www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology My visit to a ROCOR parish

I don't think it's as simple as many of us want to think. Certainly, since I've become Orthodox, I've come to have a better understanding about the Orthodox relationship with Rome. I want to be one who believes that we share a lot in common, but I'm starting to think it's wishful thinking. Even for a member of the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese.

This statement actually caused me to gasp:


The phrase "according to the will of God" is what got me.

Please, I'm not attacking the Catholic Faith, I'm just pointing out that statements like this don't help with reunion.

For my own part, even when I was as Catholic as I could be, I still felt uncomfortable with Papal Primacy, which is partly what led me towards Orthodoxy.

Anyway, just my opinion.

"Thou art Peter (Kephas), and upon this Rock (Kephas), I will build my church".

Dear Friends,

Just got back from a Russian flag-raising event - appropriate, given this thread, nyet?

Clearly, the Presbytera I met considered Catholicism as a whole to be outside the Church 100% and in darkness. That is the view, I believe, of ROCOR and other Orthodox jurisdictions (?).

In other words, for her and her jurisdiction, when it comes to Catholicism, the glass is 100% empty.

My being EC was unacceptable to her and she felt that she needed to witness the true faith to me for my salvation's sake. She was not going to let me go unless I agreed to pray about it . . .

It was perhaps the overwhelming enormity of her conviction that cowered me and the fact that nomatter what I said - it wouldn't shake her conviction at all. It was all or nothing!

And, truth be told, I was in a deep sense of admiration of her. There was no "grey" area for her, none of the seeming compromise that we Catholics are famous for nowadays

There was something attractive about such a traditional stance - all or nothing. Simplistic some might say - OK, but we're talking religion here, not macroeconomics.

While I've no intention of leaving the UGCC, but I guess I didn't want to appear as a compromising person by possibly telling her, "I believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very close and are part of the one Body of Christ etc." when she was telling me, "There is only one Church of Christ and Orthodoxy is that Church."

The only rejoinder to the latter for someone who is so totally committed would have been "No, Catholicism is the one true Church of Christ."

And, frankly, I just couldn't bring myself to tell her that, while anything resembling a compromise would have been unworthy of her.

Does that make sense?

Alex

You ain't gonna like this.

I see that situation and your dilemma as a product of your own ambivalence.

You are too <fill in the blank> to speak as strongly as the Matushka who urged you to see the Light.

I would say that you are <thoughtfully and purposefully ambivalent>.

Either you are Catholic in communion with the fella in the Petrine office, or you ain't.

You don't need to take her "one true Church" position to reject her one true Church's characterization of the Catholic Church.

What you need to do is simply say, if you are able, that you reject many of Orthodoxy's characterizations of the Catholic Church.

Your problem is that you really don't...yet.

That's why this whole experience bothers you.

still fondly,

in Christ,

Mary

It sure does, and I would respond to her the way I responded to my two friends above (but, in a charitable and non-triumphalistic way). One suggestion: she says for you to pray about it. I would offer her a deal: "you pray for me to convert to Russian Orthodoxy, and I will pray for you to become a 'uniate', and God will move who needs to be moved".
We must always assume that those who want to see us converted are motivated by charity. They want to see us living blissfully, with them, in the Kingdom of God for all eternity. We are to be flattered that they even care for us. We must have the same attitude toward them. You would probably get more respect from this woman by telling her why you are convinced that the fullness of Orthodoxy lies in what is held by the Catholic Church. Many ROCOR clergy in NJ, where I grew up, preach against the "sin of ecumenism". These people are interested in possessing the truth, and are not into grey areas, and that sort of thing. Hope this helps.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Dear Mary,

What you say is thought-provoking.

I do reject all that stuff, as you say.

I'm not ambivalent about my loyalty to the Pope.

What I'm saying is that there is a "built-in" ambivalence in the contemporary Catholic position on Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

If I'm ambivalent, it is because I see ambivalence as part of the Catholic view of itself in relation to Orthodoxy.

