I thought for sure that you guys would have some great suggestion, anyone want to throw something out there? Here are a few that popped up in my head, what do you think?

"Heaven on Earth"
"One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic"
"Scripture, Tradition, Beauty"
"Orthodox in Communion"
'Faith of the Apostles'"
"Spiritual Warfare"
"Pray, Fast, Give"
"Partakers of Divine Nature"
"Path of Deification"
"Bridging East & West"
"Bridging Heaven & Earth"

Mike

C. I. X.

Roman Christianity respects the Law,
Greco Christianity ponders the Philosophy,
Slavic Christianity immerses in the Beauty
Our Christianity embraces the Trinity.

??? open for manicuring...

As many of you already know, our brother Gordo has a website full of things we can use to evangelize here: http://www.cafepress.com/churchgeek/4075351

I did not know that this website belongs to a member of this forum.

Gordo, can you do custom orders? Feel free to email me.

Thanks,
Mike

I did not know that this website belongs to a member of this forum.

Gordo, can you do custom orders? Feel free to email me.

Thanks,
Mike

Our brother Gordo/ebed melech, in case you missed it, is now Fr. Dcn. Daniel and should be addressed as such the Byzantine way?

Amado

ItalianPapist,

My understanding is that, in accordance with canonical norms, anybody from a Protestant background whose is evangelized and chooses to convert to Catholicism is to be received into the Roman Latin church, just as I, who was baptized Eastern Orthodox, was received into the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic church upon my conversion to Catholicism.

Best,
Robster

ItalianPapist,

My understanding is that, in accordance with canonical norms, anybody from a Protestant background whose is evangelized and chooses to convert to Catholicism is to be received into the Roman Latin church,...

With all due respect Mike L., I think there is an issue with the objective and priorities as stated in your opening post.

I think one should be fundamentally oriented to evangelizing for the Catholic faith, not placing dubious emphasis on one particular rite or form of nominal expressions or trappings of the faith. There is no 'Byzantine faith', as you alluded to, only a Catholic faith.

When one pursues evangelizing with the mindset of a 'Byzantine faith', I fear that such a viewpoint leads to the inordinate emphasis of certain forms and expressions, often at the expense of the immutable, normative, substance of faith, which all Catholics are to hold to as an exact common faith shared in common.

Evangelizing for a common Catholic faith whose fruits may lead people to enter Roman Latin Catholicism or Maronite Catholicism should not be seen as counterproductive.

Best,
Robster

When I say "Byzantine Faith" I mean the "Byzantine Catholic Faith." This is to distinguish it from the Roman Catholicism.

"Greek Catholics"

Since 1773 the non-Roman Rite Catholics of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was officially known as Greek Catholics. This designation was seemingly a pragmatic solution to distinguish those involved from the Latin Catholics. This denotation, evidently, intended to indicate that the Church which Christianized the non Latin Catholics was Greek in language and culture. It was generally accepted that, in the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Roman Rite members, there are also members of the Greek Rite.

Neither the Slavs, nor the Hungarians, nor the Rumanians - who are by no means Greeks - had any objection to this new designation of their rite. They simply did not make an issue of it. After all, in the Roman Rite Church all members, regardless of nationality, were called Latins or Romans.

"Eastern Catholics"

When after the 1880's "Greek Catholic" immigrants began to arrive in the United States, they retained the appellation "Greek Catholic" for their religious identity. Their newly established parishes were called Greek Catholic parishes and their largest Fraternal Organization was named the Greek Catholic Union. Soon, however, certain problems arose regarding the nationality of the Greek Catholics. The average American considered Greek Catholics to be Greek nationals. Often lengthy explanations were necessary to clarify the religious and national identity of these people.

In order to eliminate further misunderstanding, the adjective "Greek" was replaced by "Eastern". This new designation initially had some appeal, but soon proved itself inadequate, too vague and too indefinite.

If we closely scrutinize the word "Eastern", we arrive at the conclusion that the term "Eastern Rite" is too broad for the identification of a specific rite. The word itself is a historical and geographical term. It is a collective term which designates the populations, languages and cultures proper to the Eastern countries, both in the Far East and the Near East. Some of these countries had little in common with the religious and cultural development of East European Christians. Egypt, for example, was Coptic to its very soul. Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia used the Syrian language, later replaced by Arabic. All these nations, with their particular cultures and modes of life, were united only loosely by the term "Eastern", which cannot be applied to them in our particular concept.

