www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What would make you Orthodox?

Dear ChristTeen,

Please see Brian's post above.

See what I mean?

Good . . .

Alex

To: Orthodox Catholic --

Your sentence: "We are already Orthodox and communion with Rome is the crown of Orthodoxy" makes my heart want to sing. I'm under the delusion that I sing on key! (Praying 3 times!)

We too have people in our parish who do not like the word Orthodox, but I do!

If we are truly convinced that Jesus Christ founded the Church and placed it under the care of Peter and his successors, then there should be nothing that would separate us from union with him...even if the Church should change the Liturgy, ordain women or any of these other things mentioned. I prefer to put my faith in Jesus and His promise that He would be with His Church and not make an idol out liturgies and rites and swear up and down I'm a faithful Catholic, but only as long as the Church does what "I" think it should do.

Maybe it would be better to ask those of us who are Catholic of whatever Church (Roman, Ukrainian, Byzantine, Melkite, etc.) what keeps us from becoming Orthodox, rather than what would it take to make us one?

For me it was the lack of unity between the various Orthodox jurisdictions and the animosity for each other and especially for Catholics. I grew up in a small southern town and experienced anti-Catholicism first hand at an early age from my grandmother and others...but that was nothing compared to some of the stuff I have read from many Orthodox writers and individuals. While this may or may not be "official" Othodoxy, it has definitely influenced my opinion concerning the various Churches. And the actions of MP has made those feelings even stronger. The Catholic Church hasn't always done the right things throughout history, but at least now she is trying to change and do penance for her faults of the past. Would that ALL Churches do the same.

Just my 2 cents.

Don

Good gosh, RIGHT on the money! And this is the point I've been trying to make but was too afraid to say it outright for fear of being dubbed "black-and-white", "naive", "immature", etc.

The only question, Dan, I have regarding your post is about a female clergy. The Church herself states that she does not have the power to allow a female clergy, so if that ever happened, I would leave simply because on the basis that the Church doesn't have the power to do this it would mean the Catholic Church is not the true Church.

Ever faithful to the Eternal City,
ChristTeen287

Another thing or two,

The "me me me, it's all about me" attitude is a major put-off. This has to do with my post on the last page concerning my disdain for the Novus Ordo Mass. I dislike it very much, but if it were the only Mass available in the Church I would glady attend it wholeheartedly, and learn to love it. To love it because it is a Sacrifice and Worship of God, as valid as it ever was, and my not liking it doesn't make it somehow "less" and doesn't merit my departure from the Church.

Ok, I'm through being self-righteous! WHEW that felt good.

ChristTeen,

Religion is a very private issue--something I learned through hard experience of being married to someone whose parents are atheists. You cannot force it on people and you cannot explain it in terms of black and white.

Truth may be objective for us, but people live subjective lives and base much on emotions and experiences. If something simply feels wrong (such as someone experiencing nothing going to RC masses, as my wife feels) you cannot just win them over by shouting "Peter, Peter!" Liturgy is the focal point and most important part of our Christian life. If you hate every second of an RC mass, but going Orthodox uplifts you (or vice versa, if people do feel that way) then how is someone else who is not living that life going to tell someone they are "wrong!" Note: I am only advocating this about Catholics and Orthodox, not protestants, nor am I suggesting the acceptability of joining the Mormons!

For me, I am Byzantine First, Catholic second. My Byzantine patrimony is how I learned the Catholic faith. I learned about salvation, the Theotokos, liturgy, the Church, the mysteries, love, and responsibility before God in the Byzantine Church. I will never leave her. If I were in a town where there is only Orthodox or RC, I would switch to Orthodox over being RC. You cannot distance yourself from your patrimony unless you undergo an arduous and DESIRED *conversion* (of heart) to accept and understand the new patrimony.

That's why I hardly go to any other Eastern Church or the Roman Church. I love the Coptic Church, for instance, and I enjoy Maronite services. But I stick Byzantine 90% of the time because it is what I identify with. You can't discount patrimony to such a second-class role.

Sure doctrine is important, yet it is not so important as to reject one's patrimony. That can cause far greater spiritual harm.

In Christ,

anastasios

After I came to St. Vladimir's and saw Orthodoxy in action first hand, I have come to the conclusion that all the talk of Orthodox disunity is a lie.

Orthodox are united and work together on a myriad of issues. Common celebrations occur here in the Three Hierarchs chapel between all the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions. Seminarians work together from so many backgrounds. Last week the Ypik (sp?) Eskimos were visiting! We have an African priest from Kenya, a Japanese fellow, at least three Hispanics, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Indians, etc. So much life, so much sharing.

