www.byzcath.org

Why do BC's stay with Rome?

Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 03:44 PM

Dear Friends,

Problems with married priests, jurisdictional bullying by Rome, Latinization - we've all heard the usual litany of issues.

So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome? Why do we remain Catholic?

Is it only because we are gluttons for punishment?

Alex

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 04:22 PM

I hope you are not asking me.... smile
Posted By: Joe T

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:04 PM

"So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome?"

Because we are Catholic. biggrin

Joe
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:08 PM

Kristos Voskrese,

We stay because that is who we are. We are here because our forfathers knew that union with the Holy Father in combination with Orthodox praxis was the ideal of Chistian faith and worship. Our history may be checked but it seems to me that it is getting better. Our churches are starting to behave more like our Orthodox brothers. It took a few hundred years to educate our Latin firends but it appears to be working Sure, Rome must approve our bishops. That is part of what being in union is about - chains of command. Some see it as a deterent whereas I see it as a comfort. We don't have nearly the amount of jurisdictional problems because of that chain.

As far as matters of the Faith, we have the wealth of the "other" God inspired councils of the Western Church to pull from in those areas not addressed in the first seven. What a treasure we do have. As I see it, we have the best of both East and West. May we always hold fast to this jewel of the Faith.

Dmitri.
Posted By: Moose

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:09 PM

Alex,

It is indeed a curious thing as to why Byzantine Catholics stay loyal to Rome despite the poor way Rome has treated us and continues to treat us. I think that we stay with Rome because we know that communion with Rome is the crown of Orthodoxy.

Moose
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:21 PM

Dear OOD,

Not unless you are in union with Old Rome smile .

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:22 PM

Dear Cantor Joe,

If I want to be told to behave "just because," I can call my mother smile

Alex
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:33 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:


So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome? Why do we remain Catholic?



I have said it before and I will say it again.

Questions such as this bother me, IMHO they are insulting and disrespectful, sort of impling that I do not have a right to be what I am.

You might as well ask why one is an American or Canadian, when our countries do things that aren't all that nice.


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

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:53 PM

Dear David,

I'm not being insulting. As you know, I am in union with Rome too.

It's just that we BC's go through a lot with Rome and we wonder what's going on.

Orthodox Christians (who never imply any offense or disrespect smile ) wonder why we go on in union with Rome after such treatment.

So why do we?

We already maintain that union with Rome adds very little to our Apostolic faith. We have our own traditions, canonical regulations and other aspects of our authentic Particular Church lives.

So much of what we are about is Orthodox, except when it comes to the Papacy when we seem to stop being Orthodox and roll over to act like the ultimate papalists, kicking and screaming the whole way.

What does being in union with Rome add to our lives as Eastern Christians theologically, canonically, ritually?

If I were an Orthodox Christian who wandered on this forum to ask this sort of question, it would be like me going onto another Orthodox Forum and asking them why they persist in their schisms.

But I'm Eastern Catholic, you know that, and I know that.

If I can't ask an honest question without appearing threatening, then what's it all worth?

So, I ask you, Big Guy, what are you in union with Rome and would continue to be?

Want to declare your faith? Here's an opportunity.

Go ahead.

Alex
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 05:58 PM

Dear Alex:

Being a (Roman) Catholic, I should not be butting in here.

But I am moved to put my "imprimatur" on Joe's and Dmitri's posts.

AndG
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 06:06 PM

Alex,

For me, I would have to say that it is because it is the Church, the Byzantine Catholic Chuch, of my ancestors.

For me to 'dox would be an affront to them in my mind, after all it was good enough for them and we do have it better than they ever did.

Now I don't know if this answer is good enough for those who would ask this question but it is my answer for now.

I think this may be part of what bothers me about this question. As I also take it as a hit against my family and ancestors.

I do not know much of them, my parent's in their infinite wisdom decided to raise us children with no connection to our ancestors or the "Old Country" so all I know of my families history is the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I do not know if you can understand this or even where I am comming from on this, but here it is.


Your brother in Christ,
David

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 06:09 PM

Dear Amado,

Bene. Optimum est!

Benedicat vos Deus Omnipotens:

Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Amen!

Servus Tuum,

Alexius Romanus
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 06:11 PM

Dear David,

Actually, what you said is both very honest and something that I share.

And there's no disgrace in that.

When St Vladimir the Great was considering which Church to baptize his people in, he was urged to accept Byzantine Christianity.

After all, he was told, his grandmother, St Olha, had received it.

It therefore must have been good.

And that is why we are Byzantine today.

Alex
Posted By: Russian Orthodox-Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 08:20 PM

Christ has Ascended!

Dear friends,

This question has particular relevance for me. I live in an area where there is a vital and vibrant Orthodox mission. The local Byzantine parishes do not have the same strong sense of purpose. I have been repeatedly asked to "convert to Orthodoxy." I don't know how many of you have actually been repeatedly confronted with such a situation. My best answer is that we, Orthodox-Catholics represent the future of Orthodoxy. I have a firm conviction that future Orthodox Christians will revere the clergy and the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic Churches. They will revere us for our sufferings.

It is my understanding of the vocation and the history of the Russian Orthodox-Catholic Church, especially my reading of the life of Hieromartyr Leonid, bishop of the Russian Exarchate (1879-1935) that has led me to this understanding of the role of suffering.

St. Leonid was imprisoned by the Bolsheviks in the great Russian monastery of Solovki. He was imprisoned with many other Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic clergy and laity. He never lost faith and reminded his fellow prisoners "We are suffering for the Eastern schism and there is no need for me to keep on repeating it. We must carry our cross with patience, for we are a burnt-offering without which there can be no spiritual rebirth for Russia."

So our churches have a vocation to suffer and we ought to continue to offer up our sufferings until our sister Orthodox churhces burn with the desire to restore full unity and communion with Rome.

Presviataya Bogoroditza Fatimskaya, spasi nas.
RusOrthCath martyrs and confessors, pray for us.

[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: PaulOrthCathConfessor ]
Posted By: Dragani

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 08:28 PM

Alex,

If I were to leave the Catholic Church, Archbishop John Ireland (and those like him) would have won. This is my Church too, and I will stay here and fight for my right to be Eastern and Catholic.

