www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Conception

If I had to guess I would say somone of this type of thinking would tell you that you are expexted to start a parish or at the very least remind your Latin priest on the feast of the Immaculate Conception "I don't dig this"... I have heard many suggest you should just become Orthodox in that situation... Or something like that.

A lot of us are in that boat.

Robster,

St. Gregory was on our calendars before the union, he should never have been taken off, and thankfully most Greek Catholics have returned him to his proper place.

If St. Gregory was uncharitable to Petrine Office of his time, we can cut him some slack because many Latin saints were not particularly respectful of the Eastern Churches.

His writings on Hesychaysm is a foundational piece of theology for the Byzantine Church. He is to the Eastern Church what St. Thomas is to the Latin. His triumph over Barlaam is likened to the triumph of the Icons, which is why he is assigned the Second Sunday of Lent in addition to his feast on Nov 14.

As to the others none of them are saints last time I checked.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Because you are an anonymous poster on the internet.

I have invented cars that can run on water, how many do you want to buy?

I don't know who you are and I don't know what you will try to do with personal information. I don't belong to their church and I am not privy to making names public. I don't make a habit of revealing personal information on my family, especially without their permission.

Another reason is fear of what you will do with that knowledge. Will you contact their bishop and demand discipline - to stop singing hymns to Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Photius and Saint Alexis Toth? (I forgot to mention the last one)

Ed

And Roman Catholic bishops had nothing but the highest regard for Byzantine Catholics?

If the filioque was so important, why did your bishops drop it from their creed? In fact, this got me thinking again. Why DID they omit it? Was it TOO Catholic or NOT Catholic enough? Is this one of those mandatory dogmas tha MUST be accepted to be considered Catholic? History shows how it was incorporated into Eastern Catholic religion (until recently). Like the Immaculate Conception holy day, the filioque has seen its day in some Eastern Catholic churches. Are these Eastern Catholic bishops now heretics for rejecting the dogmas that were once held?

Ed

Simple Sinner, I am only trying to figure it all out. The answer to your question is simple. Most people went where you find it totally acceptable to go - the Roman Catholic Church. They identified Catholicism with being Roman Catholic and that is where they drifted to. Your previous posts support that.

Why couldn't they just remain Byzantine Catholic? I would like to know what is so terribly wrong with remaining a Byzantine Catholic?

Ed

For Ukrainian Catholics? Really? Is this the only Eastern Catholic church who restored Saint Gregory Palamas? This was the same Sunday that the Byzantine Catholics left empty, right?

Ed

So they Do have to adopt Roman Catholic teaching in order to be considered real Catholics! My point exactly. In turn, they have to either change the holy days around or do what is done in the Byzantine Catholic church - remember Saint Anne's Conception on the day that Roman Catholics remmeber the Immaculate Conception. My questions are raised because I observe that the changes seem to go only in one direction, rarely if ever the other way. Universality actually means uniformity and conformity. all this talk about rites and theologies, especially *Byzantine* theology, is smoke and mirrors. It all boils down to being *Catholic* (Roman Catholic). Ignore the philosophical basis of Byzantine theology (all theologies are based on some philosophical basis). It is like cake and ice cream: all Byzantine on the outside - very pretty and ornamental - but the substrate is 100% Roman thinking. Listen! I am not trying to put your church down. I just can't understand why everyone is so satisfied with a surface level of Byzantine Christianity? The Orthodox seem to be more free to teach what they live.


Written by whom? The Eastern Church used to be superb in coming up with dogmas and creeds for centuries until the became Catholic. The Byzantine Catholic church has done more in adopting dogmas developed by other churches than its own. What new dogma has the Byzantine church made sine it became Catholic? I see a lot of adoption, adaptation, and absorption of mind and spirit. Even Byzantine Catholics have to find answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to defend what they believe. My aunt always taught me that they only have to refer to their worship and hymns. Even she notices that what they pray is different a lot of times from what many claim they believe and teach; dogmas without a home at church.


I never told you to adhere to what the modern day Eastern Orthodox believ. I have always asked why you can't believe in what is basically your own Byzantine theology? If the Immaculate Conception is a theological fine point that is so necessary, why did the Ukrainian Catholic bishops rid of it for a holy day? Read the letter from these bishops that Diak posted. I don't have to tell you anything. You can believe in anything you want. Many have.


Most of the people I speak about are those who live within walking distance from the nearest Byzantine Catholic church, but still prefer to attend a Roman Catholic church. There are also those lazy people who only go to the nearest *Catholic* church in their air conditioned cars on hot days, but find it ok to driv a longer distance to attend a ball game, dance, bar, social hour or grocery store.


