www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What kind of Catholic?

Father Deacon John:

I am speaking in terms of regular attending parish members. They could be silent members of any of the groups Cardinal Dulles, Serge or yourself describe. My point is they believe attending church is important and try to live generally moral lives, although they may dissent on certain issues like divorce and remarriage or birth control, and just go with the flow of parish leadership. I also think the many schisms of our own Church bear this out. As you know, in the beginning of the schisms in America many parishes flip-flopped on who they were in communion with based on the pastors decision. As long as their parish wasn't affected too much they didn't care who the pastor commemerated in the litanies.

I think the same lack of concern with the bigger issues is true for the majority of the Latin Church. Most people even if they don't like what is happening in their parish just ride it out expecting things to improve with the next pastor. Most people just want Sunday liturgy and aren't all that concerned with the issues the leadership, whatever their leanings, are promoting.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Dear Dan,

Please illuminate my ignorance.

I have presented what I know. I have labeled no one anything. I have asked questions. I am not involved in trickery. I resent that implication by my brother in Faith.

This is a Christian place. I am a Christian. Most of those with whom I post here are Christians. I do not believe that I am capable of judging my brothers in faith as less Christian than me. I know my own faults and do not know theirs. I am a grievous sinner. I have said as much.

I have addressed issues on two levels in this thread. First on the level of cognition and analysis. I posited that sometimes our cognitive processes and analysis result in a skewed perception of reality. I suggested that sometimes we can misuse mental constructs and draw inappropriate conclusions. I pointed out the dangers of using human constructs in understanding the Body of Christ. They can result in distorted mental constructs about what constitutes the Body of Christ.

I have spoken about the example set by the Pope in his dealing with the Lefeverists. I have noted that his is an example of disciplined long suffering love. I believe that it sets an example of Christian Charity in dire circumstances which resulted in the recognition of self removal of a sons of the Chruch from the Church. I pointed out the seriousness and sadness of such events.

I noted the situations in which a person is separated from the body of the Chruch. I pointed out that members of groups identified on the basis of Dulles's categories have not been self-separated nor separated from the body of Christ involuntarily by proper authority. By using his categories we can gain insight into the beauty of the diversity that is a hallmark of the Latin Church.

I said straight out that I cannot understand how someone who is not that proper authority can label someone as heterodox. I suggested that some posters appear to have a distorted picture of the Latin Church based on the use of the same mental constructs. That is my perception based on reading of some posters' postings. When that happens I attempt to address the distortion.

At no point have I questioned someone's faith or implied that they were some how less Christian than I am. I am sorry that you have chosen to infer that I did so.

I do resent the implication that I am involved in the use of trickery in this discussion.

Learning and Instruction is an area of expertise as is theology. I do not play tricks. The issues are serious and so am I. I work hard to maintain the language of love in my posting and to treat others with respect.

I gather that you are unhappy because you are reading into my statement something that is not there.

I am personally a mixture of all of the categories that are labeled traditionalist, liberal, neo conservative, and radical evangelical. I believe that in real life there are many like me and few who are totally one or another in orientation.

Misrepresentation of what I am saying and doing is not something that I appreciate. I believe that your mental construct in this regard is skewed by issues that I do not know.

So, shine light in my darkness, please. Deconstruct my false dichotomy and correct my distorted mental construct about what you are doing.

Fraternally,

Steve

JOY!

Everyone:

I think I need to further elucidate Cardinal Dulles theory. He is not choosing one type of Catholic as the ideal. Nor is he labelling other types of Catholics as less than ideal. His purpose is purely pastoral. He wishes to recognize influences within the church that need to be recognized. If they are not, over time, some of the people, part of the church, will become alienated and may be excluded. It is unfortunate he used the titles he did because they are emotionally charged words (traditionalist, neo-conservative, liberal, radical, evangelical) in our country.