Anthony
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 09:23 PM

I guess I'm in a different boat than my Slavic brethren since I'm a hybrid. My father (RIP) was Roman of Irish/German/French extraction. My Mom (still doing OK!, thank God) and her sister, my Godmother, are Greek Orthodox. As a kid, I was in both churches on Sunday -- Lordy, would that I had had a day-book calender to figure out what the heck I was doing.

Like many, many others in my circumstance, I was a citizen of two nations. And, recalcitrant person that I am, I am/was unwilling to relinquish either heritage. Fortunately for me, rather than continue the two-liturgy, two-calender experience of my childhood, I found some Northern Slavic neighbors who were, in some ways, just like me: blood-related to both East and West.

I am able to retain my Greek heritage, but at the same time still be part of the See of Rome which is important to me because I truly believe that the Bishop of Rome is the chief bishop of Christ's Church, and I see no reason why this stupid schism is still being perpetuated. [Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the anathemas. What's the freakin' problem!!! Get on with it!!!]

I am very, very grateful that I found a wonderful Ruthenian community that accepted me as "a brother". They knew and know that I am Greek Greek and not "Greek Catholic/Rusin", but they apparently just figured: "What the hey. He prays like we do just like his grandparents taught him." And I've been there for 27 years.

{At Paschal Matins, while serving as usher, I stand at the back during the incensations. I hear: Christ is Risen! Christos Voskres! But when Father John and Father George see me, they proclaim: Christos Anesti! as they swing the kadilo in my direction. And I respond: "Alithos Anesti!!!" It's family. Extended family, but family nonetheless.

So, in my perspective, the Ruthenians represent the chelovyekolyjublets/philanthropia "lover of mankind" model that Christ demands of His followers. I guess I'm an honorary Rusyn; and I'm damned proud that the Rusyn folks in my parish have just made me "family".

So, for us 'hybrids' that are the hallmark of the 'New World', we are probably willing to be identified with both East and West. And the "either/or" perspective seems just unjust because it forces us to make an impossible choice. The 'one background' folks don't quite understand this. The converts would seem to be the most distressed by this because it doesn't fit their experience of 'choice making'. So, us hybrid folks have to stand as witnesses that being forced to "choose" is just a false dichotomy because we see the truth in both communities and wish, from the bottom of our hearts, that we can enjoy all the patrimony of our Christian heritages without being maligned from all sides.

God bless the Rusyn people and the Ruthenian Church!

Blessings!
Posted By: Deacon John Petrus

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 09:49 PM

For me it is even more basic. By being Byzantine Catholic, I am in communion with my entire family. While we derive from Ruthenian grandparents, I am the only Byzantine Catholic left. Everyone else is Roman Catholic. But we are still in communion with each other. Furthermore, my wife of Italian ancestry was (is?) Roman Catholic, and we are in communion with her entire family. By becoming Orthodox, I would gain nothing in my opinion, but would lose very much.

John
Posted By: Thymiato

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 10:07 PM

Christos Anesti!

Dr. John:

Thanks for your post!
Thank God for parish communities like yours.
They are the salt of the earth.

Michael

So, for us 'hybrids' that are the hallmark of the 'New World', we are probably willing to be identified with both East and West. And the "either/or" perspective seems just unjust because it forces us to make an impossible choice. The 'one background' folks don't quite understand this. The converts would seem to be the most distressed by this because it doesn't fit their experience of 'choice making'. So, us hybrid folks have to stand as witnesses that being forced to "choose" is just a false dichotomy because we see the truth in both communities and wish, from the bottom of our hearts, that we can enjoy all the patrimony of our Christian heritages without being maligned from all sides.

God bless the Rusyn people and the Ruthenian Church!

Blessings![/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted By: ukrainiancatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/17/02 10:12 PM

I think if one were to stay in the Catholic Church, you can do more good trying to change the was Rome is. Ok if things haven't always been the best, stay Catholic and work from the inside. My 2 kopeks.
-uc
Posted By: Michael Brooks

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 12:28 AM

I suppose this is more of a psychological reason than a theological one. I was attracted to Orthodoxy but became Roman Catholic (later transferring to the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church) because the Orthodox anti-papal vitriol I read and the divisions I perceived within Orthodoxy reminded me way-over-the-top-too-much of the craziness within evangelical and fundamentalist protestantism. I just couldn't take it anymore. The thought of getting anywhere near that kind of strife and posturing made me almost physically ill.

Of course, lots of Orthodox folks aren't like that, but I still don't want the canonical mess. However, if I undertook the formal study of theology I'd probably apply to St. Vladimir's.

Also, it seemed to me from the New Testament and my limited reading of the Fathers that there was more to the Petrine primacy than just the best seat at the dinner table of the Patriarchs.
Posted By: Axios

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 12:51 AM

Quote
Problems with married priests, jurisdictional bullying by Rome, Latinization


ROTFL Yes biggrin I do not understand you Catholics. We Orthodox have no problems with our married priests. We never have any bullying from church prelates, and never have any pressures or movements contrary to perfect liturgy for our patrimony. (Note to Orthodox only: SHHHHHH, don't tell them anything!)

Axios biggrin biggrin biggrin biggrin
Posted By: Two Lungs

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 01:04 AM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome? Why do we remain Catholic?

Alex


Dear Alex,

I think there are two reasons.

One: We would not be orthodox if we were separated from Rome.

Two: We are called by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel to all, especially the Romans.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck
Posted By: MikethePolish

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 02:05 PM

I'm relatively new to this board but not new to the many questions we have been discussing. I am Catholic of the Latin Rite. My family is predominately Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Slovak, and Austrian (Jewish!. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and found our Lord within this Church.

However, I absolutely love the Orthodox Church. The Theology of the Ancient Fathers (which is the same for RC, prior to the split.) And the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom in my opinion are more "uplifting" and ceremonial than unfortunately the way the Divine Liturgy is performed in my RC parish.

But I hardly believe that our Lord makes such distinctions. I believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I believe that the bride of Christ is the Roman Church with all its faults, and the Orthodox Church with all its faults.

