www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why do BC's stay with Rome?

I guess I'm in a different boat than my Slavic brethren since I'm a hybrid. My father (RIP) was Roman of Irish/German/French extraction. My Mom (still doing OK!, thank God) and her sister, my Godmother, are Greek Orthodox. As a kid, I was in both churches on Sunday -- Lordy, would that I had had a day-book calender to figure out what the heck I was doing.

Like many, many others in my circumstance, I was a citizen of two nations. And, recalcitrant person that I am, I am/was unwilling to relinquish either heritage. Fortunately for me, rather than continue the two-liturgy, two-calender experience of my childhood, I found some Northern Slavic neighbors who were, in some ways, just like me: blood-related to both East and West.

I am able to retain my Greek heritage, but at the same time still be part of the See of Rome which is important to me because I truly believe that the Bishop of Rome is the chief bishop of Christ's Church, and I see no reason why this stupid schism is still being perpetuated. [Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the anathemas. What's the freakin' problem!!! Get on with it!!!]

I am very, very grateful that I found a wonderful Ruthenian community that accepted me as "a brother". They knew and know that I am Greek Greek and not "Greek Catholic/Rusin", but they apparently just figured: "What the hey. He prays like we do just like his grandparents taught him." And I've been there for 27 years.

{At Paschal Matins, while serving as usher, I stand at the back during the incensations. I hear: Christ is Risen! Christos Voskres! But when Father John and Father George see me, they proclaim: Christos Anesti! as they swing the kadilo in my direction. And I respond: "Alithos Anesti!!!" It's family. Extended family, but family nonetheless.

So, in my perspective, the Ruthenians represent the chelovyekolyjublets/philanthropia "lover of mankind" model that Christ demands of His followers. I guess I'm an honorary Rusyn; and I'm damned proud that the Rusyn folks in my parish have just made me "family".

So, for us 'hybrids' that are the hallmark of the 'New World', we are probably willing to be identified with both East and West. And the "either/or" perspective seems just unjust because it forces us to make an impossible choice. The 'one background' folks don't quite understand this. The converts would seem to be the most distressed by this because it doesn't fit their experience of 'choice making'. So, us hybrid folks have to stand as witnesses that being forced to "choose" is just a false dichotomy because we see the truth in both communities and wish, from the bottom of our hearts, that we can enjoy all the patrimony of our Christian heritages without being maligned from all sides.

God bless the Rusyn people and the Ruthenian Church!

Blessings!

For me it is even more basic. By being Byzantine Catholic, I am in communion with my entire family. While we derive from Ruthenian grandparents, I am the only Byzantine Catholic left. Everyone else is Roman Catholic. But we are still in communion with each other. Furthermore, my wife of Italian ancestry was (is?) Roman Catholic, and we are in communion with her entire family. By becoming Orthodox, I would gain nothing in my opinion, but would lose very much.

John

Christos Anesti!

Dr. John:

Thanks for your post!
Thank God for parish communities like yours.
They are the salt of the earth.

Michael

So, for us 'hybrids' that are the hallmark of the 'New World', we are probably willing to be identified with both East and West. And the "either/or" perspective seems just unjust because it forces us to make an impossible choice. The 'one background' folks don't quite understand this. The converts would seem to be the most distressed by this because it doesn't fit their experience of 'choice making'. So, us hybrid folks have to stand as witnesses that being forced to "choose" is just a false dichotomy because we see the truth in both communities and wish, from the bottom of our hearts, that we can enjoy all the patrimony of our Christian heritages without being maligned from all sides.

God bless the Rusyn people and the Ruthenian Church!

