www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West St.Theodore Romzha:Greek Catholic Martyr

Dear Kurt,

I've learned much from your postings. They're always interesting and provoke me to thought. Thank you for that.

I'm a guest here, and it might just be an outsider's sensitivity, but I feel obliged to disagree respectfully. I will try to do so with care. The picture of the Latin Church, which is my home, that you present in your posting is not the Latin Church that I see.

I do not agree with you when you say, "The western Church seems to have a philosophy of 'constitutionalism', i.e. a focus of who has the authority to do what. Neither 'right teaching" nor 'right worship' but 'right governance.'"

There is, in philosophy (if there is one) and practice, much emphasis on right belief and on right worship as well on right governance (church order) in the Latin Church. We aren't anglophone protestantism nor do we name ourselves according to style of governance.

The way that we express our emphases and the degree to which we stress each in a particular time or situation are different from those of other Churches. It seems to me that it's part of what makes us Latin and you Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox, Orthodox.

Seeing that the Latin Church is stressing governance (order) more right now, if it is, or has done so in the past might have lead to your conclusion about our "philosophy." I think that it is a disservice to encourage the misperception that the Latin Church has no emphasis on right teaching or right worship in its philosophy. (I'm struggling with the idea that there is a particular church philosophy let alone a universal church philosophy, too. What does it seem to you to be? Is it still Neo-Thomism, phenomenology, or some other system of thought held by some Latin Catholics? I ask these questions in all candor for information.)

I think that all of the Churches are constantly trying to highlight right belief, right worship, and right governance (order), in the world around them. Much of the conversation in these forums is on these topics. Vatican II with the Constitution on the Church, Liturgical reforms and statement on The Eastern Churches, for example, was, it seems to me, an attempt on the part of the Latin and Eastern/Oriental Churches in union with Rome to right this balance.

I think that it's right, especially for brothers, to point out the current state of one or the other of the particular Churches. This is especially true if that Church appears to be out of kilter somehow. I don't think its a positive move, however, to suggest that the church in question considers only one of its core elements, such as right governance (order)to the exclusion of others such as right teaching or right worship in its thinking.

I find it interesting that posters from Latin and Orthodox Churches both express a deep concern around issues of Church order to greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it is my sensitivity or lack of it that I don't understand what is the difference between or among us Latin, Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic in our attachments to our Canons. Do you see one?

From where I sit, we seem to be very much alike in that regard. We can express that attachment in various ways in different terms about different issues, but it is there among us. They provide food for thought among us.

I'm not sure why the Latin pechant for dotting i's and crossing t's is singled out and held up as a negative here when it seems to be common practice among us all. It distorts the picture of the Church I know and love which produced the Pope we both know and love.

I respect your description of the practicality of Byzantine Catholics. Survival has been a great motivator for all of the Churches. Yet, there is iron in the practicality is there not? Haven't there been and aren't there lines beyond which you can't move and continue to be who you are? It seems to me that a role for the Pope beyond pure primacy of honor is one. Isn't that, at least in part, a question of governance (order)?

I doubt if my family would get any major feast together if we didn't know who's responsibile for what. Who provides the house; who the meat; the dessert? When is dinner? Even more how would we gather safely if we can't agree on how we should behave at the table? The rules are there even if we don't remember being taught them. I think they're most important in families where we tend to take each other for granted, not less important. This is true even in our larger families, including the Churches.

I do not speak to deny the truth in what you say, only to clarify a misperception about what it's like in my part of our related families.

Joy!

Please do not let my written expression impede the meaning.

Inawe,

Thank you for your post. As one of the two or three (at most) regular posters here who has not had the honor of sharing in the Latin patrimony, I know I am on shaky ground when making observations about the Latin Church. I have alternatively attributed the impluse towards "constitutionalism" to the angl-saxon heritage, but some folks didn't like that as well. I will conceed that as a non-westerner, I don't know where it comes from, I just see it observations some make about the east.

The Latin Church has had the benefit of living in a more orderly civil situation than we have. The result, I believe, is that even Latins extremely sympathetic to the Byzantine Church including those so sympathetic they have added a Byzantine patrimony to their lives, expect an orderlines that has not been part of our historical experience.

