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

KL,

Thanks for your post.

How about this instead?

-At Christmas sing �Boh Prevdichny�, then �God Eternal� and then �Dios Eterno�. Then sing �Joy to the World� and �Silent Night� because everyone will know all the words.

-At Pascha sing �Christ is Risen� in Spanish as well as English, Slavonic and Greek.

-Encourage your newcomers to place in their Easter Basket anything they gave up during the Fast. I have seen Italian Byzantine Catholics bring a basket with a bottle of wine and a prime rib of beef. I have seen Hispanic Byzantine Catholics bring a basket filled with all kind of stuff I could not recognize (and if I had I probably couldn�t spell). The tradition is not ham and horseradish. The tradition is to bring what you have fasted from. I�ve even seen someone bring chicken breasts for the grill and a case of beer!

-Embroidered vestments and linens are wonderful. But welcome those designs from the newcomers. Many Orthodox in Mexico have a strong devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe and have embraced some of he customs of Mexico. There is nothing wrong with this.

-Continue to decorate your homes with greenery on Pentecost. Encourage your Hispanic parishioners to do the same with a unique accent from their culture. Pussy willows make sense in geographical areas where they grow. Palms make much more sense for Byzantines living in the American Southwest than going through the expense of importing pussy willows.

-Continue to have special panachidas for those who died fighting for a free Ukraine. Add to it on an appropriate day the commemoration of those who died for our American freedom.

No one is suggesting that anyone undo a thousand years of culture. What I am suggesting we welcome alongside us people who are also called to be Byzantine Catholics and allowing them to place their ethnic gifts on the altar beside ours. Allowing others to contribute their gift to the Church does not destroy who we are.

[quote]KL wrote:
Finally, you say that you have never called upon the UGCC in North America to drop its ethnicity.

At some point in the next 20 years the Orthodox Churches in America will gain total autonomy if not autocephalcy from the Mother Churches in Constantinople, the Mid East and Europe. [The OCA is already Autocephalous.] When they accomplish this will the Ukrainians be less Ukrainian because they have followed the Eastern custom of maturing as a Church in the New World? Will the Greeks be less Greek (they currently are ruled from Constantinople, not Greece)? How about the Russians who are not part of the Moscow Patriarch? Are they less Russian? Or the Antiochians? Would they be dropping their ethnicity by embracing a new united Church structure poising itself to evangelize America?

Admin

Dear Michael:

Maybe we are repeating ourselves and maybe it's off the topic, but it's still a great discussion. I say, as long as it stays civil - let it die naturally.

Yours,

kl

KL,

I think that forming a single synod of bishops allows us to embrace more people. When we speak of, for example, inviting unchurched Hispanics to become Byzantine Catholic we are not speaking of handing them a Divine Liturgy book and disappearing. They need to take our Slavic, Greek and Middle Eastern cultures and build upon them just as the Slavs took the Greek culture and used it as a basis for developing a Kyivan Christian culture. Since all of us will exist together on the same continent it is best for us to work together to build a Byzantine Catholic Church that embraces all ethnic cultures.

And please, do not mention salsa from a jar on this Forum.

Admin

Dear Admin:

The Moscow Patriarchate example is a special case and I respectfully submit that it does nothing to further your argument.

You say that the Orthodox churches will reach self-governance in North America over the next 20 years. Fine. If that is the natural order of things, then there's nothing we can do to change it.

Still, will we be less Ukrainian when that happens? I submit to you that if we sever our ties to the Kyivan Patriarch - then we will indeed.

As for the laundry list of customs, I acknowlddge your agrument that a co-existence of cultures can exist in a parish. Still, at what point does one reach a critical mass?

Is one Mexican family in an otherwise UGCC parish enough to petition the Kyivan Patriarch for permission to develop a Byzantine Rite devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe?

Even more basic, if these are such devout Mexicans or Italians why are they in search of something ourside of their traditional Latin Rite?

