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

Dear David,

The point you raise is an important one and I don't think there are any ready answers.

Does a parish (and the Administrator above touches only on individual rights, but he's an American) have the right to maintain a cultural orientation?

And even if we admit that it does (not that such parishes will wait for anyone's approval) and even if such a parish is welcoming to others, those others will eventually feel "out of place" if they don't share that parish's cultural identity.

Simply, as I think is sometimes suggested here, having English -language services, is not the answer.

It is much more complex than that.

And again, I'm not defending the attitude of inhospitality. And look at me, I think I'm as hospitable as they get - don't you?

The entire cultural identity (again "ethnic" is a problematic term) of a parish is bound up with its sense of "Byzantineness" or "Alexandrianness" and so on - and even if one has English language Liturgies, the problem isn't solved.

I've worked with converts to both Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy who have had Ukrainian lineage in their past, but for whom the entire Ukie culture was quite the unknown.

Even when we managed to get them into English liturgies parishes, the "cultural" thing still made them feel "strange" there.

The OCA is in a different position, and I've seen, firsthand, the remarkable way in which it has been open to non-Russians and non-Slavs.

We will, I believe, continue to have both culturally-specific parishes and others, like the OCA, who know what they're doing when they adapt to NA mainstream culture.

We cannot have everyone either/or. We're not at that stage, nor do I believe we ever will be.

Belonging to an Eastern Church is not only about Eastern spirituality and liturgics.

It is also about the very real influence of culture, be it Eastern European or North American.

Alex

The creation of a patriarchate here in North America in no ways forgets the relationship with the Mother Churches of Antioch, Kviv, and etc. Has the Kyivan Church forgotten its relationship to its Mother Church in Constantinople?

You are correct that the Eastern practice does not always include the establishment of a patriarchate. We North Americans may not yet be worthy of our own patriarch. The logical progression of maturity of an Eastern Church, however, does include the creation of an autocephalous Church. This would be the next logical step for the various Byzantine Churches here in North America. How could you deny for North America that which you champion for Ukraine? The creation of a patriarchate here (or at least a united autocephalous Byzantine Catholic Church to start with) in no way threatens the bonds of friendship with the Churches in Antioch, Kyiv or the other various Mother Churches of Byzantine Catholic North Americans.

I am not sure that I understand your comments about being �under� anyone. Since the bishops of the Ukrainian Catholic Church here in North America are appointed from Kyiv (with the approval of Rome) then the Ukrainian Catholic Church is certainly under the jurisdiction of Kyiv. All I am suggesting is all of the North American Byzantine Catholic Churches be united together into a single Church that is autocephalous and elects it�s own bishops, instead of being dependent on Antioch, Ukraine or Rome. What is wrong with our Churches uniting to become ecclesiastically autocephalous?

As to the OCA, I think it has taken an excellent first step towards uniting everyone. The OCA created the ethnic dioceses only for pastoral purposes and eventually they will disappear (but even now they already constitute one synod of bishops, unlike us Byzantine Catholics). I have stated in other discussions that the model I propose would be for a united Byzantine Church with a single Synod of Byzantine Catholic Bishops (to include today�s Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Melkites and etc.). Existing ethnic dioceses would continue to exist and in a generation or two would be revisited to better serve the Church. There are some who believe that Slavic ethnicity will forever remain the main ethnicity of Slavic-Americans. The reality is that it is disappearing quickly and as it disappears our parishes built upon a specifically Slavic ethnicity are also disappearing.

In your earlier post you touched on how the Byzantine Churches grew out of specific ethnic experiences that continue to characterize our liturgy. I agree completely. I believe, however, that our Church can exist apart from these ethnic experiences and take root in the multi-cultural North American society. It would be fascinating to explore that and speculate how our North American culture will someday contribute to the ongoing development of the Byzantine Christian experience.

Admin

Dear David:

If simply speaking Ukrainian in public is a sign of some kind of a superior attitude, then I must plead guilty as charged.

If I'm in a group where EVERYBODY speaks Ukrainian, I will speak it. I have no obligation to make myself understood to the other people in the restaurant, on the subway, etc. etc. etc.

However, if there's somebody who doesn't speak the language of the group I happen to find myself in, I argee wholeheartedly that it's just plain rude to do so.

Still, I sence that your concern lies more in the use of liturgical lanaguage. This is admittedly a thorny issue and, IMHO, should be handled on a parish to parish basis.

Simply put, if enough people in a particular parish think that their experience would be enriched by switching to an English liturgy (in whole or in part), I submit that the pastor and the bishop-ordinary have an obligation to accomodate.

