www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic?

Dear Friends,

In another thread, Maximus was engaged in conversation with others, and they seemed to think that Maximus was trying to measure Eastern Catholicism against Latin Catholicism, while I understood him to be asking something different. He has confirmed for me my understanding of his point, and my questions to Eastern Catholics regarding the subject have been answered temporarily with the request to ask them in a new thread, so that we can devote the proper attention to it. With that said...

Maximus spoke thus:

If you are refering to my comment about Byzantine Catholics being in union with Rome - then my response to you (following your logic) is that the mere fact that Byzantine Catholics choose to be in union with Rome not Constantinople is implicit that Byzantine Catholics use the Latin Catholic Pope and his Church as a measuring stick for Catholicism. I've only been on this earth 30 years and I personaly know only one Bishop and have never met any Pope - how long has Byzantine Catholicism been in union with Rome?

And then the Administrator said:

You are incorrect in this assumption. Read the writings of Pope John Paul II regarding the Eastern Churches (especially Orientale Lumen) and you will see that he puts the Eastern approach to theology and liturgy on an equal footing with the Western approach. The Holy Father has made it clear that we are not to use the Latin Catholic way � as wonderful and correct as it is � as our measuring stick.

Which prompted me to respond:

Dear Administrator,

If I'm reading your post and those of Maximus wrong, please forgive me. But I think what Max is trying to get at is this: granted that Papal documents and statements affirm the validity and equality of the Eastern approaches to the Western approach (in essence, it is an affirmation of the complete catholicity of Eastern approaches), why do Byzantine and other Eastern Catholics feel that they want to/should be in communion with Rome rather than (the equally catholic) Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, or elsewhere? Basically, why be Eastern Catholic rather than Orthodox? What do you get out of being Catholic that you couldn't get from being Orthodox? What's the benefit? I would very much appreciate hearing answers to these questions...

So there it is...go get 'em!

Phillip,

As for myself and I think most Pro-Orthodox, Easternizing Eastern Catholics your question is difficult to answer. Perhaps the best answer is to seperate it into two answers, one about beliefs and another about benefits.

I believe that most Eastern Catholics are convinced of two beliefs that differ from the Orthodox: one, the Pope has a ministry and office, that while uniquely and intimately tied to his episcopacy, is beyond the role of patriarch with first place of honor; and two, the communion of all Churches with one another and with the Pope of Rome is normative and the will of Christ.

As far as benefits, that is debatable. What should be a benefit has often been a cross to bear. One could say there is no benefit to being in communion with Rome from the sense of preserving one's identity as an Eastern Christian, given the history of Latinization, harassing, and micromanaging the Eastern Catholic Churches have suffered.

However, Eastern Catholics have a vocation to witness the Catholicity and Oneness of the Church both to the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church maintains the Orthodox Church lacks nothing but communion with Rome. So while the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, only the Catholic Church is the fullness of the Church, lacking nothing. Inversely, The Orthodox Church believe the same of itself. However, the Latin Church has still not learned how to fully respect and coexist with the Eastern Churches as evidenced by their paternalistic approach to those Eastern Churches in communion with it. So the lack of communion is as much the fault of the Latin Church as it is that of the Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches stand in the middle. However, they can only be effective in their vocation if they are completely and authentically Eastern in all things. Latinization is a sin, not because Latin practices are sinful, but because they are an abandonment of our vocation. A Latinized Eastern Church witnesses nothing and frustrates the union of East and West because the very reasons the Orthodox fear reunion are substantiated. We become a cause for the sin of disunity in Christ's One, Holy Church. We must work to become an occasion of unity, an example and witness of the Catholicity of the undivided Church.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I think Lance gave my answer better than I could myself, when he said, and I quote:

"...Eastern Catholics have a vocation to witness the Catholicity and Oneness of the Church both to the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church."

Lance will make an excellent deacon!

I think this question is loaded with a lot of Latin presumptions, so I will try to start with a Latin situation.

A good number of years ago, before he turned to writing romance novels, Fr. Andrew Greeley penned a little book on the bottom line essentials of Catholic belief -- the bare minimum he claimed you had to believe in order to be Catholic. Predictably, it produced the usual cacophony of debate. Conservatives saying, 'no, you also had to believe this'; liberals adding here and subtracting there, etc.

After the initial furor had died down (and the book sales ran their course), Greeley spoke to all of the earnest critics of his book. He basically said they were a bunch of shallow jerks. The book was a joke. Who could seriously approach faith from the standpoint of "okay, what is the minimum I have to believe?" it is the QUESTION that is wrong, not any answer to it.

Here, some of our Latin friends ask the same question of Eastern Catholicism. "What is the bare minimum you can believe as to the papacy and still be Catholic?"

I think Lance give a pretty good response, though I would have some differences with him in the reading of history. I would be hard pressed to improve on:


I would only add, we have Christ's prayer that "All be one."

