Are we embarrassed to be Catholic ? This is a question I pose to the Catholics (not the Orthodox or others) at this forum.

The reason I ask is the tone of some of the threads here recently.

On the one hand, the past imposition of Latinizations on the Eastern Churches (of the Catholic Church) was, at times, abusive and wrong.

On the other hand, there are some who seem to want to go to the opposite extreme. Whether in the Liturgy or in other practices or in self-identification, some Eastern Catholics seem to want to avoid anything that is Catholic. In other words, some Eastern Catholics seem to want to be exactly like the Orthodox. I seriously wonder: why don't they just become Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Catholic; they are not Orthodox. (Ask any Orthodox!) We might have practices and beliefs that are very similar to the Orthodox, and we clearly have a common origin with the Orthodox, but Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox. Catholics (Eastern and Western) beleive in the pope. Specifically, Catholics believe that papal primacy means that the pope has universal jurisdiction and authority over the Church. And even if (God willing) the organization of the Catholic Church becomes less monarchial and more concilliar, the Catholic belief in papal primacy will remain. It will still ultimately mean universal jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of Rome. Papal primacy as universal jurisdiction and authority is not an Orthodox belief; that's a Catholic belief; and that has consequences.

And one of those consequences is being happy and grateful and proud to be Catholic.

-- John

John the Church has instructed the various Eastern rites to de-latinise. For 100 years Popes instructed that this was the way to go. In Vatican II the Church apologised and acknowledged what they did in Latinising was wrong and gave clear directions where the church expected the Eastern Churches to go. The Church does not want Latinised Eastern Churches anymore. As for a more collegial Church Pope Paul VI started that ball rolling years ago. It is still happening with the current Pope. There are so many conferences of Bishops at national and regional level all having input. Pope Paul has been dead a long time and he started it.

ICXC
NIKA

I don't think he was saying that we should not remove the latinizations but that why does it seem that some Byzantine Catholics avoid the title Catholic and avoid Catholic devotions like the plague?

Why the use of the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" when the modern defintion of Orthodox has to do with the exact opposite?

I am embarrassed that after nearly 1,000 years we still can't get together. That's what I'm embarrassed about. Secondarily, I'm embarrassed that we seem to have no option but to have our destiny in the hands of both Churches. Oy vey! :rolleyes:

CDL

That just about sums it up. But then it seems sometimes that our Churches let us down.

For example, my vocation. I feel a call to community but there was no place for me in our Church and it didn't seem like they wanted to hear from me either.


As for latinizations. Yes we should return to our traditions but it must be done so pastorally, slowly. Yes, Matins should precede the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and not the Rosary but even though that is "our" tradition (Matins that is) there are many who have grown up in the Church that the Rosary is all they know, so it is their tradition. We much make the changes slowly over time and not to many at once with great education.

The problem is that being "Catholic" is often equated with being Roman Catholic. The practices, devotions, etc., of the Roman Catholic Church have no place in Byzantine worship. While some practices have crept into the private devotion of Easterners that is where they should remain. Prayer is always good, regardless of its form, but as a church we must discourage the introduction of foreign practices, and this has been repeatedly emphasized by Rome itself. As far as the Orthodox, we share a liturgical, spiritual, theological, historical and even ethnic patrimony with them. It is logical that we would see ourselves closer to them than to the Roman Church. Rome itself has also reminded us that where we diverge from the Orthodox in matters of liturgy, theology, spirituality, etc., we must recapture what has been lost. If the Catholic Church is to be truly considered "Catholic" then each constituent church must be free to maintain it's entirety of life without imposition of things contrary to its liturgical, theological or spiritual heritage.

Dear John,

Both terms, "Orthodox" and "Catholic" belong to Apostolic Christians of the Church of the New Testament that is descended from our Lord and His Apostles.

"Orthodox" refers to "faith" and "Catholic" refers to "Church." We cannot reject one or the other, both belong to us as Eastern Catholics.

I don't understand what you mean by "rejecting what is Catholic."

To me, that sounds a lot like, "to be Catholic truly, we need to keep some Latin things."

But IF you only mean the Pope of Rome, then that is fine.

