There seems to be an underlining theme by some here that the New Liturgy and the BCA practice in general is very normative and in line with mainstream Orthodoxy and Tradition. What I've seen couldn't be farther from this.

After a lot of reflection, the New Liturgy is not a surprise after a long line of independent and unique behavior.

The following statements are from my personal experience and exceptions may exist.

-I have never been to an OCA church (or any Orthodox church with Slav roots) that didn't have a litugical curtain.

However ~98% of the Byzantine Church of America (BCA) churches I have been to do not have a liturgical curtain.

-I have never been to an OCA (or Orthodox Church with Slav roots) that didn't practice the opening and closing of the royal doors during Divine Liturgy

98% of the BCA parishes I have been to open at the beginning and close at the end, at that's it.

-I have never been to an Orthdox Church that didn't have Vespers

95% of the BCA churches that I know of don't have Vespers

-I have never been to an Orthodox church that didn't have Matins

95% of the BCA churches that I know of don't have Matins

-I have never been to an Orthodox church that had a Liturgy in under 50 minutes.

95% of the BCA parishes that I have attended are in and out in 50-55 minutes.

-I have never been to an Orthodox church that has Saturday evening Liturgy and considers this Sunday Liturgy.

90% of BCA churches I know have a Saturday evening liturgy (the ones that don't share a priest)

-I have never been to an Orthodox church where Great Friday(Good Friday) has NOT been a solemn service. Lights turned down, etc. where you get the feeling that your at a funeral.

90% of the BCA parishes I have been to have the lights on and unless you checked the calendar you'd wouldn't know that this is a solemn service.

-I have never been to an Orthodox church where the laity did NOT venerate the icon on the Tetrapod and show reverence to other icons in the church.

95% of the BCA parishes, people walk in to church and just sit down like it's a movie theater or something and don't even acknowledge the icon on the Tetrapod, and forget about other icons on pedastals to reverence because they are not there.

-I have never been to a Slav rooted Orthodox church that didn't do at least three antiphons and the little litanies.

95% of BCA parishes do not do this practice.

-I have never been to an Orthodx church without an icon screen

Any church I have ever seen without an icon screen has been a BCA parish.

-I have never been to an Orthodox church, where on Pascha (Easter), the priest and laity did not process out and then the priest bangs on the door with the hand cross and then everyone proceeds in.

any church that I have been to that has deviated from the above has been a BCA parish.

-I have never been to an Orthodox Church where the priest gave the final blessing and then darted to the front door to shake hands. Instead, the faithful proceed forward, kiss the hand cross, venerate icons, etc.

Any church that I have been to that deviates from the following has been a BCA parish

-I have never been to an Orthodox church that didn't do prostrations during The Great Fast during presantified Liturgy.

Any BCA parish I have been to, I have NEVER seen a single person do a prostration during Presantified Liturgy (other than myself and my family) and most of the other people look like, 'I never knew that Mecca was in that direction'?

I'll think of some more, can you?

This topic is interesting regarding the New Liturgy.

I think that the underlying theme that came out of the first post was that whenever there has bee a shortcut, liberalization, chopped up, whatever, the BCA is the one that goes that route.

Pope JPII and Benedict continue to tell us to return to our roots, and yet we continue to hoe the path that takes us away from our Orthodox brethern and in the case of the New Liturgy, our Greek Catholic brethern as well.

Just on principle I would be against these tendencies, but can someone point to one piece of success that they have brought. They have not brought anything productive. I would even argue that they have caused further divisions. Does anyone who can think for themself think that the New Liturgy is going to be any different.

With all due respect, Father David can come on here and tell us until he's blue in the face that the Orthodox are comfortable with the New Liturgy, but if they think it's so great, why don't they adapt the New Liturgy and other liberal practices that we have?

Is the implementing the New Liturgy help the BCA meet their continued goal of not being Orthodox in Union With Rome, but Watered-Down Orthodoxy?

Monomakh

ByzKat posted on another thread:

'..."Theotokos" is a term I hear every week at our OCA parish (which does NOT have Matins, by the way...),...'

As soon as I read the inital post, I knew that somebody would dig out examples that would point out the few OCA churches that deviate from the majority of their churches.

Let me ask you this.

Which church has a higher percentage of parishes that celebrate Matins and/or Vespers?

a) Byzantine Catholic Church
b) Orthodox Church of America

Monomakh

Dear Michael Ceralarius,

The Greek Orthodox Church in America, the largest Orthodox jurisdiction, with a few exceptions like my parish, does not do alot of the things you mention.

Call it Americanization, Protestantization, Modernization, or whatever else you like.

So, don't be so hard on the Byzantine Catholic churches.

In Christ,
Alice

Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree here. In carefully reviewing the list from the point of Matins down is representational of most parishes of the Greek Archdiocese with the exception of the tetrapod. Instead, icons of the patronal saint and feast are set at the entrance to the church, where they are venerated and also candles are lit.

Prostrations are also re-entering into the praxis of many communities, especially during the Presanctified Liturgy.

The use of the hand cross on the doors is a purely Slavic rubric for the Paschal Procession.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Father Anthony,

Suffice it to say that Archbishop Spyridon brought alot of changes back to traditional Orthodoxy. I had never seen a prostration until he sent out a mandate to all the churches about reinstating their practice. I still remember my parish priest showing all the Sunday School teachers at our monthly meeting how to do one, and when to do one, because the 'new Archbishop' wants us to.

Another mandate that was given, (my husband was on the Parish Council at the time) by Archbishop Spyridon was that icon of the feast day should be set in the middle of the entrance to the church. Until then, they generally were not.

He got crucified for it, but fortunately, they seem to be sticking.

The GOA was notorious for the liberal changes it made during the years of the long time administration...perhaps not as bad as the ones that Michael is describing in the Byzantine Catholic Church, but close. Most Greeks visiting from Greece didn't recognize the church as being the same one they knew at the time. Even fasting and confession had become passe for a few decades.

