www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Byzan. Population Drops Significantly?

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!

Michael wrote:"...Where will we be worshipping 20 years from now..."

With the number of clergy we have now, the question REALLY should be Where will our clergy be coming from in 10 years?

The seminary in Presov is FULL to the brim with young men eager to be ordained.

Can we say the same about Pittsburgh??

JMHO...

mark

The situation of the Greek Catholic church in Slovakia is complex and includes more than a half-century of separate development from the Byzantine Catholic Church in the U.S.

It is shaped by Communism, the post-Communist era, Slovak nationalism, assimilationism, economic upheaval and myriad other forces.

For young men in East Slovakia, as in other parts of post-Communist Central Europe, the priesthood may represent a relatively secure economic future.

For many reasons, ranging from celibacy to the amazing opportunities this country still offers, the priesthood isn't quite as appetizing here.

--Tim

Michael,

"I don't think Dan or anyone else is advocating ROCOR style rigourism."

Right you are. I wouldn't know ROCOR style rigourism if I saw it. I don't even know where one would find a ROCOR church anywhere around here. I've never even bothered to look for such a Church.

As with so many discussions I don't believe change necessitates intentionally rough treatment of anyone. What I suspect is that changes were easier for a Church on the move than it would be for a Church that is not moving. I suppose movement then is the answer. Go where God calls. Not everyone left Ur with Abraham. Not everyone stayed with Jesus when He introduced the Eucharist (John 6 and at the Last Supper). Let's follow there examples.

Dan L

All three of the Ukrainian marching brass and woodwind bands in the UGCC Toronto & Eastern Canada Eparchy have played in our churches with the full blessing of our former bishop Isidore (Boretsky). He encouraged the formation of these ensembles and when possible their full integration into religious ceremonies.

The Ukrainian Youth Association's band 'Baturyn' played at the corner stone blessing of the the new Slovak Greek Catholic Church north of Toronto during the papal visit to that city. Both the UGCC and SGCC bishops were in attendance and the choir sang in unison with the brass and woodwind band.

During the 1988 Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine-Rus celebrations, the Ukrainian Youth Associations brass and woodwind band 'Trembita' had a the same honour at the Vatican with the Pope and all diaspore UGCC bishops in attendance.

At ecumenical ceremonies, our Orthodox brothers and sisters have never insisted on silencing the orchestras.

Instruments may be more common (and perhpas even encouraged) than you think even with Greek Catholics.

Perhaps we will have the opportunity in the future of having one of these bands play at a religious ceremony within the Ruthenian USA Metropolia as they did at the Slovak Greek Catholic Cathedral during the Papal visit to Toronto.

There was not a 'continuing influx of post WW2 inmmigrants. There was a group that emigrated from the DP camps of war torn Germany to the USA & Canada immediately after the war. Very few trickled in after that, usually through some 'back door' (ie; defected). Many of the men who ended up in Germany actually fought (guns a blazing) their way out of Communist controlled territory, usually via the: (1) Halych (Galicia), (2) Carpatho-Rus, (3) Slovak, (4) Austria route - yup; right through them hills. The Carpatho-Rusyns and Slovaks were ALWAYS SUPPORTIVE and put themselves at great risk to help these men (and women) escape.

This brings me to my main point: after having been exposed to both NAZI and Russian Communist oppression, the groups saw each other as brothers in a common cause. It was not to assimmilate each other, but find common ground and work together to keep the Greek Catholic Church alive in the underground and abroad. The need of course is still there !

The Patriarchate would be established in Kyiv where the Metropolitan for the Ruthenian Church was seated when the Union of 1596 was signed. The Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church found refuge in the western Ruthenian/Rusyn Lands of Volyn, Cholm, Halych (Galicia), and Subcarpathia. This occured because a series of Russian czarist decrees forced the church to move from one empire to another (Russian to Austro-Hungarian, but always within ethnic Ruthenian/Rusyn Lands). After over 400 years, the church is only returning to it's original seat.

On one issue I do agree with you. There are even UGCC members (laity and clerics) who do not understand why a Patriarch should exist let alone reside in a far away land. Some are immigrants from the old country, and others 3rd generation North Americans, but this is typical of any issue within the church.

I like some of the Ukrainians you mention find it odd that that there are no individuals within the BC Metropolia which find an attraction with it's sister church. Here is why:

(1) The Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church of Mukachiv (Mukachevo) where the vast majority of Rusyns live, has been for over a decade been actively participating in UGCC synods.