Finally, as for the synergizing of peoples and cultures into the Byzantine Rite, I submit that you have the practical problem of not having Prince Volodymyr around to order everyone to be baptized into the Byzantine Rite.

Finally, I prefer guac - and that MUST be fresh.

Yours,

kl

Fr. Deacon Edward,

Yes, these are issues to struggle with. The life of the Church in the Americas is something different that that of the earlier Church, primarily due to emigration and everyone bringing their own experience of the Faith.

It is difficult to know how to make a parish more inclusive without offending the culture of those who have toiled to build the parish. I do know that we need to consider these issues sooner than later or many of parishes will quickly cease to exist.

We have such a wonderful Gift to give the Americas in Jesus Christ and our Byzantine Christian experience. We only need to find a way to give it.

Just imagine the day when you�re driving home and the traffic reporter announces: �Traffic on the Beltway is backed up way beyond the Byzantine Catholic Church at Exit 7.�

Admin

I don�t know. It would be wonderful problem to have! We do have parishes in the American Southwest who have a strong devotion to OLG. One of the monks at Holy Resurrection Monastery has made a first attempt to write appropriate sitchera for her feast day in December.

The Lord calls people to where He calls them. Devout Hispanics and Italians are surely already at home in the Latin Church and I am not suggesting that we should call them to leave it in order to become Byzantine. I am suggesting that as we witness Christ there are a lot of unchurched people � Hispanics and Italians included � who are called to become Byzantine Catholic. When someone sees Christ in us and wants to become like us we cannot send him or her elsewhere. We must invite them to share our parish home.

KL,

It is really simple why devout Italians and Hispanics are wandering about looking for a church. They have become disconnected to their traditions and are now attmpting to find a grounding that they have lost. As I have already mentioned this is an alien notion to any Ukrainian but is the state of affairs for nearly anyone who lacks an ethnic identity. Why put up wih the tribulations of a Church when all you have to do is move is the apparant mentality.

~Jason

Just to comment on the Easter basket notion: At St. John's in Columbus, where maybe half of the parish has first-degree connections to Ukrainian or Ruthenian ethnicity, you'll see a bunch of baskets filled with absolutely traditional foods. You'll also see baskets with a wonderful variety of stuff. One family where the mom is from Sicily always brings lasagne. For myself, you won't find any pork in my basket, and my Easter bread looks suspiciously like a challah. Several years ago, a family brought a bottle of wine in their basket - and the practice is catching on. I counted at least 5 baskets this year with a bottle in 'em. Mine had two - t'other was olive oil. I'm sure TRADITIONAL baskets don't include chocolate bunnies, garish eggs or jelly beans, but you'll find 'em peeking out of a lot of baskets. The point is that folks bring what has meaning to them into the traditional ceremony of blessing Easter foods - and the blessing takes into account "other" foods as well. It's a lot of fun to walk around and see what people brought - and there's a lot of happy conversation, too, beyond "does anybody have a match?"

The tradition is to bless Easter foods. Culture dictates what those foods are - and the tradition can accommodate many, many cultures.

Cheers,

Sharon

Yes, Alex, I do read the threads here and there and I wish to comment on this issue. I'm bad at sticking to my 'vow' of silence. I feel I need to respond because I am really getting sick on some of these issues. Take it from someone who was a survivor of a dying industry and failed company. As I send out some more resumes and call back a few places, I decided to check this thread out again.

Mr. Administrator made some wonderful points early on in this thread. He mentioned the effectiveness of demonstrating our unity in Christ and the practical advantage of the pooling of resources. Three Cents makes an additional point about how the “mess” that multiple Orthodox jurisdictions have caused in the proclamation of the Gospel. Both hit the nail on the head.

We may think that Rome is being kind to us in allowing the various Eastern Catholics to set up independent “particular church” jurisdictions. Actually, pride and ethnocentric issues have troubled us to no end. The growing number of Eastern Catholic bishops is inversely related to the growing decline of our Church members. I figure that when our Eastern Catholic population eventually reaches zero, the number of bishops will reach infinity. Then we will have not one to evangelize since an infinite number of people will be Eastern Catholic!

