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

Dear Amado,

The Western Church's notions about there being a grand "universal Latin Church" simply meant that Rome imposed her liturgy on other Western Churches and, via Latinization, on the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

There were always local variations and Rites in the West, as well as "national Churches" such as in Spain, Portugal, France, Poland etc.

These Churches acted as "de facto" Particular Churches, much like the Eastern Churches, monolithic Roman structures notwithstanding.

Whenever the Polish Church and Kingdom didn't like a particular papal initiative (e.g. that which dealt with treating the "uniates" fairly) it simply threw a temper tantrum and broke communion with Rome.

One scholar counted up the number of years that Catholic Poland was out of communion with Rome over the last thousand years - these amounted to about 200 years.

The Latin culture of southern Europe also came to dominate in Roman Catholicism - and this is what was sent out into the world by missionaries, even though, to their credit, there were Latin missionaries who tried to acculturate RCism to the local cultures.

So the notion that RCism was somehow "culture-neutral" and "universal" is simply naive and wrong.

Personally, I'm not saying that being influenced by this or that culture is wrong - it's just the way it is.

Americans, like our Administrator as well, seem to share this "universal" view and would like to impose it. He can have his English NA Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction, no one is denying him that.

And our Pope today has demonstrated how one may integrate one's own national Church within a harmony of worldwide Churches that reflect national and local cultural expressions.

The Church is truly universal. But it is universal in that it is made up of a plethora of Churches that are distinguished by their spiritural and cultural characteristics.

To be a member of the universal Church is to be so through membership in our local Church.

Alex

Alex,

I was just passing bye when I decided once again to break my vow of silence on this topic.

The majority of the RC Church in the US has NEVER been "mainstream English." Our early U.S. Catholic history, albeit Latin, has always been culturally diverse, mostly Continental European. Speaking English doesn't make one English ethnically and/or nationally speaking - only English speaking.

The majority of Catholics in this country have always been non-English, even the English-speaking Irish. At one time Philadelphia was half German. They brought their Catholic faith with them, primarily from the Palatinate region of Western Europe.

All of my many German ancestors had their German surnames changed by the port authorities and later census takers, who preferred to Anglocize everything for their taste. Lenzi became Lantzy; Wyland became Weiland; Rosenstiehl became Rosensteel; Schmidt became Smith; Eckenroth/Eckroth became Echenrode; Lutzinger became Litzinger; and Lilli became Lilly. All this because the "ethno-English" couldn't stomach anything that sounded non-English.

The Protestant English hassled the Catholics. But changing someone's surname still didn't make them English. I hope you didn't think that this was the case. They were primarily "German" Catholics who didn't know the English equivalent or spelling of their German names so the English-Americans obliged.

With the downfall of the Victorian age in the U.S. the rise of Americanism came afore. The Catholics were targets along with the Jews and the Blacks. It was dupes like the late Archbishop John Ireland who had to embark on a program of Americanization and a progrom of anything ethnic. We Eastern Catholic knew all too well what this program led to for us. Henry Ford even made his ethnic workers enter into a large "melting pot" chamber with their ethnic attire and exit the pot wearing Americanized clothes. Really! So Catholics and ethnics could force English-ization on their ways of volunteer programs to make themselves look appealing to a post-Victorian elite, but they still weren't English.

Your speculations about the next ten years is interesting. Many of our government leaders, including Ben Franklin, worried about the increasing tide of German Catholics into Pennsylvania. Despite our English language, I think you Canadian folks are still intimately tied to the ethno-English culture, eh? We severed that special relationship in 1776. Though we've been friends and close allies ever since.

Some churches put nationality in the numerator and Christ in the denominator.

Good bye!
Joe Thur

PS: Back to my vow of silence.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Somehow I think your practice of "breaking silence" to come in with a pregnant post every so often is more effective for its "punch value" than anything! (You'll have to teach me these tactics sometime!)

Are you trying to establish a married Trappist Byzantine Order or something?

