Benedictine monk, and Ignatius Press author, converts to Orthodoxy
Fr. Gabriel Bunge – Benedictine monk, well-respected patristic scholar, and author of the book Earthen Vessels: The Practice of Personal Prayer According to the Patristic Tradition – was recently received into the Orthodox Church:
[Metropolitan] Hilarion also heartily welcomed hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge), who, for more than 30 years has lived a hermetical life in the mountains of Switzerland. “You were a Catholic, but in soul you were Orthodox” – Metropolitan Hilarion said to him – “Today, before the all-night vigil, you converted to Orthodoxy, which was a natural conclusion of a long spiritual journey. ”
Metropolitan Hilarion warmly congratulated Father Gabriel on his reception into holy Orthodoxy, and gave him an icon of the Heavenly Queen, “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in memory of the fact that he was united to the Orthodox Church in this church, consecrated in honor of this icon.
As much as I admire Metropolitan Hilarion, I respectfully disagree that this was a natural conclusion to his faith journey.
I’m curious if he was “re-consecrated” a religious?
I am well aware of the disdain and lack of respect of apostolic tradition and sacraments that the Orthodox have towards Catholics, hence the inquiry.
I too would be interested to know if they re-administered any of the sacraments to Fr. Bunge. The practice is not at all uniform across the various Orthodox jurisdictions.
Let me clarify about the disdain that the Orthodox exhibit towards Catholic Sacraments…
Not all Orthodox, but many hold this belief.
Sad news. I’ll keep him in my prayers.
This priest may be shocked in the next decade
when the orthodox re-enters the fold and acknowledges
Rome.
I truly feel this will happen in my life time.
Orothodox (except perhaps the Russians)only keep to
their side because of language and ethnic loyalties.
The gap is not as wide as people think.
Tapestry said,
Sadly Tapestry, this is incorrect. You only need to look in recent history to see how poorly Pope John Paul II was received by the Greeks when he visited. They called him the anti-Christ, and asked him to leave. There is a deep-seeded distrust and antipathy towards anything Roman in the East. This is not just true of the Orthodox, but also of the Uniate Churches, who have begun an unspoken campaign to rid themselves of all things Roman, including the Rosary and other pious practices unassociated with the Latin Rites themselves. I pray union comes soon too, but we can’t fool ourselves into thinking that the East is “closer to Rome than we think.” For they are not. I would expect, and indeed it is playing at as such, that we have more hope for reuniting with faithful Anglican Christians, than we do of reuniting with the East any time soon.
Pray for the schismatic to return to the Church.
John H.,
I do not think you are being fair to Eastern Catholics (most people consider “uniates” a derogatory term and do not use it). Vatican II specifically called for Eastern Catholics to return to their rich Eastern spiritual heritage. They are not supposed to be Latins with just an Eastern Liturgy; they are to be thoroughly Eastern in every way.
I love the Rosary deeply, but it is a practice which developed in the West and there is nothing wrong with Eastern Christians not using it – they have many powerful Marian devotions of their own. We should not confuse optional devotional practices with essentials.
Let us be charitable towards our brothers and sisters in the East and not require them to become more “Catholic” (i.e. Western) than the Church herself requires.
I read Fr Bunge’s book Earthen Vessels and am not terribly surprised. He takes a number of swipes at western liturgical practices (kneeling for the Eucharistic prayers, etc.}–a kind of western self-flagellation I’ve seen in other RC writers recently.
I also pray that we all may again be one in communication with our Lord. Let’s hope we both can move toward each other within the richness of our separate but complementary traditions. As JPII prayed: Mary, “Mother of the star that never sets,” dawn of the mystical day,” “rising of the sun of glory,” shows us the Orientale Lumen. May God shorten the time and distance. May Christ, the Oriental Lumen, soon grant us to discover that we are very close. May our path lead to unity.
I am curious as to what motivated Fr. Bunge to switch. That was why I read the post. The Who, What, When, Where and How is not particularly interesting or meaningful to me without the Why?
Just as the reverence-starved Anglicans flee to Rome, the reverence-starved Romans flee to the Orthodox.