Regards in Christ,
Alice

P.S. Many of our churches still do not offer vespers. I still remember this being a sore point that a former Orthodox poster (who grew up in the GOA but moved to another jurisdiction) here used to bring to my attention privately.

One practice that has been universal to all Eastern Catholic AND Orthodox churches I have visited has been that of anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the people arriving after (usually well after) the start of Divine Liturgy.

The things that draw us together�


~Isaac

Ah!

The universality of the church. Late to arrive and early to leave.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Michael,

You obviously have not been to a BC liturgy in Phoenix.

During Lent many of the parishioners who are physically able do the prostrations, and have been doing them for at least the 7 years I have been here.

Many, though not all, of the parishioners venerate the icon on the tetrapod prior to liturgy; others venerate it when they come up for communion and/or mirovanije.

We have a candlelight procession around the church at the beginning of Easter Matins and the priest bangs on the door before we come back in.

We have an iconostatis, though not a liturgical curtain. I have heard, though I cannot verify it, that the liturgical curtain was a late import for our church and thus not necessarily part of returning to our roots.

Great Friday is a very solemn event and the lights are dimmed; indeed, I have heard some parishioners complain that they can't read the service booklets in the dim lights.

Sophia

I thought I would add my experiences for whatever they may help to illuminate (which I'm guessing ain't much!).

The OCA churches I've been in do. The one ACROD church I've been to does not.

That's my experience.

For whatever reason, none of the Greek churches around me do. The ACROD parish doesn't either. All of the AOA and OCA parishes do though.

I will say as a side note, the Greek churches in my experience hold the most services during Lent and Holy Week.

The Greeks and Antiochians do Orthros and in the OCA parishes I've been to they do third hour (not matins).

An hour and fifteen minutes I think is the shortest I've ever experienced, and that was at a lightly attended Soul Saturday (i.e. a short communion line). I'm not counting Orthros or the Proskomedia, just the liturgy itself.

Never heard of such a thing. I had no idea EC's did this. Is the BCC the only one? Do you mean people would go on Saturday but not Sunday?

Again I have a hard time understanding how this wouldn't be the norm.

Not all parishes have a Tetrapod. In my experience Greek and Antiochian parishes will have an icon stand near the entrance or in the narthex by the candles. People will venerate the icons here and light candles. Usually there will be some icons that rotate (like for feasts) and some that are always there. The Tetrapod is a fixture in Slavic churches though in my experience.

The ACROD parish I have been to doesn't do the little litanies IIRC.

I would think that goes without saying!

Yep, that sounds normal.

I've only seen slight variance. Some priests will hold the cross and pass out antidoron. Some will hold the cross only and an altar server will distribute the antidoron. I've also seen a priest who instead of standing up front took the cross around, and then everybody went up front before going out.

I have been to one where they didn't. They knelt instead.

Andrew

Michael,
Have you ever been to Anunnciation in Homer Glen?

-Katie g

Katie,

We just need our curtain!

In Christ,

John

Ilian wrote:

"Never heard of such a thing. I had no idea EC's did this. Is the BCC the only one? Do you mean people would go on Saturday but not Sunday?"

I think what is meant is the same practice that the Roman Catholics now have, that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by going on a Saturday evening liturgy at say 5pm.

Monomakh......
The Carpatho-Russian small traditions vary from Russian traditions. In various ways...
Different antiphons
no curtain
we had an excellent list here as of recent...
We even noted the different prayers and commerations and such.
So it's hard to assume that there is a "norm," especially when you are dealing with different small traditions.

Well one has to recall the UGCC abd the Trans Carpathians Catholics were the most Latinised of all the Byzantine Catholic Churches. They had lost huge slabs of their tradition and are still on the road to rediscovery of what a treasury they have.

If you think things are bad now you should see what they used to get up to when immitation of their 'betters' in the Latins Rite was supposed to impress them and show how truly Catholic they were.

It is not so long ago that their bishops stopped dressing completely as Latins with all the purple, Lace and rings and of course clean shaven. Notice the bishops reluctance still to wear the klobuk and and a proper mandias prefering to use an RC street cloak and put stripes on that. Metropolitan Judson wore the white klobuk of a Metroplitan but you wont see too much of that today with any of the North American Metropolitans of either UGCC or Ruthenian camps.

There wasa plan some eyars ago to merge the Russian, Bielorussian and Ruthenians (before the Galich church used Ukrainian) but the smaller groups did not want to join up with the Latinised, so it was not followed up with.

It can only get better in my view but a major problem as I see it is the apointment of bishops who are not monks and know nothing of monastic life. The apointment of diocesan clergy has contributed in my view to the 'Low Mass' mentality which is still alive and well all these years after Vatican II in many places (Dublin is not one of them).

Sometimes I read these threads and it just makes me angry.

I know it's none of my concern but I cannot help it. That's why I usually stay away from this forum these days.

The BC needs to revise it's patron to "Our Lady of Sorrows"

Is it a vesperal liturgy like the Antiochians which appends part of vespers to the liturgy itself?

Also, would it actually start at 5 pm (potentially before sunset) and then people would not actually go on Sunday?



Andrew

The BC Vesper-Liturgy on Saturdays starts at 5 p.m. here in Phoenix, and generally that is usually before sunset.

The liturgy begins with the vesper portion. The lights are dimmed until we sign "O Joyful Light." The prayers include several psalms and stichera, litany, prokeimenon, and if called for in our typicon, one or more Old Testament readings. Divine Liturgy picks up at Holy God, Holy & Mighty.

We also have Vesper-Liturgy on the vigil of solemn feast days starting at 7 p.m. so that people who work can attend. Of course, that can be before sunset in mid-summer as well.

Sophia

There are some churches that do Vespers appended with Liturgy (which I'm not fond of but that's a another topic).

