www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization changing Rites becomming Byzantine

Dear djs,

Do you know what the Administrator is on about then?

Alex

Alex,

Thank you again for a stimulating conversation.

With all due respect, the fact that you still have �strong, vibrant cultural parishes� in Canada has nothing to do with the responsibility of your Church to call others to follow Christ. We are called to invite all people to come to Christ and follow Him. �Strong and vibrant cultural parishes� is not necessarily evidence of evangelization of all peoples per the Gospel. It may merely be evidence of taking care of only �our people� which, if true, is not enough.

Are my views of �converting� and �preaching� tainted with evangelism? Definitely. It�s the evangelism of the Gospels and strongly taught by the Holy Fathers and even Pope John Paul II himself! The apostles didn�t just worship quietly but they went from town to town telling every Jew and Gentile about Christ Jesus. All of are not called to such active evangelization but a certain percentage is definitely called � including many in the Slavic Churches in North America! [We could, by the way, have a wonderful discussion on why most Byzantine Christians don�t know of their responsibility to actively evangelize. They were too busy just trying to survive persecution, something we are not yet experiencing here in North America.]

Do I believe that we have failed because we are not getting people to join specifically �our Church�? Yes! Unless you believe that only the Latin Church has the obligation to proclaim the Gospel. If one believes that we are equal to the Latins then one must also accept an equal responsibility to evangelize the entire world. Yes, some will come to the fullness of the faith through us and wind up in the Latin Church. That�s OK because we have issued the invitation and let God lead. But you seem to be suggesting that we have no obligation to actively issue invitations to the entire world to become Byzantine Catholic. If you are suggesting this you are totally incorrect. The fact that we are living in a pluralistic society in no way mitigates our obligation to actively evangelize because we are the minority. We are failing because we are not actively issuing invitations for people to follow Christ and to work out their salvation in our parishes.

Alex wrote: If you are saying the UGCC is failing to witness to Christ, please offer some concrete evidence how its martyrs, confessors and vibrant parish life today is somehow failing His Cause.

Can you provide me a list of the martyrs and confessors of the UKGCC of Canada? I am not aware that Canadians UGCs have been martyred in Canada.

Dublin? I�m aware that there is a purposeful blend of ministering to ex-Ukrainians (and other Slavs) who have moved to Dublin as well as an outreach to the local community to become Byzantine Catholic (hence the Gaelic and probably some English). How is it that a tiny community in Dublin is actively evangelizing the unchurched while the majority of our parishes are not?

Alex wrote: But it seems to me that, left to your mainstream ecclesial dictatorship, you would remove the aspect of choice from converts completely in this respect.

Are you suggesting that Ukrainian GCC parishes in Canada are already actively evangelizing and that a large percentage of converts are choosing to embrace the Ukrainian ethnicity, too?

Exactly what aspects of choice for converts am I supposed to remove completely? If they are evangelized by a Latin Catholic and choose to join a Latin Church, that�s wonderful. If they come to us through the Latin Church, that�s wonderful, too. If we evangelize them and the join our Church, that�s wonderful. If they come to us and then go to the Latins, that�s wonderful, too! But you seem to continue to say that we do not have a responsibility to knock on doors and issue invitations. The Gospel says otherwise.

If someone converted to Christ because of my direct invitation and then wished to go to the OCA I would be overjoyed. The point is that we must issue the invitation. The further point is that we issue an invitation with everything we do. Sometimes our invitation is not very welcoming to people of other ethnic groups.

Alex wrote: I really think what you are about here is how to increase the ranks of the BCC in the U.S. - a valid pursuit.

I believe that God is calling a significant number of North Americans to become Byzantine Catholics and that He is waiting on us to issue the invitations.

Alex wrote: I'd have to study the matter, but I would hypothesize (see what you've done to me? ) that the weakening of cultural identity MIGHT lead to a greater desire to join with Orthodoxy per se since EC churches AS CHURCHES might be perceived as "narrow ethnic enclaves" outside the mainstream.