I would take a different reading of Lance's statement that a latinized Eastern Catholic Church is a difficulty with the Orthodox. I think very little evidence of that exists from the Orthodox side. In fact, a very eastern Eastern Catholicism is certainly what displeases the Orthodox the most. But in all of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, in which I assume the Orthodox are sincere in their statements, they usually speak as if we don't exist rather than raise any issues regarding our internal life.

I would say also that most eastern Catholics believe we have benefitted tremendously (though not without difficulties) from our communion with Rome. The woes which were identified are more from local civil and Latin authorities than the Holy See, which on numerous occasions was helpful to us against these local and civil powers, and on other cases, took our side but did not prevail. That experience is why often Eastern Catholics are quite sympathetic to a strong papacy.

Dear Catholicos,

Did you want my response to your question? O.K., here it is .

First of all, however Eastern Catholics envision their relationship with Rome today, the fact is that we would not be "in union with Rome" were it not for the historical events surrounding the various "Unia" that led to the divisions in the Eastern Churches created by what Rome today acknowledges was an ill-advised policy of church reunification.

Having said that, why do we continue to be in communion with Rome and what do we "get out of it?"

That too is historically conditioned, I think.

For Ukrainian Catholics, union with Rome meant, at one time, Latinization/denationalization under Poland.

At another, it meant protection against Russification, especially in conjunction with the development of national consciousness and the various "isms" associated with it.

For me to remain an Eastern Catholic is, to a significant extent, a function of my membership in my community, as I've said before.

In terms of direct Latinization, in Ukraine's case not one Latinization EVER came directly from Rome, but from Poland and within a political, colonial context.

Rome has tried, if anything, to "de-Latinize" us and we keep resisting its efforts!

The area where problems exist is in terms of church administration, the patriarchate etc.

And we've often felt that we are the sacrificial lambs of East-West ecumenism with Moscow which is why our patriarchal structure has yet to be officially recognized by Rome.

However, our Synod is acting much more independently than ever before and Rome approves of its decisions, even going so far as to acknowledge the completion of the local process of the investigation of our New Martyrs WITHOUT referring it to Rome. The Pope basically beatified Martyrs cleared for glorification by the local Ukrainian Synod.

In other ways, Rome is leaving us alone and that is good.

We generally like our Latinizations and have grown accustomed to them. Even our Orthodox Churches have them!

Our loyalty to Rome is based on the Catholic faith which we've had for 400 years now and for which we have suffered and died for.

I also think the idea that we can somehow be "Orthodox" in everything save the Pope is a real joke and something that would be offensive to Orthodoxy as well.

If we accept the Pope today, we are not "Orthodox" as our Orthodox brothers and sisters are. We are "Catholic."

We kid ourselves on this score, even though we like to use terms like "Orthodox in union with Rome" etc.

That shows that we really DON'T understand Orthodox theology. Papal Primacy et al. has developed from and is rooted in precisely the Latin theological a prioris that led to the separation of East and West.

To accept union with Rome today is to accept those a prioris and to be in very real separation from Orthodoxy. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this score and I also invite our Orthodox posters to comment on what I say as well.

So to say why we "still" are in union with Rome is to say that we are "still" Eastern Catholics.

The benefits we believe we derive are membership in Christ's historic One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If we don't accept this, we are not Catholics.

We should then figure out what we really are and match our views to their ecclesial embodiment.

Alex

Lance,

I believe that what you write about Catholics viewing Orthodox as lacking something due to non-communion with Rome is probably the "official" teaching of the Catholic Church.

I just want to make it clear that I don't buy it. Orthodox and Catholics are the Church together, in my opinion. The Orthodox lack nothing, the Catholics lack nothing.

In Christ,

anastasios

I would amend that to say we lack each other.

But there again the question arises: If neither Church lacks anything other than each other, why be Byzantine Catholic? I think it rests with ideals and history. For some of us, our families are Catholic and so should we be. For others, it is the idea that we have the Orthodox traditions under the Roman Pope thus the East/West unity. For others, it is based on ethnic ties, etc, etc. We are what we are because that is how we should be. Each of us has a spiritual path to travel. Whether you choose to walk with Americans of Ruthenian, Melkite, Russian, Greek, or whatever tradition, the path is still yours to take as you are lead by Him. One might almost argue that it doesn't make a difference. However, that is for another topic..

Dmitri

Dear Friends,

Again, we as Byzantine Catholics come off sounding as if we understand neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox theologies on this matter.

And we come off sounding rather "relativistic" as Brendan once pointed out.

What we "lack" is determined by what Church we belong to and believe in as the True Church.

The Orthodox would have no problem telling us what we lack. We lack communion with the true Orthodox Church, being cut off from it.