What sort of unity have we witnessed between our separate Eastern Catholic "sui juris' churches? Between separate eparchial jurisdictions? In our Byzantine Metropolia we have two separate deacon programs. Why? If we can't cooperate amongst ourselves how can we cooperate with others outside our jurisdiction? When one metropolia gave birth to multiple eparchial jurisdictions, we lost the force and voice of our mission. Leadership got lost in groupthink and fear of being a maverick. Today, I hardly doubt that we have even one voice that can best represent us. I don't think there is one household name out there that we can gleefully rally behind. One can't rally behind something that doesn't move.

We fear making bold moves and appropriate decisions. We find that the only programs of change that won't get us into trouble with the bigger Latin Church are liturgical changes. It is a safe area; it is something we do in the privacy of our own temples. We continue to ignore the elephant in the room until the situation becomes a crisis. Then we make rash decisions.

If there was ONE voice to contend with who can actually lead our church, we would have nothing to fear. But that single voice of leadership has been divided into many fiefdoms. Nothing gets done. We drift.

Will a single Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction mean the ruin of our precious national and ethnic identities? Maybe. What model do we have to look at to see what the possible outcome may be if we unify? How about the Latin Catholic Church? It seems that what bonds many of their communities is their faith in Christ. I've been to many Latin Masses where the homilist spoke about Christ. I've been to a good number of Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies where Christ wasn't the focus.

We are more and more becoming a commuter church not centered on a fixed community setting with strong particular ethnic characteristics. How have we been adjusting to this?

I disagree with Alex where he states that, “… the Fathers could not have foreseen the existence of more than one Ritual Church in a given jurisdiction …” Did not St. John Chrysostom grant permission to his non-indigenous Christians to worship in their own Churches while in the city of Constantinople? Mr. Administrator is correct in this regard since Patriarch John had immediate jurisdiction in his city but allowed newcomers celebrate their own liturgies and traditions.

Did not the first deacons minister to the Hellenists in the same town as the Jewish-Christians in the Acts of the Apostles?

And for Alex's point on the Apostolic connection to patriarchal sees: What about Constantinople? It wasn't even founded until several centuries later. Alex says it right with the term “myth.” Goes to show that if one wants to justify one's existence, then create an Apostolic myth. Fr. Francis Dvornik makes explicit recall to the difference between the Principle of Accommodation and the Principle of Apostolicity.

Krlos Leader may not see the Ukie Church in NA as being unhospitable, but do a number check of the children belonging to these parishes. My wife and I took our son to the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in Parma several times and I think I counted two or three children in the entire congregation! The attitude of “let us be ourselves” does not match the mission statement of that same Ukrainian Church. Really!

I can see why Rome doesn't try to manipulate us so openly anymore. We are good at killing ourselves within. They will just be around to make sure our squabbles don't ruin their setup, namely mandatory celibacy. We drift more.

We open up to outsiders when we see our payrolls in jeopardy. We lie about the true numbers in our eparchies. A recent study was done by researchers on the tax receipts of members of each separate Orthodox jurisdiction in the U.S. Their numbers were far below what each jurisdiction was claiming. There may be many Greeks at Greek festivals, but how many are participating in the liturgical life of their community? There may be many Byzantine Catholics at fish fries and pierogi dinners, but how many are participating in their community's spiritual life? There may be many children at Ukie festivals and parish picnics, but if one doesn't see them at the Divine Liturgy on given Sunday, then what exactly IS our future?

Pride.

Our past was pride. Our present is pride. Our future will be pride.