There is a ROCOR monastery in West Virginia that simply organized itself in a nice town, one without an Orthodox presence. The monks worshipped in English and used simple music in their worship. As they went about their business in town they were friendly with people and invited them to come visit. When they visited they welcomed people and were hospitable. Now, after just a few years, they have enough interested people to organize a parish and most of these people are non-slavs.

I am not suggesting that anyone weaken his or her cultural identity. I am suggesting that we learn to treat people of all ethnicities as if each was Christ and to invite each to join our parish families.

Alex wrote: And the OCA is no ethnic enclave, but a true mainstream Orthodox Church where one has the CHOICE to participate in either mainstream Orthodoxy or else Orthodoxy within a cultural framework.

The OCA is an ethnic conclave. Actually, it is a group of ethnic conclaves. Most parishes are pretty identical to ours (yes, they will also reduce from about 110,000 today to about 20,000 in 15-20 years and less than 10,000 in 30 years if there are no changes). There are a few wonderful examples of new parishes that are open and inviting to people of all cultures. The OCA has the structure to create wonderful multi-ethnic, pan-American parishes. Sadly, only a few have been created.

Alex wrote: If you are saying that Church communities with a cultural perspective don't have the right to exist because they exclude converts who may not find the culture relevant etc. - then you are wrong - and we agree to disagree.

Parishes with a cultural perspective certainly do have a right to exist. New immigrants naturally wish to gather with people who share their cultures and our situation here in North American is different than that in the original spiritual homelands. This is normal. We certainly cannot ask a parish that is just beginning to stand on it�s own feet to evangelize the same way a fully adult parish does. But at what point to we consider our parishes to become mature enough to shoulder the responsibility to place evangelization ahead of maintaining cultural purity? You seem to suggest never and I do not accept such a position.

Alex wrote: Again, if I don't want to join with Greek-speakers or others because I don't understand the language - there are other valid choices to be made - including choices from among a broad range of English-speaking Churches.

If God calls someone to become Byzantine Catholic who doesn�t want to join a parish that worships mostly in a language he or she does not understand where should this person go? Do we tell them that if they wish to worship in a parish in English and place their ethnic gifts on an altar that they must then go to the Latins because we must maintain our cultural purity? Where is this broad range of English speaking Byzantine Churches for them to choose from? Should we conclude that the Lord has no future for the Byzantine Church in North America after all the immigrants assimilate (which will definitely happen, sooner in America and later in Canada)?

Alex wrote: What if I find English liturgies to fail in helping me to express my own inner experience of the Christian faith as an Eastern Orthodox Catholic? And, frankly, English liturgies for me is a great turnoff. I understand them. But I can't pray and worship in them.

And what if a non-Slav is called by the Lord to become Byzantine Catholic? Is your need to express your Ukrainian identity in worship more important than someone else�s need to express himself or herself in English? What do you suggest we do when someone the Lord calls to our Church finds a Slavic or Arabic language a great turnoff? Send them elsewhere? How does that fulfill the Gospel command.

I do appreciate your feelings here. The parish I grew up in did not begin English language liturgies until my high school years. I hated them at first. But because they are not primarily in English I can learn from the wealth of theology in our Divine Services. I now find myself to be very uncomfortable at liturgies that are entirely in another language. I used to love attending the ROCOR parish for Saturday vigil (which is still all Slavonic). Now I prefer the OCA parish because I can understand. As a cantor I see less and less need for any Slavonic in the liturgy. A few years back I cantored a weekend retreat during lent that included a Matins service that was essentially a Parastas since it was on an All Souls Saturday during he Great Fast. The only thing I took in Slavonic was the troparia �With the souls of the just brought to perfection� (which I then repeated in English). I had numerous complaints about using too much Slavonic. I was surprised but it demonstrated how much ethnicity we have lost and any attempt to remain an ethnic Church is doomed.

