www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Are we embarassed to be Catholic?

Hi John,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Byzantine Catholics are Orthodox Christians in communion with the Pope... so we are both Catholic and Orthodox.

What we are NOT supposed to be, and unfortunately often are, is some hybrid between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We're not half Catholic and half Orthodox, and sadly that's how I often feel.

Basically, Byzantine Rite Catholic worship and tradition should be identical to that the Orthodox-- other than praying for the pope. Because being in communion with him is really the only thing that separates us-- or SHOULD separate us-- from Eastern Orthodoxy.

As for many of us railing against the Latinizations that have infiltrated our churches (which in some cases we voluntarily adopted, which makes it all the sadder), you have to understand where the Byzantines are coming from. When Byzantine Catholics first came to the States, they didn't have their own bishops-- they were under the authority of the Roman bishops, who were not familiar with the Eastern rites and didn't understand our traditions. Somewhat understandably, we were looked upon with some suspicion: were we REALLY Catholic? We adopted Latinizations to prove that we were actually Catholic.

Now, Latin devotions and traditions are wonderful-- in the Latin rite. They don't belong in ours, though. Nor do our devotions and traditions belong in the Latin rite. No offense, but if I wanted Roman Catholic prayers and devotions, I'd have stayed Roman. I came to the Byzantine Rite because I love everything about it-- the liturgy, the theology, the devotions, the prayers-- everything. And I think the rites within the Catholic Church should be true to their style of worship and traditions. Our former Holy Father has said this... he told the Eastern rites to lose the Latinizations and go back to their own traditions.

You know, one of the great things about the Catholic Church is the fact that there is so much diversity in worship... it's part of what makes the Church catholic. I hope you understand a little better now where we're coming from, and that we're not trashing the Latin Rite...

Karen

That's right Karen, we'll leave the trashing of the Latin Rite up to the Protestents and the Masons in the Roman Hierarchy. They've done a heck of a job of it though in the last 50 years. Imagine all the Holy Popes rolling in their graves at the Novus Ordo, NeoIconoclasm, Tabernacle hiding, Altar Girls, etc. But, as the Lord reminded us in todays Gospel Reading, some Demons can only be cast out by Prayer and Fasting. Which is one of the main reasons that the Hierarchs have dummed down the fasting requirements and shortened the Liturgies. Pray, Fast, Pray Fast, and Repeat.

I'm sorry Karen, I forgot to say a great Big,"Slava Noviki!" "Glory Forever!"

Wo-ow. You and I are SO on the same page.

I am not at all sure which Latinizations you are talking about MizByz, but few fit this history. Most were brought here from the old country.

Hi,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I'm talking about taking away the iconostas, putting up Stations of the Cross, to name a couple.

Somehow I don't think that happened to BC churches in the Ukraine.

Karen

Slava na v'iki: Stations of the Cross - I think so. Removal of Iconostases, no; but then again, even in the US that was after we had our own bishops.

Dear DJS,

Please go to
www.archeparchy.org/page/history/bishop-Elko.htm [archeparchy.org]

This site even contains the following quote, "
Bishop Elko's tenure also was an era of tremendous growth, expansion and development of physical facilities throughout the exarchate. Under his direction, more than one hundred churches and schools were constructed or reconstructed. This capital expansion program, while absolutely necessary to accommodate larger congregations, in hindsight had a major regrettable consequence. In an effort to be like other American Catholic churches, many traditional Byzantine architectural features such as icon screens were omitted or removed from the newly-built or renovated churches."

As you can see, even after the Byzantine Catholic Church in America had its own Bishops, Latinizations continued. If you read the whole page, it seams to me, that Bishop Elko finally got his wish as he eventually became a Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop!

But have Faith because NIKA!

djs is right in what he says though.

The latinization began in the kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, it really is part of the inheritance of the people (even though it may not have been an intended consequence of the Union of Uzhorod). The Elko period seems to be the apex of the process.

I think that in Europe this has served to differentiate the Union parishes from the non-Union and contributed to the resurrection of the Greek Catholic churches after the collapse of the communist block.

