A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[Peter_J]

Again, it is your communion’s statistical lack of diversity (2% Eastern/Oriental, 98% Roman/Latin) that provides you with the illusion that your church is “universal” while others are “ethnic”.

I would say it’s the fact that, since the Council of Trent, the Roman-Rite has been imposed on the vast majority of Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

By the way, Isaiah45_9, not to put too fine a point on it, but you do realize that the diversity you see within the Latin Church in particular is a result of European colonialism, not that Vietnamese, Mexicans, Filipinos, etc. just happen to love the Roman Catholic Church, right? I don’t mean to doubt any particular non-European’s commitment to the RCC, but only to point out that I don’t think the RCC itself these days would want credit for having been the colonial church it very much was in the past, even though that position is what permitted it to become a church full of Asians, Africans, Hispanics, and white people.

At least in the case of the Coptic Orthodox Church (and most OO churches, really, except for the Ethiopians), we never had that advantage. Instead, the Romans and others came to us, like our Roman Fathers Abba Maximos and Abba Demetrios, and Abba Arsenios, who all came to the deserts of Egypt to learn monasticism and establish monasteries (like one of our most famous “Deir Baramous” = The Monastery of the Romans). And likewise we count Persians (ex. John the Persian), Palestinians (St. George), Syrians (St. Ephrem), Greeks (St. Demetrius of Thessalonica and about a million others), Ethiopians (St. Moses, Abdelmasih el Habashy), Indians (even converted Latins, like Mor Julius of Goa), and many, many others among our saints.

And you can ask the many hundreds of converts in South and Central America why Orthodoxy is so ethnic that we have the audacity to have liturgy in their language. The Church in Bolivia began with one Coptic family who were visited by a priest. They later left, but by that time the priest was so beloved by the surrounding community (of Bolivians, not Copts) that many had asked to become Orthodox and be baptized by him. Now there are 400+ who attend liturgy at the cathedral in the capital alone, with many, many more in the countryside (the video linked above was in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, one of the larger cities, but I have seen others outdoors in various locations). This is how Orthodoxy spreads, and not only in Bolivia, but also in rural Africa, Malaysia, Japan, Mexico, and everywhere. So of course there are less of us than you…you guys got a 500-or so year head start and came with colonial administrations. We come with one priest, or one tiny group, or like in Las Cruces this last weekend, through a pre-established friendship with a Copt and a non-Orthodox person (the Mexican lady who attended liturgy last week specifically stated that she was interested in Coptic Orthodoxy because it has never been a colonial church, unlike the RC church in her native Mexico).

(Note: I don’t write any of this to demonize the RCC or its faith, as I know that great strides have been taken, particularly since the 1960s, to nativize the liturgy in a given place and to move away from colonial trappings. These things take time, and nobody should fault the RCC for its history when it is trying to do better now. That history nonetheless remains what it is, and has made a deep impact on many people in formerly European-colonized countries who are now trying to find native forms of Christianity they can make their own. The growth of the COC in Africa is very much helped by its being the only Apostolic Church to be born in Africa and made up mostly of native African people.)

 

[dzheremi]

I would say it’s the fact that, since the Council of Trent, the Roman-Rite has been imposed on the vast majority of Catholics.

That may be so, Peter J, but given my religion as listed this is the kind of observation that you can make here on CAF, but I cannot.

I don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[SteveVH]

So what are we Eastern Catholics, chopped liver?

Did I say that? In fact, an important point here is that if I asked for the Catholic Church and was sent to a Coptic Church I would have no issue at all in attending and receiving the Eucharist. Maybe the same would be true of a Greek Orthodox attending a Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy, but I don’t know that for sure. What I do know is that they prefer their own particular Church and would probably not be enthralled with being sent to another.

 

[dzheremi]

That’s simply not true. They are used to their own particular church, but there is nothing that they “wouldn’t be too enthralled” to experience in another. I know that without even being in communion with the EO, because the ecclesiastical principles of Orthodoxy work the same in the OO communion.