The "faults" of these Church are not the failings of the Holy Spirit - but those of man. Personally, I believe in Papal Supremacy when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra." I am not obliged to follow his every opinion and word, just because he says so. In faith and morals I do feel obliged.
I also recognize the terrible abuses that came from the Roman Seat - but these were the failings and sins of mortal men (unfortunate weaknesses that Christ very well knew of his followers, for if he wanted perfection, then He came to the wrong planet). The Eastern Church is not without its human failings either, I'm sure you are more educated in this regard.

But undeniably the Holy Spirit has remained faithful to "both" His Churches - I believe because they are indeed One Church.

As far as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father or from the Father and the Son....
I am not bold enough to state that I've mastered the workings of the Divine Being. I just haven't quite figured that out yet, and I suspect that in this lifetime, there will be a whole lot of things I won't understand about God :-)

So thats how I view it. The Bride of Christ, imperfect because of its sins but forgiven and sanctified by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Praise God in Greek, Latin, Polish, Russian, English and Swahili. And praise and beseech our Holy Mother Mary, for she is mother of us all!

Peace,
Mike
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 02:15 PM

This is an interesting thread.

Virtually everyone here claims to be Orthodox, and yet again, it doesn't seem anyone holds an Orthodox understanding. No offense.

Who decides who is in communion with who? The pope or our Savior Jesus Christ? The Orthodox only strive to be in communion with God and through Him we are in communion with everyone He has prescribed.

This inner sense of Christ's presence as Head of the Church has always prevented Orthodoxy from elevating a human being to a monarchal position. This explains why, to the outsider, Orthodoxy presents a chaotic face. The human face of the Orthodox Church is indeed chaotic-because it is living in the world. Internally, however, the unity and authority of the Church is maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ. The unity of the Church is apparent to the extent that we are partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), to the extent that we participate in the Holy Spirit. This is why the outsider fails to see the unity and authority of the Church but only human drama, because, being outside the Church, he cannot be a partaker of this divine life, of the actions and movements of the Spirit of Truth.

The unity of the Orthodox Church is a spiritual unity, not a secular one.

This also explains the failure of most people to understand union is not compromises between men. No! Certainly we should seek to reconcile ourselves on earth and be at peace but never at the cost of Truth. It is therefore upholding the faith and only by this can we be in union with God and through Him union with the rest of His Body.

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]
Posted By: Diak

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 08:05 PM

Christos Voskrese!
Which Orthodox church would I join? If I joined the OCA and went to a ROCOR parish, they probably wouldn't give me communion.

As a Ukrainian Catholic, the Ruthenians welcome me to communion and vice versa, as do the Latins.

I recall the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory explaining that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church par exellance. If the outward sign of unity is broken, how can there be inward unity? I don't get it.

If Moscow can excommunicate Constantinople (which occurred not too long ago temporarily) based on the desire of the Estonians to have their own church sui juris and resort to Constantinople, this is more than just external chaos. I don't recall any serious theological debate being involved in this dispute, or any theological dispute at all.

As the great Alexander Schmemann also stated in another essay contained in Meyendorff's Primacy of Peter:
"To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestand divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative, and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven..." and later in the same essay ..."We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church...then the one, supreme, and universal power becomes a necessity, because this unique visible organism must also have a unique visible head". Fr. Schmemann says it better than many Roman Catholic theologians.

I think of Blesseds Leonid Feodorov, Klementy Sheptytsky, Mykola Charnetsky...who literally sacrificed everything to remain Orthodox in communion with Rome, and who were faithful even to the chiding of other Greek Catholic priests, for remaining staunchly faithful to Eastern tradition. Of Bishop Soter Ortynsky who prematurely died certainly due to the stress of dealing with the Latin hierarchy as well as problems within, but who did establish the first Greek Catholic diocese in America...of Patriarch Josyp (Slipyj) of blessed memory who was even offered a Metropolitanate in the Moscow Patriarchate, but remained in the gulag with thousands of our people instead to be faithful to his dual communion, Orthodox in communion with Rome.
...there shall be one fold and one shepherd
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 09:01 PM

This inner sense of Christ's presence as Head of the Church has always prevented Orthodoxy from elevating a human being to a monarchal position. This explains why, to the outsider, Orthodoxy presents a chaotic face. The human face of the Orthodox Church is indeed chaotic-because it is living in the world. Internally, however, the unity and authority of the Church is maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ. The unity of the Church is apparent to the extent that we are partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), to the extent that we participate in the Holy Spirit. This is why the outsider fails to see the unity and authority of the Church but only human drama, because, being outside the Church, he cannot be a partaker of this divine life, of the actions and movements of the Spirit of Truth.

I was a "partaker of the divine nature" yet still left Orthodoxy for the Catholic Church.

It may be great that Orthodoxy has such intense spiritual unity but it sadly lacks any visible kind of unity which, unfortunatly for them, is one of the four visible marks of the Catholic Church. If your Church is true, it has to be One,Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic to pass the mark. Orthodoxy is not visibly one nor is it visibly Catholic Since a great deal of people outside of Orthodox countires have never even heard of her (I have nor could ever imagine anyone who hasnt heard of the Catholic Church).

All the lectures in the world on self diefication and the like will nor cannot take away the present inadiquecies of Orthodoxy outside of the full and visible communion of the Catholic Church. Why dosnt Orthodoxy have these two visible marks in there entirity? Spiritual unity (Which does not even always exist in Orthodoxy) just dosnt cut having a visible center of union and order.

To my questions, the atypical Orthodox reply usualy is "you just dont get it, do you"? To which I may reply, "no, I just dont".
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 10:43 PM

All of the above posts are just too intellectual for my taste, because the question should't be why have we remained "Catholi." Answer: Because we wish to be part of the Universal Church. So much for my intellectual imput.
Now on to the nitty gritty.

Question: When were the "Golden Years" of our church? When were our seminaries so filled that new sems had to bunk in the big dormitory on the third floor of the new seminary? When were there 150 ladies in the Ladie's Guilds, twice that many in the Rosary Society. Not to mention the Stara Baba's in the Mother's Clubs. The Men's Club, Sodality, and the Choirs.

Churches were filled to capacity with many having three Masses(ok, ok Liturgies, for all "LC" Liturgically Correct).

Hundreds of children making their First Communions, (what do our little tikes do now...no First Communion pictures, parties, or gifts with the "new way").

