www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Of TradLats & ByzCaths

Alex,
I admire the struggle. I will never "Diss" the Byzantine Catholic Church, if God Willing, I become Orthodox. For me and in my journey, I could not keep saying that I was 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and really believe it anymore. But that is just me. But I am not giving up by becoming an Orthodox Christian (I know you don't mean it in that sense)
Peace, Bro

Brian in Sacramento

Zoe,

I have questioned that myself. Why did Our Lady refer to Herself as the "Immaculate Conception" if half the Faith wouldn't recognize the term? The only answer I can figure is that She was making a point when She revelaed that to Bernadette. Had Bernadette not had that title to give to the bishop, as I believe it was very debated at the time in Rome, they would not have believed her. Consequenlty, I also feel that the situation would have been different had She appeared to an Eastern Christian.

As Alex pointed out, the Immacutate Conception is a Western term based on Western concepts of original sin. I don't think anyone is denying that it is true, simply that we don't hold it in the same way as the West and we are allowed to do so. I hope I haven't confused the situation...

Dmitri

Of course, when approving a certain apparition, the Church doesn't say something definitely happened here that must be believed by the faithful, but that one is allowed to believe that something happened. One can be a great Roman Catholic and believe Fatima was the work of Hollywood special effects experts transported back in time by running faster than the speed of the earth's revolution around its axis in the opposite direction of that revolution...it won't make one less orthodox; crazy, maybe, but still orthodox. Apparitions, then, cannot really be a source for doctrine.

Disclaimer: I like Fatima.

Yes, and on the other side, the girls of Medjugorje (Croatian-Latin catholic girls) said that the Virgin had prayed with them the Our Father:

...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive...

how can this be understood if the Latin Church teaches that she was totally immaculate since her conception and without sin or trespass?

It is iportant to say that the Roman Church, and also the Orthodox Churches (not officialy) have stated that the Yugoslavian Apparition is false.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/medjugorje.html

(catholic site)

Remie:

You posted:

#1 The Roman Catholic Church has not stated, repeat NOT, OFFICIALLY or UNOFFICIALLY, that the Medjugorje apparitions are false. The website you cited, in support of your irresponsible post, is not a "catholic site", i.e., owned by the Roman Catholic Church, but is apparently owned by someone who claims to be a "Traditonal Catholic." (In fact, the owner of the website unabashedly supports the SSPX or is a member of the schismatic group.)

#2 We have discussed this elsewhere before and I wish to direct you again to the OFFICIAL position of the Roman Catholic Church on the Medjugorje apparitions:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

#3 If you are a Roman Catholic(?), you know it is so easy to access the EWTN website and check on your facts before mouthing them.

#4 May I request you to be more circumspect in your posts in the future? Certain times in the past you have alleged things without verifiable proof.

In Christ!

AmdG

I am sorry if the site was offensive, I never knew it had something to do with the SSPX, it doesn't say that the site belongs to the SSPX it says it is a Trditional Site, I never said it was the official possition, it is an independent opinion, some would say it is true, some would say it is not true.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/medjugorje.htm

I am Greek Orthodox, but very Ecumenical and I admire and respect the Latin Church too.

Slava Isusu Christu!

To me a Byzantine Catholic becoming Orthodox could not be more redundant. Many on this forum talk about becoming Orthodox, but what makes a person think one is not Orthodox when our Churches are nearly identicle, except for a few devotional differences or differences in chant or religious art or maybe some ecclesiological and administrative differences? Did our Fathers and Mothers of the Unia think they were no longer Orthodox? Absolutely not! To them it was the other way around: Rome had become Orthodox:) Hehe:) The Slavic Orthodox Churches that came into Communion with the Latin Church were prophetic communities. They truly manifested a more mature sense of Orthodoxy. Because nothing could be more un-Orthodox then to be for schism and dis-unity. "How pleasant it is when bretheren dwell in unity!" Beyond the so-called secular reasons our people came into Union the theological focus of healing dis-unity even though the larger Orthodox communions did not want union with the Western Church is a sign that our Church was right on with the mind of the Holy Spirit. I think a major epidemic in our culture is dis-loyalty to one's religious tradition. Playing a kind of ecclesial musical chairs is so common place. I have been guilty of this:( We have cheapened the sacrifice of martyrs and we do not want to commit to that community of faith in which the Lord has planted us. Our "Seeker"-culture believes that it will be better on the other side of the spiritual tracks, but when one travels to the other side he or she quickly finds out they there may be even more problematic issues; which is what many Byzantine Catholics find out when they "become Orthodox." They find out that there are many more problems in the area of authority and ecclesiology; they find out that the surety they found in Catholicism, as far as Magisterial Voice is concerned, is not in Orthodoxy at this time. They find out "that if one does not want to belong to Organized Religion one should become Orthodox" And so they eventually return to their Byzantine Catholic Church. I am addressing this issue because I think we need to deal with it. There is so much travel back and forth ecclesially that there really needs to be some good teaching on church loyalty, fidelity and commitment. Not, as I hate, a form of tribalism but a ethic of commitment and love for where the Lord has planted that person. I mean the issues of stewardship, servanthood, and covenant are hard issues. We live in a non-commital culture and a need/want fulfillment culture. In our culture it is so easy to "switch-sides" without any accountability whereas in the old country the issue of switching was one of life and death of being a traitor or being a martyr. I think I/we need to reclaim the sense of loyalty and commitment. Amen.