I mean, think about it: if you were lucky enough to attend a Coptic Catholic Church (there are only maybe 5 in all of North America, so you’d have to be lucky), would you be less than enthused because it’s not a Latin church? No, right? So why would you assume that Orthodox people don’t like being in churches outside of their jurisdiction?

My jurisdiction is a result of my being connected to specifically Coptic expressions of spirituality (as it was HH Pope Shenouda III who really brought me to Orthodoxy, along the walkway built by the Desert Fathers). I didn’t really even consider any others, as I had already been to the local OCA back home, and I didn’t know anything but the EO and RCC. But be all that as it may, it is definitely high on my list of things to do in life to likewise go to Armenian, Indian, Syriac, British, French, Ethiopian, and Eritrean parishes. I might have trouble following some of them (particularly the Armenian and British, I’d bet), but they’re there. I’m in communion with them. They are my brothers and sisters. I mean if I just wanted a church full of people like me, why wouldn’t I have just stayed RC? Your sense of what Orthodox people must think reveals a lack of understanding of what it means to be Orthodox.

 

[steve_b]

Presumably the Orthodox answer would be to say that it is precisely because the Orthodox are one church that they have no single representative.

N:

If the Russians and the Greeks share the same faith, then you can talk to the Greeks or the Russians and either way you’re talking to the Orthodox.

Are you absolutely sure the ROC and the Greeks have no differences in theology?
N:

The second point would be that while nobody denies that the Roman Catholic Church is one, some might think that it is rather monolithic;

So what you’re really saing is the Orthodox really aren’t one?.
N:

the Orthodox know that they can get on as well as they like with the Eastern Catholic bishops in, say, the Middle East, but that nothing will come of it without the say-so of the Bishop of Rome. While that’s all good and proper in your ecclesiology, it’s not very good in theirs. Different perspectives.

I think it safe to say, Kasper’s perspective is that because there is no one in Orthodoxy who speaks for the whole or there would be such a person, it’s necessary then to negotiate with each Orthodox Church independently as each makes their own decisions

 

[steve_b]

Again, it is your communion’s statistical lack of diversity (2% Eastern/Oriental, 98% Roman/Latin) that provides you with the illusion that your church is “universal” while others are “ethnic”.

I saw Peter grab this portion of what you said. I wanted to respond too.

In your words, allow me to present a different perspective

Re: the comment “lack of diversity”, during the Protestant revolt in Europe, lots of Catholics left the faith for Protestantism. However, in Mexico, the Blessed Mother was busy converting 9 million to the Catholic faith. Way to go mom :extrahappy:

sancta.org/

That website has lots of internal links giving details of the events.

For example

Our Lady of Guadalupe note year 1531, protestant revolt was in full swing.

Chronology of Events The Latin rite has always been evangelistic. As a result it has always been diverse.

Saint Juan Diego

The Basilica

 

[SteveVH]

That’s simply not true. They are used to their own particular church, but there is nothing that they “wouldn’t be too enthralled” to experience in another. I know that without even being in communion with the EO, because the ecclesiastical principles of Orthodoxy work the same in the OO communion.

I mean, think about it: if you were lucky enough to attend a Coptic Catholic Church (there are only maybe 5 in all of North America, so you’d have to be lucky), would you be less than enthused because it’s not a Latin church? No, right? So why would you assume that Orthodox people don’t like being in churches outside of their jurisdiction?

My jurisdiction is a result of my being connected to specifically Coptic expressions of spirituality (as it was HH Pope Shenouda III who really brought me to Orthodoxy, along the walkway built by the Desert Fathers). I didn’t really even consider any others, as I had already been to the local OCA back home, and I didn’t know anything but the EO and RCC. But be all that as it may, it is definitely high on my list of things to do in life to likewise go to Armenian, Indian, Syriac, British, French, Ethiopian, and Eritrean parishes. I might have trouble following some of them (particularly the Armenian and British, I’d bet), but they’re there. I’m in communion with them. They are my brothers and sisters. I mean if I just wanted a church full of people like me, why wouldn’t I have just stayed RC? Your sense of what Orthodox people must think reveals a lack of understanding of what it means to be Orthodox.

Fair enough. This has gone far beyond what I intended with my statement.

