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

Hi John,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians in communion with the Pope... so we are both Catholic and Orthodox.

What we are NOT supposed to be, and unfortunately often are, is some hybrid between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We're not half Catholic and half Orthodox, and sadly that's how I often feel.

Basically, Byzantine Rite Catholic worship and tradition should be identical to that the Orthodox-- other than praying for the pope. Because being in communion with him is really the only thing that separates us-- or SHOULD separate us-- from Eastern Orthodoxy.

As for many of us railing against the Latinizations that have infiltrated our churches (which in some cases we voluntarily adopted, which makes it all the sadder), you have to understand where the Byzantines are coming from. When Byzantine Catholics first came to the States, they didn't have their own bishops-- they were under the authority of the Roman bishops, who were not familiar with the Eastern rites and didn't understand our traditions. Somewhat understandably, we were looked upon with some suspicion: were we REALLY Catholic? We adopted Latinizations to prove that we were actually Catholic.

Now, Latin devotions and traditions are wonderful-- in the Latin rite. They don't belong in ours, though. Nor do our devotions and traditions belong in the Latin rite. No offense, but if I wanted Roman Catholic prayers and devotions, I'd have stayed Roman. I came to the Byzantine Rite because I love everything about it-- the liturgy, the theology, the devotions, the prayers-- everything. And I think the rites within the Catholic Church should be true to their style of worship and traditions. Our former Holy Father has said this... he told the Eastern rites to lose the Latinizations and go back to their own traditions.

You know, one of the great things about the Catholic Church is the fact that there is so much diversity in worship... it's part of what makes the Church catholic. I hope you understand a little better now where we're coming from, and that we're not trashing the Latin Rite...

Karen

That's right Karen, we'll leave the trashing of the Latin Rite up to the Protestents and the Masons in the Roman Hierarchy. They've done a heck of a job of it though in the last 50 years. Imagine all the Holy Popes rolling in their graves at the Novus Ordo, NeoIconoclasm, Tabernacle hiding, Altar Girls, etc. But, as the Lord reminded us in todays Gospel Reading, some Demons can only be cast out by Prayer and Fasting. Which is one of the main reasons that the Hierarchs have dummed down the fasting requirements and shortened the Liturgies. Pray, Fast, Pray Fast, and Repeat.

I'm sorry Karen, I forgot to say a great Big,"Slava Noviki!" "Glory Forever!"

Wo-ow. You and I are SO on the same page.

I am not at all sure which Latinizations you are talking about MizByz, but few fit this history. Most were brought here from the old country.

Hi,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I'm talking about taking away the iconostas, putting up Stations of the Cross, to name a couple.

Somehow I don't think that happened to BC churches in the Ukraine.

Karen

Slava na v'iki: Stations of the Cross - I think so. Removal of Iconostases, no; but then again, even in the US that was after we had our own bishops.

Dear DJS,

Please go to
www.archeparchy.org/page/history/bishop-Elko.htm

This site even contains the following quote, "
Bishop Elko's tenure also was an era of tremendous growth, expansion and development of physical facilities throughout the exarchate. Under his direction, more than one hundred churches and schools were constructed or reconstructed. This capital expansion program, while absolutely necessary to accommodate larger congregations, in hindsight had a major regrettable consequence. In an effort to be like other American Catholic churches, many traditional Byzantine architectural features such as icon screens were omitted or removed from the newly-built or renovated churches."

As you can see, even after the Byzantine Catholic Church in America had its own Bishops, Latinizations continued. If you read the whole page, it seams to me, that Bishop Elko finally got his wish as he eventually became a Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop!

But have Faith because NIKA!

djs is right in what he says though.

The latinization began in the kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, it really is part of the inheritance of the people (even though it may not have been an intended consequence of the Union of Uzhorod). The Elko period seems to be the apex of the process.

I think that in Europe this has served to differentiate the Union parishes from the non-Union and contributed to the resurrection of the Greek Catholic churches after the collapse of the communist block.

On the other hand, immersed in a western culture such as the United States, Canada or Australia these Latin qualities have tended to UNdifferentiate the the Union parishes from their neighbor Latin parishes.

Ultimately, this has contributed to an enormous number of young people leaving the church for any old Catholic parish. One could call it a "brain drain". Most Ruthenian Catholics I have met have Roman Catholic relatives due to intermarriage. If most of the decendants of Ruthenian immigrants could have been retained in the BCC, I am sure the church would probably have almost one million members in the USA these days! And yes, many of them would have Irish, Italian, Spanish, German and Polish surnames to be sure, but those are the kind of names those modern American Ruthenians are carrying (many of whom know next to nothing about their ancestry, except that Great-grandpa was a "Russian").

+T+
Michael

I agree with you completely about getting rid of Latinizations. Thank you for this wonderful post.

Blessings to you,
Todd

To Karen's list I would add: Eucharist of infants, married clergy, introduction of the Immaculate Conception (used to be Conception of St. Anne).

mike

Very popular devotion among BC's.

