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

I see and hear the propositions of the various brethren about the status of the Church in contemporary times. I am especially moved by the "Ruthenians of the 50's" the "Byzantines of the 80s", etc.

While there was certainly a wonderful sense of community and 'activism' in the past communities, I am concerned that we are being asked to 're-create' these past communities today. I would hope that with the graces that are now available to us, the leadership of our priests and bishops, and the talents given to the people, that we would could find patterns of holiness that will speak to our current times, without necessarily havng to go back to prior modes. There is not question that sodality, Altar Society, Holy Name, etc. were wonderful manifestations of our Christian community. And, if there were viable entities in the contemporary society, then they should be resurrected. BUT, if they are not surviving, the we have to be extremely creative to find other organizations and entities that will serve this purpose. It is, as with all things from the Lord, a challenge.

Blessings, y'all!

Dr. John,

You are right we can't go back but whatever the Parish organization names are there are some basic ones which should always remain.

1. Core groups who help with needs of the Parish.
2. A core group that promotes Charitable work.
3. A new core group that promotes Bible study Catechesis /Evangelization continuing education for adults. ECF that goes without saying.
4. A core group tied in with #2 that deals with some of todays issues. For instance, I was always told that GCU was created to help widows & orphans when this group of folks came here.The bigger issue in the Church today is single moms as opposed to widows and orphans. How could a Parish or Group help with that?
5. A new core group that fosters reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Since this Church crossed that "Bridge" 500 yrs ago.We should be the stewards of the reunion.

Having stated #4. I do think we are our own Church. No we don't have to do everything the OC does.It doesn't have to be either or- latinization or an OC tradition. We really have to look at organic growth. Looking at it from the two former will always limit us. I wasn't in the Ruthenian Church during its "Golden Years". Heck I wasn't even born yet. It also limits our Church's potential to say its Golden Years have already past. We just had a new Metropolitan appointed we need to think positive.

Nicky's Baba

The "Golden Years" are more than just a time when we seemed to know who we were, and were happy being Greek Catholics, because there were Roman Catholics, the "Katsaps" (those churhces who went orthodox during the celibacy and church ownership issues) , the Johnstown Group, etc. The golden years were years when cantors were a full time job, and many were called "professor", and were salaried by the church. I have heard from many other parishioners that even the congragational singing of the liturgy in many of our bigger churches up North is waning. If you want to hear some real congregational singing to compare, get a tape of the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Kocisko back in 1965 at the Cathedral in Passaic. The mixture of Old Slavonic and English, with the babi raising the roof is a joy to listen to(especially the closing hymn "O Maria Mati Boze") as are the priests, many of whom are no longer with us, like Stim, Durisin, Kocisko, and others. The tape is no longer in publication, so I made copies for friends. Email me if you want one. It's a classic example of the "Golden Years". We can talk about icon screens, rubrics, new liturgy, rapidia flappping, doors opening and closing, and incense billowing, which is all wonderful, but it's the "singing stupid" (to coin a phrase of the Clinton years) that needs to be addressed perhaps in another post. If we lose that, then send in the organs, guitars, or try to muster a choir. I remember Bishop Kocisko insisted no choir be used during any of his celebrations. He wanted congregational singing, which we Greek Catholics/Ruthenians have mastered better than the Ukranians and Orthodox who depended, I think, too much on choral music rendered by choirs while the people just listened, hummed, or sang under their breath. Our plain chant and Tonal system used for our liturgical services is integral to our church. It needs to be reinvigorated in all parishes.

Being in communion with Rome has advantages of course, like being in communion with the biggest religious body of the world and millions of christians. I've always admired the universalist views of the Roman Catholic Church (sometimes the Orthodox Churches are so radical in the defense of their autonomy and their ethnicity that the universality of the Church is forgotten).

But the Eastern Christian Churches that entered to communion with Rome lost a lot of things, and their Orthodox identity, and their autonomy (at least in the New World).

The autonomy of the Eastern Catholic Churches including the big patriarchal churches (Melkite, Chaledean, maronite) is not a real autonomy (most of the time):

Patriarchs cannot name bishops without the Rome's permission, Eastern Eparchies are established by the Pope, Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example), eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops, the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves... they are not allowwed to canonize their saints (at least the latin church should let them beatify I think) and the pureness of the Eastern rite hasn't been preserved, and most of the Eastern catholic churches have lost their tides with the Orthodox patriarchs.

Remie,
While some of what you said is correct, I think you are a bit off on the following.

Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example)

Tell this to the Melkites and Ukrainians here in North America.... It is my understanding that they have ordained married men.

eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops

Please name one Eastern Bishop in North America that is under a Latin Catholic Bishop.

the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves...

While this was once true, it is changing. Just look at Holy Ressurection Monastery in California, I also believe that there is a Ukranian Catholic monastery there and the Studite Monks in Orangeville, Ont..... Also I believe that there is a new group of Eastern nuns in California or is it Alaska?