My Church commemorates the Pope of Rome four times during the Liturgy, which is more than the Roman Catholic church EVER commemorated the Pope.

The Orthodox will always deny we are "Orthodox" since we are not in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates.

But the term "Orthodox" is a critical aspect of our identity and it refers to a great Christian ecclesial culture of the East that has, over time, adopted this term to signify its essence.

And the same is true for "Catholic" that has come to be heavily and often singularly associated with Roman Catholicism.

We are called, by none other than Pope John Paul II himself, to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." That is our historic identity and refers to what we are spiritually/culturally.

Even the way we view the Papacy is intrinsically different from that of Roman Catholics.

My Patriarch, His Beatitude Lubomyr of the UGCC has gone on record as saying that our Church is "in Eucharistic communion with Rome."

That is very different from the old "uniate" models of being "under Rome," "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite" etc.

We see the Pope as someone who symbolizes the unity of the Church, as he did in the first millennium.

We see him as an ultimate arbiter and "referree" when things might go wrong at the Particular and local Church level.

We do NOT see him as someone who must be involved in the running of our Particular Churches, within the territory of our Patriarchates or in the Diaspora and we continue to struggle to change that situation together with our Church leadership.

The Pope of Rome really has a diminished role in our Churches as compared with those of the West. His role for us is that of "emergency containment" rather than regular administrator.

We do not derive our identity as Orthodox Catholics from the Papacy as such. We derive it from our liturgical, Particular Ecclesial, canonical, and spiritual traditions. Culturally speaking, the Papacy is outside of all those, it is there nevertheless.

We do not agree with the Orthodox not in communion with Rome that Rome is heretical. We believe it is "different" and that its differences are theologically valid and orthodox.

That doesn't mean we aren't willing to work for substantial change to the way the Papacy relates to the Eastern Churches. We are and we will be.

I"m certainly not proud of the way Rome treats my Church throughout the world,(that is what I'm truly embarrassed about!) by refusing to acknowledge the petition of the entire UGCC Synod to affirm what we already believe our Church to be - Patriarchal and allowing that Church to rule itself in accordance with the established canons as it is more than capable of doing so.

I don't want to go out of communion with Rome. I simply want Rome to act justly and in accordance with the directives and spirit of Vatican II and all of its ecumenical gestures toward the Orthodox.

And I, like many others like me, will continue to be a thorn in the backside of Rome until this happens.

Rome will not get rid of us so easily and we will not be tamed in accordance with the political agenda of its Ostpolitik.

So unless Rome tells us to get lost (and not necessarily in so many words), we're with Rome and we'll continue to be a problem for Rome's politicians.

I've written nothing here that I've not told my bishop to his face - adding that if there is anything heretical etc., that he, as my bishop, may correct me and I will submit.

I've yet to be corrected by my bishop.

I'm not afraid of anyone else.

Alex

First, thanks to all who replied to my post. As usual, you have all given me much food for thought.

Dr. Alex, I especially want to thank you for you post. I have read it several times and thought on it, and I find it to be the best possible response to the question I proposed.

I withdraw the question, and I offer my humble apologies for asking it.

-- John

Dear John,

You've raised both an interesting and important (challenging) question here - I'm proud and grateful to you for raising it, sir!

Alex

I think the question is more like,"Are Byzantine Caholics ashamed to be Byzantine?" It seems to me that even the signs in front of many Byzantine Catholic Churches say something like "St. Nicholas Caholic Church" in big letters, then underneath "of the Byzantine Rite." It seems to me that Byzantine Catholics are afraid to Live and Proclaim their Faith and that they desire to be Roman Catholics of the dreaded Byzantine Rite. However, unfortunately this horrible phenomenon isn't limited to Church signs, but also is especially prevalent in the Theology believed/explained/defended by many (definately not all) Byzantine Catholics, in the Calendar promulgated by His Eminence Basil Schott as it is Gregorian (Even the Great Fast and Pascha) and does not mark but a small percentage of fast days as actual days of fast (no animal products), and also in Church practices such as shortened Divine Liturgies, shortened Presanctified Liturgies, and also of course in this adulterated new inclusive language Liturgy that is supposed to be forced upon "Byzantine Catholic Churches" soon.