(2) There is a Ruthenian Greek Catholic relief organization based in New Mexico which works closely with their church in Subcarpathia, Ukraine. There is a very strong attraction to help their brothers and sisters.

(3) I once read that a Byzantine parish (Las Vegas ?) was very happy to recruit a retired UGCC priest to serve them. This was read on a Byzantine online web site. They had a strong attraction for a priest who spoke the same language as them.

(4) In my home town of Motreal hthe Slovak Greek Catholics made use of UGCC priest for at least a generation because of a lack of their own. They sought a priest from the UGCC because there was a very strong attraction. At no time did anyone try to assimilate them.

I'm sure that there are endless other examples, but my point is that IMHO for at least part of the Ruthenian Byzantine Metropolia there IS an attraction. Further, I would bet my 'borsch allowance' that these same Ruthenian/Rusyns would NOT be as attracted to the Antiochian Patriarch (this is not a slant against this church) .

Here we go again, just like telling us Ruthenians that we are really Ukranians.

You say that at one time the seat of the Metropolitan for the Ruthenian Church was in Kiev? Was this then united with the Ukranian Church? What was the general make up of the church at the time?

Lets look at things today... The seat of the Metropolitian is Pittsburgh. What is the make up of the church today? I think it would work to destroy the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church to unite it with the UGCC today as it would put our church under a very ethnic church when out church has lost much of its ethnicity.

I am more for, as the Admin has put forward in the past, a Patriarch of the Americas.

I will tell you why no individuals within the BC Metropolia find any attraction with the UGCC, at least from my perspective... It is the ethnicity of most UGCC parishes. And the Liturgy, that at most UGCC parishes only the Ukranian language Divine Liturgy is sung, the English is read.

This is why I chose a Melkite parish over the UKCC ones (there are two here, one old calendar and one new calendar).

Also the Melkites were more welcoming towards new people, this is here in Rochester, I do not know if that is the same else where.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

I would think twice about this one.

I think that kneelers and pews may just have been a 20th century North American convenience. Pews and kneelers are not seen in any of the larger byzantine (Greek Catholic or Orthodox) churches within the Ruthenian lands. For that matter, you do not see them in any of the pre-20th centure RC churches in Europe either. Stacking (or folding) chairs are the norm.

I'm guessing, but they probably did not have pews for two reasons:

(1) They limit the crowd capacity (you can squeeze in more people when they are shoulder to shoulder than when they are sitting).

(2) They limit he 'arena' arrangement (ie: for certain ceremony you may want a wide isle, and for others it may not matter if it does not exist at all).

Eliminating pews and kneelers would mean making thinks much more difficult for the elderly (think about it).

For children, well try keeping them in place when they can sit.

Also, if I come from work for services in my $XXX.00 suit, I'm not going to kneel in someones boot tracks full of winter road salt.

If you remove pews, it should probably be with chairs as an option to those who need or want them. Some form of mat would also have to be included for those who would be kneeling. The UGCC's 18th century church in Paris uses this type of approach. Government heritage building codes do not permit them to change the interior to ad pew or kneelers .

The new Greek Catholic Patriarchal Sobor being built in Kyiv appears to have no pews or kneelers (u can see the animated interior on the site) but I'm sure chairs will be installed as an option.

It seems that much of the focus in this discussion has been on the liturgical aspects of parish life. However, what really causes a parish to grow or fail is the sense of love and family that is experienced there. If a parish is welcoming and shows true concern and compassion for its members, the little changes are not going to be so unbearable. This is the responsibility of both priest and people. If the priest is kind and caring in his actions, even when he introduces things that might not be popular, they're more likely to be accepted than not. And if the people truly feel a part of something special within the community they're more likely to remain. This is something we need to work on in order to survive and grow. A little bit of kindness still goes a long way.

Dear Hritzko,

Were these bands playing in the liturgy?
Hagia Sophia had an organ, but not used for liturgy.

By continuing, not continuous, I mean not having essentially ended in the WWI era. There are many examples of contact with the old country among Rusyns, but probably less so than in the case of Ukrainians. Moreover, for our people who came pre-WWII there was probably little if any sense of Sub-Carpathia as Ukraine, rather than Uhro-Rus. These differing attitudes had a lot to do with the early split of our churches in the US, previewed by the splitting of our brotherhoods. The splitting off of Sub-Carpathia from Czechoslovakia with incorporation into the Ukraine of the Soviet Union probably was not viewed as a happy reconciliation, but as a dismemberment of our people.

