www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization A Few Moments

My brothers and sisters,

Not my usual style, I guess, but I feel the need to share a story with you.

On Sunday evening, I happened to be at the Melkite Cathedral when a car pulled up and stopped. A young couple, maybe 22 or 23 years old, exited and walked toward me. The woman asked if this was really a Byzantine parish; I assured her that it was.

She asked how long the Cathedral had been there; when I told her almost 40 years, she looked shocked. She had been in Boston for about a year and had tried to find a Byzantine parish, even calling the Latin chancery - only to be told there were none*. (In fact, there are either 4 or 5 - 2 Melkite and either 2 or 3 Ukrainian; additionally, there are 4 non-Byzantine EC parishes - 3 Maronite and an Armenian.)

As they were driving by, the young man had seen 'Byzantine' on a sign, causing them to stop. I unlocked the cathedral and offered to show them through it, an offer that was taken up very gratefully. As she stood before the iconostasis, the young woman whispered to me how good it was to "be home".

Turned out that she is Ruthenian, from New Orleans, and a member of the mission there.

I offered her info on the Ukrainian parish, but she declined. She wanted only to know the time for Divine Liturgy and to be assured that she'd be welcome and able to receive the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist; she'll be back with us next Sunday.

Her reaction to being in the church, looking around with joy on her face, inhaling the scents, reverently touching an icon with her fingertips, bowing and crossing herself before the Holy Doors, obviously briefly and silently praying, and her softly whispered words about being 'home' were powerful. A face which I would have described as 'attractive in a plain way' blossomed to absolutely beautiful in her smile of happiness, accentuated by the tears glistening in the corners of her eyes.

All of this, in total, occupied maybe five minutes. I was deeply touched and it really has made my week that I was there when this young lady found her way 'home'. I suddenly realized how much I take my church and my Church for granted; I don't think I will any more.

Many years,

Neil


*If I give the Archdiocese the benefit of the doubt and presume someone there equated 'Byzantine' with 'Ruthenian', their answer would have been correct. However, would it have been too much to then offer info about the other Byzantine parishes in the geographic bounds of the Boston Latins?

Neil,

A touching story! You should use this 'style' more often. Thanks for sharing it.

I hate to say this but sometimes even on the RC Archdiocesan level people are unaware of the Byzantine Catholic parishes and don't include them as part of the broader community. In an RC Archdiocese a few years ago at the ordination of the new RC bishop to which the Byzantine priests were invited, an usher escorted the Byzantine priests to sit with the Protestants. This disturbed one of our Byzantine parish priests quite a bit so he wrote a letter to the new RC bishop explaining what happened. The new RC bishop immediately replied with an apology and explained that he was new and didn't know what all they had arranged as to seating, etc., and promised to check that himself in future ceremonies. He then invited the Byzantine priest to come visit and have coffee.

God Bless,


Mary Jo

Dear Neil,

This was wonderful. Similar situation happen often to my Godson (who is church custodian). Allow me to recount a similar story, but this one is a little sad.

One day, Joe (let's call him that) was cleaning in front of church after DL and coffee, when everyone else was gone, a car pulls up, out of the passenger side comes this slight woman, and she asks to see the church. As it turns out she had just come from Russia the week before, and our little church reminded her of the one she knew in her villiage. She peered inside, but did not enter. Her new husband was Baptist, and only allowed her five minutes, so she had to soon leave. She did come back once, on a Saturday afternoon, while Joe was preparing for Vespers, and she stayed and prayed and talked to Joe for an hour to an hour and a half, which probably did not make her husband happy. I don't know if she has opportunity to be back since, or has found any other church (there is a ROCOR mission that meets 2x a month-it is has started up only since her last visit-otherwise there is not anything for a Russian)

In Christ,
Adam

Neil, God bless him, has given us an excellent example which should enable us to understand why it is improper for any one jurisdiction to use the term "Byzantine" as though it were the exclusive property of that jurisdiction. And it appears that he has also given this woman in search of her spiritual home much joy.
Incognitus

Neil,

Good work!

--

Incognitus,

It is my understanding that around 1950 Ruthenian bishop Daniel Ivancho and Ukrainian bishop Costantine Bohacevski made an agreement that both Churches would use the term �Byzantine Catholic� instead of �Greek Catholic� to describe themselves. The stated reason was that Americans were assuming that they were ethnic Greeks and that they felt that the term �Byzantine Catholic� was better.

