www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology AmChurch and our Church

I agree with what Timothy has said about the need of our Church to speak clearly, in the face of the challenge from the world.

Ironically, even though this is "one of the greatest fears of world Orthodoxy" it is also one of the issues most consistently addressed by the present Pope of Rome. Who has spoken more vehemently against the consumeristic a-moral and worldly values which speak against the Gospel of Christ.

I also regreat, that American culture (or that part of it which debases the value of human life, and seeks to lure Americans to a sinful and wasteful lifestyle) advances from one lower standard to another is the fault of all the Christian Churches, who have not effectively proclaimed the Gospel, and called our nation to holiness.

Am I correct to assume that we on the forum would all agree that the Orthodox and Catholic Church is not conveniently a place where we may seek refuge from worldly reality? It is no place to hide, and that is not the example set for us by our Lord, nor is it obedience to God's commandment. If we are not the 'leaven' within our society, announcing the good news, and working for the conversion of the world, we are not the Church. (But I know that is not Timothy is saying.)

I am glad that Orthodoxy is speaking clearly of the teaching of Christ, and preaching the kingdom. As Timothy rightly points out, we must resist the efforts of the Evil One, to corrupt our Church from within, making its mission mute, and its voice silent.

If that is the challenge presented by the modernistic liberal "American" question, I am beginning to see what this was about.

Elias

In order to be fair towards Catholics of all types, (Roman and Byzantine) I would be more than willing to start up a thread on this problem in American Orthodoxy-without getting into some nasty jurisdiction bashing, but telling the truth as it is.

I am a member of a SCOBA jurisdiction, and other than the MP, ROCOR and the PofJ, I have little use for other breakaway groups who dot the landscape.
Unfortunately, I've seen both extremes of foolishness-over-zealous converts who try to live monastic lifestyles in the world, and truly modernist priests and parishes, all within the confines of the good old OCA.

MK

Funny this topic should come up.

Recently, many people have asked me precisly how such a loyal Papist like myself could ever turn Orthodox? Well, AmChurch is precisly the reason. In fact, what drove me to seek out the Byzantine rite was a great disgust with many of the liberal pracices I was seeing in the local Latin parishes. In New Jersey, I atended and bcame familiar with the Byzantine/Orthodox tradition and found it to be my hearts true home. Unfortunatly, in Kansas, Eastern rite parishes are slim pickins so I had to settle for the Roman rite. Now the Archdiocese out here in the Kansas City area seems to be pretty conservative at first glance. The Bishop is very liberal in permitting the TRidentine mass and even lets the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter have a free hand in its blessed work of preserving Latin tradition (In fact, they have use of a beautiful old Church in Kansas City in which both Sunday and daily Latin mass is continuily offered up, although prehaps the Archbishops indult may be a necessity considering that the SSPX has their major headquarters nearby). Unfortunatly I could never get to this parish because I live too far away so that option was closed.

On the oppisite end of the spectrum, you have the parish I attended. This parish was the uttermost horror of all horrors as far as innovations of all sorts are conserned. It is one of those round looking structures that was built after the "spirit of Vatican 2" took hold quite obviously. Its appearance is round shaped and has cushened chairs instead of pews which are arranged in a semi circule around the alter which is almost in the middle of the "church". All masses are done to the accompaniment of guitar music which is performed by a group of people who look like they have just time warped from woodstock or something. No reverance whatsoever is shone for anything (AFAIKT) by the very liberal and upbeat, suburban congregation. People routinly talk during the mass and pay little attention to the priest who dosent seem to care anyway. People are accustomed to bringing food and drink with them to munch on during mass and usually do not bother to remove their hats upon entering the building (Apparently no one has bothered to stress this to them least they be offended). I once saw a teenage girl kicking a soccer ball down the aisle without remorse. If its any wonder why these people act like they do, perhaps it is because their religious education and RCIA classes consist of "team leaders" gathering the catecumins in a small room, lighting a candle in the center, and then asking everyone to close their eyes and imagine that they are walking up a hill with Jesus and to think to themslves,"If I were conversing with God, wha would I say"?

I should know how bad it was since I was one of the students at this RCIA (I was a late confirment). WEll, after this, I decided that any Church that would allow such a parish as this to opperate in her jurisdiction absolutly cannot be true so I went over to the Orthodox (And the most conservative, anti-modernist jurisdiction that I could find at that).

