www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Very Interesting Statements

Saint Ann and all our dear departed Babas who have gone before us,pray for our Hierarchs!


Nicky's Baba

Dear Nicky's Baba and the men who agreed with you ,

To paraphrase Scripture: "Out of the mouths of Baba's comes forth true wisdom . . ."

And if we still had Bishops "of one wife" as the Early Church did, we would have married priests galore!

There would be no problem for Joe Thur to be one, Anthony Dragani to be one, Mor Ephrem to be one etc.

When I read posts like yours, I sometimes think that the REAL reason why women are kept from the clerical ranks in the Church is that they would fill the Church up with too much common sense and wisdom.

And we can't have that, can we?

I bow to you, Nicky's Baba!

Nicky is lucky indeed!

Alex

[This statement actually speaks very highly of Roman and Byzantine Catholics and, at the
same time, very poorly of the Orthodox.]

Moose:

I'm glad that at least somebody was able to interpert the post in the proper context. Father was using an exaggerated humorous antedote (stuffed cabbage) to say that, in his opinion, regardless of disagreements, Catholics seem to be more supportive and loyal to their Hierachs and priests than Orthodox.
Both Father and I agree that the Pope made a grave mistake by kissing the Koran. And, I've tried to explain here how it would be interpreted by an Orthodox Catholic and why. We also both agree that he made a terrible mistake regarding what he did at Assisi. But neither one of us is ready to proclaim him a heretic, the devil incarnate, the anti Christ, or the whore of Bablyon because of it. We see it simply as two actions where his intentions were good but actions were bad. And, as I stated, both examples were used to emphasize the support and loyality of Catholics to their Hierachy in spite of their mistakes.

[Its seems the more things change the more they remain the same. Who's responsibility
is it for the split a 1000 years ago? Hierarchs. Who made this statement? ]

Oh Nicky's Baba you hit the nail on the head! Which also relates to what Father was alluding to in his humorous analogy. Though we both come from the same history we have evolved into a two headed coin so to speak. And we both blame it on our Hierachs and clergy. Because of our shared history and the results, we watch every move they make and can be overly judgemental at times. Give you a perfect example -

When my mother was still alive I used to go back home for Pascha. On Good Friday we were going around the church with the Plaschanitsa. We had just gotten a new priest. As we were going around I spotted a woman who was in the choir for years not with the choir but by herself and crying. I asked my mother why. This is the conversation -
"You don't know why she's crying?" "No, I don't." "Father is changing everything! The choir always walked in back of the Plaschanitsa. Now Father says they must be in front of the Plaschanitsa. He's changing everything. And nothing must be changed!"
I was amamzed that so many people were so upset about such an insignificant matter so when we got home I questioned my mother further. This is what she said which made me understand why the mentality was there even though I didn't agree with it.
Your Baba and Dede came to this country very poor. They sacrificed and even mortgaged their home to build a church. And then the Bishops and the priests came and started to change everything. They even started to take the Icons and Iconostasis down and put statues in. Because of them we had to leave and start to rebuild from scratch. Because of them your Dede and his brother never spoke again. So your Baba and Dede made us promise that NOTHING WOULD BE CHANGED, EVERYTHING WOULD STAY THE SAME. EVERYTHING MUST BE PRESERVED THE WAY IT WAS WHEN WE GAVE IT TO YOU BECAUSE WE SUFFERED TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. And now Father is changing it and thats why she cries. And what my grandparents told her is taken literally almost as the word of God.
Because of that mentality its hard for an Orthodox priest to come into a new parish. Because the people come from different areas and different traditions (small t). And are unable to distinguish between tradition with a capital (T) and tradition with a small (t) So God forbid, if the new priest should come out of the Royal Doors and turn left and Baba in the first pew thinks he should have turned right. He will hear about it, I guarantee you. It took my home parish ten years of arguing before they agreed to put in padded kneelers! This is what Father meant and why I found it both sad but humorous (because I understood what he meant). I think those of you from an 'eastern rite' background will fully understand me and forgive me for what was not mean to be an insult. I only hope those of the 'latin rite' can understand too.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

I love your use of my screen name "Orthodox Catholic."

Yesterday, as you might recall, there was a gentleman who had some objection to the use of these two terms as one.

Would you be so kind as to explain how you understand these two terms from your Orthodox vantage point?

You are great!

Alex

OrthoMan,

Thank you for the clarifications on the priest's words. Taken altogether it seemed like ridicule. Many misguided Latin Catholic apologists have made use of the same phrase "RCs of the Byzantine Rite" to emphasize that we are lesser and that they have an abundance of ignorance.

I can understand the humor by reading your last post. I once changed a melody on one of the liturgical hymns and the "peanut gallery" accused me of changing their faith. I understood where they were coming from. Everything was equal; everything was of the same level of priority; whether it be the stuffed cabbage recipe or singing according to more than the same one tone every week, it's all the same.