No doubt, but still a Latinization. Pews are also very popular among BC's, but are a western influence.

mike

No... I am proud to be Catholic. Always was, always will. If you think the West has done mistakes, try to check out when Byzantines murdered hundreds of Latins in the Poli (constantinople) because they remained faithful to the See of Pope Peter.

I started this topic because I was irritated by the tone I detected in some posts that seemed to indicate an embarrassment about being Catholic.

Then, Dr. Alex (as usual) gave an excellent reply. To summarize, he argued that the basic personality and charism of the Eastern Catholic churches had been diluted by latinizations. It was time (with the decision and encouragement of the Second Vatican Council and recent popes) to rediscover and revive the Eastern Catholic tradition.

That I have no problems with. Indeed, I support and I laud that.

My problem is when that becomes the most important goal.

Riddle me this: What do we do with parishes in which latinizations have become part of the Eastern Catholic tradition ? Yes, some reform is necessary in order to be in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and recent popes. OK: but how much, how far, how fast, and --most importantly-- with what kind of attitude ? What is the right pastoral approach? What is the right spiritual disposition? Sometimes it is stridency; sometimes it is gentleness, but always it should be with humility and compassion.

Here’s another riddle: What’s the goal? What should the Eastern Catholic churches be trying to become? Personally, I think the Eastern Catholic churches (especially in the diaspora from their homelands) are suffering from a massive identity crisis. Should they then become just like the Orthodox in all ways, except that that they also pray for the pope? That’s one view.

But I don’t agree with that view. It has been 400 years since the unia, and 400 hundred years is a long time. And in that time, the Tradition has not just been diluted in some ways; it has also developed in some ways. Not all of that can be excised --nor should it be excised. There has to be a balance in what to preserve and what to set aside, and that balance must be found with judgement and compassion.

When I see debates over latinizations in the Eastern Churches, I see a lot of real needs being discussed and lots of good reforms to be implemented. Again, I support and I laud all that. But, I also sometimes see spiritual pride. Specifically, I sometimes see the same kind of pride, intolerance and forced efforts at reform (and reaction) as I have seen in the Roman Catholic Church among some of its liberals (and conservatives); and I do not think that this is good.

I will try to summarize my view. I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are not only Orthodox in communion with Rome. I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholics who are also Orthodox; they are Orthodox who are also Catholic. I think the Eastern Catholic churches are a hybrid. They are a hybrid that hearkens back to the first millennium of the Church when the whole Church was both Orthodox and Catholic, correct and universal. They are a hybrid which also can and, in my opinion, should recognize that another 1000 years have since gone by . . . with a thousand years' worth of additions and developments to the Tradition. It’s not just about latinizations . . . pews or no pews, rosary or akathist, Easter or Pascha. It’s also about pride or humility in accepting all of the past, balancing that past with the needs of the future, in order to build a present and a future for all. Being Eastern Catholic is not only being Orthodox plus the pope. Being Eastern Catholic is its own identity, its own calling, and its own charism. Being Eastern Catholic, in my opinion, is about being a living bridge between the Christian West and the Christian East -- with one foot in each but standing firmly on its own ground.

-- John

That is a great ideal, but reality is different. We are more of a blockade to union, as we currently are. As some in the Orthodox churches have said, we are an example of the wrongs that can happen in union with Rome. We have lost the "flavor" of what it means to be Eastern, and they fear that will happen to them as well.

At this point, and the Archeparchy is doing it, an examination of where we currently are, and where we should be. Attempting to throw out the bathwater without tossing out the child as well. It's a balance game that will take years, and has taken years.

The problem is, that we are a shrinking Rite. Our people are moving around the country, and there are not enough Eastern Rite churches across the country. Many are leaving and going west (Roman), many are going east (OCA, etc.). In a few decades this discussion may be a mute point.

Slava Issusu Christu!

mike

Hi,

Slava n'viki!

This is indeed a problem. We should ask ourselved *why* the Byzantine rite is shrinking...

It seems that what's basically happening is that the lazy and/or apathetic Byzantines are going Roman, because it's more convenient, and the really devout ones are going Orthodox... because they want the fullness of Eastern Christian spirituality, something BC's don't often get.

We can't do anything about the lazy/apathetic BC's, but it seems to me that if we rid our rite of latinizations, we could keep the devout ones from going Orthodox.

In fact, I'd have to say that *most* of the problems we face can be solved if we simply followed the order of our former pope and did that. We also are in need of shepherds who care about our rite and are willing to promote it.

This is from part of a speech give by Patriarch Husar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It has some relevance to the discussion here.

******************************************

Not a Bridge, But a Mediator
From the speech of Bishop Lubomyr Husar at the inauguration of Fr. Borys Gudziak as rector of the Lviv Theological Academy on 14 September, 2000.