On the issue of the ministry of the Universal Pastor, the Latin Church clearly has a certain udnerstanding of his role in the Latin Church, usually weel-definded by canons, tradition and practice. In Orthodoxy their is clearly a rejection (though with some hopefully ecumencial discussion) of the papacy.

For most Byzantine Catholics who do not also share a Latin patrimony, primary is our Weltanschauung is not the first millenium nor playing games of "fantasy reunion" a la "fantasy football", but a ministry we have turned to based on that solid theological principle of "Any Port in a Storm". For many of us, the theology of the papacy is interesting, but our relationship with him has more to do with having our sorry-a** saved time and time again.

K.

Holy Innocents (Julian date)
Vote prolife

Christ is born!

Vatican II with the Constitution on the Church, Liturgical reforms and statement on The Eastern Churches, for example, was, it seems to me, an attempt on the part of the Latin and Eastern/Oriental Churches in union with Rome to right this balance.


Although, regarding �liturgical reform�, there are passages in Sacrosanctum Concilium (�a noble simplicity�, �unencumbered by useless repetitions�) that, to quote the Roman Catholic traditionalist Michael Davies (who, like many of the ordinary faithful, recognizes the natural affinity between the Tridentine Mass and the Eastern liturgies), �are a harsh and even offensive condemnation of the practices of Eastern Christians�, both Orthodox and Catholic.

Don�t get me wrong. I don�t mean to pour gasoline on a fire here. I acknowledge that the Roman Rite in its �pure� pre-Vatican II liturgical-movement ideal form, is markedly simpler than the Byzantine and of course has a right to be. It�s a cultural difference. Still, Davies has a point. Fr Serge Keleher, a Russian Catholic, agrees: unlike the liturgical movement (which Orthodox like Schmemann supported), the synthetically produced Novus Ordo at least in practice was a big step away from the Christian East and its ancient, organically developed rites. So I am taken aback whenever I read that Vatican II was a liturgical move Eastward, epiclesis and more (and married) deacons notwithstanding.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

>>>Why can't your Churches canonize these folks on your own? Why do you need to wait for Rome to act before its official?<<<

Good question John, the answer is; is that they can't.
JoeS

Why not try it and see what happens...

Pax Christi,
John

Well, we don't because we have a disconnect between the folks that "have never run anything but their mouths" and those who do have the job of making things work.

Those who have the responsibity for actually making things function in our church do not feel that a metropolia of 150,000 can dedicate the resources to doing the work that is properly needed to perform this function without colaboration with others. Those in the Church who substanially assist the Hierarchs in their development of resources (on this list, that would be me) feel the same way.

This system has the added benefit that those who wish to sit and moan and do nothing get their wish as well.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 01-11-2001).]

Dear Kurt,

I used to talk to my Ukrainian Baba about what life was like in Ukraine when she was young. She'd always stress that "We belong Pope na Rim" as best I can recreate her beautiful version of English. I hear echoes of her when I read about the ministry that was a port in a storm and that saved our sorry a** time and again.

I think that sometimes persons whose lives are lived in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches and the Orthodox have a perception of orderliness in the Latin Church that's not as things really are in this Church. About 1/3 of my life was lived in the Pre-Vatican II Latin Church. There was a greater sense of order, then.

Since Vatican II there has been a messiness that some find unnerving, frightening, untraditional, and downright un-Latin in the Latin Church. I've been speculating about the changes and their effects for quite some time. It might be through them and the resistance to them that the Spirit is trying to lead us to the more flexible order within the Latin Church. It seems to me that the concerns about your Church and the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches among the Orthodox Churches combined with that flexibility will make it easier for the Churches to achieve communion in the future.

Someone, Brendan I think, said that your Church is living union as though the Church of the Future is already here, Byzantine and Catholic. I agree. Your practicality may have, in the hand of God, uses beyond what you, or the rest of us can see now. Maybe the messiness that I, and others, see arising in the Latin Church may also be God's way of saving our sorry a**, too by loosening our unbalanced attachment to "order."

I respect your practicality.

Joy!

Kurt,
I think you do not know what your talking about or possess a narrow perspective when you stated,
"How can thew Universal church, by divine mandate, be a family of patriarchates when patriarchates are a human invention?"

