www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic or Eastern?

For me, it's the salvation of the person's soul that is of critical importance.

Julian notes:

While all of us came into the body of Christ through a particular local church, I have always thought of that church as catholic/universal. This perhaps maybe because in my formative years the primary way I experienced/worshiped God was through the liturgy.
The Latin service stood apart from/separated itself from the culture[U.S.A.] and for myself atleast defined my Catholicity. By this I mean that when I participate in mass, it is the one time that I am joined to all the believers in the body of Christ. I never thought of myself as worshiping with just those present in the church (local) but with the angels,saints of the past,with those physically present with me with all the Catholic's in the world,with the Orthodox,with protestants and those living that will be joined to the body of Christ."

Theoretically, the joining is a good thing. But it's an 'abstract' reality. The physical reality is: I'm in this church, with these people, participating in this liturgical activity. And what is this 'reality' doing to advance my pilgrimage to the Father?

I am less concerned about the jurisdictional elements of the celebration. And even less about the form of the liturgy. If the 'form' were really important, then one could go High Anglican and feel really good about the worship. (I am NOT denigrating the Anglicans -- they are the most welcoming of all the Christian communities!)

We need to understand that it's the prayer of the individual pilgrim that is the touchstone of our success as "Church". If people don't pray, then turn off the lights and sell the building. If folks are praying and asking for the guidance of the HOly Spirit, then support 'em without question even if they're outside the 'jurisdiction'. (Thus, the cradle inclination to flow back and forth between Orthodox and Catholic communities without breaking a sweat or a guilt-trip.)

I pray that one day, we can all receive a really high-powered booster shot of grace that will inspire all Christians to realize that as human beings, subject to failures, faults and sin, we have got to unconditionally join with ALL the baptized to bring the whole shootin'-match to the Father as a family of the baptized.

Blessings! (And a whole mountain full of grace.)

Serge,

Once when I explained to a Roman Catholic that the Byzantine Catholics worship like the Orthodox, an ultramontane convert said, "The Orthodox worship like us!' Took me a while to realize Catholicism doesn't really think like that.

Perhaps your friend was "ultramontane". I don't think I am but in one sense I think your friend was correct. To wit, Father Tom tells me that the BC Church, defined as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is what the Church truly is and was manifest as being prior to the great schism. Hence, Orthodoxy is a derivative of the Byzantine Catholics.

Back to Robin's intended or unintended goad...I find myself mostly agreeing with Dr. John and those who contend that most of us would go where we can pray. It is clearly the Eastern Catholic Church which probably means that if there wasn't an EC available I would seek out the Orthodox first and then the RC's after that.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

Perhaps your friend was "ultramontane". I don't think I am but in one sense I think your friend was correct. To wit, Father Tom tells me that the BC Church, defined as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is what the Church truly is and was manifest as being prior to the great schism. Hence, Orthodoxy is a derivative of the Byzantine Catholics.

I knew someone would say that. Yes, all of Chalcedonian-orthodox apostolic Christianity was one preschism. "Orthodox in communion with Rome' certainly is the goal many BCs here are shooting for but haven't reached yet in the Ruthenian (certainly), Ukrainian and even Melkite Catholic experience. (The Russian Catholics come close but are a tiny, delicate hothouse flower, almost a controlled lab experiment, and even they are nominally under Roman supervision.) The Roman Church is still top dog in your system. Plus the winking smiley tells me you know the historical truth: there really was no significant Byzantine presence in the Catholic communion postschism — the few Greeks left behind in Italy at places like Grottaferrata were latinized beyond recognition. And the Churches we are talking about, the BC ones, of course were 16th-19th-century creations carved out of the Orthodox under the old, now-discarded "Uniate' plan.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Julian,

Your holistic approach is what we are talking about here.

To participate in the local Church, and we cannot do otherwise, as Dr. John says, is to participate in the Body of Christ i.e. "universal Church."

But it is always through the local Church that we do this, in accordance with Eucharistic, holistic model of participation in the Body of Christ.

It is how we live as Christians through our Particular Church - which is, for me, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, and which is, for you, the Particular Latin Church.

So I really don't see where we disagree, unless you are suggesting that the Latin Church is somehow more "universal" than others.

It is only so in the West. Once you get out of the West, the Latin Church's Western cultural ethnocentricity is evident and has, historically, hindered missionary efforts.

Alex

If you want a sociological answer, it is not difficult. (aside from the ethnic issue, which can complicate this. You will find Ukrainians who will join the Ukrainian Baptist church if no other Ukrainian congregation is available).

In my parish, a good number of the adult children have moved away from any Ruthenian parish. None have joined Orthodox parishes, a good number Roman Catholic.

I am confident this is true for all other parishes.

Olga Nimchek

In my parish, a good number of the adult children have moved away from any Ruthenian parish. None have joined Orthodox parishes, a good number Roman Catholic.

I am confident this is true for all other parishes.

I don't doubt it — I've seen it myself.

There are three currents/schools of thought.

1. "Ethnicity �ber alles'. This ranges from a charitable "blood is more important than jurisdictionalism' to phyletism ( "Why are you here if you are not ___?' ).
2. "Catholic is Catholic', meaning "universal equals Roman', or "normal is Roman', or "American equals Roman'. Such explains Olga's observation.* In the Ruthenian experience it is an effect especially of the 1930s exodus to the Orthodox — an attempt to stop more attrition that hurt the Ruthenian Church in the long run. But there is a logic to "Catholic is Catholic', according to Catholic teaching: if you believe the Pope makes or breaks Catholicity, then you will seek out a church under him, regardless of rite.
3. "Patrimony beats jurisdiction': where the Orthodox among the BCs here squarely stand.

*Then there could be 4.: "Normal is Protestant', or "American equals Protestant' (historically true) or even 5.: "Normal is secular', or "American is secular'. There is plenty of younger-generation attrition to those, too.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear Serge,

The ethnicity factor would be stronger in places where there is no "melting pot" phenomenon as you have in your Grand Republic.

Patriarch Slipyj constantly came across Ukrainians, in his earlier travels, who belonged to every sect imaginable in Latin America et al. where they had their own cultural branches etc.

He then appealed to them to return to the Church in the same way i.e. to return to the faith and Church of their fathers.

When he celebrated the Divine Liturgy in areas where there were Ukrainian Protestants, these would often come to the Church or Cathedral to see him and, as he said, pray with him because they could identify with their "nash" guy.

When I was fortunate to have an audience with him, the Patriarch told me about how, in Siberia, he had been spiritual mentor and bishop to Old Believers of the priestless group, and others. These were often the ones who stuck their necks out to help him and protect him the most.

Culture is there to mediate things symbolically. Without it, even Christian faith becomes unintelligible.

To its credit, Orthodoxy has always been a leader in incarnating the Gospel into the local culture of the people.

Alex

"It would appear to be compatible with the following quote, but I don't think that you would intend it that way. Could you inform me where you see the parallels and the divergents with your view?"

Okay.

"Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Chruches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true:what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues-the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Chruch."

A part of this I agree with, in the most basic sense, that each local church is simply a manifestation of the one Church -- it is the Church in a particular place. However, what I don't like about the analysis here is the concept of "ontological priority" of the one church -- that's a plain abstraction, to me. The one church does not exist as an abstraction that generates local churches -- it exists in, of and through each local church, and there only. The church is therefore not a federation of local churches, but rather a communion of local churches that are all ontologically identical, mirror-images of each other. Each of these mirro-images includes, of course, the heavenly church of the angels and the saints -- in full, and not in part, and, in effect, in exactly the same way as each other ontologically identical local church does.

"The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church;a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality..."

The way I would look at this is that *koinonia* (communion) is what keeps a church "catholic" -- communion with all of the other local churches that are catholic, and therefore its ontological mirror image. It is not necessary to posit the existence of an ecclesial abstraction that has ontological priority (and from which the local church derives, or from which it is generated) in order to assure the catholicity of the local church .. rather communion of the local church with all of the other local churches is required to ensure catholicity, and is the touchstone of the way that Orthodoxy looks at ecclesiological issues.

The views set forth by Cardinal Raztinger in "Called to Communion" (one of his private, unofficial works) are similar in substance to the official views put forth in "Dominus Iesus" -- ie, there exists a universal church (which is an abstraction) as an ontological priority, such that all local churches are properly viewed as "daughters" of that ontological "Mother". DI then goes on to state that the ontological "Mother" subsists in the present-day Catholic communion of churches, and that those churches that are not members of that communion derive their catholicity, by degrees, to the extent that they share elements with the members of that communion -- ie, to the extent sufficient "ecclesial elements" from the ontological "Mother" have been retained by these non-Catholic churches, they still retain a degree of catholicity, albeit a damaged and imperfect one. The framework is helpful for Catholic ecclesiology because it posits a theoretical understanding that supports the Catholic view of the Church -- ie, that the present Roman communion is fully the Catholic Church and that the Orthodox are "almost but not quite" fully Church and that Protestants are not Church. It sets up a series of concentric circles, depending on the level of "ecclesial elements" retained, with the epicenter at Rome. The idea introduced, of course, is the idea that one can, perhaps, be a true particular church while not having the very fulness of "Catholicity" (as defined by Rome) -- an ecclesiological idea that reflects the de facto present Catholic understanding, but is certainly ecclesiologically controversial, to say the least. I think a lot of Orthodox would struggle with the idea that other churches are "partially but not fully the Church", again, precisely because it is the communion of ontological mirror images that makes the Church -- out of that communion of mirror images there may very well be grace, but there can't be what we understand as "Church" (speaking strictly in ecclesiological terms, of course).


Brendan

I don't know if Serge's three currents example is accurate. But if it is, #2 is a river and #3 is a radiator leak.

Obviously, if the reverse was true, it would benefit Serge's Church.

Olga Nimchek

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Olga Nimchek ]

#2 is a river and #3 is a radiator leak.

I agree.

Obviously, if the reverse was true, it would benefit Serge's Church.

Well, it's great to have more people praying with us, of course. However, I hasten to add the Orthodox-minded BCs I know are very committed to their local churches and won't leave them unless a hostile environment in the Catholic communion drives them out.

http://oldworldrus.com

"....hostile environment..."

For YEEEEAAAARS, I've been saying: "Arm the Ukies! Arm the Ukies!!" But does anyone listen to me? NNooooooooo! I don't know why I even bother any more.

PS: Open Secret: They're already armed.

Blessings! (sorry, some late Friday afternoon silliness just overcame me.)

Hostile environment? Do you mean if the next pope absolutely forbade Eastern Catholics from having married priests?

I suspect another exodus toward Orthodoxy would occur.

Dan Lauffer

He couldn't do that. The Council has told us: go unearth your patrimony and live it because it is necessary for the Catholic communion to be 'catholic'. And the Council is supreme since it represents the consensus of the universal Church.

Blessings!

Dr. John, if I may...

Did I just hear you say that the pope is subject to the decisions of a council?

I have read all about the Council of Constance, Pisa, and Basle and even read of the rivalry between the pope and his bishops during the apostate gatherings at Ferrara-Florence.

I have even long considered how it took a council to declare a pope above a council at Vatican I and finding this curious, dicussed the matter with a Latin deacon. After much reading since it appeared very clearly to me that the deacon was correct - that is, the formal Latin teaching says the pope is above a council, and not just "Ex Cathedra".

Care to give me some sources for your statement, I am truly interested.

Well, Alex, so why the Canadian census of 1980s indicated that Eastern Christians (both Orthodox
and Greek-Catholics) were less than 50 per cent of all Ukrainian Canadians, while Roman Catholicism (as Kurt rightly writes) seemed to be one of the strongest church groups among them? :p

Sincerely,
Reader Peter