www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Two views of Byzantine Catholics

Dear Dave,

My long ago original post was:

More recently, you write:

Are we in conflict? I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". My worst negative sterotype of Catholics pushes me to think it is this Catholic obession with having permission for everything and not caring about the purpose of that for which permission is sought, just the permission. My ecumencial side tells me you are saying that this is a Catholic self-description.

Axios

"Axios,"

To be honest I didn't understand your post. There's no objection from Catholics at all when Orthodox use the term "Catholic" to describe themselves. If it somehow bothers some Orthodox that we use the term "Orthodox" (not in some move to rename ourselves) to describe ourselves I don't know what to say. We cannot deny our history and our patrimony.

In your post above you speak of "we Orthodox." Certainly the content of your website does not fall within Orthodox tradition. Are you a member of a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Having attended only one service where an OCA archbishop was in charge, and only a handful where a bishop presided, I thought Stephen must be referring to day-to-day worship, instead. There are seldom services with metropolitans of any group out here. Hopefully, as a tonsured reader Stephen will have more opportunities to interact liturgically with a variety of clergy than I did when I was in the OCA,

I guess there is still the matter of holy chrism. The EP still wants the OCA metropolitan to get his oil from Constantinople, instead of making his own. Wonder if that carries additional implications.

Jim<<I guess there is still the matter of holy chrism. The EP still wants the OCA metropolitan to get his oil from Constantinople, instead of making his own. Wonder if that carries additional implications.>>

Well, Jim, are you absolutely sure of this? It's just illogical of the EP. If the EP looks upon the OCA as merely an "arm" of the MP, then it should expect the OCA to receive its Holy Chrism from the MP, *NOT* the EP!

At any rate, since *both* the MP and the OCA itself recognize the OCA's autocephaly (as does the Orthodox Patriarchate-Catholicosate of Georgia and as do the autocephalous Orthodox Churches of Poland and of The Czech Lands/Slovakia), the OCA's Primate and Holy Synod of Bishops will continue to provide Chrism for its OCA member parishes, monasteries and institutions. Consecrating Chrism is one of the rights of an autocephalous Orthodox Church, and the OCA, which looks upon its autocephalous status as a gift/blessing to the Church in America, is not about to give up this right. And while the EP might not recognize the OCA's autocephaly, it *does* recognize its canonicity and is in full communion with it. Indeed, the OCA is in communion with all the canonical Orthodox Churches throughout the world.

OrthodoxEast

It may be fuzzy memory on my part, but I recall a discussion at an OCA dicoesan meeting where the issue of holy chrism from the EP was mentioned, and that the OCA had declined to go along with the EP on this. It wasn't in writing, however, but discussed by a priest who had been at a meeting in Constantinople. It seems that Met. Theodosius was approached about it, but declined the offer. I am really not sure of further details, and was confused by the story, since, as you say, chrism would be expected from Moscow. Perhaps it was a tactic designed to bring the OCA into the EPs fold, and to circumvent the whole autocephaly issue? Someone like Chancellor Kondratick of the OCA would know for sure.

Dave,
Thank you for providing references, but I disagree with your comment, ""Mirroring the Orthodox" is something we should be proud to do as brothers and sisters from the same liturgical tradition" and this is pointed out in the part of Section 21 that you omited.

I will quote all of Section 21;

As you see, it states that one of the important missions of the Eastern Catholic Churches is, "the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things." not to merely mirror them.

You also make a mistake in your posting of your reference. What you have under Section 29 does not come from there, it comes from Section 21. Section 29 says the following;

This states that liturgical books should be common editions where possible, this is not mirroring, this is working together.

So I would say that what you have posted does not support the idea that we are only to "mirror the Orthodox". As we can not do so because we are in communion with Rome, to mirror the Orthodoxy of today would necessitate us leaving that communion to join the Orthodox.

I'm also not sure exactly when the chrism incident occurred, but thought it was about 5 years ago. Maybe it was much earlier, which would make more sense- possibly during the preparations for autocephaly 30+ years ago. Anyhow, universal acceptance of the OCAs autocephaly is a ways off, but is expected to happen eventually. It might take a hundred years, but it could happen.

Jim<<Anyhow, universal acceptance of the OCAs autocephaly is a ways off, but is expected to happen eventually. It might take a hundred years, but it could happen. >>

Many of the present autocephalous Orthodox Churches did not get their autocephaly recognized immediately, Jim. And sometimes, the EP, and most reluctantly too, was the very last to recognize it. The EP, unfortunately in my IMHO, sometimes deludely envisions itself as a kind of Eastern Orthodox Papacy modeled after the elder Rome rather than as simply "Primus inter pares" among the canonical Orthodox patriarchs and other primates.

OrthodoxEast

DavidB wrote:
Thank you for correcting my reference citations. I inadvertantly got them mixed up.

If we are to even contemplate having "common editions" of liturgical books then many Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions would have to add a lot of stuff to these books. Most Ruthenian parishes, for example, have extremely abbreviated services. This is less true in the Melkite Church.

Orthodoxy has done a much better job of preserving the Eastern tradition than most Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions. There are many who have left Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions precisely because of these reasons. Some of these I count among my best friends.