But there are others that do only Liturgy and yes it starts at 5pm which this Saturday July 29th will be before sunset and this is supposed to fulfill Sunday obligations.

Monomakh

When did this practice begin? (serious question, not rhetorical)

Was it before the 1900s or during the 1900s or way back a few hundred years. I would assume last century, but I really don't know.

Monomakh

To my knowledge in Orthodoxy the Antiochians are the only ones who do it. I think a lot of people regard it as an unwarranted deviation from the Typicon. The Antiochians feel it's a reasonable accomodation for people who would not be able to attend feast day liturgies otherwise (they only do them on feast day evenings, it's not a weekly thing). I can actually see that both sides have valid points.

Otherwise the Antiochian parishes I know of keep the same routine. Vespers on Saturday, Orthros and Liturgy on Sunday.

Andrew

Need to be careful here. The sundown to sundown rule was set in a place where the sun seeming -popped- up between 5am and 6am,k depending, and -popped- back down between the same hours in the evening. There are no four hour lingering twilights in those places so the rule made sense expressed as it was.

The Church, understanding the spirit of that rule, has made temporal accomodations for peoples who live in different latitudes where the movements of sun and planets do not cooperate with the laws of man.

Now we all know what happens when accommodations are made to the spirit of the law, but Christ had a great deal to say about that while he was here and we ought to listen to it now an then and apply it to ourselves and not to others, first.

So IF there is to be a Vigil Mass that fulfills a Sunday obligation at all, let it be when the Church says it may be to fulfill that obligation, in the spirit and in the letter of the law.

Eli

The only party that needs to be careful here is the BCA. Pure (or any other word you want to use to mean not appended with Liturgy) Vespers should be performed on Saturday evening. If that occurs a little before sundown then so as to not split hairs, fine. But Sunday Liturgy should be on Sunday morning after Matins. Not cobbled together in some quasi hybrid with Vespers and not on Saturday evening. the vast majority of Orthodox jurisdictions are able to understand this, but for some reason we can't.

Monomakh

Re: kobluks and the hierarchs on the UGCC in the US

• Metropolitan Stephan of Philedelphia wears a white kobluk (including at the funeral of JP2)
• Archbishop Stephan (Sulyk) of Philadelphia (retired) has worn a kobluk, IIRC, but not regularly
• Bishop Ivan of Philadelphia - I don't know
• Bishop Volodymyr of Philadelphia (retired) - I've never seen him in one and he has not come across as the type who would wear one
• Bishop Basil of Stamford (retired) wears a purple (only he knows why) kobluk
• Bishop Paul of Stamford does not wear one (unless he's recently been converted)
• Bishop Richard of Chicago has worn one (at his enthronement), not sure about current practice
• Bishop Innocent of Chicago (retired) - I don't know
• Bishop Robert of Parma wears a kobluk

Can anyone fill in the blanks?

Apart from war-time in Europe and other emergency situations, celebration of the Eucharist in the evening began in the nineteen-fifties. At first permission had to be obtained for each such occasion. But over about a decade, the permission became general.

Then came Vatican II and a sort of back-door authorization to have these "Vigil Masses" on the vigils of Holy Days and then on Saturday nights to take care of the Sunday obligation. This has deteriorated so far that I've actually heard priests refer to "the week-end Mass" ["Remember the week-end, to keep it holy?" That's not in my Bible!]

This quickly morphed from a pastoral outreach to those who really could not come in the morning to a "Mass of convenience"; in many parishes, the Saturday night Mass is the best attended of all the "Sunday" celebrations - those who wish to do their shopping ahead of time often come into church carrying all their purchases, and those who wish to go "out" later often come into the same church for the same Mass dressed like - well, I had better not say what.

If anything, it has become worse among Eastern Catholics, because of the shortage of clergy. This nonsense is thoroughly destructive, both of the awareness of Sunday and of the services of Vespers and Orthros. It's ironic: we're back to the Middle Ages and the "Massing-Priest" who seems to do almost nothing else.

Fr. Serge

Your post brought another similar subject to mind. On new calendar, this past week saw the feast of St. Elias. The feast was celebrated on Thursday (Wednesday evening at some parishes). At some parishes cars were blessed that night. However at some cars were not blessed that day but only on the following Sunday. To me, and I'd interested to hear from others, it seems to cheapen the feast day and make it so that it's not a big deal to miss because you're not missing anything and come Sunday you can get your car blessed. I think that if the blessing was done only on the feast day it may be better attended. It does not good to sit and wonder why feast days are not attended well when practices like the above are commonplace.

Monomakh

I'm getting off on a tangent, but this has sparked my curiosity. I ran across a BCC that has this schedule:

SUNDAY DIVINE LITURGIES
Fall-Winter Schedule: September 01 - May 31

Vigil (Saturday)
5:00 P.M.
Sunday
10:00 A.M.

Spring-Summer Schedule: June 1 - August 30

Vigil (Saturday)
5:00 P.M.
Sunday
10:00 A.M. (remains the same in 2006)


HOLY DAY DIVINE LITURGIES
Vigil (Preceding Evening)
7:00 P.M.
Feast Day
9:00 A.M.

Aside from the idea of a regular Saturday liturgy which I find odd (and I don't see mention of vespers or matins), the holy day schedule seems strange. Is the liturgy on the forefeast day the same as on the feast day itself? How is a celebration occurring at 7 p.m. and then at 9 a.m. handled? Is the antimension changed?

Lastly, exactly what is a "day of obligation"? I haven't heard that term used in church.

Andrew

You're correct to find it odd. This is how myself and many others sit and wonder what is going on. I can't speak for the original poster, but he is correct (although I don't know the exact percentage) in saying that the overwhelming majority of Byzantine Catholic Churches do NOT, I repeat, do NOT do Matins, and/or do NOT do straight, pure, whatever Vespers. If Vespers is done it is cobbled together with Liturgy on a Saturday and is supposed to count for Sunday. There are a few that do Vespers, Matins, and Liturgy on Sunday, but they are few and far between.

