www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Why do people change rites?

Dear Remie
I was raised Roman, my family background being
French Canadian via Massachusetts.

When as a young married we bought our first home the nearest church happened to be the only
Byzantine church in the entire state. I started attending, loved the ancientness, loved feeling I was worshipping in a very similar manner as the early Christians.

After about 10 years, I thought, Gee, can I become a 'byzantine' catholic? So the paperwork actually went pretty fast. Only about two or three months at most.

On a different note, while attending morning Mass on Monday at the nearest Roman church (my Byzantine priest has Mondays off) I was speaking to a very nice lady whose regular parish is a
Tridentine parish. In our conversation I mentioned my concern that down here in the South we are so outnumbered by non-catholics, we don't have that frequent contact with other catholics, like people up North. She felt that in some ways when a person is around alot of Catholics, like up North (she mentioned Chicago), you are exposed to too many various ideas, not all of which are correct. That sometimes, catholics feel anything goes.

(To ChristTeen, if you are interested in the Tridentine parish, she said it is in Mableton.
I am not sure how far that is from you, I could find out the name, location next time I speak with this lady.)

denise

My thoughts on going from the OCA to the Byzantine Catholic church that follow may sound very opinionated to some as you read them. You would have to know me personally in that case in order to understand how I came to feel the way I do. I apologize if I make any of you uncomfortable by what I say below.

My wife and I came to the Byzantine Catholic church from an OCA parish here in Arizona. There is only one regular OCA parish in the entire state, the other being Roumanian OCA. We had been chrismated here, but over time came to the conclusion that our orthodoxy could be better served by being Byzantine instead. (Besides, my wife was born and raised in Uniontown, Pa., home of the Sisters of St. Basil, and Mt. St. Macrina, though she herself was originally part of a regular Roman parish there.) Our awakening to the world of Byzantine Carholicism has been a breath of fresh air. Our parish is friendly, and joyfully worships together. Everybody sings, too.

The OCA parish in Arizona has about 50 families, but is 50 years old. They are a commuter parish (no one lives nearby), and have never been able to do much to influence the community around them, which is mainly Hispanic. The Byzantines have 3 churches in the state, and are continually adding new parishioners, many from Roman churches. They outnumber the OCA ranks here substantially, are much better organized, and integrate into the world around them much better than the OCA has done. I'd go so far as to say they are much more American.

IMHO, the OCA lacks administrative organization in the west,lacks relevant hierarchical vision within its diocese (has an ultra-conservative bishop, more like you would find in ROCOR), lacks true integration into the community around us, and lacks effective, efficient direction at the parish level as well. It also has Christ the Savior Brotherhood influences that conflict with the traditional ethos of the parish. Not all of these negatives apply to all OCA parishes in the west, however.

Before coming to the Byzantines, we did look at other orthodox jurisdictions. In addition to the above shortcomings (CSB excepted), the others suffer from too much ethnicity. (I'm sure they don't see it that way.) The OCA is, by my observation, the least ethnic of the bunch, but that turned out not to be enough of a difference to matter to us.

I cannot see how Orthodox jurisdictions will make a difference in America until they rethink their notions about what used to work in the old country versus what works here. Given time, some orthodox jurisdictions may merge, instead. Some hope for eventually one orthodox jurisdiction in America, but that's a long way off. There is too much turf being fought over.

My wife and I are both much happier, and our spiritual lives are much more productive since we came to the Byzantines. I look back at my days in the OCA as formative days that led me to an awareness of a greater good that is realized best with John Paul II, without losing our orthodox theology and customs.

This is a complex topic, the matter of conversion from orthodoxy to Rome, or vice versa. Not all answers will be readily understood by everyone, or be regarded as relevant. Please just remember that they served to work for our greater spiritual well-being, and may not always work that way for eveyone else. People are like that, you know?

Dear Jim,

Well, I've obviously misunderstood you - please forgive me!

I think we are all different in what "works" for us at the parish level.

I think what you've said about your experience with particular OCA parishes and ethnicity would also apply to many Eastern Catholic parishes in Canada.

I like to think that we are ALL Orthodox Catholics first, no matter what, and that we then go to find our home in communion with a particular Patriarchate and then parish.

Perhaps that sounds relativistic, but it is not meant to be.

May God bless you and your family in your journey toward Him as you follow the path He has set for you to walk on.

Alex

What a fascinating personal experiences!

About the OCA, I supose the original purpose was to be inclusive, to have the ethnic parishes of course (Romanian, Russian, Bulgarian, Mexican :p , etc)but also non-ethnic parishes for the normal American, However, I've seen the parish listnings and most of the parishes, no matter if they're ethnic or not, have the services in English. However, they've had problems to integrate the new inmigrants from other countries and the ethnic dioceses have the same problem (probably the most succesful OCA diocese in receiving the inmigrants is the Bulgarian Diocese, because they've developped a cathechetical rpogramme, english classes, and a lot of things in the native language).