I think he would agree with everyone on this thread. To be fair to him, let me try to further elaborate:

Before elucidating his four "faces" he first, refers to a theory highlighted by James Davison Hunter in his book Culture Wars who maintained that there was a cleavage between two major groups, the one tending toward orthodoxy and the other toward progressivism. Definitions:

Orthodox-Anyone who understands human life to be ordered in relation to a transcendent authority.

Progressive-Anyone who is content to let ideas and norms of conduct to be shaped by the quest for happiness and by individual or corporate self-interest.

Orthodox seek to maintain the norms; the progressives accomodate to the prevailing thought of the times.

Dulles maintains that this was vastly too simplistic and did not do justice to the current Catholic experience. Most Catholics would admit to elements of both.

In trying to identify these faces of American Catholicism he was attempting to define our "culture." Furthermore, he defines "culture" as a "system of meanings, historically transmitted, embodied in symbols, and instilled in new members of the group so that they are inclined to think, judge, and act in characteristic ways." His purpose was not to separate American Catholicism from the Universal Catholic Church but rather to begin to assess our unique "local" experience within the great body of the Church. Americans will have a way of understanding and celebrating their Catholicism that is different (not better or worse) than Latin Americans, Chinese, Africans, and so on. I believe the same is true for Byzantine Catholics in this country who have a different perception (not better or worse) of their church and customs than their old country counterparts. Furthermore, I ponder if their perception is different than their Roman Catholic counterparts, hence, the purpose of this thread.

In attempt to avoid information overload, I will end this reply here. You deserve a break.

John

While intially I thought that the potential strengths and pitfalls of each of Dulles categories were self-evident, I think I better elucidate them.

Type of Catholic
_________________________________________________
Type-*********Strengths**********Weakness

Tradition-***well-informed******past-oriented
*************committed**********ghetto-mentality
*************confident**********not ecumenical
*************articulate*********double-living

Neocons-*****bridge-building****too capitalistic
*************convert society****too private
***************in Church's******individual first
****************image

Liberal******pro-laity**********promotes dissent
***************involvement******promotes partisan
*************decentralize*********advocacy
****************power***********minimizes sense of
**********************************sacred

Radicalism***total commit-******reluctant to
***************ment***************recognize own
*************voluntary**************faults
***************poverty************arrogate ************************************prophetic
*************non-violence***********inspiration ************************************to themselves

As previously noted, these various schools of thought are in conflict with each other. He further states that the current post-Vatican II method of dealing with these forces is to be accomodationist. "It is easier to tell people only what they seem prepared to hear. But in the long run, that policy would come into collision with the Church's mission to issue a clear call for conversion."

He laments that it would be impossible to "impose a single strategy on all Catholics in all situations" and he ends with a plea for openness. "It is scandalous for Catholics (and Orthodox-editorial addition) to impugn one another's motives and integrity....We should assume that other Catholics are sincere believers, seeking to serve God and the Church. It may be that the liberal or traditionalist, the neoconservative or the radical to whose views I am most vigorously opposed may have the very word that God intends for me here and now. We must all keep our ears open, therefore, and be slow to judge."

Ok, by now your are probably thinking, John, what's the point? Why even initiate this thread? Well, these are my fundamental tenets:

1) There is a fundamental character to the Catholic experience.

2) There is a fundamental character to the American experience.

3) There is a fundamental character to the Eastern experience.

4) However, there is not a fundamental character or unity to the American Catholic experience or the American Eastern Catholic experience.

5) It is our fundamental responsibility to evangelize the nations.

6) Evangelization begins with ourselves. Conversion occurs first in each individual heart.

7) In order to achieve this conversion, we must first know ourselves.

So:

a) As an American Eastern Catholic who am I? Who are we?

b) How can I understand my fellow American, Catholic, Eastern Christian, Christian?

c) How am I one with my fellow American, Catholic, Eastern Christian, Christian?

d) How am I one with my non-Christian neighbor?

e) How are we (all of us) Church?


I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still stuck on: Who am I?

John

P.S. And you thought it would be easy being Bishop!

