www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

Dear friends,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that we as Byzantine Catholics must make an effort to understand where Mr. Comehome is coming from. Likewise, he needs some more information in order to understand where we are coming from. Let's fill each other in!

* Mr. Comehome's Position:

From reading his posts, it is obvious that this gentleman is either a convert to Roman Catholicism, or a revert. He at one time was either Protestant or flirted heavily with it. Probably through the influence of Dr. Scott Hahn and EWTN he is now a Roman Catholic apologist. His favorite TV program is most likely "The Journey Home," hosted by Marcus Grodi on EWTN, and he probably has a massive autographed poster of Scott Hahn on his bedroom wall.

Mr. Comehome, either watching EWTN or parousing through "This Rock" magazine, caught wind that there are various "rites of the Catholic Church," of which "the Byzantine rite" is the second largest. Out of well-intentioned curiosity, he visited Byzcath.org. And low and behold, he ran across so-called "Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome" who question much of what is near and dear to him.

Let's face it: when push comes to shove, Mr. Comehome became Catholic because of the Papacy. After carefully reading and studying Matthew 16, reading countless books by Dr. Hahn and Steve Ray, and perhaps a few articles by Father Ray Ryland, he has become convinced that the Papacy is the necessary foundation of the Church. Apart from the Papacy, there is no Church - just a vast realm of error.

This conclusion is reinforced by his encounters with Latin Catholics who reject the Papacy. These Catholics say that the Pope is unecessary, and also affirm a whole slew of heresies: they deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, they campaign for women priests and homosexual marriages, think abortion is grand, and probaby even deny the divinity and Resurrection of Christ.

In contrast, Comehome has encountered countless "pro-Papacy" Catholics who are Pro-Life, love Jesus, stand strong for family values, know the scriptures well, and are generally full of life and fervor. As a result, he has firmly aligned himself even moreso with the Papacy camp. Can you blame him for this? I certainly can't. I understand perfectly well where he and millions of other Roman Catholics are coming from. The option (as far as they can see) is either to follow the Papacy no matter what, or descend into a spiralling abyss of heresy and modernism!

In summary, Mr. Comehome and countless other like him vigorously affirm the universal, supreme jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. From his experience, it is either submit to Rome or fall into new-age modernism.

* The Byzantine Catholic Position:

Byzantine Catholics sometimes see things much differently. They affirm the traditional primacy of Rome, and emphasize the important role of the Pope as a center of Church unity. But they would like to also highlight certain limitations of Papal authority. They are VERY uncomfortable with the idea of an all-powerful Pope who has supreme jurisdiction over the Church and can reign as an absolute monarch. This Byzantine Catholic view is due in part to the largely tragic history of Byzantine Catholicism, which continues to this day.

To Byzantine Catholics, the guiding principle is Sacred Tradition. We received our Tradition from the Apostles themsleves, who in turn received it from Jesus Christ. This Tradition was refined by the Church Fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the unidivided Church. This Tradition took on specific characteristics in the Christian East, which were entirely legitimate and based out of the teachings of our Eastern Church Fathers. We love this Eastern Tradition with our entire being, and guard it jealously.

Just as allegiance to the Pope has preserved the Latin Catholics from heresy and modernism, faithful allegiance to Holy Tradition has preserved and strengthened the Byzantine Church. As Roman Catholics look to the Pope as the bedrock and foundation of the Church, so Byzantine Catholics look to our Holy Tradition as the Church's guiding principle. For us, the pinnacle of Holy Tradition is our Divine Liturgy, which we received from the Church Fathers.

Our experience with the Papacy has sometimes been a negative one. Why? Because the Pope delegates most of his power to the Roman Curia. Christ made promises to St. Peter, but where in scripture does he make such promises to the Pope's Italian Curia? The Pope places his power in the hands of the Roman Curia, who in turn often play favorites. Any time a Latin bishop and a Byzantine bishop have a conflict, the Roman Curia (to the best of my knowledge) usually takes the side of the Latin bishop. The result? Our Byzantine Church has lost much of its former beauty.

