www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic or Eastern?

Hello all,

What is more important to you - being Catholic or being an Eastern Christian? I ask this question because I have had conversations/ dialogues with Eastern Catholics who say that they would, without much hesitation, become Orthodox if anything should change within the Eastern Catholic Church to which they belong.

Is this pretty much a universal sentiment? If so, what, if anything, does this say about someone's Catholicism? Also, if this is the case, why is this so?

Thank you, in advance, for your replies and thoughts.

Peace,

Robin

The bottom line is that for most Eastern catholics it is an unimaginable question. Sort of like , what is more important to you -- your race or your gender? Or what is more important to you, your mother's heritage or your fathers?

I am quite confident almost all eastern catholics of whom that is their exclusive patrimony would never consider the question.

We believe in the promise of the Holy Spirit that the eternal and universal truths of the Catholic Church will persevre until the end of the world.

However, for most of us, we have come to those truths exclusively through one patrimony.

The question would be similiar to asking a Roman Catholic, what if your child were taken away from you to a place where his or her religious education would be either in a English speaking Methodist Sunday school or in a Catholic class where the instruction was entirely in a language he or she did not understand?

I cannot speak for those with experience in multiple patrimonies, obviously they are a different case.

K.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Dear Robin,

It is true that today few born Eastern Catholics consider becoming Orthodox. It was a little different in the past century, as two large waves of Ruthenian conversions to Orthodoxy took place in America over some of the issues discussed here in the forum. 60% of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA, formerly the Russian Orthodox mission in America)'s members are Ruthenians whose immigrant forbears were Eastern Catholics. Our forum's very own OrthoMan is one of them.

There are two different views, even among Eastern Catholics themselves, of what makes up the Church in its fullness. To those who believe being under the Pope as vicar of Christ is essential — which most born Eastern Catholics have been taught, especially after the last mass exodus to the Orthodox in 1938 — becoming Orthodox is not an option. However, among converts or former Romans, yes, there are those who basically hold to the Orthodox theology of the Church as a communion of Churches, not contingent on the Pope, and see moving to the Orthodox as a change of jurisdiction and not as leaving the Church, moving to a truer ecclesiology where one doesn't have to ask another Church, another patrimony, all the time for permission to be Eastern! (Which, in practice, is how Eastern Catholics are treated in the present system.)

What does it say about their Catholicism? Obviously such hold that Orthodox ecclesiology and the current Catholic setup in practice aren't compatible.

However, there are those in the "Orthodox' party among Eastern Catholics, and this party includes both born members and converts (though the latter seem more visible online), who hold that Orthodox faith and practice and Catholic communion are compatible, even when they have to buck Rome and sometimes their own officials to restore the Orthodox practices guaranteed them by their Churches' acts of union with Rome (an analogy is the way the US government made then soon broke treaties with the Native Americans). They try to live as though the Schism already were over, as Orthodox in communion with the Pope as vicar of Christ (but not their patriarch) and with the Roman Church as their sister Church, not their mother and boss. It's a tough road, a kind of martyrdom. Always has been. Seriously Orthodox-minded Eastern Catholics always have been marginalized. I am sure many are saints.

http://oldworldrus.com

Robin,

I am a Christian. I am going to belong to the local community where I can effectively live and preach the gospel--whether that is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, or Assyrian Church of the East even!

I'll admit that I went Latin in India a few times because they had an English Mass and I was tired of not understanding what was going on in the Malayalam Syriac Orthodox Mass in New Delhi.

In America, however, I must say that to me there is not a big difference between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. Sure, some are latinized, but even the Greeks here have organs, pews, electic candles, etc.

So I will stick Eastern, whether that is Catholic or Orthodox. In other words, if I moved to an area with no EC church, I would become Orthodox.

If there is a good EC chruch in the area, I'm not going to leave it because of some issue that doesn't really affect me, like if in Poland some bishop evicts married priests or something (I am not trying to make a veiled attack on one participant here who did leave over that issue in part and then came back).

I don't totally agree with Kurt's assessment, althoguh I think he does have it part right. Most EC's whose "patrimony" is one will naturally not look around because they don't know anything else. HOWEVER, that being said, I think what he says applies to modern Americanized Rusyns and maybe some in Slovakia. Many Ukrainians and Arabs I meet tend to freely go back and forth between Orthodox and Catholic.

anastasios

Dear Robin,

This is how things shaped up in Canada.