Could Metropolitan Hilarion have expressed his smugness any more loudly?
Also, I disagree with an earlier comment that we are close to union. The Orthodox are very good at pretending they don’t know the Catholics exist, and the Catholics…don’t know the Orthodox exist! (stereotypes, to be sure, but still)
It occurs to me that my first comment, about reverence, is totally unfounded, at best wrong, and at worst misleading.
It’s a shame he chose heresy and schism over the One True Church. We should all pray for his reversion to the Catholic Church. I, as a convert, literally can’t understand how you can turn you r back on the Truth. There are a fair number of problems in the Church that really trouble me but I can’t leave because I know Christ founded the Catholic Church on Peter and that’s the end of it.
I disagree with John H.’s comments about the unification of the Church. I believe that within the next few years, we will see a major shift in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. The Russian Orthodox Church would be what will begin the necessary reunification of Christianity. There will undoubtedly be some changes in the Catholic approach to the Orthodox in order for this to occur. Both Kril and Benedict seem to be on common ground.
Greg: As one who left the Catholic Church when I decided to leave Christ (I am a product of the anti-authoritarian ’60s and early ’70s), I sincerely hope you are right. May God bless the efforts of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to this end. I came back to Christ in an evangelical Protestant context, rediscovered the ancient Christian Church must later and became Eastern Orthodox, and now consider myself OrthoCatholic (or Catholodox, of you prefer). Though not yet in communion with the See of Rome, I pray for his holiness and all the Catholic faithful in my daily prayers. Please remember us in your prayers.
I share many of the same doubts about the Orthodox returning into union with Rome.
But I do remember one thing that Padre Pio twice said that the Russians will convert to Catholicism (maybe he meant reunion) before the Americans will (Catholics only make up 30% of the U.S. population.)
Bringing the Orthodox out of ossification and into Church , I can’t percieve as humanly possible no; Godly possible yes. Aside from all the little word differences there is the 800-lbs contraception-gorilla in the room; tha is, the duty for the Orthodoxi to rescind their diasastrious approval of contraception.
Contraception isn’t necessarily an issue. Patriarch Athenagoras of blessed memory sent a telegram to Paul VI in August of 1968, saying “We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world.”
The Orthodox have always been untrusting of the Roman Church because of the latent tendencies towards modernism and rationalism that arose in medieval Scholasticism and came to full fruition in the widespread apostasy of the West after Vatican II. I cannot condone Hieromonk Gabriel’s choice – my conscience has prevented me from making that step myself, much as I long to – but I can’t blame him either. May his translation spur on the Church of Rome to repentance and conversion, and for the full restoration of Latin Orthodoxy.
Also, I would like to critique the language used in some of the comments about the Orthodox “converting” to Catholicism. It would be a tragedy if the Orthodox abandoned their rich spiritual heritage for Roman Catholicism, a spirituality which is both alien to us and frankly rather stark. Rather, what the Orthodox should do is come into communion with Rome, preserving and completing rather than abandoning our Orthodoxy. We Orthodox in communion with Rome are still Orthodox, and we do not see any difference in using that term versus the term “Catholic”. You should not say “We shouldn’t force them to be more ‘Catholic’ than the Church requires”, because to be “Catholic” is not the same as to be “Roman Catholic” or Western. Rather, you should simply not require us to be Roman at all. There is nothing secret about our fight against Latinizations in the Church; it is our duty in order to restore our own Orthodoxy.
Slava Isusu Christu!
This is not just true of the Orthodox, but also of the Uniate Churches, who have begun an unspoken campaign to rid themselves of all things Roman, including the Rosary and other pious practices unassociated with the Latin Rites themselves.
Wha….? A pretty clueless statement. You might want to read some of Pope John Paul II’s “ORIENTALE LUMEN” (The Light Of The East), which states: “Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.” Unfortunately, many Western rite Catholics are pretty clueless about the Eastern Churches, despite the efforts of the Council Fathers and John Paul II. Many of John Paul II’s writings on the Eastern Churches can be found here: http://www.motherofgodchurch.org/mog/
Also, see my January 2006 article for This Rock: “The Rite Not to Be Roman”.