There were Holy Name parades right down the center of main streets of every town where men in Tuxes, and processional crosses, banners, bands, the Sodality girls in their white dresses and veils, and faithful gathered at local soft ball fields after leaving the steps of their churches for the parade to hear ....yikes!....sermons and speakers extolling Christianity in general and Greek Catholics in particular!

Parishes had their Pastor, and two sometimes three "Curates" to assist them.
May Crowning breakfasts drew hundreds. Molebens to Mary in May, and Devotions to Jesus with Benediction to the Blessed Sacrament were a weekly affair not to be missed. We were "on the map" in our respective towns then. Why not now?

On the one hand some may claim that we sold out to the Latins, with all of their "chingy lingy" May devotions, benedictions.....the Rosary......and such simeon practices.....yes, they're to blame for our demise impending or imagined. But now that we are "purifying" ourselves from years of "abuse?" by the Latin Church, could we not be having either one of two things happenn namely; In our rush to "deLatinize" has the pendelum swung too far to the other side? Have we become too Orthodox? One could accuse us of both when you think about it.
A dillema to be sure. If it wasn't good to have Latinizations...if that's the reason for our lack of growth......is it better to become synonomous with any garden variety Orthodox Church? Is that the way we will bring new members into our churches.....by looking, acting, and praying just like the orthodox do? Why would they join our church if there's no difference?
Wouldn't it be better for us to promote our brand of "Catholicity", whatever definition you wish to give it, in order to attract those who might wish to remain, or more importantly become Catholic, but are looking for a different spiritual path to take, maybe smaller more personal parishes, greater spirituality and reverence, and all that good stuff we are famous for but nobody knows about (there's another area to discuss: evangelization).
We are in a vocations crisis, a people crisis, and a growth crisis, identit6y crisis again, precipitated partially by having BC's marry RC's or others, and never return to their BC church. Question: Why? As well as other reasons why people leave us.
It begs the question then: Should we be quibbling about the externals of our church when the internals are in need of major quadruple bypass heart surgery? Should we be fiddling while Byzantium is burning? (Bad pun!)

Yes, as we sit in judgement of where have we gone wrong, I would ask, iof you can to pick up some anniversary books of our churches that have been around more than 25 years......the old ones like St. Mike's in Passaic, or Freeland, or Lansford, and look at the people we had back then. Those old Latinized priests must have been doing something right.

The question, are we... No, the question is: Are we in the Autumn of our Church's life? How can we recreate those Golden Years again? We don't have much choice if we want to flourish, and to flourish will not mean being a Chameleon, changing ourselves to everyone elses traditions and practices. Don't we have any of our own that have withstood the test of time?
And please don't think of our traditions as Latin/Orthodox/or whatever, but "ours", just as we don't think of a pizza as something we we shouldn't eat because our goood people in Uzhorod adopted it from the Italians just because they didn't know what to do with bread that didn't rise, sauce that was too spicy for halupki, or using peperoni, because , well, they ran out of kolbasi! Let's not throw out the Greek Catholic Baby with the Byzantine bath water!
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/18/02 11:01 PM

Robert,

I would like to first mention that the true meaning of the word "Catholic" comes from two Greek words: "KATA" meaning "ACCORDING TO" and "HOLOS" meaning "COMPLETE". In other words, in the Church resides all the Truth and that the Church calls everyone to salvation, regardless of their nationality or social status.

It is therefore obvious, to the Orthodox, that only the Orthodox Church is Catholic.

As far as unity Robert, if the Church was striving for worldy perfection I suppose that a pope would be important.

I am not your spiritual father and nor do I want to sound like I'm talking to you in a demeaning way, but if you strive for spiritual perfection each day, I mean really strive for it, and don't set your mind on "high ideas" (Cor. - Forgot the verse) like "world Christianity", then it really comes down to: God, You, your bishop, and your priest all of which are striving for your transformation.

And I suppose that if I am ever spirtually perfect, then I'll worry about good social order among men.
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/19/02 02:21 AM

GC, you took the words right out of my mouth! Why are we dying? Is it right to freely abandone our own traditions and asssimilate ourselves into something we are not just because were "suppost to be like that".

Fact is, like it or not, that we have to do something to distinguish ourselves as unique from everyone else and perhaps a limited form of latinization was seen as the answer to many of our old timers. These folks remeber were raised to be proud of being Catholic, they didnt look upon the Orthodox Church as a "sister" but as a dissident group and they really wanted to in some way distinguish themselves from them. So they looked to their big sister, the Roman rite, as a model for how they should develope themselves. The Orthodox did the same thing with the Anglicans and other Protestant groups to whom they were ecumenically inclined towards at the time. I garuntee that if you look at a lot of old time Orthodox parishes, you will see clear "Protestantizations" everywhere from the pews and organs, to the robed choirs and the congregationalist system of parish councils and private property ownership.

Eastern Christians were new in this country and in order to, as they felt, accomidate themselves better to their surrondings, they looked for guidence from already established institutions. For Greeks Catholics, it was the Romans, and to Orthodox, it was the Protestants. Thats just the way it worked. Its also hard to just go into a parish and start demanding all sorts of changes in order to purge out all "undesirable eliments". Even if they arnt exactly "kosher" with the purist amongst us, they are none the lss, products of genuine organic growth amongst our people and ought to be allowed when their is a genuine attachment to them by a parish. I, for one, am tired of our "liturgical police" going around from parish to parish making sure that everything is Orthodox enough for their taste. TRuth is, we are not Orthodox but Eastern Catholics. If people want to be Orthodox then theyll go and join Orthodox parishes but if they are with us (Ruthenian rite) then their Greek Catholics and alhough Greek Catholics are similar to Orthodox, they have grown and developed along their own lines over the past few centuries.

There is nothing wrong with organic development in church matters, be they liturgical, or cultural, even the Orthodox have had genuine organic growth at times. If our people have felt the need to borrow some particular devotion from another rite and use it for their own spiritual bennifit then why shouldnt they be allowed to continue with it if it makes them happy?

Are we getting to the point where Greeks Catholics are going to have to petition for something like ecclesia dei in order to protect their own genuinally organically developed traditions from being erased? Perhaps this matter will be full for such groups as the Society of St. Josaphat and the Transalpine Redemptorist to work with in order to inflame a schism within our ranks?

