The Concept of “Pseudomorphosis” in the Book by G. V. Florovsky “Ways of Russian Theology”

This essay provides an overview of Western theological engagements with Islam between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Three main features are highlighted: first, internal divisions within Christianity supported the use of Islam as a pretext for debates among Catholics, Protestants, and other Christian groups; second, the development of extra–European missions supported attempts to find a common ground between Christianity and Islam, developing forms of accommodation; third, the growth of Arabic and Islamic studies in Europe and the invention of the printing press facilitated the circulation of more precise information and substantial progress in the knowledge of Islam. Without completely detaching from the Christian medieval tradition, these new approaches, which culminated in works by Ludovico Marracci and George Sale, opened the door to the possibility for a reconsideration of Islam, a process that was actually accomplished in Western theologies only during the twentieth century.

Can Palamism Be Accommodated to the Western Theological Tradition? A Few Considerations on “The Real Problem” Antoine Lévy O.P. SCHOLARSHIP ON Gregory Palamas and Palamism often gives the impression that dismissing Western theology is the price that has to be paid in order to acknowledge the genius of the Orthodox tradition. One should therefore wholeheartedly welcome a book that has the explicit intention of bringing the teachings of Palamas one step closer to the Western Christian universe. From this point of view, one must salute Norman Russell’s approach in Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age.1 As the author goes in search of a “real Palamas” hidden behind denominational controversies, he scrutinizes a considerable amount of scholarship for the benefit of nonspecialists. Readers will find an abundance—sometimes an overabundance—of observations related to known but also to much less well-researched elements of historiography on Palamas and Palamism. The courage of an attempt at such a vast synthesis certainly deserves commendation. This does not mean that the results of this attempt are immune to criticism. As I set forth my reservations in the pages that follow, my hope is that this critical analysis of Russell’s book will eventually shed some more light on an ancient but still unsolved theological issue. [End Page 625] The argument of Russell’s book could be roughly summarized as follows: modern historiography on Palamism has presented Palamas’s doctrine as incompatible with Western—mostly Catholic—theological tradition on biased ecclesiological grounds; actually, when examined in itself, this doctrine has much to offer that could be integrated into the Western theological tradition and enrich it. In the first part of the book, “The Historical Reception of Palamite Theology,” Russell recounts— or “deconstructs,” as it is no longer fashionable to say—the steps that have given the Palamite controversy its current configuration. In the second part of the book, “Raising the Larger Questions,” the author delves into the texts of Palamas himself, explaining them in the light of the controversies of the time, as he goes in search of a “real Palamas” who would be more acceptable to the Western theological tradition. Russell’s narrative of Palamas’s Rezeptionsgeschichte consists of three moments. (1) After the definitive vindication of Palamas’s theology in Byzantium (Tomos of 1368), a long period of almost complete silence ensued, neither Orthodox nor Catholic theologians showing themselves keen on reading his works and discussing their content. (2) The “problem” was revived by Martin Jugie in his articles on Palamas and Palamism for the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, but it was instrumentalized because of considerations pertaining to Church politics. Jugie’s desire to see the “Greeks” come back into the Catholic fold “made” Palamism into a theology incompatible with the Western tradition, identified with the vessel of Truth. On the opposite side, Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff built on Jugie’s conclusions, arguing that this incompatibility proved the superiority of the Orthodox tradition over the Catholic one, and justified the rejection of Catholic efforts to assimilate “Oriental Christianity.” (3) More contemporary theologians and scholars on both sides seem to oscillate between two mutually exclusive positions: a rediscovery of the dimensions of Palamas’s theology that could eventually be received in the West, and a more radical interpretation of this teaching that continues to pit the Latin West and the Byzantine East against each other. [End Page 626] Let us review Russell’s narrative step by step. I. The Long Historical “Silence” Russell takes the silence into which the discussions around the teaching of Palamas fell as a fact that does not require special explanation.2 Is it not natural that one would discuss a dogma before it is officially proclaimed rather than after? For instance, after the homousios-theology got the upper hand over Arianism at the end of the fourth century, the thrust of theological discussions shifted to Mariology and Christology in the fifth and sixth centuries. But is the silence that Russell has in mind this kind of silence, namely, the silence that follows a dogmatic victory? Russell dedicates much attention...

