www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Why BC's and RC's don't always find common ground

Friends,

I suppose there are many reasons why BC's and RC's don't always find common ground. RC's often think they are they only Church. RC's think we're weird or quaint. RC's have been trying to be Protestant for so long that some have forgotton that they are Catholic. BC's don't always appreciate Western ways, etc.

But Ken H on another thread suggests another and one which I've found as well. RC's don't always have the same sense of community that many BC's have. From the relational nature of the Trinity to more involved parishioners I have noticed that I really don't wish to worship in an RC Church but love our BC Church.

Would we find more common ground in this area with the typical (whatever that means) Orthodox parish than we do with the typical RC parish? What are your thoughts?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan:

Perhaps it is because members of BC and Orthodox parishes very often share a common antcestry and heritage?

Or maybe becasue there are just simply less of us?

Or maybe that Byzantine spirituality tends to emphasise the idea that God is to be a part of our everyday lives while the Latin church tends toward a "fulfill your Sunday obligation and we'll see you next week" approach?

Please pardon my stream of conciousness approach, but there it is.

Yours,

kl

I agree there is a significant gap East/West on the issue of community. My famiy and I have spent a great deal of time in RC parishes. Perhaps it's post-Conciliar theology, perhaps it's Protestantizing (maybe those two are the same?) but whatever it is, they tend to see their parishes as sort of social action units with hardly any emphasis at all on a coming out of the world to rest in God. It's as if they see themselves as a philanthropic society but not as the mystical body of Christ. One of the things I deeply appreciate about the East is the maintaining the tradition of "apartness". I don't mean radical separatism but rather a real sense of coming out of the world in Christ. Take for instance the whole issue of the altar: the RC's chucked their altar rails; the East has the iconostasis, a sort of veil, opened by Christ in the Eucharist but still marking off the sacred space which is not of this world. That one liturgical aspect(among many) is very powerful in many ways and says a lot about the expectations the congregation has about what they are supposed to be doing as Christians.
K

"Or maybe that Byzantine spirituality tends to emphasise the idea that God is to be a part of our everyday lives while the Latin church tends toward a "fulfill your Sunday obligation and we'll see you next week" approach?"

I think you're onto something here. I cringe everytime I hear that "Sunday obligation" nonsense. Going to worship is only an obligation because I'm in love with the God who loves me and want to be around Him. This obligation talk makes it all feel like fulfilling a legal obligation that no one thinks is fair or enjoyable. What does worship have to do with obligation anyway?

Dan Lauffer

AMDG

THE SUNDAY OBLIGATION IS NOT NONSENSE. It is the minimum duty of a Christian. NO ONE says you HAVE to do only the minimum.

WE NEED OUR TRADITIONAL MASS BACK!!!!!

I hope the Universal Indult comes out this fall.

As I indicated on the other thread, I have to agree with LT in that the traditional liturgy plays a big role here in teaching the people to be a people of God first and totally inculturated in a non/anti-Christian pop culture second, but I'm not sure that's the whole story. On other thing the East has going for it is the closeness of the monastic influence. The presence of the monks, once literally now perhaps metaphorically, their nearness, helps to increase the awareness that God is a 24/7 way of life. I am deeply impressed by the Latin liturgy and by the many good Christians I have met in association with it, but I have to say that I agree there is among the Latins a sort of "contractualist" idea that I don't see among the Easterners where the life with God is more oganic. However, before I am taken as being confrontational, let me emphasize that the bulk of my experience is in regular RC New Order parishes, where they have neither the rigor and commitment I have seen among Latinist, nor the wholistic way-of-life approach I see among many Easterners. I can wholly sympathize with LT's post and I do pray that the indult comes soon. I think the Latin liturgy should not be withheld from the faithful and I honestly think that it has been.
K

I think you could apply most of your argument to more than 95 pct of RC parishes in the world today. But traditional Latin Mass parishes would be an almost entirely different subject. And I'll add that I've yet to meet anyone from a Latin Mass parish who's trying to be Protestant.

It is nonsense, as the word Obligation should never appear when we speak of God and Worship.

This is also something else I have noticed, it seems that the West loves to lay out what the minimums are, where as the East says what the maximum should be.