Who knows?

Robert K.
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/19/02 02:48 AM

Quote
Originally posted by Robert K.:
GC, you took the words right out of my mouth! Why are we dying? Is it right to freely abandone our own traditions and asssimilate ourselves into something we are not just because were "suppost to be like that".

Fact is, like it or not, that we have to do something to distinguish ourselves as unique from everyone else and perhaps a limited form of latinization was seen as the answer to many of our old timers. These folks remeber were raised to be proud of being Catholic, they didnt look upon the Orthodox Church as a "sister" but as a dissident group and they really wanted to in some way distinguish themselves from them. So they looked to their big sister, the Roman rite, as a model for how they should develope themselves. The Orthodox did the same thing with the Anglicans and other Protestant groups to whom they were ecumenically inclined towards at the time. I garuntee that if you look at a lot of old time Orthodox parishes, you will see clear "Protestantizations" everywhere from the pews and organs, to the robed choirs and the congregationalist system of parish councils and private property ownership.

Eastern Christians were new in this country and in order to, as they felt, accomidate themselves better to their surrondings, they looked for guidence from already established institutions. For Greeks Catholics, it was the Romans, and to Orthodox, it was the Protestants. Thats just the way it worked. Its also hard to just go into a parish and start demanding all sorts of changes in order to purge out all "undesirable eliments". Even if they arnt exactly "kosher" with the purist amongst us, they are none the lss, products of genuine organic growth amongst our people and ought to be allowed when their is a genuine attachment to them by a parish. I, for one, am tired of our "liturgical police" going around from parish to parish making sure that everything is Orthodox enough for their taste. TRuth is, we are not Orthodox but Eastern Catholics. If people want to be Orthodox then theyll go and join Orthodox parishes but if they are with us (Ruthenian rite) then their Greek Catholics and alhough Greek Catholics are similar to Orthodox, they have grown and developed along their own lines over the past few centuries.

There is nothing wrong with organic development in church matters, be they liturgical, or cultural, even the Orthodox have had genuine organic growth at times. If our people have felt the need to borrow some particular devotion from another rite and use it for their own spiritual bennifit then why shouldnt they be allowed to continue with it if it makes them happy?

Are we getting to the point where Greeks Catholics are going to have to petition for something like ecclesia dei in order to protect their own genuinally organically developed traditions from being erased? Perhaps this matter will be full for such groups as the Society of St. Josaphat and the Transalpine Redemptorist to work with in order to inflame a schism within our ranks?

Who knows?

Robert K.


Yes Robert, you are correct sir.......
Call it the sign of the times........disposable everything........if this doesn''t get'em in try something else.........and yes......we have too many Liturgical Police........"Purging" is for Super Models. We should not purge everything every Greek Catholic Byzantine Ruthenian person grew up with thinking that it will make ud more pure? More pure than who or what? Ask how many parishes are celebrating the beautiful Moleben to the Blessed Mother on Fridays during May, the Month of Mary? How mahy has a special precession to the Icon or Statue, of Hologram, or whatever of the Blessed Mother to present it with flowers. Our church has people come up every Sunday in May and do just that. That's good liturgy. Involving the pwopld and the children who did bring flowers to our outdoor shrine of the Blessed Mother.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
If we sacrifice our Catholic Identity for orthodox traditions, then we will be a nebulous comglomeration of rituals and practices with no long lasting identity, and we will able to define ourselves only by what decade we were born in. "Oh you were a Greek Catholic of the 50's" "Oh you seem to be a Byzantine Catholic of the 80's" "O your speech gives you away as a Byzantine Carpatho Orthodox Ruthenian of the 90's.
When an old priest overheard someone question who were were as a church in this day and age he replied:"We know who we are.....we're mixed up!" Hummm, words to think about.
Posted By: Dr John

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/20/02 02:10 AM

I see and hear the propositions of the various brethren about the status of the Church in contemporary times. I am especially moved by the "Ruthenians of the 50's" the "Byzantines of the 80s", etc.

While there was certainly a wonderful sense of community and 'activism' in the past communities, I am concerned that we are being asked to 're-create' these past communities today. I would hope that with the graces that are now available to us, the leadership of our priests and bishops, and the talents given to the people, that we would could find patterns of holiness that will speak to our current times, without necessarily havng to go back to prior modes. There is not question that sodality, Altar Society, Holy Name, etc. were wonderful manifestations of our Christian community. And, if there were viable entities in the contemporary society, then they should be resurrected. BUT, if they are not surviving, the we have to be extremely creative to find other organizations and entities that will serve this purpose. It is, as with all things from the Lord, a challenge.

Blessings, y'all!
Posted By: Nicky's Baba

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/20/02 04:24 AM

Dr. John,

You are right we can't go back but whatever the Parish organization names are there are some basic ones which should always remain.

1. Core groups who help with needs of the Parish.
2. A core group that promotes Charitable work.
3. A new core group that promotes Bible study Catechesis /Evangelization continuing education for adults. ECF that goes without saying.
4. A core group tied in with #2 that deals with some of todays issues. For instance, I was always told that GCU was created to help widows & orphans when this group of folks came here.The bigger issue in the Church today is single moms as opposed to widows and orphans. How could a Parish or Group help with that?
5. A new core group that fosters reunion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Since this Church crossed that "Bridge" 500 yrs ago.We should be the stewards of the reunion.

Having stated #4. I do think we are our own Church. No we don't have to do everything the OC does.It doesn't have to be either or- latinization or an OC tradition. We really have to look at organic growth. Looking at it from the two former will always limit us. I wasn't in the Ruthenian Church during its "Golden Years". Heck I wasn't even born yet. It also limits our Church's potential to say its Golden Years have already past. We just had a new Metropolitan appointed we need to think positive.

