Culture and Ethnicity in the Church in the United States

Más Mural
photo by Ruby Sinreich, 2005

  Many of the tensions experienced within the Church in the United States have ethnic roots. The various ethnicities of the immigrants who make up this “immigrant church,” as Jay Dolan calls the Catholic Church in the U.S. in his book The American Catholic Experience, deeply inform attitudes and beliefs about church disciplines (125). There is often disagreement in this land – about what really is a Christian, how a Christian really ought to live, or what a Christian really ought to believe – that has more to do with ethnic and cultural backgrounds than with anything that Christ taught or exemplified. Nonetheless, the Church exists in a world of manifold cultures and ethnicities. If the Church intends to preach the gospel to all creation and to make disciples of all nations, as Jesus taught, she must seek ways of communicating this good news to each nation in culturally comprehensible terms (cf. Mark 16:15; Matt 28:19). In other words, the gospel must be in some sense inculturated. This is a deep problem in the U.S., where there is no one culture or ethnicity. In this nation, various inculturations of the same gospel compete. There is value in preserving these various heritages in all their diversity, rather than compelling all to assimilate to the dominant one, as long as people do not confuse cultural or ethnic expressions of Christian faith with the Christian faith itself – as long as Christians can learn to recognize Christ in cultures and ethnicities other than their own.
     
        The issue of ethnicity has particularly affected Eastern Christians in America. Partly because the migration to America from Eastern Europe and the Middle East began in significant numbers later than that from Western Europe in the history of immigration to this land, there was – from the moment of their arrival – pressure upon the minority ethnic communities of Eastern Christians in America to assimilate to the dominant culture of the larger Church in America. This was particularly true for Eastern Catholics who, in addition to receiving pressure from the wider American culture to assimilate, also received pressure from the Catholic Church in the U.S., which was overwhelmingly Roman and primarily of Irish and German ethnicities. Certain strong historical forces motivated many American Catholics to desire assimilation and to try to compel newcomers to assimilate.

        It is helpful to consider the background of the Catholics who sought a culturally monolithic presentation of Catholic faith. Dolan describes the background of the immigrants who would make up the majority of the Church in America. They came from a certain experience of the Church in Europe. “Catholics could be found in many countries of Europe and throughout the Middle East. But, within each nation, Catholicism was culturally quite homogenous, with the native culture clearly the dominant force in the church” (Dolan 127). Having come from such unified and ethnically homogenous churches in Europe, perhaps it is not surprising that many Catholics wanted the Church in the U.S. to be similar. Consequently, many Roman Catholic bishops here did not know what to do with Eastern Catholics, who brought with them alien liturgical practices and church disciplines, which included, most problematically, the ordination of married men to the priesthood.

        One of the most contentious issues for Eastern Catholics in America, both historically and in the present, is married priesthood. This issue well demonstrates how a cultural particularity can become so deeply entwined in the popular imagination with the nature of the Church that disagreement is considered tantamount to heresy. Western Catholics do not permit the ordination of married men to the priesthood. They have not permitted it for many centuries. This church discipline is a product of culture, not of divine revelation or of early church tradition. Eastern Catholics, coming from a different culture, have a different discipline and do permit this practice. In the U.S., after both Western and Eastern Catholics had immigrated here in large numbers, there was cultural diversity. On this and many other matters, there were two contrary disciplines existing side by side. There were multiple inculturations of the gospel living as neighbors in one land. They did not always coexist harmoniously.

Alexis Toth

        Foremost among those who considered it essential for Byzantine Catholics to assimilate and adopt the ecclesiastical customs predominant in America was Bishop John Ireland. Ireland was a liberal who sought a thoroughly and uniformly Americanized Church. Toward this end, he particularly sought the latinization of the Ruthenians, particularly on the issue of married priests. Demonstrating how deeply went his culturally informed ideology, Ireland reportedly said to Alexis Toth on December 19, 1889, after learning that Toth had been married, “I do not consider that you or this bishop of yours [who ordained Toth] are Catholic.” If this quotation accurately represents Ireland’s beliefs, it would seem that to disagree with Ireland about this cultural practice was, in his estimation, to be non-Catholic. For Catholics of this ilk, the Church was inextricable from culture. Ireland’s perspective, as is well known, inspired Toth to lead thousands of Eastern Catholics into Orthodoxy.