Did I act hastly, yes know I think so. But this type of Church experience was so revolting that it actually just pushed me over into Orthodoxy where I have been for the past several years in a state of recovery.

Why did I attend the parish in the first place? Simply because I was too lazy to drive into anearbye town to attend their Catholic mass.


On a side note, an interesting article on the Ukrainian Church and AMChurch can be found at


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/Ukrain~1.htm

(Please excuse the ultra traditionalist publication which it appears in and I in no way endorse).

Robert K.

Forgive me, a sinner, for what follows...nevertheless, I feel moved to say what I've written below.

When the subject of "AmChurch" came up in the not too distant past, I originally didn't have a problem with it. I figured it was pretty well known, and that faithful Catholics shouldn't feel threatened by it. Having witnessed the divisive character it had brought on in the past here, it was banned...but I'm not entirely sure now -- nor was I then -- if that was the right thing to do. Defining it then -- as we're doing now -- is what we should've done (and if a standard dictionary definition wasn't available, I was pretty sure that "what is AmChurch?" was a question easily answered in the context of the various posts). Perhaps in doing so properly, we wouldn't have lost cherished brethren and alienated many others. It is my opinion that the term itself was not as divisive as the images it put in different people's minds...agreeing to a definition might have saved us a lot of pain and annoyance.

I'm no Roman Catholic, and therefore I cannot know fully what it is to hear "AmChurch" as a Roman Catholic does. But the definition of AmChurch that Alex and others gave in the first page of this thread is what I've always understood AmChurch to be, and what I accepted as a given that other people understood the term to mean. I don't think nor do I hope anyone defined AmChurch as a jurisdiction of "the Roman Catholic Church" in America, or formally identified it with the RCC...to say such is surely erroneous.

But when understood and/or defined as a philosophy, as a position of dissent from traditional Catholic teachings and philosophies and from legitimate Church authority, particularly in specific areas, all the while maintaining the appearance of full communion in spirit as well as corporately with the Church, a position of making the Church adapt to the spirit of the world instead of changing the world in the spirit of Christ, I think AmChurch is at once properly defined and distinguished from the "Roman Catholic Church" in this country...thus, faithful Roman Catholics should have nothing to fear from this term.

When the thread was started, and the term used, thus "breaking" the regulation set down in the past that the word would not be allowed, the moderator and administrator both stepped in to ask that we avoid the word. Nevertheless, the word hasn't been avoided, but qualified with a definition similar to and/or implying some or most of the above. And the conversation continues, with even the administrator's participation in a "focused" discussion.

Yet we still see in the course of the conversation after the qualifications were made and terms defined that there are those still questioning why this word has been resurrected. No doubt they are concerned about the term's shady history, on this forum, and its divisive nature in general.

I still maintain that as long as the qualifications are made clear, the word can and should be used...is it not much better to use this convenient label for the ideology rather than broadbrushing the Roman Catholic Church as a wholly corrupt bunch as some no doubt would have us believe? If, however, the ban on the word AmChurch is upheld, even with the qualifications we have given it, I feel there is something else we should ban, qualifications or no qualifications.

In a few posts on the second page of the thread, American Culture has been referred to in a negative light. I quote partially from a few posts: "American Cultural Impact upon Eastern Orthodoxy---american consumerism, worldliness, pornography, lack of moral standards, and violence as seen in movies and TV---these are greatly feared in the other parts of the Orthodox world." Again, "wasteful and sinful lifestyle of American Popular Culture". And again, "American culture, with sinful levels of racism, homophobia, sexism, individualism, disregard for the poor and those in need of health care is a moral outrage."

I've been an American all my life, and while being the inheritor of a great Indian heritage, have also appropriated to myself American culture and values, and have not found them at all at odds with the Gospel. Values such as love of God, family, and country, truth, justice, equality, compassion, loyalty, hard work, selflessness, ethics, nonviolence, acceptance, etc. Surely the negative qualities people have mentioned are present, absolutely. But they are in no way integrally part of the American cultural ethos. And I am offended that some of my fellow Americans think that they are...if they don't think this way, then I'm not entirely satisfied with whatever qualifications were made to reflect this (be assured, brothers, I have nothing personally against any of you...I love you as brothers in Christ). It certainly doesn't seem clear to me in some of these posts that these negative values aren't being equated with the grand scheme of American culture. And if it can seem that way to me, then it sends a bad vibe out about American culture to those who read these posts who are not American.