Chris: Your use of the word “heresy” in reference to the Orthodox seems to me to be entirely unfounded. The Greek and Russian Orthodox believe, as far as I know, exactly the same as we do, barring the obvious point of the Primacy of Peter; the difference is in discipline, not doctrine. I’m not sure calling the hieromonk in question a heretic and a schismatic is in any way helpful or accurate.
We as Catholics shouldn’t ignore Padre Pio or the message of Fatima. Apparently the Eastern Churches and Russia, in particular, play a major part in the future of our faith.
It almost seems as if God kept the Church separate to preserve some of the tradition and doctrine that has been purposely destroyed from within the Latin Church over the last generation. We should be thankful that the Orthodox Church did not so willfully embrace Modernism. Reunification probably won’t happen until Roman Catholics stop trying to annihilate themselves, stop apologizing for everything, and get about the business of evangelization.
I am surprised by some of the posts here that reflect an ignorance on the part of Latin Rite (Roman) Catholics of Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic rites and heritage, and also display an ignorance of the fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are basically in union in dogmatic issues (this was stated by Cardinal Erdo, head of the Council of the European Bishops Conferences in August when meeting with Metropolitan Filaret). We should all be praying for the healing of the Great Schism and thus the reunification of Eastern and Western Christianity.
I am an Eastern Catholic who belongs to the Chaldean Catholic Rite. I am deeply troubled about the earlier comments about many of the Eastern Catholics deviating from the Rosary and other devotions, nothing can be further from the truth. As a matter of fact many Eastern Catholics have even a much greater reverence for many devotions and sacramentals that were taught to us from our Western brothers. I am very troubled why some people always want to devide instead of uniting and building up His Holy Body. P.S. We are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Blessed Lord is the Bridegroom to one Holy Catholic Church that happens to have a few different traditions not faith. I am sorry that this monk left the Catholic(universal and true and authentic Church); he should have stayed put and help to unite our brothers and sister from the Orthodox, our sister Church.
God bless him, and God bless our Orthodox brothers and sisters. God writes straight with crooked lines. Who knows but this may draw the family together again? It is not an occasion to be sad, but to have gratitude for God and the mysterious ways He works. If this is the will of God, the only response is Amen! Father Gabriel was and remains our brother.
@ Athanasius My use of the word hereitc and schismatic are accurate. The Orthodox are in a state of schism with the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. Even though the Orthodox believe in many of the same doctrine they still refuse to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility. Even though a vast majority of Orthodox are not hereitics by definition, they still embrace a heretic belief. The monk in question is a heretic by definition and a schismatic and sadly in a state of mortal sin because of it. We should all pray for his return to Holy Mother Church. God bless.
The Orthodox do have a rosary, just not the Marian rosary so common in the West. It has, I think, 100 beads or knots (usually it is a knotted chord). They say the publican’s prayer on each knot with a slight difference “Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Chris,
There are a number of problems with your comment. First, the Catholic Church does not apply the term “heretical” to the Orthodox. The fact that they do not accept a doctrine (papal infallibility) that developed AFTER the estrangement between the two does not qualify as heresy. Pope Benedict himself, before he became pope, suggested that reunion could happen without the Orthodox changing their beliefs, so obviously he does not think they are heretics.
Secondly, unless you are the Almighty, you cannot say that Fr. Bunge is in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin requires three conditions to be mortal (grave matter, full reflection and full consent of the will), and considering two of those conditions are interior, only God can judge whether another person is in mortal sin or not.
Heresy: “Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy.”
“Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, the deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin.”
“a baptized member of the Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth”
These are all from the Catholic encyclopedia. Like I said Mr. Sammons, a vast majority of Orthodox are NOT heretics because by definition they were never members of the Catholic Church and therefore are unable to reject divine truths that they have never held. This monk IS a heretic because he did profess to believe all that the Holy Catholic Church proclaims to be revealed by God and now rejects Catholic doctrine, not discipline as Athanasius claimed. Of course the Holy Father would not call them heretics because most Orthodox are not heretics.