This is a most grevious state of affairs. The Roman Curia, acting in the name of the Pope, has sometimes behaved towards us in a most un-Christian manner.

A case in point: Two years ago, following the norms of canon law, Metropolitan Judson promulgated a particular law restoring the married priesthood in our Church. He had previously spoken to the Pope regarding this, and the Pope was very favourable towards the idea. So Metropolitan Judson promulgated the law, and sent it to the Roman Curia for approval. The Roman Curia responded favorably, and OFFICALLY received Metropolitan Judson's particular law as the new binding law of the Byzantine Catholic Church. All appeared well and good... until a group of Latin bishops in the U.S. (and EWTN) raised a fuss and complained to the Roman Curia. The Roman Curia immediately took their side and RESCINDED the law that they had already previously accepted! Now, if you know anything about protocol and canon law, the Roman Curia cannot just rescind a law that they had already formally received as binding!

The Roman Curia almost never treats Latin bishops in such a disrespectful manner. But in the eyes of the Italian Roman Curia, it seems that we Byzantine Catholics are AT BEST a nuiscance to be tolerated. This is the problem. And these folks act in the FULL AUTHORITY of the Pope, using the Pope's God-given power to seemingly play favorites.

In fairness, the Roman Curia rarely acts to harm us unless the Latin bishops ask them to. But whenever some Latin bishop gets peeved at us for the slightest reason, they complain to the Roman Curia, who almost always take the side of the Latin bishop.

The end result is that the Byzantine Tradition gets chipped away over the centuries. What has happened is that everything about us that offends the Latins eventually gets stripped away, and we become a pale shadow of our formers selves. Everything distinctive and special about us is removed, because it offends the Latin bishops. We become more and more mundane. As a result, many of our young people leave to join the "superior" Roman Church, and many of our frustrated priests leave in disgust to become Eastern Orthodox.

Again, this violence is done to us in the name of "Papal Authority." It certainly is not the Pope himself who is acting against us, but the curia who acts in his name... at the behest of the Latin bishops. The Eastern Orthodox see this, and do not reunite with Rome for this very reason. Rome promises them that their traditions will be preserved, but the Orthodox have seen what has been done to the Eastern Catholics. The Orthodox fear that if they reunite with Rome, they too will be under the rule of the Roman Curia. If any Latin bishop decides to remove an Orthodox Tradition, the Curia will most likely act to have it removed.

Is it any wonder that Byzantine Catholics are frightened by the "full-authority" of the Roman Pontiff? Yes, the Pope IS a blessing given to us by Christ. But with all of his power in the hands of the Roman Curia, who know virtually nothing about the Byzantine Tradition, we can become tempted to view the Pope as a tyrant. We would like to see some limits placed on Papal authority, so that the Byzantine Tradition will not be further harmed.

I hope that everyone can understand this.

God Bless,
Anthony

[This message has been edited by Dragani (edited 07-20-2000).]

Anthony:

As an Orthodox, I read you evaluation of the Byzantine Catholic with interest. And may I say that it is one of the most concise and honest evaluations I have ever read. Can I save it for future reference and/or quote from it in the future?

But to be honest with you, the following questions came into my mind after I finished it -

1) Well then, why does he stay? Why is he satisfied to be treated as a second class RC (which you imply) when he can be a first class Orthodox?

2) How can they believe that they are not just a 'Rite' within the RCC but a separate (autonomous) church if they are so tied into, and affected, by the Roman Curia?

It is just two of the reasons I have diffuculty with the Unia and thank my grandparents for their return to Orthodoxy.

Dear Robert:

I can give you my answers to your two questions based solely (emphasize "solely)on my experience and journey (Prot. to BCC).

1. Which first-class Orthodox are your refering to... the Greeks, the Russians? Seems they (at least at the hierarchial level) have doubts about the Orthodoxy/orthodoxy of each other not to mention some of the other Orthodox jurisdictions. In America, the OCA is viewed an uncanonical by the Greeks. What if your grandparents had joined an OCA church? Or, how can one be a first-class Orthodox when people are cold or outright hostile to you because your weren't "cradle born" (read: of that ethnic group) Orthodox.

2. We (BC's) are our own worst enemies. First, many of our folks have been so latinized not only in ritual but also in thought that they too believe many of the same things listed by Dragani and so defer to whatever Rome or the American bishops do or say. So ingrained are these latinizations that the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox even retained a number of latinization from when they were Greek Catholics. We BCs are also a relatively young Church (in America) and we are just trying to survive. That doesn't lend itself to producing a proactive atmosphere. Some say it's the ethnic background too. I'll defer to those of Eastern European background on that one). As many folks on this forum have said, if we are a Church sui iuris, it's time to start acting like one. Of course there's always consequences. What if we go ahead and ordain married men without Rome's consent? Could the backlash be that American bishops refuse to grant/renew biritual indults. Hey, if that happens, we will have a lot more parishes/missions shutting down. And I understand that even with the possibility of ordaining married men, there's no one currently standing at our seminary door with the bags and wife in tow. Even the Orthodox admit most of their priests are converts, especially from Protestant Churchs.

My modest, if not to also be inflammatory, proposal is that a la the Melkites, the BCs represent the real fullness of the "Apostolic and Catholic Church." We are in union with each other and the Church of Rome. And we hold to the way the Church stood for its first thousand years. Everything after that that was propogated by the RCs holds for the RC Church specifically and can not be held over the heads of the BC or EO Churches. Likewise, the EO's have been out of full communion with the RC Church for 1,000 years. All of the latinizations in both ritual and theology are not "wrong" per se. They just aren't needed to complete our theology. And although we have assimilated some Roman ways, that doesn't make us wrong, just overburdened... all we need to do is lighten our load. I also need to add that we, like the EOs, have to shed this ethnicity = true faith formula.

[A question I've posed in the past to BCs: Should your local BC parish close, and there are nearby RC and EO churches, where would you be inclinded to go first?]

[This message has been edited by rick neimiller (edited 07-19-2000).]

Dear Anthony: Wow! Your post started with a smile and ended with a frown. "Pass out the Prozac."


Earlier in the day you were constructively critical, but a bit more optomistic when you posted in part:


"Things are getting better, however. Metropoltan Judson is making a strong effort at teaching our people to be Byzantine again. But it will take time to undo the damage of the past." - Dragani


We have certainly been hurt by our bitter-sweet past. ( Was it all bad? No!) But we are not slaves to the past. Christianity is a faith-life predicated on the positive: the positive news of the Good News. No manic depression allowed! Only someone in the abyss of hopelesness would believe that we, the Byzantine Catholic people of God, are excluded from the grace of God that is the Incarnation of the Good News: that is, Jesus Christ. He is our Supreme Pontiff in the ultimate sense. I find it embarrassing that we (operative word is we as in me!) often go on and on about all of our historical problems and we never mention Our Lord and His presence in our lives; His presence that we experience in our Catholic Church and seem to show not a shred of gratitude for. I must repent of this narcissism and continue to give thanks to the All-Holy Trinity for the rich and open and ecumenical orthodoxy that I have experienced as a Byzantine Catholic. You know, dear brother Anthony, that I speak for many. "What say you?"


PS-Anthony, you know that the grass is not so green on the Orthodox side of the Byzantine divide. Remember our many brethren who longed to return to the Greek Catholic fold. Remember our new Greek Catholic communities in Bulgaria and (former Soviet) Georgia. Can we forget our Oriental Catholic brethren? All of this good news makes me grateful. And if I must suffer as a Byzantine Catholic, I have the honor to take up my cross and suffer for my Lord. With this in mind, and no matter how hard some might try to deride us and convince us that we are just second class RC's, we know from our personal lives that there are no second-class citizens in the kingdom of God.Jesus Christ is Lord of the Byzantine Catholic Church. How is it possible that we can possibly be second class?