Only if you were brave enough to ask the same question to Rome. Listen. I like Rome and the Pope, especially the last one. But if you try to convince me that you are Byzantine Christian and teach me only Roman Catholic dogma then I would say you are only trying to fool me.


I don't doubt thta the Pope has had a role in guarding *orthodoxy*. What exactly do the Popes teach regarding you right to keep your orthodox Byzantine theology? Do they support it? Show me where the Popes have instructed youns to give up your theology.


This is no laughing matter, Zan. There are many Catholic museum churches in Catholic countries. I read somewhere that only 10% of Italians are regular church goers; the same with Greek Orthodox in Greece. Islam sees a huge vacuum to fill. They did it before and I am sure they will do it again.



Is it really a given that the Byzantine Catholic Church will be gone in the United States? What happened to the descendents of those immigrants? Where did they go? Did they all die off?


And why is that? What are they doing different than their unsuccessful American counterparts?


The Communists don't have to spend their energy wiping out the Greek Catholics. The Greek Catholic are doing a fine enough job on their own without them.


Don't worry about the Protestants. There are other people you have to be more concerned with (unless they haven't already joined the Roman Catholic church by now).

Peace and love,
Ed Hashinsky

PS: A note to Roman Catholics. I don't write to put down the Roman church. I am trying to wrestle with the question why other Catholic churches feel they have to adopt foreign teachings (foreign to Byzantine theology and their worship) in order to be accepted as real bone fide *Catholics*. Thank you for understanding.

I would like to know what gives you the impression that there is anything terribly wrong with remaining Byzantine Catholic. In fact no one said there was.

For any number of reasons, Eastern Christianity - accross the board in the US has had difficulty with retention - the Orthodox have experienced the same.

No one said there was anything wrong at all with remaining Byzantine Catholic - the question is, is it always possible?

SCENARIO 1: Greek Catholic family moves to Ogalala, Nebraska (yes such a place exists, I got a speeding ticket driving through to prove it) There is not Byzantine Catholic Church there, so they attend the rite of the Church with which they are in communion - the Latins... The kids get raised in it, and even with the best efforts made to show them about their Byz heritage, they end up being comfortable in the Roman Church and raise their kids there.

SCENARIO 2) Mixed rite marriage - Cute littke Rusyn girl meets handsome Italian boy, they get married, they make babies, the Latin Church has a school, takes liturgy in English, and is on their side of the town. They want the kids to go to Catholic school, they like the parish, they settle in.

SCENARIO 3) Wayward Greek Catholic who has kicked the church going habit altogether (picture me 7 years ago) meets some nice co-workers who kindly invite him to start attending a Mass, Bible Study, prayer service or the like down at St. Francis Church. He is ready to put God back in his life, he was invited to a parish, he responds, he returns to the Catholic Church in the parish that invited him back. Given the ratio of Latins to Greeks in the Catholic Church in the US is at least 100,000 to 1, chances are greater that he will be invited to attend a Roman Church. When he arrives there, goes to confession, introduces himself to the parish priest does or should the parish priest say "No, don't come here, go accross town to the Greek Catholic parish!" (In fact he may never have stepped foot in that parish in all his life if he has not lived in that city for more than a few years.)

SCENARIO 4) SMALL Greek Catholic parish has 4 teenagers from different parts of the city, the parish is still heavily focussed on an ethnic orientation to which the teen does not feel particular attachment. (His parents might speak Ukrainian to his grandparents, but never did much of that to him, he does not feel conversant.) The Roman Liturgy in English appeals to him and he starts dating a girl that goes to the youth group.

To be sure, at my parish we have plenty of converts, reverts, and ex-Latin folks. One elderly couple who was Latin all their life, stopped driving but live accross the street. They come every Sunday because they can walk right accross the street. "An organ would be nice, sometime, but the signing is really good without it. We like your Mass here just fine."



Ed, why do you see it as a zero sum game? Who called them heretics? Do you think that because we have gotten back to Eastern forms that means we repudiate the Romans for the filioque???

I don`t know if Ed Hash realizes the bigger point to be made here. Not so much Byzantine not being good enough but not being available enough. I agree with Simple saying Eastern Christianity is more difficult to maintain in this country because lots of people think of it as an ethnic thing. If some of the parishes had tried to evangelize and appeal to more than the nationalities particular to Byzantine traditions a few decades ago we just might have more available Byzantine parishes in more parts of the country. But then who really knows. The main thing I think is this country has had the Western influence from it`s beginnings. Later when immigrants began from central and eastern Europe arrived they were always viewed as "too foreign" and many tried hard to assimilate to fit in. After all most of their kids and grandkids did marry German, Irish, Italian, etc. or just plain old Heinz 57 American. But whatever, Ed should realize we just didn`t decide one day to abandon ship because we thought the Latin Church better.