Alex wrote: Well intentioned though you are, you would be imposing a cultural framework of your own, the mainstream one, on many, many people who would reject it as a suitable vehicle for the expression of their faith in Christ.

How is asking that our Church�s make room for people of other ethnicities imposing a cultural framework? I do agree that many will reject any change. Those parishes will eventually close. This idea of rallying around ethnicity just doesn�t work in the long run. The fact that the Ukrainian GCC and the Ruthenian BCC in the USA have each lost 85% of their people in the last 50 years is unarguable evidence. But people seem quite content with ignoring the evidence.

Alex wrote: You may want to raise this issue with our Patriarch and some others . . .

Is he looking for ideas on converting all of Canada to Byzantine Catholicism?

Alex wrote: You might also want to revisit the book, "How to win friends and influence people..."

An excellent book! But sometime one needs to challenge those who wish to be left alone so that they do not die. There are too many people in our Churches who prefer to see our parishes close so long as they are faithful to our respective Slavic or Arabic identities until the day the doors are closed for the last time.

Alex wrote: Sociologically, your view conveys something of a naive view in this respect - your admitted "harshness" betrays something of an unwillingness to accept a view other than your own as normative on this issue.

I accept the view you have expressed as normative. I just do not accept it as correct or a view that is in line with the Gospel. I believe that the Gospels and the theology of our Church � including the published writings of the Holy Father, John Paul II - support my view, that we must transform our ethnic communities into houses of worship that will, by the power of their worship and hospitality, draw all peoples to Christ.

Alex wrote: We are both agreed that we are to be used by Christ to draw others to Himself. As for which community He calls them to - it is not up to you or me to decide that. It is up to Him.

Our responsibility is to invite the world to embrace Christ and welcome them into our parishes with warm hospitability. We are obliged to make room in our parish homes for anyone the Lord sends, imposing on them nothing beyond what the Church teaches as true.

Question of the Day: If you were the Metropolitan Archbishop of Philadelphia (UGCC) and saw that your Church has lost 85% of its people in the last 50 years (down to about 60,000 in the USA) and, if nothing changes, will have only 20,000 people in 10 years and not enough to keep a dozen parishes open in 20 years, what would you do? Would you simply accept such a fate and begin to close parishes that can no longer support themselves? Would you do something else? If something else, what would you do and how would do you do it?

Respectfully,
Admin

Exactly. The ethnicity is not necessary to have the Spirit and the fullness of the Byzantine Christian experience. About 10 years ago I had the wonderful opportunity to worship at SS Peter & Paul Orthodox Church in Ben Lomond, California. It had the �Duch�. And my friends and I were probably the only Slavs in the church.

Ben Lomond?
In the following ten years, they got into a row with their hierarch over presumed abrogration of the articles of union, went to court over ownership of the parish assests (the bishop won), had a schism, with half the parish starting a new diocese under a different Partiarch. Of course it's all very tragic, but still, when I've read the history, I couldn't help but thinking: kindred spirits; shaleny Rusnaku!
(Of whom I am the first.)

Dear Administrator,

Well, I think we are speaking to each other from different religious/cultural contexts here.

Knocking on doors? You knock on doors? No one other than Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knocks on doors in Canada - perhaps you may wish to take this issue up with the Latin Catholics here since they obviously are failing in their responsibilities too!

Martyrs in Canada? Yes, we have a shrine to ST Basil Velichkovsky in Winnipeg who died while visiting here that recently opened its doors to all North Americans. He was Ukrainian and from Ukraine, but we don't discriminate here in Canada . . .

We also have our martyrs here in the form of immigrants who were shunned and ill-treated because of the strangeness of their religion and culture. I think particularly of the 40 Ukrainian children-martyrs who died of neglect and disease near Winnipeg in the 20's - and whose story no one dared even print so great was the hatred against Ukrainians and all they stood for.

We have our Ukrainian pioneer martyrs in North America, Sir.