So let me just ask you this for my own education. If you were in a large metropolitan area and someone asked you where the “Orthodox Church” is, what would you tell them?

 

[Novocastrian]

Are you absolutely sure the ROC and the Greeks have no differences in theology?

Id say that there are fewer differences than between, say, a Latin Catholic and a Coptic or Assyrian Catholic.

So what you’re really saing is the Orthodox really aren’t one?

You know full well that I’m not saying that…

I think it safe to say, Kasper’s perspective is that because there is no one in Orthodoxy who speaks for the whole or there would be such a person, it’s necessary then to negotiate with each Orthodox Church independently as each makes their own decisions

Yep. That doesn’t mean that they’re not one in faith.

 

[steve_b]

Id say that there are fewer differences than between, say, a Latin Catholic and a Coptic or Assyrian Catholic.

I recognize you’re Church of England which is protestant. So you might not know the answer to the question I asked.
N:

Yep. That doesn’t mean that they’re not one in faith.

Being “one” has actual visible as well as spiritual realities. It’s not just because one “says” they are one.

For example

The process of the Catholic Church dialoguing with individual Orthodox Churches brings about individual decisions among individual Orthodox churches over time towards being “one” in faith and Church. Hence Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church happen. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html

The article I linked to quoting from Card Kasper, said there was real progress being made in talks with Antioch. I haven’t heard where that is currently.

 

[Peter_J]

The process of the Catholic Church dialoguing with individual Orthodox Churches brings about individual decisions among individual Orthodox churches over time towards being “one” in faith and Church. Hence Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church happen.

This kind of polemic is one of the reasons I seldom read your posts these day. (Well, along with the fact that I’ve read enough of your past posts that hardly anything you say now is new to me, but you get the idea.)

But having said that, I am curious what your take would be on a situation where the reverse happened … i.e. a group of Catholics deciding to become Orthodox as a result of dialogue with the Orthodox?

 

[dzheremi]

So let me just ask you this for my own education. If you were in a large metropolitan area and someone asked you where the “Orthodox Church” is, what would you tell them?

If they were here in ABQ, I’d take them with me to St. Bishoy COC. Duh.

If we were somewhere else, I’d send them to wherever the nearest OO church is. If they specifically wanted an EO church, I assume they’d tell me and I’d find the nearest EO church (well, realistically they probably wouldn’t ask me; they’d ask some Byzantine person by looking up EO churches in the phone book or something). If they didn’t tell me I’d assume they don’t bother with or understand the schism, in which case we’d still be going to the nearest OO church. It’s not terribly complicated.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Again, it is your communion’s statistical lack of diversity (2% Eastern/Oriental, 98% Roman/Latin) that provides you with the illusion that your church is “universal” while others are “ethnic”.

Illusion… You mean I need to see a psychologist now? I imagined the diversity at my Church and the lack of diversity at all the others. I must be losing my mind…

You know, this appears to be a very sore subject to you and it clearly shows in your post.

Go tell a Syriac Maronite or a Chaldean that he is being “ethnic”. In fact, nevermind that, go tell the average Latin parish that. At the Latin church in my hometown, the church reflected the demographics of the town itself: roughly split 50/50 between Anglos and Latinos, who had separate masses since the Anglo priest knew no Spanish. There was hardly any crossover between the two communities, except for people like me who are of mixed cultural background (my grandmother on my father’s side was Mexican; my mother’s side of the family are all Anglo). What was bad, though, was that the two communities had different sermons preached to them on a regular basis, with the Hispanic priest often telling the congregation “the Anglos gave $(big number) this week, but we only gave $(smaller number)…why is that? Are they more committed to the Church than we are?” This was my experience in that particular parish, and it certainly didn’t seem very united to me.

And who am I to refute your personal experience?

Also, I did not say that all the Catholic Parishes around the world are like mine. And like I have said many times before, there is always an exception and plenty of posters to point it out.