        Prejudices against other cultures and ethnicities led to divisions within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Ethnic groups in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century tended to isolate themselves into immigrant neighborhoods. They worshiped with one another, drank with one another, and lived with one another. They brought their European cultures with them and reestablished them as best they could in what Dolan calls, “cultural ghettos” (201). Because of cultural and ethnic prejudices, immigrant communities often isolated themselves and strongly resisted any kind of assimilation. “Prejudice among Catholic immigrant groups was widespread and led to overt discrimination and even open conflict in the parish” (Dolan 201).
The strong identification of the Church with a particular ethnic culture was by no means limited to Irish bishops and their attempt to impose Roman Catholic ideas upon Easterners. There were ethnic divisions between various predominantly Roman Catholic ethnic groups. Additionally, among and between Eastern Christians, ethnicity was a major source of division.

Eastern Orthodox Church of Holy Trinity
New Orleans, LA

        It was not like this from the beginning. There was a degree of cooperation among Eastern Orthodox Christians of various ethnicities when they first began to establish parishes in the U.S.. They were so few that their shared ecclesiastical and liturgical heritage was enough to keep them together despite their ethnic differences. Indicative of this, in December of 1867, in San Francisco, a group of Orthodox Christians established the “Greek-Russian-Slavonic Church and Philanthropic Society.” The name of this organization alone indicates the early cooperation among various ethnic groups. For another example, the earliest Orthodox parish in Louisiana, Holy Trinity Church, founded by Greeks in 1864, served both Greeks and Russians. It served the Liturgy in Greek and Slavonic and conducted parish business in English.

        This partnership between different ethnicities was uneasy from the very beginning, however, and as soon as they were numerous enough to function independently, the Greeks found it necessary to establish a separate diocese for the Greek Orthodox in 1921, disregarding the theoretical Orthodox adherence to the idea that one place ought to have one bishop. One might glean from this that they regarded their ethnic identity as Greeks as being at least as important, if not more so, than their identity as Orthodox Christians. Certainly, they found it necessary to create a jurisdictional division in America drawn on ethnic lines.

        Many have called American society a “melting pot.” While there is certainly interplay between cultures and ethnicities in America, they have not melted together as much as been tossed together. America is more like a fruit salad than a smoothie. There is no one blended-together American culture to which all Christians can assimilate – or to which the Church can inculturate the gospel message. Cultural and ethnic heritages have been preserved and passed down. American is a nation of multiple cultures. To make a disciple of this nation, then, the Church here must present the gospel in more than one way. Therefore, the preservation of diversity within the American Church is necessary. It is a good thing – a strength and not a weakness of the Church in the U.S.– that here the gospel is presented and lived out with different theological emphases and church disciplines by different communities. Perhaps here the Church is uniquely suited to “breathe with her two lungs” (Ut Unum Sint 54).

        However, while it is a fact that these different expressions of the faith grew out of different cultures, it is not clear to what extent they should continue to be associated with certain ethnicities. Some continue to believe that ethnicity is an important element of, not just cultural, but also ecclesial identity. To this very day, there are members of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America who believe that a married man ethnically connected to an Eastern Catholic Church is more suitable for ordination to the priesthood than is a married man of another ethnicity. This is not tenable. When a person grows up in a pluralist society like that of the U.S., it is likely and good that he or she will be aware of other cultures and ethnicities and will interact with them. Children of this nation become children of many nations. This should be promoted, not discouraged. The cultural isolation common among early immigrants should not perpetually persist in the United States. Interaction and dialogue between Eastern and Western Christians without seeking homogenization is good thing.