90% of the Ukrainian Orthodox here are former Eastern Catholics or are descended from former Eastern Catholic families.

Historically, this came about because of difficulties with the local Latin hierarchy and also with the Eastern Catholic hierarchy from the "Old Country."

Tension between Latin and Byzantine Rite Catholics in the "Old Country" resulted in a great emphasis on the Eastern Rite and Old Calendar as something intrinsic to one's self-definition.

The idea of becoming Roman Catholic would never have crossed anyone's mind, since this was tantamount to changing one's ethnic/cultural identity (i.e. "treason").

As one person said, Ukrainians pay less attention to the differences between a Catholic or Orthodox Church than they do to the differences between a "Ukrainian or a non-Ukrainian" Church.

Jumping ship still occurs, as occurred in a series of cases that occurred during our five-year conflict with our two bishops up here.

Those, and their name is legion, Ukrainians for whom their identity and community are important would see in their Eastern traditions derived from Orthodoxy the guarantor of that identity.

If push came to shove (perhaps Edwin could start a "Case Study 2" on this!), and if the road had to be crossed, most Ukrainians would become Orthodox. I know I would.

Alex

Yes, I agree with Alex. For many Ukrainians, being cut off from the Ukrainian community is unthinkable. But obviously, if the question was, say Roman Rite or the Melkite, the stats for Canada are pretty clear.

K.

So, in a nutshell, it really doesn't matter if it's Eastern Catholic or Orthodox as long as it is Eastern? The pope has nothing to do with it at all? Or, any of the other things Catholic? The truth of the matter all revolves around ethnicity.

Thank you. You all have answered my questions appropriately and satisfactorily.

Peace,

Robin

Rob,

NO IT DOES NOT *ALL* REVOLVE AROUND ETHNICITY!!!!!!!!!!

You are putting words in our mouths.

Ritual patrimony involves a lot more than "ethnicity".

When one is inculturated in a liturgical, theological, and sacramental patrimony, that is how s/he relates to God. It may be frosting on the cake (cake being faith in Christ) BUT how many people eat cake without frosting? Or how many people, when offered a cake with vanilla frosting, say "I think I'll take it off and add chocolate." Sure, it can be done, sure it happens, but my point is that one's patrimony ("Rite") is VERY VERY VERY integral to how s/he lives the faith and perceives it.

Many RC's come to our churches and enjoy them. But they don't join because somehow our church doesn't jive with their life. That's that inner quite influence of patrimony. Would we expect them to do otherwise?

I am not advocating the idea that one cannot switch patrimonies (ahh remember the golden age of this forum when Kurt and Stuart and me and Serge and Alex used to battle about that issue?? :-) ) But what I am saying is that you can't just tell a Byzantine, "you should worship with RC's because of the pope."

Well to me that is like saying, "who cares how you were initiated into the church, how you are used to celebrating the faith through feasts and fasts, which saints you honor, which prayers you pray, which liturgy you attend, if you find yourself in an area without EC's, you should by default go Latin because of some nice idea of the guy in Rome." Well I can think nice thoughts about the Pope and even recognize him as the first bishop, and be just fine in an Orthodox Church. Which is what I woudl do if I found myself in an area with no EC church.

anastasios

Anastasios,

"NO IT DOES NOT *ALL* REVOLVE AROUND ETHNICITY!!!!!!!!!!"

Listen, I'm not trying to anger anyone here. I seem to have irritated you. Sorry. But, from what I have read in the responses, yes it does revolve around ethnicity. It certainly does not revolve around ecclesiology or what greater Church you belong to.

"You are putting words in our mouths."

No I am not. I merely reiterated what everyone has basically said.

"Ritual patrimony involves a lot more than "ethnicity"."

Not if that ritual patrimony is unique to a given ethnic region. Let's face it - there is a difference between the rituals of the East and the West and those boundaries were primarily defined by ethnicity.

"When one is inculturated in a liturgical, theological, and sacramental patrimony, that is how s/he relates to God. It may be frosting on the cake (cake being faith in Christ) BUT how many people eat cake without frosting? Or how many people, when offered a cake with vanilla frosting, say "I think I'll take it off and add chocolate." Sure, it can be done, sure it happens, but my point is that one's patrimony ("Rite") is VERY VERY VERY integral to how s/he lives the faith and perceives it."