Monomakh

So you would do away with Vigil masses completely? Or is there a way to accommodate people in real need while minimizing abuses?

Eli

to clarify my last post. Vespers, Matins, and Liturgy on Sunday meant

Vespers on Saturday evening
Matins Sunday morning
Lturgy Sunday morning following Matins

I don't know what parish you got the schedule from, but I'd be willing to bet that the same liturgy is done on the eve of the feast and on the feast. I'm guessing, but that's what I would think.

Monomakh

Andrew,

To address your questions:

Yes , the Liturgy on the evening before is exactly the same as that served on Sunday/Feastday morning. The Antimension is not changed. Since Vatican II permission has been granted to celebrate Liturgies that anticipate the Sunday/Feastday on the evening before starting at 4PM, as well as individual priests having the permission to binate or, in rarer cases, trinate.

Holy Day of Obligation is a Solemn Feastday to which the obligation to attend has been obliged under pain of sin. The CCEO designates Christmas, Theophany, Ascension, SS. Peter & Paul, and Dormition as such, particular Churches may add to these.

As others mention it is rare to find Matins or Vespers served. In the Eparchies of Van Nuys and Parma some priests are doing Vesperal Liturgies rather than regular Liturgy on Sat, which in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There is also the question of which services one OUGHT as a practical minimum to attend to fulfill the Divine commandment to keep holy the Sabbath (and by extension, feast days of the Church).

My understanding is that, across the Eastern Catholic churches, attendance at the Divine Liturgy OR the Divine Praises is considered to constitute observance of the Sunday or feast (CCEL Canon 881) - of course, attending all three is best, but I beleve this rule was given (a) to promote the celebration of Vespers and Matins, (b) allow priests to serve more parishes in poorly served areas, and (c) remove the requirement, for example, that one attend a Latin Rite Mass if one has been able to attend an Eastern service of Vespers or Matins, and no nearby Divine Liturgy is offered.

HOWEVER, I have been told (but have seen no documentation) that in the norms for Pittsburgh metropolia, attendence at the Divine Liturgy (aside from impossibility, illness, etc.) is required, and Vespers and Matins don't "count".

This leads to an emphasis on Vesperal liturgies as an attempt by priests who value Vespers and Matins to familiarize the faithful with Vespers, and hear the hymnography of each Sunday and feast (most of which lies OUTSIDE the DL), on the assumption that a Divine Liturgy MUST be celebrated in each parish.

In order to have Vespers and Matins, we need to either convince the faithful to ALL attend a single Divine Liturgy, and ALSO come to Vespers and Matins (which may actually end up packing some parishes, as well as losing some parishioners) - or convince the bishops to change the norms, and have those attending on Saturday come to a proper Vespers, and come back on Sunday morning if they also wish to attend the Divine Liturgy.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Bravo, bravo, hip hip hooray!

Monomakh, the parish I pulled the schedule from is St. Michael's BCC in Flushing, MI.

Just curious, where did this change originate from and who approved it? My understanding in Orthodoxy is the same priest/same anitmension rule is a hard and fast one.

Quote:

Holy Day of Obligation is a Solemn Feastday to which the obligation to attend has been obliged under pain of sin. The CCEO designates Christmas, Theophany, Ascension, SS. Peter & Paul, and Dormition as such, particular Churches may add to these.

Okay. I've never heard of this or the division of feast days in to lesser or greater importance (well Pascha is obviously at the top of the heap anyway). The idea of being "obliged" to come to the Eucharist just seems somewhat anachronistic to me.

Quote:

In the Eparchies of Van Nuys and Parma some priests are doing Vesperal Liturgies rather than regular Liturgy on Sat, which in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

I agree.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Andrew

"Just curious, where did this change originate from and who approved it?"

Vatican II and the fathers thereof, although bination was inplace for Sundays before VII I believe.

Admittedly Holy Days of Obligation is really a Latin thing but the Slav Typicon always divided the Feast into Greater, Middle, and Lesser Feasts. The Greater are the 12 Great Feasts plus the Nativity and Beheading of St. John the Baptist and SS Peter and Paul. Middle Feasts are those of Vigil or Polyeleos rank. Lesser feasts are those of Great Doxology or Six Stichera.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Are there plans to end this practice?

Quote:

Admittedly Holy Days of Obligation is really a Latin thing but the Slav Typicon always divided the Feast into Greater, Middle, and Lesser Feasts. The Greater are the 12 Great Feasts plus the Nativity and Beheading of St. John the Baptist and SS Peter and Paul. Middle Feasts are those of Vigil or Polyeleos rank. Lesser feasts are those of Great Doxology or Six Stichera.

That's true. I was thinking strictly among the twelve feasts. Even then, you could probably say there is a ranking of sorts going by the length of the fast that precedes the feast. What I've usually heard from priests is that we should be at all services, but the feasts themselves are of higher importance and we should definitely be at all liturgies on feast days.

Andrew

"Are there plans to end this practice?"

Not that I am aware.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I believe the Evangelization conference last year actually called for change in the direction of a single Sunday liturgy per parish - but their mission document seems no longer to be online, so I can't be sure.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

The eastern Churches are not bound to follow the disciplines of the Latin rite, but in this particular discipline which may be universally applied, I believe there is sufficient need to warrant keeping the practice where it is established.

As with all discipline there will be abuses.

I am not sure that I see the problem with having a Vespers and then an anticipated Divine Liturgy in a parish setting, but I may be missing something.

Eli

I'll tell you what does drive me batty is the 5 or 5:30pm divine liturgy, or mass on Sunday evening. Those are proscribed but in those places where that is observed in the breach, they tend to be by far the liturgies with the greatest attendance in that parish.