        In order to assist in the evangelization of the people of the U.S., Eastern Catholic Churches should also practice inculturation here to the extent that such would not compromise any essential element of the faith or tradition of the Church. There are legitimate differences that should be preserved – such as the tradition of a married priesthood, but there are also areas in which it is good to adapt – such as by the use of English in the Liturgy.

        Regarding language, His Beatitude Sviatoslav, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, stated after his recent elevation,

Patriarch Sviatoslav

We as a church descended from the mission of the Slavic Apostles Cyril and Methodius – great translators of the Scripture and liturgy – have an extraordinary mission to continue this translation so we may pray properly and profoundly in English, in Spanish, in Portuguese, in Ukrainian…. The question of inculturation is very important (Shevchuk).  

Language is one aspect of American culture that has indeed become rather homogenous. Gone, for the most part, are the “polyglot, cosmopolitan parishes of the early nineteenth century” (Dolan 197). It is important to preach the gospel in a language the people understand, and at the moment in the United States that is overwhelmingly English. This is changing to include ever more Spanish, of course, and the Church must respond to this as well.

        The Eastern Churches in the U.S. should welcome all people of whatever ethnicity or language and respond to their needs as well as it is able. The Church has changed throughout her millennia of history to respond to the needs of people in various places and times and to communicate the salvation, freedom, and eternal life available in Jesus Christ to every culture and ethnicity she contacts. Each particular Church should be the Church fully and should cooperate to evangelize the nation.

6) The Morality of Birth Control - Eastern Christian perspectives

Go back

While in most issues Eastern Orthodox theologians pride themselves on their consistency with the patristic witness, current disregard of patristic teaching against most forms of birth control is at least as widespread among Orthodox as among Catholic theologians. Some, if not most, of the Orthodox do permit most forms of contraception, so long as the motives are not selfish and the marriage as a whole includes the desire for children.

Paul Evdokimov holding a cat.

Eastern Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov presents an argument in favor of contraception in his work on marriage, The Sacrament of Love. His support for birth control in general is based on the point that love, and not procreation alone, is the primary reason for sex. Catholic teaching would agree with him, I think, up to this point. He rightly writes, “All reduction of Eros to procreation lowers it to the animal level,” and, “Love includes procreation, but the latter neither defines it nor in any way depletes it” (178). Since there is more to sex than making babies, it is morally licit, at times, for a married couple to have sex without directly intending the conception of children. At times “the intention of limiting birth is right” (178).

In discussing the moral means of controlling birth, however, Evdokimov sees an equivalency between what Catholics call NFP and forms of contraception. Of methods similar to NFP, he writes, “The act that becomes ‘safe’ by means of a computation of days or a by a mastery of the will is in every instance not natural, unless one plays with words” (177). He refers to methods similar to NFP as “mental contraceptives” and states, “The problem is not one of methods, but of the spirit with which one employs the methods” (177-178).

Interestingly, this is in agreement with one aspect of patristic teaching. The fathers oppose having sex without intending conception, regardless of the means used to avoid it. For them, it is not about means, but intentions. If we now say that it is morally permissible to have sex without directly intending conception, why should we introduce a distinction between means that the fathers would not have recognized? Augustine directly opposed what we now call NFP because he consistently opposed sex without the direct intention of procreation. If we now permit the use of NFP, why should we not accept other means of limiting birth while still having sex? These are questions Evdokimov raises, which challenge a Catholic reader. I believe the Catholic teaching given in a previous post has good answers to these questions, but they are coming from a different premise. While the Catholic teaching has maintained a prohibition of contraception and behavioral methods of birth control that the fathers would have approved of, the Orthodox teaching has maintained a patristic understanding of the equivalency of means. The contemporary teachings of neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church represent the patristic teaching on this issue. I doubt there are many Christians of any kind who believe and live as the fathers taught on this issue. Teaching about birth control has clearly developed in the Church over time.

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev in his study

Not all of the Eastern Orthodox accept Evdokimov’s view. There are some few Eastern Orthodox opponents of contraception. For example, Bishop (now Metropolitan) Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church, in his Statement to the World Council of Churches in Geneva, on 13 February 2008, mentioned contraception among a list of evils such as abortion and euthanasia. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, an archpriest of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, has made unambiguous statements against contraception (see video above). There are others opposed to it as well, but they seem to be in the minority.