Blessings![/QB][/QUOTE]

I think if one were to stay in the Catholic Church, you can do more good trying to change the was Rome is. Ok if things haven't always been the best, stay Catholic and work from the inside. My 2 kopeks.
-uc

I suppose this is more of a psychological reason than a theological one. I was attracted to Orthodoxy but became Roman Catholic (later transferring to the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church) because the Orthodox anti-papal vitriol I read and the divisions I perceived within Orthodoxy reminded me way-over-the-top-too-much of the craziness within evangelical and fundamentalist protestantism. I just couldn't take it anymore. The thought of getting anywhere near that kind of strife and posturing made me almost physically ill.

Of course, lots of Orthodox folks aren't like that, but I still don't want the canonical mess. However, if I undertook the formal study of theology I'd probably apply to St. Vladimir's.

Also, it seemed to me from the New Testament and my limited reading of the Fathers that there was more to the Petrine primacy than just the best seat at the dinner table of the Patriarchs.

ROTFL Yes I do not understand you Catholics. We Orthodox have no problems with our married priests. We never have any bullying from church prelates, and never have any pressures or movements contrary to perfect liturgy for our patrimony. (Note to Orthodox only: SHHHHHH, don't tell them anything!)

Axios

Dear Alex,

I think there are two reasons.

One: We would not be orthodox if we were separated from Rome.

Two: We are called by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel to all, especially the Romans.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I'm relatively new to this board but not new to the many questions we have been discussing. I am Catholic of the Latin Rite. My family is predominately Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Slovak, and Austrian (Jewish!. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and found our Lord within this Church.

However, I absolutely love the Orthodox Church. The Theology of the Ancient Fathers (which is the same for RC, prior to the split.) And the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom in my opinion are more "uplifting" and ceremonial than unfortunately the way the Divine Liturgy is performed in my RC parish.

But I hardly believe that our Lord makes such distinctions. I believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I believe that the bride of Christ is the Roman Church with all its faults, and the Orthodox Church with all its faults.

The "faults" of these Church are not the failings of the Holy Spirit - but those of man. Personally, I believe in Papal Supremacy when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra." I am not obliged to follow his every opinion and word, just because he says so. In faith and morals I do feel obliged.
I also recognize the terrible abuses that came from the Roman Seat - but these were the failings and sins of mortal men (unfortunate weaknesses that Christ very well knew of his followers, for if he wanted perfection, then He came to the wrong planet). The Eastern Church is not without its human failings either, I'm sure you are more educated in this regard.

But undeniably the Holy Spirit has remained faithful to "both" His Churches - I believe because they are indeed One Church.

As far as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father or from the Father and the Son....
I am not bold enough to state that I've mastered the workings of the Divine Being. I just haven't quite figured that out yet, and I suspect that in this lifetime, there will be a whole lot of things I won't understand about God :-)

So thats how I view it. The Bride of Christ, imperfect because of its sins but forgiven and sanctified by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Praise God in Greek, Latin, Polish, Russian, English and Swahili. And praise and beseech our Holy Mother Mary, for she is mother of us all!

Peace,
Mike

This is an interesting thread.

Virtually everyone here claims to be Orthodox, and yet again, it doesn't seem anyone holds an Orthodox understanding. No offense.

Who decides who is in communion with who? The pope or our Savior Jesus Christ? The Orthodox only strive to be in communion with God and through Him we are in communion with everyone He has prescribed.

This inner sense of Christ's presence as Head of the Church has always prevented Orthodoxy from elevating a human being to a monarchal position. This explains why, to the outsider, Orthodoxy presents a chaotic face. The human face of the Orthodox Church is indeed chaotic-because it is living in the world. Internally, however, the unity and authority of the Church is maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ. The unity of the Church is apparent to the extent that we are partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), to the extent that we participate in the Holy Spirit. This is why the outsider fails to see the unity and authority of the Church but only human drama, because, being outside the Church, he cannot be a partaker of this divine life, of the actions and movements of the Spirit of Truth.

The unity of the Orthodox Church is a spiritual unity, not a secular one.

This also explains the failure of most people to understand union is not compromises between men. No! Certainly we should seek to reconcile ourselves on earth and be at peace but never at the cost of Truth. It is therefore upholding the faith and only by this can we be in union with God and through Him union with the rest of His Body.