Nicky's Baba
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/20/02 12:34 PM

The "Golden Years" are more than just a time when we seemed to know who we were, and were happy being Greek Catholics, because there were Roman Catholics, the "Katsaps" (those churhces who went orthodox during the celibacy and church ownership issues) , the Johnstown Group, etc. The golden years were years when cantors were a full time job, and many were called "professor", and were salaried by the church. I have heard from many other parishioners that even the congragational singing of the liturgy in many of our bigger churches up North is waning. If you want to hear some real congregational singing to compare, get a tape of the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Kocisko back in 1965 at the Cathedral in Passaic. The mixture of Old Slavonic and English, with the babi raising the roof is a joy to listen to(especially the closing hymn "O Maria Mati Boze") as are the priests, many of whom are no longer with us, like Stim, Durisin, Kocisko, and others. The tape is no longer in publication, so I made copies for friends. Email me if you want one. It's a classic example of the "Golden Years". We can talk about icon screens, rubrics, new liturgy, rapidia flappping, doors opening and closing, and incense billowing, which is all wonderful, but it's the "singing stupid" (to coin a phrase of the Clinton years) that needs to be addressed perhaps in another post. If we lose that, then send in the organs, guitars, or try to muster a choir. I remember Bishop Kocisko insisted no choir be used during any of his celebrations. He wanted congregational singing, which we Greek Catholics/Ruthenians have mastered better than the Ukranians and Orthodox who depended, I think, too much on choral music rendered by choirs while the people just listened, hummed, or sang under their breath. Our plain chant and Tonal system used for our liturgical services is integral to our church. It needs to be reinvigorated in all parishes.
Posted By: Mexican

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/20/02 05:55 PM

Being in communion with Rome has advantages of course, like being in communion with the biggest religious body of the world and millions of christians. I've always admired the universalist views of the Roman Catholic Church (sometimes the Orthodox Churches are so radical in the defense of their autonomy and their ethnicity that the universality of the Church is forgotten).

But the Eastern Christian Churches that entered to communion with Rome lost a lot of things, and their Orthodox identity, and their autonomy (at least in the New World).

The autonomy of the Eastern Catholic Churches including the big patriarchal churches (Melkite, Chaledean, maronite) is not a real autonomy (most of the time):

Patriarchs cannot name bishops without the Rome's permission, Eastern Eparchies are established by the Pope, Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example), eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops, the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves... they are not allowwed to canonize their saints (at least the latin church should let them beatify I think) and the pureness of the Eastern rite hasn't been preserved, and most of the Eastern catholic churches have lost their tides with the Orthodox patriarchs.
Posted By: DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/20/02 06:16 PM

Remie,
While some of what you said is correct, I think you are a bit off on the following.

Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example)

Tell this to the Melkites and Ukrainians here in North America.... It is my understanding that they have ordained married men.

eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops

Please name one Eastern Bishop in North America that is under a Latin Catholic Bishop.

the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves...

While this was once true, it is changing. Just look at Holy Ressurection Monastery in California, I also believe that there is a Ukranian Catholic monastery there and the Studite Monks in Orangeville, Ont..... Also I believe that there is a new group of Eastern nuns in California or is it Alaska?


Your brother in Christ,
David
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 01:31 AM

Patriarchs cannot name bishops without the Rome's permission, Eastern Eparchies are established by the Pope, Eastern catholics outside their patriarchal territories cannot act according to their eastern identity (they can't have married priests for example), eastern bishops are under latin rite bishops, the Orthodox Monasticism has been forgotten and replaced by Western style orders or the western orders themselves... they are not allowwed to canonize their saints (at least the latin church should let them beatify I think) and the pureness of the Eastern rite hasn't been preserved, and most of the Eastern catholic churches have lost their tides with the Orthodox patriarchs.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, if you want order in the Church universal, some tims youve just got to sacrifice "personal autonomy" for the best results. If you ask me, I think the situation with our Eastern rite Churches has worked out pretty well. We still keep our own traditions and rituals yet have injected a lot of western things into our Church that have helped organize her better. So what if we are not 100% independent of Rome?

Why on Earth would we want to look towards Orthodoxy for tips on how to govern ourselves? After all, they are not exactly the best model to point to if one is looking for an effective and organized Church to copy off of.

Instead of us wanting to lok towards them, they should want to be more like us.

Robert K.
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 01:54 AM

Greek Catholic

Just to let you know, I sent you a private message.

Robert K.
Posted By: Axios

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 03:49 AM

Actually, while defending the right of any Greek Catholic to have his or her opinion on issues mentioned here, none of the practices named is any real difficulty for us Orthodox as far as Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Axios

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 12:42 PM

To Robert K: Tape will be on the way. You'll enjoy it immensly!
And Axios, I would love for you and others, to address what would perhaps be a common problem for both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic, but seems to be more accute with we BC's. That is the loss of our youth and young adults. The former to churches where they have more friends and activities perhaps. The latter, to RC's or non Catholics in marriage. Many times, although this trend may also be fading, Jews try to marry in their faith for all the best reasons. Why don't our young people.
I believe that if we spent money on Byzantine Catholic Day Care Centers, Byzantine Catholic High Schools, Youth Centers, we would keep out young people......maybe.....if they are only exposed to our church once a week if that, then no wonder they never develop a love for it.
There are more RC's than BC's so marriages are usually mixed that way, and many new couples look for either convenience of a local church, the annonimity of a large parish, and it's sophistication too (plus, some of our parishes are pretty cliquish , unwelcoming to strangers, and backward thinking).....and other various and sundry reasons. Maybe a new tract would be appropriate on this very real problem, which needs to be dealt with especially by the new crown, but we can't blame anyone other than ourselves starting with the heirarchy. If all we're doing is keeping our church on life support....then pull the plug already!
Anyone that had taken Business 101 knows the iron clad rule of business: If you don't grow you won't survive. It applies to more than businesses.
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 12:57 PM

Sorry in the above post.......I meant keep our young people!!!!
You computer wizards on this site should build in a "spell check" for us peck and poke typists!!!
Just a suggestion!
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 03:22 PM

Alex,
Most of the problems today are not with the Latins, but with the Byzantines themselves. They could clear up the past abuses but do not seem to choose to do so in many of the places I have visited. The new metropolitan and eparch need to take the bull buy the horns and get moving. And the parish priests need to get going on restoring the liturgy and church design to its rightful place.
Sooooooooo.

L'Chaim
Stephanos I

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]
Posted By: Mexican

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 06:12 PM

What are the terms of union that Rome proposes now to the Orthodox Churches (in order to establish the undivided church again?