More prevalent is the perspective expressed in the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) document, Synodal Affirmations on Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life. It agrees with Catholic teaching, up to a point, when it states,
"The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the 'sacrament of love'" (Orthodox Marriage Service; St. John Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 20).

However, the teachings diverge when it comes to the issue of which means are morally appropriate for the responsible regulation of births. The document states, “Only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.” On face value, this statement would appear to permit abstinence – periodic or total, behavioral methods, most forms of contraception – including some kinds of abortifacients, and sterilization. It would appear to forbid only direct abortion. However, I do not think that this is its intention. Elsewhere the document states, “Sexual love in marriage is to be chaste and pure, devoid of lewdness, lechery, violence, and self-gratification.” This may well be taken to exclude at least some behavioral methods of birth control and sterilization – which is a kind of violence to the body. However, this is an interpretation, and the document does not clearly prohibit these practices. The document’s use of the term “fetus,” which is usually understood as a person about eight weeks after conception, combined with its failure to identify conception as the beginning of human life brings into question whether or not it intends to forbid abortifacients along with other kinds of abortion. Concerning abortion, the document states,

Orthodox Christians have always viewed the willful abortion of unborn children as a heinous act of evil. The Church’s canonical tradition identifies any action intended to destroy a fetus as the crime of murder (Ancyra, Canon 21; Trullo, Canon 91; St. Basil, Canon 2).

Again, the persons protected by this statement are described as “fetuses.” If the OCA also morally opposes the willful destruction of embryos and zygotes, as I suspect it does, greater clarity on this teaching would be helpful.

The Russian Orthodox document, Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, presents a clearer total opposition to abortifacients: “Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgments are applicable to the use of them as to abortion” (XII. 3). This seems to be a more complete expression of the Orthodox teaching on this matter.

Regarding non-abortifacient types of contraception, this Russian Orthodox document agrees with the OCA document that they are permissible and “cannot be equated with abortion in the least” (XII. 3). However, it uses stronger language in support of the essential relationship between marriage and procreation and it particularly recommends periodic abstinence as a means of birth control.

This document further emphasizes an important aspect of moral behavior in this area of life, perhaps neglected by official Catholic teaching: “Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father” (XII. 3). Spiritual direction has an essential role to play in the application of objective moral standards regarding birth control to the myriad subjective situations in which spouses find themselves. It is spiritually and morally unhealthy to “go it alone” on such important moral issues and it is necessary to seek personal spiritual guidance from the pastors of the Church. While the CSDC may be right that only the spouses themselves can ultimately make decisions about the proper use of birth control in their particular situation, the Eastern tradition is also right to point out the essential relationship spouses must maintain with the Church community in every aspect of their lives, even the most intimate. If our communion with the Church is not with us at all times, even in our bedrooms, then we are not truly in communion with the Church.

While there is much information from the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic perspectives on this subject, there is none, that I have been able to find, from a specifically Eastern Catholic perspective. On an issue like this, where there is such significant disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, this is a problem. Many times in my experience, the Byzantine Catholic faithful do not know who to listen to on this issue. In my opinion, the pastors of the Byzantine Catholic faithful owe it to those faithful to be conversant in both viewpoints on this issue, while also needing to defend the Catholic teaching faithfully.

Continue

1) The Morality of Birth Control - Introduction

Some ancient readers of this blog may remember my earlier writing on the morality of birth control. The next several posts will be a massive reworking of my original posts which have been deleted as my understanding of this has significantly evolved over time.

There are few issues so disputed within the Church and between Christians of all kinds as the morality of birth control. Most commonly, the dispute is about whether or not artificial contraception is a morally licit means of regulating birth, but birth control is not exactly synonymous with contraception. Birth control is the regulation of the number and/or frequency of births. This is done for numerous reasons and by numerous means, both of which need to be evaluated morally. The debate among Christians extends beyond the means of birth control to which, if any, circumstances justify its use. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings on this issue differ on significant points, which presents unique pastoral problems to Eastern Catholics. This is in addition to the many problems universal to any who would take a moral stance on this issue.