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Christos Voskrese!
Which Orthodox church would I join? If I joined the OCA and went to a ROCOR parish, they probably wouldn't give me communion.

As a Ukrainian Catholic, the Ruthenians welcome me to communion and vice versa, as do the Latins.

I recall the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory explaining that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church par exellance. If the outward sign of unity is broken, how can there be inward unity? I don't get it.

If Moscow can excommunicate Constantinople (which occurred not too long ago temporarily) based on the desire of the Estonians to have their own church sui juris and resort to Constantinople, this is more than just external chaos. I don't recall any serious theological debate being involved in this dispute, or any theological dispute at all.

As the great Alexander Schmemann also stated in another essay contained in Meyendorff's Primacy of Peter:
"To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestand divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative, and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven..." and later in the same essay ..."We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church...then the one, supreme, and universal power becomes a necessity, because this unique visible organism must also have a unique visible head". Fr. Schmemann says it better than many Roman Catholic theologians.

I think of Blesseds Leonid Feodorov, Klementy Sheptytsky, Mykola Charnetsky...who literally sacrificed everything to remain Orthodox in communion with Rome, and who were faithful even to the chiding of other Greek Catholic priests, for remaining staunchly faithful to Eastern tradition. Of Bishop Soter Ortynsky who prematurely died certainly due to the stress of dealing with the Latin hierarchy as well as problems within, but who did establish the first Greek Catholic diocese in America...of Patriarch Josyp (Slipyj) of blessed memory who was even offered a Metropolitanate in the Moscow Patriarchate, but remained in the gulag with thousands of our people instead to be faithful to his dual communion, Orthodox in communion with Rome.
...there shall be one fold and one shepherd
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

This inner sense of Christ's presence as Head of the Church has always prevented Orthodoxy from elevating a human being to a monarchal position. This explains why, to the outsider, Orthodoxy presents a chaotic face. The human face of the Orthodox Church is indeed chaotic-because it is living in the world. Internally, however, the unity and authority of the Church is maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ. The unity of the Church is apparent to the extent that we are partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), to the extent that we participate in the Holy Spirit. This is why the outsider fails to see the unity and authority of the Church but only human drama, because, being outside the Church, he cannot be a partaker of this divine life, of the actions and movements of the Spirit of Truth.

I was a "partaker of the divine nature" yet still left Orthodoxy for the Catholic Church.

It may be great that Orthodoxy has such intense spiritual unity but it sadly lacks any visible kind of unity which, unfortunatly for them, is one of the four visible marks of the Catholic Church. If your Church is true, it has to be One,Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic to pass the mark. Orthodoxy is not visibly one nor is it visibly Catholic Since a great deal of people outside of Orthodox countires have never even heard of her (I have nor could ever imagine anyone who hasnt heard of the Catholic Church).

All the lectures in the world on self diefication and the like will nor cannot take away the present inadiquecies of Orthodoxy outside of the full and visible communion of the Catholic Church. Why dosnt Orthodoxy have these two visible marks in there entirity? Spiritual unity (Which does not even always exist in Orthodoxy) just dosnt cut having a visible center of union and order.

To my questions, the atypical Orthodox reply usualy is "you just dont get it, do you"? To which I may reply, "no, I just dont".

All of the above posts are just too intellectual for my taste, because the question should't be why have we remained "Catholi." Answer: Because we wish to be part of the Universal Church. So much for my intellectual imput.
Now on to the nitty gritty.

Question: When were the "Golden Years" of our church? When were our seminaries so filled that new sems had to bunk in the big dormitory on the third floor of the new seminary? When were there 150 ladies in the Ladie's Guilds, twice that many in the Rosary Society. Not to mention the Stara Baba's in the Mother's Clubs. The Men's Club, Sodality, and the Choirs.