In Christ our True God who raised Lazarus from the dead.

Dear Rick and others,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You talk about de-latinization as "lightening our load." Do you really think it is simply a matter of getting rid of certain things, or is there not a positive aspect to it as well? Are there not many things we need to "take on board?"

When our Churches serve Vespers and Matins as a matter of course, when we begin to take fasting seriously, when our communities begin to care for the poor around them in the true Byzantine spirit, when we have many monks and nuns and many married clergy....then we may be able to look the secular world in the face, standing on our own two feet, confident in the Spirit-inspired tradition to which Christ calls us. That to me is the essence of de-latinization. It is not a shuffling off of uncomfortable ties. It is a shouldering of the Cross for the sake of the Gospel. An act of faith.

Pray for me.

Unworthy monk Maximos

Dear Brother Maximos:

You are absolutely correct. Just eliminating latinizations doesn't solve the whole problem... .. orthopraxis, orthopraxis.

Dear friends,

I apologize for the negative tone of my previous post. Yes, Christ is in control. He will reward the suffering of the Byzantine Catholics, whose only desire was to be in communion with Rome while remaining Orthodox. Or at least so I hope.

I was asked: why do Byzantine Catholics remain in communion with Rome? Why don't we just break off and become Eastern Orthodox?

I will respond with a brief excerpt written by the great Byzantine-Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby:

"A high dignitary of the Catholic Church, belonging to one of the major religious orders of the West, with whom I shared my anguish, asked me: 'Why don't you become Orthodox?' I answered him: 'Why do we Eastern Catholics have to live in schism?' We have been implicated by the Orthodox as being in schism created by Uniatism, a schism that has separated us from the Church of our Fathers. I do not want to end my life with another schism, this one personal and in conscience, that will separate me from the Church of Rome, the first among all the Churches," (We Are All Schismatics, chapter 14).

God bless,
Anthony

Rick asked:

"A question I've posed in the past to BCs: Should your local BC parish close, and there are nearby RC and EO churches, where would you be inclinded to go first?"

I know that this can be a controversial question, but the answer seems fairly easy for us. We would go to the Orthodox Church. It's a question of what is more important to you -- communion with Rome, regardless of whatever spirituality, or Byzantine spirituality. For us, the latter is much more important. We used to be Roman Catholics -- we couldn't go back there at this point. When we travel, we likewise visit Orthodox parishes rather than Roman ones.

Brendan

I hope no one minds a little "pep talk":

"In all things, the Christiain spirit is a spirit of love, humility, and service, not a spirit of violence in defense of absolutism and power. Hence, though there are abuses always present in any institution, even in the Church, they must be faced with humility, honesty, and love. They cannot be glossed over or ignored. Not everyone can 'do something'about problems that are too vast for a single individual to understand. But all can use them to good purpose in their own interior lives, regarding them as opportunities to purify their faith, their spirit of obedience, and their supernatural love of the Church.

Some Christians are not even able to face this task directly: they can never fully admit it to themselves. But they cannot escape the anguish that wrings their heart. Perhaps they do not know the source of their anguish, but it is there. Others are able to admit to themselves that they see what they see: but it becomes a serious scandal to them. They rebel against the situation, they condemn the Church, and they even try to find the means to break away from it. They do not realize that they have now come close to the real meaning of their Christian vocation,and that they are now in a position to make the sacrifice that is demanded of adult Christian men and women: the realistic acceptance of imperfection and of deficiency in themselves, in others,and in their most cherished insitutions.

They must face the truth of these imperfections, in order to see that the Church does not merely exist to do everything for them, to create a haven of peace and security for them, to sanctify passively. On the contrary, it is now time for them to give to their oommunity from their own heart's blood and to participate actively and generously in all its struggles. It is time to sacrifice themselves for those who may no longer seem to be very worthy. '" I would remind you of this, he who sows sparingly will reap sparingly; he who sows freely will reap freely too. Each of you should carry out the purpose he has formed in his own heart, not with any painful effort; it is the cheerful giver that God loves. God has the power to supply you abundantly with every kind of blessing, so that,with all your needs well supplied at all times, you may have something to spare for every work of mercy"'(2Cor.9:6-8).


