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

Sharon spoke of overgeneralizing. I suppose that is always a risk whenever we speak in very general terms as is almost de rigour on forum such at this. However, I think I'll have to stand my ground on this one. After 10 years of heavy/intense involvement in a number of RC parishes (where no BC was available) I still say (statistically, if this will appease others) that the RCs have mostly lost the idea of a distinct brotherhood/sisterhood body of Christ in the parish. Now, in those parishes I found wonderful Christians who put my spiritual life to shame; I have also run across RC priests by whom I was blessed to receive spiritual counsel. I think the problem is not with RCs, and not even with the distinctives of RC theology (therefore it is not an organic problem). I think the problem is administrative and organizational. I also think the problem may lie in the RC emphasis on social activism, which in my reading is currently interpreted in a very particular way and could be interpreted differently with better results. Finding ethno-centric BCs is not hard to do, but I still stand by the idea that the spiritual resources BC parishes offer because of organization, size, maintaining particular traditions, etc. constitute important advantages. In some ways, I admit this is a bit of an esoteric argument b/c the whole Church is the Body and a person in love with Jesus will do well wherever placed in the body. However, day to day tactical advantages/disadvantages do play a role in my thinking.
K

Posted by Ray K:

"You might Dan.

All these churches belong to Jesus and I don't think He minds which one you finally settle into. He thinks He does a great job of running them all.
You can die to 'self' in any of them - or not.

-ray"

Dear Ray,

Thank you for another succinct statement of the reality that encompasses all of God's Churches.

As you say, "you can die to 'self' in any of them -or not."

We are different among and within the Churches. One way sometimes in the size of parishes, for example. But, in my experience, the largest parishes have multiple subsets beginning of course with family and including parish council, lectors, catechists, fair workers. They even accomodate our brothers and sisters who have a temperament which is quite reserved and stand offish.

Seems to me that the Spirit doesn't let the parish size or structure get in the way of what He is about.

Ken, I must simply say that your experience of the Roman Church is not mine. So, I must disagree with your perceptions that most Roman Catholics do not have a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood in the Body of Christ. I do agree with your statement that "In some ways, I admit this is a bit of an esoteric argument b/c the whole Church is the Body and a person in love with Jesus will do well wherever placed in the body. However, day to day tactical advantages/disadvantages do play a role in my thinking"

Dan, of course I disagree with your statement that:

"RC's have been trying to be Protestant for so long that some have forgotton that they are Catholic."

I think that that is a misperception and misrepresentation of the Roman Church's process of inculturation. The Church was and is responding to the direction of the Spirit as directed to do by several Popes and the Council. Of course, we have disagreed about this before.

I would hazzard the guess, formed by what I have learned here, that there is certainly some degree of truth in what your questions suggests. It stands to reason that someone formed in a small Christian community will feel more at home in another small Christian community. This is especially true when the two communities in question share a common liturgical and theological heritage.

I do think that in basics there is a unity among all Catholics. In non-essentials there is a wonderful diversity.

How goes the work of evangelization in your neck of the woods?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

I'd like to add something to this thread but first I want to apologize if I can't follow up on my post, because I'm travelling right now.

I think it's true that many RC's and BC's don't seem to find common ground, at least on the internet, but I also agree that there seems to be a lot of broad generalizations going around, and I hope my experience will be helpful.

Dan Lauffler wrote:
I think this is too broad, though I also think there might be some truth to the statement, in some places. I know that in my home parish, we are extremely conscious that we are not Protestant. Maybe because its a heavily Latino parish and there have been a lot of inroads into the Latino community by Protestant groups. I know this is also true when I visit relatives in Mexico, that people are very aware of the difference. That's why many homes will post a sign by the front door, saying that it's a Catholic home and discouraging proselytizers. I'm aware, though, that Dan might be reffering to a whole set of other issues, like liturgy etc.


KL wrote: Personally, I think this is also mistaken. I mean one of the first things that was drummed into my head in catechism class is that God is everywhere, and most of the preaching I can remember in my area has emphasized bringing God into our daily lives, especially with our parish's former pastor.

I certainly think that all the devotions and sacramentals of the Latin church foster the attitude that God ( and His Mother, the Angels, the Saints) envelopes our lives. You could argue that that's the stuff of a traditional spirtuality that is gone but I do think the idea of God as part of our daily lives is still very much alive among us Latins.

Or let me put it this way. I think this idea is alive among active, practicing Latins. If a Roman Catholic doesn't feel God is an active part of his or her life then that person is probably only a nominal Catholic who only goes to church for weddings or Easter. Maybe there are also nominal Eastern Catholics like that?