On the other hand, immersed in a western culture such as the United States, Canada or Australia these Latin qualities have tended to UNdifferentiate the the Union parishes from their neighbor Latin parishes.

Ultimately, this has contributed to an enormous number of young people leaving the church for any old Catholic parish. One could call it a "brain drain". Most Ruthenian Catholics I have met have Roman Catholic relatives due to intermarriage. If most of the decendants of Ruthenian immigrants could have been retained in the BCC, I am sure the church would probably have almost one million members in the USA these days! And yes, many of them would have Irish, Italian, Spanish, German and Polish surnames to be sure, but those are the kind of names those modern American Ruthenians are carrying (many of whom know next to nothing about their ancestry, except that Great-grandpa was a "Russian").

+T+
Michael

I agree with you completely about getting rid of Latinizations. Thank you for this wonderful post.

Blessings to you,
Todd

To Karen's list I would add: Eucharist of infants, married clergy, introduction of the Immaculate Conception (used to be Conception of St. Anne).

mike

Very popular devotion among BC's.

No doubt, but still a Latinization. Pews are also very popular among BC's, but are a western influence.

mike

No... I am proud to be Catholic. Always was, always will. If you think the West has done mistakes, try to check out when Byzantines murdered hundreds of Latins in the Poli (constantinople) because they remained faithful to the See of Pope Peter.

I started this topic because I was irritated by the tone I detected in some posts that seemed to indicate an embarrassment about being Catholic.

Then, Dr. Alex (as usual) gave an excellent reply. To summarize, he argued that the basic personality and charism of the Eastern Catholic churches had been diluted by latinizations. It was time (with the decision and encouragement of the Second Vatican Council and recent popes) to rediscover and revive the Eastern Catholic tradition.

That I have no problems with. Indeed, I support and I laud that.

My problem is when that becomes the most important goal.

Riddle me this: What do we do with parishes in which latinizations have become part of the Eastern Catholic tradition ? Yes, some reform is necessary in order to be in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and recent popes. OK: but how much, how far, how fast, and --most importantly-- with what kind of attitude ? What is the right pastoral approach? What is the right spiritual disposition? Sometimes it is stridency; sometimes it is gentleness, but always it should be with humility and compassion.

Here�s another riddle: What�s the goal? What should the Eastern Catholic churches be trying to become? Personally, I think the Eastern Catholic churches (especially in the diaspora from their homelands) are suffering from a massive identity crisis. Should they then become just like the Orthodox in all ways, except that that they also pray for the pope? That�s one view.

But I don�t agree with that view. It has been 400 years since the unia, and 400 hundred years is a long time. And in that time, the Tradition has not just been diluted in some ways; it has also developed in some ways. Not all of that can be excised --nor should it be excised. There has to be a balance in what to preserve and what to set aside, and that balance must be found with judgement and compassion.

When I see debates over latinizations in the Eastern Churches, I see a lot of real needs being discussed and lots of good reforms to be implemented. Again, I support and I laud all that. But, I also sometimes see spiritual pride. Specifically, I sometimes see the same kind of pride, intolerance and forced efforts at reform (and reaction) as I have seen in the Roman Catholic Church among some of its liberals (and conservatives); and I do not think that this is good.

I will try to summarize my view. I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are not only Orthodox in communion with Rome. I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are Catholics who are also Orthodox; they are Orthodox who are also Catholic. I think the Eastern Catholic churches are a hybrid. They are a hybrid that hearkens back to the first millennium of the Church when the whole Church was both Orthodox and Catholic, correct and universal. They are a hybrid which also can and, in my opinion, should recognize that another 1000 years have since gone by . . . with a thousand years' worth of additions and developments to the Tradition. It�s not just about latinizations . . . pews or no pews, rosary or akathist, Easter or Pascha. It�s also about pride or humility in accepting all of the past, balancing that past with the needs of the future, in order to build a present and a future for all. Being Eastern Catholic is not only being Orthodox plus the pope. Being Eastern Catholic is its own identity, its own calling, and its own charism. Being Eastern Catholic, in my opinion, is about being a living bridge between the Christian West and the Christian East -- with one foot in each but standing firmly on its own ground.

-- John