic age. The councils approved an accomplished fact. The popes have only created certain united patriarchates of recent institution. The patriarchate, as such, if it is not of divine right, is nevertheless apostolic and founded on the most ancient patristic tradition.

No. 12 of the schema can therefore remain as a wish that the council expresses to see the patriarchal institution honored in the Catholic Church. But to follow up on this wish, it will be necessary to do much work. For, truly, in the Catholic Church the patriarchal institution appears to the partisans of centralization as the principal enemy. However, nothing supports the primacy of the successor of Peter as much as the crown of his brothers, the patriarchs of the great sees of Christianity. To depreciate Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem is to depreciate Peter and his successor. One should recall the words of Pope St. Gregory: “My honor is in the honor of my brothers.” But it will doubtless be necessary to wait another century for Catholicity to become aware of what the institution of the patriarchate is. The West has forgotten that it has a patriarch, who is the Bishop of Rome, and that the East, its senior in Christianity, has several patriarchs. To measure the incomprehension of the Catholic West on the subject of the patriarchal institution, it is sufficient to read the three-fourths of a page that the schema “On the Eastern Churches” devotes to it.

We repeat: in a hundred years, it will be necessary to take up this theme again. Knowing the present state of minds, we have no hope of being able to achieve the adoption of a text on the patriarchates which will truly conform to Tradition and to what the Church has a right to expect from an institution that has presided, with the primacy of the successor of Peter, over the destinies of the faith across twenty centuries.

That is why we propose that either the Council should not speak of the patriarchates, rather than speak of them in this manner, or else that it be content with the following few lines, leaving to future generations the care of maturing this question: “The patriarchs are the principal bishops in the Catholic Church. That is to say that they enjoy full episcopal power, which is minimally or little bound by canonical limitation, as it is for other bishops. For it does not exceed the innate power of the successors of the Apostles that the senior bishops, each for his own region, should create other bishops, with whom they collegially govern the same territory, and over whom they preside as princes of the pastors.

“What, however, concerns the title or number or the territorial limits or the precedence of sees, that pertains to ecclesiastical law.

“According to the ancient tradition of the Church and of the ecumenical councils, the following are the titles and order of the major patriarchal sees: the first see is the Roman one of Saint Peter, the leader of the Apostles, the second Constantinople, the third Alexandria, the fourth Antioch, and the fifth Jerusalem.”

This very brief text has for its aim first to combat the thesis that underlies the schema, according to which the patriarchate is constituted by the pure privileges that the pope concedes, and which he can modify at will. Now, one would wish to know the name of the pope or the council that erected as patriarchates the sees of Antioch and of Alexandria. On the contrary, for Saint Leo and Saint Gregory the Great, the three sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch draw their authority from the Apostle Peter: Peter at Antioch, Peter at Alexandria through his disciple Mark, Peter at Rome. Even if today one does not share the opinion of these two great popes, it still remains none the less true that the patriarchate is not a simple question of privileges granted by the pope or by the council to bishops taken at random.

In the second place, the council owes it to itself to cite the five patriarchal seats of Christianity. In setting aside the Roman seat, and making the patriarchate an institution that is purely Eastern, and almost non-Catholic, one distorts the facts of history and the very character of the patriarchal institution.

If one wishes nevertheless to go into some canonical details, we would propose to add also the following text:

“Except for the Roman See, there exists no patriarchal see, properly so-called, of the Latin rite. “The patriarchs who are called Eastern, by the force of their dignity, power, and traditional pre-eminence, whether in ecumenical councils or outside councils of that type, that is to say in handling all affairs, are, together with the Roman pontiff, their chief leader, special bishops of that Church which is everywhere. “That power of the patriarchs over their own bishops, clergy, and faithful, which has flourished from most ancient times, indeed from apostolic times, is produced by the Holy Spirit in the Mystical Body of Christ.

“The patriarchs thus constitute, by traditional and canonical right, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the supreme college in the Church.

“What the Synod of Florence and after it the Roman pontiffs have affirmed very frequently concerning not reducing substantially the rights and privileges of the patriarchs, this holy synod solemnly confirms. These rights and privileges are those that were in force during the thousand-year union of the East and the West, and even if they should occasionally be adapted to our times, they are truly not to be diminished appreciably.”