If we're going to have such a negative reaction to the term AmChurch, and all it signifies, even with proper qualifications, then I feel we should also not allow anyone to make such sweeping judgments upon American culture, qualifications or not. Conversely, if we are allowed to speak of the negative aspects of American culture, with or without qualification, then I think speaking about AmChurch shouldn't be the problem that it is for some. If there are those who feel that in referring to AmChurch they are unjustly being numbered among *the real problem*, I feel that my country and people, as well as myself and other God-fearing Americans, are being demonised far more than is necessary by people referring to American culture and values in such a negative light.

We might as well be fair.

I'm sorry that this post is not as well ordered as most of my posts, I didn't know how else to tackle this but in a roundabout way.

Christ is Risen! May He have mercy on me...

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

I am somewhat confounded by the tack that this topic has taken.

Honestly speaking, I've been exposed to the non-traditional Western Church, and to be frank, I've been made rather uncomfortable by some of the mindset/perspectives that I've seen in a number of circumstances. Perhaps I've been 'too educated' and have studied too much, but some of the stuff strikes me as devoid of the organic development that I expect within the ecclesiastical community in the Western Church. It appears that many of the neo-ritualist activities are more in conformity with the semantic/semiotic practices of contemporary American culture than the activities that have been organically developed within the Western Church.

For us Easterns, I don't think that this is too much of an issue -- for two reasons.

One: our Eastern liturgical and lifestyle observances come to us organically from what our ancestors have done and have passed on to us in our families. (I can give a whole mess of practices that are liturgical (like the fast in Lent) but are also quasi-liturgical (like not using a hammer or other device to drive nails during Holy Week) that are part of "Orthodoxy.

Secondly: our mindsets are more inclined to respect the local parish community and somewhat ignore the "whole Church" perspective that is the characteristic of the Western communities. We "do" what "we do" because we just do it. (The babas and the yiayas are our touchstone.) And one can study and memorize the texts from now till Kingdom Come, but it ain't the reality. The reality is: what are the folks in the community doing.

Our Ukie brother Alex has hit upon the truth, perhaps without recognizing it. Our parish communities are indeed communities (we're so freakin' small!!!) so what is going on in the greater group is of little concern to us. Byzantine Churches don't give a damn about 'contemporary culture' as envisioned by society. However, when one of our kids comes to liturgy with a pierced eyebrow or ear (or some hidden place) and with frosted blond hair and the baggy pants, we don't see it as some rejection of the community. Rather we see it as one of our people doing something that conforms to contemporary youth culture. And, like the babas of yore, we just shrug our shoulders, and think "OY veh" (with apologies to our Jewish brethren!!) and deal with it. And if they ask questions about a girlfriend, or a sister, or about dancing, or whatever, we Easterns don't label it as "AMByzantine" or whatever.

Thanks be to God, but we have apparently been immunized against this labeling because our communites are so small, and our "ethnoi" are so tiny vis-a-vis America ( and Canada) that we don't even think about placing them "outside" the community. The Romaniaks have (in their perspective) the luxury of dividing the family according to 'belief/practice' behavior. We Easterns don't share this mindset. "Ours" are "ours". And they can do whatever the hey they want to -- but they're still US. And this applies to those who think we can increase the role of women in the church, can accept the person of 'unusual' familial status, can just do some stuff that serves the community even if it conflicts with the accepted practices ,etc. We don't make an issue of it as an "ISSUE!!!!!", but rather it is a pastoral issue for the parish.

I know that I sometimes get rather angry about folks who tell us Easterns how we should think, and respond to the variations that occur amongst our peoples. They oftentimes will hurl quotations and canons to validate their perspectives, especially as it concerns the AmChurch or whatever they wish to judge. And thereby make judgement against the folks in the East who are not willing to conform to the beliefs or perspectives of the "traditional" Roman Church as they understand it. (I.e., we Easterns are oftentimes seen as a viable and canonical support for their perspective, unless and until we assert our traditional lifestyle-perspectives, in which case we are inquisitionized to prove our loyalty to the Sacrae Romanae Ecclesiaae perspective. That is: we are seen as "really traditional" and "apostolic canonical" in supporting the traditionalist point of view; but: the minute we raise issues of infant confirmation, married priests, baptismal communion, etc. then we are obligated to be on the defensive. And I, for one, resent this immensely.

We Easterns are who we are by virtue of the graces of the Holy Spirit. And I personally get really ticked off when I am told that I have to both read, absorb and assent to some other perspective perforce of our communion with the See of Rome and the Holy Father.