Where I think there might be some difference in approach, and this is just a generalization and a guess (could be completely wrong, really ) is the way some individuals approach their parish. I think a lot of people nowadays look to a parish for a sense of community and fellowship, and that's a good thing. And I think some Latins, in my observation, don't go to church for fellowship or community, they go to church for......church. They kind of overlap, but aren't quite the same thing. It's not that the parish doesn't form a community, it does and I think that's especially true in a parish like mine which is a mainly immigrant parish. And it doesn't mean most Latins, I suppose, aren't looking for fellowship. I'm sure most of us would like it but I wouldn't say its the most pressing issue, either. Or rather, I think a lot of Latins look at the whole issue of parish fellowship a bit differently, I suppose. Nonetheless, in all the (Latin) parishes I've lived in, there have been plenty of opportunities for fellowship and people are always being encouraged to get involved.

I think the size of a parish is a real issue. Its hard to form an intimate community when there are 4000 families that need baptisms, weddings and funerals. Also keep in mind that more people means more different personalities. More chances that some people might acutally enjoy anonymity in a parish. Frightening thought,I know, and maybe it's not the right way to be a Catholic but you can't force every single person to form a community the way you'd like them to so there you go.

Its also easier to make a community if everyone has a shared background. I guess that makes it easier, nowadays, to do so in an immigrant parish like mine is (mostly) or in the old national parishes of 80 years ago where everyone was Slovak or Italian. That's not necessarily true in many Latin parishes today, especially suburban ones.

As for obligations, well, personally I don't think they're such a bad thing. I know I need'em, or else I'd never get out of bed in the morning. (This is literally true) I also know they're a discipline, meant to foster love of God, just the commandments are pretty clear about do's, don'ts and never's, but they also, if followed, are meant to foster love (sorry if that sounds a bit pretentious) As for that "legalistic" "sunday obligation" attitude we are often accused of, I think of it more as a "paint-by-numbers" approach where a person sincerely tries to please God but the way they know best, wich is putting the right color in the right spot. Yes that's still not the best way, but it gives the person a little more credit and it sounds less dry. Let me tell you, there is nothing dry about weepy, happy, baroque, emotional Latino Roman Catholicism. At least that's the way it looks like from this pew, on the inside.

Sorry for rambling, and If my thoughts are a bit incoherent, but I think this is a worthwile topic. I think Sharon Mech put it best when she wrote that we can't seem to find common ground because we dont't know each other.

I'm sorry, Dan, but I find this to be an unfair and unjust statement. The majority of Catholics I know personally (and that's very different than the ones you meet on the internet) love their Church and basically view Protestants as heretics (even my teenage Catholic friends). I can think of only one exception. The RC Church is filled with orthodox Catholics who love their Faith and are not fooled by the devil that is Protestantism.

Logos Teen

I think one of the major differences revolves around Liturgy. Liturgy is the fundamental action of the community, and is the means by which the community of the Body of Christ is formed, that is, by communion in Spirit and in Truth. In the East, at least traditionally, Liturgy was precisely that, a work of the people. This is the case both of the Divine Liturgy, which is only to be celebrated (under normal conditions) with the community gathered, as well as the Office, again community worship. In the past, it was considered very important (in both East and West) for all Christians to gather in the daily Cathedral Office for morning and evening prayer every day. Then on Sunday and major feasts, there would also be Divine Liturgy/Mass.

In the West however, during the 11th to 16th centuries, this changed more and more. The Office became first so long that only the choir-monks could really celebrate it, and then so short that it became a private prayer book said contemplatively by each cleric on their own. In addition, Masses were now required to be said daily by every cleric, regardless of whether anyone was there (except maybe an acolyte). This clericalization and privatization of the Church's Liturgy, which has largely been avoided in most Eastern Churches. The clerical, private Liturgy resulted in the Liturgy ceasing to be a full expression of communion, except in a purely spiritual way.

It is interesting to note that the expression "Lift up your hearts" and its response "It is meet and right", found in most liturgies, is the remenant of the bishop/presbyter asking the people's permission to celebrate this Sacrifice on their behalf. In a sense "Shall we lift up our hearts?" "Yes, it is meet and right for us to do this here and now."

Whenever this understanding is lacking, and the Church's Liturgy is the "priest's", there can only be a disintergration of community.

By the way, many of these thoughts are not my own, but taken from Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J. Forgive all my ramblings!

To be fair, I think Vat II wanted to remedy this situation, it's just that centuries of this particular attitude aren't easily overturned. Also, the way they revised the Office didn't really help. It was revised with an eye toward the Latin Office post-15th century only, not taking into account pre-1400s Latin office nor that of the other Rites.

Hi Friends,

I'm jumping in late to this discussion.

Let me just say the when the Holy Father comes to town there are acres and acres of common ground beteween RCs and BCs!!