At the Coptic church into which I was received, the situation seemed different: There were Anglos (whole families, apparently without Egyptian roots or spouses), Ethiopians, Eritreans, Syriacs, Hispanic people, etc. The deacon who drove me to the airport at the end of the day was an Iraqi Assyrian with a Coptic name worshiping in a Coptic Orthodox Church. Just this last week in Las Cruces, there were maybe 10 people in attendance at the liturgy outside of the deacons and the priest, and that included three different cultural backgrounds (Egyptians, Mexicans, and Anglos). We regularly have Ethiopians visit us in ABQ despite the fact that for them it’s a 6 hour drive, and before them we had Sudanese, Jordanians, Armenians, and several Anglos. We are a tiny community of maybe 40 people and still we drive 6 hours round trip to serve liturgy for the local non-Copts in Las Cruces, or somehow manage to attract locals of all stripes here in Albuquerque. Personal experience, indeed.

Well, good for you. That however has not been my experience, and this is the reason I specifically made the effort to make that clear. I mean, should I believe some dude on the internet or what I have experienced in real life?.. I’m old enough to give a dude on the net a back seat.

However, the Catholic Church is not the Greek Catholic Church, or the Russian Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Assyrian Catholic Church.

It is the Catholic Church - period

And you know what, I’m ok with the Churches that want to be ethnic and regional. We should be proud of our heritage. Just don’t try to make it be something it is not.

Again, the Catholic Church is just that Catholic - as much as people want to slander us and call us romanists or any other name, it is the Universal Church in the world and it includes 23 rites. No other Church on the planet is as diverse and universal as we are.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, good for you. That however has not been my experience, and this is the reason I specifically made the effort to make that clear. I mean, should I believe some dude on the internet or what I have experienced in real life?.. I’m old enough to give a dude on the net a back seat.

I phrased my reply in the manner that I did due to your earlier post where you wrote something like “nobody can tell me I didn’t see what I saw”. True enough. And since your personal experience is enough for you, mine is likewise enough for me.

However, the Catholic Church is not the Greek Catholic Church, or the Russian Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Assyrian Catholic Church.

It is the Catholic Church - period

Except for all those times when it is the Greek Catholic, Russian Catholic, Coptic Catholic, etc., but I understand what you mean. In Orthodoxy we say the same about our Church. You won’t find the word “Copt” in any of our services, except for a few praise hymns that refer to HH Pope Tawadros as “leader of the Copts” (because he is), or refer to St. Mark the Evangelist bringing the Gospel to the Egyptians (because he did). And all the references to the Church in prayers all use words that I’m sure you would be very familiar with in your own Church: Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic, etc. We routinely pray to God in our services that He remember the peace of His one, only, Catholic and Apostolic church – meaning, of course, the Orthodox Church. So I don’t think we’re all that different in this regard. We just see ourselves as the true Church, just like you see your Church, not ours, as the true Church.

Pretending that you do not have distinct ethnic/national churches in your communion doesn’t change any of this, in either of our communions.

And you know what, I’m ok with the Churches that want to be ethnic and regional. We should be proud of our heritage. Just don’t try to make it be something it is not.

Please do not post things like this. I have gone out of my way to try to be nice to the RCC with all kinds of hedges (when I’ve had to say something that could very easily be taken negatively, as my earlier point about the RCC and colonialism) and recognition of similarities where they are, as above. I do not want to be banned for responding in kind, which is what I know would happen in this kind of environment. Suffice it to say, we are neither regional nor “ethnic” in any negative sense. Now more so than ever, thanks to the diaspora and our Christ-loving and forward-thinking bishops, priests, and people, things are once again looking up in this regard. In addition to the over 200 churches in USA within my jurisdiction alone, there is hardly a place I could go elsewhere in the Americas where I could not find, if not a church, a mission, an orphanage, a community, etc. Just a little while ago I received my diocesan newsletter which mentioned that the Church in Bolivia is collecting funds to build a church in Costa Rica, and that there is a mission trip planned for (IIRC) Trinidad and Tobago. There are Coptic churches in Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, South Africa, and other nations. The Armenians and Indians are huge in the Gulf states (Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain…pretty much everywhere but KSA, for obvious reasons), and the Ethiopians have established several churches in the Caribbean, to my knowledge.