I don't disagree, except that the Anglo-conformity model was predominant in North American Catholicism for a long time. It tended to submerge existing cultural identities and it did lead to schisms such as the Polish National Catholic Church under Bishop Hodur, as you know.

My point is that such "cultural uniformity" is a myth and it never existed, as I indicated to our Latin friend, Amado.

It was a mistake by American Catholicism and it would be repeated by our mutual friend and Brother, the Administrator, if his view of a single BCC went ahead - it wouldn't get off the ground for starters, but it's a free country.

EWTN cited a scholar who said that with immigration from Latin America, the cultural face of American Catholicism will become more "Latin" in that sense, leading to such notable changes as a greater emphasis on devotion to the Mother of God etc.

In addition, as you know, in the seventies, the American Hispano-Catholics and the American African-Catholics actually petitioned Rome to recognize separate Latin Patriarchates for each of them - petition denied, what else is new?

And there is also the emergence of the Hebrew Catholics who are pressing for their own Rite (and have been given permission for an "Hebraic Usage" in the Latin Mass).

So in terms of becoming more "the same," I think the Administrator has it all wrong.

That's not what's happened in American Catholicism in its past (thank you for confirming it in your usual scholarly and assertive way), and it's not what' happening today.

Until the next time you break your silence,

I am respectfully yours,

Alex

Dear Alex:

I was surprised when you said that:



Of the 64 million or so Catholics in the U.S., demographic trends say otherwise, to wit:

White 78%
Hispanic 16%
African-American 3%
Asian 2%
Native American 1%

Unless, those census takers unintentinally, or intentinally, scrambled the figures?

At any rate, many do not foresee the replacement of (American) English as the "national" language of these the United States.

Unless, of course, the monarchists of the North will impose their Canadian brand of (Queen's) English!


AmdG

Dear Amado,

No one meant "English speaking," but "English" in terms of Anglo-Conformity.

The face of U.S. Catholicism is changing and I'll see if I can get the study that discusses it at length.

It was mentioned on EWTN in the media release section.

But I think we should all be happy with that fact.

I think it disproves a lot of what your friend, the Administrator, has been saying here.

O.K., I'll go off here and recupe a bit after all this emotional stuff!

Alex

Alex,

We witness our Christianity in everything we do. Sometimes we even witness the Lord! The question is what actually are we witnessing? Are we witnessing Jesus Christ or an ethnic/cultural way of life with Christ thrown in there somewhere?

The Lord calls us to witness Him to the world and especially to our neighbor. Our witness helps others to accept Christ because they see Christ alive in us. If someone comes into the Church because of us and then later decides they are called to be a Roman Catholic that�s ok. I firmly believe, however, that the Lord is calling us to invite our neighbors to become Byzantine Catholic and that the Byzantine Catholic Church has a vital contribution to make to the North American culture, one that the Latin Catholic Tradition cannot.

Your posts seem to state that we have no obligation to invite people to become members of our Churches. And that our Churches are only for Slavs so that large numbers of North Americans could not possibly be called to become Byzantine Catholic. And that it is best that we not even try because if they did come they would ruin our ethnic experience.

Let me restate.

We need to invite people to follow Christ.

We need to invite people to visit our parishes.

We need to invite people who visit our parishes to join our parishes, placing their ethnicity on equal footing with our own.

We need to follow the example of the Apostles and of Cyril & Methodius in presenting the Gospel to North America in a language that it can understand and embrace. This is not just the calling of the Roman Catholic Church. This is our calling from Christ Himself.

Admin

Dear Amado,

Here is the article in question:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=36317

And I quote: "The appearance of U.S. Catholicism will change, it will become more ethnic. And one of the greatest changes will affect the Virgin. Now, in America, her figure is secondary; but it will become central."

Now I've got to go and deal with the Administrator again. . .

Alex

Greetings all,

I have been greatly interested in the progress of this thread, it shows that we do care a great deal about our church don't we? I would just like to interject here because I think the focus of this disputation is off a little bit. I have already stated my opinion clearly and I don't really want to repeat myself so I will spare you all of that. I don't even want to try to convince anyone any differently because I am quite sure that it would be a colossal waste of energy.