In many parishes, we are either dosed with a bout of nationalistic pride (cross and anthem to boot) or heavy syrupy bogus piety that bears no semblance to one's rite. Christ gets dismissed from Christianity. Kyrios Leader forgets that many of our youth drop our “legacy” of language, culture, and church. Notice that nothing in this legacy speaks about Christ. It's all about the maintenance of “links” to some place that one's ancestors left behind. Their actions speak louder than words. Economy became that driver for uprooting one's families. Not religion. Not evangelization. Not mission. But economy.

The problems in Houston only show how turmoil can be flamed by stupid insistence on maintaining alleged Ruthenian customs (like keeping the lectern on the side of the temple and then complaining to the bishop about it when it gets moved). So we serve are children right when we make such a mockery of our pathetic little selves in this manner? Once, while in another Ukie Catholic church, I witnessed a severe scolding of a little boy (probably six or seven) in the narthex after Divine Liturgy. He was probably the only child there that day (that I noticed) and was given a severe lesson on why he was sent to Ukrainian school (finger wagging and all). It was his grandmother who gave it good to him because his young parents were nowhere to be found.

I think the argument over culture versus spirituality can best be compared to the debate in the New Testament over the Jewish question. Paul scolded Peter when he left the table with non-Jews when James' boys arrived. Peter would mingle with the Hellenists when James was around, but would become distant when the culture-enforcer, James, made his presence.

Many are in the Petrine position of not knowing what to do: mingle or not mingle with those not of my kind. In our situation as Eastern Catholics, we learn fast who the Peters are and who the James are. But who are we?

Kyros Leader is right about not making people feel invited when speaking in foreign languages. Once, while I was in seminary, a friend in the theologate showed me a poster written in Cyrillic posted at a university campus in Pittsburgh. It was an advertisement to promote understanding of certain Ukrainian issues and the public was invited to attend. Unfortunately, not many non-Ukrainians showed up since hardly anyone knew Ukrainian language or the Cyrillic alphabet!

Here are the problems we face:

1: THE PROBLEM OF TABULA RASA VERSUS PRE-PACKAGED. What makes our situation different from the evangelization of the Slavs and Rus is this: We were already Christian before arriving to the NA shores. The Slavs (a millennium previous) were still in their homeland and were evangelized with Christianity being brought to them. This is the problem. Nobody in Europe, East or West, knew about the Americas when they first accepted Christianity.

2: THE PROBLEM OF TURF OVERSEERSHIP. The next problem is: Whose particular tradition does America belong to? These are two problems that are exasperated when strong-headed and triumphalistic church jurisdictions arrive separately on new shores. The DIFFERENCE between the Western Church and the Eastern Churches was that the Western Churches were interested in spreading the Good News to the new people outside their community box. The East considered its mission as temporary for migrant workers who were destined to go back home. An additional problem that occurred was that they remained. There were no canons that addressed a New World. Whereas Western Christianity came from the East (via Western Europe), Eastern Christianity first came from the West (via Russia and Alaska).

3: THE IDENTITY PROBLEM. The East has always been ridden with an identity problem being in a seemingly Western culture. The Eastern Christians brought with them a "foreign' Christian faith that was to be subject to the dominant Western order. We've never gotten over this second-class Christianity. Our mission seems to be more of proving that we are really Eastern rather than spreading the faith. Ecclesial models of maintenance and assisted dying are already guiding us into a post-iceberg Titanic era of our history. Funny how we are still fighting over how to re-arrange the deck furniture.

4: THE PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION-RITE RELATIONSHIP. Talk all we want about having one bishop per city. It would be a cold day in H-ll when one bishop would lovingly accept all traditions like St. John Chrysostom and let them worship according to their ways without hindrance under his nose. Flowery words about ecumenism and accepting the diverse rites of our church are nice on paper, but are different in reality. Our bishops, under the direct and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope, cannot lead their churches without permission slips. And even when there are particular traditions to be allowed, Rome still controls it in a choking grasp. In order for any particular rite to successfully flourish, it needs a certain degree of autonomy. Responsibility needs to match authority. A “father” is not a true father if he has to ask permission from the mayor for everything. One can have authority in matters such as how to set up the dining room table for dinner or on what night is family night while letting the mayor pick what man will marry his daughter. But that still takes away something from the father of the family. It says that the father does not know best who is good for his daughter. The landlord, the true owner, does. Umbrella-like models of church governance often leads to absorption and/or domination. Take the Catholic Church's bout of Uniatism for instance.