In additioon to the Sunday morning Liturgy, would it be possible to offer Liturgy on Sunday evenings (instead of Saturday evenings) ? That would allow people who cannot attend Liturgy on Sunday mornings (due to work, etc.) to attend Liturgy on Sunday (thus preserving the sanctity of the Lord's day).

Just a thought; comments ?

-- John

Eli

Speaking from an Orthodox perspective, as I mentioned there are people who have trouble with this practice because it is not laid out in the typikon. Even the Antiochians (the only ones to do this AFAIK), don�t have a liturgy after the one in anticipation of the feast. Meaning that if a vesperal liturgy is celebrated for instance at 7 p.m., they won�t then have a liturgy the next morning. This is one sense obvious (because they reason they moved it in the first place was because of the fear that attendance would be lighter the next day); but more importantly it is to stay in line with the restriction that in one day (as the church calculates days) a liturgy cannot be celebrated by one priest or on one antimension multiple times.

I asked if this is what occurs in EC churches, and the answer seems to be yes, which I find quit surprising and to be honest a little disturbing. I asked if there are plans to end the practice because it is something that is different from Orthodox practice, which I have read on this board should be minimized. Lately however I have been reading things that would lead me to believe not everybody views things that way.

Andrew

Sunday evening liturgy is the anticipated liturgy for Monday. Which is why that practice drives me batty.

Eli

All right. I was only half paying attention. Your concern is with the holy table and the antimension.

I do not think these things are negligible at all but I do see them as disciplines and just as we have doctrinal hierarchies of truth, there are hierarchial levels of magnitude in terms of ecclisiastical discipline which is essentially what typikon are, documents presenting the discipline of a particular place, be it a particular Church, or monastic house.

So I think, in general, that I would say that one can make room in ecclisiastical discipline for exceptions in the particulars of any typikon, as long as one guards against abuse, and the purpose is to shepherd the flock, making worship possible, not just changing somethng to make things easier.

Eli

Not everybody views things that way is a correct observation. Unfortunately, some of the ones who don't view it that way are in positions of power.

There are all sorts of things that should not happening because they differ from our Tradition and Orthodox practice, but even some of the people who will agree with this will turn around and say you can't change to more Orthodox practices because it would be insensitive to the laity who are used to this. Or they'll pick one wayward Orthodox church that does not follow Traidition and say, 'see, we can do it because that one Orthodox church does it that way.' And if you ask, 'what about the other 95% that don't?' They'll say, 'well, we've done it this way now for a few decades and therefore it has to be this way now because it would be insensitive to change.'

I'm not sure where all of this sensitivity was when the changes were first made.

At minimum, what needs to happen is a strong leader to say, look, Vespers and Matins WILL be restored to every church possible (or within a reasonable distance of other churches where one priest serves multiple parishes). Instruction and education needs to take place because there are people who have never even HEARD of vespers and/or Matins let alone would know what it is. But our church needs to rise to the occassion and do what is necessary to get this done.

Instead of possibly spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new books for a new liturgy, why not use our resources and time on educating our own people and recruiting more rather than ostracizing and losing people who value Orthodoxy and Tradition.

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

(Did you know that Vladimir Monomakh has been glorified an Orthodox Saint?)

This is something that is similar to the UGCC situation.

There are those, like myself, who use the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

But there are many parishes who would not care for this title, would find it offensive and even "inclining toward schism" and who would probably beat me and others over the calves and ankles for even invoking it.

The question is, how "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the Byzantine Catholic Church in America today?

To what extent does the new liturgy actually reflect (and I'm NOT saying it does) the spiritual world-view of the "majority" - however one defines that difficult term.

I'm not saying, I'm asking.

In the UGCC, it is different. It is assumed that the liturgical prayer will be somewhat different between EC's and Orthodox. Our sense of "spiritual unity" derives from sharing a common cultural identity and OVERALL Eastern spirituality.

And, in both cases, EC and Orthodox, "Over-Byzantinization" is viewed with suspicion as "Russification."

It would seem that since the Byzantine Catholic Church has been divested of the matter of ethnocultural identity, its liturgical tradition is the heart of the identity of the people.

Comments, before I get myself into deep trouble in one way or another here?

Alex

It is curious that you would come to this particular topic and make this particular comment.
Are you suggesting that for the Ukranian people the liturgy is not the heart of the identity of the people?

Eli

Orthodox Catholic wrote:

The question is, how "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is the Byzantine Catholic Church in America today?


Not very much at all unfortunately.


It if I follow your post correctly, it is true that the Byzantine Catholic Church has stripped itself pretty much of its ethnic identity. Which I think is fine, but that's not the issue. The issue is that litrugical tradition should be the focus and we are a long way from being there as a church sadly.

Monomakh

ps I happen to be a Ukrainian who is a cradle Byzantine. The real Vladimir Monomakh is an interesting read and person.

Huh!

I think the effort has been made from time to time but I can think of dozens of dozens of faces whose jaws are dropped at the very thought. You might want to send out flyers, here and in Europe, because I don't think they've quite got the message.

Eli

You know in general we are less ethnick than many Byzantines...we are kind of like the Byzantine Catholic Church of America. That was a smart move by our Hierarchs from long ago

However, sadly I still hear parishioners ask newcomers "what is your last name" or "what is your nationality." If they only knew what they were doing to their church with those comments and how small we appear at those moments. At those times I often want to ask what they have done to help populate our church with 100% Slavs, when they themselves have a non-Slavic last name. As if Slavic=Byzantine...

These comments really make ya wonder...

Somewhere there is a seriously knowledgeable and loving middle ground between ethnic cleansing and phyletism. And as my old da always said, "If you can't beat 'em, take 'em out for cabbage and beer!!"

Why would you try to get rid of those who built your Church, who gave it their own particular vitality, their own sweat and tears, birth and death, their own language and history and the language and history of their ancestors? Let them examine you like a fish in a bowl. I did. Then they threw me out!! :p

Nah! They had me in for tomato soup and butter crackers and a coke!