Averroes (1126 - 1198) is one of the greatest scholars in the history of Muslim thought. Lots of research has been carried out about his thoughts on theology and politics. It is said that he can bridge the dialogue between Muslim and the western civilization. His study and influence on Western political thought has been examined in this article. Averroes was in favor of religion’s role in politics. He was very fond of Rashidon Caliphate. He has given a list of required attributes of a ruler for good governance. He seems to be interested in democratic values. He talked about rights, social justice and equality in society. He was of the opinion that politics and faith have links. He did not favor sectarianism. He argued his comment through the interpretations of the Divine attributes, God Almighty’s knowledge, the hereafter life, in his theological thoughts. This article comes up with a comparison between Him and western theological and political thoughts. The Western theology is weak and hence it faced the challenge of atheism, while the Muslim scholarship especially Averroes has guided the West in the dark age and helped it in making new thoughts. This research suggests the theological and political thoughts of averroes vital for the today’s Muslim society.

The School of Theology in the University of Eastern Finland consists of two study programs: Western Theology and Orthodox Theology. Its predecessor was the Faculty of Theology in the University of Joensuu (2002-2009). Before the establishment of the faculty, the university provided education in theology from the year 1988. The development of the theological collection of the university library is intertwined with the history of the School of Theology. When the education of Orthodox priests in Finland was transferred from Kuopio Orthodox Seminary to the University of Joensuu in 1988, also the Seminary Library collection was merged into the University Library. Therefore, the theological collection contained predominantly Orthodox material until the year 1997, when the university started to provide education also in Western theology. Since that time, the development of the theological collection has implied maintaining the balance between Western and Orthodox material. I will describe the challenges of maintaining and evaluating the collection of Orthodox theology in our library. Since the classification system we have used does not make a difference between Western and Orthodox theology, we have invented a special UEF code used in cataloging. This enables distinction between Western and Orthodox material when I evaluate our collection.

One of the most effective ways to discover (or rediscover) truth is through dialogue. I believe that both Orthodox and Evangelicals have something important to offer for a reconstruction of a holistic biblical concept of atonement. Orthodox theology has an important perspective to offer, which is not well-known in Western theology—an ontological perspective on atonement. However, Orthodox theologians have lacked assertiveness, clarity, and comprehensiveness in their presentation of this view, especially in connection with biblical texts. In Protestant theology, we can find many critiques of inadequate existing views as well as in-depth biblical study of separate atonement ideas, but what is lacking is a holistic concept of atonement that would be able to harmoniously integrate various biblical atonement metaphors and also faithfully reflect the early patristic view. I believe that an ontological perspective on atonement combined with the integration of key biblical atonement ideas and metaphors can bring us back to the heart of the apostolic and early church gospel message. Several issues have hindered accomplishing such a project in the past. I will point to these problems and show some possible solutions. Finally, I will present the ontological perspective and show how it can integrate various biblical atonement metaphors.

The New Evangelization and Canon Law Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke (bio) Introduction First of all, I wish to thank His Grace, Archbishop John J. Myers, for the invitation to give one of the Gerety Lectures during the year of celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Foundation of Immaculate Conception Seminary of the Archdiocese of Newark. I also thank Monsignor Robert F. Coleman, Rector of the Seminary, with whom I was privileged to share some years of the study of Canon Law in the 1980s, for his assistance in making the arrangements for my presentation and for the warm hospitality of the Seminary. While I am honored to make some modest contribution to the work of the Archbishop Gerety Fund for Ecclesiastical History, I am particularly pleased that my contribution is part of the celebration of the sesquicentennial of Immaculate Conception Seminary. The seminary is the heart of a diocese. As Our Lord Himself made clear, from the very beginning of His public ministry, by His call of the Apostles, the life of the Church depends upon the service of worthy shepherds who act in the person of Our Lord, Head and Shepherd of the flock, in every time and place. The Bishop who gives his first and best attention to the seminary will thereby give a true shepherd's care to all the faithful entrusted to him by Our Lord. My presence with you, this evening, is meant, in a particular way, to express heartfelt [End Page 4] congratulations to the Archdiocese of Newark, whose faithful have so steadfastly and generously supported the work of the Archdiocesan seminary, and to underline the fundamental importance of the continued support of Immaculate Conception Seminary for the life of the Church in the Archdiocese, now and in the future. My presentation responds to the work of the Archbishop Gerety Fund for Ecclesiastical History by addressing the present situation of the Church in a totally secularized culture and the response of the Church to the culture of our time. The response is a new evangelization. After treating the question of the new evangelization, in some depth, especially in the teaching of the Venerable, soon to be Blessed, Pope John Paul II, and of the Servant of God Pope Paul VI and of Pope Benedict XVI, I will give particular attention to the state of the Church's canonical discipline and its irreplaceable role in the work of the new evangelization. While the presentation addresses a number of particular phenomena in the recent history of the Church, it seeks to interpret those phenomena within the perspective of the organic life of the Church, handed down to us, in an unbroken line, from Our Lord's consecration and commissioning of Saint Peter and, with him, of the College of the Apostles. While the question which I am addressing pertains to the life of the universal Church, I trust that its application to the life of the Church in the United States of America will be sufficiently evident, so that I serve faithfully the purpose of the Archbishop Gerety Fund for Ecclesiastical History. The Call to the New Evangelization in the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II The pontificate of Pope John Paul II may be rightly described as a tireless call to recognize the Church's challenge to be faithful to Her divinely-given mission in a totally secularized society and to respond to the challenge by means of a new evangelization. A new evangelization is teaching the faith through preaching, catechesis and all forms of Catholic education; celebrating the faith in the Sacraments and in their extension through prayer and devotion, and living the faith through the practice of the virtues, all as if for the first time, that is, with the engagement and energy of the first disciples and of the first missionaries to our native place. In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, "On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the [End Page 5] World," the Venerable Pope John Paul II described the contemporary situation of the Church in the world with these words: Whole countries and nations where religion and the...