5: THE CONGLOMERATE COMPLEX PROBLEM. When we attempt to bite off more than we can chew, we falter. It is always best to stick to our sole mission: to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. Our first and only precept is to become Christian in our journey of Theosis. When corporations go through their occasional bouts of gobbling up companies and industries they are not familiar with, they usually end up in the dump. 80% of corporate mergers in the U.S. fail within five years. Why? Management and corporate culture. When the Churches become focused on things that don't lead us to Christ, we fail miserably. When we fail to spread the Good News, to share the incarnation-resurrection faith, to be immersed in a life of prayer, to love, and to show good example, we fail. When we ignore the gift of confession and forgiveness of sins, we fail. When we take on all the outward appearances of a foreign religion – as did the Israelites with Canaanite religion – we fail. It is always best to remain in our "core business' which is Jesus Christ whom we claim to profess in our Creed. Our core business is not making pierogies, hosting bingo night or bike-a-thons. We have a misson from God.

6: THE PROBLEM OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM. There is none. Many good ideas and plans get squashed by strong-willed personalities. Quality management gurus speak of the 80-20 Rule. This means that 80% of all failures in any business are due to management and the system they have in place. I've grown up with the old saying “Our People.” What does this mean when for 100+ years “Our Church” hasn't produced an official set of liturgical texts for cantors? We are still primarily using private publications from a monastic institution. What on God's earth have “Our Church Leaders” been doing during that century? Have we even decided on a single liturgical text we can all agree on? What happened to the Ordo Celebrationis? If our focus ratio on liturgy to evangelization is 10:1, then we have a problem. We've been gazing at our belly-button for too long that we forgot how to walk. The system can't even produce what is necessary for survival, especially when many of “Our People” have left.

7: THE PROBLEM OF ACCEPTING THE STATUS QUO. Let's face it, most have accepted the idea that we are second-rate Catholics. The decision of who we are or what we plan to do is always up to outsiders. Many clergy are looking forward to retirement. They want to secure that. I've been in dying industries and companies before and one cannot expect great things, especially involving change, from those who are within arm's length of retirement. Lack of investment in training newer church leaders is not there. When new leaders are not taken from one's own pool of clergy, then who cares to invest and groom future leaders. It costs money and Rome won't pick them anyway. Outsiders will pick them using their own criteria.

8: THE PROBLEM OF IN-FIGHTING. We no longer need to blame Rome for all our troubles. Rome can basically step aside and watch us hassle and haggle each other to a pulp. We think it is a victory when our church membership goes up from accepting "converts' from other jurisdictions. We eat each other's membership like a circus of ecclesial cannibalism. We worry about beard lengths, vestment folds, staff heights, and the placement of the lectern. Some people are not happy unless they are fighting. We are used to abusive and submissive relationships. It is a psychotic thing we adapt to. The numerous ecumenical talks are worthless. We can't get along with ourselves.

9: THE INVERSE RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM. I've said this many times before: the growing number of new hierarchs to the decreasing number of church members is an inverse relationship. At first, this looks good because Rome allows us to have our own bishops here and there. It also divides us. How can one expect momentum and direction to be built up if we are still spinning our wheels trying to decide if we should do one-verse antiphons or multi-verse antiphons? Will we find shelter in the NCCB? In our lame duck situation we look to Rome, we look to the Congregations, we look to the NCCB, we look to flowery words from Vatican II, the Instructions, the papal encyclicals. We still fail to speak even though we are rapidly approaching infinity on the heirarch axis and zero on the membership axis.