I say it is high time we started implementing the call from Vatican II to restore our traditions and not be afraid to learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters who have preserved these traditions much better than we have.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Just to clarify:

I never said we were "only to mirror the Orthodox." But there is no reason why we should avoid restoring our legitimate traditions based on the idea often expressed: "that's the way the Orthodox do that," as if that somehow taints our shared tradition. Another way I hear that sort of rejoinder is: "we don't need to ape Orthodoxy." How sad!

The quotes I gave from the Instruction basically assume that we would have (or should have) so much in common with the Orthodox that we could have common editions and that we should avoid having major differences from them. A great goal, I'd say and one that we earnestly need to strive toward!

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Just a short comment to this discussion where it pertains to liturgical matters. While we certainly must be faithful to our authentic liturgical, spiritual, canonical and other traditions, it may not always be necessary or even desirable to simply "mirror the Orthodox." This is exactly one of the problems encountered by those of our people who joined the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 19th and early 20th. centuries. Even though guaranteed the preservation of their unique Ruthenian traditions (does this sound familiar . . . ?) there was eventual pressure to adopt the standard Russian Recension of the liturgy, including in many instances, the chant.

I agree that we should be authentically Eastern and Byzantine, but this should neither ignore legitimate historical development nor indicate a "copying" of this or that Orthodox tradition merely for the sake of supposedly being more "correct." We should at all costs preserve what is indigenously ours. If we wish to have a dialogue with the Orthodox and even a possible sharing of traditions for those with a "pan-Orthodox" preference, then the Orthodox may certainly also "mirror us" by gaining an appreciation for and knowledge of the authentic Ruthenian Recension and its customs. A pure recension is neither Catholic nor Orthodox and we must caution ourselves against the belief that the practices of a particular Orthodox usage are by nature more Eastern and more "correct" simply because they are practiced by a great many Orthodox jurisdictions.

So, not only may we "mirror the Orthodox" in many ways, but Orthodox churches that share our liturgical heritage theoretically could "mirror us" when it comes to an authentic presentation of the Ruthenian Recension and its corresponding customs. Particularly this could be the case for those jurisdictions or individual parishes (ie: many current OCA parishes whose heritage is among the Rusyns or the Johnstown diocese where they have abandoned the Ruthenian usage for other customs), whose heritage is in the Ruthenian usage, but which have imitated or adapted other recensions in their current day practice.

Fr. Joe

Father, bless!

I'm not advocating that OCA usage be the norm. And I do think we do have some positive things to offer: congregational singing to be sure. What I'm referring to is the following type of scenarios....

In many cities on the West Coast if you want to go to Vespers or Matins you must go to an Orthodox parish. Many mission Orthodox parishes try to celebrate most of these offices and people do attend them.

Many of our services are greatly abbreviated...on a larger scale than any Orthodox jurisdiction. Our prosphora traditions are rather unique, to be sure (pre-cut prosphora, loss of the antidoron tradition). Our relaxation of fasting traditions to "mirror" the Latin Church is another loss IMO.

No, we don't need to blindly copycat another jurisdiction's services or particular traditions. But, we should not refuse to restore tradition simply because it's the way Orthodox do things--even though it's what we used to do too--just that we forgot it.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave: You have captured the essence of the topic very well. While restoring and returning to traditions, we can and must share the best of what we have to offer with the rest of the church. God bless you.

Fr. Joe

Dear Father Joseph,

Christ is among us!

I agree completely when you boldly suggest that Orthodox Churches (Johnstown, and O.C.A. of Ruthenian heritage) "may certainly also "mirror us" by gaining an appreciation for and knowledge of the authentic Ruthenian Recension and its customs."

I think what we do in our Churches is certainly noticed much more than we often think. We are not as isolated as some would suppose. I think the time is opportune to reach out to these other Churches, and that there are those in other Churches who are ready to work with us in this study. We cannot pretend to work in isolation.

The key word in your post that fills me with hope and joy is "authentic". I am delighted that there is a call to be "authentic" and see our inheritance as something worth studying and restoring faithfully, carefully, whole and entire. We have much to do.

As soon as there is a departure from the tradition, those same Churches will not follow, will not work with us, will not wish to co-operate. They will never "mirror" our mistakes or unwarranted interpretations. If we decide to "revise" rather than restore, this historic opportunity will be lost.

I have not stopped praying every day for the authentic renewal of our worship.

In response to David B.'s original question in this thread (so that I am not completely off-topic), I must say that we 'are' as a Church, what we "pray". Of course it is not right to constantly measure myself against someone else to see if I am authentic. But our worship tradition is wholly Eastern, Byzantine and Orthodox. If I am what I pray, then I hope to be just that.

In that way, it is my hope that the careful and accurate restoration of the worship of our Church, will co-incide with our becoming what we are called to 'be' in the Church. Completely Orthodox, within the Catholic communion.

I don't think many of Orthodox take any offense when Catholics consider 'orthodox' a term a self-description. I have pointed out in the past that in the same sense, I can firmly say that my church is "Byzantine Episcopalian"

I don't have a website.

I am a member and regular comminicant of the OCA.