The Ruthenian church participates in the national synod - Uzhorod happens now to be in Ukraine - but retains its sui juris status. There is no doubt of a close connection and great similarities. There is much to be gained by working together. But our history is different than your history and our national view is different. For example, I don't regard Greek Catholicism in Uhro-Rus as the product of Brest and the subsequent dislocation of people of Kyivan Rus. What an idea!

I think that it is fair to say that there is little sense of Ukrainian nationalism within the BCC, in contrast to the UGC's of North America. If there is some opinion among the later that being structured within the church of the old country makes little sense, it is fair to say that that opinion would be a widely prevalent one in the BCC, especially if you are specifically referring to the UGCC with which we never had any prior administrative relationship. We certainly had and have strong ties and affinities. We make terrific cooperative neighbors. But, IMO, this diffferent outlook remains as an obstacle to more formal connections in America.

As to your allowance, I might take the bet.
I would guess, just because of stubborn ways, that if we had to be under some Patriarch "not of our own blood", then a strong argument would probably better not to have some too close, lest they might have ideas about changing things. So Antioch would look good, but the Patriarch of Mars would look even better.

Just my crazyrusnak opinion.

PS Coalesco, Sorry to rant. Just didn't want the remark to stand without qualification.

Administrator,

LatinTrad explained exactly what I meant in his post right below mine. I'm sorry I worded it confusingly. My point is that one can be a Byzantine and also be a non-Catholic. One can also be a Latin and be non-Catholic (the Sedevacantists, for example...or members of the Old Catholic Church). Being a "good Byzantine" doesn't automatically make you a "good Catholic." This has nothing to do with Latin vs. Byzantine.

I'm sorry my posts are offensive to you. Apparently they are not to a majority of others on this board. I'd be interested in knowing just what I've said that has been so utterly offensive. At least have the courtesy of permitting me to clarify or explain myself when you come across something I've written you deem to be offensive. I try to do the same with others; I often fail.

LatinTrad,

Thank you for clarifying what I meant. Hit the nail on the head, as usual. Pax!

DavidB,

Thanks for your support - - - but I'm LogosTeen, not LatinTrad.

Apparently it's taboo for a Catholic to prefer a fellow Catholic to attend a Catholic parish outside of that person's familiar liturgical tradition than to leave communion with their original Byzantine Church. It's regrettable that this is the case, but since it is, I'll just never comment on it again...since it's "offensive."

Sam,

Thanks for the compliments. Yeah, I'm still a teen (just turned 17). I'll be received into the Church via confirmation in either about three weeks or right after Easter (since I'll be in Spain all through Holy Week).

Fr. Dcn. John,

Yes, the "Mother Churches" of most (not all) Byzantine Catholic Churches are Eastern Orthodox Churches. Yes, y'all were in communion with them. But then a decision was made to enter into communion with Rome, which necessitated a cutting of communion between the Uniate Churches and the Orthodox "Mother Churches". (Well, I don't know if it necessitated it, but it happened nonetheless. And anyways, the Orthodox Churches were in communion with the See of Rome until about the 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, (however you want to look at it). So, I'm not sure I am clear on your point. Are you saying that just because some Eastern Catholic Churches have "Mother Orthodox Churches" means its okay to leave communion with the Byzantine Church they were born into? You don't have to answer that for me, since it's probably safer for my "good standing" on the Forum not to bring up this issue again...but just think about that within yourself. I mean no disrespect whatsoever, and I apologize in advance if any is implied. I ask your pardon.

Logos Teen

Actually, like most Ukrainians I know, in many ways we would like to reclaim our name: Rusyns (or in Latin Ruthenians). We could do this if the the Muscovites had not usurped our name in the 18th century to become the 'Russ-ians'.

In the 19th century when self-consiousness of the Rusyn people began to become more evident, they chose the name of the Ruthenian Cossak State of (Hetmanska) Ukrajina for themselves so as to differentiate themselves from the Russians (Muscovites).

The Ruthenian Cossaks were the first to throw of the 'chains' of colonial rule. First the Poles, then the Russians. They served as an inspirational model to generations of Rusyns who wanted to free themselves of Russian, Polish, and Magyar (Hungarian) colonialism.

