As my beloved brother and friend, Deacon Randy, has already observed, one treads dangerous ground in suggesting that Eastern and Oriental Catholics, of whatever Church
sui iuris, are less "C"atholic than others of the Catholic Communion - most particularly our Latin brethren.
For almost a half-century now - since the West "discovered" (in the wake of Vatican II) that we exist - our Churches have been blessed with an influx of emigrants from the parishes of Old Rome. This has generally been truer in the US than elsewhere, either because there was already a long-standing history of parallel, separate, established Latin and Eastern religious communities (
e.g., in the East European and Slav nations) or (in the case of the Near and Mideastern
ecclesia) because immigrant communities are often less assimilated elsewhere and our temples are more commonly perceived as serving "foreign Catholics".
And, yes, I said "blessed" because it has most often been a blessing. Our Churches have been infused with a breath of life that, over time, has helped us - forced us even - to break free of the ghettoization of which Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, once cautioned. In the best of all worlds, this is accomplished without sacrificing ourselves to assimilation of a degree which causes us to become lost and indistinguishable from the masses - in this case, our Latin brethren (a danger of which Archbishop Joseph also warned). Clearly, the need to accomplish the one without falling into the trap of the other necessitates trodding a narrow path - one that cherishes and teaches others to understand and appreciate our spirituality and praxis without demanding that they culturally and ethnically become one with us, something that cannot be fully achieved. No matter the degree of immersion, this red-headed Irish-American will never be mistaken for Lebanese or Syrian, but no one whom I know disputes that I am a Melkite Greek-Catholic.
The problem lies in the fact that we were "discovered" by our Latin brethren at a moment in time when they began to experience a sense of dissatisfaction with the liturgical praxis of their own Church. The so-called Novus Ordo, regardless of the reverence with which it is served, is "modern" - lacking the grandeur and aloofness that characterized the historical Latin Mass. So, Latins who found themselves shaken by what they perceived as a "protestantization" of their own worship services were not only intrigued by these newly-found Catholic brethren, but saw the Eastern "Mass" as an opportunity to reclaim a setting in which there was pomp and circumstance - "smells and bells".
And, in retrospect, somewhat naively, we encouraged what would become a "fifth column" effort to latinize - at the very juncture in history when our goal was to restore our own spirituality and praxis. We temporized - more often than not explaining ourselves, how we prayed, how we worshipped, how we expressed our theological understanding, in Western or Latin terms, making comparisons across devotional lines, for better or worse, so that everyone could be 'comfy'.
Remove "Stations"? Convert confessionals to ushers' closets? Replace statues with icons? Replace communal Rosaries with the Akathist? Well, gee ... the new 'parishioners' really prefer things the way they are and it's great to see all these new faces (so many of our youth are moving away), collection offerings are up, and on and on. We welcomed the newcomers (a good and Christian thing); we reveled in being appreciated; but, we failed to understand the distinction that has since become apparent to us - that not all were running "to" the East - many were running "from" the West.
The legacy is now coming to roost - again. After a period in the '90s when it seemed that things were settling, we are seeing a resurgence of criticism from those who seemingly wanted to be one with us. Why? Is it because greater availability of the Tridentine Mass beckons them "home" - or because a renewed call for us to return to our historic roots threatens to make us too "Orthodox" for their spiritual comfort?
I don't know, but I do know that, whatever the impetus, it leads to statements such as
Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches officially and explicitly reject many of the teahings of the Catholic Church. It is this very matter that has prevented me from changing cannonical status to match that of my parish.
- a statement that, on its face, is an oxymoron. The term "my parish" presupposes that one is an integral member of a community that worships in common and has a shared spirituality. Ours especially is generally not a world of territorial parishes (even the Latins are no longer tied to that concept) and those who find themselves at intellectual or spiritual or even personal odds with the body of faithful who comprise a parish would do well to move on. They are, in no sense, contributing to the familial spirituality on which our Churches have been built and on which they must continue to build if they are to survive and flourish.
I find particularly repugnant the premise inherent in the statement that
My pastor was raised Latin, switched cannonical status, and eventually became a Ruthenian priest. He knows and teaches what the Church teaches.
which purports to link a presbyter's faithfulness to doctrine, dogma, or the Magisterium to his ecclesial upbringing. Putting aside that it effectively calls into question the ability of anyone raised other than as a Latin to faithfully and correctly proclaim the truth of Catholicism (begone you former Protestants who would aspire to the priesthood), it also does a profound injustice to the motivations of those among our clergy who came to us from a Latin heritage. Did they really canonically transfer to "save" us from our own heresy? I rather think that was not the driving force. And what of the myriad bi-ritual priests who have toiled in our parishes, some for decades? Some have been naive enough to believe that they were there for love of our spirituality and praxis - maybe they too just wanted to assure that we did not wander too theologically far afield.
My own Church has come in for a particular share of calumny in this and prior discussions at other fora (some involving the same poster). Melkites have a recurrent problem. The outspokenness of our Patriarchs and the notice that has come to us because of the voices of such as Sayednah Elias (Zoghby), of blessed memory, has given us a sometimes disproportionate prominence.
On the one hand, there are those who "want to become a Melkite", but admittedly know little about us except that we have some measure of notoriety - for better or worse. On the other hand, there are those who are prepared to hurl anathemas at the Throne of Antioch because they interpret our spirituality and theology to be more in line with that of any Rome, other than First Rome.
To the former, I say come East when you know more of the East and know that you will be spiritually comfortable here. To the latter, I say go West, you'll be much more comfortable there.
Many years,
Neil
As a brief but important afterthought, let it be clear that I am in no way intending to be critical of those former Latin Catholics who came East because they knew that it was where they spiritually belonged or ventured here in curiousity and remained from spiritual love of where they found themselves. I am among those ranks. These and those Latin Catholics who do not choose to canonically "become" of the East - but cherish and respect our Churches - are both valued and cherished, crucial to the survival and strengthening of Eastern Christanity. Any cradle Eastern Christian who casually dismisses others as "not Eastern" merely because they fail to meet some historical ethno-cultural standard does a grave dis-service to their Church - neither culture nor ethnicity is the test - it is in their heart, mind, and spirit (and, of course, that they like pirohi or kibbee or baklava, or whichever other featured food festival dish is applicable
).