They may not make it past the Vatican congregations - but neither is Andrew Sheptytsky for that matter.

You believe that if we are to live in North America, we can only do so as part of the English mainstream.

Well, I've got news for you, Sir! That isn't the case.

The fact that a Ukrainian parish serves its Ukrainian parishioners is no more a crime against the universality of the Church than is a mother who spends her life raising only her own children.

This is why Christ told His Apostles to make disciples of "all nations." He used "nations" as a defining principle of the social unit of his Church, many would contend - including Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

I can't speak for the OCA but a Church composed of numerous ethnic ghettoes is at least no single ethnic ghetto itself. And it's not perceived that way - from what I gather from those souls who've wandered into it and who I know.

And one can and should categorically reject the idea that this is about ethnic vs non-ethnic.

Every parish adheres to a culture, including mainstream. And just because a culture is mainstream does not mean that everyone will feel at home in it. I wouldn't.

Again, I'm not denying the need for more English language parishes.

I just see as a slow, organic process - and again, you don't know Ukrainian Canada like we do.

But even if we bring English into our Church - does that mean we stop being a Ukrainian Church?

Of course it doesn't! Ukrainian culture will be expressed and maintained in a myriad of other ways - those who lose their language skills, up to fifth and sixth generation Ukies that we have in our parish - they are the most adamant about the material Ukrainian culture. And those who aren't Ukie and feel no tie to the culture again will not feel at home in such a parish, English-speaking thought it may be.

Culture is integrally related to language, but cultural identity is more deeply ingrained than that, even to the point of psychological identification alone ("I'm Ukrainian and that's that!")

So this isn't so easy. Was it Lemko who used the term "duch" or "spirit?"

The spirit of a people doesn't die out, even if it's language does. Ukies have spoken only Russian and Polish without losing their deep sense of who they are.

Again, I think the last question you posed is too simplistic for my liking.

If you are losing people, language is not necessarily the major factor involved.

And to rush in to impose a new cultural framework that is "mainstream-friendly" can alienate your remaining folk.

And yet again, how can the Byzantine cupola be made to be a mainstream symbol - even if those praying under it do so in English?

I think your salvation, if such is to be found, lies in underlining your differences with mainstream society - not explaining them away.

We are dealing with more than just the message of the Gospel.

There are a myriad of denominations who do that in North America.

What we are specifically called to do is to witness to the Gospel from within the perspective of the Eastern Churches and Fathers.

That is what makes us different and what defines our mission.

There should, and there is, be the element of choice in terms of parishes, along cultural and other lines as well.

Here in Toronto, every parish represents a different link to different areas of Ukraine, different social and political hierarchies, different histories.

It is all a rich panorama that speaks to our community.

We are also highly successful at integrating new immigrants, largely unchurched, in our communities, including Orthodox Christians who send their children to our "St Josaphat School."

You are giving the impression that the work of Christ is not being conducted here.

You are not here, you are there. "There" is not "here."

And presumption is presumption - sorry, but how dare you, Sir.

Again, mainstream society won't stop thinking of us being outside it simply because we start using English all the time.

Alex

And when I read the story I thought that it is too bad that they couldn't leave their protestant bias behind and submit to the hierachy.

And perhaps they would have if he had been of their own "flesh and blood".

djs & David,

Actually there is a lot more to the story. In my opinion, Metropolitan Philip and the people of that parish equally share the blame for what happened. Metropolitan Philip might even hold most of the blame for not making sure that the parish had mature Orthodox Christians in leadership positions to properly form the people in Orthodoxy.

It is rather unfair to just charge them with protestant bias when they were allowed for years to believe that their reference point on some of the issues was perfectly Orthodox. If you allow someone to grow up believing that X is actually perfectly Orthodoxy you can�t then blame him or her for actually believing that X is perfectly Orthodox when the rest of Orthodoxy knows it is not.

I also believe that the Jerusalem Patriarch should have sent them back to their own bishop, but that is another complicated issue.