While I will never claim to be the Most High, it is absurd to claim that we can’t objectively observe that someone who by the Church’s own definition, has committed a grave sin. If you follow that logic, we could never look at a “catholic” politicians voting record and conclude that they oppose the Church in matters of grave sin, like abortion, etc. When are we going to stop being politically correct and call sin and heresy for what it is. What this monk has embraced is heresy and schism. We should pray for him. That is without question, but that does not mean that we can’t see the grave sin he has committed. I am NOT judging the state of his soul but I can see that this is what the Church says are the consequences of his choices. God bless.
Eric S. & Carl O.
I respect you both immensely, and I accept your critiques of my statement, but I fail to see your logic. Nowhere did claim to say that the East should not seek to enrich their Eastern heritage. I fully agree. And Carl, I have read Orientale Lumen. I agree with it. We should seek to enrich ourselves with the traditions of the East. As such, I have been a member of an Eastern Byzantine Parish for 5 years now. My point is this. Eastern Catholics are being systematically instructed to reject ALL things Roman. This includes what they consider “Roman” theology (terms defined and used by Trent) and “Roman” practices such as the Rosary and Eucharistic Adoration. I’m not saying the East shouldn’t be Eastern. I’m not calling for a mixing of Rites. I am saying, whether you want to admit it or not, Eastern Catholics are being taught to disavow themselves not only of Roman customs, but anything that hints of Roman Catholicism, including theology. Before you critique me further, I recommend that you contact a few of the younger Byzantine priests and ask them when Consecration occurs in the Liturgy. Ask them who ministers the Sacrament of Matrimony. Ask them what they believe about Purgatory. You might be surprised by what you hear.
And Eric, while the Rosary was given in the West, it is NOT Western. Our Lady gave that devotion to the entire Church. It belongs to the whole Church, not half of it.
While I certainly do not condone his decision, I cannot but assume that it was done after much spiritual searching and discernment. And considering the atrocious state of Latin Catholicism in Europe, is it any wonder he recognized a more faithful representation of Catholicism in many respects in the Orthodox churches?
For anyone who has developed a love for Orthodoxy in all of its many, glorious virtues (which can seem at times, if we allow it, to overshadow its many and profound eccesial problems and weaknesses) the separation at Communion is an exquisite pain, meant I believe to inspire us to a more profound resolve to work for unity.
For Eastern Catholics, this pain is even more acute since we are the children of a Great Ecclesial Divorce. Our body may belong to Rome and the Holy Father, but our heart is with our Mother Orthodox Churches. Nothing but grace and faith can keep us where we are.
Personally, I will only say that were it not for my sincere belief in the divine institution of the Petrine ministry, the Pope’s vital and prophetic teaching ministry in the area of faith and morals and the historic service of the Apostolic See in the communion of Churches, I should have been where he is now some 20 years ago.
The shame of it all is that such moves are moments which inspire an unhealthy, unfounded triumphalism on both sides. For some of my triumphalistic Latin brethren, perhaps such events should inspire more humility and self-examination as to why this monk and patristic scholar should feel it necessary to leave the communion of our Church for Orthodoxy? Instead of engaging in the bashing of our clergy over such non-starter polemical issues as the moment of eucharistic consecration and purgatory, why not ask what it is about the Catholic Church that potentially has caused a priest, scholar and monk to leave in the sunset years of his life?
Whatever has transpired as a matter of law does not completely define the nature of the event, although it cannot be simply ignored or cast aside as irrelevant. And while I pray that Father Gabriel does one day return to our communion, I certainly wish him well.
Fr. Deacon Daniel,
Please read this with charity in mind, for that is the spirit I pray I am writing this in. You say,
Are you claiming this statement of me? I hope not. I wasn’t bashing anyone, but you make my point for me. What you consider “polemical” is a matter of doctrine, not argumentation. What we believe about Purgatory, and the moment of Consecration is important. It is not superfluous.
And of course I pray that Fr. Gabriel returns to Communion. You ask a good question when you say, “why not ask what it is about the Catholic Church that potentially has caused a priest, scholar and monk to leave in the sunset years of his life?” To me this is like asking, “why not ask what it is about one’s spouse that has caused him to leave her?” It is a sad state of affairs and we need this self examination as you suggest. Still, knowing that we are members of the One True Church is not “triumphalistic.” He has left this communion and he needs our prayers. We too need to pray that we are cleansed of any evils that may have led to Fr. Gabriel’s departure.