And, truth be told, the experience most certainly did NOT bother me. I was merely uncomfortable with Matushka speaking that way - but it did not bother me since I found her attitude inspiring.

Her attitude was what the Catholic stance on the one True Church used to be and doesn't APPEAR to be any longer.

For example, right here on this Forum, when an EC/RC joins Orthodoxy, we bend over backwards to congratulate them etc.

Don't see the same enthusiasm when an Orthodox becomes EC or even RC. Not at all. And, truth be told, don't see too much niceness from Orthodox toward those Orthodox who are "overly ecumenical" toward Catholicism.

I'm not saying that to be critical of Orthodox. Just saying that there is something admirable, definite, clear-cut and unambivalent about that position.

You yourself have said that you wouldn't necessarily encourage an Orthodox to join Catholicism under specific circumstances that you discern in that person's life in the parish etc.

If you were Orthodox, and especially ROCOR, you would definitely have no hesitation to tell another person that they should join Orthodoxy.

So there is ambivalence, from that POV, in you too!

Alex

Alex,

You are on to something. When I was in formation for Diaconate, we were all required to submit to a psychological evaluation at the hands of (Catholic) psychologists hired by the diocese (my formation was done in the RC Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pa.). The only "negative" they found about me (there's a lot they didn't) was that I had a "low tolerance for ambiguity". To his great credit, when the Bishop disclosed this report to me, he asked "how is this a negative"? But, this shows that the Catholic world is full of people who love ambivalence and grey areas.
Dn. Robert

Dear Father Deacon Robert,

There used to be a time that even Catholic seniors didn't like "grey areas. . ."

I personally don't like ambivalence and I think it is detrimental to the spiritual life.

And what is worse than ambivalence is a religious culture where ambivalence appears to be deliberately fostered.

Can't speak for Orthodox Christians, but I think they find the Catholic view of them being "in almost full communion" with Catholicism to be rather offensive.

What say all "You Orthodox Christians?"

Alex

I appreciate your post and your vision of ecclesial realities.

I think the thing that mitigates what appears to be an ambivalence in me is the fact that I am differently rigid from Matushka.

She would say "Under no circumstance should you remain in communion with Papism."

I would say "Under no circumstances should you turn away from the Church of your Baptism out of anger, or frustration or confusion."

Matushka is convinced that Orthodoxy is the one true Church.

I am convinced of a one holy catholic and apostolic Church in which there is no real division.

I think we are equally rigid, Matushka and I. The difference is in the substance of our rigidities.

My observation about you, as you seemed to see, was not a negative criticism. In fact I very much appreciate what you let us see of yourself internally.

M.

Dear Mary,

Ah, now I think I see what you are getting at . . . but not yet completely.

I would like to know what you mean by "one holy catholic and apostolic Church in which there is no real division."

I did not take yours as a negative criticism.

There really is an ambivalence within Catholicism that is brought on by the "new ecumenism" and new ecclesiology since Vatican II.

I think this is a very important issue and am very happy that there is an opportunity to discuss it here!

Alex

Alex,

I don't find it offensive at all. But, I really don't take it personally and I understand that, generally speaking, people say what they do and formulate their beliefs sincerely with good intentions. Also, I think that while we should always be respectful and appropriately sensitive, I think that at times we've succumbed to a modern culture that values "sensitivity" above all else. As long as a person is polite, prudent and respectful, he shouldn't have to apologize for saying something that he believes because someone else finds it hurtful. Certainly, if we look at the fathers and their discussions of things, they didn't seem to have a problem with hurting people's feelings. After all, according to his opponents, Pelagius isn't "just a little misguided" but he is a son of lucifer! That's pretty strong language.

Of course, maybe another possibility is that today the Churches are really no longer as sure as they used to be that they have the truth. After all, the secular Enlightenment, the triumph of Darwinian evolution, liberal democracy, and cultural relativism have really shaken the faith in certitude that people once had. I know that his holiness Pope Benedict XVI is preaching that we must recover a more universal understanding of truth and the certitude of faith, and he is right. But, saying that we must do this and actually doing it are two different things. Many of the old arguments and perspectives just don't work anymore for most people. You can claim that there is objective truth, but the trick is to actually prove it. Sorry, I think I'm getting really off topic here. Unless we ponder the fact that I need to have a pretty reasonable amount of assurance if I'm going to tell someone else that they are in the wrong church and out of the will of God. Apparently, many in ROCOR have that assurance.

