The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
ElijahHarvest, Nickel78, Trebnyk1947, John Francis R, Keinn
6,150 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (bwfackler), 1,022 guests, and 55 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,453
Members6,150
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 458
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 458
Just a note, I wish Eastern Parishes without an established hierarchy of their own would fall under the omophor of a local Eastern Bishop.

Last edited by Irish Melkite; 04/25/09 11:54 PM. Reason: Establish and Retitle Thread
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 101
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 101
Our Lady of Wisdom Italo-Greek Church in Las Vegas, NV is under the jurisdiction of the Ruthenian Eparchy of Van Nuys. I think the three or so Russian Catholic Parishes left in the US should come under the jurisdiction of the Ruthenianis. Some of our parishes our Russian anyways! wink

Last edited by Didymus; 04/24/09 09:43 AM.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 61
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Didymus
Our Lady of Wisdom Italo-Greek Church in Las Vegas, NV is under the jurisdiction of the Ruthenian Eparchy of Van Nuys. I think the three or so Russian Catholic Parishes left in the US should come under the jurisdiction of the Ruthenianis. Some of our parishes our Russian anyways! wink

Not to totally side track this thread, but I've wondered the same thing. Why this hasn't happened already? Here in Denver, the Russian Catholics are under the Roman Archdiocese. I'm at the Ruthenian parish here, under Van Nuys Eparchy. Why couldn't they be under Van Nuys, too?

Is is an administrative work load thing or something more?

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
As regards Denver, there is history associated with that situation. I'll leave it to others to explain.

As regards your last question - not at all. Consider how few such parishes there are in the US. With the exception of the Ethiopian/Eritrean communities and the parishes/missions of the Syro-Malankara, there are only 8 such - not exactly an overwhelming number.

2 Italo-Greek-Albanian (1 a mission) -

Our Lady of Wisdom belongs to Van Nuys simply because the Ruthenians erected the parish to serve the Italo-Greek community; otherwise, had a need for it been identified and the Latin hierarch been agreeable to erecting a parish for them, it would have come under the Latins.

Our Lady of Grace in NY is a mission, with neither priest nor temple, subject to the Latin Archdiocese, from which it has received no support of any sort since the late 1940s, when its church closed after the repose of its founding pastor. (It has been assisted much more by the Latin Diocese of Brooklyn and the Ukrainian Eparchy of Stamford).

4 Russian Greek-Catholic -

St Andrew's Russian in El Segundo (CA) is formally under the spiritual omophor of the Melkite Eparchy, in large measure because the temple also houses St Paul's Melkite and the same priest serves both. Canonically, St Andrew's is still subject to the Latin Archdiocese.

Our Lady of Fatima in San Francisco is informally under the spiritual omophor of the Melkite Eparchy (one of the priests who serves it is a bi-ritual priest incardinated to the Melkites). Canonically, it is subject to the Latin Archdiocese.

St Michael's in NYC is canonically subject to the Latin Archdiocese. It is currently served by a priest of the Melkite Eparchy but I'm not certain whether it's deemed to be informally under the spiritual omophor of our Eparchy.

Ss Cyril & Methodius in Denver is, informally, under the spiritual omophor of the Romanian Eparchy. Canonically, it is subject to the Latin Archdiocese.

2 Coptic Catholic -

Resurrection in NYC is canonically subject to the Latin Archdiocese

St Mary's in LA is canonically subject to the Latin Archdiocese


1 Ethiopian/Eritrean Catholic -

Kidane Meheret in DC is canonically subject to the Latin Archdiocese.

Some 2 dozen other Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholic communities are scattered around the country - the majority being Eritrean, a few serving both ethnicities. Only about a hal-dozen of those have formal mission status (none are designated as parishes, last I knew) and are regularly served by a priest (and some of those only monthly) - most are unserved. All are subject to the Latin archdiocese or diocese within which they are geographically sited.

Syro-Malankara -

Last I checked, there were about 2 dozen missions and parishes scattered around the country. All are under the spiritual omophor of the Apostolic Visitator for Syro-Malankara Catholic in North America & Europe but subject to the Latin archdiocese or diocese in which they are geographically sited. One can hope that they will soon be accorded an exarchate for the US.

Historically, there was one other Russian parish, in Boston, canonically suppressed 3 decades ago, and a Byelorusian parish in Chicago, canonically suppressed almost a decade ago. Both were subject to the respective Latin archdioceses, although the Russian one was, informally, under the spiritual omophor of the Melkite Eparchy.

A pre-Katrina request to the Latin Archbishop of New Orleans for the erection of an Italo-Albanian mission there was rejected.

No action has been taken on a reported request for erection of a Coptic parish in Chicago.

The Croats (who once had 2 distinct parishes, now 1) are subject to the Ruthenians in the US, as are the Slovaks. (Non-Greek) Macedonians in the US are served by the Ukrainians.

Basically, that any of those without their own hierarchy are subject to the Latins is a function of the Colonial Office, as the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is sometimes termed. In effect, 'stand-alone' parishes in the diaspora are generally given over to the care of our Latin brethren (the same is true in Australia, South America, and Western Europe); in Canada, the Ukrainians do have canonical jurisdiction of the Hungarians and Romanians and the Slovaks likewise of the Ruthenians.

In a few of those places, there exist informal arrangements as regards spiritual omophor (the Russians in Oz, for instance, are given to the spiritual care of the Melkites) - but those arrangements have come about, generally, through interaction between local Latin hierarchs and their Eastern counterparts.

Clearly, the arrangements that do exist make clear that what you suggest could be formally accomplished - although a Ruthenian-Russian matchup might not please everyone, a Melkite-Russian matchup would likely do well. (Strange as it may seem, the two Churches have history, the first Russian Catholic priest - Father Nicholas Tolstoy - having been incardinated into the Melkite Patriarchate.)

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
This sometimes produces incredible situations. One of my favorites was that of the Romanian parishes, who were subject to the Latin dioceses until they were finally given their own Exarch (the Exarchate is now an Eparchy). For much of this period the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Bishop of Chicago was Kyr Jaroslav (Gabro) - who was half Romanian! If he could serve the Ukrainians, why could he not have served the Romanians?

From the bureaucrats, deliver us.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
We really have to stop using the term "diaspora" in regard to Eastern Christians living outside of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The term originally referred to the Jews "dispersed" from the Promised Land by the Assyrian and Babylonian Captivities. Under the Old Covenant, the Holy Land was given to the Children of Israel as their patrimony for all time. We, on the other hand, are citizens of no land, for Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. We have no reason to look on Eastern Europe or the Middle East, or Egypt, or Mesopotamia or India as our home--especially not those of us who have no biological connection to those places.

The term "diaspora", as applied to the Jews, also implies a "return" to Israel, and a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. We do not await a chance to return, we await the return of a Person, in power and glory. We are not going back to the Middle East or Eastern Europe or anywhere. We are here, where we are, and where we are going to stay, and it is degrading to regard us as being in any sort of "diaspora", as though, somehow, we are lacking something that can only be found in Greece, or Constantinople, or Moscow or Kyiv, or Jerusalem, Alexandria, or Damascus.

Diaspora is a pernicious term that constantly makes Eastern Christians "outsiders" in Western lands, even when we have been here for generations--and especially when an increasing number of us are converts who have never had any connection whatsoever to the lands of the ancient patriarchates. By all means let us revere and honor our Mother Churches, but in turn let our Mother Churches--including the Church of Rome, which chooses to exercise oversight of Eastern Catholics "in the diaspora" respect us and accord to us the same rights and privileges as they extend to those of the faithful who live in the ancestral lands.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 379
B
Member
Member
B Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 379
Neil, your knowledge in this area is astounding!


Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
Quote
We do not await a chance to return

Some of us do not await a chance to return. Some do await such a chance - when my chance arrived, no one had to ask me twice!

And there are certainly things "that can only be found in Greece, or Constantinople, or Moscow or Kyiv, or Jerusalem, Alexandria, or Damascus", which we need. That is why I have been to each of those places, at considerable expense and some personal risk.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
"Some of us do not await a chance to return. Some do await such a chance - when my chance arrived, no one had to ask me twice! "

Father Serge misconstrues the meaning of "return", particularly with regard to the freighted term "diaspora". For the Jews, "return" from the Diaspora means one specific thing: the return of all Jews to the Land of Israel and the reestablishment of the Davidic Kingdom. Using the term diaspora in regard to Eastern Christians assumes (or presumes) that we have some earthly homeland covenantally promised to us by God, and we are in exile unless we are there.

Visiting, even extended sojourns in the lands of the Mother Churches is not the same as a return from diaspora. That would require a mass migration of all those who came here, and their descendants, back to the places they left. I don't see that happening--and if it did, where would it leave people like me (or you, Father), who have no real ethnic connection to those lands?

"And there are certainly things "that can only be found in Greece, or Constantinople, or Moscow or Kyiv, or Jerusalem, Alexandria, or Damascus", which we need. That is why I have been to each of those places, at considerable expense and some personal risk. "

I never said that there wasn't. But we should not see ourselves as bound to a particular place, outside of which we have the status of "guests" or visitors. You yourself have written that the ancient patriarchates should not have their pastoral territory limited by the borders of the Russian, Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires at the close of the 17th century. And that is true. By the same token, the attitude found among some Eastern Christians that we are just biding our time before going back to those places ("back" being something open only to those who consider themselves "from") inhibits the ability of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, to fulfill the great commission.

One can be an Eastern Christian, whether one lives in the East or the West, the North or the South. Our "Easterness" is something that grows out of our soul and our mind, not a mere accident of geography. Therefore, Eastern Christianity, wherever it takes root, should be considered a legitimate development of the Christian faith and not an exotic transplantation that is "just passing through".

It is very much the "diaspora" mindset that leads to the ethnocentrism that hinders our evangelical efforts: people who have no connection to the "mother country" find it difficult to immerse themselves in the political, social and cultural squabbles that occupy so much time and effort. In fact, they find it disorienting, disturbing and disillusioning.

So let us not pretend: the vast majority of Eastern Christians in the West have no plans to up stakes and move to Russia, Greece, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Romania or wherever. For us to fulfill our mission, we must understand and plainly state that we are not going anywhere, nor have any desire to do so.

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
There are many diasporas out there. A good example in my country is the people in the Greek diaspora who have TV news programmes made for them and others across the globe in Greece. It helps keep the Greeks in touch with happenings over there. The BBC does the same for those who are like me part of the British diaspora across the globe.

As a Russian Catholic I am quiet pleased that our centres in the USA under the Ruthenians. They are too Latinised for my liking. That was the original complaint when Rome suggested it years ago to the Russians and Belorussians, the Latinisations were far worse then in that time. The Latin bishops are good, as they leave well alone.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
Dear Stuart,

There is not necessarily much of a contradiction:

I would - and do - certainly maintain that Ireland is ours, given us by God a long time ago, and that if we wish to remain Irish there is no substitute for a living, ongoing contact with our homeland. So I can sympathize with Greeks, Ukrainians, Russians, and others who feel similarly about their homelands.

I most certainly do have an ethic connection to Ireland - I don't have an ethnic connection to anyplace else. I am a citizen of Ireland by right of birth, I live in Ireland, and I travel on an Irish passport. I even speak the language (badly, I regret to say). If that doesn't add up to an ethnic connection, what would?

People who live and work in some country (Australia, Canada, the USA, Argentina, or wherever) are not just guests or visitors. But neither is there any reason to require them to break their ties to what they still consider their homelands.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. But you certainly seemed to be implying that there are not certain things "that can only be found in Greece, or Constantinople, or Moscow or Kyiv, or Jerusalem, Alexandria, or Damascus" - that's a direct quote from your previous post. One learns a lot about the Eastern Churches by becoming acquainted with them on their native heaths.

Certainly I have written that the attempt to confine the historic Eastern Churches to the equivalent of Bantustans or "Indian Reservations" is an outrage. But that principle of mine requires an awareness that substantial groups of people consider themselves directly connected to the Church authority in their particular ethnic homeland, whether that pleases the bureaucrats and the monsignori or not.

On the other hand, to support what I understand to be your position, it is likely that the majority of Greeks, Ukrainians, Russians, Romanians, and so on now living and working in "diaspora" will not return to their homelands on any permanent basis - and their children born in the emigration will be decidedly unenthused about any proposal to "move back". That does not preclude keeping up living contact, especially in these times of inexpensive telephony and relative ease of travel. But that enriches people's lives.

The Eastern Churches do not need any excuse for their presence in any country; wherever we have faithful, or people who wish to be our faithful, we have a pastoral responsibility towards those faithful.

Those who do not care to be involved in the ethno-cultural life of some extraneous community have no religious obligation to become involved in it. At the same time, it is not foolishness to acknowledge that our Churches live in cultural matrices and that efforts to organize Churches divorced from any cultural links do not have a strong record of success.

Since I am neither Jewish nor a supporter of Zionism, I am not advocating the return of all Jews to Palestine and/or the reestablishment of the Davidic Kingdom, of all things! To the contrary: Zionism has led to terrible abuse of the Palestinians and the end is not in sight. If my ancestors had left Ireland two thousand years ago, my claim to Irish citizenship would not have been acknowledged.

Fundamentally, I believe in freedom. People have, or should have, the rights to be what they wish to be (within some semblance of reason) and to live where they wish to live. Having actually seen the disedifying spectacle of two brothers, both born in Pennsylvania, having a fist fight because one identifies himself as Ukrainian and the other identifies himself as Russian, there is a need for patience and a willingness to accept that each brother has a right to choose his own preference! One normally finds such phenomena in border areas - but Connemaugh, Pennsylvania, is nowhere near either Ukraine or Russia.

This is getting too long.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by StuartK
We really have to stop using the term "diaspora" in regard to Eastern Christians living outside of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Stuart,

You really have to stop overanalyzing.

The points made by Father Serge and Paul aside, the use of the term, quite frankly, is this simple ... it's significantly less cumbersome than saying "who live outside the historical lands of their primatial hierarchs" or any equivalent text.

As one who not infrequently needs to make that distinction, I choose to use the term because: (1) I can spell it, (2) its use is understood by readers, (3) no other single word so adequately expresses the same meaning. Thus, you'll continue to see it used in this context, by me, and, I suspect, many others.

And, since you want to belabor the point - I don't limit its application to those living outside Eastern Europe or the Middle East: for the Syro-Malankara and the Syro-Malabar, its outside of India; for the Copts, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, its outside of Africa; for the Italo-Greico-Albanians, its outside of Italy; for the Greeks, its outside of Greece.

Lastly, diaspora, in its root Greek does not carry with it any connotation of return - only of scattering, dispersal. And, whether or not one carries inherited genes that allow hummus, pyrohi, or mousaaka to substitute for the bread that others might term 'the staff of life', most of us as Eastern and Oriental Christians are physically, geographically, separated from the centres in which our Churches were formed, first flourished, and doggedly struggle to survive.

It is of no significant consequence whether or not the dispersion preceded our own individual lives as participating members of the Church. In such instances, feel free to more aptly apply the term to the faith itself, rather than the individual - not necessarily a bad thing - as in dispersion of the faith, we attend to the command to go forth and teach all nations.

Many years,

Neil (who would like to see a return to the original topic of this thread)


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
S
Member
Member
S Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 3
"You really have to stop overanalyzing."

I'm not the only one who has said this. I am merely reiterating an argument made by Kyr Kallistos on several occasions.

"it's significantly less cumbersome than saying "who live outside the historical lands of their primatial hierarchs" or any equivalent text. "

I prefer to use the expression, "Eastern Christians living in West", which, while not all-inclusive, doesn't have the problem associated with diaspora.

"Lastly, diaspora, in its root Greek does not carry with it any connotation of return - only of scattering, dispersal."

The term is most commonly used in reference to the Jews, and before I was a Greek Catholic, I was a Jew. Diaspora not only means dispersal, it also means exile, from which there must be a return, a restoration (when Messiah comes). In the Jewish context, it means a return to Israel.

In a Christian context, our exile is not from some particular land, but from paradise, which will be restored at the Parousia. So, either we are all in diaspora, or none of us are, depending on your point of view.

"Neil (who would like to see a return to the original topic of this thread)"

Believe it or not, this is directly related to the topic, since the issue of who should have jurisdiction is linked to the idea of territoriality, which in turn means having to deal, at some point, with the idea of one city, one bishop.

And this is my last word on the subject.

Christos anesti!

Stuart



Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by babochka
Neil, your knowledge in this area is astounding!

Elizabeth,

You're kind to say so. I admit to having a special affinity for what I often think of as the 'orphaned' Churches - perhaps because it was through one of those that I was first introduced to the Eastern Churches, a long time ago.

It also helps, though, to be webmaster of our fledgling Directory of Easterm & Oriental Catholic Parishes. Creating the entries gives one a strong sense of who's out there, where, and what's happening with them.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0