One knows that the Council of Trent has defined that the “ordinary” minister of the sacrament of confirmation is the bishop. Besides, the expression “ordinary minister” is not a happy one when applied to the Eastern discipline. It is manifestly inspired by the Latin practice, in which the bishop is in fact the minister who ordinarily administers this sacrament, whereas, in the authentic Eastern discipline it is the priest who ordinarily administers this sacrament, and the bishop quite extraordinarily. On the other hand, the Eastern priest can confirm only when using the Myron or Holy Chrism, which only the patriarch or bishop can consecrate. To reconcile these two practices, it is proposed to say that the bishop is the “minister said to be the ordinary, or rather primary or original.” To understand the Eastern point of view on this point of terminology, let the Latin theologians pose this question to themselves: if the Latin Church had confirmation ordinarily administered by the priests and not by the bishops, would they have called the bishop the “ordinary minister” of confirmation? It is thus necessary to find a term which fits both the Eastern discipline and the Western one, and not to make the Eastern point of view bend each time to the Latin practice.

As the Easterners have remained faithful to the usage of conferring the sacrament of confirmation at the same time as baptism, it is logical to confer also the third of the “three sacraments of Christian initiation,” which is the Holy Eucharist. All those who have been baptized in Christ are at the same time confirmed in Him and receive His Body and His precious Blood. There is no reason to give confirmation to infants and to refuse to them the Holy Eucharist. It is a universal and very beautiful usage of the Eastern Church, which it is fitting to preserve or to restore.

The Eastern Commission has voted a text to ease the present discipline of mixed marriages in the East. It was believed necessary to have this text preceded by a preface that is inspired by a spirit that is rather opposed to the open-mindedness of the section that follows, not to mention that this preface is complicated, a bit offensive to non-Catholics, and definitely unnecessary. It begins by saying that it is not easy to avoid mixed marriages. That is obvious, as well for the East as for the West. However, the text adds, it is necessary to warn the faithful to avoid these mixed marriages. That is to establish as a principle that these marriages are something bad. Then it is said that if one cannot avoid them, one should watch out that the spouses avoid the dangers that they comprise, etc. To remark that the non-Catholics take the same measures to protect themselves against us is to put the faithful in a very tormented state of conscience.

The text of the schema adds two other phrases that we propose to eliminate. The first sets up a condition: “and if there likewise should be danger lest the non-Catholic partner oblige the Catholic partner to join him.” This condition is not necessary to permit the bishop to dispense from the form of marriage. It occurs sometimes; at other times it does not. If it is put in the conciliar text, theologians are going to believe that henceforth the Church demands another condition. The second phrase is: “Yet the conscience of the hierarchs is gravely burdened by the observance of the precautions that are prescribed in the law.” According to a widespread opinion, which has been officially communicated to us by the Eastern Congregation, the Church only requires of the Catholic party that he or she promise to do as much as possible to ensure that the children are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. Nothing more seems to have been demanded, above all of the non-Catholic party, except respect of his Catholic spouse. Given that opinion and the practice that it inspires, it seems to us that the phrase of the schema “gravely burdened conscience” becomes a bit excessive. What sort of Catholic party is one who does not wish to do what is possible?

It seems to us that this matter “of sacred times” should be rather in the jurisdiction of the future code of Eastern canon law. It is not appropriate that the council descend to these details, unless it wishes to totally renew and unify this rather complicated matter. Now, this is not the case, for each number of the schema leaves an opening for the regulations of the particular law. Thus, nothing is accomplished. After the council, as before it, each Church will continue pretty much to be guided by its own intentions. Besides, it seems difficult to unify this discipline in all the countries of the world at the same time. It is better, it seems, that the council invite the hierarchs having jurisdiction in the same country to unify the discipline in the matters of the feasts, of fasting, and of abstinence. This is a question of local interest that synods or episcopal conferences can handle more advantageously.