Again, the Catholic Church is just that Catholic - as much as people want to slander us and call us romanists or any other name, it is the Universal Church in the world and it includes 23 rites. No other Church on the planet is as diverse and universal as we are.

Well, I hope you haven’t thought I have been trying to slander you here. No one doubts that the Roman communion is diverse in its total number of constituent churches (not rites…hi, Peter J ), though less so in its relative numbers. But this is not what “Catholic” means, properly. In its original adjectival sense (which is how the Orthodox use it), it means “whole; complete” (literally ‘throughout the whole’, i.e., Catholic doctrine is that which is believed throughout the whole communion), and this we believe we are. The Church was just as Catholic in its earliest days in Jerusalem as it would later be in Egypt, India, Ethiopia, Rome, Antioch, the Persian Empire, or any of the places which were home to early centers of Christianity. And it remains just as Catholic everywhere the true Orthodox (Catholic) faith is preached, in all languages and among all peoples.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I really wish you would learn a bit about us Eastern Catholics

That makes 2 of us. But you are Catholic just as I am . I’m just of the Latin Rite type.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So I don’t think we’re all that different in this regard. We just see ourselves as the true Church, just like you see your Church, not ours, as the true Church.

Agreed.

Pretending that you do not have distinct ethnic/national churches in your communion doesn’t change any of this, in either of our communions.

I am not pretending and neither am I claiming this. I am talking about universality. I don’t see the point of bringing this up.

Please do not post things like this.

Suffice it to say, we are neither regional nor “ethnic” in any negative sense.

I see no other way of posting it.

And, btw, this just gave you a great opportunity to expand on the limits of my personal experience. You are still a dude on the net, thou. That is, unless you are up for a couple of “frías” .

But this is not what “Catholic” means, properly.

Well, that is is the eye of the beholder isn’t it? We do, however, hold the name .

 

[Isaiah45_9]

By the way, Isaiah45_9, not to put too fine a point on it, but you do realize that the diversity you see within the Latin Church in particular is a result of European colonialism, not that Vietnamese, Mexicans, Filipinos, etc. just happen to love the Roman Catholic Church, right? I don’t mean to doubt any particular non-European’s commitment to the RCC, but only to point out that I don’t think the RCC itself these days would want credit for having been the colonial church it very much was in the past, even though that position is what permitted it to become a church full of Asians, Africans, Hispanics, and white people.

At least in the case of the Coptic Orthodox Church (and most OO churches, really, except for the Ethiopians), we never had that advantage. Instead, the Romans and others came to us, like our Roman Fathers Abba Maximos and Abba Demetrios, and Abba Arsenios, who all came to the deserts of Egypt to learn monasticism and establish monasteries (like one of our most famous “Deir Baramous” = The Monastery of the Romans). And likewise we count Persians (ex. John the Persian), Palestinians (St. George), Syrians (St. Ephrem), Greeks (St. Demetrius of Thessalonica and about a million others), Ethiopians (St. Moses, Abdelmasih el Habashy), Indians (even converted Latins, like Mor Julius of Goa), and many, many others among our saints.

And you can ask the many hundreds of converts in South and Central America why Orthodoxy is so ethnic that we have the audacity to have liturgy in their language. The Church in Bolivia began with one Coptic family who were visited by a priest. They later left, but by that time the priest was so beloved by the surrounding community (of Bolivians, not Copts) that many had asked to become Orthodox and be baptized by him. Now there are 400+ who attend liturgy at the cathedral in the capital alone, with many, many more in the countryside (the video linked above was in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, one of the larger cities, but I have seen others outdoors in various locations). This is how Orthodoxy spreads, and not only in Bolivia, but also in rural Africa, Malaysia, Japan, Mexico, and everywhere. So of course there are less of us than you…you guys got a 500-or so year head start and came with colonial administrations. We come with one priest, or one tiny group, or like in Las Cruces this last weekend, through a pre-established friendship with a Copt and a non-Orthodox person (the Mexican lady who attended liturgy last week specifically stated that she was interested in Coptic Orthodoxy because it has never been a colonial church, unlike the RC church in her native Mexico).