This article examines how Western theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries perceived Jews and Judaism compared to their predecessors. It considers how Judaism was portrayed by Christian Hebraism during the period, before discussing Western theological references to Jews under the doctrine of scripture, controversial theology (including theological books written for missionary outreach to Jews), and eschatology. It also explores the challenges faced by theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with respect to writing anti-Jewish polemics, with particular emphasis on how their works were influenced by the need to establish clear theological boundaries between themselves and Judaism, as well as other confessional churches, schismatics, anti-Trinitarians, and atheists. It comments on the thinking by most confessional theologians that a mass conversion of the Jews in the future would be one of the signs of the impending Last Judgment.

Reviewed by: In Counterpoint: Diaspora, Postcoloniality, and Sacramental Theology by Kristine Suna-Koro Chris Ángel In Counterpoint: Diaspora, Postcoloniality, and Sacramental Theology. By Kristine Suna-Koro. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2017. 308 pp. The author is a Latvian-American theologian and a Lutheran pastor, currently teaching at Xavier University Cincinnati. In this work, she is among the first to bring into conversation the sprawling worlds of postcolonial thought and sacramental theology. To this conversation she brings dozens of other contemporary voices, many female, many from Asia. Among the strongest influences on her work are Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Mayra Rivera, and Kevin Irwin. Suna-Koro argues that traditional Western theology, including sacramental theology, is tainted (though not irretrievably) by its association with the violence perpetrated under the imperialism of centuries past. This has affected not only how Christians view sacraments, but also how they view salvation and the relationship of God to humanity. Thus, the Western theological tradition needs to be critically re-examined, which she calls a ressourcement (10). She perceives multiple crises in the church and in the world: a “sacramental crisis” of growing disenchantment with ecclesial rituals, the planetary ecological crisis, and the crisis of widespread injustice. Sacramental theology and postcolonial thought should address these crises; Suna-Koro argues that, done responsibly, each includes an ethical dimension as well as an ecological dimension. She proposes a sacramental worldview which is not limited to denominational or ritual boundaries. To this end, she proposes creation as an ursakrament. Further, she is especially interested in non- dominative relationships, particularly through the metaphors of hybridity, Third Space (a concept from Homi Bhabha), and counterpoint (from music). These metaphors propose relationships that respect the integrity of each participant, that allow for ambiguity, and that are responsive and reciprocal. For example, in her chapter on the Lord’s Supper, she aims to explore how the Lord’s Supper can “model a synergistic imaginary of sacramental power, empowerment, and agency for liberative change—a certain kind of ‘transubstantiation’ ” (257). She draws [End Page 473] on Luther’s writings and the Formula of Concord, specifically the idea of unio sacramentalis, the sacramental union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine, which she sees as representing a hybrid relationality. Acknowledging the historical baggage of “tran-substantiation,” she wants to reclaim the term to discuss change, “an emancipatory matter in postcolonial perspectives” (266). Suna-Koro makes important contributions with this challenging work. She is an extremely careful writer, with precise diction and expansive citations. Her exploration of the complicated definitions of post-coloniality and related terms is especially helpful. Still, there are few concrete examples in her work, save a few details from her experience of the diasporic Latvian Lutheran church. The complexity of her thought makes this a difficult work to approach, perhaps best for specialists or advanced graduate students. Chris Ángel University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana. Copyright © 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc

The article studies the views of representatives of the Renovated schism on the place of women in the Church and attempts to implement the idea of women’s church ministry in the period of the 1920s – early 1930s. The research material consists of published and unpublished archival sources, as well as publications in renovation periodicals devoted to this topic. Using historical and chronological, historical and genetic methods and also the method of problem analysis, the author examines the development of the idea of women’s ministry in various Christian confessions and denominations, and also compares the positions of Western theology and the Orthodox Church on the issue under study. The study revealed the prerequisites for renovated views on “women’s issue,” including the church problems of the Synodal period, as well as the influence of Soviet ideological guidelines. The scientific novelty of the study lies in generalization and systematization of theoretical provisions and practical experience of the renovationists in the field of expanding women’s rights in church life. The author comes to the conclusion that in the Renovated schism there were certain prerequisites for the formation of women’s theological education and the expansion of women’s rights in the Church, however, due to changes in the religious policy of the state, these trends did not develop, and the corresponding church practices were not introduced. The renovationists did not propose fundamentally new solutions to the “women’s issue”.

Church and Orthodox theology can successfully carry out their missions, considering they examine the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel at any time, if they can offer every generation, in their understandable way, an answer to the eternal human questions about the meaning of the present and future life. It is, therefore, important to learn and understand the world in which we live, its expectations, aspirations and profound and rapid changes that are gradually spreading all over the world. Theology as a prophetic voice and expression of the Church's self-understanding can only function as a part of antinomy and two-naturalness of the Church's character. Just as the Church is not of this world, so tends theology to express the experience of grace and transcendent reality which is above and beyond words, terms or names. As the Church lives and goes into the world, so does theology seek a dialogue and communication with the historical present in every age.

Sacrifice as the Key to Understanding the Difference and Relationship Between the Priesthood of the Baptized and of the Ordained Matthew J. Albright (bio) I. Introduction A precise understanding of the common priesthood of the baptized, both in relationship to Jesus Christ and vis-à-vis the ministerial priesthood of the ordained, continues to elude us, as evidenced by the appearance of a modern clericalism and novel attempts at sharing the duties of ordained priest with the laity. The common priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood both descend from divine origin and are rooted in Scripture and Tradition. Yet, in response to the emphasis placed on the common priesthood by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council—in stark contrast to the historical experience in some places of a heavily cultic priesthood distant from the laity—there has been a frenzy of disparate interpretations. Some of these have stripped both ordained ministry and the universal call to holiness offered to all the baptized of their unique connotations. Rooted in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the life of the Church, the Priesthood of Jesus Christ himself becomes the source of the Christian understanding of priesthood and of the two manifestations of priesthood in the Church. The centrality of the life and ministry of Jesus, particularly his sacrifice on the Cross, is the core of the identity and experience of priesthood. Both in the sacred liturgy and in the life of costly discipleship, the sacrifice of Christ is manifest for the baptized and the ordained. The celebration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharistic liturgy and the living out of the sacrificial dimension of discipleship is the key to understanding the priesthood of the baptized and of the [End Page 310] ordained. Properly understood, both priesthoods mutually support and nourish one another for the complete flourishing of the whole Body of Christ. In liturgy and in life, the disciple is defined by his sharing in the sacrifice of Christ. Pope Francis has been clearly emphasizing the importance of a personal encounter with Jesus as the foundation for all we are and do as a Church. To the members of the Society of Jesus gathered at the Church of the Gesù in Rome for the feast day of Saint Ignatius, Pope Francis delivered a homily using the emblem of the Society—the monogram IHS—to illustrate “the centrality of Christ for each one of us and for the whole Company, the Company that Saint Ignatius wanted to name ‘of Jesus’ to indicate the point of reference.”1 Jesus Christ is the point of reference for the life of the whole Church, for the life of every disciple and, in a particular way, for our understanding of priesthood. The Christian life is an encounter with Christ. Living the common and ministerial priesthoods is possible only when we understand the priesthood of Christ in which both find their origin. Pope St John Paul II spoke to the bishops of the northwest region of the United States on October 9, 1998 about the foundational role of the priesthood for understanding the proper role of the faithful in the sacred liturgy: “The sharing of all the baptized in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the Council’s call for ‘full, conscious and active participation’ in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14).”2 This is true not only for liturgical participation but for the whole Christian life. Our sharing in Christ’s life, in particular his priesthood, defines how we live out the call to discipleship and our own individual vocations. We will see how Jesus builds on the ancient priesthood and leaves behind a new participation in his eternal priesthood that is manifest in the life of the Church. II. Priesthood in the Old Covenant God spoke to his faithful people from ages past through the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Moses and the Judges; the [End Page 311] Kings David and Solomon; in various and sundry ways through the prophets. In the Old Testament, “we can distinguish two forms of the reality of the priesthood.”3 First, “the non-specialized exercise of priestly functions” is “carried out by the...