Again, not unrelated to ethnicity. Latins don't worship or have the same fasting rules that the Eastern Catholics do. They never did. That did revolve around geography and the bishops of the region. Ethnicity is related to regional geographicy.

"Many RC's come to our churches and enjoy them. But they don't join because somehow our church doesn't jive with their life. That's that inner quite influence of patrimony. Would we expect them to do otherwise?"

I expect that the same would hold true for Eastern Catholics visiting RC parishes.

"I am not advocating the idea that one cannot switch patrimonies (ahh remember the golden age of this forum when Kurt and Stuart and me and Serge and Alex used to battle about that issue?? :-) ) But what I am saying is that you can't just tell a Byzantine, "you should worship with RC's because of the pope.""

Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I never implied that an Eastern Catholic should worship with RC's because of the pope. I was merely curious as to *what* was more important to Eastern Catholics being Eastern (whether that ultimately meant Catholic or Orthodox) or being Catholic.

"Well to me that is like saying, "who cares how you were initiated into the church, how you are used to celebrating the faith through feasts and fasts, which saints you honor, which prayers you pray, which liturgy you attend, if you find yourself in an area without EC's, you should by default go Latin because of some nice idea of the guy in Rome." Well I can think nice thoughts about the Pope and even recognize him as the first bishop, and be just fine in an Orthodox Church. Which is what I woudl do if I found myself in an area with no EC church."

Again, you have answered my question. It is ultimately more important that you are Eastern. That, really, doesn't say much about the Catholic part of the equation does it?

Finally, please relax. I'm just asking questions.

Rob

Rob,

I think you are finding frustration because you offer up a false dilemma. If I asked those on this board: "What is more important to you, pro-life or the Eucharist?" what do you think the answer would be?

or let me put it another way. A couple in a mixed marriage loyally go to their respective churches for years, each of which find great comfort. Late in life wife becomes feeble. The Catholic husband takes her to her Methodist chapel each Sunday, as otherwise she would be homebound. The makes it neccesary for him to miss Liturgy. After five years, his wife passes away and he resumes attending Liturgy. ANything surprising here?

K.

Dear Robin,

As someone who did his Ph.D. on ethnicity, I think I know a thing or two about this topic.

Ethnicity is part of the issue to be sure.

To be fair, and as Kurt has mentioned when he discussed a survey on another thread, there are many national/ethnic groups for whom Roman Catholicisim is the guarantor of their identity.

Hispanic peoples, Polish and other West Slavic groups, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, the Irish - ethnicity and Catholicism is SO intertwined that one cannot separate the two. Where would one begin, for starters?

The same is true of Orthodoxy where it became the faith of cultural/national groups.

When our ancestors in the sixteenth century and at other times came into union with Rome, the commemoration of the Pope (once) during the Eastern Liturgies, was the only change that took place. Most of our ancestors didn't even know, for the most part, about this to begin with.

Every aspect of our liturgical and ritual life as Particular Churches were to be preserved and maintained, including the Old Calendar, to which Rome initially agreed.

As a matter of fact, the language in which our bishops couched the matter was tentative, that is to say, "if Rome agrees then we will . . ."

The fact is that we belong to the Universal Church, all of us in fact, through our membership in the local, Particular Church.

You belong to the Catholic Church through your membership in the Particular Latin Church, as I belong to the Catholic Church through my membership in the Particular Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite (Greco-Ruthenian).

This is not a case of we're ecclesial minorities with our own church hierarchies and you are, by virtue of being "Catholic" a member of the "Universal Church."

Roman Catholic theologians who have debated this issue (e.g. St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine) have even said that Catholics have the right to oppose the Pope under certain circumstances, including ones in which he might wish to "destroy the Church or any aspect of it."

If Rome wished to suppress our legitimate, Apostolic patrimony as Byzantine Catholics to impose a Latin Rite, we would therefore be within our rights to become Orthodox.

I have also spoken to Catholic theology professors who have said that Eastern Catholics "always have the right to return to their mother Orthodox Church from whence their Church came."

Rome does not regard the Orthodox in the same (rather negative) way you seem to.

My own view is that the whole Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical endeavour would be a bit more streamlined if there were no Eastern Catholics, but just Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

We started out as an ecumenical experiment with the Orthodox that exploded in Rome's face and we've turned into an ecumenical thorn in the side for the whole Catholic-Orthodox dialogue thingy.