The answer is "No." It is not a rejection of the Holy Father but rather an re-confirmation of our historical status. So, because we're usually in small parishes and know one another fairly well, and because we focus on the small parish unit and not the "whole Church", I don't think we're going to see some of the fringe stuff that is happening in the RC Church in the U.S. whatever one may choose to call it.

ARM THE UKIES!!!

Christ if Risen!!!

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Dear Mor Ephrem,

Indeed He is Risen!

A very good point. I am still uncomfortable with this term, and the reason you cite is one of the reasons.

1. It is right to distinguish between the good in American culture (which you correctly identify), and those elements in American culture, which seem against the Gospel. To suggest that everything "Am" is counter-evangelical is wrong.

2. As pointed out, it is only certain liberal, and dissenting elements within the Roman Church, and not the Roman Church as a whole which seems to be referenced by this (unfortunate) term.

Avoiding the term itself as much as possible, I hope will avoid these unfortunate generalizations, and prevent the reactions to which this discussion has endured in the past on this forum.

However, the concept that one can be "Catholic" or "Orthodox" and yet depart from the Tradition of the faith of Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers, is important, and I am glad it can be addressed.

True liberalism (of the good kind) is the liberty of the sons of God, promised in the Scripture to those who believe. The great spiritual paradox, is that true freedom, true liberty, is found in perfect obedience and submission to the will of God! Whereas self-direction, and self-will, (placing one's own reason above the teaching of Christ) is the ultimate slavery, and the opposite of true liberalism.

Elias

I think Robert has hit the core of much of the problem. If you look at the abuses he mentioned, the majority of them are issues of children with bad manners likely the result of bad parenting.

Today's American churches (Catholic, Orthodox & Protestant) have less a problem with unorthodoxy as with parents who make no effort to discipline their children.

Matters have gotten out of ahnd to the point that often it is the parishes with the least number of children that have the best and most traditional liturgy.

Axios

Dear Father Elias,

Barekhmor!

I've generally agreed with you in what you wrote, but it is here where I am not so sure. Does avoidance of a term actually help anything other than keeping it under the carpet?

I've got family and friends who are disgusted with what goes on in the Latin Church, from blatant liturgical abuse to the hypocrisy of silencing the dissenting voice of a priest in his pulpit while protecting child abusers and approving of their ministry.

I've seen the bad in the Latin Church. But I've also seen too much of the good to know that it's really not as bad as they think.

But there are plenty of people, like my family, who have never heard the term "AmChurch"; these people just associate all the bad with something inherently wrong with the Latin Church, and then dislike it for what it stands. I'm trying to convince them that the Latin Church itself doesn't stand for these things, but it's an uphill battle.

So I ask: is it better to avoid using a term, even with qualifying it's meaning, and thus allow some to broadbrush the whole thing for the sake of the element we're not allowed to label thus? Or is it better and more just to label the element, and thus differentiate it from the whole?

I am of the opinion that as long as one clarifies what one means by "AmChurch", it shouldn't be such a problem to faithful Roman Catholics...in fact, it should stand to justly identify responsible elements instead of implicating the whole group. I just don't understand why some, even with such (I think clear) defining of terms, can't accept use of the term. To this end, I'd appreciate it if someone could explain that one to me.

This divisions happen in most of the local catholic churches (and the orthodox churches) because groups can have different opinions about different issues (ecumenism, interfaith relations, liturgy, sex, etc), and this is normal. Pope John Paul II himself is liberal in liturgical issues, but very conservative in personal morality.

I think many issues of differences of opinion exist with all the Christian churches. But I think it has to admitted that the American Catholic Church has something very, very wrong with it when it produces leaders like Cardinal Law and others who tolerate the abuse of children.

Clearly, this goes beyond just the personal shortcomings (to be kind)/evil (to assume the worst) of Cardinal Law. It is something that has overtaken the thinking of significant elements of the leadership of the American Catholic Church. Call it AmChurch or call it something else, but it is a problem that must be addressed.


Axios

P.S. From this morning's paper, it appears that Cardinal Egan from NYC is part of Cardinal Law's American vision of Catholicism that tolerates unspeakable abuses.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Of course this is a relevant topic. Yet, we all know that we could easily be invited to leave the forum for simply discussing the topic. If you want to stay on this forum be very careful.

How has this affected the BC Church? Ask those priests who have question the existence of homosexual priests in our Church?

Dan Lauffer

?