The term Ukraina was as difficult to accept for the Galicians (Halychans) as it was for the Subcarpathian later on. But by the time the first world war arrived - most chose this name - including many in Sub-Carpathia.

So in a nutshell, it's not so much that Ruthenians are Ukrainians, but Ukrainians who are Rusyns (not to be confused with Russians).

I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience in the Rochester UGCC parish. Sometimes it's not that people are unfriendly, but rather, when you grow up together, you can become unconsiously insullar. Sometimes it takes a second try. I would not suggest that you leave the Melkite parish where you are now. But what you could do is go see the UGCC priest and ask him if he could have a 'panachyda' (funeral prayer service) for bishop Rhomzha on an appropriate day of the year. Ask him if it could be bilingual: English for you, and Rusyn / Ukrainian to honour the bishop's memory. I'm sure he would agree.

Perks, perks, perks, seems to be the mantra for our byzantines moving over to the Latin rite churches. Here are some possible perks at the UGCC:

(1) Ask the UGCC priest if there are other Rusyns within the parish. He may be able to introduce you to them - and if you are not married, maybe a young Rusyn lady .

(2) If you are a member of the UGCC parish, there is a distinct possibility that you can get a discount on your mortgage at the local Ukrainian bank or credit union.

Hritzko,

"Eliminating pews and kneelers would mean making thinks much more difficult for the elderly (think about it).

For children, well try keeping them in place when they can sit.

Also, if I come from work for services in my $XXX.00 suit, I'm not going to kneel in someones boot tracks full of winter road salt.

If you remove pews, it should probably be with chairs as an option to those who need or want them. Some form of mat would also have to be included for those who would be kneeling. The UGCC's 18th century church in Paris uses this type of approach. Government heritage building codes do not permit them to change the interior to ad pew or kneelers .

The new Greek Catholic Patriarchal Sobor being built in Kyiv appears to have no pews or kneelers (u can see the animated interior on the site) but I'm sure chairs will be installed as an option."

I didn't mean remove all of the pews. We have eliminated about 40% of the pews. We have no kneelers. Nearly 1/2 of our people choose to stand. Of those who are seated I would guess that 1/2 do so because they need to (age or infirmity) and 1/2 do so because they wish to. So far the situation works just fine.

When children are allowed to be free they explore. When adults are allowed to be free they explore. It doesn't seem to trouble anyone at all. In fact the freedom is rather stimulating.

We only kneel during Lent anyway, so why worry about boot tracks or road salt? The situation is quite delightful and we are now pushing around 200 people at Liturgy. I'm eager to see what Easter will hold.

Dan Lauffer

Fr. Lance,

I wasn�t going to get involved, but I just had to. You wrote:

//The point being made is that converts should not expect to turn their parish into a "more Orthodox than the Ecumenical Patriarch" parish no matter how many cradle Byzantines this alienates.//

That converts see what Byzantine Christianity is and cradle Byzantines don�t is an interesting dilemma. Its like the gorgeous woman who forever refrains from marriage or the advances of a male because she just can�t see how a man can love her. (�What DOES he see in me?�) She may be the most beautiful woman in the world to that man, but if she is not open to the possibility that her beauty is appreciated, she will forever go through life a lonely woman (assuming she really does want to find a man). Converts see the beauty. Many cradles hide the light under the bushel-basket, forever demeaning the mission that God gave them as �church.� Is it the rule that we must continue to uphold the ignorance and past failures of one particular group in disfavor of others?

From experience, the ONLY ones who never show up for adult ECF are the older cradle Greek Catholics. They DO bitch a lot, but rarely contribute to the building up of the Body of Christ. They are usually the first to scare new prospective parishioners away when they tell them in the narthex that Father won't allow the wife to be handed over during the marriage Mass.

Why any woman in today's society and culture would appreciate a ritual that was used when a daughter was exchanged as property is beyond me. Why they would choose to leave the Byzantine Church because a Byzantine pastor refuses to do it is also beyond my comprehension. But sentimental journeys, not spiritual ones, are quite forceful. The fact that such a rite doesn't exist in the Byzantine Church OR the Latin ritual is a mute point for them. But this is for another topic ...

The only unfortunate thing that can occur is when pastoral ministry revolves totally around converts and former Latin Catholics ONLY (with the assumption that ALL cradles are to be ignored). That is a very poor model of pastoral ministry.