Eli

I for one miss the ethnic part of our church. We've shed almost all of it to be more American and opening to others, but there are no others! My parish has about 50 people and 75% are over 60. We could have an all Slavonic liturgy and almost everybody would understand!

If we shed our ethnicity we might as well shed the Byzantine rite!!!

Many went mainstream ages ago.

Why "shed" the ethnic things of your community? Why not simply include others along with them? Is there a need to EXCLUDE in order to be Byzantine? Not to my mind.

Staro

I suppose thats the difference between an ethnic chaplaincy and the establishment of diocese of a particular Rite.

I would not want any group to shed what makes them them. If that makes sense.

At this rate most particular Churches are chaplaincies.

At least the Uke's are Uke's and they know it. The last Ukie Liturgy I attended was 90 minutes, all Ukie(sermon included), and was very beautiful. They've kept what we lost.

The problem is though, too many people think it's their own private club, and they become clannish. How do you keep the ethnicity without becoming a clan? A few people I know think being Byzantine means belonging to a certain ethnic group. We have to shed that belief if we are to continue. I hope we can do both.

My darling wife (adult convert to Orthodoxy) looked into a local Orthodox parish and was asked, point blank: "Why are you here? You're not one of our people."

Being clannish is a trait of our church. Not saying it's good or bad but it's been that way "now and ever and forever" Don't see it changing anytime soon...

Jeff,

Actually that has happened quite a bit. Less so in recent times. Twenty years ago it was quite common, but now-a-days I seldomly encounter it. Even in a place like the Greek Archdiocese, it is becoming more common to encounter converts and convert clergy.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+ (Xeno Priestmonk )

I agree with Fr. Anthony the 'xeno' priestmonk.

That kind of mentality shouldn't be so common anymore, as we have many converts to our various Orthodox Churches, both in the clergy and in the laity.

I am wondering if the person that told her that was a priest or someone working in the office.



I ask because I know from personal experience that some of those church secretaries are even turn offs to us cradle Orthodox! Some of them can be downright unfriendly, and that is really a shame.

In Christ,
Alice

I would honestly ask you to step back and consider your first sentence in order to see if that is truly an accurate perception.

The Ruthenian recension does not exist with the history of a people who identify themselves as Ruthenian. You take that away or give it a back seat, experientially, and you will have something entirely different from what drew you in the first place.

You make second class ecclisiastical citizens of people in North America and in Europe who call themselves Ruthenians, and you will materially destroy the Ruthenian recension.

Every parish takes on a particular cast based upon the ethnic composition of its members. That is fine. I grew up in a Latin rite parish that was predominantly Russian and Italian, ethnically

I am a Gael in greatest part and so I had to find something that would allow me to feel at home. I found it among the Russians. My father found home with the Italian members. My mother was a convert to the Catholic Church and she became a cantor and schmoozed her way with everybody. But we all attached ourselves someplace, and eventually began to represent something of our own, to which others became attatched by extension.

You loose that anthropology and a whole parish looses its moorings in community. You take it out of an entire particular Church, and that Church will die.

Never in the Latin rite was there ever a conscious program to destroy the core ethnic groups in this country. They are still there, in organic relationship, one with another.

In the places where there's been a natural or organic expurgation of any clearly identifiable cluster of ethnicities, there is a constant battle to find grounds upon which to forge community.

Once those parishes exceed 3500 families there is no hope for anything but discrete cults, primarily based on age, children, work or some other utilitarian function. They are not spiritually healthy parishes and they know it, and constantly struggle to try and change that basic fact of their demography and geography.

You may get what you wish for but it will not be the Church that brought you home.

Eli

Alice!

You must know my secretary!

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Eli, unless this has happened to you, you can't quite understand. There is a certain mentality that prevails in some Byzantine Catholic Communities whereby your opinion doesn't count if you aren't a "cradle Byzantine." I know it is hard to understand that people in a christian community would feel that way, but it is occuring more often than you think.

What do you say to people who tell you, "I never stopped at your church because I thought it belonged to a certain ethnic group, and you had to be that ethnicity to belong." Most people who are not "cradle Byzantine Catholics" are dragged there by a spouse who is Byzantine. That is the state of our church right now. Not many people just happen to show-up, although I wish it were that way.

That's not true. Although it is a Ruthenian Recension, only a handful of people in this country consider themselves Ruthenian. The American society doesn't consider itself one ethnic group past the second generation, typically because intermarriages have taken place. If we were to consider ourselves ethnic parishes we would wither and die on the vine, because then we become like a potted plant -- rootbound, unable to grow.

Our community should not be bound by our ethnicity, but by the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Look at the problem that ethnicity is causing in our church right now, as evidenced by one Bishop's view of other ethnic and religious groups. Were he to understand that we all bound together by the message of Jesus Christ, he would be looking to create a common ground for all Eastern Catholic and Orthodox to celebrate a more universal Liturgy in English.

But, instead what do we have? A manufactured Liturgy driven by ethnic intolerance that will not only distance us from our Orthodox brothers, but divide our own recension.

JMHO, Cathy

Isn't that interesting. What makes you think it hasn't, and more than once.

What do you think I've done? Run? From a question? I don't think so. I answered the question and asked a few of my own.

If you think this Church will stand as an eastern Church full of nothing but transfers and converts, I fear that you will find yourself to have been very badly mistaken.

Eli

In part, but the other changes would concern me as well.

The last statement is actually I would say one of the most convincing arguments I have heard used against vesperal liturgies.

Andrew

If you have never been to Vespers on a Saturday night, I highly suggest doing so!

Really? Some of the the most "orthodox" Byzantines I know are the converts & transfers. I can think of at least three Byzantine Priests who were transfers, who follow the full Ruthenian Recension and understand our Liturgy & Faith better than some cradle Byzantine Priests. Why? They don't come with the same "Latinazation Baggage" we've been fed over the years.

