www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Married in America

"Catholic is Catholic", whatever this tautology is meant to rationalize, is not at all the same thing as understanding ourselves as "Latin Catholics". Among all the people that I have known, however strong their sense of Catholicity/Orthodoxy, and whatever their comfort/discomfort level with the Western devotions or theological ideas that have made their way into our tradition, none - not one - ever had an understanding of being a "Latin Catholic".

Dear Administrator,

With all due respect to you, this sounds to me like something converts would say.

Who are we to say that, by being born into a particular culture and society, God hasn't thus called one to be a part of that particular Church?

Jesus Christ is "kind of important"? I'm sorry, but while I am proud of my ethnicity I am Byzantine Catholic because I find Jesus Christ in our Church. One may be born into the Byzantine Catholic Church or one may join it by choice. The only reason to stay is because one comes to see for himself the Truth of Jesus Christ. I am proud of my ethnic Carpathian and Polish backgrounds but they are unimportant when compared to my relationship with Jesus Christ. It is the relationship with Christ that must always come first.

--

Stuart, do you not realize the fool you make of yourself each time you utter a personal insult against our bishops? Cannot you at least attempt to have respect for our bishops even when you disagree with them or when they make mistakes? If you find that you have no charity in your heart I ask you to please refrain from posting on this Forum.

--

Mor, if one is born into a particular Church but does not make Jesus Christ the center of his life he has no life in him. I do not know LR but his posts always seem to state that the ethnic character of our Church is important. It is indeed wonderful but it is not important. The only thing important about our Church is that we proclaim Jesus Christ and, in the way we proclaim Him, witness the fullness of Orthodoxy within the Catholic communion.

I stand by my earlier posts. Discussion of issues is welcome. Insulting our bishops or other individuals within our Church or any Church is not welcome. Christian charity must reign at all times.

Admin

Mr. Administrator,
You have just proven yourself to be humor- and subtlety-impaired. If you think that "kind of important" in the statement I made means that I put Jesus Christ and faith in Him on par with the daily football scores or keeping my nails clean, then you really don't read anything I write except to find something to criticize me for.

except when you're the Admin, apparently.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Axios:

Technically, you're correct regarding Ea Semper -- though Ruthenian Greek Catholics did enjoy, at the time, the leadership of Father Andrew Hodobay, Apostolic Vicar until Kir Ortinsky was made bishop. (Incidentally, with exception to Bishop Ortinsky's power of ordination, he was basically an Apostolic Vicar as well.)

If you disagree that Hodobay can be considered a "hierarch," I'd be glad to expand my complaint to include priests in leadership positions at the time of Ea Semper -- and, for that matter, down to the present day.

djs:

Have you ever spoken to a real Byzantine Catholic, the kind of person who doesn't/wouldn't participate in a Forum such as this? Ever taught ECF classes or even adult classes to our people? Ever refused to chant the Filioque (prior to the official change but less than 10 years ago) and have a priest tell you that you should just go to the Orthodox Church?

Yes, there have been perceptible, positive shifts in the last 20 years -- but, in my experience, a majority of our people still consider themselves needy stepchildren of the Roman Catholic Church and, to that end, still think of themselves as Latin Catholics with a different Mass. If your experience is different, I can only say that you are very lucky.

Admin:

Why accuse Stuart of foolishness? Are you sure that charity really means keeping our mouths shut, no matter the circumstances? I'd like to know what exactly your definition of charity is; perhaps I just don't understand the concept and, consequently, how to do it.

I note you haven't actually responded to the main point of my previous post: that our Church has suffered, and continues to suffer, from the lack of strong, inspiring leadership.

En te tou Christou agape,
Theophilos

LR,

I think that my ability to sense humor is probably comparable to that of most people. Your post just wasn't humorous AFAICS. Your normal concentration on the ethnic factors in our Church made that post about Christ being "kind of important" entirely believable and there was no suggestion of humor in your words.

Regarding insulting our bishops, I ask you to point out even one instance where I have insulted any of our individual bishops by name or by direct implication. I have both complimented and criticized the actions of various hierarchs and have backed up those compliments or criticisms with the necessary evidence to politely make my point but I have never insulted anyone's person. I have repeatedly requested that charity demands that we discuss issues and not specific persons. I am sorry that you choose not to understand the difference.

--

Theophilos,

Charity means being polite in all circumstances. I have never, ever, suggested that charity means not to engage in honest and sincere discussion. This should be easy to understand. Discussion and criticism of issues is acceptable. Discussion and criticism of individual persons is not acceptable nor will it be permitted.

Acceptable: I disagree with action X taken by our bishops because of reasons 1, 2 and 3. I think that what should be done is 4, 5 and 6 and here's why.

