www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Falling Byzantine Catholic statistics

I have a friend who was raised Methodist, and was received into the Byzantine Catholic Church. He subsequently realized (while discerning a vocation) that he was more attached to western practice than he realized. He applied for a change of enrollment, and it was just recently granted. The point here being some group of canonists (in both dioceses) decided he was Byzantine, even though he was baptized a Methodist - hence I'm not sure the status of a protestant who converts is necessarily Roman. Polish National Catholics and Orthodox are obviously different, but Protestants in my limited experience are free to go where they want.

Justin

Lest one wishes to become ordained does it really matter?

CDL

Dan,

I think it does matter. On both this and at least one additional thread we are discussing and bemoaning the numbers of faithful ascribed to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Why is anyone concerned about these figures? Is it not because we fear our future or lack thereof?

We speak of evangelization and the need for Eastern Catholics to commit to it. Whom do we plan to evangelize? And to what end, if those whom we do successfully evangelize have no standing in the parish to which we bring them?

Is it enough that they just attend, that they drop an envelope in the basket, that they help out at the bazaar or food fair, that we can promise them that - despite not being enrolled in "our" (not "their" Church) - we'll be pleased to bury them from it? Inherent in the nature of a parish - once but less true today in the West, but still particularly true in the East - is "belonging". I have seen the same comment that you posted above countless times in past years, here and elsewhere, posted by any number of persons, cradle, convert, and translatees (for lack of a better term). I have to admit that each time, I feel absolute frustration.

The fullest sense of belonging to the Ritual Church in which one worships is, for many, reason enough to do so.

One can (and many do) worship for years, even decades, without formally petitioning Change and neither feel nor are made to feel any less a part of their "adopted" parish family.

It is still, however, not the same as knowing, when you see, meet, very possibly speak with the Patriarch, Major-Archbishop, Metropolitan, or Eparch of the Church sui iuris which you attend that he is your Patriarch or Major-Archbishop or Metropolitan or Eparch.

When, perhaps looking more than a wee bit different from others in the parish (not a lot of red-haired Syrians or Lebanese ), you are asked by a visitor "do you come here often?", there is a special feeling in being able to look to them and say, with love, justifiable pride, and without reservation or explanation - "I belong here; I'm a (Melkite, Ruthenian, Syriac, Ukrainian etc.) Catholic".

This fall, it will be 43 years since I came to the Melkite Church and it is roughly 40 years now since I was formally translated from the Latin Rite to what was then erroneously termed the Grieco-Melkite Rite. I have never looked back or regretted the choice that I made and I remain forever grateful to Archimandrite Lucien Malouf, of blessed memory, who encouraged my pursuit of that change in a day when it was harder to come by, and Richard Cardinal Cushing, also of blessed memory, who enthusiastically urged approval of my petition by Rome.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

I see your point. Then it should be clearly and simply a matter of a priest being able to catechise and receive persons' translation or Chrismation without any sense of need for Rome's permission. My point wasn't that persons ought not to belong but only that it ought not to require permission from Rome to belong if in fact we see ourselves and are seen as a sui juris Church and not just a funny rite.

I think one of the biggest differences between East and West is the West's overreliance upon or perhaps an overuse of canon law as if "law" is Spirit. I believe that this may be at the heart of our inability to get proper stats.

CDL

Dan,

I could not agree more. Regretably, Rome has not deigned to ask my opinion or yours

Many years,

Neil

That's all well and good, but when a "sui juris" church does act like it, it seems to get taken to task. Remember Met. Judson implementing the new law in 1999 and it being recalled because it said that marriage was not an impediment to ordination? I seem to recall words flying around from a certain network about those rebellious Ruthenians. It seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think Eastern Catholics should look to the SSPX and the Traditionalist movement, to learn some lessons on how to get Rome to listen.

Really, I think it's time that the Eastern Churches played a bit of hardball with the Roman Curia. Were it not for the tenacity of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, of Michael Davies, of Fr. Joseph Bisig and certain others, Summorum Pontificum would never have been promulgated. I'm sure that the UGCC and the Melkites could learn a thing or two from them.

Of course, the actions should not reach the extent of actually proposing schism from Rome. However, there is nothing wrong in pointing to the actual provisos of the various treaties of Union, in order to remind Rome that the Eastern Churches entered into communion with Rome ONLY because Rome had vowed to respect them and their rights. Sadly, Rome has all too often broken its word when it comes to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Sounds to me as if you are advocating a degree of 'civil disobedience '

not 100% sure that this is the way to go

I believe imitating those figures is right at the top of the list of "Latinizations" we should avoid!

Rome is as receptive to the role of the sister Churches as it has ever been. Rome is still figuring out how to behave as companion who views us as an equal, and will continue to do so for some time to come in all likelihood, but arrogance and uncharitable behavior will not help. I would be ashamed if my Church ever looked to those people as models.

Why not? Nothing else works. Nothing other than the talk of another schism will make an otherwise ignoring Rome pay attention to the "other lung" it says it loves so much. They took action 100 years ago and finally appointed a bishop, although a little too late as thousands had already defected.

If Rome refuses to play hardball the end result could be a gain for the Orthodox churches, which is ok with me.

WHERE ARE MY ASBESTOS GLOVES?
ever hear of Archbishop Zoghby? he would have championed your cause, and what is rapidly becoming mine as well.
Much Love,
Jonn

Civil disobedience to unjust or canonically non-existent and illegitimate laws and rules -- yes!

From 1974 to 2007, countless priests (NOT the SSPX) were suspended for the crime of celebrating an "illegal" and "abolished" Mass -- namely the TLM.

Guess what Pope Benedict XVI said in 2007: the TLM was never abolished!

It can.

We hadn't gotten around to changing ritual. That leaves us subject to the RC bishhopas our ordinary. While this wouldn't usually matter, it came up in terms of an underage marriage (with a "conception" in the backround). The local RC diocese does not allow marriage under any circumstance below 19. The BC does . . .

I'll leave the resolution for a different time and place (leave it as we obeyed the instructions of our Ordinary, surprising as we found them), but the result is different due to our canonical enrollment.

hawk