Robert,

Please do not think that the majority of those who become Orthodox do it because they think the "Grass is Greener" Nothing could be furthur from the truth. The church is made up of fallen people in Orthodoxy or Byzantine Catholicism. They are doing it (if they are serious people) after much prayer, thought, reading and Spiritual Direction.
I for one am not going to Orthodoxy out of bitterness or hatred towards the Byzantine Catholic Church and the good Byzantine Catholic people. Not all who convert to Orthodoxy are fundamentalists or extremists- Look at Father John Garvey of the OCA (the author of a GREAT article on the pitfalls of the "convert" mentality).
Wasn't it the late, good, Archimandrite Lev (Gillet) who wrote to his mother on the eve of joining Orthodoxy "I go to a Stronger Light, not a better LIght, but a Stronger"?

Peace,
Brian

Robert H:

On the contrary, many of the Orthodox-turned-Catholics I know are highly unbalanced individuals obsessed with the Pope and embroiled in legalism. The best example of this is my friend Dan, who loves to point out to me that "the Orthodox are wrong on this" and "see how they missed that one!" The idea that we are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is laughable to him because the Orthodox to him are heretics and we should have nothing to do with them.

As far as your statement that there is nothing different between Orthodoxy and Byz Catholicism except "chant" etc--that's laughable. The Chant is the same, it's the ethos that is totally different. For one thing, here at St. Vladimir's Seminary, half of the students are married and it is simply no big deal. I have two priests and two deacons living in my apartment complex under the age of 30. Does anyone think it's weird that they're married? No. Their kids fare well--one of the deacons has 4!

I don't want to turn this into a BC vs. Orthodox argument though because I love both Churches and see them as very close and hopefully close to reunion. But to say they're the same betrays your ignorance of the situation. Even in my days of being a gung-ho "Orthodox in communion with Rome"ster I didn't believe that we were the same as Orthodox. We are similar; we are brothers; we are NOT identical twins.

Many traditional BC's would eschew your statement that we are the same as Orthodox as well. They, too, see the different ethos, and for them they prefer the Catholic variety! Good for them. Let them keep their ways--they have been through enough.

In Christ,

anastasios

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear brothers and sisters:

We all have a spiritual journey, but when it comes to Byzantine Catholics leaving their Church I do tend to become very skeptical about the reasons. Because again along the lines of my commitment theology before we have moved on to another faith community have we been optimal members or selfish ones expecting to much from an imperfect Church. Did we practice responsible stewardship, fully participate and live totally the ethos of that Tradition, find one's apostolate within that community, or where we passive participants who were seeking a dead/pseudo-romantic version of Orthodoxy or a vibrant one in the context of active participation as a Byzantine Catholic to help that faith community realize its mission.

Many of the reasons/myths Byzantine Catholics buy into to help them jump ship with the least emotional pain are "the people are more in to their faith over there...they are more devoted...Orthodoxy seems to be more ancient...Byzantine Catholicism seems to be a shell of Orthodoxy...we are always trying to "restore" our Orthodox traditions when they have all theirs...their ecclesiology is more ancient...their liturgical practices and devotions are more Orthodox and more authentic...they have bearded priests and more monastic communities in the Tradition then we do therefore they are more Orthodox...the Unia was a false model of ecclesial union why not jump ship; we will be liquidated eventually anyway...they have no problems with the married presbyterate we are always fighting Rome I am just leaving I can't take it anymore...I don't feel like an authentic Eastern Christian; our restorations seem devoid of spiritual substance - they seem to be based upon mere academic study and not grounded in continuity like the Orthodox have...and on and on.