In fact, this has happened in many-a Ukrainian, Greek, Serbian and other "ethnic" parishes.

We can draw an example from our RC bretheren in the 'States who say the Mass in Spanish, Polish and a host of other languages.

As for converts, they apparently have your Church and the OCA (yeah, I know, the commuion with Rome thing - fine. BANG! You got me). So, once again, I don't think it's that much of a problem.

Yours,

kl

Dear Administrator,

Well, at least you didn't use the "Latin" charge this time . . .

I will reiterate that you don't seem to want to take seriously the fact that there is not one "Byzantine Church" comprised of "ethnic this and that."

The Ukies, the Melkites et al. have the Byzantine Rite, with local variations, but belong to Patriarchates that signify Particular Churches, even though they live in North America.

And what is wrong with that? If you believe that the cultural traditions et al. are bound to disappear, that is one thing - and very representative of the American experience.

I don't begrudge you a patriarchate, Sir!

But, from a truly Byzantine perspective, a "Patriarchate" for North America is an impossibility.

No Apostle was ever here, nor is there an "Apostolic Myth" associated with Brooklyn, Little Rock or Tampa - although I can see some of the Apostles feeling more at home in Florida . . .

You are quite correct that the Vatican (Latin) Council did allow for the erection of Patriarchates where there was the need.

But this does not touch on the above issue. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But you are going to have to, in this instance, show me how I'm wrong in a way that goes beyond "because I say you are."

The notion also that one need one great big Byzantine Catholic Patriarchal institution in which to unite the NA members of various Particular Churches is something I find very Latin indeed.

The OCA exists, but so does the Greek Orthodox Church, the Antiochian Orthodox etc. And all the Churches and Autocephalous Metropolias somehow get along together without feeling the need to be under one institutional roof.

I would suggest, Sir, that such a "patriarchate" which can only ever be a Metropolia, as you propose would serve as a point of division. I could be wrong, but time will tell.

And again, I'm not the one who is empowered with giving permission for the erection of such patriarchates, or, more realistically, self-governing Metropolias.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a pastoral need for such an enterprise. There certainly is.

But you, Sir, seem to want to say "all or nothing." If I'm wrong about that interpretation of what you say, I apologise.

There will always be the "mainstream" Church experience here, that needs a self-governing American Metropolia, and there will always be tension between that model of ecclesial existence in NA and that of the Churches here that are connected to the ancient Patriarchal Sees of the Church of the East.

And I never suggested that we Ukies don't want to be "under" or else in communion with Kyiv and its Patriarchate.

We do - and we love the whole idea!

I'm not against what you say about the multicultural diversity in our Churches.

Heaven forbid . . .

Have a great weekend and thanks for being cool!

Alex

Dear Admin:

I do not inflict my familial ties upon anyone who wishes to join Sts. V&O.

It just so happens that my parish was established by the Kyivo-Galician Patriarch himself. That is a part of our parish's history and fighting for the rights of the Church of Kyiv (be it vis a vis Moscow, Rome, or anyone else) is a part of what my parish stands for. Even some of us wanted to change this - we simply couldn't.

When his Beatitude Lubomyr spoke to us during his visit to Chicago, he stressed that we were ALL ambasadors of the Ukrainian nation (not the Ukrainian State, but nation). It did not matter to his Beatitude whether we were born here, in Ukraine or anywhere else - it is our history and blood that binds us into the diasporal community in which we find ourselves.

You will likely say that this was the wrong message to send in America. But if a scholar on Lubomyr Husar's level can accept a limited role of our Church on the North American continant ...

You fear ethnicity over evangelization. Still, I do not see how the Ukrainian church hinders this.

We always say that "supermarket religion" is bad -that we must accept all of the Church's teachings. Perhaps the Byzantine Rite in North American is a variant of that - it has a cultural component that will never be purged now matter how hard one tries.

In other words, if one is not drawn to the culture, one will probably not be drawn to its Church.

Yours,

kl

Dear KL,

I truly do think the Administrator's comments to you in this respect were unworthy of him . . .

No one is inflicting anything on anyone.

And to say so in the case of the UGCC is simply to choose not to understand or appreciate it.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for an enjoyable discussion.

I take that fact very seriously. I just believe that the differences are not enough for us to remain divided and that unification could greatly assist us in our obligation to witness Jesus Christ to North America.

That�s not the question. The question is: �Does the ecclesial arrangement that currently exists best serve the people of God to proclaim Jesus Christ?� I submit that it does not.