Dear Dan,

You are absolutely right, this is an important discussion, and I am glad that we will (hopefully) sidestep the "pitfalls". Caution and courtesy in 'internet' chat is always appropriate.

However the problem with the word (AmChurch) endures. Even here in this thread, despite the early "clarification" by our friend Alex, it is not at all clear that we are using this term similarly.

Axios is clearly speaking about the "American Catholic Church" that produces a certain type of leader. Is the Cardinal of Boston a posterchild for "AmChurch"? Surely not! And now Cardinal of New York is also part of this group?

Here we are clearly talking about something else entirely. Incompetent leadership is was not part of Alex's original definition in this thread.

As I recall, we identified "AmChurch" in another way, it was precisely those "who claim to remain within the Church, yet choose to dissent from the tradition, teaching, and authority of the Church".

If it is about "liberalism" and dissent, that is one thing. If it is about homosexual clergy, that is another. Some gay clergy are among its most conservative theologians, and liturgical traditionalists, so now our definition falters again.

The problem with the word "AmChurch", is that everyone is using it to lump together any number of issues.

Each and every issue is worth discussing, and can be discussed here with profit, and no topic or discussion is excluded (so long as it falls within the simple rules of courtesy we all agreed to when we registered).

If we could agree on what "AmChurch" means, that would be so helpful. But the last three posts seem to indicate that in fact, we have not really settled on the idea of it our good friend Alex has articulated at the beginning of this thread. Others are using it differently. How can we discuss something, if we define the word in different ways? Must not the first task always be to agree on our terms? We have yet to agree to the meaning of this term, and until we do, how helpful is it? That is the only reason why I suggested that we continue the discussion, and avoid the term if possible, so that there was no ambiguity. I would prefer it if the writer named precisely exactly what he is speaking about. Evidnetly, "AmChurch" still lacks such precision.

If it is merely a term of abuse, for all those people I find objectionable, and opinions I find unsuitable, then it is merely an "epithet" and my argument surely falls down before a point is made.

My thought is that we best treat the issues with the seriousness which they deserve, and not allow this important discussion to falter, because people do not understand or accept my definition of a word (it is not in the dictionary).

If we are discussing the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church in the United States, let us say that is what we are discussing. If that is what we mean, let us use the Church's proper title. (that is simply a courtesy.) Use their title, and then make a point! Whatever point.

If we are discussing an element within the Church which dissents from Church Tradition and the Gospel teaching, and we call that group "AmChurch", I can understand that, and we can speak about it. That is a clear definition, and it is something important that can be discussed.

Any other issue, i.e., the moral decline, abortion, non-traditional (experimental) Liturgy, abuse of children, incompetent Bishops, the married priesthood, the ordination of women, homosexual clergy, abuse of children, ...can be discussed. Am I asking too much, if all I want is to know exactly what we are talking about? The last three posts are talking about different things, yet all think they are addressing "AmChurch". While the title "AmChurch" remains as ambigious, how is it helpful?

So, I think my friend Mor Ephrem is right, when he suggests that we must clarify the meaning of the word. But in my poor view, if it means "everything I hate about the Roman Catholic Church in America", this is insufficiently clear.

Perhaps I don't understand, but I ask, how can there be one term for; shielding sexually deviant priests, lack of reverence in Liturgy, the question of the ordination of women, abortion, etc. etc.? What is the connection between all these?

Does not precise and profitable discourse always accurately define the terms of reference, and carefully distinguish the questions involved, offering clear and concise points in support of an argument?

That is the kind of discussion which I enjoy reading, and in which I would like to participate. From such precise argument, I learn and form my own judgements and opinions. I hope that is what we can do here.

Do you agree with Alex's definition of "AmChurch" or could you propose another?

Elias

Elias,

I think your post was very helpful. I guess any real consideration of the merits or failures of a point of view starts with its proposition. A point of view which has no proponent would be a strawman.

I don't think any groups defines itself as "AmChurch" and therefore I woudl conclude the term should be rejected. I would suggest people here reference actually existing groups, communtiies or organizations: Call to Action, Dignity, SSPX, WOC, Acton Institute, Commonweal, Catholic Worker, GOAL, AXIOS, Orthodox Christian Charities, GCU, Tradition Family Property, Opus Dei, NCCW, etc.

Is this fair?

I mean, I can make up terms and assign it to school of thought I disagree with, but is anyone interested in me doing so?


Axios

[ 05-12-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Brother Elias,

I see your point and will be more definitive in the future.

Dan Lauffer