When I visited them they were a wonderful, welcoming, praying community. Their experience shows that that we need to welcome converts into our existing parishes to fully form them in the faith.

Admin

Admin,
As you were closer to this than I was I will give in on this with you.

I still think some of it was caused from a bias on their parts though. I see this in the book Becoming Orthodox where they did not even consider Rome becasue of that bias.

But.....

I must disagree with you here... Ultimately it is our responsibility to make sure our conscience is properly formed. It is our place to learn, if the church isn't teaching us, then shame on the church but that does not negate our responsibility to search out the truth. To find out for ourselves.

As I have done.


David

Dear DavidB,

I really don't feel like defending the Administrator right now, but . . .

We all work with the lights that God gives us - faith is ultimately about what He does in our lives.

I really don't see all that much that is Protestant about the "Evangelical Orthodox" and their bias against Rome, that certainly comes from their Evangelical background, was equally matched in Orthodoxy .

But, truth be told, they do ackowledge that Rome is close indeed to Orthodox truth - something I don't think they would ever have admitted had they remained Protestants.

Converts struggle to be faithful to the voice within themselves.

They are loyal to the Church, but, unlike we, must first struggle inside to determine what the true Church is.

Their reference point for all this is themselves and the formation of their consciences.

The Antiochians were only too pleased to be cooperative with them before they entered their jurisdiction.

They allowed for an "Evangelical Orthodox Rite" with hymn-singing and Protestant style preaching et al.

I myself have their New Testament and now I walk around with it all the time like I think I'm Billy Graham or something . . . or the Administrator, another Evangelist!

I honestly don't think the fault was all on their side in the ensuing conflict. I've heard from Antiochian refugees to the OCA on this, but enough . . .

I can't ever figure out the disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox on authority.

That's why I just call myself "Orthodox Catholic."

Alex

Alex,

I agree that we are speaking from different cultural contexts. I submit for consideration that Gospel command should form our cultural contexts and not the other way around.

Alex wrote: Knocking on doors? You knock on doors? No one other than Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knocks on doors in Canada - perhaps you may wish to take this issue up with the Latin Catholics here since they obviously are failing in their responsibilities too!

Don�t forget that our own Dan Lauffer�s Byzantine Catholic parish in Illinois has an active evangelization campaign. I don�t know if they go door to door but I know that they go to malls and stand on street corners issuing invitations.

Yes, I have knocked on doors, too. Sadly, not enough and not lately and I am guilty that I ask of people to do something that I am not currently doing myself. And yes, the Latins don�t do enough of this either.

St. Basil Velichkovsky was martyred in Canada? What type of persecution did he undergo by the Canadian authorities that led to his martyrdom? I always thought he suffered under the communists in Europe.

Alex wrote: We also have our martyrs here in the form of immigrants who were shunned and ill-treated because of the strangeness of their religion and culture. I think particularly of the 40 Ukrainian children-martyrs who died of neglect and disease near Winnipeg in the 20's - and whose story no one dared even print so great was the hatred against Ukrainians and all they stood for.

And the response of our Church is to promote a parish life that is strange to others we live with? May the Forty Holy Children-Martyrs of Winnipeg pray for us and lead us not to be so inhospitable to people who are not �our own�!

Alex wrote: You believe that if we are to live in North America, we can only do so as part of the English mainstream.

Actually, no. I believe that we need to be open to the various cultures of North America and welcome them as we welcome our fellow Slavs and Arabs.

Alex wrote: The fact that a Ukrainian parish serves its Ukrainian parishioners is no more a crime against the universality of the Church than is a mother who spends her life raising only her own children.

I have never suggested that it was a crime. A Ukrainian parish is also obligated to serve people who are not Ukrainian. A Ukrainian parish is also obligated to invite all people to come to Christ and worship as we do.

Alex wrote: This is why Christ told His Apostles to make disciples of "all nations." He used "nations" as a defining principle of the social unit of his Church, many would contend - including Sts. Cyril and Methodius.