The Church is dynamic, living, adapting continuously. Although we Melkites, for example, have passed from the Greek to Syriac, then from Syriac to Arabic, it isn’t that we should stop there. In the United States, our “Arabic” is English; in Paris, French; in Argentina, Spanish; etc. Since we are permitted to celebrate everywhere in the living language, we do not have to inform the hierarch of the place, for it is a general law of the Church, which is supposed to be known and respected. Likewise, we do not inform him that we wish to celebrate with leavened bread. But, if we habitually wish to celebrate in a language that is not the living language of the country, or if we wish to celebrate in a language that is not habitually in use in our Church, then, in that case, we must inform the hierarch of the place. For example, if we have to celebrate in Spanish in New York. But if, in New York, we wish to celebrate in English, we do not have to give notice to the ordinary of the place, for the general law of the Church authorizes us to celebrate everywhere in the vernacular, therefore in English in New York.

This second part of the schema deserves complete praise. We say that all the more willingly in that we have been severe on the first part, on the canonical aspect. We shall make one or another remark, primarily of details, so that the text may be even better, if possible, but the spirit with which this second part has been composed is clearly different from the spirit of the first part. One feels there respect and love with regard to the Christian East. All our congratulations, without reservations.

These amendments are proposed to soften what the expressions of the schema may have that is uselessly offensive; for example: “that they may come to Catholic unity.” Catholic unity is the unity of all Churches in the universal Church, the “catholica.” It is not fitting to present union as the return of our brethren to us, but rather our reunion in the Catholic Church: a matter of nuances, but very important in ecumenical dialogue. Likewise, it is necessary at all cost to eliminate the clause “and that they may participate in the fullness of revelation,” for our Orthodox brethren do participate in the fullness of revelation, since they do not deny the Scriptures, nor Tradition, nor the magisterium of the Church. Likewise, it is not completely exact to say that only by their joining Catholicism will our separated brethren “be made members in fact of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ.” What were they formerly? The schema “On the Church” has corrected, on this point, the theories of certain too rigid theologians; it is fitting to take this into account.

Having said this, it pleases us to renew our congratulations for this second part, while wishing that the first be done over in the same spirit. We also wish, with the Fathers of the first session of the council, that a single text “On the Union of Eastern Christians” be drawn up in collaboration with the Secretariat for the Union of Christians. A frank collaboration should be sought.

Observations of the Synod on the Second Conciliar Schema “On the Eastern Churches” (1964)

Profiting from the written remarks that had been made to it, the Eastern Commission reviewed its schema, reducing it considerably. The Holy Synod of August 1964 made new observations on it, which were copied and distributed to the Fathers of the council at the time of their Session III (Autumn, 1964). They deserve, like the preceding synodal observations, to be published in major part, in light of their historical importance.

Many Fathers have thought that a special schema “On the Eastern Churches” was not necessary and that its matter could advantageously be included in other schemas. In fact, the Eastern Churches are not Churches on the margin of the Church, distinct from the Church, of such a sort that the Council should devote a separate schema to them. They are of the Church as much as the Latin Church. There is thus a danger that in addressing itself in a particular manner to the Eastern Churches, the council might identify itself with the Latin Church addressing itself, with a touch of paternalistic benevolence, to the Eastern Churches.

This danger is not chimerical, but it can be avoided by appropriate clarifications, some of which already appear in the text of the schema, and others should be added. The council is the universal Catholic Church, which is no more Latin than Greek, Armenian, or other. Through the council, it is the Catholic Church itself that addresses sometimes the Latin Church to bring about reforms (which is the case for the mass of the canonical schemas), sometimes to the Eastern Churches, which have particular needs, sometimes to the Church as a whole, the Latin and Eastern, without distinction. The confusion between the Catholic Church and the Latin Church can thus be easily avoided.

Besides, numerous positive reasons provide evidence in favor of a particular schema “On the Eastern Churches”: a. The Eastern Catholic Churches today certainly have problems to be resolved, which are not posed to the Latin Church as a whole: the effort to resist massive latinization and to remain faithful to their Eastern vocation, the restoration of the patriarchal and synodal privileges, return to a truly Eastern canonical discipline, inter-ritual collaboration, wider inter-confessional relations with our Orthodox brothers, etc. These problems, special to the East, should receive a particular solution and cannot be dispersed among the other schemas, with the risk of being unnoticed, or of receiving a less than adequate solution. Nevertheless, in all the other schemas, institutions particular to the East are often taken into account, in the manner of a lure announcing the schema devoted to the Eastern Churches.