You also have to be sensitive to the fact that our Churches defended our people against annihilation by foreign powers, including foreign Roman Catholic powers. We have a most intimate tie with our Church and her traditions that I think it is fair to say most western RC's don't.

But this is a hypothetical question you've raised.

The current Pope is not only very ecumenical and understanding of the East, he is a great lover of his own culture/nation and his experience of Catholicism is that of his nation. For him, and for most Poles, the two go hand in hand.

Kurt's earlier point rings very loudly here and the Pope could not possibly consider his faith and his culture in isolation from each other.

Did not His Holiness, if reports are to be believed, tell the former Soviet Union, that if they should invade Poland, he would abdicate and return to his homeland to lead the struggle against it?

If you asked the Pope what he holds more dear, Polish Christianity or the Tiara, what do you think his answer might be?

He would still be a Catholic, of course. But a strike at the Polish Church and people would, for him, be a strike at his heart.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurt:
[QB]Rob,

I think you are finding frustration because you offer up a false dilemma. If I asked those on this board: "What is more important to you, pro-life or the Eucharist?" what do you think the answer would be?

Kurt,

I do understand. What I am trying to ascertain is this: when push comes to shove is a person's Eastern worship and ecclesial "lifestyle" more important to them than their Catholocity? Say, for example (and I think I already know the answer) that the local Eastern Catholic church closes because there just aren't enough parishioners around to keep it going. The only two churches available are an Orthodox church and a Roman Catholic church. Which one would the Eastern Catholic attend?

I am Roman Catholic and the choice would be easy for me. I would, without a doubt, attend the Eastern Catholic church because, in the end, it is a Catholic church. Right or wrong, I wouldn't make that much of a distinction except that I would still be able to be Catholic.

Peace,

Robin

"But, from what I have read in the responses, yes it does revolve around ethnicity. It certainly does not revolve around ecclesiology or what greater Church you belong to."

There isn't any such thing as "what greater Church you belong to" -- you belong to a local, particular church that is in communion with other local, particular churches. The nature of this communion is an ecclesiological issue, to be sure, but isn't one that impacts the lives of most of the Byzantine Christians, whether of Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction.

But, despite that, it's really a question of how one is inculturated into the faith, how one is taught. Was a time when all Catholics regardless of particular church were taught a de facto view of the church that said that, in effect, "Catholic is Catholic". That mentality places a premium on ecclesiological issues within the Catholic communion over the patrimony of the particular church -- in other words, it places (quite intentionally) the abstraction of what you refer to as "the greater church" over and above the concrete reality of the local particular church where the faith is lived out. In recent decades, there has been more of a return to the emphasis on the particular church and its own patrimony, and therefore it's only to be expected that greater numbers of Eastern Catholics will place a greater emphasis on their own local church patrimony -- which is the context in which their faith is lived -- than larger ecclesial abstractions.

This isn't ethnicity, but ritual patrimony. There are many Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clerics who are not of the various ethnicities that traditionally have been encompassed by Eastern Christianity -- whether Byzantine or otherwise. Yet they adopt the patrimony because it, in its essence, is universal in the same way that the Latin rite is universal --- it is simply different from the Latin rite.

Brendan

Dear Alex,

"Rome does not regard the Orthodox in the same (rather negative) way you seem to."

My question gets turned into this from you? Quite frankly, I would hope that someone with a Ph.D. would not read something so erroneous into a simple question. You don't know me. Nor, do you know what view, if any, I hold regarding the Orthodox Church.

I am beginning to see your bias though.

Peace,

Robin

"There isn't any such thing as "what greater Church you belong to" -- you belong to a local, particular church that is in communion with other local, particular churches. The nature of this communion is an ecclesiological issue, to be sure, but isn't one that impacts the lives of most of the Byzantine Christians, whether of
Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction."

Come on, Brendan. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, this just isn't true. Eastern Catholics are part of the greater Catholic Church.

Why is it that everytime I stop in here to ask a question it turns into an argument? Regardless of my reply or question it ALWAYS ruffles the feathers of this forum. If I wrote and asked what color the sky is it would start an argument. If I wrote and asked what color yellow mustard is I would get an argument.

Sorry I even stopped in here and asked you folks anything.

Robin