10: JESUS CHRIST IS THE SOLUTION. Our mission is already contained in the Gospels, the New Testament, the traditions carried down form the Hebrew Scriptures. We just have to decide if this "solution' is important enough to re-evaluate what we will say before that awesome and fearful judgment seat of Christ. Did we hide it under the bushel-basket? Did we fail to invest our talents for fear? Did we run away like a bunch of un-spirited men behind closed doors?

It is time for a Great Awakening.

... or others will be attending a Great Wake.

Joe Thur

Dear Friends,

This has been a long discussion replete with all sorts of ideas that could form into new threads - one could write a book or two as well.

My final post here will be to simply say that a "Byzantine" Rite as such does not exist today, but only in its Particularized hybridizations among the various Eastern Catholic Churches.

The "Kyivan" spiritual aspect has been so integrated with it in the Particular Ukrainian Church so as to make it a unique spiritual/cultural entity unto itself.

Fr. Bilaniuk and others have written extensively on this subject.

To want to create a Byzantine American Church is one thing.

To want to bring all others under one Byzantine jurisdictional umbrella is quite another and would be opposed strenuously by Ukrainians.

Ukrainians have been "under" such umbrellas for years, in their homeland and in the diaspora.

They were under RC and Russian Orthodox jurisdictions across the pond and they struggled with the same in North America - as did others, including the Ruthenians.

They prefer to be under their own bishops and struggle to assert their rites as a Patriarchate.

Personally, and I know many Ukies will share my view, the very thought of what the Administrator is proposing is quite the shock to our system.

The Administrator is not being as fair as he could be in trying to understand our feelings as well as the structure of Particular Churches in Orthodoxy itself.

The Administrator is also, and I say this quite frankly and without rancour, being unfair in quoting scripture and making the passive accusation of unChristian behaviour against those who disagree with his point of view here within a context of "all or none."

I never made such an accusation - I don't believe such belongs in a discussion such as this.

The Administrator seems to be bordering on demagoguery at its worst in this respect - and if he feels I'm being unfair, he can eject me from this forum for good anytime, it's within his power.

I'm not saying that what the Administrator is proposing is wrong, but it is wrong for him to want to impose it on others and to imply they are being wrong in not accepting it or even "illogical" since his proposal is so "logical."

I think the discussion has gone beyond a consideration of the issues to a less rational one of needless imputation of motive etc.

I think I've made the position of the Ukrainian Church and people clear, as I understand it and as a member of both.

I reject any implication that this historic Church could be unChristian in any way apart from the difficulties experienced by any Church in North America that is focused on a given cultural orientation.

I wouldn't attend an "English" Church or another where the culture of that Church would feel foreign to me.

I further submit that to create a "salsa" of mixed cultural groups under one jurisdiction, as the Administrator proposes, would be to submerge all these identities within an umbrella culture, be it English or something else.

That is certainly not the experience of Canadian multiculturalism and I think our American melting-pot promoters could learn a thing or two from us.

It is very difficult to engage in a "discussion" when one's views are branded as being unreasonable from a Christian perspective defined by another.

If that is the Administrator's position, and it would certainly seem so, then there is nothing further to be said.

At least by me. Ultimately, I will be with my Ukrainian Church and community.

With regrets,having submitted my final post on this "discussion forum."

Alex

Jason,

If finding Christ is a matter of becoming connected to one�s ethnic traditions then which Particular Church do Japanese who are faithful to their Japanese culture belong to? How about that unchurched family living in central Alabama or the inner city of Chicago whose ancestors came to America in the eighteenth century but who has no knowledge of any of them ever going to Church? To which Particular Church does someone belong to when they have no idea what their ethnic history is? Or the people in central Africa who have never heard of Jesus Christ? Or someone in New York City who is of Jewish heritage but wishes to become Christian. Do we send them to forget Christ and go back to their non-Christian faith?

Admin

At the risk of stumbling in where angels fear to tread, let me throw in my 1.5 bits here.