b. In the second place, the present schema has profited from the tendency of the Council, the supreme authority, to abolish, in the present Eastern canonical legislation (done by way of the Roman authority), that which appeared inopportune or contrary to sound Eastern tradition. If it should happen that this schema were eliminated, the codification commission, sitting at Rome, would risk either indefinitely postponing its work or codifying it in a sense unfavorable to the Easterners. See, for example, the measures taken by the schema to forbid massive latinization (No. 4, p. 6, lines 6-7: “and also the baptized non-Catholics coming to the Catholic Church”), to make known everywhere the validity of the sacrament of confirmation administered by Eastern priests (No. 13-14), to widen the Sunday precept (No. 15), to facilitate confessions (No. 16), to restore the sub-diaconate among the minor orders (No. 17), to effect a reasonable easing of mixed marriages in the East (No. 18), etc. Taking everything into consideration, the present schema, even if it can be improved on more than one point, is good, and it will help the Eastern Churches to rediscover themselves.

c. Finally, what is a considerable advantage, the presence of a particular schema on the East, prepared by a special commission, will open the way for the creation of a post-conciliar commission, which will take up the work that has been commenced and will improve it. Like all the other post-conciliar commissions, it will be international, with wide horizons and piously audacious. The progress of the East will thus be, in large part, the work of the Easterners themselves or of brothers who are friends of the East.

For all these reasons, we believe that the present schema should be maintained as a distinct schema, and that it is written well enough to be proposed to the council. It must be corrected on certain points. On other points, it can be improved, but, as it is, it represents an improvement.

Since the term “Eastern Churches” applies to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as to the Eastern Catholic Churches, and since, on the other hand, the council intends to legislate only for Catholics, we propose saying “On the Eastern Catholic Churches.” “Eastern” and “Western” are understood not so much as of a geographical position, but as of two manners of being in the Church, of two partially distinct forms of ecclesial life. For, geographically, there are today Easterners in the “West,” and Westerners in the “East,” in Africa, everywhere. To permit the Easterners, as well as the Westerners, to be “at home” wherever they are, one should no longer speak of the “Eastern territories” and the “Western territories”: there are faithful of the Eastern rites and faithful of the Latin rite dispersed throughout the world, and everywhere they are all at home in the bosom of the same Catholic Church.

The preamble is not felicitous. It does not sufficiently avoid giving the impression that the Catholic Church is speaking of the Eastern Churches as entities distinct from it. Well, the Catholic Church is composed of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Latin Church.

In the second place, the Catholic Church gratuitously pays the compliment of “having always held in high esteem” the institutions, the rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of the Eastern Churches. Well, apart from the liturgical rites (again!), the other institutions of the East have generally been so little respected in the Catholic Church that, without the relatively recent awareness of certain Easterners, they were running a great risk of disappearing. The latinization of the East is not only a phenomenon of the past; today it is still extolled openly and upheld secretly and even publicly by very weighty authorities of the Catholic Church, in spite of the warnings of the popes, which have been severe and repeated a hundredfold. To say after that that the Catholic Church, represented, to be sure, by Catholics, leaders and faithful, has always held in high esteem the institutions of the East, appears to be almost ironic.

We propose saying more clearly and more humbly: “All the Christian faithful and leaders everywhere must hold... the institutions of the Eastern Churches.”

One can also purely and simply eliminate this preamble and substitute for it Number 2, which is, in general, a good introduction to the existence, in the bosom of the Church, of hierarchical groups such as that of the Latin Church or the different Eastern Churches.

One is a bit surprised by this title. Not that the expression “particular Churches” causes any difficulty today, as it is widely used in the schema “On the Church.” But one is astonished that the council speaks of “particular Churches” right at the beginning of the schema devoted to the “Eastern Churches,” as if only the Eastern Churches were particular Churches, and the Latin Church synonymous with the universal Church. This impression, contrary to Catholic doctrine, can be dispelled if there is inserted in the text a word of clarification.

We would willingly propose that Number 2 serve as a preamble to the whole schema, in case the present preamble could not be sufficiently improved. Besides, it repeats an idea, expressed in greater depth in the schema “On the Church,” on the origin of Churches within the Church. In every case, this should be sustained in order to exclude all confusion between particular Church and liturgical rite. The same rite can be common to several Churches, for example the Byzantine rite, employed not only by the Greek Church but also by the Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Melkite Churches, etc. Likewise, a Church can have, in itself, different liturgical rites, for example the Church of Lyons, which practices the Lyons rite and the Roman rite. It is thus necessary to distinguish these ideas, and above all to avoid seeing in the Eastern Churches nothing more than different liturgical rites. It is that that Number 2 has wished to avoid doing.