What apostle visited Moscow, Russia? Or Serbia, Romania, or Bulgaria? I do not and will not insist on a patriarchate to start with for us North Americans but such a goal is not unorthodox or un-Orthodox. You may be correct if you are suggesting that an autocephalous Metropolitan with a synod of bishops might be better suited our current situation. My main focus is to see the various Byzantine Catholic Churches in North America united into a single ecclesial structure that is governed by a synod of bishops.

No, not Latin, just logical and well within Byzantine praxis. At any rate it would not be very large since, for us in the United States, a united ecclesial structure would bring together about 120,000 people. That is still small when compared to the average Roman Catholic diocese here in the United States. There is nothing in Byzantine praxis that supports the continuance of ecclesial divisions along ethnic lines. It is generally acknowledged that the overlapping jurisdictions in the Holy Land are not helpful to the witness of Jesus Christ to a part of the world that sorely needs to accept Him. I will only note for fullness that our situation was created through emigration. It will also note that there were those in the Roman Catholic Church who, in the second half of the nineteenth century, argued unsuccessfully for the creation of ethnic dioceses across America. Had they succeeded the Roman Catholic Church would not have developed such a united witness and such a powerful witness has lead to her being the fastest growing religion on the North American continent.

Now, regarding the patriarchate, if you are suggesting that a united Metropolia with a proper synod of bishops is more proper than a patriarch then you may be correct. Again, I am first focused on uniting Byzantine Catholics here in America into a single ecclesial structure so that we can better witness Jesus Christ to America. I believe that a patriarchate here in America is both legitimate and proper. I admit that it is not a necessary first step because that step is to unite.

Why would Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian ethnicity desire to remain part of a patriarchate in another country instead of preparing a home here in North America from which to evangelize? Do they strongly desire to keep these ties because they someday desire to return to Ukraine? I admit that it a perspective I do not embrace. But I was raised on hamburgers, football and rock-n-roll.

Admin

I would like to comment that it seems that the Scriputres I posted have been ignored.

I view a focus on ethnicity within our parishes as a stumbling block mentioned in Romans 14. I also feel that 2 Corinthians 6 fits this discussion well.

I would be interested in the way you read these regarding this issue Alex and KL.

As for what KL said about language used in the liturgical setting, yes I think that it should be redominatly english, as that is the language of the land. Now, I have nothing against using other languages, just I do not think they should be used more than english.

Also, we have 2 Ukrainian churches in Rochester, they are 1.2 miles apart and both have a Vigil Divine Liturgy at 5pm on Saturdays (one church does it in english (recited) and the other does it in ukrainian), then both Churches have 3 Sunday Divine Liturgies, 8:30am, 10:00am, and Noon. The 10am one is recited english at the church that does the vigil in ukrainian.

Not only is language an issue for me, as the english liturgies are not well attened, but the fact that each church has 4 Liturgies. Each of these churches are not truly one parish community, each church consists of 4 communities.

Just doesn't seem right to me.

David

KL,

Thank you for your post. I am enjoying this discussion.

I�m glad to hear that you do not inflict ethnicity on people who join your parish. It is good to know that if some new parishioners wished to organize a spaghetti supper or have �Country-N-Western Dance Night� that you would be supportive.

I do not see where who established your parish has anything to do with what it stand for. It should stand for Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. Ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. While the majority of your parishioners may be of Ukrainian ethnicity it should always be open to others to join the parish and to witness their ethnicity. I�m glad to hear you state that this is the case.

I disagree with his Beatitude if he stated what you have posted. Such a belief is clearly wrong. You are not ambassadors of the Ukrainian nation. You are ambassadors of Jesus Christ. North America is no longer the Diaspora. It is home. Our history now ties us to North America as much as it ties us to Europe or the Mid East. If your patriarch has accepted such a limited role for your Church then he does not believe that your Church is for everyone and that North Americans should be invited to join it. That is very sad and it is the death nail of your Church in North America. It only supports my belief that you must embrace a life in North America and build a home here as Americans and Canadians in order for your Church to survive.

I do not fear ethnicity. I only fear what excessive ethnicity causes here in North America � the death of a Church. How does ethnicity assist in the witness of Jesus Christ to North America? This is the only really important question. Jesus does not call us to be Ukrainians or Ruthenians or Canadians or Americans. He calls us to be Christians.

It is not a matter of purging cultural components within the Byzantine Church. It is a matter of making them subservient to the Gospel. The Byzantine Church has grown with each new culture it has evangelized. Each new nation that has embraced Byzantine Christianity has contributed to the Church. We live in North America and our obligation is to proclaim the Gospel to North America. The North American culture will someday greatly contribute to the Byzantine Catholic experience.