Thank you for your ministry Fr. You will be in my prayers as I am sure I am in yours.
God bless
John,
Thank you for your post.
I stand by my statement that the issues you broach (purgatory and moment of consecration) are old and tired East-West polemical issues which are largely irrelevant today.
That said, the doctrines of the Church are certainly NOT irrelevant. Purgatory and Consecration are not at issue as part of the teaching patrimony of the Church per se. But each Church has a right to express its theology according to its own genius and tradition. As St. Maximos the Confessor wrote, “I believe in the faith of the Latins but use the language of the Greeks.” (paraphrase) The East certainly never developed the largely speculative piety and theology of the Latin West as it pertains to the “Final Theosis” after death, but that does not mean that we reject this dogma as heretical or that it does not have any bearing on our faith or praxis as Eastern Catholics.
Nor was the East in general inclined to overly define what is in essence a great kairotic mystery of the Consecration. That is not to say that there is not evidence which points to a shared tradition of the vital importance of the Words of Institution, as is evidenced by the CCC’s use of the quote by St. John Chrysostom on this matter. The more explicit epiclesis was something of a later development in the traditions of the Anaphora, and I am personally more inclined to the earlier Basilian formula “show forth” (or “make manifest”). For us it is enough to say that the Anaphora is sacrificial and consecratory and contains both the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis. Would the Words of Institution be enough for “validity” (not really a category within our theological discourse)? Sure…but so what? Why reduce the Liturgy to certain critical “moments” as though validity was the overarching concern beyond that of the specialized (mostly, but not exclusively, Western) theological manuals. In the Liturgy are we not talking about the elevation of chronos (earthly time) into kairos (eternal time)…our entrance and participation in the Kingdom of God? By attempting to penetrate the veil of the Mystery of what is taking place, it is like trying to define a marriage and the love making between a husband and wife only in cold, forensic terms. An exaggerated focus on the “Moment of Consecration,” while common to the piety of certain circles, does not help a Christian enter into the true spirit of worship in the liturgy.
Now that said, unfortunately some Eastern Catholic priests in their laudable effort to return to our traditions as instructed by the Council Fathers of Vatican II have adopted in an unquestioning manner the polemical posturing of certain Orthodox sources, assigning a certain magisterial weight to them when in fact no one speaks magisterially for Orthodoxy as a whole (nor can the East in general be said to be a “whole”…it is far more diverse) and certain positions in opposition to later developments in the West are really at best only themselves theological opinions. This situation is not helped by the fact that certain visiting Latins seem to feel the need to press the issue as a matter of the utmost importance to ecclesial loyalty, although I will grant that I have known some Eastern clergy who bring up these issues on their own simply to tweak noses and provoke reactions, albeit to help serve a paradigmatic shift in the Western mind of what it means to be Catholic. We are not simply Roman Catholics in Byzantine dress.
But both approaches assume that truth and unity are served in any way by polemics. If history is any teacher in this regard, polemics, triumphalism and a sectarian spirit serve only error, exaggeration and disunity, which is far removed from the Spirit of Christ.
As to Latin devotional practices and disciplines, let me say only this: An Eastern Catholic should be as tenacious in his communion with the Church of Rome as he is ardent in his resistance to all forms of Latin encroachment in the life of his Church.
As Eastern Catholics, we do not need to embrace Western developments to be more “Catholic.” This assumes first of all the Latin sectarian view that elevates all particularisms within its own ecclesial life to the level of universalisms, which any Catholic-minded Latin should reject out of hand. Such a movement is underway in the issue of the canonical mandate of priestly celibacy which some are falsely attempting to elevate to the level of doctrine. The same can be said for the Rosary and Eucharistic Exposition (we certainly do adore Christ in the Eucharist, but do not engage in the practice of “Exposition”.) These developments were organic to the Latin tradition and, while they should be understood according to their historical development, are worthily practiced by our brothers and sisters in the West but should not in any way be imposed upon the Catholic East. We have our own worthy and organic Eastern traditions of prayer, which are perfectly and fully Catholic, which should be cultivated among our faithful in the Church. (Private devotions and practices are another matter, and I believe in great liberty of spirit in this regard.)