It takes great heroism to devote one's life to others in a situation which is frustrating and unsatisfactory, and in which one's sacrifice may even be, in large measure, wasted. But here above all, faith in God is necessary. He sees our sacrifice, and He will make it fruitful, even though in our own eyes there is nothing apparent but futility and frustration. When we accept this grace, our eyes are opened to see the real, unsuspected good in others, and to be truly grateful for our Christian vocation." ---Life and Holiness by Thomas Merton.

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-20-2000).]

Dragani,

"Just as allegiance to the Pope has preserved the Latin Catholics from heresy and modernism, faithful allegiance to Holy Tradition has preserved and strengthened the Byzantine Church."

Is this why Byzantine Catholic bishops quote Vatican documents left and right in their newspapers? It is interesting how we rely so heavily on Vatican II; as if we had to wait until the Roman church made up our mind (and its mind) on accepting the Eastern Catholics. Again, it was Vatican II which gave us a 'permission slip' to be who we are. We couldn't do it on our own. Just look at how we totally dismantled our identity and unique Christianity in less than a century! Thank you, bishops. And now some want to canonize the late Bishop Takach!!! Good grief. I need a stiff drink.


"Mr. Comehome became Catholic because of the Papacy. After carefully reading and studying Matthew 16, reading countless books by Dr. Hahn and Steve Ray, and perhaps a few articles by Father Ray Ryland,..."

He must have not read 'careful' enough. These books are riddled with poor scholarship and heavy polemics which consider the Eastern Church heretical by nature. There is one church and one god for them: the Pope. Former evangelicals only gave up their precious 'sola scriptura' for a 'sola popa.' In both cases, Eastern Christianity is a wart, if not a thorn in their church model.


Elias, the Ninny (not the monk)
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/Forum4/HTML/000045.html



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 07-20-2000).]

Greetings!

A somewhat long-and-winding prelude to my answer to Rick's question of whether, in the absence of a BC parish, I would attend a RC or an EO parish--pardon me!
As a convert to Byzantine Catholicism, I have been made painfully, almost brutally aware of the schism that separates myself and my fellow Catholics from our Orthodox brethren in Christ (not to mention the separations between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants!) and causes great scandal to believers and very likely non-believers as well. While discerning whether it was God's will for me to become Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, the question of the papacy's proper place was almost always in the forefront. The truth of the individual doctrines (Immaculate Conception, etc.) that cause so much controversy between us seemed to ultimately rest with the authority of those who *teach* those doctrines; that is to say, whether what they teach comes from God and is thus true and authoritative, and whether the authority to teach these things comes from God Himself. Thus, the question about the papacy..."Should I be in union with Rome?"
Now that this question has, by the grace of God, been answered for me, and the answer is an overwhelming "YES! BE IN UNION WITH ROME!", I will have to answer Rick's question by saying that I would, in the absence of a BC parish, first choose to attend a RC parish instead. While both the EO parish and I would both most likely be of the Byzantine tradition so near to our hearts, I would nonetheless have to take a deep breath and say, though it is hard for me to say, knowing how controversial this may be, that remaining in union with Rome is more important to me than worshiping in the manner that I also love, and love dearly. YES, in such circumstances I would most dearly miss my Byzantine tradition of worship. But unity is just as close, if not closer to my heart, and I also love the Roman Mass (surprise!) , especially having been exposed to it in its traditional and reverent glory...I would miss my Byzantine tradition, but I would not starve spiritually in its (hopefully temporary) absence.
Finally, all of this reminds me of another question from my discernment, when I didn't know whether I was to be Eastern Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic: "Is it more important to me to be Byzantine, or to be Catholic?" That is, implicity, Rick's question(!)... "*what if* there were no BC parishes around, only RC parishes? Would I still go to the RC parish? Am I really willing to be *Catholic*, no matter what rite or parish I have the blessing to attend, or am I still wavering between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?" The answer, again, was that, though I am a devoted, almost zealous, *Byzantine* Catholic who dearly loves the Byzantine tradition she has the blessing and great joy of sharing in, it is still more important for me to be Catholic than to be Byzantine, (or Roman, or Maronite, or Coptic...). That is my answer!
I hope I haven't been too long-winded or brash...Lord have mercy!