The church has a real problem here.

Speaking only in terms of the United States there are four eparchs for each of the Ruthenian Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics. The population of believers is falling and aging, I don't know if the estimate of 60,000 for each jurisdiction is accurate but that is a startling statistic compared to years past. Even if it takes 20 or 30 years for the number to halve again we will find ourselves with eight bishops for 60,000 people scattered over a huge geographical area.

How long can we sustain eight bishops, eight chanceries? Traveling expenses for the Eparchs? Mission work?

We have taken things for granted, the decisions will have to be made and there are bound to be some disappointed people out there. There is going to be a lot of finger pointing and conspiracy theorizing. People are going to blame Rome, the culture and each other.

Are you ready for the storm?

Michael

This supports my argument that we need to make room at our altars for the gifts all ethnicities bring to the table and not just reserve them for Slavs and Arabs. There are parishes in the Southwest that are already welcoming at least the Hispanic newcomers. The parish in Las Vegas cooks up tamales and places them next to the pierogies.

BTW, pierogies are good with freshly made salsa with lots and lots of cilantro.

Dear Alex:


If that's what you meant, it is OK with me!

I knew beforehand that the Catholic Church in the U.S. was never Anglo-conformist; and I hope she stays that way.

As I have touched previously, albeit tangentially, the U.S. Catholic Church is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural and it thrives.

I think, this is the point that the ADMIN is driving at. Italians, Irish, Germans, Polish, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Hispanic, Asians, and what have you, make up a beautiful Catholic tapestry.

AmdG

Dear and Esteemed Administrator,

What you are suggesting about what I've said is your interpretation.

The fact is that what I'm arguing in favour of is "religious consumer choice."

People should have the rite to attend whatever parish they wish.

But no parish can be "all things to all people."

There is no such thing. If you Ruthenians have accomplished this, then congratulations!

I exercise my rite of religious consumer choice by attending the UGCC parish of my choosing. Not even all UGCC meet my standards

And no one preaches the Gospel from a culturally neutral position.

Not every convert of Anglo-Saxon background will be thrilled to join even an English language Ukie parish.

And the fact that he or she doesn't want to doesn't mean we have beat our breasts and try and figure out how to be even less ethnic . . .

This is a cultural thing and not primarily the religious matter you are making it out to be.

We Ukies up here aren't paranoid about losing too, too many members to the RC's - that occurs among more de-ethnicized communities.

We celebrate our faith within a particular Church and cultural context.

And that context is equal to all others within the Catholic and Orthodox world.

I really don't see the problem. No one will oppose your project of establishing an American Byzantine Catholic Church.

But that too is not "universal" in scope. It relates to a particular American cultural identity that not even all Americans share.

There are Americans with strong cultural backgrounds, including Hispanic and African Americans.

And while I love Mother Sharon, I must say that Hebrew Catholics are also studying how they may become more of a Particular Hebrew Church.

I love participating in other religious cultures that are embodied in different Particular and other Churches.

But I have my own that I share with everyone.

I really don't know where you come up with the idea that I'm for keeping our Ukie church closed off.

I would love if you and the Ruthenians especially would join our Ukrainian Church!

How many times do I have to say that we have other cultural groups in our Eastern Canadian Eparchy?

Your view of a "universal" Byzantine jurisdiction as an umbrella over everyone is quite, forgive me, the Latin invention and perspective.

The view of an American Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction for those who define their cultural (as opposed to citizenship/national) identity as "American" is not.

I'm supportive of the latter.

But there will be more than just simple me who will tell you about their views of the former.

And as I told your friend, Amado, above , Mr. Jenkins has released a study that affirms American Latin Catholicism will become more ethnic than mainstream over the next period of time.

That alone would work against your "Grand American Scheme" would it not?

