www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Catholicism Is Winning

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal: Traditional Catholicism is Winning [online.wsj.com]

Unfortunately, the Ruthenian Church in Pittsburgh had gone in the opposite direction over the past 30 years. The result is that the seminary is empty. And with the Revised Divine Liturgy most parishes had about 1/3 of their people simply walk away.

When will our bishops and priests learn that radical orthodoxy and good music fill churches?

I keep seeing these kinds of posts, complaining about the situation in the BCC. I've read them for years.

My question for everyone is, what are you actively doing about it? First, are you offering prayer and sacrifice? Are you engaging your clergy in real dialogue? I don't mean just writing letters of complaint to the eparchy (or to Rome) either. Are you networking with like minds and praying together about the situation? A bunch of people acting independently are not, in all likelihood, going to affect real change.

My last experience in a BCC parish (St. George, Olympia, WA) was over 10 years ago and I can't remember it well at all so I have no real recent personal experience to draw from about this matter. I would say, though, that so many people (posters here and elsewhere) are so unhappy that they could have a powerful voice if working in unison. Just my thoughts.

After being told to shut up and get back in the ranks, I went where my vision of Eastern Christianity is shared by most of the faithful, the clergy and the hierarchy.

Stuart, I know you went to the Melkite Church and many others have gone to other ritual churches or to Orthodoxy.

My lines of thinking are this - many Roman dioceses would not be offering the Latin mass or now having FSSP or ICK parishes if the laity were not vocal and agitating about it. I'm wondering if an organization could actually be created, along the lines of the Greek Catholic Union of long ago, that could show strength in numbers (and demonstrate perhaps some financial clout) to the BCC hierarchy and the new Metropolitan, lobbying for a "reform of the so-called reform" or returning to the DL before the RDL.

Do you have any thoughts on this idea? Like I said I am not a BCC member, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see how much pain and distress there is out there among many BCC faithful.

I attend a wonderful orthodox BCC parish. We are growing. We have active young members and an active ECF program and an active Adult Enrichment program (we are reading Eastern Orthodox books- just finished this past Lent the Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Nicholas Cabasilas). We have started a Young Adults Group. Our priest celebrates the full cycle of services (Vespers, Matins, and Divine Liturgy) weekly. We are reaching out to the unchurched (We could do better but we are trying) with the Good news of Jesus Christ!

So, I understand the reservation of some but it is not all bad and there are many, many orthodox Byzantine Catholics reaching out to the wider public with open arms, welcoming people and sharing the transforming love of Jesus Christ within the Byzantine Catholic Church!

That's true. It's only part of the story. Many Roman dioceses wouldn't be offering the Latin Mass except for all the lay people who left for the SSPX. Especially a few years ago, the permission for the old Mass was typically given mainly as a means of keeping people from leaving.

from the article:


Yes, it is true that the Liturgy is what keeps us engaged and draws others, Byzantine, Latin or otherwise.

Yes, it is true that there are issues with the RDL and it was a sore subject, remains so with many, and there were several notable casualties stemming from its implementation (including some prominent friends here).

But to say that the RDL is the sole reason that people have left in large numbers is rather simplistic. To quote our eloquent friend and frequent contributor, StuartK, there is a straw for every camel's back. I suspect the RDL may have been it for many, and this is likely why people are jumping to this somewhat cursory conclusion.

I do agree that traditional values, orthodox orientation and a solid commitment to proper rendering of our beautiful chant keep people engaged, and are all very critical to the life of our Church. But there are other things that can, do and have happened that drive folks away, irrespective. Parish closings, indifferent clergy, aging populations and demographic shifts among our people, level of engagement of the laity in the life of the Church, etc.

Although I have had my own share of difficulties with the Church of my fathers (yes, I am a "cradle" Byzantine-Ruthenian, for the avoidance of doubt, and it hasn't always been a rosy experience either), I prefer for the moment to focus on doing what I can for my parish, my pastor and fellow parishioners. We'll have to see how the current Metropolitan intends to lead, but the bigger indicator of the future in my mind remains the choice of successor for the Eparchy of Passaic. Our pastor announced this Sunday that it could take up to a year for this to be settled. In my mind and IMHO, this is indicative of a much bigger set of problems and challenges than the RDL.

Though the bishops (most of them) will acknowledge privately that the RDL has been an unmitigated disaster, and while some of them have (also privately) made it known that no ramifications will ensue if the Red Books mysteriously reappeared and the Teal Terror got relegated to the attic, publicly there has been no sign of backing down. For them, it's a matter of authority: they authorized the change, and who are we peasants to demand they change back? Besides, the books have been paid for, and it will be a couple of decades before they can afford to issue new ones.

That aside, let's face it--the Ruthenian faithful themselves have no consistent or united view of what their Church is or ought to be. Until that happens--which will take real leadership on the part of the hierarchs--the Church will continue to drift, and people will continue drifting out of it.

It is interesting to watch the fates of the two 'sisters' floating into the 21st century- i.e. the BCC and ACROD and their 'cousin' - the OCA. Their fates, its seems, are somehow linked by their common heritage and struggles.

I will just say that we have our own problems. As with the BCC, it is taking an interminable time for a successor to our late Metropolitan to be chosen. As with the BCC there is discontent in many parishes and if my own home parish is any indicator we have shed nearly 500 souls to death and relocation in the twenty years our current pastor has been on the job. There certainly have not been marriages and births to match that loss.

The three churches I mentioned share for the most part the old 'rust belt'. Our parishes are located in older neighborhoods. Our birth rate mirrors that of the nation and our young people leave home with an uncertain sense of what they are and the things which made our heritage important have faded as time goes by. School events take precedence over church events, work comes first etc... etc... etc...

So I think it is easy perhaps to blame a book or the actions of this Bishop or that Bishop but in the end, we all have to face reality.

For years the OCA claimed several hundred thousand faithful in its censuses and ACROD claimed 50,000 to 70,000. If I recall the Pittsburgh eparchy claimed 170,000 or so. The reality is that those numbers were wishful thinking when they were made and are rather farcical when you look at the present reality. ACROD probably has fewer than 12,000 registered souls, the OCA maybe has 35,000 and the BCC - I'm not sure but I doubt if it substantially exceeds the 47,000 or so of her Orthodox counterparts.

So I think we all need to end the pity party and stick to the work of the Church. Strength in a Church is not necessarily found in its numbers, but in the character and faith of its members.

Hang in there! S'bohom!

This article is also written about the problems with the Roman Catholic nuns. The very same problems apply to the Pittsburgh Metropolia. And especially the nuns in Uniontown.

The Vatican's Corrective to Liberal Catholics [online.wsj.com]

The bishops, many of our priests, and certainly our nuns are still hostage to 1960s and 1970s post-Vatican II secular feminist ideas. They can't even look at the evidence before them. Lots of people have left. Instead of looking at where they have gone wrong they attack those they chased away. So much for building the kingdom of God.

I don't subscribe to the WJS, darn it...

Alexis

Aside from the insistent use of gender inclusive language in the Scriptural translation used in the RDL, exactly how has the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Church given in to a "secular feminist agenda"? What is happening in Uniontown that reflects this among the sisters and their order?

As a woman, perhaps a former member of the BCC (or current, dissatisfied one), what is happening that you in particular (i) find objectionable and (ii) reflects incorporation by the BCC of "post-Vatican II secular feminist ideas"?

Not all of us are as close to the action, so to speak, as you may be from Pittsburgh, so please do share some of your specific observations.

Except for inclusive language I find little fault with the translation. It has not been an issue of any great importance to our congregation. I don't wish to suggest motives for people who are complaining. It's just that it is of minor to no importance to us.

As a fairly newly married BCC convert with a young one on the way, I won't be raising my child in the BCC as it currently exists. I'd rather my kids be raised straight Roman per their mother's rite than a confusing and inconsistent hybrid theology.

If the liturgy is brought back in line and if the "teaching on the ground" can begin to reflect true Byzantine theology at the parish level (Nelson's parish is a model, mine isn't) that could change.

The inclucive language is a big problem to me, and the motivation to resist it lies in the theology and the philosophy that it reflects.

My wife and my daughter (both linguists) and I find much to fault in the translation, which is what happens when you start doing line-by-line comparisons with the Slavonic text. The RDL swings back and forth between excessive literalism to paraphrase, and, on occasion, to pure invention, without rhyme or reason. Stylistically, the prose if flat, awkward, infelicitous and lacking in poetry. Underlying it all is the relentless didacticism of post-conciliar liturgists, all of whom seem to think that liturgy has to be written on a fourth grade reading level, or the people won't "get it". Closely related to that is the translator's desire to give us his interpretation of the text, rather than the text as it is. All things considered, and when compared to the 1965 translation, EPIC FAIL!