|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
150
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Greetings to all. After reading quite a few threads discussing sui iuris and the resultant obstacles that sometimes appear, I did a search for the meaning of sui iuris. Here is what I found [ answers.com] . Based upon these meanings, are the Eastern Churches truly self governing? I understand and support the cause for Communion with Rome, however, what are the benefits that are given to each of the sui iuris churches? Does Rome help found our evangelical process? Does Rome provide funding for our missions and seminaries? Does Rome support our Priests and Bishops? Does Rome pay for our Churches? Has Rome defended and protected the Eastern Catholic Churches? What does Rome provide for the sui iuris churches? Can we all be in communion with Rome and yet be full separate independent churches, or better yet, be a loose confederation of North American Eastern Churches, with our own Synod, that is not accountable to anyone financially, but spiritually maintaining communion with Rome? So, what benefits do the Eastern Catholic Churches receive from Rome? Thank you. Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Merry Christmas, and Happy Theophony/Epiphany to all.
Since there is a lack of response tomy first post, I do apologize if my questions are out of order.
My wife and I have been guided by the Holy Spirit to the Byzantine Catholic Church. As I have learned a deeper love of Eastern Theology, it became (unfortunately?) apparent this is a Martyred Church, persecuted by almost everyone. The strength of faith that I have observed of our members is a true inspiration of the Divine Light of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and a beautiful and wondrous offering to Him.
Still, I witness the ongoing persecutions, from reading the various posts. I guess it may be better to rephrase my original question since it appears likely to go unanswered.
Instead, I would like to ask:
What keeps us as members of a church that has been persecuted during the last 400+ years almost as much as in the beginning of Christianity?
I perceive that the Byzantine Catholic Church is undergoing a massive identity change, yet, it underwent similar changes when if first came to the US, resulting in huge Latinizations within the community. The courage of the People to endure and preserve the Church is truly a thing of wonder and amazement to me, but I believe it also resulted in a partial loss of identity. I have seen how some of the parishoners now deny their orthodox heritage and treat it like an evil thing. I understand this to be a direct result of Bishop Ireland and his interference within the Byzantine Community of St. Mary's in Minneapolis and all other houses of worship that maintained the married priesthood traditions. But what I want to know is why did the majority stay with their parishes and remain subjects of Rome and the Latin Bishops? This is a piece of the puzzle that I have not figured out.
Please help me to understand. Once again, I mean no offense to anyone. I just want to learn so that I can appreciate our unique Church even more.
Asking for Our Lord's Blessings on this Holy and special time.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Glory to Jesus Christ! Hello L&F! Originally posted by lost&found:
Since there is a lack of response tomy first post, I do apologize if my questions are out of order. No offence taken, I'm sure. If no one else wants to make some comments here, I'll give it a shot! However I am no longer associated with an eastern Catholic church so I suppose it would be better if a Catholic answered your post as well. Based upon these meanings, are the Eastern Churches truly self governing? Uh, no I understand and support the cause for Communion with Rome, however, what are the benefits that are given to each of the sui iuris churches? 
Does Rome help found our evangelical process?
Does Rome provide funding for our missions and seminaries?
Does Rome support our Priests and Bishops?
Does Rome pay for our Churches?
Has Rome defended and protected the Eastern Catholic Churches?
What does Rome provide for the sui iuris churches?
Can we all be in communion with Rome and yet be full separate independent churches, or better yet, be a loose confederation of North American Eastern Churches, with our own Synod, that is not accountable to anyone financially, but spiritually maintaining communion with Rome?
So, what benefits do the Eastern Catholic Churches receive from Rome?
You are most welcome!!!
+T+
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 |
Dear Michael (L&F)
You have to realize that the questions are not being ignored as much as your post falls into one of either the Feast of the Nativity (Old Calendar) or the Theophany (New Calendar). Most have been offline due to these feasts and their observances of the feasts.
I am sure as the week begins as our posters resume their regular routines, you are bound to get some responses.
