Does "Uniatism" compromise the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church?

[Livenotonevil]

So, as of recently, I have of course been studying the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian positions and opinions regarding the Orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon.

However, after further studying the liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox, as well as reflecting upon both some debates regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches and my own studies of the Western Rite Orthodox Churches - both Eastern today and, historically, Oriental - have really made me ask the thoughts specifically in regards to the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you think that with the adaptation of liturgies and spiritualities into the Roman Catholic Church, having been separated for hundreds of years, that there is a risk of corruption of Roman Catholic "integrity"?

What ends up happening - it seems to me - is that, in a very abrupt manner, certain changes are made to the liturgies or the words or the devotions of that particular Rite, and that's it - but the question is, can something that has organically developed on its own be abruptly changed with no consequences?

One needs to see how the discipleship of Miaphysitism has so influenced the liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox; in both the Armenian and the Coptic liturgies, during the "Liturgy of the Faithful", a confession of Miaphysitism is made by the faithful.

And this is the main liturgy; in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, both traditions have accepted ideas foreign to Roman Catholicism that influence their prayer life throughout. I have an Old Believer's prayer book (a Russian Orthodox prayer book whose source dates from the 1500s), and the prayer of the "Canon to Jesus", if I remember correctly, an explicit mention of the Aerial Toll houses is made - an idea that is unknown to Roman Catholicism, but is "an" Orthodox interpretation of what happens after death in regards to the demons trying to drag your soul to hell.

So, although one can try to "purge" the liturgical life of the Uniates from what is seen as "impure" from a Roman perspective, I seriously question not only the effectiveness of one doing so, but in addition to being extremely risky, it also has the risk of completely ruining the integrity of the Rite itself.

And this leads back to the question of "compromising" the "integrity" of the Roman Catholic Church.

When analyzing the spiritual life of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, there is quite a massive difference from just a brief glance at both, in regards to the experiencing God, visions of the Saints, the usage of the imagination, the emphases of both (e.g., Roman Catholicism emphasizes the pain and Crucifixion of Christ, while Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes the Resurrection / Transfiguration), etc., such that, the question becomes - when does it become unacceptable for a Roman Catholic point of view?

For example, Hesychasm for Byzantine Catholics have become popular, a spirituality embraced by St. Gregory Palamas, but whom the disciples of St. Thomas Aquinas hated, and many traditional Roman Catholics see as "pagan" in origin, the old Protestant accusation.

Also, during the Brest Reunion, I remember that the specifics of Purgatory weren't touched upon, meaning that how Purgatory is understood is open to debate, as long as the "basics" were agreed upon.

When is it unacceptable?

[Michael Wilson]

Those questions are 'above our paygrade'; the Churchmen that have managed to re-unite formerly schismatic groups, usually just required a profession of faith, and a renouncement of the errors that led the group into schism.

[Kreuzritter]

Conflicts between Thomists and Palamites concern points of speculative theology steeped in Greek philosophical paradigms that do not and cannot constitute dogma.

The methods of Hesychasm may have some "pagan" roots, but so what? So does Thomism. The fundamental universal distinction between"paganism" and the religion revealed to the ancient Israelites was in the objects of the worship of latria, namely the named divinity YHWH, son of El Elyon, not in the methods or even in the metaphysics.

[John Lamb]

Such differences seem exaggerated for the sake of manufacturing controversy. Latin rite emphasises the crucifixion and the Byzantine rite emphasises the resurrection? What!? Who cares? Go from parish to parish, or from the writings of one saint to another, and you will find different emphases. Why make a controversy over what it is mostly a matter of taste? You say "the disciples of St. Thomas" were critical of hesychasm, but those few controversialists hardly constitute the entire Thomistic school down the ages. A lot of Roman Catholic spiritual writers recommend a hesychastic approach (e.g. St. John of the Cross).

One of the silly things I hear Eastern Orthodox say about Catholic spirituality is that we tend to over-employ the imagination, which the Eastern monks caution against because it can lead to delusion. But what they don't take stock of is, (1) Eastern monks tend to be hermits, and delusions are much easier to fall into in a hermitic life, so naturally it is necessary for them to be more cautious in using the imagination, (2) all the Catholic spiritual writers agree that as the soul progresses in the spiritual life, the imagination / thoughts are used less and less, and prayer becomes more and more simple tending towards a state of stillness / recollection, (3) Catholic spiritual writers also caution against delusion, the seeking of corporal visions, and an over-active imagination.
The active use of the imagination is recommended to beginners in order to incite them to piety, e.g. to imagine Our Lord on the cross, or Our Lady in her Assumption. A hermit monk, however, as soon as he begins in his profession, is probably already at a stage spiritually where the active use of the imagination is becoming less necessary, because he has likely already reached a certain level of piety and detachment from the world before he even begins to seriously consider that form of life. But to say that such use of the imagination is necessarily evil, even for beginners, seems ridiculous to me. If the images were so destructive of the spiritual life, we would not have icons / religious art.

The Catholic Church is not compromised by tolerating a plurality of liturgical, spiritual, artistic, etc., traditions, anymore than it is compromised by there being Franciscans on the one hand, and Dominicans on the other. The Eastern rites should maintain the integrity of their traditions as much as possible. The only point where there can be any conflict is over settled doctrine; on doubtful points of theology the Church is tolerant.

Studying these things is not the way to find the apostolic Church or to arrive at true faith. That only requires submission to God's will and the Church's authority. There is only one Church on this earth with any credible claim to teach with authority . . .

[Maximilian]

Such differences seem exaggerated for the sake of manufacturing controversy.

Yes. But equally on both sides.

[Kreuzritter]

Ironically John f the Cross issued criticisms in a similar vein regarding mystical experiences that involve the senses, particularly visions if I'm not mistaken.

Two lungs of the Church. They can only enrich each other and provide balance where each tends to extremes.

Judging by the average "Thomists" , St. Thomas wasn't one but a mystic who wasn't limited to applying his intellect to rationalising theology and eventually wanted his philosophical writings consigned to the flames for reasons that we will never know. One fundamental problem with these Western philosophers, whose rationalistic and anti-mystical tendencies have become greater over time, is that they lack experience of other levels of reality and the very phenomena in which the Eastern thinkers are steeped. One could similarly compare other "secular" philosophers with the Neoplatonists, who were active mystics and theurgists, and see the void-like gaps in the former.

[John Lamb]

Ironically John f the Cross issued criticisms in a similar vein regarding mystical experiences that involve the senses, particularly visions if I'm not mistaken.

He was very strict on this point. He said that if presented with such things we should make every effort to ignore and forget them.
St. John of the Cross is perhaps the greatest blend of mysticism and systematic reasoning. He frequently makes use of scholastic terms.