The article examines the theological concepts of Semyon Frank that derive from the system of Nicholas of Cusa’s Neoplatonism. The ideas of Frank are problematic in origin, as they are attributed to different religious traditions. The paper disputes the compliance of the Frank’s Cusa-like Neoplatonism with the provisions of Catholic theology. The methodological foundation underlying the research is based on method of content reconstruction and historical and comparative method. With the view to scrutinizing the ideas of theologians, the content of Frank’s concept was reconstructed. It presents God as a spiritual Absolute and focuses on the problem of the balance stroked between God and the world, human beings and society as a whole. The leading methodological idea applied by Frank is the principle of antinomic monodualism as the coincidence of opposites in the formula unity of two or duality is one. Theological steps of argumentation in favour of the religious philosopher’s keeping aside of the Catholic path are as follows. Firstly, the critical attitude the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa takes when facing the Catholic philosophy of those times serves as the evidence base and the obstacle for Frank to become a close ally of the Catholic thought. Secondly, the article notes the criticism Semyon Frank has of the Augustinian proposition about the insignificance of human being before God, which is foundational for Catholicism. Third, the article substantiates the compatibility of Frank’s ideas with the Orthodox ideal of sobriety and the system of external change of human being as the foundation of the system of Orthodox education and selfimprovement, thus obscuring the thoughts of his ties with Roman Latinism. Another research line treats the common features philosopher has with the third Christian confession. When comparing Frank with the Protestant theology, parallels occur (i.e. the Frank–Niebuhr Christian realism), but they are insufficient to claim the Protestant turn of Semyon Frank. As a result, it is concluded that Frank’s religious and philosophical conception is a theology of philosophical theism developed by a bearer of the Orthodox faith, not Catholicism. In relation to Orthodox theology, it is a soft, non-radical version of Orthodox modernism, in which solutions of problems that were contemporary to Frank are combined with maximum possible preservation of the provisions of the Orthodox theology.

This book attempts to trace the character of the changes in religious life of the landholding elite of Russian society. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed rapid religious change, at least among the elite of Russian society. In 1530, elite religious experience revolved around the religious rituals of the court. These rituals were extensive and all-embracing, public and collective. The sixteenth century saw the rise of the miracle cults, church- and state-sponsored phenomena of public piety. These healing cults, replacing the earlier miracles of power by living holy monks, were public cults that celebrated the action of divine grace in individual lives, thus making a small move from the public to the private. It is this movement from public to private, from ritual and miracle to morality, that prepared the way for Peter.

In this article, the author tries to reflect the emergence of the intellectual concept of “Church History” through a number of theoretical frameworks, setting this discursive turn on the map of the epoch using several narratives. The first is the problem of the cultural gap arising during the 18th century between the intellectual elites of the nobility and clergy. Second, we examine the bureaucratization of the empire leading both to the convergence of parallel “ecclesiastical” and “civil” administrative structures and to the emergence of the bureaucratic layer between episcopate and the monarch, who was considered as the formal “head” of the earthly ecclesiastical structure. Third, we consider the establishment of the administrative bonds between governmental authorities and individuals, which were understood as being in competition for the “pastoral” power of the church hierarchy. We next examine the change in the mode of knowledge distribution, which took place within the emergence of the “public sphere” in the early 19th-century Russian Empire. Finally, we look at the problem of the national identity emerging in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which was centered around the concept of the ethnic community and political body (and its history) rather than on the community of believers actualized in the discourse of the epoch as the concept of Church (and its history). All those narratives on social change strive to explain the global change in Orthodox theology, which became centered on ecclesiology. This change might be effectively problematized as a transition between first and second “orders of theology” within the framework proposed by G. Kaufman. This method of explanation may be especially productive when it comes to drawing an analogy between Russian and Western theology in the modern period.