The Ruthenians started using the term �Byzantine Catholic� with the opening of SS Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Seminary in 1950. My mother has a collection of old church bulletins from her parish that show a change from �Greek Catholic� to �Byzantine Catholic� sometime during the 1960s. I know that during the 1970�s the nearby Ukrainian parish used �St. Vladimir�s Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholic Church� but sometime during the 1980�s switched to �St. Vladimir�s Ukrainian Catholic Church�. I have been told of a few other parishes of the (now) Archeparchy of Philadelphia that used the term �Byzantine Catholic� for a few years but then switched to �Ukrainian Catholic�. Do you have any information on why the Ukrainians never really embraced the term �Byzantine Catholic�?

Also, I don�t know whether the Melkites were ever part of the name change agreement but I do remember two parishes that listed themselves as �Byzantine-Melkite� during the 1980�s but are now listed as �Melkite Greek Catholic�. I once asked a Melkite priest about the name change and he only responded that it was complicated.

I am very interested to know why the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church never embraced the term. Do you have any knowledge of this?

Admin

Much kudos to Incognitus who once again delivers a much needed and very concentrated dose of sense and reason, and to Neil for opening this with a an uplifting tale.

To respond to the Admin's off-topic tangent, I believe the "agreement" between Metropolitan Constantine and Bishop Daniel is fabled. Certainly no such written agreement exists, and the "old timers" at least that I have queried in the UGCC over the years trying to verify this claim seem to corroborate that no such thing was ever executed in writing or otherwise canonically. It has also been surmised that this act of Bishop Daniel was unilateral.

The Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, and Russian churches have correctly and honestly given their churches titles which honor the historical and geographic provenance of their sui iuris identity. Neither have they presumed to
co-opt another term as solely their own to which they have limited historical and liturgical right to do so.

No Orthodox church presumes to call itself this as a formal jurisdictional term. That should be
telling enough. How or why should anyone embrace an encompassing term such as "Byzantine" without embracing all that goes with it? Seemingly a case of at least inaccuracy if not false advertising. Bring back the Emperor if you really want to use that term, and better be using more Greek as well liturgically and be a bit more open-minded musically [at least to real Byzantine melodies] if you want to be honest about it.

The Ukrainians, Romanians, Melkites, and Russians have been quite sensible and not presumptuous to "embrace" this term.

It would seem to make sense to use "American Carpatho-Russian" or "American Carpatho-Rusyn" Catholic Church. The initial part of this description seems to do well enough for the ACROD to state her place in Orthodoxy.

Just a guess, but I would suppose that the Ruthenian churches use the term Byzantine because there were Croatian & Hungarian parishes as well as Carpatho-Rusyn ones; furthermore, the Rusyns have become so acculturated at a rapid rate that a lot of them seem unaware of their ethnic/cultural heritage and even refer to themselves as Slovaks. So I suppose that is my there is the Slovak Eparchy in Canada too.

Porter (actual name)

Diak,

Thanks for your post. My apologies to Neil for responding to Incognitus� editorial comment against the Ruthenians and taking this thread further off topic.

I don�t know if the account of the bishops� agreement to use the term �Byzantine Catholic" is fabled. It certainly fits in with at least some of the historical occurrences. I do agree that there is probably nothing in writing (not unusual). But that doesn�t explain the fact that some Ukrainian parishes switched to the title �Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholic� and some Melkite parishes switched to the title �Byzantine-Melkite Catholic�. Nor does it explain that some of the older Ruthenian clergy preferred the term �Greek Catholic� and did not appreciate using a universal term with the Ukrainians.

There is certainly nothing stopping other Byzantine Catholics from using the term �Byzantine Catholic�. Some do, in fact. [Four of the five Byzantine-Romanian Catholic parishes with websites use the term �Byzantine Catholic�, �Romanian Byzantine Catholic� or �Byzantine-Romanian Catholic� to describe themselves. Bishop JOHN (Botean) freely uses the terms "Byzantine Catholic", "Romanian Byzantine Catholic" and Byzantine Romanian Catholic" interchangeably. Our Lady of Fatima Byzantine Catholic Church in San Francisco has taken the term �byzantiencatholic� as part of its website. A quick look at some of the websites for Ukrainian Catholic parishes shows the term �Byzantine-Ukrainian� and �Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic�. A websearch shows that the term is definitely used by at least some Ukrainians.]

I have always believed that the Ukrainians simply never followed through with the agreement. I wish they would do so now because everyone embracing a single, non-ethnic identifying term would only aid our position in evangelization. Of course, I believe strongly that all Byzantines in America should merge into a single American jurisdiction and evangelize America. The Orthodox Church in America is an excellent model to follow. It allows various ethnicities to exist (and eventually merge) under the banner of simply �The Orthodox Church in America� without any ethnic qualifiers.