Your brother in Christ,
David

Patriarchs cannot name bishops without the Rome's permission, Eastern Eparchies are established by the Pope, Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example), eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops, the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves... they are not allowwed to canonize their saints (at least the latin church should let them beatify I think) and the pureness of the Eastern rite hasn't been preserved, and most of the Eastern catholic churches have lost their tides with the Orthodox patriarchs.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, if you want order in the Church universal, some tims youve just got to sacrifice "personal autonomy" for the best results. If you ask me, I think the situation with our Eastern rite Churches has worked out pretty well. We still keep our own traditions and rituals yet have injected a lot of western things into our Church that have helped organize her better. So what if we are not 100% independent of Rome?

Why on Earth would we want to look towards Orthodoxy for tips on how to govern ourselves? After all, they are not exactly the best model to point to if one is looking for an effective and organized Church to copy off of.

Instead of us wanting to lok towards them, they should want to be more like us.

Robert K.

Greek Catholic

Just to let you know, I sent you a private message.

Robert K.

Actually, while defending the right of any Greek Catholic to have his or her opinion on issues mentioned here, none of the practices named is any real difficulty for us Orthodox as far as Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Axios

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

To Robert K: Tape will be on the way. You'll enjoy it immensly!
And Axios, I would love for you and others, to address what would perhaps be a common problem for both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic, but seems to be more accute with we BC's. That is the loss of our youth and young adults. The former to churches where they have more friends and activities perhaps. The latter, to RC's or non Catholics in marriage. Many times, although this trend may also be fading, Jews try to marry in their faith for all the best reasons. Why don't our young people.
I believe that if we spent money on Byzantine Catholic Day Care Centers, Byzantine Catholic High Schools, Youth Centers, we would keep out young people......maybe.....if they are only exposed to our church once a week if that, then no wonder they never develop a love for it.
There are more RC's than BC's so marriages are usually mixed that way, and many new couples look for either convenience of a local church, the annonimity of a large parish, and it's sophistication too (plus, some of our parishes are pretty cliquish , unwelcoming to strangers, and backward thinking).....and other various and sundry reasons. Maybe a new tract would be appropriate on this very real problem, which needs to be dealt with especially by the new crown, but we can't blame anyone other than ourselves starting with the heirarchy. If all we're doing is keeping our church on life support....then pull the plug already!
Anyone that had taken Business 101 knows the iron clad rule of business: If you don't grow you won't survive. It applies to more than businesses.

Sorry in the above post.......I meant keep our young people!!!!
You computer wizards on this site should build in a "spell check" for us peck and poke typists!!!
Just a suggestion!

Alex,
Most of the problems today are not with the Latins, but with the Byzantines themselves. They could clear up the past abuses but do not seem to choose to do so in many of the places I have visited. The new metropolitan and eparch need to take the bull buy the horns and get moving. And the parish priests need to get going on restoring the liturgy and church design to its rightful place.
Sooooooooo.

L'Chaim
Stephanos I

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]

What are the terms of union that Rome proposes now to the Orthodox Churches (in order to establish the undivided church again?

Are they the same that were proposed to the uniate movements of the past centuries (a limited autonomy)?

Im not sure that Rome has proposed any type of reunion plans with the Orthodox as yet. I dont think that they would just let some sort of inter communion pass off as actual reunification though.

Vatican 2 declared that Orthodox can recieve the sacraments in Catholic parishes which is already a partial intercommunion. The Russian Church from 1969-86 offically allowed Catholics to recieve her sacraments and I believe that they are allowed to do so in some other Orthodox Churches in special circumstances. So intercomunion did exist and, to a limited extent, does still exist between both Churches yet as far as I know, neither side has declared this a reunion.

Personally, I think that Rome desires some sort of more firmer union with the Orthodox then just intercommunion. The Orthodox, on the other hand, seem completely uninterested in reaching any type of unity with the Catholic Church. No one has proposed any new terms for such a reunion beyond the vague concepts the Pope expressed in his Eastern encyclicals. Such "autonomy without absorbtion" between us was what the famous Union of the Council of Florence drew up and, IMHO, I just dont see why we cannot use that document as the basis for a future healing of the Schism?


Robert K.

The way to "heal the schism" (and it is much more than a schism), is for all to return to the practice and faith of the Apostles (ie. Orthodoxy).

btw, which of the Holy Fathers explained merits? I have'nt been able to find any.

Also, Robert, show me something that says any Orthodox bishop allows their followers to receive anything Latin.

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Robert K.:

Modern day attempts at re-union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are overseered by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which issued its latest statement at Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993,
"Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion."

Here in the U.S. and in Canada, the dialogue between the Churches are continuing under the auspices of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which issued an agreed statement on "Baptism and
'Sacramental Economy'" after its meeting held at the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York on June 3, 1999.

I am unsure whether there has been any meetings after this date. You may want to review the above document at:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/
baptism.html

Also, you may want to take a look at the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the 1993 Balamand document at:

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/
ve110771.htm


AmdG

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]