SS Cyril & Methodius set a wonderful example worthy of imitation. They presented the Christian Faith in the Byzantine/Greek cultural context and allowed the Slavs to embrace it and make it their own. That is what we must do for North America.

Alex wrote: And one can and should categorically reject the idea that this is about ethnic vs non-ethnic.

I agree. It is about being multi-ethnic and open to all ethnicities.

OK, you don�t feel at home in an English speaking parish and also admit the need for more English speaking parishes. Who exactly is going to create these English speaking parishes and issue the invitations if not the people who are already Byzantine Catholic?

I also agree that this will be a slow process. But if we don�t start we will not exist at all.

Alex wrote: But even if we bring English into our Church - does that mean we stop being a Ukrainian Church?

It means that you stop being a Church only for Ukrainians. Huge difference. The fact that people are adamant about ethnic culture does not mean that they are correct. As I have stated numerous times in these discussions, there are lots of people who don�t care if the church closes so long as it is ethnically pure until the day the doors are closed for the last time. It is these people we need to educate.

Alex wrote: Again, I think the last question you posed is too simplistic for my liking. If you are losing people, language is not necessarily the major factor involved. And to rush in to impose a new cultural framework that is "mainstream-friendly" can alienate your remaining folk.

Those parishes that seek to be ethnically pure are dying the quickest (and the UGCC is dying much faster than the Ruthenian BCC in the USA). Those parishes that have become open to people of other ethnicities are the strongest. What plan do you offer for the future that lives up to the Gospel command to evangelize and yet ministers to ethnics?

Alex wrote: And yet again, how can the Byzantine cupola be made to be a mainstream symbol - even if those praying under it do so in English?

In the American Southwest there are a number of newer parishes that are adapting a church building style that is a cross between the Greek style and a native Southwest style. It makes sense for that climate. The old can be blended with the new to best serve North America. Of course, with all that snow you get in Canada the steep Russian cupolas make more sense than here in the American South.

Alex wrote: I think your salvation, if such is to be found, lies in underlining your differences with mainstream society - not explaining them away. We are dealing with more than just the message of the Gospel. There are a myriad of denominations who do that in North America. What we are specifically called to do is to witness to the Gospel from within the perspective of the Eastern Churches and Fathers. That is what makes us different and what defines our mission.

The various denominations who evangelize here in North America do offer Jesus Christ. But they do not offer the complete Gospel or the fullness of the Faith. If we cannot come to terms with our obligation to share the Faith of our Fathers here in North America we do not deserve to exist. To continue to state that we are different and offer no action plan on how to evangelize is a cop out, nothing more.

Alex wrote: There should, and there is, be the element of choice in terms of parishes, along cultural and other lines as well. Here in Toronto, every parish represents a different link to different areas of Ukraine, different social and political hierarchies, different histories. It is all a rich panorama that speaks to our community.

Yes, it speaks that the Ukrainian Catholic Church is something that Ukrainians should belong to. But does it speak that the UGCC welcomes the world to join?

Alex wrote: You are giving the impression that the work of Christ is not being conducted here.

I have made no such suggestion. I have stated only that we Byzantine Catholics are missing opportunities to share the Gospel with North America and have a responsibility to do so. I have spoken equally of my own Byzantine-Ruthenian Church and also of the Byzantine-Melkite (Arabic) Church and have been clear about this inclusiveness.

Alex wrote:
Again, mainstream society won't stop thinking of us being outside it simply because we start using English all the time.

We are responsible for what mainstream North America thinks of us. When they see us do they see an ethnic group? Or do they see a bunch of Christians who just happen to be ethnic? Do they see enough of Christ within us to come and join us?

Seriously, I would appreciate any and all answers to the questions I have posed in my last post.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Perhaps we Ukies have failed in not feeling the need to preach Christ to others who are not of our cultural fold.