P.P.S. Please forgive the formatting problems above. It's the best I could do.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Petrus ]

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Petrus ]

I believe the same is true for Byzantine Catholics in this country who have a different perception (not better or worse) of their church and customs than their old country counterparts.

Certainly. The immigrant experience, learning to use America's democratic ways in order to survive*, is different from the Old Country experience with more rigid classes and a state-favored Church. These are the issues it seems John Courtney Murray (and Vatican II) was trying to come to terms with. Christians, Catholics (Cathodox?), can approach religious liberty in two ways: 1) Old Country, error-has-no-rights** or 2) religious freedom is charitable and actually good for the Church in the long run because it gives her the freedom to flourish and gives people the chance to choose truth freely (the marketplace of ideas).

Capitalism may sound like a false gospel of selfishness but the thing is, it works. So, go, free market, go! Trade with all, but foreign entanglements with none. (George Washington)

The strengths enumerated under "Liberal' can be seen in Orthodoxy and in orthodox Roman lay movements. No need to chuck the faith and adopt Amchurch's favorite heresies.

*Including unionizing and, rightly or wrongly, identifying with the New Deal Democratic Party (destructive to the American republic in the long run, ironically undermining the English Enlightenment freedom that made America so appealing and that initially gave the immigrant a chance to "make it' ). Fourth of July rhetoric notwithstanding, however, it seems most Ruthenians came here because of promises (made by steel-company recruiters) of money.

**As distasteful as this sounds to Americans, Byzantine symphonia between Church and state was like this, and monarchy is a natural, familial model of government, something people instinctively want and understand better than an artificial construct like a republic.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

He further states that the current post-Vatican II method of dealing with these forces is to be accommodationist.

Big mistake. One that laid waste to much of the RCC in the US.

"It is scandalous for Catholics (and Orthodox-editorial addition) to impugn one another's motives and integrity....We should assume that other Catholics are sincere believers, seeking to serve God and the Church. It may be that the liberal or traditionalist, the neoconservative or the radical to whose views I am most vigorously opposed may have the very word that God intends for me here and now. We must all keep our ears open, therefore, and be slow to judge."

Horse puckey, Your Eminence. The Amchurch quislings should have been out on their butts 30 years ago.

I count among people I love those who are not in the Church and are honest about that. Some are even pro-abortion. Some follow New Age gurus, yoga, Jungian analysis, etc. I am moved by George Harrison's songs on All Things Must Pass, even though he worshipped Krishna and later made The Life of Brian. So sure, I can be "open-minded', open to God wherever He may speak, but it is not charitable to let people pass off error as the faith. The Fathers (St Nicholas slugging Arius, St Athanasius contra mundum) and the councils ("whoever denies what the Orthodox Catholic Church piously maintains, ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA!' ) surely didn't think so.

a) As an American Eastern Catholic who am I? Who are we?

b) How can I understand my fellow American, Catholic, Eastern Christian, Christian?

c) How am I one with my fellow American, Catholic, Eastern Christian, Christian?

That seems to be a big issue among Byzantine Catholics, particularly here where the Orthodox group is concentrated and articulate. At the most Orthodox Ruthenian Catholic church I've ever seen, even there the congregation didn't agree among themselves on identity. Some identified with the Orthodox; some didn't. Some were basically refugee Romans understandably taking cover and probably saw their temporary quarters as a "rite' of the RCC. Reminds me of the contradictoriness of Anglicanism, where thoroughgoing Protestants were in communion with people who functionally were Roman Catholics.

d) How am I one with my non-Christian neighbor?

Common humanity, made in God's image, and therefore charity.

e) How are we (all of us) Church?

One Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one Eucharist, one dogma, one communion of bishops. The Church is one; her mysteries are one.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Yet again, the issue, ISTM, that distinguishes some of the responses in this thread is the conception of what "love" means and how it is to be displayed. One group takes a softer, tolerant approach, and the other takes a tougher, less accomodating approach -- but both approaches, ISTM, if taken in the proper 'spirit', are examples of love.