Finally, far be it from me to discourage anyone who is proud to be Catholic. I count myself among that happy group. Nor do I believe that those who are critical of others are intrinsically “triumphalistic.” I just think that we need to balance any critique with a healthy dose of humility and self-examination. I think we need to see beyond the “canonical” implications of this event where one side is “losing” and the other side is “gaining.” It is itself a “mirror” to our own mutual brokeness that any movement is seen as necessary, which is hardly grounds for triumph.
Thank you for your kind prayers.
In ICXC,
FrDD
Thank You Fr. Deacon Daniel,
That was a great explanation, and I’m glad to hear you say it. I could not agree more with almost all of what you said. The quote given by St. Maximos the Confessor is certainly one I hold dear to my heart.
This is a little off topic but I wanted to mention one more thing about the moment of Consecration. You say, “Why reduce the Liturgy to certain critical “moments” as though validity was the overarching concern..?” I would answer, it is not to “reduce the Liturgy” to these moments. On the contrary, it is to point out the supreme moment in the Liturgy, the moment in which we know and can no begin to worship Jesus Christ in the form of the Eucharist. I am NOT arguing that we reduce Mass to the Words of Institution, God forbid that. I am saying that knowing when Consecration happens does help us to enter into the mystery in a deeper way. In the Byzantine Liturgy, I begin to worship God in the Eucharist in that moment. And so one of two things is happening. Either I am ignorantly defying the 1st Commandment, or I am knowledgeably fulfilling it. This is why the moment of Consecration is not an old and tired argumentative issue. It has a real bearing on our souls.
Thank you for your prayers.
God bless.
John,
The recent acknowledgement by Rome of the “validity” of one of the most ancient anaphoras of the Church, the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is instructive on the consecratory nature of the Anaphora, as is Father Robert Taft’s commentary.
It is especially interesting to note that it seems the earliest anaphoras seemed to have no Words of Institution.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2959
Here is a passage from the Vatican document:
“the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
Here is the text for the Liturgy:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061206003428/http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html
Spiritual food for thought…
All I can say is three cheers for Imad Thomas Jonna’s comments -it is very apt what he stated “I am very troubled why some people always want to devide instead of uniting and building up His Holy Body.”
Having read John H. and Fr. Deacon Daniel’s latest comments (though not the links, yet), I wonder how Latin West and (variously non-Latin) East address what I take it are universally considered real dangers of artolatry?
D,
I’m not sure what “real dangers of artology” exist that you perceive.
In all my years as a Catholic, I have yet to run across someone who worships or adores simply a piece of bread in either the East or the West.
Christ’s Body and Blood in the Sacramental Mystery of the Eucharist, however, is another matter that is altogether worthy of adoration, devotion and honor.
God bless,
FrDD
Tito,
To answer your question regarding Fr. Bunge’s potential “re-consecration” I received this answer from a knowledgeable Orthodox believer:
“I have not heard the details of this particular event. That said the customary practice of the Russian Church as laid down in the Great Book of Needs is that Roman Catholics are received by Holy Confession and a formal Profession of Faith including explicit renunciation of whatever heresies or schisms to which the convert was previously attached. This is followed by Holy Chrismation and completed by reception of Holy Communion. In the case of clergy converting the rule is that once Chrismated they are normally vested, as the Mystery of Chrismation makes whole their Holy Orders in the same way it does their Baptism.”
Such practces are not consistent across the Orthodox spectrum. I have heard of convert clergy being “rebaptized” and later “reordained” (I spoke once with a former TOR priest who was at that time had become married and was an Orthodox deacon in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese.)
I have also heard of convert clergy making a simple profession of faith, although that is rarely done. Being “re-Chrismated” is common, though…
The Catholic Church is far more generous in its application of oikonomia than the Orthodox in this regard.