I don't know the answer. We aren't going to give up our culture which, for us, is part and parcel of what it means to be Christian, in how we worship and act.

I still don't see how we can be faulted for serving Ukrainians of all backgrounds, recent immigrants and others within that context and nourishing them on the Gospel and the Eastern Fathers and Liturgy.

The fact is that most mainstreamers won't feel comfortable within the Byzantine and Ukrainian context.

There is a real tension between universality and particularity.

But our experience of Christ and His Church is through our membership in the loca Church, with its liturgical and cultural heritage which, for us, are so closely intertwined that one does not stand without the other.

An American EC jurisdiction would be just another expression of what we are already, and have been for 1,000 years - a Church of the East with another cultural commitment, this time, to the AMerican culture.

But I think I may have hit a nerve in you (I love it when that happens, er, sorry . . .) when you began to ask about the cupolas and the way North America sees Byzantine Christianity per se - is it a foreign cultural system in and of itself and apart from the secular cultural contexts?

That is the question, from a sociological point of view at least, that I think you and your Church in the U.S. must deal with first.

You cannot preach the Gospel even outside the cultural context you already embody.

You bring a cultural expression with you whenever you even open your mouth to speak of Christ and His Gospel.

Where faith ends and culture begins simply exists in the mind as a mental construct.

I don't know the answers to these.

I do know that we Ukies are very happy with our resurrected Church, our great new vocations to the priesthood and the monastic state et al.

We are one with our Church in the Ukie homeland.

What happens there reverberates in me in Canada, in Lauro in Brazil, in Andrij in London et al.

Even when none of us here speak Ukrainian, what we will be about is Kyivan Christianity and the Kyivan perspective on the Gospel.

"Ethnicity" and its demise will change nothing of that.

Well, I've enjoyed this exchange, Sir.

While I hesitate to say who won , I do think there are questions you are left with to ponder that I don't have to . . .

Alex

It is interesting that Father David Anderson, in many ways the liturgical "starets" for the Ben Lomond movement, later joined the Ukrainian Catholic Church where he serves in Ukiah, California now. He also translated many important works of the Fathers, including St. Basil on the Holy Spirit.

Alex,

I think we have all failed in preaching Christ to people who are not of our cultural fold.

Why do you believe that you need to give up your culture in order to welcome others? Cannot other cultures exist simultaneously in Greek Catholic parishes? If the cultural aspect is so intertwined with our Christianity that we can not evangelize and welcome newcomers can we really call ourselves Christian?

Alex wrote: I still don't see how we can be faulted for serving Ukrainians of all backgrounds, recent immigrants and others within that context and nourishing them on the Gospel and the Eastern Fathers and Liturgy.

I have never once faulted any of our Churches for serving ethnics. I�m not sure why you continue to believe that I am on some sort of mission to destroy ethnic identities. I have suggested and continue to suggest that we find a way to invite all peoples to follow Christ and be nourished spiritually from the Eastern well. If the Greeks managed to give this gift to the Slavs then certainly we should be able to manage to give it to the many peoples of North America.

Alex wrote: The fact is that most mainstreamers won't feel comfortable within the Byzantine and Ukrainian context.

Then we must create a context in which all people will feel comfortable. Slavs and Arabs are not more worthy of drawing from the Well of the Christian East than anyone else.

Alex wrote: But our experience of Christ and His Church is through our membership in the local Church, with its liturgical and cultural heritage which, for us, are so closely intertwined that one does not stand without the other.

Then how did Cyril & Methodius manage to bring Christ to the Slavs? I believe that our liturgical heritage certainly speaks to all cultures. I further believe that our ethnic culture should be capable of respecting other ethnic cultures and be willing to share with them our Eastern Christian Well.

Alex wrote: An American EC jurisdiction would be just another expression of what we are already, and have been for 1,000 years - a Church of the East with another cultural commitment, this time, to the Americans culture.

