www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Does God love the Byzantine Catholic Church?

That's incorrect. Baptists believe in original sin. Their view of baptism is different than our own. They believe that baptism can only be administered to someone who chooses baptism. BTW, they do baptize children. Most Baptists in my acquaintance were baptized when they were around 10.

<<Not all. Baptists baptize adults. If they believed in Augustinian ideas of original sin, they would baptize infants. You have just overgeneralized.>>

I equated the different western cultures because we are speaking in general terms here. There isn't the space to devote to an indepth study of the differences between French Catholicism and Italian Catholicism.

<<As others have said, there are many Western patrimonies. You do a major disservice by equating them all as equal.>>

But do you not see that by rejecting it, it has influenced you. You made a conscious decision to reject something. The Greek did not make that same kind of decision.
<<Besides, if I reject Augustinian notions of original sin (which I do) then I no longer have a Western outlook on this topic.>>

I differentiate between completely un-churched Americans and Americans who were raised in a Protestant environment. A Protestant was evangelized (albeit in a non-catholic way) in western christianity.

<<Jeniffer, your discourse on choosing a religion is faulty. PICKY-CHOOSY, yeah, that's American. But the fundamental point of the Gospel is that we receive Christ. I tend to agree with Kurt that if we are evangelized by a group we adopt their outlook. But if someone such as myself on his own looks up a Byzantine Church, checks it out, prays about it, and then converts there, I have done the choosing (or God pushed me). No Byzantine ever evangelized me, but I am still an Eastern Christian.>>

Of course I have not acquired an eastern mind-set. I am a western catholic, born and bred in western culture. I will never be anything than what I am. With a tremenous amount of effort I could possibly reject my native culture and adopt a foreign culture. However the Church in her wisdom knows that this kind of a change is extremely difficult and even somewhat dangerous so she does not require us to do it. And in fact, somewhat discourages it. Moreoever, this is not particular to me. All Roman Catholics would have the same difficulties.

Read the Holy Fathers' writings on the link between faith and culture for a better understanding of this. This is not at all calvinism. Calvinism says that someone is predestined to be condemned. The Church doesn't teach that culture is evil. The Church recognizes that mankind, while fallen, is capable of creating a culture that is good. Mankind can know that there is a God without revelation. Therefore mankind develops culture and philosophy in an attempt to define the God that they know exists. So if I am "predestined" to be born in a specific time and place, I am not "condemned" by it. Someone born into Chinese culture is not condemned by their culture. God tells us that He knew us even in our mothers' wombs. Is the fact that we are born to one set of parents as opposed to another an accident? Is the fact that I am a woman instead of a man an accident? I don't believe that these things are accidents. I think that God destines us to be born in particular circumstances.

Jennifer


<<Your discourse reflects the fact that YOU have not aquired an Eastern mindset (at least you admit it). What you say rejects a Calvinistic notion that we were somehow predisposed and predetermined to be born in this culture, and that our ancestors would have just "accepted" this and not tried to change becasue it is some sort of fatalistic destiny. I would submit that this attitude is not even Christian.>>


anastasios[/B][/QUOTE]

I am the son of a Jewish mother and a Dutch Reformed Father. Ethnically, I am a mix of German, Italian, Sicilian (there is a difference), and Romanian. I grew up in New York, but have nothing in common with that place, or with any of my New York relatives. I live in Northern Virginia, but have little in common with either the Agro-American Evangelicals outside the Beltway, or the transplanted Yankees inside the Beltway. Religiously, I was brought up indifferent. By choice, I am a Byzantine Catholic.

Of what culture am I, Jennie?

The interesting thing about the Byzantine Tradition is that it has proven infinitely malleable without losing its distinctive identity. One can see this in examining the different customs and useages of the Slavs, the Greeks, and the Arabs. It is a faith that proved up to the task of evangelizing pagans within Greco-Roman culture, and without (e.g., the Rus and the Turkic Bulgars in the past, and the Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and Africans today). The same can be said of the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Traditions as well. The Copts spread their brand of Christianity to the Abyssinians. The Assyrian Church of the East evangelized within the Persian Empire, in India, and even into China (in the 12th century, the Assyrian Church of the East was the single largest Christian confession anywhere--until the Mongols came). So there is nothing that says a Tradition that originated in one culture cannot adapt itself to another culture.