I disagree with the suggestion of the use of the terms "American Carpatho-Russian" or "American Carpatho-Rusyn" Catholic Church. I am an American, not a Carpatho-Rusyn. Almost all of the people in our Church are Americans and speak English as their first language. I want my Church to grow here and become a home to all Americans. It can�t do that as long as ethnicity is so important one has to keep it in the title of the Church.

Admin

Administrator:

What is being done to foster this idea?

Smar

Mary Jo,

Oh, this I know ... I've spent far too many years in this lung to not be aware of it. My first realization was 35+ years ago in San Antonio when, as a young officer away from home for the first time, I also called the Latin chancery and asked about EC parishes in that Archdiocese's geographic bounds.

The reply, from a priest :rolleyes: , "What kind of Catholics?" He went on to recommend that I "just go to church". I found Saint George's Maronite Church on my own and will always be grateful to Father Wladimir Akeekee, of blessed memory, and his parishoners. They greeted the uniformed Irish Melkite, with the strange accent, with much affection and made him a welcomed and comfortable member of their parish community for the next year.

But, this happened in Boston where, for almost 6 decades, Eastern Catholics have been treasured, heralded, and even promoted by the Latin clergy and hierarchy. It is for no small reason that a large mosaic portrait of Richard Cardinal Cushing, of blessed memory, hangs prominently in our cathedral vestibule, above a plaque describing him as "Our beloved benefactor".

Of him, Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, said:

Every other EC Church represented in the Archdiocese could also have said as much of him.

After Cushing's repose, regretably, the small Russian Catholic parish of Our Lady of Kazan, which he especially loved and supported even after it wasn't reasonable to do so, was suppressed. Otherwise, his successors, Cardinals Medeiros and Law were also supportive and caring, although less involved because, by then, all the EC parishes represented in Boston had their own hierarchies. Still, no major EC event was without significant Latin hierarchical representation; additionally, we have always gotten excellent coverage from both the Boston Archdiocesan newpaper and Boston Catholic Television.

Hopefully, this was a single instance of oversight by a staffer in a chancery that has, admittedly, been beset in the last few years by bigger issues than EC parish locations. Nonetheless, I have addressed a respectful letter on the subject to their attention.

Many years,

Neil

Incognitus,

Thank you for the blessing (Any chance I can get one in person anytime soon? Will I likely see you either at the Melkite Convention at the end of this month or the enthronement of Sayedna Cyrille in August?)

Although, Lord knows, it wasn't in my mind to resurrect the "why should they get to use it" discussion, I admit that the history of how the usage came to be is one that I find interesting.

Admin,

Certainly, the issue of being presumed to be ethnic Greeks was an issue for those of the Constantinoplian Rite. One can go back a ways and find those explaining Eastern Catholicism to others feeling the necessity to make the distinction clear to the reader.

Prior to this, I had neither heard the story of Bishops Constantine and Daniel, nor anything of the Ukrainians being involved.

The earliest story that I recollect related to a post-WWII/Cold War era desire on the part of Ruthenians to distance themselves from being associated with the Russians - hence, not a change from "Ruthenian Greek-Catholic" to "Byzantine Ruthenian", but to "Byzantine", pure and simple.

The other was a desire to lay groundwork to become what, for all intents and purposes, would be "the" American Byzantine Catholic Church.

My recollection is that the change for us began shortly after the repose of Bishop Justin (Najmy), of blessed memory, our first Exarch in America; likely about the time that Archbishop Joseph (Tawil) arrived in the US. There was a lot of unhappiness on the part of the laity when "Greek-Catholic" began to replace "Byzantine" on signs and letterheads; "We aren't Greeks" was the common complaint. Clergy objections were more muted, but I particularly remember one prominent Archimandrite, of blessed memory, as being strenuously opposed (the sign outside his church still says "Byzantine Melkite", lo these many years later). There was a short period where it wasn't uncommon to see a somewhat over-described "Byzantine Melkite Greek-Catholic" usage.

Many years,

Neil

Nei wrote:
Will I likely see you either at the Melkite Convention

Neil,

Our youngest son Nathaniel will be there. If you see a white kid about 6'4" with a beard and brown hair say hi.

Pani Rose

Admin, I appreciate your post, but perhaps there is a distinction which you have overlooked. I am well aware of how John Michael styles his church and parishes. Likewise the Russians.

When John Micheal uses the term, he uses it in its correct, clarified sense to describe his church sui iuris, i.e. "Romanian Byzantine Catholic". He does not presume to short-cut and mislead by simply calling his church "Byzantine". This is a very significant distinction and part of my earlier point. All of the newsletters and correspondence from the Chancery in Canton that I have read are titled "Romanian Catholic".