Are they the same that were proposed to the uniate movements of the past centuries (a limited autonomy)?
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 08:41 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Remie:
What are the terms of union that Rome proposes now to the Orthodox Churches (in order to establish the undivided church again?

Are they the same that were proposed to the uniate movements of the past centuries (a limited autonomy)?


Im not sure that Rome has proposed any type of reunion plans with the Orthodox as yet. I dont think that they would just let some sort of inter communion pass off as actual reunification though.

Vatican 2 declared that Orthodox can recieve the sacraments in Catholic parishes which is already a partial intercommunion. The Russian Church from 1969-86 offically allowed Catholics to recieve her sacraments and I believe that they are allowed to do so in some other Orthodox Churches in special circumstances. So intercomunion did exist and, to a limited extent, does still exist between both Churches yet as far as I know, neither side has declared this a reunion.

Personally, I think that Rome desires some sort of more firmer union with the Orthodox then just intercommunion. The Orthodox, on the other hand, seem completely uninterested in reaching any type of unity with the Catholic Church. No one has proposed any new terms for such a reunion beyond the vague concepts the Pope expressed in his Eastern encyclicals. Such "autonomy without absorbtion" between us was what the famous Union of the Council of Florence drew up and, IMHO, I just dont see why we cannot use that document as the basis for a future healing of the Schism?


Robert K.
Posted By: OrthodoxyOrDeath

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 08:54 PM

The way to "heal the schism" (and it is much more than a schism), is for all to return to the practice and faith of the Apostles (ie. Orthodoxy).

btw, which of the Holy Fathers explained merits? I have'nt been able to find any.

Also, Robert, show me something that says any Orthodox bishop allows their followers to receive anything Latin.

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 09:34 PM

Robert K.:

Modern day attempts at re-union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are overseered by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which issued its latest statement at Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993,
"Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion."

Here in the U.S. and in Canada, the dialogue between the Churches are continuing under the auspices of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which issued an agreed statement on "Baptism and
'Sacramental Economy'" after its meeting held at the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York on June 3, 1999.

I am unsure whether there has been any meetings after this date. You may want to review the above document at:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/
baptism.html

Also, you may want to take a look at the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the 1993 Balamand document at:

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/
ve110771.htm


AmdG

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]
Posted By: greekcatholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/21/02 11:55 PM

As we have just celebrated the Feast of Pentecost, may the Holy Spirit move through both Cathoic and Orthodox circles, as we have a bigger problem , once again, as in centuries past, looming on the ever so closer horizon, namely the Fundamentalist Muslim. Russia conquered them once, and placed their "crescent" at the bottom of the cross where it belongs again. Imagine the spiritual "force" that would be with us Obiwhan!!!
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 03:10 PM

Dear OOD,

Didn't you ask a while ago if you could participate in this thread?

And didn't I say you couldn't? smile

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 03:17 PM

Dear Friends,

I am getting a sense here that union with Rome does indeed go beyond the simple dogmatic side of the issue.

For me, it truly does involve a way to have a more universalist perspective that transcends one's local cultural/religious boundaries.

Don't get me wrong. I love my Church and culture smile

And so, apparently, does the Pope!

But the Pope being Polish and Latin Catholic doesn't prevent him from fully relating himself to Christians in Africa or Latin America, or anywhere else.

It is this universality and unity that transcends our man-made borders that makes being in "union with Rome" so attractive.

As for Latinizations, many are also practiced within Orthodoxy.

As for jurisdictional bullying, a lot of that is because our own bishops can't stand on their own two feet.

As for other things, they do not make a movement to separate from Rome.

The fact that we keep on fightin' for our rites means that we will remain rough and tough.

And to those who think I'm a real Papalist, I just want to say I don't know where you get that.

Alex
Given under my hand in the 24th year of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, Vicar of Christ, Successor to St Peter the Apostle, Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan-Archbishop of the Province of Rome, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church, Servant of the Servants of God.
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 04:21 PM

AlexTheGreat:

You OrthodoxCatholics always mess up!

It's "Supreme (not Sovereign) Pontiff of the Universal Church."

And you forgot one other title of His Holiness:
[i]Sovereign of Vatican City State[i/]. wink


AmdG
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 04:37 PM

Dear Amado,

Would you believe me if I told you I deliberately made those errors to see who would correct me?

No?

Oh well . . . smile

Alex
Posted By: Dmitri Rostovski

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 06:01 PM

I thought it was "Sovereign Pontiff"? I have never heard him referred to as the "Supreme Pontiff."

Dmitri
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 06:17 PM

Dear Dmitri,

If we don't humour him a bit, we're gonna get into trouble smile .

But he's right!

Alex
Posted By: Deacon John Montalvo

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 06:28 PM

Quote
Originally posted by greekcatholic:


Hundreds of children making their First Communions, (what do our little tikes do now...no First Communion pictures, parties, or gifts with the "new way").



Although, this may diverge from the topic a bit, I hope you are not advocating a restoration of the "old way". Pictures, parties, and gifts are hardly an apologetic for "excommunicating" infants from the Eucharist.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 06:31 PM

Dear Bisantino,

What my parish does is hold a "First Confession and Holy Communion" when the kiddies reach the age of 7.

They receive prayer ropes and Byzantine prayer books.

The fanfare is identical to that of "First Holy Communion" but without the unnecessary witholding of Communion from pre-age 7 children.

Alex
Posted By: Amadeus

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/22/02 07:00 PM

Dmitri:

You haven't heard the Pope being addressed to as the "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" because it is rarely used. (Actually, only die-hard Roman Catholics like me love hearing and reading it.) wink

The last time I heard (actually read) it used was by Rev. Billy Graham, of that Protestant evangelical fame, when he visited with His Holiness in the Vatican in 1998, I think.

It was in the spirit of humor, as Alex correctly observed, that I chimed in on the "numerous" titles ascribed to our Holy Father (that's another one!). biggrin

Would you not find it funny yourself?

If this myriad of titles were translated into earned or honorific degrees, like Ph.D., M.A., B.S., and the like, before long the Pope shall have more degrees than the thermometer! cool

AmdG
Posted By: Robert K.