First, since this is North America it only makes sense that we have an obligation to preach the Gospel first to our fellow North Americans, be they of Hispanic, African or Slavic original ethnicity. Eventually we will either be a Church for all North Americans or we will not be a Church at all.

Alex wrote: But I think I may have hit a nerve in you (I love it when that happens, er, sorry . . .) when you began to ask about the cupolas and the way North America sees Byzantine Christianity per se - is it a foreign cultural system in and of itself and apart from the secular cultural contexts? That is the question, from a sociological point of view at least, that I think you and your Church in the U.S. must deal with first.

Are cupolas part of a foreign cultural context? Yes, to a degree. But also, to a degree, so is everything in our culture that was not here prior to Columbus. What you consider to be the western mainstream culture is merely the dominant culture. Just as spaghetti, pizza and Chinese food have become accepted as part of our North American culture so, too, can cupolas and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Cupolas are, of course, unimportant when compared to the Divine Liturgy! Since we speak of buildings I very much like what Byzantine Christians in the American Southwest are doing. They have drawn from Greek and Southwestern building styles to create something uniquely Southwestern Byzantine.

Alex wrote: You cannot preach the Gospel even outside the cultural context you already embody.

I agree. I can, however, allow my cultural context to grow so that I can be understood by people of other cultures. One�s culture can certainly limit one�s ability to evangelize. The Gospel is stronger, however, and that Church has endured.

Alex wrote: I do know that we Ukies are very happy with our resurrected Church, our great new vocations to the priesthood and the monastic state et al. We are one with our Church in the Ukie homeland.

I give great thanks for the freedoms our spiritual ancestors in Europe have now won. I disagree that you are one with your Church in the Ukie homeland. Someone who leaves is no longer part of the homeland. You can either build a new home in the new land or attempt to live vicariously through the experiences of others, people you know less well as time progresses.

Alex wrote: Even when none of us here speak Ukrainian, what we will be about is Kyivan Christianity and the Kyivan perspective on the Gospel. "Ethnicity" and its demise will change nothing of that.

I know that you have suggested that the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada is alive and well. The census numbers do not agree. According to the censuses taken by the UGCC in Canada and compiled from official sources by Fr. Ron Roberson the numbers are in a free fall:

-The Metropoltian Archeparchy of Winnipeg reported 49,350 members in 1990 and 33,490 in 2003 (a net loss of 32% in 13 years).
-The Eparchy of Edmonton reported 40,907 in 1990 and 26,250 in 2003 (a loss of 36% in 13 years).
-The Eparchy of New Westminister reported 7,700 people in 1990 and 4,000 in 2003 (a net loss of 48% in 13 years).
-The Eparchy of Toronto reported 80,000 in 1990 and 41,010 in 2003 (a net loss of 48% in 13 years).

Here in the United States the losses among Ukrainian Catholics and Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics are extremely similar. On average each of our local Churches has lost over 40% of our people in the last 13 years. The Melkites are the only Church that has reported growth (mostly due to fresh emigration from the Middle East). In the USA they have added just over 2,000 people for an increase of 8% to a total of 28,026.

In Canada the bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church report a net loss of 41% of Ukrainian Catholics in 13 years (from a total of 177,957 in 1990 to 104,750 in 2003).

I think that these are definitely things to ponder.

Admin

Dear Administrator-

I suppose my post is'nt really important, but I had to just add a bit to this last twist. No one here had ever asked me why I am Orthodox now and not Byzantine Catholic, as I had prayed, hoped and dreamed of. My family and I were ignored, disregarded, isolated, and finally rejected in our attempt to become Ukrainian Catholic. Two years time at a Ukrainian Catholic Parish trying to fit in....... trying to meet people........ ended in pain and, in the end, my wife, daughter, and me becomming Orthodox. The end is a different story and not important to this thread, but it is enough to say that we are happy and loved now. I always felt it was because we were not Ukrainian that we were not welcome. Forgive me all if I have said too much.

Michael