To avoid promoting the belief that only the Eastern Churches are particular Churches and that the Latin Church is the universal Church, it is absolutely necessary to modify the beginning of paragraph 3, as follows: “Particular Churches of this type, whether Eastern or Latin, although in rites, etc....” It is necessary at any cost to declare, once and for all, that the Latin Church is, in the bosom of the Catholic Church, one of the particular Churches, although today it is in fact the most numerous. Thus the Eastern Churches in Catholicism would no longer appear as exceptions, as annexes, but as Churches, as much as the Latin Church.

The expression “yet in an equal manner they are entrusted to the guidance of the Roman pontiff...” does not correspond to theological and historical truth, and that for two reasons:

a. First, it is not true that all the Churches are entrusted in an equal manner to the Roman pontiff. The Church of Rome is entrusted to him as its immediate bishop; the province of Latium, as its metropolitan; Italy, as its primate; the West as its patriarch; finally, all the Churches as the successor of Peter in his universal primacy. It is certain, for example, that over the West the pope exercises prerogatives that are of a rather patriarchal character, which are normally and traditionally reserved, in the East, to the patriarchs and their synods, for example the designation of bishops. These distinctions are bit by bit blurred in the teaching and practice of the Latin West, where ecclesiastical organization is reduced in practice to two ecclesial realities: on one hand, an infinity of dioceses, on the other, a central power directing all of them equally. The East has remained faithful to a more hierarchical organization, and, above all, to a more nuanced conception of the ecclesiastical order. That is why the expression “in an equal manner” appears inadequate.

b. In the second place, the text begins by indicating those things by which the particular Churches differ among themselves: liturgy, discipline, and spiritual heritage. Then it tries to indicate the common bond between these Churches, and it finds only the fact that they are all “equally entrusted to the pastoral guidance of the Roman pontiff.” That is very little and purely extrinsic. The different Churches, although having certain particular things, nevertheless and above all have many things in common: adherence to Jesus Christ by faith, the same sacraments, the same morality, the same mission in the world, etc. And even in the matters in which they present some variety, as liturgy, discipline, etc., the points of convergence are infinitely more numerous than the points of divergence.

“Such particular Churches, although they differ somewhat among themselves in what are called rites, that is in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, yet all with equal right constitute one Church.”

The rest of the sentence can be omitted. If one nevertheless persists, although it is not necessary to repeat it everywhere, in mentioning the Roman primate, who is the visible basis of the unity among the Churches, one can add: “which (Church) is entrusted to the pastoral guidance of all bishops in communion with the Roman pontiff, who divinely succeeds to Saint Peter in the primacy over the whole Church.”

The rest of the paragraph is excellent. It repeals with a stroke of the pen the theory of the pre-eminence of the Latin rite, and affirms the right of the Eastern Churches to have their indispensable part in the evangelization of the world: two fundamental truths, still to a large extent unrecognized.

This schema opens new horizons and sets new landmarks for a radical reform of attitude with regard to the Christian East.

Number 4 is very weighty and we request the Council to vote it as a whole without adding any modifications for each word has been carefully weighed. It represents on behalf of the Eastern Churches three new and important improvements, obtained after numerous and laborious discussions in the Commission:

a. The right of Easterners to have their hierarchy everywhere, “wherever the spiritual good of the faithful so demands,” that is to say, in practice, wherever they are in sufficient numbers.

Until now, the Latin hierarchy considered itself master of the universe. The Latin Church partitioned the world for itself. It was present everywhere. There is not a point of the globe where there isn't a territorial Latin hierarchy, considering itself fully at home, even at the heart of Constantinople or Moscow. Even where there were only 500 Latins, for the greater part foreigners in the country, a local Latin hierarchy has been installed. Eastern authority could not raise its voice in protest, without the anxiety of being viewed in a bad light or having its Catholic faith suspected.