He is a huge symbol/person of unity in the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches.

I think our separated bretheren must be a bit envious of the Pope's ability to bring Catholics together.

Viva Juan Pablo II

Paul

paromer<<I think our separated bretheren must be a bit envious of the Pope's ability to bring Catholics together.>>

Paul, this particular one of the "separated bretheren [sic]" is not in the least bit envious. The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church and Faith hold together quite nicely without the Pope. But it would indeed be nice to see the Pope return to the Orthodox fold as "primus inter pares," the position now held by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Orthodoxy, though, don't you think, my separated brother? :-)

OrthodoxEast

Gosh, touchy much?

Or, as Will Farrell, formerl of SNL would say, "Watch your sass, Captain Sassypants!"

Logos Teen

Oh please, dear Orthodox East! You honestly think we'd want the sort of "unity" the EP provides? You think we don't vastly prefer our Pope with his God-given primacy of jurisdiction (as clearly enunciated in Scripture and the writings of the Fathers )?

Sorry to be frank, but -- thanks but no thanks, my friend. You can keep that unscriptural primacy of honor--with our compliments!

"First among equals"--right! We can see where that's gotten our Anglican brethren. :p

God bless,

The Happy Papist

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

Your caricature of Roman Catholicism is neither accurate nor fair nor just.

I get darned tired of these sorts of threads on this board. I rarely visit here, but when I do, I almost invariably encounter Latin-bashing --usually by people who haven't spent enough time in RC churches to truly have a clue.



Sorry...over it...

ZT who has been Catholic a long time and knows from personal experience how unfair these caricatures are

Beautiful, Steve! Thanks for making such wonderful points so irenically.

Yes, Catholicism is a Big Tent allowing for immense diversity--a richness, a multiplicity of spiritualities and cultural expressions one finds in NO other tradition. This is not a bad thing. Au contraire, it is one of Catholicism's strengths. Chacun a son gout (within the parameters of Church Teaching, of course). This is very freeing, IMHO!

Blessings,

ZT

Glory to Jesus Christ!

First of all, it would be a good idea to really ask the question: what is a Byzantine Catholic? Is it just a Catholic with a funny Mass, or an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome? Unfortuneatly, in my own situation, it's hard to tell in my BC parish who's who. Who's there to have a decent conservative Mass, and who's there to participate in the Divine Liturgy. I really do not want to be divisive. God bless those "Latinized" Byzantine Catholics who don't keep the fasts and don't really differentiate between the two particular churches. They are more pious and more holy than this poor sinner. But who the heck are we anyway?!! On this forum, I think most are more in the "Orthodox" side? But how about the rank and file in the pews? (Should our parishes even have pews?)
I left the Latin Church for something more profound both theologically and liturgically. And I have found it to a degree. But there is so much more that could be done in order to live our Orthodox roots. We talk so much about two lungs, East and West, vibrant and in communion, but autonomous. This has been the dream and the plan since the Council of Florence. But have we really lived it? I really don't think so. For cenuries, both churches have continued to ignore each other, or have demanded the other change to fit with its particular hang-ups. We are really only at the beginning, and the behavior and vision of the Byzantine Catholic Church is an important beginning. But from what I have seen, I am not optomistic. But with God, anything is possible.
So how different are we really? Do we try to keep the Eucharistic fasts and the fasts in general? Do we have our own theological and liturgical mind, or are we merely learning from the from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and with the expectation of the "one-hour liturgy"? Are we afraid to be too different and too strict as compared to the Latins? Are we committed to fight modernism and secularization in our own church and our own hearts?
I am planning a trip to Holy Resurrection Monastery in Newberry Springs, CA. this coming week for the Dormition Feast. I really do think that the monks there have a very good grasp and very good vision of what we are up against and what is to be done. Please pray for me as I discern a monastic vocation for myself in our church.

Sincerely in Christ,
Arturo

Arturo,please pray for us on you're trip to the monastery.I wish you the best on you're journey.I have noticed myself that alot of people in attendance in BC churches are westerners looking for a more conservative Liturgy.You are not alone in you're feelings for the direction of our church.In fact I believe that almost all of the EC's on this board share you're concerns.I think we should worry more about other things than pews though.I myself sin alot more than I do not and can't even talk about fasting except for the fact that I respect and revere those who do.Please inform us on you're visit to the monastery.

Michael,a good example of a sinner.

Zoe quoted:

I get darned tired of these sorts of threads on this board. I rarely visit here, but when I do, I almost invariably encounter Latin-bashing --usually by people who haven't spent enough time in RC churches to truly have a clue.


Zoe,I think my problem is that I have spent TOO MUCH time in RC churches.Just a reminder this is a byzantine forum so do not get offended so easily.