I cannot state why the Pope did what he did at Assisi or with the Koran. I would like to interpret it in his benefit since he has a whole history and many writings to aid us in our search for meaning. Personally, I would not put a statue of a Buddha on top of a tabernacle or kiss a Koran, but the Pope and not I represents our Catholic Communion and such actions would have more of a bearing on relations with non-Christian believers than on liturgical abuse or heresy.

Your story about how the laity were duped by their own church leaders is well understood, hence my own two cents to add to Nicky's Baba's about hierarchs. Somewhere the shift in blame got pushed onto the "ignorant" and "Latinized" lay people. But who was doing the pushing, the teaching, the tearing down of icons and iconostasis, ridding of Matins, vespers, and basically everything liturgically Eastern? Where did the failure to teach the faith in our particular tradition break down? The Vatican II Council specifically states that our renewal should be a return from a state brought on by certain circumstances and PEOPLE. Who were those people? Was there ever an apology for not managing the house well? The people are baffled and confused. Would this be the case if those responsible with authority were doing their job and leading us as true Fathers? These may be harsh words, but this IS our American history! We need good and spiritual leaders in our Church who WILL teach us the truth and be authentic.

Let's pray for proper and wholesome leadership in the future for both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We have everything to loose if we don't.

Joe

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe Thur,

When Rome assigned an "Apostolic Administrator" over the head of our beloved Bishop at the time, many of us "uneducated lay-folk" didn't accept him.

In my former parish (I left after this incident), the new AA was invited for the Matins of Pascha, but not our Bishop.

The parish priest was trained in Rome (boy, was he ever), and thought he could lay down the law and we would obey.

Well, many didn't show up for Matins on Easter and went to other parishes.

The good old-fashioned lay "clamp-down" on the pocket book spoke more loudly than any papal bull could, and we certainly felt we had had enough of the latter of late . . .

Afterwards, when the AA showed up at the same parish for a simple community celebration, a priest-friend told me he asked the same parish priest to sing "Many Years" for him as he was a guest . . .

His answer this time? "Well, I didn't invite him . . ."

Laity do have power to change things in our Church.

We just don't use it often enough.

Alex

[Would you be so kind as to explain how you understand these two terms from your Orthodox vantage point?]

Alex: I thought I already did when I replied to Axios comment that since Rome gives me the courtesy of allowing me to identify myself as a 'catholic' I should reciprocate by allowing him to identify himself as 'Orthodox'.

As I stated before to Axios. I am a Catholic because -

-------------
From 'The Complete Book of Orthodoxy' -

Catholic (Gk. "whole") - 1. used to describe christians who are in historical
and
continuous tradition of faith and practice with the undivided church. 2. whole,
complete, or full. Thus, if there were those who denied the faith in any aspect
they were not "catholic". The Orthodox Church is sometimes referred to as the
Orthodox-Catholic
Church" to underscore this truth.

From St Vincent of Lerins (5th century saint of both east & west) definition of
the word
'catholic' -

"Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that
we hold
that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is
truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the
reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall
observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow
universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church
throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those
interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy
ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we
adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the
least of almost all priests and doctors."

As an Orthodox Catholic, whose church still upholds the doctrines formulated
during the first seven ecumenical councils when the church was still 'whole'.
Whose church has
neither added, subtracted, or changed any of those doctrines and therefore
still
believes -

{that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.}

And whose church whose members are

{christians who are in historical and continuous tradition of faith and
practice with the
undivided church.}

I can honestly proclaim myself as an Orthodox Catholic. I don't need any
courtesy from
the Roman Church to make me a 'Catholic'.
--------------

So Alex:

To me that original 'One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church' split into two factions. Those that accepted the Pope as supreme head and accepted all the changes and/or additions proclaimed and protected by him since the split and are now identified as 'Roman Catholics'. And those who chose to protect & preserve those doctrines formulated by the undivided church in their original state without additions, subtractions, or deletions who are identified as 'Orthodox Catholics' because of that.
When I say I am an 'Orthodox Catholic' it is not my way of saying I am a true Catholic and you are not. It's just my way of saying I belong to the Catholic church that has preserved its 'Catholicity' in its original forum.
In all honesty, the very fact that I am so adamant in proclaiming my 'Catholic' identity causes me problems here when I reply to posts. I know I can't say 'Uniate' because its offensive to some. I have found out that the term 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholic' is also offensive to some. Though I honestly don't understand why. To me if you accept the final authority of the Pope and the dogma he upholds and protects then you should be proud to identify yourself with him by accepting the term Roman Catholic. Because to me there are only two types of 'Catholics' - Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic. You are either one or the other. There is no in between.
When I see the term 'Byzantine Catholic' I think to myself - 'well that's what we Orthodox are since we use the Byzantine form of worship & ethos.' When I hear the term 'Eastern Catholic' I also think to myself 'Well, thats what we Orthodox are.'
With all due respect, in my way of thinking you are not an 'Orthodox Catholic' as long as you accept the final authority of the Pope and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. You are a Roman Catholic and should be proud of that fact if you truly believe in the Pope and the doctrine he upholds.
I have always had a 'Catholic' identity. The name of the parish I was Baptised and raised in was St Mary's Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church'. The official name of the parish I belong to now is St Stephen's Orthodox Catholic Cathedral.
Hope my honesty doesn't offend you. But remember, if I didn't respect you I would probably BS you or play games with you. Hope I've answered your question.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman, Servant of Christ,