Likewise when San Francisco uses the term, it is "Russian Byzantine". Perhaps the point was missed.

None of these have presumed to call themselves simply "Byzantine" without the clarifier of their sui iuris church of origin, of which they are proud to declare. There are, of course, individual semantic exceptions, but in general this definitely holds for these churches.

I recently (only two weeks, actually) was asked to witness a large family being received into the Romanian Catholic Church. The rescript from Bishop John Michael, an executed canonical document which we all signed, did not include "Byzantine" at all as I recall.

The Ethiopian Catholic Church does not call itself the "Alexandrian Church" nor the "Ethiopian-Alexandrian Church", the latter at least being much more accurate and honest than the former.

"American Byzantine" still presents many difficulties as there are many Americans in different churches sui iuris.

I will disagree with you and find the ACROD's description quite satisfactory. It ackowledges their church of origin as well as their newer identity. Their name says it all without ambiguity.

I continue to find the use of the term "Byzantine" alone in the Metropolia ranging from unclear and ambiguous to offensive.

And regarding the previous issue of the "agreement", if not in writing than it cannot be presumed to be canonical, or even possibly existing at all. Again, I know of no one around from that time who remembers anything about such an agreement. It is the opinion of more than one that this was the doing of Bishop Ivancho alone. I would, of course, be willing to concede on the issue of the fabled "agreement" if such a written agreement were produced with Metropolitan Konstantyn's signature.

The lack tolerance for different musical forms and liturgical norms have been amply demonstrated on this Forum, as well as other aspects not consistent with the full "Byzantine" tradition (married clergy for starters). The Metropolia is certainly not presenting itself to some of us as the catch-all "American" church in the sense the OCA has been able to do so, precisely by manifesting a greater openess and tolerance to variations on the larger Constantinopolitan tradition.

If anyone, in my opinion, really deserves the title "Byzantine" in its more full sense it would indeed be rightly the Melkites.

Diak,

Thanks for your post. You make some interesting points.

But I think you missed my point. While an ethnic qualifier is certainly used in most instances there are plenty of examples in which the term �Byzantine Catholic� is used without an additional qualifier.

Regarding Bishop John Michael, I have heard him speak and have even been on a retreat where he has been the retreatmaster. He most certainly does use the term �Byzantine Catholic� without additional qualifiers to refer to his eparchy. Likewise, the San Francisco parish often uses simply the term �Byzantine Catholic� when describing itself, although the term �Russian Byzantine Catholic� is indeed more often used. Also, I attended a retreat last summer given by Bishop Nicholas (Samra) in which he used the terms �Byzantine Catholic� and �Greek Catholic� interchangeably.

This is not a matter of not being proud of one�s origins.

This is a matter of proclaiming the Gospel without having also to proclaim the ethnicity of our spiritual ancestors.

At this website I get about 2 or 3 requests each week for people seeking to find a Byzantine Catholic parish close to them. [Yes, they can easily look in the directory but are probably too lazy.] I always respond with a listing of all the Byzantine Catholic parishes that are within 30 miles of their location. I list first the parishes of my own Church, then the parishes of the Ukrainian, Melkite and Romanian Churches. Inevitably I get a response with a question like �The Ukrainian Catholic parish is closest to me. Can I go there if I am not Ukrainian?� In many cases the use of any ethnic description in a title is a turnoff and keeps many people from visiting that Church.

�American Byzantine�? I would vote against the use of such a term if it was decided to be used in a parish title.

�American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese�? My priest friends who serve in that diocese have pointed out that the words �Carpatho-Russian� had to be kept because ethnicity is still a powerful force in that diocese. The term �American� was added as a parallel action to the �Orthodox Church in America�s� choice of a non-ethnic term to describe itself. [Would I be correct that you would recommend they return to using an ethnic qualifier in addition to �Orthodox�?]

I find the continued use of ethnic qualifiers among other Byzantine Catholics in America to be offensive because it suggests that ethnicity is important to being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Admin

Smar,

Nothing that I know of. The evangelization that does take place in the various Byzantine Catholic Churches is usually something done at the parish level. [There are parishes that are doing excellent work.]

At some point necessity will force cooperation. As people move away from parishes in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio to seek greener pastures in the south and west there are not enough people left to maintain the original parishes formed on ethnicity. The logical thing to do is to evangelize the unchurched to once again fill those churches. But many parishes would rather close their doors than be hospitable towards people of a different ethnicity and so they will close.

BTW, I like your avatar icon but it is too large for use on the Forum. The recommended size is 85 pixels wide x 120 pixels high. We do allow bigger ones but yours (286x384) is just too big. Please resize it or choose another from our collection.

Admin