Some writers used the adjective "Oriental", borrowing it from official Vatican (Latin) documents, but without any success. The term "Oriental" refers rather to the Far East.

Byzantine Rite

Around 1945, a new appellation was introduced to identify the "Greek" or "Eastern" rite. Some of their leading churchmen and writers began to call it the Byzantine rite. When in 1949, Bishop Daniel lvancho named the newly established Seminary of SS. Cyril and Methodius, "The Byzantine Catholic Seminary" this new designation became accepted and approved.

In order to specify more accurately the term "Byzantine", a new adjective was added "Slavonic". This new modification helped to clarify, to some extent, the religious identity, but created a new problem as well. Not all the members of the Pittsburgh Diocese were Slavs; i.e., Ruthenians, and Croatians. There were also a good number of Hungarians - who are not Slavs - so in order not to create a national problem, the adjective "Slavonic" fell into oblivion. At that time the English Liturgy was being introduced and it gave another reason why the qualification "Slavonic" became impractical.

Perhaps "Byzantine" is not the best possible and the most expressive name for the religious and ritual identification of the members of the Pittsburgh Metropolia but, at least, it is as correct as Greek or Eastern, if not better. It achieved one important objective: today no one else is identified by that name, but the members of the Metropolitan Province of Pittsburgh. In addition, this term does not offend the national feelings of any member of the Metropolia. What Is Byzantine?

What is Byzantine?

Ever since the last Christian Emperor, Constantine XI. Paleologos, died heroically defending the city in which Christ was officially the "Basileos", some historians, especially the French Encyclopedists, tried to create an aura of "disgust and horror" around what is known as Byzantine. Under their influence, many shied away from its use. In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, Byzantium was vindicated and rehabilitated. The meticulous works of hundreds of scholars, philologists, historians and archeologists restored the luster and brilliance of the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantium was "the kingdom of Christ on earth". Its cultural achievements in many aspects compare favorably with any that history has to offer. The Eastern Slavs in particular owe virtually all their past to Byzantium. It "molded the undisciplined tribes of Serbs, Bulgars, Russians, Croats and made nations out of them; it gave to them its religion and institutions, taught their princes how to govern, transmitted to them the very principles of civilization writing and literature" (Dvornik: Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX siecle, p.11).

In this great empire many people: Greek, Romans, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs and Easterners lived side by side, grew to know one another, formed one nation under God, accepting the rule of Christ and thus creating a new culture, a Byzantine and Christian culture. It was something like America today: a melting-pot of many cultures, nationalities, traditions and languages. The great difference: it was Christian, to its very heart.

The Byzantine missionaries carried Christianity to many corners of the world. To all with whom they came into contact the Byzantines brought religion, law and culture. The Byzantines established their churches and schools. Their artists decorated churches and palaces, their scholars translated the most brilliant works of Byzantine literature. Even the center and pride of the spiritual life, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is of Byzantine development. All this enormous spiritual and cultural wealth was brought to the Slavic peoples by SS. Cyril and Methodius.

Were these two holy brothers, the evangelizers of the Slavs, true Greeks, or were they immigrants, or descendants of immigrants? We do not know. But they were Byzantines who transplanted to the lands of the Slavs what was the greatest and noblest in Byzantium.

When I say "Byzantine Faith" I mean the "Byzantine Catholic Faith." This is to distinguish it from the Roman Catholicism. If we generalize and call it the "Catholic Faith," too many people would assume we are speaking of Roman Catholicism.

The problem is that you're implying there is a difference in the content of the Faith between Byzantine and Latin Catholics, which is not true. People use these terms carelessly, but it is important to distinguish between the expression of the Faith and the Faith itself.

Communion necessarily requires a unity of faith, as was recently pointed out in another thread. If Byzantine Catholics professed a different faith from that of the Roman Catholics, they could not remain in communion.

Naturally, there's a huge paradox here: we resemble the Orthodox, but are not in communion with them, and we do not resemble the Roman Catholics, although we are in communion with them. Many of us claim unity of faith with both, but that's not the way everyone sees it.

I say leave Christians alone and go for Buddhist and Muslims.

We set aside our earthly troubles to welcome the King of all escorted by angels...