America is a case in point. What IS American culture? I mean, real culture, not the mass-produced pablum that passes as culture. Where are the roots of the American people? The answer, of course, is that they are both everywhere and nowhere. American exceptionalism is based on the premise that one can always reinvent one's self. When you get down to it, that bears a striking similarity to the notion of "new life" which underlies baptism. In baptism, we receive new life in Christ. In coming to America, our ancestors received a different kind of new life, one in which they were free to reinvent themselves. We are the great chameleons. Therefore, I see no reason why a people who feel free to reinvent themselves in regard to social status, wealth, education, vocation and interests, should not see itself free to reinvent itself with regard to spiritual Tradition. And, indeed, if you look at American history, you will find that we have been doing that since the first white men came here.

It is now merely time for the Byzantine Tradition to be tossed into the hopper, in the same manner that the Latin Tradition was, beginning in 17th century Maryland, and really hitting its stride with the Irish immigration of the 19th century.

The infinitely malleable Byzantine Tradition is ideally suited for the infinitely malleable American cultural identity. It takes upon itself that which is good in a culture, transfigures it, gives it new meaning, and makes it its own. So one day there will be a uniquely "American" Orthodoxy, which has smatterings of the Slavic, Greek and Melkite useage. So what? It can be added to all the other cultures which the Byzantine Tradition has encountered, transfigured and made its own.

It also helps, Jennie, to remember that the Byzantine Tradition is part of the Western patrimony in any case--even if the West refuses to admit it. One gets a different perspective when talking to a Chaldean Catholic or an Assyrian Orthodox, because they will refer to the Latin Church and the Byzantine Church indifferently as "you Westerners".

Stuart, I don't know you but I doubt very much that you have nothing in common with your New York relatives. It would be impossible for you not to have anything in common with them. Often we think that we're not like our families but in actuality we are more like them than anybody else.

Your case is different, however, because you were not a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. You are (as Rusnak says) "fair game" for both traditions. However, Roman Catholics and Protestants have been "evangelized" by western christianity and in a cultural sense Roman Catholicism is a better "fit" for them than Byzantine Catholicism.

BTW, do you consider the un-churched Russians to be "fair game"? Do we believe that they should have the choice between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and that they can "pick" the flavor of catholicism that most appeals to them? I believe that they "belong" to the Russian Orthodox Church and that western missionaries should stay out of Russia because Russia (despite the fact that the communists have almost destroyed Russian culture) is culturally Orthodox.

The idea that we can "re-invent" ourselves is a western idea, pure individualism. It would not be possible in a culture that was not western. I have some friends from Asian cultures (born in the US of immigrant parents) who would never think of disobeying their parents even though they are now adults. They would never even imagine that they could "reinvent" themselves. Rugged individualism is western. Given that, it's a bit bizarre to "choose" eastern culture using something that is purely western. Can someone who because they are western "chooses" to be eastern ever really be eastern given that his/her choice was a fundamentally western "action"?

There are many Americans who are not part of any western christian tradition. These folks are "fair game" because they have inherited latin catholic heritage. However, those of us who were raised in Roman Catholicism have that heritage whether we like it or not. We can make a conscious choice to reject that heritage (and the Church does not prevent us from doing this) however the Church (in her wisdom) knows that this can be a dangerous thing. Why should someone have to make a conscious effort to adopt a different patrimony than the one that they were raised in (one that is perfectly orthodox)? The Church knows that this leads to confusion and that most people are better served by living their faith in a way that is consistent with their culture.

The Church does not prevent us from choosing a different religious patrimony, however, she realizes that this does not often occur. Primarily it is something that is only done by an "elite". And that it's something that could be detrimental to someone's spiritual life. The very idea of "choice" leads to an individualism that is opposed to our catholic understanding of the relationship between the individual and the group.

Protestants are the spiritual descendents (albeit indirectly) of Roman Catholicism therefore they are best evangelized by Roman Catholicism as opposed to Eastern Catholicism.

Jennifer

<< >>

Glory to Jesus Christ.

If one wants to play the �Who is really Eastern?� game, then consider:

(Examples based on real people I have known, some intimately. However, no one person is being singled out here.)

1. An ethnic Rusyn who grows up in an iconostas-less church and has �Catholic is Catholic� drilled into his/her head, moves away from Pennsylvanskaja Rus� and now goes to the Novus Ordo, complete with �Eucharistic ministers� (which he/she accepts without blinking � after all, �Catholic is Catholic� and �we do what we�re told�), and has no daily prayer rule or even icons.

2. A non-�ethnic� who has joined a Byzantine church, goes regularly, follows its calendar, keeps (adjusted to that person) the fasts and has adopted its devotional life as more than 50% of his/her prayer life.

Even if neither person has made a canonical change on paper, which one is �Eastern�? Some of the more vociferous here say it�s 1., while 2. is nothing more than, at best, a �transritualist� (to use one ethnic�s cute putdown neologism) bas***d.

Anastasios, Stuart, I and others disagree. I would go as far as saying tenuously both are Eastern, but the naysayers have no right to say 2. is not Eastern.

I admire people like Jennifer�s commitment to being Roman Catholic, citing America�s tenuous cultural connection to that Church. (I maintain England has a direct though severed link to it; America, while largely English, doesn�t.) But, Kurt et al., don�t say we aren�t Eastern.

A Puritan would relate much better to a Roman Catholic than to an Orthodox Christian because the Puritan and the Roman Catholic would share a more similar world-view

According to Bishop Kallistos, Jennifer, the 19th-century Russian hardline Orthodox Alexis Khomiakov agrees with you. In The Orthodox Church he said Catholicism and Protestantism are only two sides of the same Western rationalist coin, while Orthodoxy is a different animal altogether. I wouldn�t go that far, as I hold that the obvious similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy do count for something, but there is something to this. Western civilization has been going off the rails for some time now, long before Vatican II.

I�ve said before, echoing the American historian Samuel Eliot Morison, that the 16th-century Puritan and the Catholic Church had a lot more in common than either would with modern people. Part of the charm of Thomas Cranmer�s Anglican prayer book, which I use for the Psalter, is that though C. was a heretic, he retained the same 16th-century Godward worldview as the Catholic Church. Thus one can go to an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal service that mixes the Prayer Book and the Missal (in translation) and find that it �works�: the parts blend together practically seamlessly and one is left with the (mistaken in the case of the Prayer Book) impression one has experienced an historic rite of the Church.

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>


[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 12-08-2000).]

Jennifer wrote:

<Of course I have not acquired an eastern mind-set. I am a western catholic, born and bred in western culture. I will never be anything than what I am. With a tremenous amount of effort I could possibly reject my native culture and adopt a foreign culture. However the Church in her wisdom knows that this kind of a change is extremely difficult and even somewhat dangerous so she does not require us to do it. And in fact, somewhat discourages it. Moreoever, this is not particular to me. All Roman Catholics would have the same difficulties. >

Jennifer, Can you please explain how the Church is your culture and how changing, say from the Latin Church to the Melkite Church, is a changing your culture? I don't understand. Those in the Far East who adapt the Latin Church are surely rejecting their culture, right? To me, what Church I belong to and what culture I was bred in are distinct. I'm not trying to live the life of one in a village in the Carpathian Mountains or in Greece now that I am a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church. If anything, I am more at home. I grew up in a Polish RC parish and many of the customs and traditions that were observed there are almost seamlessly observed at the parish that I am now a member of. These two cultures (Carpatho-Rusyn and Polish) though they are not the same, do overlap, especially in Church! Who is rejecting their culture in that case? John.

Here is Jennifer's quote that I was commenting on and inadvertently left out. Sorry. John.

Of course I have not acquired an eastern mind-set. I am a western catholic, born and bred in western culture. I will never be anything than what I am. With a tremenous amount of effort I could possibly reject my native culture and adopt a foreign culture. However the Church in her wisdom knows that this kind of a change is extremely difficult and even somewhat dangerous so she does not require us to do it. And in fact, somewhat discourages it. Moreoever, this is not particular to me. All Roman Catholics would have the same difficulties.

I would like to respectfully disagree with my friend Jenny on some particular points and add my support to Rusnak and others who would disagree with those who would say the person in his second example should not be termed "Eastern".

Up until now, I have never commented on this forum or elsewhere as to the "Easterness" of any particular person, simply respecting self-definition, but in the second example Rusnak offers I think it is fairly clear that person's self-definition is valid.

I would add that I had a neighbor (she has sinced passed away) who is ethnic Rusyn/Lemko and who grew up in an iconostas-less church (her father was a military chaplin in the interwar Polish army). With her too, I see no reason not to accept her self-definition. It is a great joy to be in agreement with Rusnak.



[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 12-11-2000).]

CnaBa Iucycy Xpucmy!

(...) add my support to Rusnak and others who would say the person in his second example should not be termed "Eastern".

What? That is the opposite of my point.

but in the second example Rusnak offers I think it is fairly clear that person's self-definition is valid.

OK, thanks.