Ed,

I don't think it is the intentional intent of the RCC to "do in" the BCC, but rather their complete ignorance of exactly who and what the Eastern Church is. There are still a lot of Archbishop Irelands in the RCC. And a lot of the blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the BCC hierarchy, both now and in the past. There are 3 preeminent reasons for the problems that you have brought up.
1. The use of bi-ritual clergy to make up for the lack of properly trained Byzantine priests. These priest's, although possibly having good intentions, don't come from either an eastern background, or don't have a grounding in Eastern theology. Most can't read a word of Slavonic, resulting in nice little Latin parishes with an eastern flavor.
2. The contamination of the BCC by the influx of Latin Traditionalists, who have swarmed towards the Eastern Rite looking to find an alternative to the Novus Ordo, bringing their own "beliefs" with them. Anything "Orthodox" is anathema to these people, and in trying to find a home for themselves, are actually attempting to steal the home of Traditional minded Byzantine Catholics. This is a bigger problem than most people realize, and the Byzantine Catholic Hierarchs would be wise to direct these malcontents elsewhere.
3. The declining population base and the Americanization of the BCC. Most Byz Cats are now in at least 3rd or 4th generation. Most have become Americanized now. Many do not speak Slavic languages, and have become mainstreamed into American culture, which is diametrically opposed to anything "eastern" or "exotic".

Alexandr

Oh pish-posh.

Could you be a little more partisan?

Please name some modern day "John Irelands"

Please tell us some about your extensive research on the bi-rituals. Come to think of it, has the OCA shut the door on ex-Latin priests who married and then went Orthodox? Are they suspect?

In a remarkably uncharitable tone you refer to ex-Latins/traditionalists as "malcontents". I beg your pardon but that is terribly rude. A lot of those folks kept parishes open that would have been closed. Were our hierarchs supposed to shut the doors in their faces and tell them to stay the hell out?

#3 is hardly unique to the BCC - I believe this can be found accross the board in the Eastern Christian world in America. Immigrant influxes have greatly propped up the numbers in some Ortho jurisdictions.

Eastern Christians (both Catholic and Orthodox) omit the filioque from the creed because it involves a confusion of the Spirit's procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person, which is from the Father alone, with His progression (proienai) as energy, which is from the Father through the Son.

Like it or not, that is what the Church has done - the restoration of Gregory Palamas was done first to the books in ROME. Again, I am very pleased that the defender of a central Byzantine theological idea has been restored to his traditional place. And again, we can drudge up all kinds of examples of other Saints who considered other Saints and even Popes heretical - and, alas, who are still considered Saints. Luckily sainthood does not hinge on every personal opinion. Mother Theresa even doubted the existence of God by her own admission - do we reject her because of a "lack of faith" and thus a "bad example"? Of course not.

Fr. Deacon Lance: I'm not sure I understand when you talk about Gregory Palamas being on a calendar before reunion. I'm not aware of any Catholic calendar that Palamas would have been on prior to 1596. I'm not clear why somebody appearing on an Eastern Orthodox calendar automatically should carry weight for Catholics.

While Roman Catholic saints should not be disrespectful of Eastern Catholics, I assume that their indiscretions usually did not consist of publicly attacking authoritative Catholic teaching and labeling the Apostolic See of Peter as heretical. I think that's a big difference.

As a Catholic, I gather that my first allegiance of thought must be to Benedictus Deus and the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence before Gregory Palamas. My reading of Eastern Catholic canon law is that I owe the beatific vision at least an assent of mind and will as things presently stand.

Also, everybody who was a saint was not one prior to becoming one, I suppose in some sense. Why Kydones and Metropolitan Isidore should be excluded is unclear to me. And that Palamas is a Catholic saint is unclear to me, given the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints has told me that being an Eastern Orthodox saint does not automatically make one a Catholic saint. The Congregation does hold juridictional competence over the Eastern Catholic churches.

Ed: My understanding is that the filioque is an immutable dogma of faith via the Ecumenical councils of Lyons II and Florence. I'm aware of nothing that says it has been dropped, and it is explicitly embedded in the official Profession of Faith promulgated in 1998 in conjunction with Ad Tuendem Fidem. My understanding is that while Byzantine Catholics have what amounts to an indult to use an older version of the creed that omits the filioque for liturgical purposes, a dogmatic assent of faith is still incumbent upon them.

Diak: I'm not clear that Mother Theresa's doubts are relevant here. Whatever problems or struggles the wonderful woman had, the relevant point, I think, is that she did not engage in a continuous public campaign to lambaste those who did not have her 'lack of faith' and did more strongly affirm God as heretics. Gregory Palamas, by my reading, clearly went well, well beyond express some doubts about some Catholic teachings.

Best to all,
Robster