(Note: I don’t write any of this to demonize the RCC or its faith, as I know that great strides have been taken, particularly since the 1960s, to nativize the liturgy in a given place and to move away from colonial trappings. These things take time, and nobody should fault the RCC for its history when it is trying to do better now. That history nonetheless remains what it is, and has made a deep impact on many people in formerly European-colonized countries who are now trying to find native forms of Christianity they can make their own. The growth of the COC in Africa is very much helped by its being the only Apostolic Church to be born in Africa and made up mostly of native African people.)

I missed this post.

I am well aware of our Church’s history and I am not one to shy away from the gray parts. But I am also aware of the white parts.

There is a lot of history to go along with colonialism and many efforts from the Catholic Church to humanize the conquering of the “New World”. And not to forget - the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached as well. But to narrow down the conversion to colonialism and ignore the power of the Gospel doesn’t really do justice to how the Catholic Church stands today and the good things it has done throughout history. Regardless of how much others want to bring the plucks in our eyes up.

You would have had a similar history had it not been for the different geographical and political issues between your Churches and that each wants to maintain its own hierarchy.

But that is the wonderful thing about Christ, He is faithful to His Church and carries us through times of trouble. Many have tried to demonize us (And I’m not saying you are) and all have failed.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us, sinners.

 

[dzheremi]

I see no other way of posting it.

Fair enough, but it runs up against modern history which has seen a sharp decline in RC faithful in its traditional European homeland, as well as evidence of expanding Orthodox communities in many of those same places and elsewhere where the RCC is seen as institutional, corrupt, and the arm of colonialist ideologies. Will we ever get to brag of our numbers and breadth as you have? Probably not. That doesn’t really matter. But where it counts, in terms of fidelity to the ancient faith of the apostles, we know where we stand. I’ll leave it at that, in deference to the fact that you could/will/do say the same about your church.

And, btw, this just gave you a great opportunity to expand on the limits of my personal experience. You are still a dude on the net, thou. That is, unless you are up for a couple of “frías” .

Huh? I don’t follow.

Well, that is is the eye of the beholder isn’t it?

No. It’s the history of the word.

We do, however, hold the name .

In the sense of “proper noun” maybe, but that matters little. You could copyright “Catholic Church” and have that copyright notice posted inside St. Peter’s Basilica and it wouldn’t change our beliefs, nor our ancient liturgical prayers which already proclaim that we of the Orthodox faith are the Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll leave it at that, in deference to the fact that you could/will/do say the same about your church.

Yes.

Huh? I don’t follow.

Because I posted about my experience, you had an opportunity to talk about how your Church is more universal than what my experience is.

And because I don’t know you in person, you are a dude on the net. And “frias” means “cold ones” in Spanish.

No. It’s the history of the word.

And we say the same. Which we were for a thousand years one Church.

In the sense of “proper noun” maybe, but that matters little. You could copyright “Catholic Church” and have that copyright notice posted inside St. Peter’s Basilica and it wouldn’t change our beliefs, nor our ancient liturgical prayers which already proclaim that we of the Orthodox faith are the Catholic Church.

We are aware of your hardheadedness and you are well aware of ours, thus we have not been able to reconcile after many centuries… We can go back and forth on this ad nauseum.

 

[KnitNut]

Did I say that? In fact, an important point here is that if I asked for the Catholic Church and was sent to a Coptic Church I would have no issue at all in attending and receiving the Eucharist. Maybe the same would be true of a Greek Orthodox attending a Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy, but I don’t know that for sure. What I do know is that they prefer their own particular Church and would probably not be enthralled with being sent to another.

Sort of like how a traditionalist RC might not be enthralled with being sent to the rock guitar mass at the RC church nearest my house. It doesn’t mean the traddies & the guitar-mass fans are each any less RC, right? Just different expressions of the same thing, both OK within your hierarchy. Honestly, wouldn’t MOST people of ANY faith be more comfortable in their home parish? That doesn’t mean visiting another church within their faith tradition is a big taboo. Greek Orthodox & Russian Orthodox are both within the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Not a big deal. (And hey, my jurisdiction is ROCOR and my “home turf” DL is in English. In Boston. Go figure.)