Some would seek to build bridges with the so-called 'AmChurch', or 'CTA' group within the RCC, as an act of humble, charitable love. Others would seek to cut these folks off, literally, as an act of stern, but real, love -- under the theory that it is better for these not to be deceived (and to deceive) than to allow that situation to continue. Obviously, which one of these groups one falls into is significantly dependent on what one, personally, believes that the Church should look like, and perhaps where ones own personal sympathies lie. But ISTM that it is undharitable in the extreme for one set to denigrate the other, or tax it with sins against charity, when in fact there is more than one way to show love to one's fellow Christians -- particularly to those who may be going astray.

Eccl. is telling in this -- there is a time and a place for all things. Even righteous anger -- as we see in Gospels when Christ Himself 'lost his cool' with the temple merchants -- and, of course, committed no sin at all in so losing his cool. That, too, was an act of love (gasp!) -- a tougher kind of love than He showed at other times, but yet still love. There is a time to be soft, and there is a time to be not so soft, and there is a time to be tough. All of these are acts of love -- each appropriate to the circumstance.

Sometimes I wonder if those who always gravitate towards the softer approach are trying to be more tolerant than Christ Himself was when He walked among us. To my view, Christ was open to everyone -- but really for the purpose of revealing His message, and then moving on. He didn't continue to reach out to those who opted to persist in their sin and rejection of Him -- but simply moved on.

Similarly, sometimes I wonder if those who opt for the tougher approach are also forgetting that Christ, more often than not, *did* in fact take the softer approach -- at least at first. It seems that more discernment is required to determine what the best approach may be in each case -- and certainly our own personalities and personal affinities will weigh significantly on that discernment process.

========

"c) How am I one with my fellow American, Catholic, Eastern Christian, Christian?"

I would think that from the EC perspective, the critical bond would be baptism and faith in Christ.

"d) How am I one with my non-Christian neighbor?"

The Fathers point out that we are all united in a mysterious way by sharing the same nature. That is a fundamental ontological category that we share with all humanity, whether Christian or not, and it forms the basis of how we, as Christians, perceive the human person. We are one, by created nature, with all of humanity, and yet are becoming one with uncreated nature in the Church.

"e) How are we (all of us) Church?"

'Church' is simply the community of Christ gathered in one place around the table of the Eucharist, presided by a grace-filled Bishop, and in union with all of the other local churches in each particular place. It is nothing more and nothing less than the local manifestation of the worldwide universal church - and therefore it is the worldwide universal church manifest in a particular place. That presupposes commonality of dogma, apostolic succession and orders, and communion among local churches.

The Church in America is 'Church' insofar as it fulfills its obligation to 'be the Church' in a particular place, yet in communion with the other local churches throughout the world. It *must* be derivative, to a significant degree, of local culture, and yet not so much so as to dilute that commonality with the other local churches that enables it to be a particular manifestation of the universal church. It is an exceedingly thorny issue of how to discern between that which must be retained and that which ought to be adapted to local circumstances -- so difficult, in fact, that it hasn't been really done successfully in North America yet by either the Orthodox or the Catholics. Part of the problem here is that North America is largely Protestant Christian -- in *culture*, even in this largely secular age. That adds a layer of complexity that the Church didn't really face when evangelizing the Aztecs or the Aleuts. In pagan cultural systems, it was easier for the Church to drive much of paganism underground as being antithetical to the new faith (while retaining some folk elements that, in the judgment of the Church, were harmless or even helpful). When coming to terms with an established American Protestant cultural system, it is much harder to discern what, in that, is useful for the Church (if any), what is harmful for the Church (if any), what should be adopted, what should not, what should be imported from the Old Country (if anything).