Wishing you the best during this festal period.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Moderator
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
|
|
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516 |
To top that, you have us who come from a dual calender background and are happy to finally be praying in the family parish, which is old calender. Thank goodness Lent season is the same on both Calenders!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Pyrohy:
To top that, you have us who come from a dual calender background and are happy to finally be praying in the family parish, which is old calender. Thank goodness Lent season is the same on both Calenders! EH ?? that was last year surely ? According to my Diary Easter for the RCs and NC Folk is April 16 and for OC folk is April 23. If I'm wrong please do tell me - working with both at present I can and do get confused 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 |
Originally posted by Our Lady's slave of love: Originally posted by Pyrohy:
[b] To top that, you have us who come from a dual calender background and are happy to finally be praying in the family parish, which is old calender. Thank goodness Lent season is the same on both Calenders!
According to my Diary Easter for the RCs and NC Folk is April 16 and for OC folk is April 23.
If I'm wrong please do tell me - working with both at present I can and do get confused [/b]Actually you are right at least regarding this year. There is a one week seperation this year, but next year we have Pascha together. Now back to the topic. In IC XC, Father Anthony+
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Dear Michael, Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your honesty and opinions immensely. Dear Father Anthony, Bless. Thank you for your guidance!  I came upon this article of Identity on Fr. David Petras' site. Here is the link: http://www.davidpetras.com/Articles/1996%20Articles/IDENTITY.doc In it, he discusses the benefits at the time of the union with Rome. Here is a quote: Eastern Catholic Churches were formed in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, when some Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe entered into union with the Church of Rome. This required them to break their communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and they could no longer call themselves �Orthodox.� This division was very bitter. The Orthodox communion saw this as Western proselytism and as a betrayal of their community. For the new Catholics, they saw this as a fulfillment of an ideal, the union of the one Church under the primacy of Peter. As a condition of this union, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches laid down the condition that their authentic tradition be maintained in its integrity. They were to be Eastern Christians in union with the Western Church. There were social and political reasons intermixed with this idealism: the fact was, the Church of Constantinople, in territory under the control of the Turks, was not able to give much help to these churches, and union with the Catholic Church promised social advancement and equality. I can understand the need for protection at that time, and can understand the want to be united with the Seat of Peter. My questions then go further to what social advancement has been gained for our current Church? Where is the equality? Is it not a bitter fight to gain even a foothold of the original traditions (both little and big T) from our Papal father? Has the original promise to allow the Eastern Catholic Church to enter into union and yet preserver her beautiful and cherished traditions been annulled? I do not see any of this happening and yet, I see a wonderful love of and commitment to our Holy Father, successor of Peter. What is it that gives each of you the strength to continue with these current and historical situations? Please teach me. In Christ, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 |
Dear Michael, I think that remainder of this thread dealing with this subject should be debated by the Eastern Catholics of this forum. I believe that this is an issue that needs to be discussed, but it would be unfair for those outside of the direct jurisdiction or communion with Rome to make comment. This has been an issue that I am sure that has been in the mind of many posters if not now, maybe sometime in the past. I ask for the Orthodox posters of this forum to refrain from posting to this thread, and sit back and possibly learn from what is discussed. Also for the Orthodox members to be posting to this thread, may detract or distract from the questions at hand. Wishing all a healthy dialogue!  In IC XC, Father Anthony+ Moderator
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Dear Michael,
I'll add my two cents' worth. I'm Roman Catholic, but I'm close to joining the Byzantine Catholic Church.
For me, the Eastern Catholic churches have the best of both worlds. They get to be Catholic and Orthodox.
Be well.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Dear John, Thank you for your thoughts. A wonderful friend at our Church let me borrow her book on the History of our Church, published? by the Greek Catholic Union. The majority of the text is available at the Archeparchy website: http://www.archeparchy.org/page/history/history.htm When the book discussed the issues with Bishop Ireland and the resultant schism led by +St. Alexis Toth of 15 churches and 20,000 parishioners to the Orthodox Church (now the OCA and ACROD), it then discusses the reorganization and the struggle associated with our Byzantine Catholic Church but fails to mention why many parishes and parishioners did not leave the folds of the current organization to reclaim their promised rights to maintain liturgical and ethnic traditions (once again both little and big T). Why did our forefathers of faith stay? There has to be an answer somewhere. In a previous post, our sainted Dr. Alex discussed with great candor some tough choices his grandfather had to make regarding church loyalty due to the impacts and evils of Soviet Communism. Many people were forced to change their allegiance to the MP. I want to understand why this was so painful. Are we not already orthodox in our beliefs and liturgy? I see this as a fight to be a "servant" of Rome, or Moscow, or Constantinople. But is there not one Master? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity? Is the Byzantine Catholic Church's purpose a God given gift to help heal the schism between our brothers, the Apostles and their successors? is that why we remain loyal and faithful to Rome? In Christ, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
My thinking is that to be an Eastern Catholic is to be part of the Universal Church under the sucessor of St. Peter who is the Chief Shepherd, who holds the "Presidency in Love." And to represent those who came back into the Church after the schism. To be who you are totally. A Catholic who follows the Liturgies and Customs of those who are east of Western Europe.