Rome also believes itself to be the "fullness" of the Church and therefore insofar as the Orthodox reject Latin doctrine A, B and C are they also found "lacking."

Of course, we can ignore all this, as we are doing now.

But in so doing, we have created a third Church, that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but a relativistic amalgam of both that is acceptable to neither.

This is wishful thinking, at best.

Have a great day!

Alex

RichC,

I like what you said about us lacking one another. We should be together. Christ wills it.

Dmitiri,

What keeps us Catholic? I think there are reasons for the Eastern Catholic Church to exist. I myself am Eastern Catholic because I was evangelized in an Eastern Catholic community. But I would feel at home in the Orthodox Church as well. I think the reason to "stay" Catholic would be so as to not create another schism in an attempt to solve the first (idea borrowed from Archbishop Zoghby). But I think in the end, the answer is: worship where you will experience Christ the best. If you worry all the time that your Eastern Catholic parish is overly latinized and you hate everything that goes on there, then just go be Orthodox and everyone will be happier! If you are Orthodox and keep trying to justify why in your opinion the Orthodox have done x y or z, maybe you should become Catholic! But whatever anyone does, please don't force it on the rest of us!

In Christ,

anastasios

I do like what Lance had to say, he put into words what I am feeling.

But I must add this.

I happen to be Catholic because the Church that I happen to be a member of, is Catholic. That is my Church is in communion with the Pope.

I don't know if I expressed this well, but it is what it is.

I think this is how my "ancestors" felt on the matter.

After talking with my father, I found out that his father was a Byzantine Catholic, but that his grandfather, my great grandfather, was Russian Orthodox.

I think all that mattered to them was the Church they belonged to. As to who that Church was ultimatly in communion with, Orthodoxy or Catholicism, was a side note of not much importance in thier day to day life.


Just my 2 cents (nickle for you Alex ),
David

Dear David,

God bless you, Friend, I was beginning to think people were deliberately ignoring me here . . .

But why? I just told the truth .

Have a great day.

Alex

Alex,
I wasn't ignoring you, I was just processing what you said.

I agree with you but I would go one step further.

I think, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, are lacking the same thing, communion with one another. Like Archbishop Elias Zoghby said, We Are All Schismatics.

Both of us are in schism from the One True Church.


David

Dear Alex,

Lest you think I too am ignoring you... :p

The benefits you believe you derive are membership in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

But if Orthodox believe the same thing, and if Catholics believe the same thing about the Orthodox, then one could legitimately go either way and have the same benefit.

Which brings me to my original question. It seems that the only thing keeping you (and I mean that in the plural sense) away from Orthodoxy is your loyalty/belief/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to or regarding the Pope of Rome.

But if some people, including some on this forum, are to be believed, and it really is of no consequence which side of the fence you're on, then why be Catholic? You share so much with Orthodoxy, why not go all the way? Or is there something doctrinally/dogmatically/otherwise necessary about the Pope according to Catholic belief that requires you to be in communion with Rome, even with all the baggage that may or may not entail? In lacking this, does Orthodoxy lack anything necessary to the faith? And if this isn't necessary in the long run, then what?

Dear Catholicos,

Now we're cooking with gas!

(Thanks to you and David for not ignoring me ).

I think everyone can agree on the point that we lack "each other."

Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk at St Michael's University often said this and said that both sides were estranged from each other.

Both sides have different ecclesiologies, and as Brendan once discussed, (at length, God bless him!) those ecclesiologies would probably persist even AFTER reunion took place.

But if you were to come to me and say you wanted to become Orthodox, I'd say, "Great."

And would I consider you to lack anything? Absolutely not.

Would I try to "convert" you to my way of thinking. No, that's none of my business.

So are the Churches equal? I believe they are, even though there are still some real differences that keep them apart.

That doesn't mean they don't share in the fullness of Christ's Body that is the Church, because they do.

All I'm saying is that we can't take Orthodoxy with its teachings about collegiality among the Patriarchs etc. and then glue on top of it the Latin doctrine of the Pope and say, "How nice."

We need to be a bit more honest with ourselves.

If I'm wrong in saying that, let me know and I'll take it into consideration .

But that has nothing to do with the Apostolic nature of the Churches.

Ultimately, I don't believe that our mission as Eastern Catholic Churches is to perpetuate the nature of our peculiar relationship with Rome that both East and West today repudiates.

Our mission is to see how Eastern we can become and seek union with the East from which we are descended, with our Mother Churches so to speak.

A number of us go ahead and come back to them. That is our right as Eastern Catholics, no doubt about it.

I just think we do no one justice by pretending to be "Orthodox" and "in union with Rome" and thus mixing (up) two theologies that deserve to be treated as intregally independent and separate, since that it what they are.

And I hope you become an Indian Orthodox Christian and Priest. That way you can be married to two Brides!

Alex