As Catho-Dox Christians in North America have become increasingly assimilated into North American society, very strong opinions have developed on all of these questions -- either in favor of more assimilation or adoption of the North American protestant culture, or against that. These opinions tend to be out there even when they are not strongly expressed, in my experience -- they are a part of the experience of living in a Church that is out of synch to some degree with the culture in which one lives. That 'out-of-sync' experience is much more present among Orthodox than among many contemporary RCs, in my experience, particularly in light of the direction that the American RCC has taken in the last 30 years -- but there are still many within the RCC who are not happy with that direction and identify with a church that is less obviously 'American' in character. And while the Orthodox have not changed the liturgical rite much (other than vernacularizing it), various elements of the local Christian culture crept in gradually without a lot of thought while at the same time significant numbers of Orthodox offspring simply leave Orthodoxy altogether for more 'American' style churches (or no church) due to the cultural issue. The Irish and, to a lesser extent, Italian assimilationists largely won the day in the RCC in the past 30 years, whereas in Orthodoxy that kind of assimilation (beyond the more external signs like pews, organs, elected parish councils, etc.) was not possible, resulting in something of a drain from the Church.

So, it's a legitimate question. What does it mean to be a Catho-Dox American? What can we take from the local Protestant Christian culture to make us truly the local appearance of the Church universal (and not merely the local appearance of the Greek Orthodox Church) while not becoming captive to that North American protestant culture (as has sadly been the case in a significant number of American RCC communities)?

Brendan

Several late in game points.

Clearly, each of the four models offers some point that are good and valid and some that are to be rejected. The pastoral issues might be the "partisans" (those who would see all virtue in one or all vice in one of these models) vs. the "catholics", in multiple senses of that term.

The fifth catagory, the "Habituals", mgiht also be called the "communitarians". They value the experience of lived Christian community. Fro them the center of faith is the community of people they worship with and share Eucharist with.

I find it hard to believe the traditionalist represent a silent majority, ifnothign else based onthe underutilization of Catholic schools.

I am also shocked at the relative ignorance of our own Ruthenian American history. let's see,
Other than the women's issue -- and if we replace that with a related issue of the day the whole works -- this almost exactly describe the struggle in our community which lead to the schism into the now OCA and the CROGCC. In fact, Greek Catholics are the only U.S. Catholics that still have some parishes under the trusteeship system.

All in all, I think Dr. John and Steve have enlightened us on this.

Kurt

A few additional thoughts:

1) Cardinal Dulles is saying that all four of these peoples are presently Orthodox Catholic and definitely within the Church.

2) However, they each have a different vision for shaping the future Church. If these "faces" or forces are not recognized, if the Church does not rectify these desparate visons, the Church will continue to become splintered.

3) The Post-Vatican II Church seeks to end the divisions and to reunite the faithful. It recognizes our fundamental calling to unity.

4) And on a different note, perhaps the difficulty we have with his model is that it really (in my opinion) does not speak to the Eastern experience. The bulk of us would probably fall under his category of Traditionalist. "The Back to the East" (aka Holistic-see previous entries) movement, "The Hybridizer" (aka Experiential-see previous entries) movememnt, the "Habitual" (aka Communitarians) would all fit into this category. (Are there any other of us folk that I am missing?)

5) Liberal Catholicism and Neo-conservatism (again in my opinion) can be found only as individual prerogatives. One may adhere to these classic American traits in one's secular life, but we don't seem to expect these to be components of our Church or parish. Married priesthood is preferred because it is traditional; not because of the priest shortage. Democratic structures seem unnecessary since our parishes are small. Everyone feels comfortable in giving the pastor a piece of their mind. The Bishops are even more visible and some are even approachable. Our Churches feel local; there is no need to decentralize them. There is also that piece described by Dr John above, but I can't seem to find a way to represent it conceptually.

6) Or is it that, as Kurt suggests, all of the "fighters" simply switch to Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant denominations.

Just more food for thought.

John

1) Cardinal Dulles is saying that all four of these peoples are presently Orthodox Catholic and definitely within the Church.

And in the case of 3), so-called "Liberal Catholicism', he is wrong.

Throw it into the dialectic, the compromise, he seems to want, based on your latest posting, and you get the Anglican Communion, where ultimately the truth is denied and orthodoxy is tolerated as an opinion as long as you play the relativist game.