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/25/02 02:18 AM

Quote
Originally posted by greekcatholic:
The "Golden Years" are more than just a time when we seemed to know who we were, and were happy being Greek Catholics, because there were Roman Catholics, the "Katsaps" (those churhces who went orthodox during the celibacy and church ownership issues) , the Johnstown Group, etc. The golden years were years when cantors were a full time job, and many were called "professor", and were salaried by the church. I have heard from many other parishioners that even the congragational singing of the liturgy in many of our bigger churches up North is waning. If you want to hear some real congregational singing to compare, get a tape of the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Kocisko back in 1965 at the Cathedral in Passaic. The mixture of Old Slavonic and English, with the babi raising the roof is a joy to listen to(especially the closing hymn "O Maria Mati Boze") as are the priests, many of whom are no longer with us, like Stim, Durisin, Kocisko, and others. The tape is no longer in publication, so I made copies for friends. Email me if you want one. It's a classic example of the "Golden Years". We can talk about icon screens, rubrics, new liturgy, rapidia flappping, doors opening and closing, and incense billowing, which is all wonderful, but it's the "singing stupid" (to coin a phrase of the Clinton years) that needs to be addressed perhaps in another post. If we lose that, then send in the organs, guitars, or try to muster a choir. I remember Bishop Kocisko insisted no choir be used during any of his celebrations. He wanted congregational singing, which we Greek Catholics/Ruthenians have mastered better than the Ukranians and Orthodox who depended, I think, too much on choral music rendered by choirs while the people just listened, hummed, or sang under their breath. Our plain chant and Tonal system used for our liturgical services is integral to our church. It needs to be reinvigorated in all parishes.


Greek Catholic

I just recieved the tape in the mail today and I can personally say after litening to it that that is some very fine choral music.

I urge anyone who is truly interested in hearing something from the golden age of Greek Catholics in America to try and get GC to send you a copy of this magnificant tape! The singing was truly superb and sadly brings tears to your eyes (Could we Byzantine Catholics ever have such beautiful singing in our parishes again)?

So I again than Greek Catholic from the bottom of my heart for making this wonderful music available to me and hopefuly some of you will be able to get a copy as well for some truly uplifting choral.

Robert K.
Posted By: Diak

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/25/02 04:30 PM

"Which we have mastered better"? I don't think so. Nearly all Ukrainian Catholic parishes I have visited or cantored for naturally know how to harmonize the liturgy, not just sing it monotine like nearly all the Ruthenian parishes I have visited. There is general agreement amongst the Ukrainian parishes in the Galician resurrectional tones, while I have not had two cantors teach me Prostopinje tones the same way.

Even the Vespers books produced by the Sisters of St. Basil in Uniontown, the primary Vespers text in use in the Ruthenian parishes (of which few actually use them) have the stikera edited for singing in Ukrainian/Galician samohlasni, not the Prostopinje podobny. I don't think you can say that one jurisdiction has "mastered" anything better than the other. And the use of choral music - there are wonderful traditional choral settings out there, Bortnyansky, Fedoriv, and many others - that are beautiful pieces. There are many more recent recordings of liturgical music that are beautiful, also, including the Ruthenian choir in Philadelphia which has recorded both Slavonic and English Divine Liturgies.

If these were the golden years, what happened? Became so latinized they just went to the Latin church? ...you shall know them by their fruits

Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner
Posted By: RayK

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/26/02 01:30 PM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Friends,

Problems with married priests, jurisdictional bullying by Rome, Latinization - we've all heard the usual litany of issues.

So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome? Why do we remain Catholic?

Is it only because we are gluttons for punishment?

Alex



(I love it when questions are simple.)

Because Christ appointed the Chair of Peter to head His Church, and because I do not base my judgment of Christ's action (that appointment) nor my church on the shallowness of newspaper reporter's opinions.

Jesus never promised that all member of the Church would be sinless... he simply told me that I should be.

What is my church? newspapers and reporters? or Catholic and Christ?

One will aide my salvation and the other wants to sell more papers and air time.

My choice is clear.

[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: -ray ]
Posted By: RayK

Re: Why do BC's stay with Rome? - 05/28/02 05:26 AM

Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
So, why do Byzantine Catholics stay in union with Rome? Why do we remain Catholic?


I had already posted my short opinion on this… but today, I found myself thinking more on it during prayer.

I have to say, that reality - is a powerful thing.

History could have just as well turned out - that today.. We did not believe in any type of “god” at all. Communism could have swept the world and religion faded away.

Imagine if magic and superstition held sway?

Imagine if technology replaced God altogether?

But these things, all just as good “could have been” did not take place.

Instead… a carpenter from Galilee was the cause of the spread of a belief in a “son of god” to most of the world, and for over 2000 years! While only about one third of the cultures call themselves Christian - I doubt there is any pocket left in the world where the name of this crucified Jesus Christ - is not known in someway. At least as a teacher of morals.

What a miracle has been preformed through history!

What were the odds that this little Jewish cult.. where their leader WANTED to die because his father had laid it upon him… ? What would be the odds that the name “Jesus Christ” would be known in someway around the world one day - what the odds of that taking place???

And, as far as men, we owe it all to the 12, who, against all odds, knowing they would probably be killed for doing it - established a church, a Catholic church with one of them in a Prime Ministerial role - and even despite all the faults and failings and down right sins of its members - HAS carried the gospel though out time and history to this day.

The Catholic Church with Peter as it head - is the original church. The mother church. All other Christian churches, including the Orthodox, have split and branched off from the original Catholic Church - which still exists today. It is for the sins, perhaps, of the members of the Catholic Church - that other churches have separated from her formally - yet remain united to her (despite public split) in the foundation and basics of the original doctrines and beliefs that she had codified.

Without her (the Catholic Church) no other Christian church would have existed.

All other Christian churches compare themselves to her. Either they glory in that they are united to her in some way - or glory in the fact that they are NOT like her. In either case - she is their roots and I dare say that if the Catholic Church ever went away - all other Christian Churches would blow away like dries leaves with the dust - because they no longer had roots to sustain them.

History - proves what I said. Imagination can refute it but that refute remains ungrounded, unreal, and denies the facts of history and the path that Providence has accomplished.

Popular or not. Loved or hated. The Catholic Church was begun by Christ and remains to this day with its full human unity in Peter (despite his own personal sins).
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum