www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Narrow is the gate . . . . . .

Dear Administrator- Thanks for your thought, I concur with your posts. Though I, too, have seen some bad churches. What bothers me the most, and is the most common here, is individual Priests changing things to suit them liturgically. Thanks Serge for your insight, I always value your posting.

God Be with us,
Michael

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Celticson ]

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your balanced and accurate statements about the Latin Catholic Church in the United States. I concur with your observations and deeply appreciate them.

Steve
JOY!

i think t was on this very forum I read that fastinng had no changed much in the RCC if compared to dietary improvements.

axios

Dear Administrator,
I too thank you for you comments and observations. God bless you!
Don

I decided to edit my post because I am still a Catholic under the Pope of Rome. The Catholic Church as gone through dark periods before (i.e. Iconoclast) and she has always remainded Triumphant because Christ started Her and promised to be with Her always. Therefore, I think it is more important that we pray for the Church.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: aRomanCatholic@Work ]

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: Celticson ]

There is no doubt that there are cases of abuse within and without the Church.

However, I find it queer indeed that there are some who would espouse this to be "systemic' to the entire Roman Church and therefore call into question the validity, holiness, etc. of the Church.

I left the Church and came back to it after staying in three different Protestant Churches. While in those Protestant Churches I developed a love of Scripture and an appreciation for religious services that I did not have before.

It is false logic, however, to conclude that those things were absent from the Roman Catholic Church. To conclude and assert that the Church has lost her way because I don't see F. “X” doing or saying this or that is foolhardy indeed. Frankly, that is what I see a lot of here.

With all due respect, it is rather easy, I know as I was once there and did it, to blame the "Church" for the sins of her members. It is also very easy, I know as I was there and did it, to make the claim that it is a systemic problem; in so doing we psychologically release our individual responsibilities in accepting the hard and difficult (i.e., fasting and abstinence) teachings of Holy Mother Church. In truth, it is a cop-out. It has been my experience, again as I was there and did these things myself, that more Catholics and non-Catholics need to actually read the Church documents more clearly and carefully. If they were to do so, they would see what the Church teaches and could then have adequate information to combat the abuses of “Fr. X” or Sr. “Y” or Br. “Z”.

In my four years of discernment for a priestly vocation, I can assure you that the "laws and regulations" of the Church are very much alive and well. I have family and friends, including priests, who are very much devoted to fasting and abstaining. They do not wear it on their sleeves, but it is there none the less. They know that the Church has asked everyone to keep and hold to the Friday fast and not actually done away with it. A point of order is needed here as well; and that is that the Church in France, if I remember correctly, has re-adopted the obligatory status of the Friday fast.

It is a matter of false logic to conclude that because of some abuses here and there that this is what the Church "really" teaches.

I thank you Administrator for bringing some balance, logic, and right reasoning to the discussion. Your perspective is astute and worthy.

A point of order is needed here as well. If I remember my heresies correctly, "Iconoclasm" was first conceived and implemented in the east, Constantinople if I remember correctly, and not in Rome or the west.

Slan go foill,
Donnchadh

To All Participants:

Matthew 18:15-17 is clear: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.”

I request that all those of you who are insistent upon posting a litany of liturgical abuses within specific Roman Catholic parishes also provide information regarding the response you received when you brought the matter to the appropriate authorities within that Church. What did the pastor say? The local bishop? The representative of the USCCB in Washington or the papal pro-nuncio? If you have not bothered to bring these issues to the appropriate authorities and, together with fellow parishioners, push for an appropriate response or action then please do not bother to post these complaints on this, a Byzantine messageboard. If you have not bothered to bring these issues to the proper authorities then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Respectfully,

Administrator

Dear Administrator,

Actually, just reading your posts is something that is uplifting, but also puts things in perspective here.

I see now where I went wrong before. As always, you speak to the issues and give a great personal example as to how best one should converse on this invaluable Forum.

Alex

Admin.

At the present time I am doing research and collecting evidence for a letter that I will send to my local Bishop. Unforuntely, I am not well versed in Church law or the Liturgy. Therefore, until I feel the I am educated enough to be able to write such a letter I will not write it.

However, that does not mean that some of the Churches are not in error.

Further, you must understand the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are in a Symbiotic relationship. What happens to one member effects the other member. With that said I do feel that this forum is a proper place to discuss such issues.

Dear Administrator- Your point is well taken, as usaual, you are correct. Sometimes in life, one looks for a sympathetic ear when other avenues have been exhausted. I, like RC @ work, am still a Catholic under the Supreme Pontiff and freely acknowledge my weakness.

Please Pray for me that I gain wisdom, a virtue.

Michael

Dear Ray,

That is interesting.

How so "Symbiotic?" And how does what occurs liturgically in this or that Latin parish affect the Byzantine Catholic Churches?

Alex

We are all One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Although, Vatican II did not effect the oriental churches it is possible that Vatican III could have major impact on those churches. If the trend continues with liberal bishops then it almost certain that there influence could spill over to the eastern rite Bishops and ultimately to the Pontiff himself.

It is my personal opinion that the only reason why the Eastern Churches have seen a return to their traditions is because of the Holy Pontiff we have in office. That trend could also be reversed.

God Bless!

I think the very essence of Eastern Catholicism prevents that from happening. Even with all the Latinizations, the core of Eastern Theology and Praxis remain unchanged. This is its nature - its orthodoxy. To change that is to change what it is. By our own customs, if a Bishop goes against the Holy Church or Tradition, he is no longer our bishop. Now, I am not sure how that would translate in our current situation, but it is worth remembering.

Dmitri.

Dear +Ray,

(Perhaps I could distinguish you in this manner from the other -ray? ).

I've never really heard of a "liberal" Byzantine Catholic bishop in the classic sense.

Then again, what one defines as "liberal" can vary.

In the liturgical sense, our Particular Churches hang on to their traditions and fight against Latinisms, with more or less success depending on circumstances.

Sometimes someone with a "pro-Latin" orientation could deem those who are "pro-Byzantine" as liberals. I heard a sermon of the former variety where the Priest decried the "liberals" in our Church who are for standing rather than kneeling etc.

The same is true in reverse.

Liberal in a theological or moral sense? That's not likely in our Church since we just don't have the same issues that the RC church does.

Spilling over to our Church? It's just not in the cards.

As for our return to our traditions, this has been going on long before the current Pope (although he is wonderful about that, isn't he? ).

Patriarch Slipyj was instrumental in getting the Byzantinization movement going in our post-war Church. Before even that, it was Saint Andrew Sheptytsky who figured prominently in that movement.

There were some musings among the Ukrainian Catholic episcopate in Ukraine to hold a possible "vote" on whether to change rites.

But nothing happened further with that matter.

I have to agree with the Administrator and I believe that what happens in the Particular Latin Church is really of no substantial concern to us here. We have our own issues that deal, as always, with self-preservation.

Alex