The Gospel of Matthew: Commentary, Notes and Study Questions (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible)…
I threw a trackback up on my site for this as its great! Thanks…
Trackback by How to Study Hard — September 11, 2010 @ 11:57 pmDear Fr. Deacon Daniel,
Belated thanks for your response! If you should happen to revisit these comments, my point of departure was what John H. said, “I am saying that knowing when Consecration happens does help us to enter into the mystery in a deeper way. In the Byzantine Liturgy, I begin to worship God in the Eucharist in that moment. And so one of two things is happening. Either I am ignorantly defying the 1st Commandment, or I am knowledgeably fulfilling it.” “Ignorantly defying the 1st Commandment” would, in this case, in fact be “ignorantly”(or perhaps ‘uncertainly’?) committing artolatry.
Perhaps ignorance or uncertainty are mitigating, somehow, but how, in the face of such dangers, does one theologically and practically aspire mercifully and ‘philanthropically’ to prevent people ending up in even such an artolatry?
With thanks for any light you (or anyone else) can shed,
D
[...] Benedictine monk, and Ignatius Press author, converts to Orthodoxy (ericsammons.com) [...]
Pingback by Orthodoxy: Centennial Edition | Shout Joyfully — September 15, 2010 @ 5:22 am“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS
Here is a worthy interpretation of the Church’s enduring patristic and magisterial principle of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” from the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II:
“For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way…. The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).
It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church. The universal salvific will is linked to the one mediation of Christ. “God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. And the truth is this: God is one. One also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:3-6). Peter proclaimed this when he said: “There is no salvation in anyone else” and called Jesus the “cornerstone” (Acts 4:11-12), emphasizing Christ’s necessary role at the basis of the Church.
This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man.
Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus”–”outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.
In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–”without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html
As to the eternal destiny of Father Gabriel Bunge, OSB, we must leave all particular judgments to God alone and hope for the salvation of all, including our own unworthy selves. No Pope, past, present or future, can close the gates of heaven or declare or relegate particular souls into eternal fire.
Let’s just say, as Pope John Paul II seemed to intimate, that it is as much above his paygrade as our own…
I have to say, from an outsider’s point of view, this whole discussion between the Orthodox and Western Catholics is exactly what St. Paul had in mind when instructing folks to not argue over words because it looks extremely foolish to the rest of the world when you all bicker & banter over definitions and such.
It’s clear that what’s really at the root of the division is the same old stuff as anywhere: don’t step on my turf.
It’s laughable really from the outside looking in.
Well, God’s ways are truly wonderful beyond our human
understanding. Who knows? The “defection” of this OSB monk (with due respect to him) may pave the way for the unity of Western Catholics and Eastern Catholics (Orthodox). Nothing is impossible… Let us pray for him.
John,
Then again, you may only be treating as laughable those things you fail to understand because of your position on the sidelines. It does not make you more objective just because you claim to have no skin in the game.
Like the offspring of a Great Divorce, Orthodox and Catholic Christians have all inherited a history of division we did not have a hand in creating for ourselves. Our labor in truth and charity must always be to try to reconcile these worlds in our hearts and minds as best we can. If there are points of differences, disagreement even disputes, the real labor of love – for those of us who take seriously Christ’s call to unity – is often difficult, mud-splashed with history and the fruit of grace, blood, sweat and tears.
If you think the book of Acts and the history of the Early Church was peaches and cream, hugs and unity, you know neither the Scriptures nor history.
So if you want to laugh on the sidelines, by all means go ahead and laugh. But at least it can be said that those of us who struggle care enough about the truth not to be content to simply sit on the bench and watch.
[...] Benedictine monk, and Ignatius Press author, converts to Orthodoxy (ericsammons.com) VN:F [1.9.6_1107]please wait…Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.9.6_1107]Rating: 0 (from 0 votes) SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "American Orthodoxy’s Academic Marginalization", url: "http://palamas.info/?p=5647" }); Share and Enjoy: [...]
Pingback by American Orthodoxy's Academic Marginalization | Koinonia — November 4, 2010 @ 10:47 amIt is still not clear WHY this Eastern Catholic theologian converted to Orthodoxy.
Why?