If one believes that one must be drawn to the Slavic culture in order to be drawn to the Byzantine Church than one must also believe that the Byzantine Church has no real future in North America because history has shown that ethnic communities do slowly dissolve into the larger society. I disagree with such a perspective. I believe that we have a great gift to give to North America � Jesus Christ and our Byzantine Christian Life - and that we must give this gift in a way that North American can understand and embrace.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

These are very important questions and I'm very pleased that you tackle them head-on in this forum - all that football-watching has truly paid off for you!

The ecclesial arrangement is the question, but I would suggest that you STILL (you can't be that American, surely? ) don't appreciate the integration of culture with ecclesial praxis itself.

You'll doubtless say you do, but in praxis, you don't.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

But we seem to be speaking past each other on this subject.

The unification you are really talking about has less to do with ecclesial realities than with cultural realities.

You want a single ecclesial structure to unite the various Byzantine cultural groups under one roof and within the context of North American mainstream culture - if not at first, then later.

And I'm not disagreeing with you.

Where we seem to disagree, and I know you'll tell me if I'm wrong , is on the "live and let live" issue.

I know that what you propose is a pastoral necessity, especially in the U.S.

But how are you going to get all those Byzantines under one roof who don't want to be?

Practically, there will be a mainstream Church such as you propose, and there will continue to be parishes with enduring ties to their ancient Patriarchal Sees.

And the latter has to do with culture and liturgical heritage at one and the same time.

It has nothing to do with wanting to return the ethnic homeland.

Conversely, do you mean to say that I can't be a member of the Kyivan Church in North America.

Are you saying that Kyivan Christianity is about ethnicity and that a Byzantine "super Church jurisdiction" can supercede it?

If so, Sir, I would suggest your understanding of Kyivan Christianity and other Particular traditions, based on Byzantium, needs a certain updating.

Kyivan spirituality is markedly different from Melkite, Russian et al.

Your vision of a super Byzantine structure will not unite - it will submerge the distinctive characters of the respective Eastern spiritualities that are rooted in the various historic Eastern Patriarchates.

But I agree that an American-based Metropolia that is focused on the North American cultural experience is needed.

The Orthodox, I believe, are smarter than we in this respect.

They try to develop a Particular North American Orthodoxy that is distinctive from other Orthodoxies - rather than create a goulash of submerged traditions.

So the ecclesial arrangement you propose, Sir, is, in my view, one among many that will continue to exist in the West.

But if you are taking the lack of language knowledge and ties to the homeland as indicators of the readiness of parishes for the kind of arrangement you propose, you might find there are other ways in which those people continue to identify themselves with a cultural tradition - ones that have nothing to do with returning to the ethnic homeland and ones that persist not IN SPITE OF North American assimilation, but BECAUSE OF such pressures.

And I'm happy I'm proving entertaining to you this afternoon . . .

Alex

Dear David,

Actually, I think the scriptures you quote have really not much to do with what this topic is about.

If you are addressing the cultural aspect, then we know that St Paul himself established many local, Particular Churches and is the "patron" of the local Church whereas St Peter symbolizes "universality."

Already in the New Testament, in Acts, we have tensions developing between two slowly forming Particular Churches - the Hebrew Church of Jerusalem and the Church of the Gentiles.

Paul himself got embroiled in the discussion and, as we know, maintained that Gentile Christians need not submit to Jewish rites of initiation in order to become Christians.

Paul best exemplified obedience to Christ's command to "baptize all nations" which later Apostles like Sts Cyril and Methodius took to mean cultures, local traditions and even Particular Churches.

There never has been, nor ever will be, one Church that is universal in its own Particular cultural expression and liturgical identity.

I wouldn't make the Malabar Church, or the Melkite Church or the what have you Church my own, simply because they aren't "me."

If you want to know about "me," I can show you the Church that says it best.

Even though it does so in another language . . .

(Am I good today or what? )

Alex

Posted by ADMIN:

Your observation on the initial part of your post is accurate, indeed! As you noted, clearly it is not "Latin"; it is just logical!

On the underscored portion, however, some recent observers of religious demographics have noticed that the American version of Islam, especially among the African-Americans, IS outpacing Catholicism in terms of growth rate.

Statistically, estimates vary from 3 million to 6 million American muslims at the end of 2002, up from an insignificant immigrant minority in the 1990s.