On the contrary, there are hundreds of thousands of Eastern Catholics who have settled in Europe, in Africa, in Australia, and especially in America. For numerous years we have entreated for the establishment of a hierarchy for them, even a simple personal one, to look after their priests, their works, their future, because the Latin hierarchy, even with the best good will, cannot take care of them effectively. They need not only priests of their rite, but also bishops of their rite. Wasted effort!

Thousands of reasons are found to refuse us what we ask, not for ourselves, but for our poor faithful who are on the road to being separated and lost. The episcopacy of the affected country refuses, we are told. As for us, when a Latin hierarchy has been installed in the very heart of the East, our opinion has not been requested. And when we have succeeded, after an infinite number of proceedings, in convincing the one who had the right to accept an Eastern bishop, there appeared other difficulties of the financial, political, local, or personnel order. Without our faith in God and our love for souls, we would have despaired while seeing our children drifting away more and more because our hands have been tied, when we could save them. We have undergone these misfortunes because we are Easterners united with Rome, while the Orthodox, because they are not united with Rome, are organized and expand.

This injustice must cease. The first part of this paragraph affirms that the good of souls surpasses everything. It goes without saying that this should apply to us also. In the same manner that Latin parishes and hierarchies have been installed in the East on behalf of the faithful of the Latin rite, even when their number is sometimes minimal, one should also in justice without talking about charity and the good of souls—install parishes and hierarchies in the “West” (Europe, Africa, Australia, and especially America) on behalf of the faithful of Eastern rite.

As for the method of bringing about this principal reform, we place our confidence in the common Father, the sovereign pontiff of Rome. The Council, in this beginning of paragraph 4, respectfully calls upon him in this sense, and in doing so shatters the opposition, very prejudicial to souls, of all those who still do not wish to understand.

b. Inter-ritual Cooperation: Although having a single jurisdiction in a territory may be in principle the best formula, there are great advantages and sometimes the necessity for having Churches of various rites and different traditions, existing in the same territory, entrusted to different hierarchies. The fact is that it is impossible, without very serious inconveniences both for the Church and for the faithful, to make at the present time an abstract rule for this state of things. Nevertheless, in spite of the multiplicity of jurisdictions, unity of action in the Church should be protected by inter-ritual synods. This particular form of episcopal collegiality requires that, if for the good of the faithful, several hierarchs have jurisdiction in the same territory, they should take in common, collegially, timely decisions to unify the action of the Church in their territory.

There are thus new attitudes of thought and of action that the bishops have urged, above all in the East. For all the questions that are not of a strictly ritual order or pertaining to a community, it is necessary to collaborate, to unite efforts, to decide in common, collegially, to avoid dispersion of forces: schools, press, radio-television, charitable works, pastoral care of the whole, catechism, preaching, etc.

The different Churches have until now lived as rather shut in on themselves, jealous of their prerogatives. Today, a new mentality should correspond to new times. Although the jurisdictions cannot be united, there can and should be a unification of action, to take the maximum advantage of the possibilities of episcopal collegiality, of synodalism, so dear to the East.

c. Latinization Is Forbidden: The third part of this paragraph is of the greatest importance: it closes the door once and for all to the latinization of the East. In our observations on the preceding schemas, distributed in the course of the second session of the council, we have related the history of this serious question.

With only three votes short of unanimity (in a total of 17 votes), the Eastern Commission has voted the present text, and we beseech the Fathers of the council who have at heart the future of the East to approve it as it is. In brief, the idea is as follows:

Each of the faithful must remain in his rite, that is to say, in the particular Church in which Providence has placed him: if Latin, he must remain Latin everywhere, even in the East; if Eastern, he will remain Eastern everywhere, even in the West.

This rule does not present any difficulty when it is a matter of the Catholic faithful, who can change rite only for reasons that are grave and, except in the case of marriage, with the authorization of the Holy See itself.

Does that also apply to baptized non-Catholics (Orthodox and others) who ask to enter the Catholic communion? That is the whole question. We are not unaware of the great ecumenical movement that impels a dialogue of union between one Church and another. We wish even to confirm again our desire to condemn all proselytism that would diminish one Church in order to expand another.

But, while awaiting the happy general unification of all Churches, we must state that there are inevitably in Christianity some individuals or groups not united with Rome who ask to come to union with it. In these cases, which are not abstract ones, certain applicable norms must be established provisionally—that is to say, until the general unification of Churches—to regulate these individual or partial unions.