Can you tell me what divine features are missing? What is the Universal Church? Rome alone? If Rome, how does she alone receive divine mandate by ignoring the other Apostolic Sees? If the family of Patriarchates are but human inventions then Rome is par excellence! However, the family of Patriachates are Apostolic, Catholic and Holy. Indeed, the synergy of the divine-human make them unique in themselves. For one to belittle the family of patriachates demonstrates how irresponsible the mindset can be.
Nepis or inner attention is a must to guard against the things that are contrary to the Spirit. Again, the Patriarchates are of Apostolic and Catholic origins inspired by the Holy Spirit. A Patriarchate alone is not infallible. However, the family of Patriarchates is infallible.

"Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ', and they will lead you astray(Matt 24:4-5).

"Proschomen! Let us attend!"

Inawe,

Those of us who live on the Greek side of town must say: "If the current union (unia) of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches is a foretaste of the 'Church of the Future,' God help us! May the future never come!"


For the Greeks, such a union might last as long as that of the Council of Florence! We will never accept the status of that of inferiors to the Latins. Greeks are just not that way---it is not a part of the Greek ethos. But, even the most sincere and well meaning Latin Catholics seem to believe that the opposite is true. Show me a Greek who believes he or she is inferior to a Latin and I will show you a Latin in Greek clothing.

You, as good of a Christian that you seem to be, are like the other 99% of Catholics I have known during my almost half-century on this earth: You just do not understand Orthodoxy and the Orthodox believers. So much is said about how much we have in common, but as a person who has lived in both the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox worlds, I can tell you from experience that that assumption falls far from the mark of accuracy. There exists within our respective camps two separate and different views of ecclesiology that just are not reconciable.


I believe that you believe the Orthodox will eventually follow the path of those who submitted to the Old Rome in the name of practicality and expedience. For those of us who are Greeks or Greek fellow-travelers, the answer to that is: Ochi! Ochi! Ochi! No! No! No!

Excuse my strong language, but you do not understand Greek-Byzantine honor. Why should you? You are not one of us. We had the opportunity to be "practical" over the centuries and, we too, could have submitted to Old Rome in the name of survival. However, from the Greek-Byzantine code of honor, this would make us porni--whores! This is very strong language, but if you ever want to understand the Greek Orthodox mind, it is absolutely essential that you understand this reality of what we are, why we are this way, and why we thank God for this ethos.

Please don't take this post personally. I have come to admire you and enjoy the fact that you are trying very hard to live a beautiful life in Christ. However, grasping reality, as hard and painful as it may be, is essential to living an adult life.
Peace!

Vasili


(Now, I can cool down! )

"If the current union (unia) of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches is a foretaste of the 'Church of the Future,' God help us! May the future never come!""

Of course, that's not what I originally wrote. WHat I said was that the Eastern Catholic Churches are trying, some of them at least, to move toward a relationship with Rome that would reflect the future relationship -- that's all. I don't think anyone really believes that the present arrangements are satisfactory in the long run. However, there are many Eastern Catholics who simply dive in and live the future now, disregarding those elements of the present formal relationship that impede or appear to prohibit that. And I think that effort, while incredibly difficult (it's far easier to say "look, it's one or the other, ok, make up your cottonpicking mind") is nevertheless incredibly useful and should not be the cause for bashing.

"There exists within our respective camps two separate and different views of ecclesiology that just are not reconciable."

But how *important* is ecclesiology after all, Vasili? I agree that Rome has made it an issue of dogma (regrettable, in my view), but assuming that one disagrees that issues of ecclesiology are the proper subject of dogma (as would be the position of Orthodoxy, where we have no ecclesiological dogmas, as you know), it seems that from our point of view ecclesiology certainly can't be a huge issue, because for us it's not an issue of dogma.

This talk about ecclesiology is often a straw-man, ISTM. What really happened was that there was a long-running argument about *authority* and *jurisdiction* in the first millenium church, which eventually drove the Church apart. Rome and the East had different visions of the Church then as now. After the separation, views began to harden. Then the Romans, in a demonstration of how hardened things had indeed become, dogmatized its own view on this issue. But we never have dogmatized anything about this, so our issue with Rome can really only be limited to a dispute about whether ecclesiology is a proper subject for dogma, and we believe it isn't. So, actually, we are saying that ecclesiology is not as important -- and that is abundantly reflected in the life of our churches.