Churches were filled to capacity with many having three Masses(ok, ok Liturgies, for all "LC" Liturgically Correct).

Hundreds of children making their First Communions, (what do our little tikes do now...no First Communion pictures, parties, or gifts with the "new way").

There were Holy Name parades right down the center of main streets of every town where men in Tuxes, and processional crosses, banners, bands, the Sodality girls in their white dresses and veils, and faithful gathered at local soft ball fields after leaving the steps of their churches for the parade to hear ....yikes!....sermons and speakers extolling Christianity in general and Greek Catholics in particular!

Parishes had their Pastor, and two sometimes three "Curates" to assist them.
May Crowning breakfasts drew hundreds. Molebens to Mary in May, and Devotions to Jesus with Benediction to the Blessed Sacrament were a weekly affair not to be missed. We were "on the map" in our respective towns then. Why not now?

On the one hand some may claim that we sold out to the Latins, with all of their "chingy lingy" May devotions, benedictions.....the Rosary......and such simeon practices.....yes, they're to blame for our demise impending or imagined. But now that we are "purifying" ourselves from years of "abuse?" by the Latin Church, could we not be having either one of two things happenn namely; In our rush to "deLatinize" has the pendelum swung too far to the other side? Have we become too Orthodox? One could accuse us of both when you think about it.
A dillema to be sure. If it wasn't good to have Latinizations...if that's the reason for our lack of growth......is it better to become synonomous with any garden variety Orthodox Church? Is that the way we will bring new members into our churches.....by looking, acting, and praying just like the orthodox do? Why would they join our church if there's no difference?
Wouldn't it be better for us to promote our brand of "Catholicity", whatever definition you wish to give it, in order to attract those who might wish to remain, or more importantly become Catholic, but are looking for a different spiritual path to take, maybe smaller more personal parishes, greater spirituality and reverence, and all that good stuff we are famous for but nobody knows about (there's another area to discuss: evangelization).
We are in a vocations crisis, a people crisis, and a growth crisis, identit6y crisis again, precipitated partially by having BC's marry RC's or others, and never return to their BC church. Question: Why? As well as other reasons why people leave us.
It begs the question then: Should we be quibbling about the externals of our church when the internals are in need of major quadruple bypass heart surgery? Should we be fiddling while Byzantium is burning? (Bad pun!)

Yes, as we sit in judgement of where have we gone wrong, I would ask, iof you can to pick up some anniversary books of our churches that have been around more than 25 years......the old ones like St. Mike's in Passaic, or Freeland, or Lansford, and look at the people we had back then. Those old Latinized priests must have been doing something right.

The question, are we... No, the question is: Are we in the Autumn of our Church's life? How can we recreate those Golden Years again? We don't have much choice if we want to flourish, and to flourish will not mean being a Chameleon, changing ourselves to everyone elses traditions and practices. Don't we have any of our own that have withstood the test of time?
And please don't think of our traditions as Latin/Orthodox/or whatever, but "ours", just as we don't think of a pizza as something we we shouldn't eat because our goood people in Uzhorod adopted it from the Italians just because they didn't know what to do with bread that didn't rise, sauce that was too spicy for halupki, or using peperoni, because , well, they ran out of kolbasi! Let's not throw out the Greek Catholic Baby with the Byzantine bath water!

Robert,

I would like to first mention that the true meaning of the word "Catholic" comes from two Greek words: "KATA" meaning "ACCORDING TO" and "HOLOS" meaning "COMPLETE". In other words, in the Church resides all the Truth and that the Church calls everyone to salvation, regardless of their nationality or social status.

It is therefore obvious, to the Orthodox, that only the Orthodox Church is Catholic.

As far as unity Robert, if the Church was striving for worldy perfection I suppose that a pope would be important.