It is not necessary that the working out of these norms offend our Orthodox brothers or be considered an indication of a proselytism of a bad kind which seeks to “nibble away” at their Church. We are here acting like the Orthodox Church itself, which, in its canonical and liturgical books, legitimately issues regulations that apply to other Christians who approach Orthodoxy.

Neither should our brethren of the Latin Church be offended if we wish to hinder, under normal circumstances, the changing of these Orthodox to the Latin rite. We respect and love our sister Church of the Latin rite, but we re-emphasize that Easterners should remain Easterners in the Catholic Church, and this for the very good of the Catholic Church.

That having been said, there are three possible attitudes in regard to this problem of the other Christians who wish to join the Catholic Church.

They say, let non-Catholics be free to choose, at the moment of their becoming Catholic, the rite which they wish, at least when they set down their joining the Latin rite as a condition sine qua non of their “conversion.” Arguments of the latinizers:

a) It is the present discipline of the Church. See canon 11 of the motu proprio “Cleri Sanctitati” of June 2, 1957.

b) Non-Catholics do not belong to any rite. Each (missionary) can admit them, in “converting” them, to his own rite, a bit like the Jews, the Muslims, or the pagans. That creates a rivalry among missionaries as to who can “convert” more.

c) Eastern non-Catholics themselves, that is to say the Orthodox, in becoming Catholic, generally refuse to remain in the Eastern rite and demand that they become Latin.

d) The Eastern Catholic clergy does not try hard enough to “convert” Orthodox. If one wishes to “convert” all the Orthodox, one must let the Latin missionaries do it.

e) Eastern Catholics are “imperfectly Catholics,” “of dubious faith.” One must avoid having Orthodox transfer to them. “Easterners will never be fully Catholic unless they become Latin.”

f) To compel the Orthodox who become Catholic to remain Eastern is to abridge human liberty, which is an element of the person and guaranteed by the “United Nations Charter.”

a) The discipline contained in canon 11 of the motu proprio “Cleri sanctitati” dates only from 1957. It was imposed on the Easterners in spite of themselves, following obscure maneuvers which history will one day reveal. The former discipline gave the Orthodox who wished to become Catholic the choice of joining the Eastern rite that they preferred, and not the Latin rite, unless they placed becoming Latin as a condition sine qua non of their joining Catholicism. In practice, the latinizers arranged to have their “converts,” each time, place this condition sine qua non. They even had forms printed in advance and distributed beforehand to be signed. What in the thought of the legislators should be an exception became the normal practice. The motu proprio of 1957 suppressed even this theoretical impediment, opening wide the door to latinization. It is this provision of the motu proprio of 1957 that the schema intends to reform.

b) It is not true that the Orthodox are not of any rite. They very definitely belong to a rite, to a Church, and in becoming Catholic they must remain faithful to their rite, as to a calling. The case of the non-baptized is completely different.

c) Orthodox who wish to become Catholic do not demand becoming Latin except when the priests counseling them put this idea into their heads. The best proof of this is that everywhere in the East, except in a region which the latinizers have chosen as their own (Palestine), Orthodox do not place this condition. If they place it in that region, it is because they have been urged to do so by a clergy that has an interest in latinizing them. If the clergy counseled them to remain Eastern, or left them free to choose, the Orthodox would not ask for more. (See our booklet Catholicism or Latinism?)

d) It is not right to accuse the Eastern Catholic clergy of not “converting” sufficiently. The Orthodox do not need to be “converted” but to be “reconciled;” one must show them the ideal of Catholic communion and invite them to restore unity, by showing them by deeds how the Holy See of Rome respects their rites, their discipline, all their spiritual heritage.

e) The latinizers do not believe in our full Catholic faith, although we have defended it, over the centuries, at the price of thousands of sacrifices. But it is certain that Catholicism does not represent for us what they would wish. We wish to be Catholic and Eastern at the same time. That is the only good formula for ecumenism.

f) There is nothing contrary to human freedom in obliging Easterners to remain in their rites. Every law, by definition, places some restraint on human freedom with the view to assuring a higher good, that of society. In this case, the higher good of the society that is the Church requires that Easterners do not become Latin, that they understand their mission and their vocation. Nevertheless, if for personal reasons one or another Easterner is absolutely determined to become Latin, we see no objection to it. That is why the text of the schema anticipates these particular cases by stating: “while retaining the right, in particular cases, of having recourse to the Apostolic See.” We prefer, in these cases, recourse to the Holy See, rather than the former condition sine qua non, which has proved to be inefficacious, as we have said. But it is not right, under the pretext of respecting each one's freedom, to utilize the wealth and personnel at the disposal of the Latin missionaries in the East to impel the Easterners towards latinization. Let us help them to regain the Catholic communion, while remaining at the same time Eastern, like their fathers, as Providence has made them.

