www.byzcath.org Forums Byzantine Renewell

Hello all I'm pretty new here and have been reading through the posts and I think I have an idea about the revitilization of the eastern churchs. The Eastern Churchs have the sort of spiritualism that most young people (like myself) are drawn to. I grew up Methodist and wandered into Buddhism before becoming a Roman Catholic. Since moving to Florida I have found a excellent Byzantine Church and I am amazed at the fact that Catholics don't know Eastern Catholics exist. Alot of Eastern rite Catholics are putting the blame on Rome for surpressing there traditions for so long, and I'm embaressed that the U.S. Bishops followed that policy, but thats over now. I think we should look to the far East, and how Buddhism and Hinduism has brought people to there faiths by demonstrating there spiritual practices in action. Eastern Catholics have a rich tradition that puts there faith into concrete action, the fact that it looks different than western Christianity will then draw people. Just an idea.


Chris

Chris,

I go to Saint Nicholas in Orlando every now and then. Is that where you go?

Ray

Yea I work at a Church in Mount Dora but I have been going to Cathecism classes with Father Sal at St. Nicholis

cmj05,

Welcome. You are certainly on the right track. One position that was stated in several different ways at Whiting relates to this. For Byzantine renewal and evangelization to happen it must be taken seriously. This means that first the Byzantine Catholics themselves must take it seriously. If we don't look, sound, smell, pray, sing, build, etc. like Byzantine's we aren't renewed and we're not likely to attract the people God has placed us here to attract. Some have put it this way: "If the Temple doesn't look Byzantine tear it down and build one that does. If the liturgy isn't Byzantine stop using whatever it is you are using and offer an authentic liturgy."

For most people that is a refreshing perspective. For some it produced fear and dread.

CDL

Cm,

Perhaps a word about Buddhism and Hinduism is in order. I'm not sure if you are equating Buddhist and Hindu teaching with the Church or not or if you were simply saying that we should be as authentic to our own spirituality as they seemingly are to theirs.

Let's take the former first. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. They do not take God into account for anything. The idea of a God or of gods is considered an illusion from which we must free ourselves. That is certainly not what we are about. We love the Most Holy Trinity. For us to turn our backs upon the Trinity and to expect that betrayal to somehow make us better is really unrealistic. It is the "Trinity that saves us." Why would we ever deny that?

Hinduism believes in a "God" of sorts. This "God" is not the God of Jesus Christ. This "God" is not a God at all in any way that we think of God. Brahma, Purusha, the All is simply the Universal Soul. The only reality. Everything else is an illusion. The material world is an illusion. Our bodies are an illusion. The resurrected body in Christianity is simply nonsensicle to the Hindu philosophy.

In other words, if you are suggesting that Christianity and these far Eastern religions have much of anything in commmon on the doctrinal level you are mistaken.

To the second option: Can we learn from the spiritual practices of these religions? I.e., can their authentic spiritual practices inspire us to be more authentic? I would give this a qualified "Yes". Authenticity is always a good thing and there is plenty of room for improvement. However, I've taught Comparative religions for several years. The comparisons must be between like matter. There are Hindus and then there are Hindus. There are as millions of ways to be a good Hindu. Hinduism ranges from "Kama Sutra" which we would condemn to some of the most sublime expressions of spirituality the world has ever seen. With which practice are we comparing. Buddhism officially rejects the idea of gods or God. Yet there are proper Buddhists who worship all sorts of gods and goddesses.

Be careful not to romanticize what Buddhism and what Hinduism means.

Our real focus must be to look deeply into what it means to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and live that life with all of the love and passion we have.

CDL

You are correct of course that we musn't say that these two religions are correct. My point is that when I looked to the far east it was because they offered a path to be taken. They teach people a method that helps them in the everyday world. Well if that is true of these thestic religions how much more so is it within the Church? We tell people that we contain the truth, and that I don't think will lead people to us. Instead we need to show people that truth in action. Talking about this brings back an old debate I had with a Priest friend of mine. He believes that if you work hard than people will notice and come. I agree partially but being a Gen Xer I also believe that we need to package ourselves to show what living the faith means. I think that if the east shows off it's goods young people will at least take notice. Again I was not equating our faith with Buddhism or Hinduism I just think they outreach in a way that the Eastern Christian can use to their advantage.

Cm,

I think I understand what you are saying and it is of course true that when we aren't authentic we hide our light under a bushel.

But I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence.

"Well if that is true of these thestic religions how much more so is it within the Church?"

Did you simply misspell "theIstic" or is "thestic" a word of which I'm unfamiliar? BTW Neither Buddhism or Hinduism is a "Theistic" religion. Buddhism does not believe in God and Hindu's use the word "God" in a rather different way than we do. The word "Theism" really does not apply to either.