Unacceptable: What the bishops did was stupid and we have stupid bishops who show no leadership. (Stuart's example of "I think our hierarchs do quite a good job insulting themselves without our help, but the least we can do is let them know when they are doing so" is an example of personal insult against an individual. Such a comment is born of negative emotion and does absolutely nothing to build up the Church. I doubt it even makes the person doing the insulting feel better.)

Spend a few hours watching the congressional debates on C-SPAN. You will see that even though the debates can get very emotional the congressmen and senators almost never lower themselves to personal attack.

More specifically, even if the comment "that our Church has suffered, and continues to suffer, from the lack of strong, inspiring leadership" were true, what good does it do to complain about it? Would it not be better simply to focus on how we can help our bishops to become strong and inspiring leaders? How does insulting our hierarchs help to build up the Church?

Admin

Dear Theophilus:

Here are the answers to your questions:

"Have you ever spoken to a real Byzantine Catholic, the kind of person who doesn't/wouldn't participate in a Forum such as this?"
Yes.
"...taught ECF classes or even adult classes to our people"
No.
"... refused to chant the Filioque"
No. Nor did I ever refuse to leave it out.
"...have a priest tell you that you should just go to the Orthodox Church"
Yes.

And yes, I have been very lucky.

djs

Friends, Romans, Countrymen . . .

First of all, so that there's no mistake, I DO believe that OLGS Jesus Christ should be the centre of our lives, families and our parish communities!

The cultural sphere in which we do that, in which our lived faith experience is imbedded, is important because it is the medium through which and by which we receive the Good News and are nourished by the Mysteries and Liturgy of the Particular Church to which we belong, whether we are cradles or converts.

Culture can be VERY important to many. I certainly don't question my cultural context in which I experience Christ, I enjoy it and, for me, it is the best way in which I live the life in Christ.

I certainly have come across those for whom membership in the Church is practically 100% or slightly less the cultural/national/identity thing.

And that is truly a problem.

And I think that the North American context is one in which it is much easier and straightforward to separate Church from cultural community.

I believe I understand Lemko with respect to his cultural context in which he lives the Christian experience.

I don't know Lemko either, and I didn't know there were Lemkos who didn't consider themselves to be Ukrainians , but I think we can all give Lemko the benefit of the doubt on his commitment to Christ.

The issue raised by the Administrator, where culture ends and where Christianity begins, is one worthy of lengthy debate.

For me, it is all integrated together - but that doesn't mean that there aren't issues involved.

Slav Christians are truly heirs to a Christian culture. Whether that is truly "Christian" in the Gospel sense is another matter.

It is my belief that our Slavic Christian heritage, or Indian or whatever, should be the proper medium by which we can work to enliven our community's Christian life and commitment, making it more vibrant within the already colourful cultural context in which it has existed since the time of St Vladimir.

It is a fact that if we Eastern Slavs never became Christians, we would still be celebrating most of the rituals we do today, including the Holy Supper and Kutya etc.

The tension I see between faith and culture, that always exists, is one that needs to be maintained to keep the two in their own spheres of existence, even if those spheres only exist on a mental plane.

As for criticizing bishops, I know I have done that in the past.

I have come to learn that it is much better to go and see one's bishop, if he will have you , and speak to him on important issues to his face.

I know my bishop reads my posts once in a while on this forum.

I know I get mad at him, and I know I've disappointed him on at least one or two occasions that I'm aware of personally . . .

O.K., my bishop is not as "Eastern" as I think he should be. Yes, I sometimes think he bends over backwards toward the East - in Rome's direction that is.

But my bishop is a holy man, a scholar who actually knows more about the Eastern than I've ever given him credit for. He supports Eastern monasticism - kudos to him for that and for many other things.

Yes, he's taking his time reading my Akathist to our Lady of Fatima .

But, at the end of the day, he's O.K. and in loving and obeying him, as I do, I love and obey Christ in him.

He will never turn me away and will always hear me out, even when he disagrees with me.

I know there are times when he wants to tell me off, but he won't. He's a better father to me, than I am a son to him.

I will continue to struggle with him. Together, we will do what we see is best for the Church.

Sorry for rambling.

Alex

Well said, Bravo Alex...Bishop Cornelius is indeed a rare gem.

Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I wasn't exactly complaining about "the lack of strong, inspiring leadership" in our Church as much as I was simply stating a verifiable fact, the widespread recognition of which is, I believe, necessary before we move on to more constructive purposes. I sense you disagree with my interpretation of history, yet, tellingly, you've produced no evidence to support your position.

How can we make our bishops and priests better leaders? Lots of prayer. Ultimately, however, they need to see themselves as leaders of Christ's Body, which involves more than just internal politics, secrecy, and top-down pronouncements. I humbly suggest, on the issue of celibacy, something like the following:

In light of the errors of the past and the relative scarcity of leadership within the BRCC episcopate (and presbyterate, for that matter), I think our bishops need to bring the issue of celibacy and married priests directly to the people. They need first to acknowledge what happened in the past and how it was an egregious betrayal of our Eastern patrimony.