I'll believe that Orthodox are less united than Catholics when any one of the following happens: 1) The Ruthenians and Ukrainians send their students to the same seminary 2) Bp Andrew opens an offical Cathedral apostolate for the Hispanics that live in the neighborhood of his Cathedral 3) the Eastern Catholics beat the Orthodox to getting one English translation of the Divine Liturgy implemented 4) we stop opening Ruthenian/Ukrainian/Melkite missions in areas where there already is a small Byzantine mission that can't support another mission nearby 5) our priests and bishops begin to do the same liturgical practices (I'm talking about inside the same patrimony and sub-recension).

I think Orthodox are united, and I think Catholics are united. We show it in different ways. Let's stop pretending we can cut down on the Orthodox for being disunited without taking the big log out of our own eye.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Friends,

I've learned many, many significant insights from you all on this thread so far!

Each one of you is writing to share the depth of your own spiritual experience and that is truly a wonderful, touching thing.

And none of you is wrong. Your experience validates what you say.

I asked this question to receive support in my journey to find my own answer to it. I agree with Don in that my question could have been phrased differently. They say a question already assumes an answer or a bias in a specific direction where an answer is to be sought. I wasn't "there" when I asked this question, I'm just groping in the dark.

And you've responded marvellously.

Unlike my usual style, I don't feel ready to jump to any hard and fast conclusions just yet .

I will give your thoughts the serious consideration they deserve and require.

Thank you for taking the time to share your heart-felt thoughts!

Alex

I know. I hope I didn't give the impression I was trying to "force" someone into believing or adherering to something against their will. I'm not explaining this in black and white, I'm simply echoed what Dan had already said and saying what I truly feel.

No argument here. People are inherently flawed in their judgement and make decisions based on their emotions; and that's not necessarily wrong.

Why not Mormons, etc.?

I guess this is our main point of disagreement. I will always consider myself Catholic first, and only secondarily Byzantine or Roman (whichever I become, if either).

I'm not trying to point a finger, but shouldn't the Faith always take precedence over our ethnicity/patrimony/cultural identification? That's the whole point of Universalism (Catholicism): to transcend our limited cultural experience through communion with others who are culturally limited like ourselves; at least that's how I view it.

I don't think one's patrimony is to be pitted against the universality (sp) of one's faith. They should be, and in my opinion generally are, in unison. If I had to choose between patrimony or faith, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat, but I'm naturally biased because I don't have a particular patrimony that's sometimes at odds with my faith. But then again so is the person who's patrimony is at odds with his faith.

Maybe (of course) I'm naive, but I don't understand the "this patrimony vs. that patrimony", if this is indeed what you are trying to express. We, as members of the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, are called to "breath with both lungs", to embrace patrimonies other than our indigenous one. Personally, this is at the top of my list as a Christian: to step outside my biased cultural bubble into the true whole of the faith, to transcend my culture (while still cherishing it) through communion with others not like myself. For me, nothing rings truer of what God calls me to be.

When all is said and done, I would choose doctrine over patrimony and day, anywhere, any time. However, I can see that there are many on this board who feel much more strongly about their patrimony than I, and I respect that. Each person bases the importance of doctrine and patrimony on a different level than his neighbor. For now, let all Catholics rejoice that the Byzantine patrimony is not at odds with the rest of Catholicism, and is mystically linked to scores of other patrimonies throughout the world in the Mystical and Holy Body of Christ.

ChristTeen287

Thanks Don.

This weighed on my decision to remain in Communion with Old Rome also. I was rather turned off by the stance that many [ex-Protestant] Orthodox brethren (and mostly clergy) took towards the Catholic Church.

There was much jurisdiction hopping (MP to OCA to ROCA to GOC-Old Calendar, etc.). One minute someone at church liked Patriarch So-and-so, (calling him "Our Great Lord and Father",) the next week they didn't, and on and on...

If the Byzantine Cath. Church were to undertake extreme liturgical reforms, I don't know where I would go for Liturgy, but to be sure, I would supplement wherever I go with more prayers in the spirit of what I have learned in the Byzantine Chruch at home.

With Best Wishes to All!
Stefan-Ivan

Good points, Don and Stefan-Ivan. A local Orthodox priest is now on his third jurisdiction in about five years, and has set up a mission in competition with another about 1/2 hour away.