Additionally, two transfers in my parish are some of the most orthodox, and do the most to help our parish Liturgically. In my witness, the converts & transfers are not apt to accept, "we've always done it that way" statements. The actually want to be taught the correct traditions.

I would put my convert/transfer up against your cradle Byzantine Catholic any day and I would learn more about my faith from the newcomer. How do I know that? I learned 75% of what I know about the Byzantine Church from a former Latin, who is now a Byzantine Priest. And you know what, I am a cradle Byzantine, schooled for the first eight years at a Byzantine Catholic School.

So the next time you run into a convert or transfer, thank them....they will help save our beloved Byzantine Catholic Church!

I've been reading this exchange between Eli and Cathy. Eli, I make no presumption about what you have and have not encountered. However, I'm more inclined to agree with Cathy. My fiancee (who is a Roman Catholic but who has agreed that we will raise our children as Byzantine Catholic) attend a Ruthenian parish that has a mix of people. Some are of a Slavic background, while others, like my fiancee and I, are of Western European descent. Also, there are a few who are of East Asian descent. There are some of the Slavic members in the parish (though by no means all of them) who have been known to say to Hispanic visitors, "Why are you here? You don't belong here." Also, one said to my fiancee one time about the pastor, who grew up a Roman Catholic, "We try not to hold it against him that he's Latin rite." Such behaviors, especially the garbage about telling the Hispanic family "you don't belong here," are reprehensible. They put their souls in great jeopardy when they act that way and behavior like this will ultimately ruin the Byzantine Church in America, which would be a great tragedy-not just for the small minority of people who are "cradle Byzantines," but for the entire Church.

I know of a Byzantine Catholic Priest who was Latin, and believe me he knows his place, as it was established early on even from his seminary days. Those that are not born Byzantine Catholic are considered second-class citizens, including the priests. I wish I were making this up.

Dear Cathy,
You are certainly not making it up. All too many examples of this phenomenon could be cited. As a priest colleague of mine - now retired after many years of sacrificial, devoted service - occasionally comments: "every so often they 'go native' on you!".

Fr Serge

Really?

Fact of the matter is that I am not denying any of the bad behavior of Ruthenians. Why would I be defensive? I am not Ruthenian.

I did however grow up in coal mining country where Slavs were the workers and the rest of us did the really important work of keeping the money flow and the trains running on time, so I do have some sympathy for dumb hunkies. More than sympathy I have a deep respect and gratitude for the hard scrabble work that they did without which we would have no trains, at all, to run on time.

I am not going to argue with any one of the last three posts here. It's just more complaining only this time from the other side of the fence.

Do what I do, ignore the nasties, smile, love in your heart, according to St. Symeon the New Theologian, ask questions, answer questions, reassure, be there in times of need, and get over that sweet unctious pleasure of being deeply offended.

Fact of the matter is:

There is more to a particular Church than a liturgy. If ALL that really needed to be considered was the right liturgy and the right rubrics done the right way, then there's no need for a Church at all.

You could have your Byzantine use under any Latin bishop in the world for as long as you could find a priest to serve the proper liturgy using the proper liturgical texts and norms.

Eli

Eli:
I find no "swewet unctious pleasure" in "being deeply offended." Besides, it is not so much the fact that I take offense, or that Cathy takes offense, or that Fr. Serge takes offense that matters. What does matter is that such behavior is offensive to Christ. The Church has been given Christ's ministry of reconciling the world to God-we are "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20. We are certainly being poor stewards of that ministry of reconciliation when people within the Church behave in a manner that is thoroughly contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that behavior is allowed to go un-answered. I certainly think that we must be careful not to commit the sin of hypocrisy and point out the faults of those around us, while overlooking our own sins. However, given the urgency of the task of sharing the good news that God is reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ, I don't think the Church can afford simply to ignore behavior that gives such offense to a guest of the Church that that person is most likely never to come back.
In Peace,
Ryan

Dear Ryan,

You are quite right.

Infact, the reason I made mention of those unwelcoming and unfriendly church secretaries is because in the world of upscale retail, as well as the food and beverage industries, where money is the bottom line, those who work, welcome, and engage the public are *expected*, as a condition of their job description, to be friendly. Infact, this type of engaging the consumer public used to be alien overseas years ago until American companies like Starbucks and Domino's Pizza opened up there. Part of the training of foreigners for the job was to adapt American style smiling and friendliness.

So, if one was to compare the importance of friendly and welcoming church personnel vs. store retail personnel, how much more important are SOULS as the bottom line than dollars???

I would suggest to all our priests that they make a point of telling all secretaries, receptionists and parish council members that they MUST be friendly and welcoming!!!

Alice

We only dwell on the bad behavior of others because it affords us consequences that are, shall we say, not too painful. Otherwise we would stay as far away from dwelling on the bad behaviors of others as we do from an open flame.

I'm sure you desire to have your faults forgiven, and on occasion, seek to have them overlooked entirely. That is only human so I do not mean to probe too deeply into your personal being, but use a natural response, to illustrate a complimentary point to the one you are making.

But again none of this changes the fact that a particular Church is established to shepherd a particular people. Bishops shepherd people not liturgies.

If the Ruthenian Church is no longer serving Ruthenian people then there is no reason for Rome to sanction the expenditures necessary to sustain a particular Church.

If we send the message that we are no longer a part of a particular people then Rome will rightly conclude that there is no longer need for a particular Church.

Look for some of the discussions in other venues here on the fact that the Byzantine Church is not a Major Archeparchy.

Father Serge's Ukranian Church is, so he does not have quite the same worries that the Ruthenians have vis a vis Rome.

One can sometimes afford to be less concerned about the long term and often unintended consequences of pulling splinters out of the eye of one's neighbor.