I continue to hear so much about the myriad "practical obstacles" to reintroducing optional celibacy/married priests: salary, living/housing expenses, support for the pani and family, etc. And yet, no one within our present or recent hierarchy has ever raised these issues with those who would be largely responsible for the requisite increase in financial support. I've heard lots of moaning about how stingy our people are, how they're "not ready" to support a married priest and his family, how we must move slowly, blah, blah, blah. But has anyone � among the bishops or priests � come to the people and said, "Look, this is our tradition and this is what we need to make it, once again, a living reality. Will you do it?"

We need lots of forthright discussion of the subject in our eparchial newspapers. We need our bishops to talk about it directly with the people during pastoral visits to parishes. We need our priests to do the same, to invite comments from the people and to give them honest answers when they have questions.

Have our bishops ever shown any interest in doing this? Quite the contrary. In fact, I don't think most of our people were even aware that the original particular law included the removal of marriage as an impediment to holy orders and, subsequently, that it was not included in the final promulgation because Rome didn't want it there. Thank goodness we are in communion with a Patriarch who really, really, REALLY wants us to recover our authentic Orthodox traditions... except when we take the initiative as a so-called sui juris Church and actually try to do it.

(Democratically) yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos,

Other than making you feel good about insulting our past and present hierarchs, how does such a statement encourage our bishops to accept a married man as a candidate for the priesthood? Is it your custom at work to routinely seek out your leaders and badger them to apologize for their shortcomings and for those of those who were leaders before them? Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is easy to be critical of things done in the past. What�s important is emphasizing the needed renewal of our traditions, including the married priesthood, and working together to support our bishops, letting them know that we support this restoration.

Regarding your suggestions, I think that they are rather short-sighted (but I certainly agree with you on the need for prayer). There is no need to concentrate on the past. Acknowledging historical fact is one thing but you seem intent upon raking up anything and everything negative that has happened in our history to make sure that the world knows that we have not been faithful to our traditions. This is the wrong way to go about it.

What needs to happen (and what I believe will happen in the next few months) is that one of our bishops will simply accept a married man as a vocation and send him to our seminary for formation (it has already been announced on this Forum that the seminary is academically ready to form married men). After appropriate formation he will ordain that man and assign him to a parish.

Should our bishops call a press conference to announce that married men are welcome to start applying to become priests? I�m not sure. This information certainly needs to be disseminated to our own Church but it would probably be wise not to do this in a manner that is bound to attract attention of the mass media. Also, our pastors should already be aware of suitable married candidates and they can encourage them to apply. [Don�t forget that the original Particular Law included provisions for the ordination of married men but the publicity caused so many reactionary Roman Catholics to complain to Rome that they were changed. In short, a press conference is not always the best way to accomplish a goal. Also, once a married man is officially accepted and living at the seminary with his wife (and children) everyone will know and the issue will be moot.]

Regarding the necessary changes needed in the Particular Law, I would hope that the Council of Hierarchs would simply create a commission for the updating of the Particular Law and quietly amend it to better serve our Church.

Admin

"Regarding the necessary changes needed in the Particular Law, I would hope that the Council of Hierarchs would simply create a commission for the updating of the Particular Law and quietly amend it to better serve our Church."

Whatever it takes, another commission or no commission. As the saying goes, "Walk quietly and carry a big stick." And then another, "Just do it."

Who, pray tell, said anything about a press conference or contacting the mass media?

All I was suggesting is that, given the oft-repeated chant of "we're not ready yet," our bishops and priests need to bring the issue of married priests directly to the people. And yes, that should include acknowledging past errors. Why? I suppose for the same reasons any serious person would choose to study history: to gain a better understanding of how we became who we are and of what we can do to avoid making the same mistakes.

I simply do not see (must be my "short-sightedness," right?) how open acknowledgment of the past, its good and its bad � I never said we needed to "concentrate" on the past, that is your characterization � can be avoided if we are to build up our Church in an intelligent, thoughtful way.

As for hindsight being 20/20: correct me if I am wrong, but there were quite a few people, at the time, who clearly saw that Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit constituted attempts to destroy the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Are you seriously implying that we can never criticize anything that happened unless we were present, in person? That our understanding and use of history must never include judgments of any kind, good or bad? Historicism does have its place and should temper our desire to criticize or elevate things that happened in the past; but when it rises, as it so often does, to the level of relativistic non-judgmentalism, it becomes a heresy.

Dear Cantor Joe,

How's that again?

Alex

Dear Theophilos,

I'm no stranger to criticising our hierarchy, heaven knows . . .

But I know that the Administrator's concern about keeping our respect for the Hierarchy and working in tandem with them is something my own bishop applauds.

He's told me so. He's also told me to listen to the Administrator.

As Mar Stuart would say, "Words to live by."

Alex