It is often said that we Byzantine Catholics should be a bridge between East and West, between Byzantine-Slavic and Latin culture, between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. A bridge connects two shores, but it doesn't have its own essence, its own existence. In itself, strictly speaking, a bridge is just a bridge, but it is never solid ground, and so, in some way, it's as if a bridge is nothing. Therefore I think that calling the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church a bridge is not sufficient.

I see our church as a mediator. A mediator has its own identity. A mediator is someone or something; it is present on both sides. This is a very important position. For the mediator not only connects, but it can also pass on its own sort of life.

We stand on the frontier of two great Christian cultures: the Byzantine-Slavic and the Latin. By force of circumstances and historical development we partake in both: we have distinct elements of the Byzantine-Slavic culture -- it is primary and foundational for us -- though we also have definite characteristics of Western, Latin culture. We must admit that these two great cultures to which we are joined know practically nothing at all of one another: the West neither knows nor understands the East, and vice versa.

Given this background, our church could help these two cultures to begin to understand one another, if it would set this as its goal and make the appropriate efforts. This, I think, is where our great strength lies, and our great task.
***************************************


mc

Hello John,

It would have been quite marvelous if the union churches had become a catalyst for reconciliation from east to west, but it was not to be (at least not yet). However a hybrid is not a good descriptor for the church, it will satisfy no one except a few silverhairs in their comfort zone, whose children have probably moved on.

There is no third way. Once we have accepted a special permanent place for the eastern Catholic churches in the scheme of things between the Orthodox east and the Roman Catholic west we will have to admit that the Unia has failed in it’s original goal, and it’s reason for being has come to an end.

Bridges are meant for crossing, if you are on a bridge and not moving you are stuck.

+T+
Michael

Michael,

Agreed. I think the Balamand Declaration admitted as much officially.


I disagree. I think the purpose of the Eastern Catholic Churches is three-fold these days:

1. to serve existing Eastern Catholics

2. to remind the Western Christians of their living heritage of patristics and theosis

3. to evangelize the millions of non-Christians with the life-giving Gospel of Jesus Christ, offering a mystical understanding and expression of it.

I think Eastern Catholics can *be* the bridge. A human bridge. Christian West and East can cross to each other on us. Or, as the other Michael posted above, Eastern Catholics can be the mediator.

MizByz made a good point above about why Eastern Catholics are shrinking. But, as was discussed some time ago on the Evangelization board, I think the solution is to attract new members.

In a sense, the Eastern Catholic churches are a product in search of a market. We should do better marketing. Our "product" is a mystical form of Christianity that is part of the Catholic Church. The "market" is those people who would be interested in a mystical form of Catholic Christianity.

For example, there are the *millions* of people who are searching for a mystical form of religion --New Age, Wicca/Witchcraft, East Asian religions, etc. Eastern Catholics could show them that the answer which they seek is Jesus Christ. He Is; and He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; and He completes, corrects, perfects all that is true in other religions.

The key, however, is holiness. No amount of books and websites and so on will do a bit of good --and neither will pew-less churches, akathists or saying "Pascha" instead of "Easter" -- unless we back it up with holiness. Only in us and through us can Jesus Christ touch others.

I think the topic is starting to drift, but I think these points are still germane. If uniatism is a defunct policy, and it is, Eastern Catholics must decide what it means to be distinctively Eastern Catholic. Otherwise, especially in the diaspora, Eastern Catholics will shrink in numbers: giving up members to Roman Catholics, Orthodox and other churches. But if Eastern Catholics can define themselves as a unique identity, with a unique calling and a unique charism, Eastern Catholics could then thrive by appealing to people who are in search of what Eastern Catholics have and are.

-- John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hi John, Agreed.

I agree with this, but there is only one real product: active Faith in the Truth of the Holy Trinity.
This is all good, I am with you on this.

It shouldn't be that hard to define it's unique calling, but because it is that hard I think there is something wrong about it all.

It almost seems like the time to act was 30 years ago. How does one get the babushkas out there ringing doorbells and preaching Christ?

I think Eastern Christianity is a great gift, I have stated so many times on this very message board. But if it cannot bring at least some of the culture to Christ it has no other real mission, and is wasting resources perhaps best applied elsewhere.

I mean this, if Orthodoxy cannot bring people to Christ it has no more of a mission either. If we cannot do this we deserve to see our temples shut down around us.

One of the things that frustrated me the most as a Byzantine Catholic was the focus on bringing Roman Catholics in to the church and calling it "evangelization". That is nothing but a crime. Roman Catholics can bloom where they are planted.

Byzantine Catholicism needs to find protestants and agnostics, the unchurched and the doubt filled. It needs to contend with sceptics and atheists, it needs to present it's own true teaching to the people, and make no apologies for it.

If the church cannot even try to do this it deserves whatever happens.

+T+
Michael

Well put! I am Greek but a Latin Rite Catholic and I am proud that Eastern Catholics exist. I can't imagine the Catholic Church without Greek Catholics!...

Dear Armando,

I suffer the fact that there are Ukrainians who are Latin Catholics, but Greeks too?

Can't you become a Greek Catholic?

Alex