These are all myths/reasons people use to leave their Greek Catholic Churches. But I am wondering, behind all of the emotional reasons, pseudo-scholarship or the True Orthodox anti-uniate propaganda et al, if the main reasons are not more social and community based; I mean that in the heart of the person certain needs are not being met. For example: If Archbishop Ireland would have been affirming and accepting of Father Alexis and our Greek Catholic Church would the state of our Church been much different? Clearly and emphatically so.

Most people leave Churches because they are not accepted or affirmed or that they are seeking a personal transformation and there is not enough spiritual energy in that parish to really break them out of a kind of spiritual death or necrosis. That is why evangelicalism is so popular; because people want the Church to be able to impact their lives to the point that a transformation takes place in their heart and mind. It has to do with a need for authenticity and belonging.

In a way many Byzantine Catholics see themselves as a type of Anglican. We can have all or can appropriate all the Orthodox can do liturgically or doctrinally, mystically, and in the area of praxis, but we are seen as non-Orthodox by the Orthodox and it this need for acceptance by the larger Eastern Christian Community that brings many to leave our Church. But the difference is that when we entered Union with the Latins we did not surrender the Orthodox Faith and all that entails unlike the Anglicans who did not just remain the Roman Catholic Church of Engand with the King as Visible Head, they radically reformed their theology to wit that it was no longer Roman Catholic, but essentially a bridge between Lutheranism and Calvinism with an abridged Sarum/Roman liturgical praxis. So we cannot be accused of being a shell of Orthodoxy; we ARE Orthodox.

Our Churches did not become Roman Catholic Churches that received an indult to say the Byzantine Mass, that deceived the simple Slavs who saw that it looked the same as their Orthodox Church, but it was no longer so doctrinally. We surrendered nothing, but we received much: some good some bad.

The principle of belonging or need for acceptance was the cause of latinizations or assimilation of Latin practices in our Churches or of many of our people becoming Latins; it was also cause for the opposite to happen in which many Greek Catholics going into the Orthodox Jurisdictions. I would turn the tables: what could the Byzantine Catholic Church in America do for you to stay? Would you want our priests to have the fervor, piety and wisdom of a St. Herman; maybe you would like us to have the very long services like ROCOR.
If all of our priests always wore their Riassa and wore beards and had these great dynamic personalities would you stay? I mean the issue needs to be not what can the Church do for me, but how can I give of myself to the Church. Again it has become a epidemic in our society to want some mystical fix or be under some great spiritual savant.

Most of the modern Churches have sold the mystical tradition for legalism or post-modern Christian liberal thought, but it seems most of the people are looking for an authenticity and a aesetic way of life; a life of communion with God. God has placed that desire within us to have a dynamic experience of the spiritual world. And when our soul is starving to death, because of anemic preaching or priests who run through the Divine Liturgy like a track race without any devotion, we seek other options and it is natural to want to jump ship when we see the Orthodox Church down the street having such spiritual renewal - where the people are being transformed and their identity as Eastern Christians is being created and molded and maintained. But most of the dynamicism of some of these parishes is based upon the personality of the priest; which again is a human need - a need for true leadership and authentic and genuine Orthodox spiritual Fatherhood. But then again other factors are involved and we move and discover the new Orthodox parish is stale and dead and then the realization sets in that not all Orthodox Churches are traditional and have highly mystical priests and liturgies that are so spiritual that you can see the eyes of the ikons looking at you and you can feel the Uncreated Divine Energy of God buring in your breast.

You begin to realize that your expectations were unrealistic and at that point many former Byzantine Catholics come back to their home. Many of our Greek Catholic parishes have these mystical personality figures and grandious liturgies and traditional praxis and authentic life, but because one does not see them or is experiencing them in one's parish that does not mean that all Byzantine Catholic Churches are "shells of Orthodoxy." But again we only see through our narrow lenses of perspective.

Orthodoxy can either be present or absent in both Churches because Orthodoxy transends jurisdictions Catholic and Orthodox; Orthodoxy is experienced parish to parish or not at all. Orthodoxy is an organism in its own right neither a religion or a way of life, but rather life itself. So I would dare say there are some Byzantine Catholic parishes that are Orthodox and not and there are some Eastern Orthodox Churches that are not Orthodox or have a sense of lived Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy we are deified with the ecclesial community and not apart from it; so there is no sustenance really on one's own, from the Eastern perspective, spiritually, but we must be achieve theosis with the parish. So I would grant that if one had done all one could and supported his parish with all his being, was faithful, practiced responsible stewardship, lived the faith all one could, but still was feeling empty and still wanted to transition to another faith community and the Lord was leading one to do so through the direction of a spiritual Father then by all means go with God's blessing, but being a part of a parish in many ways is like being married, a covenant is made and there is no promise that things will always be like finely spun sugar all the time. And being a parish is a family there will always be conflict and problems and in an opposite manner harmony and peace and fulfilment. These are some of my inklings on the subject of pre-mature spiritual/ecclesial transitions.