CDL

My spelling is just horrible thats all

Welcome to the forum cmj05.

What we need as Byzantines is an integrated communications plan to harness the power of media relations, the new technologies (blogs, podcasts, wikis and the web) radio and TV to let people know we exist.

The Western Lung of the Church has all of these tools to touch prospective Christians. In turn, we offer the Latins and the universal Church our own unique treasures.

Our fundamental problem is fear. After we conquer our fears with plenty of prayer, fasting and almsgiving then we can work to build awareness of our existence in a world that needs it in a real way.

I wonder how many folks wouldn't have been drawn from Christianity to the far-eastern religions -- if they had known that we exist.

In Christ,

John

Dan,

I would love to take your course on comparative religions! (Perhaps that could be a BEMA teaching series? ;-) ) Due to my recent trips to Japan, I have been reading much on Zen Buddhism, including a book by a former Jesuit priest turned Zen master. (He makes some interesting points, but I think he tends to confuse natural and supernatural light.) My interest in Zen is purely cultural, since it seems to permeate much of Japanese culture, but I have to say that the personal simplicity and emphasis on zazen (meditation) has a certain appeal to us busy moderns and post-moderns.

I have often wondered about the potential parallels between the koan tradition of Zen and concept of paradox in the Gospel (Christ became poor so that we might become rich; we must die to ourselves to live in Christ, etc etc. St. Ephrem's theological poetry is incomparably rich in such paradox.)Many of the Zen koans that I have seen are not paradoxical so much as contradictory, but then again I do not exist in that milieu. As a Christian, I imagine that it could be very fruitful to develop a list of Christian paradoxes based on Scripture and the Fathers as seeds of meditation.

Regarding parallels with other religions, I was reading a book sometime back about a dialog between the Sufi tradition and the Orthodox East. (Since Islam basically stole almost everything good within it from the Byzantines, there are many interesting opportunities for dialog.) In it, Bishop Kallistos Ware describes the concept of a frame and a picture. The frame symbolizes the many practices shared by religions of all sorts (use of prayer beads, repetition in prayer, regular times of prayer and fasting, certain postures, meditation, etc etc). But the frame exists to serve the image and it is the image that differentiates one framed picture from another. We can look across the spectrum of religions and see many parallel practices - many similar "frames", but Christianity alone bears the icon of the God-Man to the world. Some get confused by the similarities and fall into a form of syncretism. But similarity does not mean sameness, and that the essence of Bishop Kallistos' point, which I think is a brilliant one.

A few interesting books on this topic that may be of interest are:

- Salvation of the Nations by Jean Danielou
- The Advent of Salvation by Jean Danielou
- Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Ratzinger
- The Great Religions ed. by Jean Danielou

Any other titles?

Many Years,

Gordo

I agree very much with this statement.

Now, to take it to the next level: What is the market?

Put another way: If we are going to market Eastern Catholicism for its spiritual strengths, what is the market for those strengths?

After all, a *lot* of religious and pseudo-religious groups claim to be "spiritual" --the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) Taoism, etc.) and the New Age groups and more. Also, there are Christian groups which emphasize their spiritual focus: the Pentecostals and the orthodox, for example. How does Eastern Catholicism distinguish itself from other spiritually focused religions, Christian as well as non-Christian?

Marketing, as I heard someone once say, involves the four "P's. They are Product, Price, Placement and Promotion.

Well, we have the "Product" -- Eastern Catholic Christianity.

We have the "Price" -- belief in the Gospel, keeping the commandments, living and participating in the Eastern Catholic Tradition.

And, "Promotion" is the overall goal.

Hence, it seems to me that the problem is in "Placement." And, it seems that "Promotion" of Eastern Catholicism won't be very effective till its figures out it "Placement" more in respect to other spiritually focused religions.

For a regular retail product in the store, "Placement" means distinguishing a product from its competitors in an appealing, compelling way.

For Eastern Catholicism, it seems that "Placement" means distinguishing itself from its competitors --especially Orthodoxy-- in an appealing and compelling way.

I realize that some people will not appreciate or approve of comparing evangelizing to marketing. I know that the two are different. But, I think the two things --evangelizing and marketing-- are sufficiently similar that the latter can learn a few things from the former. And the simple fact is: it *is* a marketplace of ideas out there. Hence, in my opinion, Eastern Catholicism must figure out a way to position itself that distinguishes itself from its competitors --especially Orthodoxy-- in an appealing and compelling way.

I could say more, but I will hold back for now and see what others might have to say.

-- John

I don't know how to effectively distinguish ourselves from the Orthodox especially since we really don't want to be distinguished from the Orthodox, except in the area of communion with Rome. Nevertheless, there are two ways to determine which Churches among us are doing good jobs of placement.