In any case, we're not called by Christ to be "ecclesiologically correct", but to follow the Gospel. For some of us, being Eastern Catholic, because of this and other conflicts, is so contradictory and difficult that it impedes our progress in living the Gospel life. But there are others who can live that life and not be impeded or distracted by these contradictions -- and what I am saying is that these people should be applauded and not bashed.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 01-12-2001).]

Brenden,

Actually, I am not bashing you and my intention is not to bash Eastern Catholics for decisions made centuries ago. However,it is my intention to lift the delusional veil of subjectivism and reveal the hard-facts of the Greek mentality in reference to the costs of union with Rome. Describing this mentality is not an act of intentional "bashing." I do not believe that a Byzantine Catholic, who describes the benefits of being in union with Rome, should be accused of Orthodox "bashing," at least if that is not his intention. He is just presenting his opinion. Explaination and bashing are not synonyms. But, I do appreciate your critique. I still have so much to learn.

Vasili

Those of us who live on the Greek side of town must say: "If the current union (unia) of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches is a foretaste of the 'Church of the Future,' God help us! May the future never come!"

The sincere, serious, Orthodox-minded Byzantine Catholics I have befriended, including here, agree! They are struggling to stop being treated like �Uniates� (and getting flak from RCs, �Latin�ak� BCs and Orthodox for so trying) so in future, in the event of a reconciliation, the Orthodox won�t be treated like yoo-nee-its.

They certainly do NOT want the present status quo forced onto the Orthodox! Ochi/nyet, indeed!

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Vasili and Brendan,

I certainly didn't intend to indicate that I think the situation of the Churches after reunion would look like the current situation between the Churches in union with their Servant who lives in Rome. Actually, I don't think that it should. I didn't mean to imply that Brendan thinks that it should, either. I honestly don't have any idea how the Churches in the Future will act among themselves when communion among them all is achieved.

Because I believe that Jesus' prayer cannot be ineffectual, I do believe that God is leading us in that direction. It appears to me that the Byzantine Church and the other Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches have a role to play on the road there. I think it will turn out to be a pivotal role.

In her book The Cloister Walk, Kathleen Norris made me very aware that God works in our greatest vulnerability. The idea of looking squarely into our darkest places to find the Finger of God there really has made dealing with my sinfulness realistically easier. I guess where its darkest, one can see the light more clearly shining in.

I have found that insight useful when trying to understand what God is doing in History, too. As you say, Vasili, looking at reality as it is, even in its cruelist and most evil moments, epochs, etc. is very painful. As you further point out, it must be done.

ISTM that it is also nescessary to try to find the finger of God moving in the darkness as well. That's even harder, but that is what we must do. We find it easy to point out the evil that we, Churches in communion with their Servant in Rome and the Churches of the Orthodox Communion have done and the results of it.

We've broken communion with one another! I think part of what we're all doing here is trying to find the Finger of God in that fact and in the results of it with which we live.

I respect the Byzantines and their practicality because, IMHO, their communion with the Pope is a reminder that union is possible and even demanded by Christ, albeit not as it is now. The drive to survive, which might be viewed by the Orthodox as darkness when it led to the earlier reunion, is strong and basic to people and to groups. Change within the boundaries of Holy Tradition is a tool in the hand of God, in my mind, not something to be avoided. God can even use our drive to survive to His ends. Sometimes we cannot see His Finger as It writes.

Submission or inferior are not words that come to mind or that I use when I think about or discuss union among all of the Churches. Different; being led by the Spirit as He likes; and sister Churches are.

I'm simply me. I live in the Latin Church in the same family as my Eastern and Oriental brothers and sisters. My Church teaches me that it is the same family that the Orthodox belong to although there is certainly estrangement among its members. I'm here to learn about and, in a sense made possible by technology, to share in a discussion about Eastern and Oriental Christianity with persons who live in those Churches.