Joe

I don't find the attitude expressed by the particular matushka to be "inspiring" really. Those who don't like any "grey areas" at all can make the even worse mistake of becoming extremely narrow-minded (the "let us call you out of error mentality") and I don't think Orthodoxy is about that.
An Orthodox Abbot who spoke to my Church group during an Orthodox retreat stated that he felt that sometimes We Orthodox have to lose some of our tendency to become overly defensive and be self-confident enough to proclaim Orthodox Faith without feeling the need to launch into polemics and certainly my favorite Orthodox Hierarch, Bishop +Kallistos is of that mind as well.
Most of the Orthodox people I have known in parishes aren't all that concerned about "getting the uniates back into Orthodoxy" but about living their Orthodox lives and are extremely kind but not preachy towards visitors which to my mind, shows Orthodoxy at it's best.

Alex, I in fact do consider Orthodoxy to be the true faith. I for one can not rejoice at one leaving the true faith.

I have heard the "almost in communion" comment, and I do not agree with it. You can not be "almost in communion". Either you are or you aren't. Either you accept papal supremacy or infallibility or you don't. I don't see the grey area. In this case its either black or white.

I have in a conversation been told by a Catholic that as far I am concerned we are in communion. I have always replied in as kind words as I could find that I do not think so.

There is simply no way that I would be comfortable going to a EC Church, unless I was just stopping by for a visit, and even than I would try to avoid all conversation about communion etc...

As for "getting the uniates" back into Orthodoxy...

I would be OVERJOYED if all Christians became Orthodox. Why shouldn't I want EC's to also become Orthodox? Are they less important to me than RC's or Lutherans?

Alex. I once contemplated going Orthodox but failed to fully apply myself in teh decision process. For the Orthodox Christians I met and discussed this issue with, I discovered almost two separate churches or communities within a church.

The first was the Orthodox seniors or elders. many of them have or had relatives that are Byzantine Catholic. They remembered arguments they had with them from years ago but didn't feel that their Catholic cousins made up a 100% empty glass. Byzantine Catholics still went to communion at their churches with the priests' permission. It was still family.

The second group I got to know were basically converts from Evangelical Christianity of some sort. They seemed to brin with them not charity of heart but fundamentalist ways of handling church rules. How the rules were interpreted were no different than how the Bible was interpreted. New church; old baggage.

I enjoyed the first group much more. They told me stories about their faith as if it was a family. I got recipes and was invited to attend worship with them some day. All smiles and hugs and no pressure. The second group told me point blank that I was not a real Christian; they were somewhat hostile. But this was long ago. I only hoped the convert group had a chnage of heart since then. The only thing I saw was a group of hard-nosed Protestants wearing a form of reluctant Orthodoxy that they grew into too quick, without the years or relationships once had with their fellow Byzantine Catholics.

I know this is not representative of Orthodox Christians nor claim thta it is. But I sense that as something was disturbing Catholicism since the 60s, Orthodoxy was having its share in the rise of a new form of fundamentalism.

Can someone explain why this is so, especially when many of the older generation seem so loving?

Eddie

Eddie, the community in ROCOR can not be compared to the two you listed above.

ROCOR worshipers for the most part are neither former Byzantine Catholics, nor are they former Protestants.

These are a people who are Orthodox to the deepest meaning of this word. A lot of them are decedents of Russian Immigrants who were forced to leave the country after the tragic events of 1917. These people have preserved and nurtured their faith, culture, language through all these years.

I enjoy my visits to the local ROCOR parish.

I would however enjoy them even more if their Clergy were given the OK to celebrate the Liturgy with other SCOBA affiliated clergy members.