Good replies All!

And kudos to you Dr. Roman, reading some of your most recent posts, you've been on top of your game of late!

With all that is going on in Ukraine and the UGCC, Patriarch Lubomyr is in position to lead and mold his church as the model for what being an Eastern church in communion with Rome entails. I'm sure Orthodoxy is watching attentively.

Prayers for Patriarch Lubomyr, Many Years!

Bill

As for me, American Roman Catholicism=doing your duty, minimalism - hurry the 8 o'clock Mass, so the 10:30 folks can fulfill their obligation.
Orthodox Christianity=vespers, matins, the complete Eastern experience - very reverent.
Byzantine Catholicism=a mixture of the two traditions.
-Wolfgang

I'm probably one of those 'who seem to want to go to the opposite extreme'.

We are Orthodox in Union With Rome. Since we were Orthodox under Constantinople before that, I don't see how you could think that we weren't like the Orthodox at one time since we were Orthodox right up until we reunited with Rome. Unfortunately, we moved away from our roots until we had (and still have) confessionals in our churches, communion rails, statues, rosaries, stations of the cross, elimination of Vespers and Matins, recited and not sung liturgies, etc.

The 'extreme' that you speak of is the way it is supposed to be. There are those who tow the 'party line' on this board and will lead you to believe otherwise.

that my two cents (I'm sure others feel it worth less),

mc

John,

I am going to chime in here as one who has posted that I think of myself more as Orthodox than Catholic, now let me explain.

First, the "RCC" is composed of three major Rites: Roman, Antiochian/Byzantine, Alexandrian. (NOTE: this information comes from EWTN)

The Roman Rite is not a single, pure rite, rather it is composed of: Roman, Tridentine, Anglican Use, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian.

Antiochian/Byzantine is seen as: Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, Syro-Malabarese, Armenian, Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevci, Hungarian, Greek, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian.

And Alexandrian: Coptic, Ethiopian/Abyssinian.

All of which have churches (individual or communities) which have united with Rome, and some have groups which are still not united.

While our churches are united with Rome, only the Roman Rites have any say as to who is elected to the Papal office. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, being an Eastern Catholic is like calling an ox a bull - he's grateful for the praise, but would rather have a full restoration.

Now, while this does irritate me, I only mention it to show the difference between how the Eastern and Western Rites are treated within the RCC. This leads some to feel as though they are "second class Romans", as it were. I have heard this time and again in my own church, and especially with the most recent Papal election.

For me, this is only a surface issue and doesn't bother me one way or the other. When I said (in a different post) that I would join the Orthodox Church instead of the Roman it is not because of such trivial issues. I find myself more at home with the Eastern Liturgy and Theology than I do in the Roman Rite.

I was raised in both Rites, having parents in each, and have had many years of "tasting" both. I struggled for years in the RCC after I married (my wife is RC), but I just couldn't get into the Western Theology -- it doesn't speak to my soul.

I have no hatred of the RCC, and I pray daily for re-unification of Christ's body in all of it's beauty. I think JP-II was the best hope for such re-unification, and heard that from a number of Eastern Orthodox, including Bishop Kallistos Ware. I pray that the current Pope will carry on the attempts at re-unification.

But, if push came to shove, I would leave the RCC to join the EO, solely because of her Liturgy and Theology.

Glory to Jesus Christ,

mike

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello John,
I would argue that eastern Catholics (well, in any case Byzantine Catholics), want to be themselves, whom they were always meant to be. I don't believe they should have to leave the church to be Byzantine-Ruthenian Orthodox Catholics.
Perhaps it really is as you say, however Orthodox are Catholics! Some would argue that the Holy Spirit is blowing new wind through the house of God. Perhaps Universal Jurisdiction will be nothing more than a footnote in religious history textbooks. Many pray for the day.

I know even some priests are privately watching the skies. Mayhap some day this great burden will be lifted from the backs of eastern Christians and all will be able to worship again in their own places, singing the praises with their brothers and sisters.

+T+
Michael