Continue

Mystery of Mysteries

When the earliest Fathers of the Church first considered the means that brought them closer to God – the mysteries of the Church – they did not find it necessary to enumerate or systematize them. They were committed to living, rather than simply explaining, the mystery of the life of the Church, the Body of Christ. Nonetheless, from the sixth century on, it became increasingly necessary to offer some kind of reflection on the nature of the mysteries of the Church. Various members of the Church began to propose lists of sacraments. These lists varied to a surprising degree in number and content. According to Kallistos Ware, in his book The Orthodox Church:

Before [the seventeenth century], Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments: John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten; and those Byzantine theologians who in fact speak of seven sacraments differ as to the items which they include in their list (275).

Perhaps reflecting the fluidity of the prevalent understanding of sacrament, these lists were not at first intended as exhaustive, but only as informative and spiritually nourishing. Eventually, first in the West, many members of the Church came to believe that there are seven, and only seven, sacraments. Even among those who accepted this number, however, there was not always agreement on which sacraments were included in the list. There are a number of rites that were once frequently included among the mysteries of the Church that few now think of in those terms. There are both uses and limitations of dogmatically enumerating the sacraments.

The Synaxis of the Archangel Michael and All Angelic Powers

Today, as in every November since the fourth century, the Eastern Church honors all Angelic Powers, six-winged Seraphim, many-eyed Cherubim, God-bearing Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Virtues, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. She honors the seven Archangels. The first three are known from Holy Scripture as Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Many of the Fathers give Uriel as the name of the fourth. There are various traditions about the names of the last three. Foremost among the angels and the leader of all heavenly hosts is St. Michael the Archangel.

In the film Gangs of New York, Priest Vallon points to the medallion around his son’s neck and says,
“Now son, who's that?”
“St. Michael.”
“Who is it?”
“St. Michael!”
“And what did he do?”
“He cast Satan out of Paradise.”
“Good boy.”

Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it (Revelation 12: 7-9).

The name Michael means, “Who is like God?” The name well signifies who Michael is. Satan claimed equality with God – “Michael” is Satan’s expulsion from heaven.

Western images of St. Michael often show him in furious combat with Satan, sometimes depicted as an enormous dragon (Rev. 12: 9), or sometimes as a horned, muscular, bat-winged man. Some examples of the latter:

Though defeated, Satan, in these images, appears well-matched to engage Michael in combat. In that central image - I can't say for sure - but it sure looks like Michael is running away to me.

I believe the truth is closer to this:


There - do you see him? that speck at the end of Michael's spear? - that is Satan. The petty black demon is utterly vanquished - not by Michael's might in battle, but by his mere presence.

Angels are spiritual beings; their way of battle is spiritual. St. Augustine says, “‘Angel’ is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit.’”

Michael’s spiritual stillness, his singleness of heart, his oneness of vision – “always beholding the face of our Father who is in heaven” (c.f. Mat. 18: 10) triumphs over the frantic, grasping, envious, and vain energy of the morning star - Lucifer.

Once, Lucifer was the most brilliant of all Angels. Then he said in his heart: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne…. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” (Isaiah 14: 13, 14)*

The Lord’s rebuke is to make Man like the Most High. The Logos became Man to make us “partakers of the divine nature” (1 Pet. 1: 4; c.f. CCC 460). This Man, Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning” (Luke 10: 18). And it was Michael who cast him down.

Brilliance is nothing to humility. The egocentric is nothing to the theocentric. Who can compare to God? “Lucifer” is nothing to “Michael.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Church Fathers teach us that Isaiah’s taunt-song against the king of Babylon, from which this is excerpted, also, mystically, refers to Satan.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church

The Catholic Church is the one true Church. The recent Vatican document on ecumenical relations does not claim this of Roman Catholicism, as certain commentators suggest. In response to one such commentator, David Yonke, I wrote the following letter:

In your article of Sunday, July 22, you repeat an error that has been widespread in media reporting on the recent document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

You write: "All Christian traditions except Roman Catholicism have “defects,” “wounds,” or are not true churches, according to the controversial document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

The document does not indicate "Roman" Catholicism, but simply "Catholicism." There are more than twenty Catholic Churches in communion with one another. With the Roman Catholic Church being the largest of these Churches and it's Pope being the head of the universal Church, many people are confused into thinking that the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are the same thing. They are not. If you read more carefully, you'll note that the word "Roman" does not even appear in the document (except in the fourth footnote).

To his credit, Mr. Yonke acknowledged his error, but he then dismissed it, writing, “It is of minor significance, however, when considering the numbers of adherents affected. As you know, the vast majority of Catholics are Roman Catholics.” If small numbers render a Church insignificant, then the Apostolic Church would be least significant of all Churches.

The Roman Catholic Church is not superior to or above the other Catholic Churches. It is equal to them. The Roman Catholic Church’s numbers are by far the greatest, yet greater numbers do not indicate greater importance. As established by the Council of Chalcedon, the Roman pontiff retains the primacy among the patriarchates of the Church. Yet, it is important that the Eastern understanding of the Petrine primacy is as “primus inter pares” (first among equals).


In reference to this, Grégoire III Laham, Patriarch of Antioch of the Melkites, once said, “With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it.” When questioned about this controversial stance Patriarch Grégoire III elaborated:

"Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn’t have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not “below”. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn’t be a true embrace. Unita manent, (united things last)….

"The papacy, since John XXIII, is the most open authority in the world. In no other Church is there such openness and such democratic praxis as in the Church of Rome. But then there are those who want to appear as the super-Catholics, and they then insist and always only on the sub Petro and sub Roma. And so, according to me, they contradict the true sense of the papacy itself, its office to confirm the brethren in the faith. We have suffered for our communion with Rome. For a hundred and fifty years we have said Mass in the catacombs, in Damascus, because we were forbidden do it in public because of our communion with the bishop of Rome. We’re more Roman than the Romans! That’s why we want to benefit from this communion as from a treasure, a gift, a help for our faith. As Saint John says, our faith is our sole victory."

Patriarch Grégoire III does not here say so, but as Patriarch of Antioch he, too, succeeds St. Peter. Perhaps I will post more on St. Peter's other Church in the future.

Eastern Catholic Churches

I have been asked to provide a list of Churches in union with Rome. Currently, there are twenty-one Eastern Catholic Churches. They are arranged here according to Rite:

Alexandrian Rite

• Coptic Church
• Ethiopian or Abyssinian Church

Antiocene Rite

• Syro-Malankara Church
• Maronite Church
• Syriac Church

Armenian Rite

• Armenian Church

Byzantine Rite

• Albanian Church
• Belarussian Church
• Bulgarian Church
• Greek Church
• Hungarian Church
• Italo-Albanian Church
• Melkite Church
• Romanian Church
• Russian Church
• Ruthenian Church
• Slovak Church
• Ukrainian Church
• Yugoslavian / Serbian / Croatian Church

Chaldean Rite

• Chaldean Church
• Syro-Malabar Church
  
  I have tried to provide relevant links for these Churches. I will improve them and add to them as I am able.

Byzantine Catholicism

I am often asked why I became a Byzantine Catholic. Like many, if not most, cradle Roman Catholics, I made it through my formative years in the Church unaware that there was more to Catholicism than Roman Catholicism – unaware, that is, of universal, complete and entire (Catholic) Christianity. Though most Roman Catholics are hardly aware of our existence and many, upon hearing of us, ask, “are you Catholic?” or “are you under the Pope?” or a hundred such questions, it is worth pointing out that most members of our Byzantine Catholic Church in Indianapolis were themselves raised Roman Catholic. I am not alone among Westerners in my decision to practice the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic faith according the traditions, liturgy, theology, ecclesiology, and spirituality of the East.

The question is sometimes phrased: “why did you convert?” Becoming Byzantine, having been Roman, is not a conversion of religion. Personally, it resulted from a deepening of faith, an inner conversion perhaps, but we must always remember that there is but one true Church, one God, one faith, one baptism, and one Lord who is Savior of all. Each of the more than twenty Eastern and Western Churches is equal in the one true Church.

Though it is not conversion as such, becoming Byzantine is certainly a change. The liturgical, sacramental, and theological differences attracted me and my love for them draws me into ever deeper immersion in my Byzantine Church.

My Byzantine Church is an abundant Church, a Church of plenty, a Church of overflowing cups, a Church where anything worth doing once is worth doing three times in honor of the Holy Trinity. Here there is anointing and more anointing, blessing and more blessing, incense and holy water, blessed bread and blessed wine. We don’t just dip our fingers in the holy water; we drink the holy water. When we blessed the holy water, it was the day of Theophany – our Lord’s Baptism. The priest blessed the water with fire, with breath, and with the sign of the cross. We don’t just anoint the forehead; we anoint the forehead, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the mouth, the chest, the hands, and the feet. When the priest incenses during the Divine Liturgy, he incenses the whole church, up and down the aisles, everyone singing all the while, until the place is filled with smoke.

Byzantine Liturgy is always oriented – the priest faces God, the tabernacle, the altar, and the East, from whence O.L.G.S. Jesus Christ will return. Marana tha! The congregation chants and sings throughout the entire Liturgy – the congregation is the choir. We gather together to worship and to exalt the Lord our God. We have no concept of a Low Mass in our Byzantine Church.

The Byzantine Churches make use of four distinct divine liturgies: most commonly we celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; occasionally we use the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil; during the Great Fast (Lent) we use the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, traditionally attributed to Pope St. Gregory the Great – this has some similarities to the Good Friday Liturgy of the Roman Church; and, rarely, we use the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Apostle and Brother of the Lord, which is an early liturgy of the Church. Each of these liturgies is a glorious sacrifice of praise. The use of different liturgies for different seasons or occasions adds richness to the yearly cyclical life of the Church.

An infant receives communion in an Eastern Church.

Above these liturgical differences, I love the generous and abundant Byzantine approach to the sacraments. The three mysteries of initiation (Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and Eucharist) are given in their original order to infants. My own six month old son, John Elias, having been Baptized and Chrismated, receives the Most Holy Body and Blood of O.L.G.S. Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins and for life everlasting every time he attends the Divine Liturgy. He will receive the Mystery of Penance when he gets older, before which time he is seen as a holy innocent.

The Anointing of the Sick is given to all who are able and wish to receive it at least once a year – and more frequently in my parish. We do not see it as a sacrament only for the dying. All are in need of healing – whether from physical, mental, or spiritual maladies – all can therefore be anointed.

The Holy Mystery of Crowning (Matrimony) is not a bar to the reception of Holy Orders. The Roman Church acknowledges this theologically, but for pastoral and practical reasons usually forbids the ordination of married men. The Eastern Churches do not forbid such ordinations – another example of generous distribution of sacraments. Yet, we also exalt celibacy as imitative of O.L.G.S. Jesus Christ and as a calling from God – even to the extent of acknowledging the sacramentality of monastic vows.

St. Athanasius Byzantine Catholic Church

Eastern theology has never officially limited the number of sacraments to seven, as the Roman Church did at the Council of Trent. Although, certainly, the seven sacraments are held in great reverence – the Eucharist above all others, but this does not keep us from regarding other acts and signs as sacramental. Fr. Sidney Sidor, of blessed memory, formerly of our local parish, St. Athanasius, told us emphatically, “there are more than seven sacraments!”

These are but a few of the differences that attracted me to the Eastern Church. Probably I leave you with more questions than answers. Pope St. John Paul II had more answers than I do. His encyclical, Orientale Lumen, is a good source of information. The Byzantine Churches are a source of truth and beauty in the Catholic Church which everyone should get to know better.