God bless.

In the Theotokos:

Robert

In regards to the last post, I don't think it is incumbent on any Christian to pass judgement on the motives behind the actions of our brethren.

If there is a genuine desire to be faithful to the Gospel, as well as the liturgical and spiritual heritage one has by birth or has chosen, it is noone's business except God and their spiritual father in that decision. I will let God judge those who leave as well as those who come, as the Spirit often moves in strange and diverse ways.

Dear Diak:

I believe as a member of this Church I can analyze the reasons why people leave. There is nothing wrong with that; it is done all the time especially when Churches collect statistical information and when ecclesial communities desire to learn how to improve their service to their people. There are three major communities of people we as Byzantine Catholics need to be concerned about 1. Those who are not Byzantine 2. The Church alumni association i.e. lapsed Byzantines and 3. Those active members that are having theological and practical issues with the Church. Discussing the issue is a great way to problem solve and since this Forum is read by many important people in our Church and I believe even the Bishops read the posts here; that it is a great way to give one's Voice some animating force.

I hope you understand.

In Christ,

Robert

Dear Anastasios:

I have had exactly the opposite experience. The Catholics-turned-Orthodox I know (with just a few exceptions, notably Eric on this board) remind me of Catholics-turned-fundamentalists -- filled with irrational hatred toward their former faith. They tend to join the most sectarian, exclusivist, crabby Orthodox jurisdictions. (I guess the GOA is too bourgeois for 'em or sumpin'. :rolleyes: ) And they say incredibly vicious things about Catholicism -- things that make me wonder whether they're kicking against the goad or maybe just losing it.

I am not making this up! I could tell you anecdotes that would make your hair curl.

I don't know your friend Dan, but I don't think he's typical. In general, in my experience, Catholicism has a liberating influence on people -- unless it's ultra-traditionalism, which is just as cramped and crabby as the most sectarian forms of Orthodoxy. But if it's mainstream Catholicism, then I think it tends to make people more open-minded, more irenical, more ecumenical. Jes' my observation, fwiw.

However, people who leave Catholicism (especially in a huff!) for some other faith, be it Orthodoxy or Protestantism, tend (in my experience) to become cranks.

There are some notable exceptions -- Eric, for instance. And Brian seems like an exception, too.... But there is definitely a strong "anti" strain within some Orthodox sectors, and it attracts disaffected Catholics like a magnet.

Just my experiece, fwiw....

ZT

Right on, Robert. Pace Diak, I don't think you were "judging" at all. You provided much food for thought, and it was very sensitive and compassionate, IMHO.

BTW, re the supposed superiority (in piety, beauty, and fervor) of Orthodox liturgies: When my colleague Cindy visits our local Greek Orthodox church with her visiting (Orthodox) sister-in-law, she always complains afterward about how boring the service is, with all the women gossiping their heads off all during the liturgy. (Actually, I would think that would make it pretty interesting. :lol:)

The grass is always greener. Until you get over to the other yard.

BTW, that reminds me of something someone else told me recently, regarding evangelical converts to the smaller and more sectarian forms of Orthodoxy. He said some people can't deal with the messiness of reality. They prefer their exclusivist purism -- whether it's Calvinist purism or Orthodox purism.

Now, feel free to bite my head off for "judging."

Outta here for the night....

ZT

A. The Church has NOT condemned Medjugorje.

B. Many early Eastern Fathers affirmed the Theotokos as Immaculate throughout her entire life, including from the moment of conception (although they didn't always put it like that, since "the moment of conception" wasn't well understood in ages past!). Indeed, our teaching on the Immaculate Conception goes back to the earliest Eastern Fathers who affirmed Our Lady as the New Eve, who (like the original Eve) was conceived in sinlessness...these Fathers recognized the utter and radical enmity between the serpent and "the Woman," after all. I think the more recent Orthodox polemic against the IC reflects an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate the differences between our two communions. We are far closer on this issue than many people realize. Extensive reading of the Fathers of both East and West bears this out, IMHO. (Hey, not that I've done such extensive reading myself, mind you. :p :p )

Love,

ZT