Not to worry, though, since 3)'s members are fading away.

http://oldworldrus.com

I agree 100% with Serge. The Liberal Catholicism described by Dulles, while I am not saying is theologically wrong, would be a pastoral disaster. Since Serge introduced our shared opinion, I assume I can be blunt about it, while still holding to my ecumencial characture.

Anglicanism is one example, American Orthodoxy is another. Liberal Catholicism is exactly what we Ruthenians stood against when our co-religionists were leaving for the Russian Metropolia or the CROGCC.

In the American Orthodox churches today you have legal names such as "The Hellenic Community of [name of town]", legally incorporated seperately from the diocese or national church. You have Boards of Trustees elected by dues paying members of the voluntary association which then either hire the priest or largely determine his compensation. Some jurisdictions have diocesan councils with various names that have a formal role in selecting or enthroning bishops and archbishops, and many of the other aspects of Dulles' description of liberal Catholic desires for church governance.

This practice has been the source of great corruption in Orthodoxy. I believe it is the major factor in why Catholicism has so deeply developed a social theology and (a topic for a different discusion) been extremely effective at communicating her social teachings to her American faithful. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, with its liberal lay governance, has often turned over control of its parish life to the social and economic elites of the particular community. You often do not hear Orthodox priests standing up for Christian social teachings because the wealthy of the parish would have him out of work before nightfall.

The events of the split in our church in America were very painful, but I feel the loyal Catholics who rejected trusteeship saved us from the liberal catholic model followed by today's Eastern Orthodox.

K.

Kurt,
You are speaking to me in abstract terms about social teachings. What is this "liberal lay goverance" that you are referring to? Orthodox priests standing up for Christian social teachings or else there out of job? What the hell are you talking about? Are talking about being against abortions, homosexuality, drugs, etc and that Orthodoxy isn't a strong measure? Is it that the Christian social values of liberalism, feminism and/or relativism? I don't know where you been but I have met many Orthodox priests that would reject your assessment of them of being manipulated by a particular group of elites. Lay participation is important in the life of the Church in conjunction with the priest. They work in synergy. I'm sure there have been conflicts between the two but nothing that I see that is epidemic. That's the nature of the beast.

Too bad the filter option only works for private messages and not for postings.

I agree trusteeship, etc., has its down side — in America it can degenerate into a Protestantization.

But it's obvious my objection to Amchurch — the repetition of Protestantism's history — is theological and not merely "pastoral'.

Kurt is really saying, "Amchurch is fine, but the peasants in our churches aren't ready for that sort of thing.' Will the Ruthenian Catholics on this forum take this guff?

Also, one of the pluses of lay control where appropriate is NOBODY is going to come into an Orthodox church and try to "Novusize' it. The староста and some of the brawnier men would toss the offender out on his ягодицы. Does Kurt perhaps long for "Latin-like' tighter control so his liberal agendas can be rammed down Easterns' throats when he deems them "pastorally' ready for them?

Brilliant, Kurt. A masterful diss disguised as agreement. Rhetorically admirable. Though why waste 300 words when all you had to do was anchor a graphic of a hand to flip me* the bird?

http://oldworldrus.com

*And every Ruthenian whose family are now Orthodox, like some on this forum.

"They work in synergy."


RumO,

Synergy is a fiction for those espousing class-warfare mentality. Black-white; us-them; rich-poor; conservative-liberal; homos-heteros; presbyteros-laos; men-women; man-Holy Spirit. "Synergy" or "harmony" among people is an impossiblity in such an ideology. It is a total disbelief that cooperation is a possibility in anything. The only thing missing in this ying-yang is orthodox-heterodox.

I would add one more group of Catholics to Petrus's list: the totally confused. This group is the one searching for an identity, a topic that came up on this forum numerous times. The ying-yang here is Catholic-Orthodox. This hybridism is unique to the Eastern Catholicism.

It seems you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Only a heretic would claim that synergy is fiction and the Holy Spirit is a liar!