(Actually, you are such a gentleman, Administrator, that it is a pleasure having an argument with you. Joe Thur and I would have had a blow-out long ago. Do you think he'll break his vow of silence yet again on this thread? ).

Alex

Dear Amado,

Yes, then there is no disagreement between us.

Oops, I see I have to go back and deal with the Administrator again!

Alex

Yes!!!

But let me embellish a bit:

Italians, Irish, Germans, Polish, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, Irish, Indians, etc. and what have you, make up a beautiful Byzantine Catholic tapestry.

Yes, and even those people from Ontario!!!

Dear Admin:

I guess my main question to you with regard to an ethnically neutral Byzantine North American Church is: "where does one start."

You eliminate the ethnic elements, the "Ukie majorioty" gets P.O.'d (probably to the extent of further divisions - as if the calendar thing wasn't bad enough). And for what, so that a handful of converts MIGHT feel more at home in a sea of Ukies?

Furthermore, even if these converts could just learn from us for a while and then synergized the basics of the Byzantine Rite into their own North American experience, from where would their hierarchical structure come from?

Either they would fall under the Kyivan Patriarch for a while pending the creation of enough parishes to get its own bishop (probably appointed by and under the direct governance of Rome) or they would fall under the jurisdication of the local Latin Rite Ordinary.

By hook or by crook, they're either a part of the UGCC or they are subject to the whim of the Latins.

I have also thought about your point about evangelization. In this regard, I respectfully submit that the UGCC in North America has and continues to evangelize in two ways: (1) by supporting the efforts of the UGCC in Ukraine in healing the "wounded souls" of the people there; and (2) by providing a central meeting place for the recent wave of immigrants.

With regard to (2) above, mere obversation shows that many of these immigrants did not have the first clue about our faith. Very basics like how to properly make the sign of the cross was unknown to these people. Slowly, however, they are learning.

Without a "Ukrainian" church to attend, these people would probably have assimilated into the religion-less mainstream.

I can't speak intelligently on the point of whether we are violating God's commandments by not dropping our ethnicity and preaching to all Americans (North and South) once our grandfathers landed in the Western Hemisphere. Maybe we are, maybe not.

But if our hearts and souls truly believe that our human frailties require us to concentrate on our unique responsbility to provide a spiritual place for OUR people, I can't imagine that the God of Byzantine understanding will judge us poorly for this.

Yours,

kl

Dear Administrator,

Ah, now you're talking! That is the issue exactly!

We both agree on the "what" of cultural realities in the Church.

Thank you for clearing that up. I have much fewer antagonistic feelings toward you in this discussion now . . .

What we don't agree on is on the "how."

You want one big Byzantine Church administration for all cultural groups.

Like the OCA - and I understand that since your Church loses membership to the OCA.

But would such a unified Byzantine administration solve your problems while maintaining the diverse cultural status quo?

I don't believe so.

It would only be culturally relevant to "Americans" of whatever ancestral background, Slavic, Greek, etc.

But I would argue this - the greater one's cultural identity that is NOT North American, the greater propensity for one to support the Particular Church of his ethnic homeland and its branchplant IN North America.

So if you think that people with strong cultural identities are going to up and join your NA ByzCath jurisdiction - well, you'll just have to show how that would occur.

But I think you're dreaming in technicolor.

And quoting Scripture and imputing negative motive to Particular Churches with cultural patrimonies in this regard simply won't "play in Peoria" or anywhere else.

This is a pastoral, not an evangelical/catechetical matter.

But it's a free country and when it comes to Ukie and other parishes, I'm not the only one you and your confreres would have to deal with.

In other words, only those who share your own NA cultural background would agree with you.

It is completely irrelevant to everyone else who doesn't.

Quoting Scripture and invoking Christian ethics simply means, to people like me, that you want to shift the cultural nature of this discussion to grounds where you feel you can actually be more convincing.

But you are O.K. and I need to stay away from this discussion for a bit.

Perhaps Joe Thur can come on and take my place here for argument's sake?

Why do I get the feeling he's reading all this word for word?

Alex