As for the Traditional Latin Mass, I think it is the same as going to a Divine Liturgy in a language I do not know..... I do not like it.

I am one for having the Liturgy in the vernacular.

I do not think a Universal Indult will be forth coming because then the Pope/Rome will be sticking their noses into the business of the local Bishops.

One more thing LatinTrad, I have noticed that you like to use Western Terminology, such as Sunday Obligation, here. These terms are not part of our Tradition and we do not use them, so please don't blow a gasket when we disagree with you or your use of them.


David

Dear Ken:

First of all, welcome. I hope you will find a home here for your thoughts.

I love your point about monastisism and the East. It is certainly a presence that pervades.

Example - alhtough the main figure in the "Ladder of Divine Ascent" is a monk, the work clearly has universal application.

Yours,

kl

LT,

Calm down. The "Sunday Obligation" language causes a problem because it in fact does give the message that it is all that is necessary for union with God. If that language doesn't limit you then good. Going to worship to fulfill an obligation seems to minimize the joy of union with God.

I too hope that the Latin Mass will be universally allowed if not mandated. I think it was a disgrace that it was ever removed. Yet, is it really the language that makes it full of reverence? The BC liturgy done in English seems just as reverential as when it is done in Old Slovanic. I think the problem runs deeper than that. But that is for the RC's to determine.

Dan Lauffer

`

Thanks to Krylos for the kind words. I am deeply nourished by the closeness of the monastic life to the regular liturgical life in the East. I also love the fact that the East has kept these men and women front and center as leader figures for us all. If you'll pardon a vulgar comparison, it's like the joy a kid gets out of playing sand lot baseball while thinking about/imitating his favorite major league player (it a positive way! no corking!). I feel that way about our spiritual fathers. Some RC's have told me that it's counter productive to lay that sort of a burden on the layity, but I have experienced it as a discipleship: learning from people far more spiritually advanced than am I and then profiting when I can apply such lessons to my life and family relationships.
When I wrote about the traditional liturgy and about the Latin Mass, I wasn't thinking so much about language. I was thinking about the "out of the world" nature of such liturgy. I once attended an "Anglican Use" RC parish where the liturgy was basically a traditional Latin Mass but done in English. It was beautiful, reverent, and spontaneously drew me more deeply into the Eucharist. I loved it and I have often thought that the RC bishops could just use that: the Latin Mass form and order but with the language in English (or any vernacular). I know that might not please all Latin Mass advocates, but it sure would be a start. At my BC parish, they only do the Slavonic once a month on a Saturday morning, and I don't think that is too little, given the number of people who go then. I definitely agree they should have access but it doesn't seem that the language is the main thing. It's the culture of the sacred contained in a given liturgy that is important. My $.02.
K

Dear Ken:

The culture of the sacred. I've never heard it put quite that way - but I love it. Mind if I use it?

You saw I was from Chicago and had to bring up the corking thing didn't you.

Isn't it punishment enough that the Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908?

Yours,

kl

One other thought. I once read somewhere (maybe Bulgakov? maybe not) that the Orthodox/Catholic split might be best handled by inaugurating inter-Communion first, rather than only after all issues had been settled. Dan suggested at the start of this thread that Byz's would have more common ground with EO than RC on issues of community. I think that is so and I personally wish that we could begin the healing process with inter-Communion rather than holding that out til the end of all talks. I think this is an especially important idea, given the tulmultuous climate the Church faces today and given the sad problems in the RC dioceses.
K

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Reading the posts on this thread, have irritated me. The reason for this irritation is the FALSE primise that the Byzantine Churches are the only Eastern Churches; they are not! They form the largest body within the Eastern Churches, but they are not the sole body within them. This goes back to what I have pointed out time and again, that both Old Rome and New Rome (along with her children) have kept many parts of their Imperialist pasts. They both seem to discount that which is not part of their tradition.

Quotes such as: ;
; and the like is very insulting to those of us who are legitimately Eastern but not Byzantine. We have many traditions that are just as Apostolic that are not shared by the Byzantines. We may be smaller, but just as the Byzantines have pointed out, we are LEGITIMATE Churches within the Apostolic Church, and should be treated as such.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon