Why learn about alterna-Catholicisms?

Alternative ways of doing Catholicism fascinate me even when they're not right; in things outside of doctrine and jurisdiction they teach us a thing or two. Part of this fascination comes from the horror show that was the American Catholic Church when I came into it, in the 1980s, when it was protestantized and Modernist; American Protestants seemed to have got their wish of neutering the country's big Catholic minority, turning us into another denomination. Suppose you're in a parish and diocese that are train wrecks but there's a good-hearted bishop or priest with a pretty house church and holds more of the articles of the faith than the real Catholics do. People in those situations talking themselves into Anglo-Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or one of the "independent" (vagante) churches are not right but it's very understandable. (Part of the problem is then the diocese for example can throw it in your face, pushing their heresy under the cover of "being in good standing with the church"; Archbishop Lefebvre once remarked on that.) Anyway, being under your lawful bishop, that is, in the one true church, is high church/Catholicism 101; Catholics can't go to the uncanonical (some traditionalist groups are not canonical but scrupulously not separate churches in principle), Orthodox, or independent priests unless it's an emergency and no priest in good standing is available.

To be fair, the Orthodox don't quite encourage that; they insist they are a different faith, not Catholicism under different management. They want you to convert, but to really convert. A few years back a loud woman online announced her intent to convert with her fingers crossed because she wanted to commune at the local Orthodox parish and there was no local Byzantine Catholic one, a reprehensible thing to do unfair to both churches (ecumenically bad because it tells the Orthodox not to trust us). I pointed that out and predictably got a lot of guff. Her will be done, I guess.

The lesson of ACROD for us: practices not to do with our teachings are good enough for both Slovakia and America.

The Episcopalians have a point: congregational loyalty (strong local community and a hedge against liberalism) and they love high churchmanship and credal orthodoxy, unlike Catholic liberals. Growing up with them is a big reason I'm not Novus Ordo, so, although we will never agree, thanks.

Two wrong extremes when talking about the Orthodox

I've probably rehashed this a few times but here it is (again).

Two mistakes for us Catholics to avoid when talking to and about the Orthodox.

• Zoghby's branch theory: "We're both the church; it doesn't matter which side you join." From the late Melkite Archbishop Elias' (Zoghby) "All Schismatics?" approach, a distortion of our teachings, which 1) recognize Orthodox holy orders and thus their Eucharist (so in a sense everybody with real bishops is still part of the great Catholic family; our "branch theory") and 2) give never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt. Some convert Byzantine Catholics, in love with the rite and the spirituality, both good, use this as an excuse to leave the church when their parishes' or dioceses' practice isn't Byzantine enough for them. (Thinking Byzantium is the whole church is a trap, the error of the Orthodox.) His indifferentism is as un-Orthodox, offensive to them ("ecumenist" is an insult to many of them), as it is un-Catholic. Logically, it would mean there is no church, at least none worth taking seriously (why most people don't go to mainline Protestant churches anymore). Long story short with the Melkites: Elya's right and Zoghby was wrong.
• "No, Byzantine Catholics don’t worship like the Orthodox; the Orthodox worship like them/us!" Every ancient church, such as ours, claims it's the only true one but I would never say something this chauvinistic. The fact of one true church means normally only Catholic bishops and priests have "jurisdiction," meaning authority over a diocese and the power to grant absolution or solemnize marriages (in an emergency any priest, including Orthodox and laicized, is given jurisdiction; then, Catholics should ask them for the sacraments if no active Catholic priest is around), so strictly speaking, to us Orthodox and Anglican bishops are Msgr. Demetrios and Mr. Curry, for example. (Monsignor because that's not only for certain priests; it's also a title for a bishop without diocesan authority, including Catholic ones; also common European usage for bishops.) But people acting in good faith, that is, who aren't ex-Catholics, again, get the benefit of the doubt so using their titles isn't that bad. (Why I call Anglican priests Father; I'm not being disingenuous.) Anyway, the trouble with this well-meant statement by a Catholic (it was said to me 25 years ago) is it tells the Orthodox wrongly that we believe the practices of all Byzantine Catholics are perfect because they're Catholics so we want to change the Orthodox to be just like them. An understandable misunderstanding! No, we recognize that the Orthodox are the vast majority of Byzantine Christians (it would be stupid to think and act otherwise) and for us the Orthodox set the standard for the rite's liturgical practice. (St. Pius X officially founding the Russian Catholic Church: nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter, not more, nor less, nor other than the Russian Orthodox Church's practices.) Byzantine Catholics often latinized themselves centuries ago, which was not our original plan for them. We only tolerate that; we don't promote it.

