www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News OCA Calls for Unified Church in N.A.

1. >>Why an American patriarch?<<

The creation of patriarchates is well within the history of the Church. If the Church saw fit to create separate patriarchates for Moscow, Romania, Serbia, and many other countries then the question becomes one of justifying the refusal to follow the established, ancient precedent.

2. >>Why should we merge all of the Eastern Catholic American eparchies? <<

Because it would help us to more effectively proclaim the Gospel and is the natural process of the Church. Again, this would take a hundred years (maybe more), start to finish and should be encouraged to develop naturally. Does anyone really think that in the year 2100 that the Ukrainians will insist that only the Ukrainian language be used in the liturgy? Or do we expect Ukrainians and other ethnic Byzantines to intermarry and attract your average American named Smith or Jones? (And, yes they will intermarry and they should evangelize their neighbors.)

3. >>Why would smaller groups like the Melkites and the Romanians agree to this, when it would effectively mean subordination to a Byzantine-Ruthenian dominated Synod? <<

I don't disagree that the tendency would for each group to want to do its own thing. I would hope we could pool resources to more effectively present Christ to America. We are not called to be a Church for Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks or Arabs. We are called to be a Church for everyone in America. Ruthenians and Ukrainians each have 4 eparchies. Ruthenians would not dominate. In fact, if one was to use population as a rule then the Ukrainians would dominate since they are numerically the largest.

4. >>The fact that the liturgical uses are different � why would we want a single translation when there are (and should be) divergent uses? <<

A common translation into English of common texts that were identical in Slavonic or Greek only makes sense. Using the argument for multiple translations of once common texts would also justify the creation of separate translations of the Holy Scriptures. The differences in liturgical practices are all within the valid traditions of the Church of Constantinople and both should and would be kept. The idea of liturgical uniformity was never suggested. Uniformity of common liturgical translations into English is something altogether different than liturgical uniformity and is something we should also pursue with the rest of Orthodoxy. This is one element of the plan that can be achieved within a single generation.

5. >>The fact that the Melkite Church is Patriarchal has given the American Melkites, as small as they are, relatively more play-room, in my opinion, than the American Ruthenian Metropolia has � because the Melkites, as a whole, are much larger in Rome's eyes than the American Ruthenian Church is.<<

The bully pulpit of a Byzantine Catholic patriarch in Washington, DC would do wonders in helping Byzantines rediscover and reclaim their authentic Byzantine heritage. One can understand the desire to maintain ethnic ties to the spiritual homelands. If, in the next 50 years, large groups of Byzantine Catholics moved to Brazil, taking their priests with them, would you also expect them to remain under the ecclesiastical authority of bishops in America? Set up fresh ties to Europe or the Mid-East? Or simply want to follow the tradition of creating their own structures as they became less American and more Brazilian? Look at the history of Roman Catholics in this country. Each ethnic group differed in liturgical practice (less so in the Latin Mass and very greatly in hymns and paraliturgical celebrations). Did each ethnic group set up separate dioceses? While I condemn the Americanist Movement that began in the late nineteenth century I strongly agree with their development of single ecclesiastical structures. The first structures for Byzantines in America were not along ethnic lines. If our spiritual ancestors fought less and cooperated more we might just have had a quite different history.

6. >>We, on the other hand, and by great contrast to the Orthodox Church in America, have, collectively as Eastern Catholics, as one of our principal tasks the definition of the role of the Eastern Churches within the Catholic Church as a whole.<<

Our role as Eastern Catholics is to proclaim the Gospel in a manner faithful our Byzantine heritage and the Church fathers. The issue here is a practical one. Who speaks louder, one-half million people united under a single patriarch and a Synod of Bishops or 4 or 5 ethnic jurisdictions with about 100,000 each? As I've repeatedly stated, this is not asking Ukrainians or Melkites to join the Ruthenian Metropolia or a division into more local, fractured eparchies. This is creating a new ecclesiastical structure where our strengths can be pooled to more effectively proclaim the Gospel to America.

7. >>Whose CHANT are you going to use? Melkite? Ukrainian? Ruthenian?<<

All of them. Established parishes should retain the chant they have always used. At some point when an English translation of common texts becomes available it would be made available in all chant traditions. Eventually, we would prepare common texts with the rest of Orthodoxy. In time people would start composing new melodies that would sit alongside the current ones (just as the Slavs did with the Greek chant) and in five hundred years a unique American chant tradition based upon the ancient ethnic chant traditions would be firmly rooted.

8. >>Diversification or Centralization? <<

Both. Centralization where it makes sense: ecclesiastical structures, liturgical translations, education of priests and a singular approach to evangelization. Diversification where it makes sense: liturgical customs, local parish customs and culture.

9. >>Incarnation or Triumphalism?<<

Incarnation.

10. >>OCA talks about one church? Whose?<<

Jesus Christ's, of course. Our unity comes from our common faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are already in full eucharistic communion with the entire Catholic Church and therefore in complete unity. There is also little that prevents full unity with the rest of Orthodoxy and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will come. Our effective presentation of the Gospel to America is what we should keep front and center when discussing these issues. Holupki and kibbi are nowhere near the top of the list. And hot dogs and french fries just aren't healthy. [Unless, of course the hot dogs are Hebrew National brand.]

11. >>Greek Orthodox patriarch is taking more control of its parishes in the US. It wants one church too - under its control.<<

This is a sad situation and we must pray for our Greek Orthodox brothers and sisters. But are we not already in a position of being totally controlled by a non-Byzantine?

12. >>More developments without the Orthodox included - again?<<

If anything, the idea of a national patriarchate is quite Orthodox. I suspect that those in the various Orthodox jurisdictions seeking unity want nothing less. Imagine a future where all Byzantine Christians - Catholic and Orthodox united - work together in proclaiming the Gospel to America. When full eucharistic communion is established between Catholicism and Orthodoxy I would be quite happy for the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Washington to resign in favor of either the Orthodox patriarch of America or a new patriarch elected by an integrated Byzantine Catholic / Orthodox Synod of Bishops.

Just catching up on all the replies to my original posting... been in Denver for 10 days on business and a little vacation. Did make it to the Ruthenian parish south of Denver University (there is also a Ukranian Catholic parish too in the city). I think that even though God is everywhere present, He must spend most of His time in the Rockies. If any of you ever get the chance to visit Rocky Mountain National Park, do not pass it up. Anyway...

Moose: I thank you for you comments. Your most recent post articulated much better than I could the response I would have given to many of the comments in this thread.

Traveling down my own spiritual road, I've have noticed a major swing in how I view my "religion." Please bear with the cake metaphor, but I used to see the Byzantine ritual and traditions as the "cake" (main part) and the living of the Gospel as the "icing on top"... a nice, extra that I could take or leave. Now, it's the cake part (the main part) that is the living of the Gospel and the ritual/tradition has become the icing on the top. And you know, this combination produces a much better tasting, more satifying cake.

Pax tecum.

Rick,

And to think: You can have your cake and eat it too - without getting your head cut off!

Elias