//Restoring tradition is one thing, inserting ROCOR style rigorism into a Byzantine Catholic parish is another.//

Doing what is actually in the liturgical books is not rigorism, nor is following the Typicon. How can it be? I�ve heard this argument many times from those who just absolutely refuse to grow spiritually or are open to the treasures of the Church. The opposite form of �rigorism� experienced in most of our parishes is Latinization for fear of being and looking like �Orthodox.� But, of course, the enforced Latinizations many of us grew up with have been in place with a fierce defensiveness that can only be matched with the rigorism of ROCOR and/or SSPX. But nobody points this out.

A closed liturgical text is just a block of wood taking up space. What, exactly, is rigoristic about following the darn books that are ours? I just don�t get it. Why is following the liturgical text considered rigorist, but doing your own thing not considered lazy and ignorant? I have never been able to completely understand this argument. Either you do what you are supposed to do or you don�t.

Why do we continue to play with what the Church gave us as means for worship? Haven't we played enough with the liturgies, oftentimes changing them beyond recognition for anyone having an ounce of knowledge and understanding of the "Byzantine Christian" mind?

//I can appreciate and admire what Annunciation Parish has done.//

What exactly do you appreciate and admire? Please list them.

//However, I can say with certainty that if the same thing were done in many parishes in Pittsburgh it would result in the loss of parishioners who would not be able to understand or change regardless of the amount of catechesis given.//

This is the problem: the absolute failure of proper catechesis. This, to me, is not so much a failure of the people, but a failure of the clergy and bishops, especially those in W. Pa. If the Latin Church used this argument to determine if they were going to implement the Novus Ordo, they wouldn�t have it today in their parishes. Instruction is always necessary for change to happen properly and smoothly. But one cannot expect proper catechesis if pastors are going to stand with crossed arms and pursed lips refusing to implement things. People are not really dumb. They DO like explanations that go along with changes, but if the church simply changes things willy-nilly, then outrage is to be expected. This reminds me when our cantors received instructions on the changes to the Paschal season a few years back, a multi-paged instruction to help us fight �creeping Paschalism.� There was no date on the document, where it was from, who was backing it, and absolutely NO explanations for those cantors who were educated enough (above illiterate peasant level) who wanted to be armed with the reasons for the changes. Nothing came of it. We are still doing what we did all along. When implementations are shot from the hip willy-nilly from above, you betchya that it won�t be executed � even by ultra-orthodox (whatever that means) cantors and clerics. BTW, it was supposedly approved �from above� the week before Pascha. It begins with the top, man. If leadership is lukewarm and full of fluff, and the proper instruction methods are absent, don�t expect much. Hence, why some parts of the Metropolia are akin to looking like ROCOR and others are akin to looking like Tridentine Greek Catholics of the Latin Rite.

How short-term our memory is. Did we not already experience severe losses to our church when our traditions were challenged? I am thinking of Alexis Toth and Orestes Chornak and the many people and parishes that skipped town, as well as the many Greek Catholics who have recently made their move to Orthodox communities. And don't forget those old babas and papas who cursed their priests because the disgruntled Latins after Vatican II were getting preferential treatment (the Mass was changed for them and they also contributed well too) and not cradle Greek Catholics. Don't they count, Fr. Deacon Lance? Of course not. For too long they were written off as troublemakers, ignorant, and just didn't understand? Understand what? That their church was being twisted and turned into an unrecognizable hybrid that can only resemble a mule, which, BTW, according to my dictionary is a "sterile hybrid of a male ass and female horse"? Sterile. Period. Inorganic. Period. Hybrid. Period. My pastor always said that St. Vlads doesn't need a 'prep school' if they still have Byzantine Catholics who get educated and leave, especially from our own institutions!

Just joking:

Question: Why don't the Orthodox really want the Eastern Catholic Churches to disappear?

Answer: They will lose one of their prime sources for vocations.

Cantor Joe Thur
Cradle Greek Catholic,
STILL in communion with Rome

Joe,

God grant you many happy years!!

Dan Lauffer

well I will just respond with what my (convert) OCA priest says about the cradle Orthodox in our parish "learn from them! They show us HOW to be Orthodox!"

Also, there is the kind of convert spirit one should avoid as related by Father John Garvey of the OCA : http://www.ocadne.org/others/Garvey.htm


Peace,
Brian