$. e Greek-Latin dispute over the communion of infants is an integral partof the dispute over Eucharistic worship. e reason for the dispute are thechanges in the western liturgy as a result of the reaction against Berengar. echanges themselves were based on drawing consequences from the traditionalEucharistic realism, but they are a novelty in relation to specific traditional customs. us, Orthodox theology accused the West of illegitimate noveltyin relation to traditional rites, while Catholic theology justified the changes withfidelity to the traditional worship of the Blessed Sacrament. Both approachesreflect two different approaches to ecclesiastical tradition. In the East, moreattention is paid to the permanence of the deposit received, while in the West,the need for the organic development of tradition is appreciated.+. In addition, the dispute revealed separate positions on the necessity of theEucharist for salvation. Some emphasised the sacramentum, while others emphasisedres. Eastern theology taught about the necessity of material consumptionof the Eucharist, and Simeon of essaloniki or Gregory Dattivensis evenclaimed that anyone who has never consumed the Eucharist can never be saved.Western theology, on the other hand, emphasised that already through baptismman really becomes a member of the Body of Christ.%. e dispute revealed the different links between the theology of the Eucharistand theology of grace. e Eastern followers of infant communion saw in theEucharist, above all, the food of a new creation, food for eternal life. Defendersof the Western custom emphasised that infants are free from temptation, sothey do not need the help of the Eucharist in the fight against evil. e firsttheology links the Eucharist rather with the grace of holiness, the second withthe grace of works.*. e diversity of liturgical disciplines is also reflected in pastoral ministry.In the churches that administer all three sacraments of initiation to infants,there is less awareness that anyone, not only a priest, can baptise someonein life-threatening circumstancs.?. e original attitude towards the other party’s otherness was characterised byaggressive reluctance on both sides. However, the allegation of a deviation from thetruth appeared only in Eastern theology. is is not some particular merit of Westerntheology but is due to objective reasons. Western theology, by its very nature,could not sharply stigmatise a custom, the tradition of which was indisputable.3. At the Florentine Council, which clearly distinguished heresies from legitimatedifferences, the communion of infants was placed on the list of the latter.However, as the Florentine solutions were not widely accepted, they increasedthe original diversity of positions. In the Orthodox Church, it is still generallyconsidered dogmatically unacceptable not to grant communion to infants.e position of Orthodox theology has become established especially duringanti-Uniate polemics. In the Western Church, on the other hand, the admissibilityof the Eastern custom is now clearly proclaimed, however, quite o;en itsown custom is considered to be more appropriate. is teaching was officiallyconfirmed by the Council of Trent.
 0. Uniate theology, in defending the legitimacy of Western custom, basicallyuses classical Western argumentation, which sees in the Eucharist above all thesource of works and graces.5. In the post-reform period, especially in the polemic a;er the Brest Union,Catholics of both rites o;en invoke the communion of infants as a testimonyto the legitimacy of communion in one form.4. e Uniate opponents of the Latinisation of the union most o;en did nottake a clear position on the western influences on the Eucharistic spiritualityof the Uniate Churches. e subject of their criticisms were, by their very nature,those manifestations of Latinisation which have no connection with dogma.e silence about transformations in Eucharistic spirituality expressed ratherthe conviction that these changes were correct. Partly, however, it could havebeen tactical silence. History also knows of the silence caused by the disregardfor theology, which was replaced by official orders and repressions during theliquidation of the union.$@. Using the example of the communion of infants, the difficulty of carryingout a strict borderline between the catholicisation and the Latinisation of theEastern liturgy is revealed. With regard to Eucharistic customs, this distinctiondepends on the extent to which the doctrine of concomitance and the liturgicalconsequences drawn from it in the Western Church belong to the essenceof Catholicism, and to what extent they are only a specific feature of Westernspirituality. Traditionally, the first alternative was rather accepted, but in thetwentieth century there were opinions in favour of a second solution.