You answered me in all honesty, and that is the greatest compliment of all!

I also consider myself to be an "Orthodox Catholic," but it is more a symbolic thing in terms of my Orthodox heritage, as I have refrained from using that title when my Orthodox friends have told me it offends them.

May we all join together as Orthodox Catholics one day!

Alex

My own $0.02 on this name issue is that the common names of the churches should be used for simple clarity, without an intimation of ecclesiology. IOW, the "Roman Catholic Church" is typically referred to as the "Catholic Church". "Eastern Catholics" typically refers to the Eastern Churches that are a part of the Roman-centered communion. "Orthodox Christian" refers to those who are not in communion with Rome. etc. When we get overly hung-up on terminology, we can't even get to the point of having a conversation. I'm happy to use the shorthands "Catholic" and "Orthodox" to refer to our respective communions, and the shorthand "Eastern Catholics" to refer to the Eastern Churches that are under Roman jurisdiction.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Then is my use of "Orthodox Catholic:" a) offensive to you personally, b) confusing c) not legitimate?

Just love y'a, Big Guy, just love y'a!

Alex

Alex --

No, I don't find it that way ... but it *could* (I think you'd admit this, too) be confusing to some viewers, don't you think>

:-)

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Probably, I think . . .

Yesterday, I came close to being formally excommunicated by OneHoly (Latin Church) .

I felt really "Orthodox" all evening after that .

Hey, it's not so bad, after all!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Just a final note to thank you for all your kindness, sensitivity and insight to me personally.

I know you understand me and for all that you are to me and to many others, I thank you.

Alex

Ah, but the Church wasn't 'whole'...for not all of us recognise 4-7, and we both parted ways.

How would you respond to that?

I remember a lecture by the late Fr. Alexander Schmemmen in which he stated (jokingly but with a bit of sarcasm) that "Holy Tradition is not something that was founded in Wilkes-Barre in 1974". I fully understand and agree with your post on this. I have had the privilege of knowing many people from the older generation who either lived through or remembered the splits of the 1890's and the 1920's & 1930's. I particularly remember one woman who floated back and forth between a Byzantine Catholic and a Johnstown Orthodox parish. I asked her once if she was "Greek Catholic" or "Orthodox". In no uncertain terms she put me in my place by telling me she was "Orthodox Greek Catholic". It seems she just didn't see a difference in the two Churches and simply belonged to both. I also remember a schoolteacher of mine who identified herself as "Greek Catholic" yet belonged to an OCA parish.



I don't find this at all offensive. If fact it is quite logical. I disagree with OrthoMan's position but I do understand and respect it. I know that he disagrees with my usage of the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome".

I do find it rather odd that some Orthodox consider Orthodox theology to be elastic enough to accommodate many different theological views yet many of these same Orthodox insist that we Byzantine Catholics have no right to retain our traditional Orthodox theology and must abandon all aspects of Orthodox theology and replace it with the Latin formulae.

Communion with Rome means that we accept that the Roman Catholic expression of the Christian Faith is true. It does not necessarily mean that we reject any or all aspects of Orthodox theology as false and replace them with Latin theology. Yes, we must live with the Roman model of authority but we are perfectly free to state that it is not the best model and in great need of refinement.

What is the definition of an Orthodox Christian? For me it is one who lives the life of Orthodoxy and, more specifically for those of us who are Byzantine Christians, the liturgical and spiritual life that matured at the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.

A Roman Catholic is one who holds both and particular theology and embraces a particular spiritual and liturgical life. Byzantine Christians just don't fit this definition.

I think that OCA Bishop Herman (now Archbishop Herman) stated it best. In the 1980's when the OCA was switching from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar for fixed feasts a reporter asked him if he expected any major problems with the calendar change. His response, quoted on the front page of The Scranton Times, was that "Byzantine Catholics, who are Orthodox Christians under papal jurisdiction, changed calendars about ten years ago and experienced no major problems with the change�."