About the hispanic population, it has been hard for the Orthodox to have estable missions and for us hispanics to understand that Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't the same thing (not exactly ), the missions aren't stable and the members usually return to catholic parishes because the orthodox churches are scarce in these regions. I've also seen that if there's not a Spanish liturgy avaible, most of us would prefer a liturgy in Slavonic or Greek, than a liturgy in English and that's the other problem.

From your comments I've seen that in Canada or England, the Eastern jurisdictions have remained more traditional and ethnic than in the USA (well in England, I supose it's because they're not so far from their native countries), than the USA (am I right?).

I am thinking about the Antiochian Orthodox Church, for example, where the only-English liturgies and the former-anglican priests are being integrated in many parishes. I'd like to know how the inmigrants (or the craddle Arabs) are feeling those changes...

...or the Ruthenian Catholic Church. To tell you the truth, I don't know if you also receive European inmigrants frequently (If I'm not mistaken, the Slovak byzcath are being integrated in Ukrainian parishes), but do you think that the use of English and the loss of an ethnic sense would not help the inmigrants to integrate?
On the other side, it is good that a lot of American people are finding a home in the OCA and the Byzantine Ruthenian Church.

Encouraging English and minimizing foreign language use in services helps to integrate immigrants into the parish if it is an English-speaking parish in the first place.

Many immigrants break entirely with their native church in order to be assimilated better into american culture, a venture that I do not happen to agree with. There can be a balance between representing ethnic elements in the parish (Food is a great example. , and creating an ethnic club which masquerades as a church. That's the problem I see with many orthodox churches here- they are more like ethnic clubs and less like churches. I don't see that in the Byzantine Catholic church. What little slavonic is used is not enough to interfere with the understanding of English speaking peoples here.

BTW, I don't disagree with Alex about coming from ethnic roots, then on to the church, either. It's just that in the desert southwest it is something of a stretch to recreate little islands of ethnicity that do not connect with the world around them, but if there are enough of the same persuasion who can establish a parish and linkage to the community well and good. For me it is better to know that the church is not ethnic in and of itself, and to work in the world for the Glory of Christ. In the case of the OCA and the Byzantines, my wife happens to be of eastern Slovakian descent, and the cultural ties are strong, especially the food. Both churches could work for us from an ethnic standpoint. That was not the reason we left the OCA.

"Dear ChristTeen,

Well, I think that you may have gone too far here . . ."

Alex,
Do you disagree with my assertion that the Catholic Church has more theological viewpoints than does Orthodoxy? Perhaps this is not true; my point was that the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western, and has an abundance of both Eastern and Western (and various other little sub-traditions, I guess one could say). It seems the Orthodox Churches are, well, Eastern. This isn't meant to be offensive to the Orthodox, it just seems kind of...well, factual. But if you feel the need, please enlighten me because gosh knows I'm not expert at this subject.

Byzinroswell,

Thanks for the info on the Tridentine parish (it's St. Francis de Sales). I'm actually reading St. Francis de Sales' Catholic Controversies right now. Mableton is about 55 minutes away from here.

ChristTeen287

*...and abundance of both Eastern and Western theologies/outlooks/Traditions.*

From where i stand the Eastern Catholics are going to be a pillar for the Western Catholics. Many things are going on in the Western "Rites" people feel the comfort of an unchanging God in a Church that remains true to Catholic tradition. Didn't your pope say something along the lines of "we need to become more like the east" or something or other....

I think that there is a serious problem when the focus is upon the "Church" or the "Rites" when the reality is the people who practice them.

People can talk about the "Church" as if it were an entity unto itself. It's not. The Church is the summation of the baptized souls who constitute it. It has NO other existence than in the believing baptized souls who come to both worship and participate in the sacraments. To suggest that there is something "essential" about a church -- WITHOUT referencing the people -- is merely an intellectual exercise without connection to reality.

There is a whole massive literature within "ecclesiology" that discusses the reality of "Church" as understood by the "church"; while it may be convenient to work from a simplistic perspective of Union with Pope=Catholic Church, everybody else is "outside", the fact remains that the Church is much much broader than the simple formulations would lead folks to believe.

Blessings!

Dr. John, you are in error. The Church is an entity unto itself. Church doctrine says that the people of the Church are not infalliable, but the Church herself is. This doctrine could not be true if there was no entity of the Church.

Dear Nikolai,

But what about the "Vox Populi" the Voice of the People?

What about the "Axios" sung at ordinations that was originally the "stamp of approval" of the people on a priestly candidate?