Byzantine Catholics and the word "Orthodox"

Reclaiming Orthodoxy.

Yes, but. One thing I like about my part-time home, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, is in English it's not afraid of the term Orthodox. See the quotation below. I'd embrace what Fr. James Siemens and indeed Metropolitan Sviatoslav are saying except: 1) the Orthodox don't accept it and I don't want to be accused of lying, 2) the great majority of Slavic Byzantine Catholics don't think like this or talk this way (my part-time parish is typical in this regard) — many of the ones actually from Eastern Europe went to great lengths to remain in the church so don't even appear to stab them in the back, and 3) it seems to me that most of the Catholics who do this use it as a cover to attack our teachings: the National “Catholic” Reporter/Call to Action with a cool traditional liturgy; pseudo-Eastern Episcopalians. Most of them are obviously on their way out of the church and trying to take others with them. (They actually told me not to return to the church.) Byzantine Catholicism has much potential as a conservative, that is, authentic Catholicism "outside the box," without some Western cultural assumptions getting in the way (yes, you can have clerical marriage and be traditional); I hate seeing it perverted like that. (A problem I don't know how to solve: in America both they and the Orthodox are slowly dying out.) Don't get me wrong: I'm hip to describing Catholicism all in Orthodox terms, part of Byzantine Catholics' calling, even though, again, most Slavic Byzantine Catholics aren't interested in that.

May the Lord God remember in His kingdom our holy universal Supreme Pontiff N . . ., the Pope of Rome, our most reverend Archbishop and Metropolitan N . . ., our God-loving Bishop N . . ., and the entire priestly, diaconal, and monastic order, our civil authorities, and all our armed forces, the noble and ever memorable founders and benefactors of this holy Church, (our suffering brethren,) and all you orthodox Christians, always, now and ever, and forever.

— From the Great Entrance in the Divine Liturgy

What would a real Western Orthodoxy look like?

What would a real Western Orthodoxy look like?

Forgive me if I've covered this before. My latest big post made it past moderation at oh-see dot net. All Western Rite Orthodox end up mimicking the Byzantine Rite (the sound of a score of hammers hastily hanging up Byzantine icons, for example), the mirror of self-latinizations by Byzantine Catholics. It disrespects perfectly good rites and hurts your witness. My challenge: come up with a form of church that's entirely in harmony with the Orthodox ethos but all Western. The answer of course is an early medieval look and feel, a lot like non-Romanizing High Anglicans but only using the traditional Roman Rite minus the filioque (which, to be fair, wasn't originally there). A brand distinct from post-schism Rome.

Oddly the Orthodox are even more accepting of the Book of Common Prayer than we are; I guess they think they and the Anglicans share a common enemy, us. (We're the church worth getting mad at!) Over the past century they've always been friendlier with the Anglicans than with us.

The reactions reveal why Western Rite Orthodoxy after a century and a quarter has never lasted beyond the converts. The online Orthodox (mostly converts) are so anti-Western they attack the word "Mass." They defend the self-byzantinization (I'm convinced this stuff appeals to outsiders who mainly want a new identity, like "transgenders") since we're heretics so we deserve it. Talk about going where you're not wanted! And for all its problems and ill treatment, Byzantine Catholicism is centuries-old real communities.

Why do I bother with this board? I'm not interested in leaving the church! Because these alternative ways of doing Catholicism fascinate me. In everything that's not doctrine, they can teach us a thing or two. I liked the challenge of illustrating what I believe is a kind of Catholic spirituality, one of many.

Given the trouble brewing in Western society this will probably be my last post for the foreseeable future and possibly ever.

The blessing of the Lord!