I just talked with another OCA priest, a really wonderful convert fellow, who was asked out of his OCA parish and is now looking for a job with the Greeks, who are hesitant to have him work in the parish because he can't speak Greek. The two Serbian parishes nearby, one patriarchal and the other New Gracinica, although canonically re-united, still won't speak to each other and have families probably permanently divided over jurisdictional issues.

While the idea of "Orthodox unity" may look sweet at St. Vladimir's, where out of necessity and proximity there is cooperation, out in the trenches jurisdictionalism is alive and well.

But in agreement with Anastasios, his point is valid in that we have our own brand of Greek Catholic "jurisdictionalism". We have the aberrant situation where there is a Ruthenian seminary with five or so seminarians total, while there are well-established Ukrainian Catholic seminaries in Ottawa and D.C. On the other hand there is St. Vladimir's which seems to be successful at taking a pan-Orthodox approach to the issue of formation and higher education.

But as Don wisely points out, we should let our faith in Jesus Christ and His love lift us out from the negativity of division and instill in us the love of God, neighbor and self that is absolutely necessary for any Christian unity.

The reason is that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as true particular Churches, while the Protestants are considered ecclesial communities and Mormons are not Christians. Therefore I cannot see recommending someone go Mormon when they are not Christians. Switching between Orthodox and Catholic is not that big of a jump.

Be careful what you say you will always believe--If first investigated Orthodoxy as a way to bring them into the fold so to speak but later became what I am today when I realized their points of view were equally valid. But yes, I understand what you mean and accept that. I would even argue that most average Byzantine Catholics see it your way.

Patrimony is beyond ethnicity or cultural identification. It goes way down deep into our psyche. The way I understand it is that there is no one "universal" and abstract concept known as "Catholicism" which can be divided into parts. You only know the Catholic faith through one of the parts; you can never know it apart from at least one part. When the Church says we need to breathe with both lungs, that is possible since the Church is not spacially limited; we are humans that are spacially limited and cannot comprehend our faith apart from the way in which we were inculturated into it.

My point is that it cannot be transcended. Even if you learn about another "Rite" or Ritual Church, you will not be them. The only exception is if you join them and pray with them exclusively or most of the time; after a few years you MIGHT adapt to them; otherwise, you will take on the second partly while maintaining the first primarily, which is not necessarily bad. A concrete example: a RC that comes to the BC Church every other Sunday but who prays at home the Latin devotions and who goes to confession with Latin priests is NOT Byzantine Catholic, although she may have a fantastic knowledge of us and may be a loved and cherished member of our physical community. Someone who goes to the Byzantine Church every Sunday except when there is a need or desire to visit an RC parish, who confesses with a Byzantine priest, who does Byzantine devotions: THAT is a Byzantine Catholic.

Yes, you are right that the two should not be pitted against one another. Sometimes, however, we find ourselves in situations where they are. We must live according to our conscience in such a case. You may have the stomach to adapt to the Roman/Maronite/Chaldean/Coptic way in that situation; I would prefer to go Orthodox and believe that is God's will.

When you say you do not have a patrimony that is sometimes at odds with your faith are you meaning that since you are Methodist at the present time you don't fit into this scheme, or since you identify yourself with RC's they are default Catholics? Please explain.

WE are not; the CHURCH is. As explained above, a person cannot hold two patrimonies in their fullness. You either live in one world or the other, unless you are one of the rare individuals who is blessed to live in one world while frequently visiting another. We can call them liturgical astronauts. ;-)

Ok when you say it like that, I agree with you, but the problem is you are not talking about patrimony but rather cultural expressions. Patrimony is much, much deeper; it includes culture, but it includes the experience of worship, the prayer life, the way a doctrine is viewed and expressed (such as Dormition vs. Assumption). The Catholic Church allows members of one Ritual Church to experience communion with members of others and that is positive; however, this is not taking on different patrimonies. Besides, accross history, a communion of people from different ritual churches did not always happen. Oftentimes, the different ritual church members were of different social classes and did not interact. Only in America did this "pick your own way" come about.

That's a good way to look at it. You should post like that more often (and I should, too!)!

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios the Seminarian,

Your analysis and discussion of "patrimony" is excellent and I'd give you full marks for it from a social and behavioural science level alone! (Not to mention the uncircumscribed heights of theological pondering ).

But I think your great contribution to this discussion is the way you've shown the distinction between "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and "Eastern Catholic."

And there really is a distinction that is useful to be drawn here.