Liz, the joyful Greek-Catholic

Liz,

The problem has always been the 'artificial divorce' between one's catholicity and one's particular church, albeit Byzantine.

In the Middle East, there exists intercommunion because, unlike some here in this country, they cannot make a false divorce. When we divorce one's Byzantine-ness or Roman-ness from one's catholicity or orthodoxy then we set ourselves up for evaluating which is more important. The Church is truly incarnate and we should learn to accept that incarnational aspect. Looking for the Catholic Church 'beyond' its particular expression is a sort of ECCLESIAL DOCETISM, a heresy in full-force on this continent.

Is one's catholicity 'superior' to ones particularness? Is one's soul 'superior' to one's body? If we begin to answer in the positive or try to rationalize such distinctions we lend ourselves to the old problem/heresy of PLATONIC-LIKE DUALISM.

The Catholic Church cannot exist in a vacuum from its particular expressions. Being Byzantine - for the time being - is an option chosen by some as a temporary measure because we like it, not because it identifies us. This is sad. It says that the Roman Catholic 'particular' Church is the Default Church or the place of last resort. When we say that we value the "Catholic Church" more than being Roman or Byzantine or Coptic..., what we really mean is that we will be Roman Catholic if all else fails. You CANNOT talk about the Catholic Church (or Orthodox) Church unless you identify that particular church. There is no INVISIBLE CHURCH which exists beyond as some neutral, generic variety. None. This is the mindset of Evangelical/Fundamentalist and their Sola Scriptura error.

Let us not deny the incarnational aspect of the Church. Let us pray that we all be one. The many icons in the Byzantine Church serve to remind us of that truth. Religion doesn't exist in our heads only as some abstract.


Elias, the Ninny (not the monk)


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 07-21-2000).]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Excellent points, Elias (not the monk)! I wouldn�t go as far as saying appeals to an essence of Catholicity that transcend particular Churches are heresy but I think what you say is in practice true: it�s assumed that the Roman Church is the �default Church� or even the �real� Catholic Church, as if �Roman� equaled �universal�. Such an approach treats the Eastern Churches like costumes one can take on and off.

Liz, I think the best thing to do in this scenario � you move where there is a Roman church and an Orthodox church, but no Byzantine Catholic church � is to go to the Romans occasionally for the sacraments of Confession and Communion but also to do frequent but noncommuning attendance at the Orthodox church. Neither side, Catholic or Orthodox, has a problem with this. This says: 1) you are in communion with Rome but 2) you are not a default Roman Catholic but an Orthodox Christian temporarily separated from your mother Churches because of the centuries-old schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

>>>A somewhat long-and-winding prelude to my answer to Rick's question of whether, in the
absence of a BC parish, I would attend a RC or an EO parish--pardon me!<<<

A short answer from me: I am a Byzantine Christian, and I don't particularly care in which jurisdiction I participate in Byzantine worship. In the absence of a Byzantine Catholic parish, I would seek out the closes Orthodox parish. I intend to just that when I am on vacation.

>>>Liz, I think the best thing to do in this scenario � you move where there is a Roman church
and an Orthodox church, but no Byzantine Catholic church � is to go to the Romans
occasionally for the sacraments of Confession and Communion but also to do frequent but
noncommuning attendance at the Orthodox church. <<<

Better still is to approach the Orthodox priest and his bishop, explaining your situation, and asking permission to receive the sacraments there. You might be surprised at how many will actually allow it. And it is, of course, entirely consistent with Catholic ecclesiology, and the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches.