www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian and Byzantine

Just to follow up on Admin and Fr. Mark. The Fathers must have been given some insight from the Holy Spirit in promulgating the Canon mandating only bishop per city, and that he would be the bishop of all (as per St. Ignatios of Antioch). Whether or not they could have seen in the 21st Century future or not, one may tongue in cheek speculate, but regardless, the multiplicity of North American ethnic jurisdictions is a mess and a practical impediment to proclaiming the Gospel (the worst part of it). And maybe it is not coincidental that the two men who are most noted for pastoring the NA situation when it had unity (and in their vision should grow in unity) were...Auxiliary Raphael Hawaweeney and Bishop (later Archbishop) Tikhon Bellavin. St. Raphael wrote about st. Tikhon's ministry "He has been sent here to tend the flock of Christ - Russians, Slavs, Syro-Arabs and Greeks - scattered across the entire North American continent." ("St. Raphael Good Shepherd of the Lost Sheep in America", Antakya Press, Englewood, NJ. 2000.)

Isn't it quite obvious that these two Saints of Christ had a much different and vastly better vision for North America that they way things turned out.

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Was, Is and Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

Dear Friends,

The issue of "one bishop for one city" is certainly an important canonical consideration.

But there are issues, to which I've no ready answers, that surround this matter, especially within the North American context.

In North America, we tend to think of a "Ukrainian Catholic" "Melkite Catholic" et al. in terms of "ethnic identity" alone.

And, I would submit, this is a well-meaning mistake.

The Ukies are associated with the Kyivan Church in the first instance, as were and are other national/cultural groups.

It is not an ETHNIC tie then, but an ECCLESIAL one.

It is only in modern times that the "lingua franca" of the Kyivan Church and its cultural makeup has become largely "Ukrainian."

But this is still incidental to the fact that the Kyivan Church is the ancient See of these people and of others.

The Fathers who developed the canon above could not have foreseen the coming into being of North America as the repository of culturally diverse immigrants from all over the world.

But a number of the Oriental Orthodox patriarchates did foresee their faithful living throughout the world and outside their immediate patriarchal jurisdictions.

They actually extended the principle in the canon above through the innovative development of the role of "Catholicos-Patriarch" which is a patriarch who has jurisdiction over members of his flock anywhere in the world where they might be.

I would submit that the advanced thinking of the Oriental Orthodox has also been at work in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches in this respect. It violates no principle of the Councils.

In addition, the Fathers could not have foreseen the existence of more than one Ritual Church in a given jurisdiction at that time.

In fact, it was common for Christians of one ritual Church to adapt to another's depending on the territory in which they lived.

Even the Greek Theodore of Tarsus, when he was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, had to become a Latin.

And so, following the early traditions of the Church, and if we really wanted to press them here, we Byzantines should therefore all become Latin Catholics since we are a minority living in a land where the Latins are a majority.

Again, the Fathers, living in the social and political situation in which they were, could not have foreseen this and other exceptions to their rule.

The Ukrainians or members of the Kyivan Church truly DO have one bishop for one see throughout the world and wherever UGCC parishes are to be found.

What has brought confusion to the ecclesial situation is both nationalism and the desire for culturally-specific Churches - and these are formed on the backs of ancient metropolitanical and patriarchal Churches that at one time included people from diverse cultural and linguistc backgrounds.

And if anyone would like Ukies and others to give up their culturally-specific jurisdictions and merge with, say, Russians and Poles . . . well, I'd like to see y'a try, Big Guys!

(I've gotten into enough trouble over banquets in recent days - I'm stayin' outta this one!! ).

As for a NA Patriarchate for those who no longer feel any ties to "ethnic" Churches et al.

The problem is that there never has been an Eastern Patriarchate established in an area that has no See connected to an Apostle.

All other patriarchates are "Apostolic" in this sense.

It's an unwritten rule - and I wasn't the one who made it up.

Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy would wish to break protocol and established tradition in this respect.

The whole kerfuffle between Kyiv and Moscow in terms of patriarchy is about the apostolic tradition of St Andrew the First-Called - ie. who is the heir to that, Kyiv or Moscow?

It matters not if there are those who see St Andrew's visit to Kyiv as "Mythical." The fact is that for 1,000 years the Church of Kyivan Rus' acted on this "consciousness" of it being the "Church of St Andrew" who evangelized Scythia etc.

Even Scotland itself, in the Declaration of Ardbroath, declares that its people are descended from the Scythians in the Black Sea region and this is why St Andrew is their patron saint!

Orthodoxy does establish autonomous and autocephalous metropolitanical jurisdictions outside historic Patriarchates - but these will NEVER become "Patriarchates."

And, again, please don't shoot the messenger here.

Finally, I don't see why you "ethnically detached" people set up an ecclesial situation similar to what we up here have by way of monarchical relationship.

Canada is not Britain, but acknowledges Britain's Sovereign as its own.

But the local administration and representation of the Sovereign is fulfilled by Governors-General and Lieutenant Governers from Canada.

You could have your own Metropolias that are autonomous but which could have a relationship to an historic Patriarchal See in the East.

That way, you have the best of both worlds.

And remember that every time you build a Church with cupolas and three-bar Crosses, you are witnessing to your ties to a spiritual culture that is outside that of North America.

Enough from me for one post . . .

Alex

Great reply Alex, when I have some time I will read it more closly and think on it.

Saying that I must add, I believe ethnicity to be something man made, a circumstance of the fall.

Ethnicity comes before the Gospel in some churches, I think this is incorrect.

The Melkite church I attend, while 98% of the people there are arab, most born outside of the USA, they are very open and welcoming. I would not say that they placing their ethnicity first. The majority of them speak arabic, but the services are in english with a bit of greek and arabic, not all arabic.

The Ukrainian churches here are as the admin states that he has seen. They are not too welcoming for those who are ethnically different.

I found two chapters from Scripture that I think cover this.

Here they are.

Romans 14
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


2 Corinthians 6
1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:
4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;
6 By pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;
9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


David

I will accept for the moment (but only for the moment) the premise that Ukie churches in North America are "not welcoming" to others.

Even so, those who seek an "ethnically neutral" environment should, from what Admin and DavidB say, be able to find a home with the so-called "Byzantine Catholics."

So why ride the Ukes? Let us be ourselves and you all go about doing whatever it is you do.

kl

"You could have your own Metropolias that are autonomous but which could have a relationship to an historic Patriarchal See in the East."

Dear Alex,

As you may be aware, the MP is trying to do something like this in Western Europe.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

I disagree with Alex�s post. An argument for one bishop in one city does not equate to an argument for restricting a geographical territory to the usage of one ritual tradition. An argument for one bishop in one city only supports the argument that all ritual traditions should be subject to the same bishop for a given geographic area. Ultimately that should be the goal but realizing it is many generations away. The logical move for Byzantine Catholics in America is to eventually merge into one pan-ethnic Church. As I stated before, such unity would greatly assist us in witnessing Jesus Christ to America and inviting all Americans to become Byzantine Catholic.

I wish that our Byzantine Catholic Church was more welcoming to non-Slavs. The problem is not as severe in our Church as it is in the Ukrainian Catholic Church but it is bad enough that many people who feel called to become Byzantine Catholics do not feel welcome in our parishes. As David has noted, there are several Melkite parishes that are far ahead of us in knowing how to welcome others and help them find a spiritual home in their parishes.

Why ride the Ukrainians? I have only responded to KL�s posts and do not believe that I have criticized them any more than I have criticized my own Church. I welcome an explanation by KL at how Ukrainians wanting to be left alone to foster Ukrainian ethnicity at the parish level fulfills the Gospel command to baptize all nations.

Dear Administrator,

I did not say, Sir, that that is the way things should be - only that is the way things were understood in the early Church.

My point was that if one is going to press the argument of "one bishop in one See," then let's not be overly selective with respect to the heritage and socio-political circumstances of the early Church and go the whole way - which included all Christians in one See and under one Bishop attending the Eucharistic Rite of that Bishop.

So I'm using what you disagree with, which is the practice of the early Church, (and I don't agree with it either), to weaken the argument that we need "one bishop for one See."

Again, we all love to quote from the canons and practice of the early Church when it suits our purpose!

And now I'm doing it to suit mine here . . .

But my real argument, (and you're silent about it - and you know that "silence gives consent" ), is that for members of the Kyivan Church to live in North America means that they continue to belong to the Kyivan Church here and this Church appoints bishops for them, one for each See.

So I'm arguing that those who use the "one bishop for one See" canon are using it in a context that was not foreseen by the Fathers who developed it.

And that the Church's own praxis adheres to it with the difference that the Kyivan Church is now worldwide, as is the Roman Church, the Russian Church etc.

When the Fathers developed that canon, the Church of Alexandria was a geographically integral Church and so were the others - each with their own territories.

Not only that, the earliest experience of the Church was that its liturgical rites, such as the Liturgy of St Clement, was truly universal and the same.

All I'm saying, Sir, is that we really can't talk about that canon as if nothing has happened in the life of the Church since.

And the notion of having one bishop over various ritual Churches - now isn't that what we Easterners have been opposing in North America for over a hundred years now?

So I'm unclear as to the ecclesial model you are proposing.

In terms of novelty, I think it is the plan that the "North American Autocephalists" that I'm calling your plan that is truly the novelty in terms of historic ecclesial praxis on the part of the Eastern Churches.

Have a great day!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Then I think the Moscow Patriarchate is acting well within historic ecclesial tradition in this respect.

Perhaps the "North American Autocephalists" like the Administrator and others here can steal a page or two from the MP's ecclesial handbook?

I'm going to get into trouble with the above term, but what is a discussion without a little rush of hot blood to the face?

As long as we love each other when all is said and done!

Alex

Dear David,

Yes, it is true that many Ukie parishes are unwelcoming to strangers.

And so, as it has been pointed out, are others.

The issue is not with the Ukies et al. themselves but with the idea of the "national" parish.

And this highlights the history of many Eastern Churches, as noted by Donald Attwater especially.

The Eastern Churches were not only religious institutions in the lives of the nations they served, as a result of the suppression of other socio-cultural institutions in times of oppression, the Churches also took on this role as well.

Many national political leaders in those countries were either clerics or else closely aligned to the Church, speaking in prophetic language in the respective struggles for national liberation.

For example, St Cosmas Aitolos of Greece established many Greek schools throughout Greece. To attend Greek school meant not only a thorough education in Orthodoxy, but also in Greek language, history and culture - all of which integrated to preserve the Greek people and their identity during the time of the Turkish Yoke.

Many of these Churches in North America continue with that strong sentiment of "our Church, our nation."

And this to the point where the very essence of the Byzantine liturgical tradition is understood entirely in conjunction with the national cultural identity.

So if one "doesn't want to speak Ukrainian, then go to an English (Latin) Church!"

But we do have our Churches that are English-speaking, even though too few.

What is more, I've noticed a greater sense of radical attachment to "Ukrainian identity" among those who no longer speak Ukrainian, but have a strong psychological attachment to their ancestral connections.

As the Ukies say, "you can't unravel it without some vodka!"

Alex

Dear Admin:

I am not a scriptural scholar and refuse to go up against you on this point. How would you like it if I challenged you to a public policy debate on a specific point of insurance coverage law? Yeah! I thought so.

I am simply tired of those who are not Ukrainian looking down their noses at us as some out-of-touch ethnic purists who cannot venture outside of their own little conclaves. The fact of the matter is that many of us are successful professionals who were born here, are fully involved in American/Canadian daily life and have nothing but great love and admiration for the countries of our citizenship.

Still, we are cognizant of where our grandparents came from. Our parents, and thier parents before them, instilled in us a sence of a history and a legacy that pre-dates Christianity itself. It is out of a deep-rooted respect for our antcestors that we continue to nurture our lanaguage, our culture and, yes, OUR Church.

For us, a part of this legacy in the present day is maintaining our link to the Kyivo-Galician Patriarch. For better or for worse, this link has kept many of us in Byzantine-Rite Christianity and will continue to do so.

My grandfather was ordained to the priesthood by The Servant of God Andrej Sheptytsky. But now comes along the likes of you and tells me that I must sever this tie. I don't think so!

I'm sorry that this somehow offends your ecumenical views. I'm sorry if you think that we are somehow violating God's laws by simply being ourselves. I'm sorry if you feel that our existence is somehow a threat to your Church's ministry.

Now, if you will excuse me...

Dear KL,

Never mind the Administrator!

What I really have a problem with is the really reductionist view of cultural identity among some "North American Autocephalists" (Yes, I think I'll get a real bruising today!)

The term "ethnic" is really nonsensical when applied to many national cultural groups in North America today.

It suggests "subcultural identity" and, as you know, we Ukies don't regard our culture as "sub" or "under" to the English mainstream. We simply "put up" with it in our working lives and when we go to sports events!

In addition, the notion that "ethnic identity" can be reduced to perogies and dances is utter reductionism.

What is truly amazing about the NAA viewpoint is that they somehow think that the Byzantine Churches didn't come out of a similarly "ethnic" context that continues to characterize the liturgy et al.

It's an important discussion that I don't think this Forum has ever systematically tackled before.

But never mind about the Administrator, for heaven's sakes . . .

Have a great day!

Alex

Alex,

Thanks for your post. I don�t think I�ve been silent here and my proposal is certainly not anything new. The Eastern model is to Christianize a specific territory and then, when it matures, to give it self-governing status. The Orthodox patriarchates of eastern Europe are an example of this model. As they grew they were given self-governing status by Constantinople. A more recent example of this model is the creation of a Ukrainian patriarchate. Those in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Bulgaria, for example, are no longer members of the Constantinopolitan Church but now are members of the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria. Creating a self-governing patriarchate for the United States (or first for all of North America) is simply following the existing Eastern model. The existence of different Byzantines from differing mother Churches does complicate matters but the creation of a patriarchate here solves them. To continue to be subject to a mother Church in Europe is to follow the Latin model that there is only one patriarchate for the Latin Church worldwide.

I do agree that the ancient model of one bishop per geographic territory would be impossible to follow in the current North American situation. I have not been arguing for that at this time. I am only arguing that if there are going to be multiple overlapping jurisdictions that they should not be based upon ethnicity. When the Greeks Christianized the Slavs the Slavs eventually made Christianity their own and developed their own chant and unique customs (hence the creation of the Kyivan Church). This will also occur here in America as our Church matures and we blend the best of the European and Middle Eastern Byzantine customs with those that legitimately develop here in America.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Thank you for your post as well and I will try to respond with the same aura of dispassionate criticality and matter-of-factness - although since I'm a Slav-Romanian combo, don't put your hopes up too highly!

You articulate your point on ethnicity within the parameters of a highly refined ecclesial paradigmatic perspective.

But it is simply wrong!

This perspective sees the Byzantine Church as existing among various ethnocultural groups here in NA.

Have I got that right? I'm assuming I'm close . . .

But the Rite itself is not what defines a Particular Church - Particularity in all its historic, ecclesial aspects does.

The Kyivan Church (and thank you for finally creating a Patriarchate for it - I knew someone would one day! ) did indeed take the Byzantine tradition from Constantinople.

But it built on that tradition to the point that it became the "Byzantine-Slav" or "Byzantine-Kyivan" tradition.

The Church of Kyiv became more independent as time went by. The later Kyivan Metropolitans and the Patriarchs of Moscow are the end result, including the Kyivan Patriarchate that you so kindly affirmed for us .

HOWEVER, North American Autocephalists, such as yourself, (and I caught that "Latin" accusation, Sir - can't you come up with something a bit more original? ) don't seem to realize that a Patriarchal See has always been tied to an Apostolic Centre - a Metropolitan Church that is descended from an Apostle, or else has an Apostolic tradition built on an "Apostolic Myth" (such as Constantinople itself) and a resulting tradition of evangelization and ecclesial authority that comes from that Church's self-consciousness as such.

Kyiv was under Constantinople and then became autonomous.

It began to canonize its own saints and consecrate its own bishops.

But does that mean Kyiv forgot, or can forget, its relationship to its Mother Church, Constantinople?

Nadda . . .

That's all I'm suggesting.

What is truly LATIN, er, Sir, is the notion that one must have a patriarchate in order to establish a Particular Church in the East.

And as Orthodox commentators on the "Decree on the Eastern Churches" have written, this notion is wrong. There are many Orthodox autocephalous Churches that have no patriarch for their primate. The autocephalous Church of the Monastery of Mt. Sinai has its monastic head as its Primate.

Any Eastern Church deriving from an Eastern Patriarchal or Metropolitanical See in Europe, Africa or Asia can be an autonomous, autocephalous Metropolia here in North America with bonds of friendship with its ancient Metropolia - this is not being "under" anyone, Sir.

This is simply not forgetting where we came from.

And such a "Byzantine Catholic Church, NAA" here can truly serve to unite all those culturall disaffected members of Byzantine Churches who "no speaka da language" no more.

The OCA is organized like that, is it not, Sir?

So unless you wish to contend that the OCA is "Latin," I don't think your argument holds water.

But the OCA isn't Latin. And the Ruthenians who have joined it, and will join it in the future, don't think so either.

Have a great day!

Alex

KL,

Thank you for your post.

I think you have missed what I have been saying. I support your freedom and the freedom of anyone to preserve and build ethnic conclaves and to retain and promote their ethnic identity anywhere in the world. What I am against is that when this is done at the parish level it excludes the possibility of welcoming those not of that particular ethnic identity in to the parish family. The reality here in the United States is that most Ukrainian Catholic and Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic parishes will eventually close because the preservation of Slavic ethnicity has been more important to us than inviting our non-Slavic neighbors to join our parishes and become part of our parish families. [Keep in mind that both the Byzantine-Ruthenian and Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholic Churches have dropped from a high of about 260,000 each in the 1950�s to about 60,000 each today and that the average age of our members is over 65.] It is this insistence of ethnicity over evangelization that chases people � especially young people - away from our parishes. It frightens me that some believe that preservation of Slavic ethnicity is more important then the survival and growth of our Church here in America.

I am not suggesting that you sever your personal, familial tie with The Servant of God Andrej Sheptytsky. I am only suggesting that you should not place that tie above your responsibility to share Jesus Christ with your neighbor or inflict it upon people who might choose to join your parish.

Respectfully,
Admin

I feel I must reply here.

If this is what has been perceived as what I am doing, then I must beg forgiveness.

I am not "looking down my nose" at anyone. I am more reacting to the brusing I have recieved at the hands of others.

And I am sorry but the whole community where I live sees the ukrainians as "ethnic purists who cannot venture outside of their own little conclaves". As even when they can speak english they refuse to do so in public.

That is when speaking to each other they will use ukrainian, even if they do know english. Where as the arabs here use english at all times except for the privacy of their own homes, and then some still use english there also.

Sometimes it is those who feel "super" ethnic that look down upon those that are view as ethnic "neutrals", as if they feel somehow superior.


David