I think the problem was how do we make sure that the Eastern Catholics stay Catholic and not revert back to Orthodoxy. And I think that the bad news was that many times, mistakenly, it was to force some Latinizations on the Eastern Catholics. (I don't like the word Latinize. I would have to look pretty hard to find a Church where Latin is the Liturgical Language, nowadays we speak English. I favor the term hybridization, I think it's more accurate.) Any case, this forced changing of the Liturgy and customs was a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 937 |
Dr. Eric,
Thank you for your reply. It coincides closely with the following. After Divine Liturgy this morning, I asked my Baba (a dear friend of Ukie origin) why she is so supportive of our Church, despite all the issues. She stated "God told Peter to build his Church" and Peter founded the Church of Rome, and that is why we are with the Church of Rome. We can never go back to Orthodoxy. It is God's will (this is my paraphrasing of the rest of the conversation).
So, this brings up even more questions, but I would appreciate further input from all the learned and esteemed Byzantine Catholic colleagues on this forum.
In Christ,
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Originally posted by lost&found:
I see this as a fight to be a "servant" of Rome, or Moscow, or Constantinople. But is there not one Master? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity?
Is the Byzantine Catholic Church's purpose a God given gift to help heal the schism between our brothers, the Apostles and their successors? is that why we remain loyal and faithful to Rome?
Dear Michael, I think other can write more learned responses to your question. But, I would like to add my little expression of faith here. As a Catholic, I think the purpose of the Church --Byzantine or otherwise-- is the salvation and sanctification of souls. In the Byzantine Catholic Church, I think that there is --among some-- far too much navel gazing and introspection about questioning our identity. I'm not pointing the finger at you or anyone else in particular. But, I think our identity is clear: Byzantine Christians are Christians. We are followers of Jesus Christ. I know that answer is simple, maybe simplistic, and it does not address the complexities of times and cultures and histories. But, that is why I am calling this an expression of my faith. Arguments of culture or history don't get me to Liturgy; faith in Jesus gets me to Liturgy. For me, personally, the Byzantine Catholic Church helps me dwell closest to Jesus. It helps me most to live in union with Jesus. It is, for me, the best program for me to follow Jesus. The Orthodoxy of it appeals to my spiritual nature and my need for something both mystical and down-to-earth. The Catholicism of it appeals to my need to be in communion with as many other Christians as possible, because that (I believe) is what Jesus wants: for us to be one in Him like He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. For me, I can best fulfill that commandment of Jesus by being in communion with the successor to St. Peter, the Pope of Rome. So, for me, it is a personal decision to be / become Byzantine Catholic. I need both Orthodoxy and Catholicism to live as a Christian. The Byzantine Catholic Church offers me that -- the best of both worlds-- for which I am grateful. That is my personal reason. If you are looking for something else --a reason that is more objective, more useable by others-- I would suggest this: The Church of Jesus Christ is both universal and correct. It is both catholic and orthodox. Put another way, both catholicity and orthodoxy are signs of the Eucharist. The Byzantine Catholic Church is one of way of expressing that fact. It is Orthodox in Tradition (spirituality, theology, liturgy, praxis), and it is Catholic by loving communion with the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter. In Christ's Love, -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Originally posted by harmon3110:
[QUOTE]
If you are looking for something else --a reason that is more objective, more useable by others-- I would suggest this: The Church of Jesus Christ is both universal and correct. It is both catholic and orthodox. Put another way, both catholicity and orthodoxy are signs of the Eucharist. The Byzantine Catholic Church is one of way of expressing that fact. It is Orthodox in Tradition (spirituality, theology, liturgy, praxis), and it is Catholic by loving communion with the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter.
In Christ's Love,
-- John I agree totally, couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
|
|