My experience with my blood relatives who are Ukranian Catholics and stories about our relatives in Europe, gives me some knowledge, but I like to learn. This is a Forum where that can take place since I don't get to see or talk to that part of my family much these days.

I don't agree that the Byzantine Churches, Orthodox or Catholic are any less or more than the Latin Church. The Latin Church, at least in its words and I think in some of its practices has taught me and mine that we are sister Churches in the same family. I didn't get to believe as I do in a vacuum. Like most things, the strength of that Church's expression of belief and its practice seems to strengthen and wane during various parts of life. Sometimes, it seems that common esteem for each other, wanes day to day as well as from millenium to millenium.

Vasili, I'm not sure that the bit about the prostitute applies here. I haven't met yet the person who does things for one motive only. It seems to me that survival was one of what motivated the Byzantines and Ukrainians the time of the reunion of the Churches earlier. For some it might have been the larger part of the motivation. Thanks to Kurt and others, this piece of the historical puzzle is now in place.

I believe, though, that the ancestors of the Eastern Catholics and their Hierarchs saw themselves as more than just survivors. They, IMHO, also saw themselves as those who found an important truth. These Churches responded to the truth as they saw it. They have consistently paid the price for this truth in blood. Even when their official visible structures were burried, they kept to the truth as they found it. The Orthodox certainly saw and see it otherwise.

The question in my mind is whether there is yet a complete expression in human terms of what is the truth as it is in God. I think that we see parts of it, both different parts of the whole truth in one way or another. Only God sees the whole.

Reminds me of the story of the men blind from birth who were asked to describe an elephant. They were led to different parts of the same elephant and asked to describe "elephant". The one at a leg said that an elephant was like a tree, big and round. Another said that it was like a barn, wide and tall. Another said it was like a marble horn, smooth and pointy at one end. The sighted person could see it all. No relativism here, just limited vision on the part of all of the "seers" but One.

The only truly sighted One Who knows all in our discussions, it seems to me, is God. He's building His Body. We see bits and pieces of the whole. We want to hang on to what we see, we argue about what it is we see, and, from time to time, we even refuse to accept that there might be more than what we see.

In this place, as in others, we and others are joining hands, recognizing God as the Creator. We reaching out to build a clearer picture of what He is saying and doing. We talk, in more or less forgiving love about the past; we talk in more or less loving humility about the present; and we should talk in hopeful love about the future to which God is leading us together. Hopefully the joining hands will help with the exploration and will keep us all from falling into the pit.

Vasili, I truly do enjoy our postings. Thank you for your kind words about me personally. Let my editing image for you my slow progress in theosis. I need your prayers for my sinfulness and I promise you the same in return. I look forward to hearing from you.

--------------------------
--------------------------

Brendan, I am truly sorry if my words led you to be misunderstood. What you say about God working in the Byzantine Church is what
I see, too. Obviously that's not the only Church he's working with.

The ecclesiologies proclaimed here, as I understand them, do have very similar substance and even similar form at most levels, save one. I think that's what you said.

I think, though, that the differences are significant. They may just involve miscommunication because of different historical life experiences and languages. Maybe there are elements which appear irreconcilable to us who are at the leg, the side, or the trunk of the element. Whatever the reality that our descendents in Faith will see, they do cause problems for our Orthodox friends and for us now.

What you say on the Forum contributes much to my learning. Thank you for the knowledge and insights you've shared. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding, though some useful talk came out of it.

Living the Gospel, as you say, is what's really important. I'd really like to hear why you don't think that ecclesiology is not a proper subject for dogma. What is?


Joy!

Please do not let my written expression impede the meaning.

Ochi, Nyet, and Non!

inawe

Thanks for your note.

"I'd really like to hear why you don't think that ecclesiology is not a proper subject for dogma. What is?"

In Orthodoxy, all dogmas are about God. The sole "Marian" dogma ("Theotokos") is itself not a Marian dogma at all but a christological statement -- therefore a dogma about God.

Btw, this is one reason why Orthodoxy doesn't like the Catholic trend in "Marian" dogmas -- not because they are "wrong" per se (although the most common interpretation of the IC dogma doesn't square with Orthodox theology about original sin) but because in any case they are not proper for dogmatical definition.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 01-12-2001).]