We could go visit them and conduct a "quality" inventory. This is the best way. I used to be on a commission to do just that when I was a Methodist pastor. National training was involved. The inventory had to be done with great sensitivity. It was done not simply to find out what was wrong but more importantly to discover the Churches' strengths so that the congregations could emphasise their strengths. In the process we also noted some things that would need changing and wo we pointed Churches to ways of overcoming or deemphasising their limitations. We are in the process of creating a model for such a group right now as a result of the St. Mary's meeting in Whiting in August. Stay tuned.

A second and quick way is to look at the websites of our Churches. If they have pictures see if their temples are really Eastern or if they are just Italianesque or Latin. I.e., is the Church placing themselves as an Eastern Church or simply hiding within the Roman Catholic tradition.

I believe God has a purpose for our Church. Will we pursue it?

CDL

I think it makes perfect sense. This is the discipline you must employ to approach the problem. What is the problem? The Great Commission, more than anything else.

It's not about us actually, my church vs your church or my team vs your team (National League vs American League, etc). If the church does not live up to it's calling to bring the people (or at least some) to Christ, it has lost it's reason to exist.

I don't think distinguishing the BC from Orthodoxy is the answer, it is more like the problem. It probably has a lot to do with why the church is shrinking because that differentiation has been practically rock solid policy in the BC for generations.

I have run into a great many Orthodox who are former Roman Catholics, attracted by the spirituality first, and amply reinforced by the powerful expression of the liturgy.

Many of these converts (and I really mean most, probably 9 out of 10 around Chicago) never even heard about the Byzantine Catholics at all, they are astounded. Just the mention of it makes their faces scrunch up in a funny way and their eyes roll, you can see that they cannot fathom the concept! Those who are familiar may be converts from the BC but usually are just former RC who learn about 'Uniates' (I use the term with affection) after becoming Orthodox.

Does it make any sense that the first thing an RC (or anyone else) learns about the BC is through the Orthodox church?

Let's face it, when westerners look to eastern Christian spirituality they identify that with Orthodox Christianity, and that is what they want, not some third option. They want the Faith of your predecessors (or ancestors) and if they do not find it in you they will move on. You can use code words for it (the "True Faith" or whatever), but your spirituality and theology are still integral to Orthodoxy and you are joined at the hip with Orthodox Catholics "not in communion" with Rome. You share too much and even your best teaching materials and literature often comes from Orthodox sources.

Which brings me to my third comment: Replenishment of numbers. I read somewhere (probably Christianity Today magazine) that a healthy congregation needs to add about 6% of it's current membership each year to make up for losses from: the people moving away, intertradition marriages, those losing faith or converting out, the inevitable transition to 'Gods Holy Light' (if your parish is doing more Parastas lately than Chrismations that's a bad sign). I might add that neighborhood changes also sadly impact many congregations, although ideally it should'nt, it should be viewed as an opportunity to evangelize.

Keeping in mind this 6% figure, this means that a congregation of 200 solid regular adult supporting members needs to bring in a minimum of 12 new similar types just to stay even every year! For a small congregation that is a huge demand to put on those typical "sit on your butt one hour every Sunday, then wax the car" parishioners, they may just not be up to it. That means they have to invite coworkers to church, talk about religion to the neighbors, volunteer at the community booth for SummerFest, besides helping out at the pyrohy dinners, bingo and pancake breakfasts.

Then you have this great unspoken reality that has to be dealt with eventually: Some of the new members will eventually 'dox and there is little you can do about it. So one might as well make an allowance for that in your goals: let's say just for arguments sake that 10% of the new members will eventually become Orthodox (or possibly go to the Latin church ), so instead of 6% added each year you need about 7.2% roughly to allow for 'leakage'. Make that 13 or 14 new adult members per year. If your parish has 400 adults in it and you want it to stay that way you should bring in 26 to 28 every year. If you want real growth, you will have to outpace these figures.

This is what I believe you are up against. You need to attract and convince not only curious Latin Catholics but Christians of every background, the unchurched and atheists too.

Of course you need to use Marketing tools to get at this problem!

+T+
Michael

Here is a good book for bringing Taoists, Buddhists and their ilk to Christ, using their own language and understandings:

Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene [amazon.com]

I admit from the cover and title I had reservations, but after seeing what the book is truly all about, I definitely recommend it for those that want to evangelize!

In Christ,
Deacon Nikolai

Father Deacon,

Of course, note the "Tao of Jesus" by Joseph Loya, our pastor's brother.

Michael,

What a wonderful analysis. I usually tried to get congregations to commit to a 10% growth each year. This was because the death rates of the older congregations were always quite a bit higher than the birth and conversion rates combined. It is a truism that many of our BC congregations are rather elderly.

Will these congregations choose to merge or will they choose to die. It shouldn't be long before we discover that answer. Some will be able to be revived but for most it is already too late.

CDL