It is said that the Orthodox should not become Latin. That is agreed. But let us at least permit them, at the time of their joining Catholicism, to choose, among the Eastern rites, whichever they prefer.

b) In addition, this is a return to the discipline existing prior to that of 1957.

c) More freedom is provided for the Orthodox desiring to be reconciled with the Roman Church.

a) This theory does not entirely avert the danger of latinization, for the latinizers can object: why do you permit an Armenian Orthodox to become Maronite, and do not permit him to become Latin? Isn’t the Latin rite a Catholic rite like the Eastern rites?

b) The discipline prior to that of 1957 represented an objectionable order of logic. It is not normal, in fact, that an Ethiopian Orthodox should become Ukrainian Catholic, or that an Armenian Orthodox should become Greek Catholic. If each one has a mission to fulfill in the Church in which Providence has set him, he should normally remain there and not leave it except for personal reasons, and under extraordinary circumstances.

c) Ecclesiastical law must not guarantee the freedom of escaping from one’s vocation, from the mission that is assigned to everyone in his Church.

In other words, when we ask that the Easterners remain in their own rite, in their own Church, it is in order that, at the moment of the so greatly desired general union of Churches they can rejoin their Orthodox brothers of the same rite, and, once again, constitute with them one single Church, united and in communion with the universal Church.

In this perspective, we believe that each Easterner must remain in his own rite.

However, among the Eastern rites there is a community of origin, of thought, and of apostolate, so that an Easterner who changes to another Eastern rite is not at all in the situation of an Easterner who changes to the Latin rite. That is why we state that if the other Eastern communities so prefer, we ourselves give our concurrence for a pure and simple return to the discipline prior to 1957, which is that Orthodox passing into the Catholic Church can ask to join the Eastern rite of their choice, while it remains forbidden to pass into the Latin rite, unless there is recourse, in particular cases, to the Holy Roman See.

On becoming Catholic, the Orthodox (and non-Catholics in general) will normally remain each in his rite. That is the rule. Exceptionally, if the good of his soul requires it, he can always request the Holy Roman See to grant permission to change to another rite. It will readily be granted, since the final and supreme goal is the good of souls. But outside of these particular cases, each one, as the Apostle says, “should remain in the vocation to which he has been called.” That is what the text of the schema has very successfully codified, and we hope that the Fathers of the council will approve it in full.

This chapter is the least pleasing of all those in the present schema. On certain points, it is even inadmissible.

1. The schema, in speaking of the rights and privileges of the Eastern patriarchs, refers to the ecumenical councils and to a “very ancient tradition in the Church.” Well, the ecumenical councils and Tradition have not spoken of the “Eastern patriarchs.” They have never considered the patriarchate as an institution of the Eastern Churches, but rather as an institution of the Church, conciliar, in which the See of Rome belongs in the first place.

Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, by asserting constantly that the sovereign pontificate must not hinder their being the regular bishops of Rome and their being personally involved in their diocese, have put an end to this false conception of a papacy detached from the episcopacy, presiding over the episcopal college without being part of it. The pope is the leading bishop of Christianity, but he has not ceased thereby to be the Bishop of Rome.

The pope, the Bishop of Rome, is also the Patriarch of the West. Patristic tradition and the ecumenical councils have always considered him as such, without ever believing that it could jeopardize his primacy. Why should the pope, who does not feel himself belittled by the fact that he is Bishop of Rome, and in this capacity equal to the bishops, feel himself belittled by the fact that he is also Patriarch of the West, equal, on this level, to the patriarchs of the East?

Any attempt to place the papacy above and outside of the episcopacy and the Church would damage the serenity and the sincerity of the dialogue with Orthodoxy.

Is not the secretary general of the council always there to solemnly inform the Fathers of the council of th