The Orthodox Church does indeed teach that the laity have a special role to play as members of the Royal Priesthood of Christ and as part of the Body of Christ.

The two cannot be separated, although we do submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

You seem to have a ways to go in your Orthodox catechumenate, Big Guy!

Spending too much time designing websites, are we?

Alex

Dear ChristTeen,

I guess I don't exactly understand what you mean by "theological viewpoints" and why having more of these would be a good thing!

The Byzantine Church at one point counted nearly 200 heresies emanating from its theological schools and minds. The Roman Church was Orthodox because it had ceased to be a theological powerhouse.

If you mean "Rites" and their spiritual cultures, then the Catholic Church is certainly dominated by the Latin spiritual culture and the comparativey small (and often Latinized) Eastern Churches in union with it can hardly, in my own view, be deemed to set an example in terms of spiritual diversity - although we're getting there.

Orthodoxy, on the other hand is wide enough to accept Western Rites, the Assyrian Rite. There are the beautiful Oriental Orthodox Churches with their spiritual patrimonies that are Eastern as well.

Alex

I suppose I should weigh in on this, since I have applied for canonical transfer?

My experience in the Latin Church had always been very intellectual. There was a certain appeal to this, since I have a science background. My theology was Scholastic theology. For all the intellectual understanding I had, it somehow wasn't enough.

Then I attended a Melkite Divine Liturgy. There was a huge contrast compared with the Latin Mass. You enter into the Liturgy with your whole being. That NEVER happened for me in the Mass.

I began to study more about Byzantine Christianity, but for a number of years I couldn't bring myself to pursue it further. It also didn't help that my mother discouraged me. I remember the day she said, "Why are you interested in that? You're going to become Eastern, aren't you?"

As it turned out, I fell away from the Church for a relatively short time (7-8 months). A Protestant friend of mine demanded that I go back to church weekly. I attended a few Sunday Masses after that, but I still was missing something. I decided to pursue my curiosity about Eastern Catholicism, and looked in the telephone book - and found one Byzantine Catholic parish here in Indianapolis.

I attended my first Divine Liturgy there two weeks before the Feast of SS Peter and Paul. I stayed, only going back to the Latin Church to fulfill a Mass obligation I couldn't fulfill in the Byzantine Church (and I checked with a canon lawyer on this), since I am still subject to Latin canon law.

The Byzantine Rite has in it a sort of built-in mysticism that is missing from the Roman Rite. That is important to me because of my strong inclination to intellecualism.

So why did I apply for the transfer? The best analogy I can think of is of falling in love and wanting to get married.

Dear NDHoosier,

Getting married?

Remember that we Byzantines do everything three times!!

Alex

I have to say that this is very, very odd, because I personally know many folks named in that article, including the author, quite well indeed.

In my experience, most of the folks from the Latin Church came to the Melkite parish mentioned in the article out of some sense of discontent with the Latin Church, often due to liturgical "issues" with the Latin Church. They were disproportionately conservative, religiously and politically/socially -- perhaps this was egged on by the fact that a group of them had close personal ties to Paul Weyrich, one of the deacons there (who has the temerity to pass himself off as "Orthodox" --- yup, with a big "O" and all -- to the media). Many of them remained very critical of the Latin Church and many of its usages and theological expressions. Most of them remained Catholic either because (1) personal family ties that they did not want to sever -- if even spiritually -- by joining the Orthodox Church, (2) a perception that their Melkite parish was superior to the local Orthodox parishes and (3) personal ties in the Melkite parish to the pastor and other parishioners. There were a few ex-Orthodox -- Arabs who married Melkites. There were also a few of these in the other direction -- ie, Arab Melkites who married Arab Antiochians. I did not personally know any lay ex-Orthodox in that parish, but there may have been a few who I didn't know at the time (the parish was much larger than most Eastern Orthodox parishes) or who have since landed there. I did know a few ex-Protestants in the parish -- some (not all) of them are there because it is a kind of compromise between Orthodoxy (where they wanted to go) and Roman Catholicism (where their spouse comes from). Traffic in the other direction -- ie, from Melkite to Orthodox -- was fairly common, even in the few years I was there, and since becoming Orthodox I have met even more "alumni" of that Melkite parish in the local and regional parishes of various Orthodox jurisdictions -- both lay and clerical.

One should also note well that Fr. Constantine Belisarius, who previously headed a small Melkite community (it lacked canonical status, AFAIK) in the vicinity of Front Royal (which is in the vicinity of the author), is quite a controversial figure indeed. In fact, I recall that the Ruthenian Bishop explicitly forbade members of his Eparchy from attending Fr. B's community in Front Royal, in spite of the fact that he was present there with the blessing of the Melkite bishop. Ah, so much for the joyous relations between the churches of the Catholic communion.

Brendan