To say one is "Orthodox in communion with Rome" suggests, to me at least, that there are two aspects of what is a composite ecclesial identity that are in harmony, but which could exist independently.

One is "Orthodox" and one is "in communion with Rome" so to speak.

One looks Eastward to historic Orthodoxy for the content of one's faith, theological, canonical, liturgical patrimony etc.

One then turns around and looks Westward to Rome and, almost apologetically, affirms full unity with Rome, papal jurisdiction etc. notwithstanding - and ultimately rationalized within a seemingly "Eastern" ecclesial framework (I'm making an argument here so please bear with me ). It is ALMOST as if one is trying to be two things at once.

To be "Eastern Catholic" as I know Eastern Catholics doesn't involve this at all.

The EC "uniate" mentality is that "we are Catholics following another Rite" and, the long and the short of it is that the papacy is seen as an INTEGRAL part of one's primarily Catholic identity with no or little focus on being "Orthodox." Latinization is therefore often seen as a (necessary) part of that "Catholic" identity and sense of belonging to the Catholic Church with its centre in Rome. There is no "turning around" and one is always focused on Rome. Who cares about anything else?

So my point is that someone who defines himself or herself as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" would have less of a problem being "Orthodox in communion with someone else" if a Particular ( ) push came to shove.

For those with a "uniate" or Eastern Catholic perspective, such a breaking of the bonds with the Bark of Peter would invalidate one's entire ecclesial identity.

That is the point behind the question on this thread.

ChristTeen's point is an excellent summary of the latter perspective, although ChristTeen's view does go beyond to grasp the wider issue of Catholicity in terms of universalism.

Ultimately, "Orthodox in communion with Rome" would see this differently than an "Eastern Catholic" would as well, and, Anastasios, you've shown that too.

What ChristTeen has done is to brilliantly show how the reverse is true for OICWRome and EC's when it comes to Catholicity.

For the EC, there is actually not a unified ecclesial identity, but allegiance to TWO views of the Church: one belongs to the Universal Church AND to one's Particular Church at the same time.

The two allegiances MAY conflict at times and certainly Rome has told UC's and Melkites off because what they wanted (patriarchate for the UC's and Orthodox unity for the Melkites)conflicted with the "greater good" of the "Universal Church."

For the "Orthodox in communion with Rome," however, there is no conflict as there is a single, integral ecclesial allegiance at work here.

One belongs to the "Universal Church" precisely THROUGH one's membership in the Particular Church to which one belongs, the "Orthodox Church" that is in communion with Rome.

Rome's ecclesial role, so to speak, is on the periphery of church affairs and OICWRome wish it would even be moreso.

Alex

Dear Friends,

To those who have commented on the internal problems of Orthodoxy, you've stated a valid point.

I think that it is all too easy to idealize the Orthodox Church or Catholic Church depending on which perspective you are coming from, which church you are converting to and how badly one wants a new ecclesial home that is free from the problems one is leaving behind.

In fact, the idea that either Church is ideally free of division, dissension and inner conflict and turmoil is just naivete.

There are, of course, many more jurisdictions within Orthodoxy to which one can jump when one loses affinity, for whatever reason, with one's current one.

And usually this is due to Orthodox discipline, one jurisdiction "out-Orthodoxing" another.

But we have this in our Churches as well. We have this among our parishes in Toronto alone.

There are parishes that people here would never set foot in, unless their relatives were getting married there.

And the notion that this or that Orthodox jurisdiction "does it better" than others is supremely a preoccupation of converts.

For the cradle Orthodox who belong to cultural communities, the unity they experience is through the unity of their ecclesial/cultural community seen as an integral whole.

It matters not a wit what others do with their jurisdictional issues.

This is why, as my cradle Orthodox friends and relatives tell me, converts who come and go depending on how well the canons and traditions are observed are seen as trouble-makers.

One such convert I know, a priest, excommunicates parishioners on a regular basis in confession.

I suggested a parish petition to the bishop . . .

I'm not the only one in my circle of friends and relatives who has a problem with converts.

Alex

A Very Good Point, Alex. Maybe it would be well to post again the article by Father John Garvey of the OCA Albanian Diocese on Converts:

http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/dioceses/NY/Jacobs-Well/Articles/1996-FALL-Garvey.html

I am glad to say, that at least in my parish, there is a very good mix of "converts" and "cradles" and we all seem to learn from each other and my priest (a convert) is the first to point to the "Cradles" and say "it is from them that we learn how to be Orthodox"
SO true!!!

Peace,
Brian