www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Some Reflections on Being a Byzantine Catholic

I am not trying to be a wise guy here but am speaking from the depths of my ignorance. But what where we<UGCC>before we decided to maintain unity with Rome? Orthodox, yes?

In Christ:
Einar

Yes - with a traditionally close relationship to Constantinople.

With Moscow making all sorts of claims and Constantinople and the Patriarchs under the thumb of the Muslims, Kyiv looked to Rome.

For a good read, consult Fr. Borys A. Gudziak's Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest.

Here is a good article on the topic:

Article [books.google.com]

Thank you sir:

In Christ:
Einar

I have been somewhat troubled ever since a meeting I had with our priest regarding evangelization and have debated posting anything to this forum. However, in light of this topic thread and that of the "St. Basil" thread, I feel compelled to address what I see as the demise of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church, which will happen sooner rather than later and not because it will be "reintegrated" (my term) into an Orthodox jurisdiction. Here's why...

My conversation with Father, which included some other knowledgable lay folks, centered around evangelization and bringing into (or bringing back into) the fold those who are already Byz-Ruth---certainly is a praiseworthy effort. But that is where it stops... and I mean stops.

We are not to be out bringing in Roman Catholics, even those who have fallen away... that's for the Roman Church to do. If they show up at our door, well that's fine... but this is not their home.

If any Orthodox show up, well that's fine too but unless they are Carpatho-Rusyn, they need to seek out the appropriate "sister Church" in the Catholic Communion. Interestingly, when a EO approaches a Roman priest about attending his church, the priest is "required" to encourage the individual to first seek out the Catholic equivalent of his/her Orthodox jurisdiction (i.e., if Syrian Orthodox, attend a Melkite Church). Gee, I wonder how well this works in say, Nebraska? And, I'm pretty sure the Orthodox don't make former RCs only go to "Western Rite" churches.

But, this is the one I love... if you are Protestant, you are considered to be of the "Western" Church. Therefore, you must seek out a Roman Church first, go thru the RCIA program, and be baptised/confirmed. THEN you have the option to seek a transfer of Rite after you have hung around a BC church for awhile and you can figure out all the paperwork. (In all fairness, though, how many BCC's are setup to handle converts,anyway? Is there a formal Byzantine RCIA?)

My question is, just how many BCs are out there? We certainly can see there aren't too many in our parishes, some of which can no longer make ends meet. Many BCs no longer consider themselves as such (only the ethnic aspect). Many are in mixed marriages, MANY attend the RC Church because it's more convient for their family's schedule, it's closer, and of course the "masses" are shorter.

Yes, evangelization is most praisworthy... and we need to start with our own church-attending folks. But it appears that canon law, if interpreted to the letter (although some maintain it's more an issue on the part of the American RC bishops), makes it nigh on impossible to bring people to Christ thru the Byzantine Church.

My comment... One cannot get from Heidleburg to Constantinople... the train only goes as far as Rome... and it takes awhile.

... And then our conversation with Father turned to why some "Eastern" jurisdictions and even the Roman Church can have married priests, but the Byz-Ruth. Church can't. I'll save that for a later date. Let's just say that the "tapestry of Churches" metaphor sounds nice and poetic, but in reality, its a weave of politics, laws, and power.

You know, after one of these enlightening meetings I come walking away feeling like Charlie Brown every time Lucy pulls the football away just as he is ready to kick it. Good grief!!!

You have demonstrated my point. If the view is that our vocation is to simply disappear, this can only inspire apathy. The last time I checked, none of the apostles - except for Judas - was exempt from the Great Commission. We do not need maintenance workers, we need pastors and apostles. We need to be actively evangelizing Protestant Christians to bring them into apostolic Christianity. Let the Latins kick up a canonical fuss. We have every right to be an apostolic Church.

"With all due respect to the good Bishop John Michael and the Melkite Synod, that is not the terminology I would use to describe the reuniting of our spiritual families. And I am sure that more is involved in their descriptions of and aspirations towards union than simply "disappearing". Otherwise - why not just simply disappear now? If that is our destiny, why wait?"

I don't see what is wrong with the concept of "disappearing". One day there will be two Churches of Antioch in the Byzantine Rite, one Orthodox and one Catholic. The next day there will be just one, Orthodox and Catholic.

As to why we cannot do that today, it is precisely because there is no unity. Today, we cannot place ourselves under the omophorion of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch without sacrificing our communion with the Church of Rome, but if communion is restored, we can do so and lose nothing--we would still be in communion with Rome, and we would now be in communion with our Orthodox brethren.

"One bishop, one city is just fine with me!"

Then the entities known as Greek Catholic Churches will disappear, subsumed into the Orthodox Churches whence they came.

"My conversation with Father, which included some other knowledgable lay folks, centered around evangelization and bringing into (or bringing back into) the fold those who are already Byz-Ruth---certainly is a praiseworthy effort. But that is where it stops... and I mean stops.

We are not to be out bringing in Roman Catholics, even those who have fallen away... that's for the Roman Church to do. If they show up at our door, well that's fine... but this is not their home.

If any Orthodox show up, well that's fine too but unless they are Carpatho-Rusyn, they need to seek out the appropriate "sister Church" in the Catholic Communion. Interestingly, when a EO approaches a Roman priest about attending his church, the priest is "required" to encourage the individual to first seek out the Catholic equivalent of his/her Orthodox jurisdiction (i.e., if Syrian Orthodox, attend a Melkite Church). Gee, I wonder how well this works in say, Nebraska? And, I'm pretty sure the Orthodox don't make former RCs only go to "Western Rite" churches."

That's just legalistic mumbo-jumbo, which is what you get when your bishop for so many years was a canon lawyer with a chip on his shoulder.

As for recognition of our vocation to disappear fostering "apathy', that can only happen if one considers unity to be an abrogation of our personal responsibility to bear witness to Christ. It hasn't happened yet, and until it does, we must do what we can to be a light unto the gentiles, and to make disciples of all nations. After it happens, we still have that same responsibility, just "under new management".

Three points:

1. It is one thing to say that we will be one. I get that. I agree with it. We will exist as a blended family. No problemo.

2. The nature of that unity need not be "absorption" of one church by another. Perhaps there is another way of accomplishing this without "disappearing." I think the cross-jurisdictional mess in North America, for instance, requires a better solution than simply the infusion of Greek Catholics into various Orthodox jurisdictions, like a massive ecclesiastical card sort. There is a need for a much larger scale and more systemic canonical reconfiguration, IMHO. Just what that looks like is probably another thread (or several hundred) in itself.

And who is to say that the Church will want to go back to that Orthodox entity from which it came? Moscow and Constantinople have competing claims in that regard.

3. I think there is an issue in saying that we are destined to "disappear." I think this runs the risk of making us second-class ecclesial citizens and insofar as it does this, I believe that it is inaccurate. I understand the need for some hierarchs to say: "Look - I'm not interested in power and territory here. If unity comes, I lay down my crown in service to the Church and the Holy Spirit." I can envision Bishop John Michael taking that view. All Churches need more leaders like this who are not about clinging to power as long as possible.

As to "why not now," I realize that this this the case. It is not simply an issue of administrative unity.

"The nature of that unity need not be "absorption" of one church by another."

Really? Two Churches, with the same Tradition, the same rite. What is the unique identifier of a Greek Catholic Church?

"I think the cross-jurisdictional mess in North America, for instance, requires a better solution than simply the infusion of Greek Catholics into various Orthodox jurisdictions, like a massive ecclesiastical card sort."

I should think that problem will resolve itself, one way or the other, long before we have to worry about merging the Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

"And who is to say that the Church will want to go back to that Orthodox entity from which it came? Moscow and Constantinople have competing claims in that regard. "

So, you are saying that Ukrainian Greek Catholics will not want to be part of a united Church of Kyiv? Or that Melkites won't want to be part of a single Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch? Or that Russian Catholics won't want to be part of the Patriarchate of Moscow?

" I think this runs the risk of making us second-class ecclesial citizens"

Since we are already "spiritual helots", how does our status change?

"It is not simply an issue of administrative unity."

For there to be administrative unity, there must first be spiritual unity. When we acknowledge that we are one Church, all these issues of jurisdiction will be seen in their proper perspective.

So let's just say you have a mission. And in that mission, Protestant Christians in search of apostolic Christianity come to you for formation. Do you plan to announce to them that our vocation is to eventually disappear and be absorbed by the Orthodox Churches (however murky the line of sight to the "Mother Church" may be at times)? That our sole reason for existence is to bear witness to "the catholicity of the Eastern Churches through our communion with the Church of Rome?" IOW, we exist only in reference to other Churches, not for our own sake?

I say: we are an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. We are not a bridge, we are a missionary outpost. Our purpose or mission is that of any and all other apostolic Churches. We do not and should not define ourselves only in reference to others. If we cannot do otherwise, then we deserve to "disappear".

Metropolitan Mikhail (Rahoza) was the legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv when the Union was signed. The cited book by Fr. Borys Gudziak, an expansion of his Harvard doctoral dissertation, is the definitive history of the Union, and Groen et. al's work is also useful.

The late Holy Father also wrote an Apostolic Letter on the fourth centenary: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html

The late Fr. Alexander Baran has also written some good articles on the Union as well, some of which are contained in the wonderful Logos journal published by the Sheptytsky Institute.

And Dan, to speak to your opening post, I have no plans for "not existing" in the near future. Nor does my particular Church to my knowledge. I don't think His Beatitude would be spending the time and resources to build the Patriarchal Cathedral in Kyiv if he planned on our Church not existing in the near future. Evangelism and outreach has been a topic of increased interest in the Sobor (thankfully).

Stuart,

I think what I am saying is that Orthodoxy has its own issues of cross-jurisdictionalism with a myriad of competing claims, and I have serious doubts that those issues will be resolved any time soon. The mere shifting and sorting of Greek-Catholics will do nothing to solve this issue until some new canonical form takes shape, which will require an ecumenical council to solve. Orthodoxy as it exists jurisdictionally will not, cannot work as a form of Catholic-Orthodox unity. I do not say that the current set-up for Eastern Catholic Churches is the right one either. But I think that this notion of saying we will "disappear" and "be absorbed" makes one ask...precisely into WHAT?

I think absorption in this sense is like putting new wine into old wineskins. It requires the construction of a new wineskin.

I do not think we should either relish or accept second-class status. The inspiring example of Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV broke wonderful new ground vis-a-vis our status with regards to the Latin Church. I think we need to continue along this trajectory.

Admittedly, Orthodoxy is not without its discontents, and its present ecclesiology is frankly uncanonical in practice. But I believe that recognition of this problem is one of the factors pushing more and more Orthodox to at least consider the possibility of a universal primacy, and, moreover, one centered on the Church of Rome. So, acknowledgement of Roman primacy in some form seems to me a prerequisite for solving Orthodoxy's jurisdictional chaos, and that in turn will address the issue of restoring unity within the particular Eastern Churches between their Orthodox and Catholic manifestations.

As to where people go, I suspect that the process will be messy, but most people will go whither their bishops go. Some Churches, with split allegiance, will probably end up going to different places. Some that have no counterparts will remain as they are. The existence of some Eastern Catholic Churches in this country do not seem to make logical or canonical sense, and I for one would be perfectly happy to see the Ruthenian Metropolia rolled up into the Church of Kyiv. Most of the ethnic food fights that necessitated the establishment of separate hierarchies no longer apply, in any case.

I fail to see, though, how admitting that (a) the very existence of Eastern Catholic Churches is anomalous; and (b) that Eastern Catholic Churches should, upon the restoration of communion between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, be absorbed into the Churches whence they came, constitutes "second class citizenship".

It's like saying that exiles who return home ought somehow retain their distinct identity as exiles, because blending back in reduces them in some manner. I, for one, would not feel reduced at all, but greatly enlarged.

"And Dan, to speak to your opening post, I have no plans for "not existing" in the near future. Nor does my particular Church to my knowledge. I don't think His Beatitude would be spending the time and resources to build the Patriarchal Cathedral in Kyiv if he planned on our Church not existing in the near future. Evangelism and outreach has been a topic of increased interest in the Sobor (thankfully)."

Of course, Patriarch Lyubomir was an important backer of the Kyivan Church Studies Group, of which Father Borys was a leading member. The objective of the Group was laying the foundations for a united Kyivan Church that included both Orthodox and Greek Catholics under one Patriarch. Implicit in the idea is the return of the Greek Catholics separated by the Union of Brest--a union that never envisioned breaking communion with the Orthodox world (see Father Borys' outstanding book)--should return to the Church whence they came in 1596.