I am not your spiritual father and nor do I want to sound like I'm talking to you in a demeaning way, but if you strive for spiritual perfection each day, I mean really strive for it, and don't set your mind on "high ideas" (Cor. - Forgot the verse) like "world Christianity", then it really comes down to: God, You, your bishop, and your priest all of which are striving for your transformation.

And I suppose that if I am ever spirtually perfect, then I'll worry about good social order among men.

GC, you took the words right out of my mouth! Why are we dying? Is it right to freely abandone our own traditions and asssimilate ourselves into something we are not just because were "suppost to be like that".

Fact is, like it or not, that we have to do something to distinguish ourselves as unique from everyone else and perhaps a limited form of latinization was seen as the answer to many of our old timers. These folks remeber were raised to be proud of being Catholic, they didnt look upon the Orthodox Church as a "sister" but as a dissident group and they really wanted to in some way distinguish themselves from them. So they looked to their big sister, the Roman rite, as a model for how they should develope themselves. The Orthodox did the same thing with the Anglicans and other Protestant groups to whom they were ecumenically inclined towards at the time. I garuntee that if you look at a lot of old time Orthodox parishes, you will see clear "Protestantizations" everywhere from the pews and organs, to the robed choirs and the congregationalist system of parish councils and private property ownership.

Eastern Christians were new in this country and in order to, as they felt, accomidate themselves better to their surrondings, they looked for guidence from already established institutions. For Greeks Catholics, it was the Romans, and to Orthodox, it was the Protestants. Thats just the way it worked. Its also hard to just go into a parish and start demanding all sorts of changes in order to purge out all "undesirable eliments". Even if they arnt exactly "kosher" with the purist amongst us, they are none the lss, products of genuine organic growth amongst our people and ought to be allowed when their is a genuine attachment to them by a parish. I, for one, am tired of our "liturgical police" going around from parish to parish making sure that everything is Orthodox enough for their taste. TRuth is, we are not Orthodox but Eastern Catholics. If people want to be Orthodox then theyll go and join Orthodox parishes but if they are with us (Ruthenian rite) then their Greek Catholics and alhough Greek Catholics are similar to Orthodox, they have grown and developed along their own lines over the past few centuries.

There is nothing wrong with organic development in church matters, be they liturgical, or cultural, even the Orthodox have had genuine organic growth at times. If our people have felt the need to borrow some particular devotion from another rite and use it for their own spiritual bennifit then why shouldnt they be allowed to continue with it if it makes them happy?

Are we getting to the point where Greeks Catholics are going to have to petition for something like ecclesia dei in order to protect their own genuinally organically developed traditions from being erased? Perhaps this matter will be full for such groups as the Society of St. Josaphat and the Transalpine Redemptorist to work with in order to inflame a schism within our ranks?

Who knows?

Robert K.

Yes Robert, you are correct sir.......
Call it the sign of the times........disposable everything........if this doesn''t get'em in try something else.........and yes......we have too many Liturgical Police........"Purging" is for Super Models. We should not purge everything every Greek Catholic Byzantine Ruthenian person grew up with thinking that it will make ud more pure? More pure than who or what? Ask how many parishes are celebrating the beautiful Moleben to the Blessed Mother on Fridays during May, the Month of Mary? How mahy has a special precession to the Icon or Statue, of Hologram, or whatever of the Blessed Mother to present it with flowers. Our church has people come up every Sunday in May and do just that. That's good liturgy. Involving the pwopld and the children who did bring flowers to our outdoor shrine of the Blessed Mother.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
If we sacrifice our Catholic Identity for orthodox traditions, then we will be a nebulous comglomeration of rituals and practices with no long lasting identity, and we will able to define ourselves only by what decade we were born in. "Oh you were a Greek Catholic of the 50's" "Oh you seem to be a Byzantine Catholic of the 80's" "O your speech gives you away as a Byzantine Carpatho Orthodox Ruthenian of the 90's.
When an old priest overheard someone question who were were as a church in this day and age he replied:"We know who we are.....we're mixed up!" Hummm, words to think about.