John-
Thanks for the revised poll. It's quite good.
However, I again don't like the answers to some of the questions, and am gratuitously and unsolicitedly posting my answers to those questions.
The Eastern Catholic Churches (Byzantine, Melkite, etc.) are
Patriarchates, Major Archeparchies and Eparchies of the Church of the Byzantine tradition who have chosen to be in communion with Rome. We do not exist because we are useful in the cause of "reunion" - even if it's a subject of considerable interest to us. We exist because we are real Churches.
Who, then, can be saved ?
that's God's decision. There are certainly certain parameters, but still it's ultimately up do Him, who is full of mercy and loves mankind.
When the leadership of a church wants to change its liturgy, it should
do so if it's pastorally appropriate and in line with the rest of its tradition. If it's the Roman Rite, Rome has to do it. If not, then it has to be done very carefully and only for necessary reasons. However, it has been done before, even in the Byzantine tradition and in principle I don't have a huge objection.
I might also add that liturgical changes by a particular eparchy are different from bad translations.
nonexistent. We have movable chairs. Part of me would like to see them go. But the part of me that wins out are my legs, which get tired and need somewhere to sit during the homily, after standing all morning through Orthros and Liturgy.
Preserving an ethnic heritage (language, food, etc.) at your church is
as hard as it is for me to say this, this should not be the church's function at all. This should be the focus of individuals, perhaps even a local [pick a country]-American society or club, but not the church.
I say this very hesitantly because I know the first-generation parishoners need some kind of link to the places they grew up, and God's people should be served. But I still think the church should get out of that, and let that be the work of a non-Church society; the church can and should however work with that society.
I only say this because I think heavy ethnicism will get in the way of the primary mission of the parish. By the second generation, I've found that many of the children are indifferent to a lot of the heavier ethnic issues. I wouldn't say at all that they object to it, or hate it; it's just not as central to them as it was to some of their parents. The third generation is even more indifferent, and of course converts have no ties to the ethnic group at all. A heavy ethnic focus can put off the second generationers and coverts.
I went to St. Konan's Slobovian Orthodox Church a while ago [OK, I changed the proper nouns but the rest of the facts are the same]. A bishop from Slobovia was soliciting donations for a worthy Slobovian cause, saying about how all us Slobovians should help our brother Slobovians. However, he failed to notice that of the 9 clergymen (from reader on up) at St. Konan's, only one was first-generation Slobovian, and only 2 were even of Slobovian descent (2nd and 3rd gen.). The remainder were non-Slobovian converts. He also failed to notice that there wasn't a single ethnic Slobovian in the (full!) first three rows of pews. Now, I don't think that this hurt the response to his appeal. But the appeal to Slobovian interests certainly was not the way to go in this highly successful parish.
However, I do have to say that I like Slobovian food.
Oh, and welcome, Michele!
; thank you sir ! It makes for interesting reading. It also makes for useful comments in case I revise and repost the poll one day.