As a member of the UGCC I support the idea of a non-ethnically exclusive Greco-Catholic Church. More important than my own personal opinion, it is the opinion of no less a personage than Fr. Andrij Chirovskyj, director and founder and prof. of the Sheptytsky Institute. This is just the establishment of a local/regional Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome.

This does not mean that there will not be local Ukrainian language-culture parishes for those who are spiritually fed by this milieu or for recent immigrants etc.

The seeds of this have already been planted in the Toronto Eparchy where Romanian and Hungarian deaneries and parishes are part of the Kyivan Greco-Catholic Church. The OCA don't seem to have much trouble with it. They have both "anglo" parishes, as well as Rusyn, Russian, Karpatho Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc. parishes.

Multiculturalism is a value that Canucks value, but it doesn't mean that each autonomous Church must/should be restricted to evangelising only its own foundation ethnic group, rather than "preaching the Gospel to all nations, baptising them...etc."

Nor does it mean that all who are evangelised by the Kyivan Church must take on Ukrainian language, culture, and identity. I don't think that was what St. Kyril and Metodyj had in mind with their life/mission.

I believe I was told that His Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr talked about evangelising beyond our ethnic community, when he was in Winnipeg.

1.5 bits!

Herb

Alex,

I agree that this has been a long discussion and I thank you for your participation in it. Your willingness to participate shows how much you care about the Church. You raised a number of excellent points that I think should be addressed. I will state in advance that most of this post is directed at the comments you have raised but my post in response is meant to be rhetorical and to get people to think about our future as a Byzantine Church, if we will have one and if so what will it be. I certainly do not consider anyone participating in this discussion to be unchristian. I know that all of the participants here provide a wonderful witness of Christ in their daily lives to everyone they meet.

I agree that you are correct that a �Byzantine Rite� that can embrace Byzantines of all ethnic backgrounds as such does not exist today � for us Byzantine Catholics or for the Orthodox. It is really up to us to work to create one. If we choose not to create one and retreat into our ethnicities our respective Churches will cease to exist. I know that many ethnics quite happily choose their heritage over the Gospel are content with the death of the Church as long as they can keep their ethnic heritage (Ruthenian / Ukrainian / Arabic / whatever) until the end.

I also agree that the �Kyivan� spiritual aspect has become a unique and wonderful spiritual/cultural entity unto itself. I disagree with those who believe that it can continue here in the New Word unchanged. Even in Ukraine the face of the Kyivan spiritual experience is changing because it is constantly being enriched by the daily faith experiences of Christians in the Ukraine. At some point, as we get further and further from the emigration, there will be a noticeable gap in the experience as lived in Ukraine and as lived in North America. I know ethnic Carpatho-Ruthenians who have traveled to the European Motherlands with the expectation of finding the world that their parents and grandparents told them about only to find that their relatives barely understood the dialect of Ukrainian, Rusyn or Slovak that they learned from their grandparents. And to visit the Churches there and find a similar experience to ours here but also one that was somewhat different and very foreign to them.

Am I being unfair in quoting Scripture to remind my fellow Ruthenians / Ukrainians / Arabs that we need to begin to follow the Gospel command to make disciples of all nations? Can our ethnic folk continue to claim that they have no responsibility to evangelize outside of their ethnic groups? I don�t think so. I have never asked people to jettison their ethnicity. I have only asked them to make room for others and allow them to present their ethnic gifts as equal to ours. Scripture still outranks ethnicity!

Have I accused even a single person of being unchristian because they do not agree with me? I don�t think so. I do believe and have firmly stated that I believe we need to take the Gospel command seriously. Much of the response has been �That�s OK but only if we can also retain our ethnicity and keep it unpolluted by other ethnicities� or �our mission is only to ethnic Byzantine/Greek Catholics and not to anyone else�.