I think a good working definition for who belongs to what tradition (rite, particular Church) is what I now call the over-50% model. If more than half your religious life comes from one tradition, that�s what you belong to, regardless of what you are on paper canonically.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>



[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 12-10-2000).]

Yikes!!!

Rusnack, I'm 53. I don't think I will make it to 107. What shall I do?

Seriously, I've been thinking a great deal about what Jennifer has said. While I still don't entirely agree with her model I am sobered by its implications. I think her model fits with a stable society like a tribe or a fairly isolated area with only one ethnic group. I don't think the model is quite as useful when one speaks of a universal Church.

What sobers me is my own frustration in learning so many things about the wonderful Byzantine Catholic Church.

I love the liturgy. It transports me to heaven. I love the way scripture is understood. It is much more profound than the "higher criticism" models I'm used to. I love the smell, sights, sounds, doctrines and so much more, but I know that much of the pieces are still foreign to me.

Here is an example. I still have to concentrate to remember how to properly greet people. I get the words mixed up. It brings a blessing to say the words but I'm still not used to them. When greeted with "Glory be to Jesus Christ" I hesitate and struggle to remember "Glory to Him forever." It seems so simple and it comes naturally for my brothers and sisters but not for me.

Also, I want to sometimes lie prostrate during parts of the worship. Father Loya encourages it but practicly no one does it ever. Will I ever sense that it is proper for me to worship as I'm inspired to worship no matter what others do?

One more thing. Pray for me as I struggle to discern God's vocation for me. I've been an Elder in the United Methodist Church most of my life. I had thought God might be leading me to the Priesthood, but with all of my clumsiness with the spiritual traditions, perhaps God simply wants me to go the Deacon's route.

I know God and my confessor will help me along the way, but your prayers would be appreciated.

Glory be to Jesus Christ,

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the reply. I need to clarify: by �more than half one�s religious life� I don�t mean more than half one�s lifetime! I meant �more than half one�s daily, weekly, monthly, yearly religious practice�. So a Roman Catholic with one icon on the wall is still Roman, and a Russian Orthodox who prays the Rosary but is otherwise Byzantine is still Russian Orthodox.

Don�t sell yourself short on the priesthood. It takes a while to retool and reprogram for the Byzantine Rite but it is doable.

Seriously, I've been thinking a great deal about what Jennifer has said. While I still don't entirely agree with her model I am sobered by its implications. I think her model fits with a stable society like a tribe or a fairly isolated area with only one ethnic group. I don't think the model is quite as useful when one speaks of a universal Church.

Agreed.

Best,
Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Many thanks to all who have visited, pushing the counter up to 4,000 hits (as of Saturday) in one year of operations.

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 12-10-2000).]

Serge,

You are very kind and encouraging.

I found a site that tries to test persons on their religious preferences. I suspected that it might be some Baptist trick but found to my surprise that it seems to confirm what I believe God is telling me. You may wish to take the test yourself. Perhaps it has some application to "spiritual culture". All I know is that I scored 100 on both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. All other religions were relatively far down the list.
http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/new.html

Glory be to Jesus Christ,

Dan Lauffer

Rusnak, my dear friend,

I apologize for the typo, which I have since corrected. But I would still emphasize my first principle is that an Eastern Christian is a Christian who calls him or herself an Eastern Christian. I can't imagine what purpose any further speculation serves.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 12-11-2000).]

What I actually see ( as opposed to speculation) at my Greek parish, where reality happens, is Christians who are from two different worlds that are made harmonious by faith, tradition, worship, and practice.

One group has a strong ethnic attachment to their Greek heritage and another group has little or no attachment to Greek ethnicity. But, both groups have a strong commitment to Christianity and to one another. Like I wrote elsewhere.............................

It works!

BTW: I have experienced the same in a Rusyn Catholic parish.

[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 12-11-2000).]

Fun site Dan!

Bless me Father, I scored 100% for "Orthodox Quaker." "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" were tied for second at 91%.

Gee, maybe I'm in the wrong Church.....



Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

CnaBa Iucycy Xpucmy!

Kurt, thanks for your kind reply and for explaining the typo.

Dan, you�re welcome and I�ve seen that site, thanks. I took the test a while ago and got 100 for RC and Orthodox too.

Vasili, I�ve seen what you describe too, though my church for the past few years is and always has been very, very Russian. (Which may change gradually as the World War II displaced-person founders die. Maybe in 20 years things will be mostly in English. I love the Slavonic, though.) What you describe is wonderful.

Best,
Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>