(The sheer size of Catholicism in the U.S. today, at 64 million or so, or about 1 in 4 U.S. residents, is overwhelming to ANY denomination, the SBC at 20-30 million, notwithstanding! Hence, in abolute terms, Catholicism is a force to reckon with.)


Amado

Dear Amado,

But the Administrator does err in his comparison.

The Latin Church is a Particular Church, just as the Kyivan Church is.

The Kyivan Church, historically, has had Siberians, and other cultural groups within its fold, who all prayed in the Church Slavonic language, just as you Latins prayed in . . . you get the picture.

So the Administrator is clearly wrong in making such a comparison.

The fact that you and the Administrator agree here is further alarming evidence to me that the two of you are Latin birds of a feather

(Be a good sport, guys!)

Alex

Dear Admin,
In your last post you put a question up as to why we Ukies would like to be part of a Patriarchate which is thousands of miles away.
This is a very interesrting question. I was born in Brazil. My father was born in Brazil as well my mom came to Brazil from Ukraine when she was a kid. Only my grandparents from both sides came to Brazil as adults and for some reason I feel more Ukrainian than Brazilian. I guess what makes us want to be part of one Patriarchate that is located thousands of miles away is a certain need to say that we are united and that we are strong and that Alex in Canada, and Krylos Leader from Chicago and I from Brazil have one spiritual father and leader who is our Patriarch Lubomyr. We kind of become part of a big family.
Lauro

Alex,

We don�t disagree here. I am putting forth a plan for the future. You are correctly stating that many or most of �our people� are simply not interested. Somehow, we must convince them.

I think that I do appreciate the integration of culture with ecclesial praxis. I also appreciate the fact that we do not take seriously our mandate to witness Jesus Christ to North America. Because we do not take seriously our mandate to witness Jesus Christ we really have no legitimate reason to continue to exist and we certainly will cease to exist in a relatively short period of time unless we change. As much as I feel the responsibility of our Church to call our members to unite to effectively witness Jesus Christ I realize that the majority of �our people� are simply not interested and will continue to intertwine their ethnicity and spiritual lives until their parishes no longer exist. I find it very disheartening that people would allow such a great gift as our unique and wonderful Byzantine witness of Jesus to die rather than to share it with their neighbors.

I do not agree that it might not be possible to get all Byzantines under one ecclesial roof. Yes, some will come only reluctantly and others will not come at all and will eventually cease to exist but those who are willing to join together will become the foundation for a Byzantine Catholic Church that does effectively witness Jesus Christ to North America. As I stated earlier the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church here in the United States has gone from about 260,000 in the 1950�s to about 60,000 today. If we continue along the current path in ten years we will have about 10,000 people. The statistics for Ukrainian Catholics in the United States are very similar. [For the Melkites and Romanians the percentages are the same but the numbers are smaller.] What we can do is to begin to call interested people together to unite in planting seeds for the future. I have no doubt that once we acknowledge that we are in North America to stay and that we have an obligation to share the Good News to everyone in North America we will be blessed beyond our wildest dreams and will begin to grow at an incredible rate. Yes, this will mean hot dog roasts next to holupki dinners and a new style of liturgical chant next to prostopinije. I greatly look forward to it!

I do agree with you that Kyivan spirituality is different than Melkite spirituality, even though both are Byzantine. I am suggesting that we need to begin the process of merging the two into a unique North American Byzantine Christian experience and offering that gift back to the Church. To do this is to imitate the Kyivan people who took the Greek spirituality and made it their own. This is not a matter of superceding Kyivan or Mekite spirituality. It is a matter of presenting it to North America in a way that North American can embrace it and make it its own.

Will this creation of a North American Byzantine Christian experience submerge the distinctive elements of the respective Eastern spiritualities rooted in the various patriarchates? Yes, to a point. But in a similar way in which the Kyivan Church submerged specific Greek elements of Byzantine spirituality that didn�t fit the Christian Life as lived in Kyiv. There is nothing wrong with this. North Americans are not called to preserve these spiritualities. Only Ukrainians living in Ukrainian are called to maintain and foster the distinctiveness of Byzantine-Ukrainian spirituality. Only Arab Melkites are called to maintain and foster the distinctiveness of Byzantine-Melkite spirituality. We North Americans are free to create our own distinctive expression of Byzantine Christianity. Someday the Church will speak of the Particular Church of North America (and maybe Canada and the United States) along with that of Greece, Ukraine and Russia.

Finally, I must absolutely reject something that you stated. I do not find your posts to be �entertaining�. I find them to be both challenging and stimulating.

Admin