Is it wrong for me to ask my fellow Byzantine Catholics, of all ethnicities, to begin to explore ways in which we can win North America for Christ and bring as many people as possible into our Churches? Is it wrong for me to suggest that ecclesial unity would greatly assist us in our mission, which is not to preserve Kyivan or Arabic Christianity but to witness Jesus Christ? I don�t see anything illogical about my suggestions. What is illogical is the seemingly dedication to ethnicity over evangelization.

I believe that Alex is correct in his analysis of the position of the Ukrainian Church. If one extends it a bit I think that his analysis can equally apply to the Ruthenian Church as well as the Melkite and most of the Orthodox Churches here in America.

Our Churches are focused on cultural orientation. If they continue this focus on a cultural orientation they will cease to exist. Sooner in the United States, later in Canada. I know that Canada is somewhat different but does anyone seriously believe that ethnicities will be unaffected by the local cultural mix and future intermarriage with people of other cultures? I'd bet a dozen pirohi that already a simple majority of younger Ukrainian Catholics & Orthodox who marry someone who is not Ukrainian wind up worshipping their spouse's non-Ukrainian Church.

Alex and others might not attend an �English� Church or another where the culture of the Church was foreign to him but his fellow Ukrainians don�t agree, at least here in America. In the United States most people claiming Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Greek or other ancestry from Greek Catholic and Orthodox immigrants now worship in Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches.

Alex raises a fair question in asking if merging ethnic jurisdictions into a single pan-ethnic jurisdiction would create a �salsa�, with all the individual identities existing side by side. It certainly is possible that the individual groups might loose their uniqueness. I suggest for consideration that the maintaining of ethnic jurisdictions does not help the Church preserve ethnic experiences at all. Further, is it better for the Ruthenian/Ukrainian/other Church to keep its ethnic ecclesial structures and begin to close parishes that can no longer support themselves or to begin to work together with other Byzantines in order to not just keep open a few parishes but to actually grow them? Many of the participants here seem to ignore the fact that here in the United States we will soon start the process of closing parishes which have dwindled in population and are no longer self sufficient. It is my consideration that the more ethnically pure parishes will be the first to close because they have retained the fewest members.

Would our Churches be stronger if we had followed the model of Canadian multiculturalism? No one knows for sure but I don�t think so. I think that time will show that the multiculturalism model as exhibited in Canada will not be the best thing for Canada and that the different ethnicities will remain vibrantly ethnic only as long as fresh immigrants come from the motherlands.

Am I being unreasonable in asking people to change their views to match mine? Maybe. Are others being unreasonable in demanding ethnic purity in their parishes at a time when their parishes do not have enough ethnic members to keep their doors open? I think so. I know that others disagree. I know of one older Ukrainian Orthodox priest who sees his parish dwindling as the young people leave the area. He has already told his people that when their parish is forced to close for financial and numerical reasons that the remaining people should join the Byzantine Catholic Church (that parish happened to split from the Byzantine Catholic Church and there is no other Orthodox parish for a number of miles). Are those who believe that ethnic purity can be maintained outside the motherland being realistic? I don�t think so. I know numerous people in our respective Churches who have given up even presenting the suggestions I have presented in this thread. They believe that the ethnic Church cannot be convinced to take evangelization seriously and should be allowed to die and that those remaining will have to start from scratch in building a new Church. Are they right?

Respectfully,

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I beg your forgiveness!

But it would seem that I am incapable of carrying on a rational conversation on a number of topics.

I do not mean to subject yourself or others here to my emotionalism - it's not fair and it's wrong.

The only thing I can do is just withdraw and allow the real leaders and thinkers of our Eastern Churches to discuss the important issues that affect them today.

I believe it is best for all concerned if I just withdraw permanently from here which I do so now.

God bless you, Sir, in all your undertakings and God bless everyone here!

Signing off but still praying for you all,

Alex

Alex,

Thanks again for the dialogue. I believe you to be one of the real leaders and thinkers of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada. If you were not you would not have cared enough to take part in this conversation.

Admin