Eli

I have to agree with Eli on both counts. The Eastern churches are not simply liturgical communities, but were formed in a cultural context and should continue to exist within that framework. The liturgy and the customs that surround it are visible and important expressions of this overall framework. That�s not to say any and all people shouldn�t be welcome to come and participate (they should), but by the same token I think any who come in should be prepared to adopt elements of the culture they are choosing. Strip the church of its �ethnicity�, and I think you will find you�ve cut many of the ties that bind the community together. All of which leads I think to the second point. Cut the Ruthenian part out, and I think there is absolutely no justification for the BCC to exist as a separate entity from either other Eastern Catholic Churches or even from the Roman Church itself.

Now, before the calls for my head on a platter come forth, let me say I'm equally as critical of people in Orthodoxy who have this idea that what is right for the church is taking out all of the "ethnic stuff". Eli actually put my own feelings in to words a few pages back. "Somewhere there is a seriously knowledgeable and loving middle ground between ethnic cleansing and phyletism."

Andrew

There is something unreal here. Each Church of the Catholic Communion (for that matter, every Church that I've ever heard of) is supposed to look after her own faithful AND preach the Gospel to all comers.

But the expression "her own faithful" does not designate some sociological group other than those who are in fact members/communicants of the Church in question. This is not a question of race, color, ethnic derivation or one's preference in football teams. [That last isn't as silly as it sounds - check the "Circus Riots" in Constantinople in the Olden Days!]

Money has precious little to do with this - and Rome does not sanction or supply the cash to keep the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia afloat.

As for me, I can assure you that the Greek-Catholic parish, dearly though I love her, does not constitute a Major Archiepiscopal church!

Have I missed something somewhere?

Fr Serge

Eli, I'm not suggesting we stop our traditions or disregard those who brought this recension here. I'm Ruthenian, probably 75%. But I am incredibly practical (one friend would say too much : ) and would not be anywhere else liturgically for all the Litanies in Ruthenia. But, I do realize we have something special to share, and we as a church need to be as open to others if our beloved Byzantine Catholic Church is to continue with vim and vigor.

You can't expect in future years to have just Ruthenian's sitting in the pews (we shouldn't be sitting by the way, but that's another thread and sore spot). If that is your hope, I'm afraid it's not realistic. Even the Ukrainians realize this and spend a lot of time and money bringing over immigrants. Should we do the same? I don't know. But I do know there are a whole lot of people in our own country who are unchurched. We can't, and according to the Gospel, we shouldn't ignore them.
Why wouldn't you want someone walking down the street to not experience the Byzantine Church just because of their nationality and heritage? I love my church too much to subscribe to that....

What should we do? Hmmm, that's the million dollar question. Should we sponsor a ship and bring them over from Slovakia? Probably not a good idea, as they are very latinized, and have an incredible dislike for the Orthodox. As you can see with our "NEW" Liturgy, we don't need more of that nonesense.

We should do everything we can to include them. Really, the difference between the Ukies and Ruthenians and other Byzantine Churches regarding the Divine Liturgy should just be the music. We have our "style," they have theirs -- but the rest should be the same. Rome says that's the way it should be with the Orthodox, but again that's another thread. If we were in Arizona or Mexico, you should expect to incorporate the proper language in say the "Christ is Risen" that we chant in Paschal Matins. Remember, we are to proclaim the Gospel in all languages, not just Church Slavonic. If I had an Irish priest, I would expect and welcome a Gaelic Christ is Risen.
A priest from the BC Seminary once told me that the use of Slavonic in our liturgies would be the undoing of our church. I debated him for 45 minutes, and you know what, as hard as that was to admit, he's right.

No one is suggesting we remove the ethnicity, as much as we are saying we need to temper our attitudes toward newcomers who don't share the same heritage.

JMHO, Cathy

Absolutely! But others have not and I will allow that to suffice for the time being.

Eli

Cathy, a question on a couple of things you said.

It seems like there is something of a paradox here. Couldn't one argue (and I think it has been), that the new liturgy along with the other changes are actually accomodations meant to facilitate the inclusion of non-Ruthenians?

Andrew

In reagrds to Alice's post above regarding parish council's, THe GOA Dept of Outreach and Evangelism has produced the above link as a resource for them.

GOA Parish Council Handout

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

What exactly defines what each church's "own faithful" is then? Is it a spontaneous creation like a petri dish that can appear and disappear? A historic holdover that continues to exist as a de facto reality simply because it is there? The people currently on the rolls of each church?

All churches have a distinct cultural and ethnic composition based on the place they originated. Why have particular churches if that is not the case? Why have competing particular churches side by side? Why within the geographic boundaries of Ukraine should there be two particular churches in communion with Rome? Why not have a super or para church where cultural differences are set aside?

Andrew

No sir, you haven't missed a thing. Some are so caught up in where their ancestors came from, they would prefer the church to perish rather than adapt. It's people like that who are killing us.

Dear Cathy,

I realize that these are your opinions.

Part of the reason that I will not respond to you here, or to Father Keleher, in terms of the substance of your replies to me is that you have added a great deal to the very simple point I was making and put words in my mouth that I did not have there nor were they inherent in what I was saying.

So it is impossible for anyone really to discuss further at the point and still be able to clarify the original point. The clarity of an argument is often dependent upon sequencing. That gets lost in all kinds of side issues that should be dealt with in some kind of order, so that one may see the interrelationships clearly rather than in a ball of confused and confusing rhetoric.

When another opportunity presents itself, I may find that I have more to say.

As to your opinion concerning language, I attend a liturgy that regularly makes use of several languages so that all of the peoples in that parish are learning beyond their own, or their own preferences. It is a very unifying act.

Respectfully,

Eli

That's what they would have you believe, but please don't start to drink the Kool-Aid. How does taking less litanies, adding inclusive language, saying the Anaphora outloud & trimming down the Antiphons accomodate non-Ruthenians? Now, removing Slavonic from all of our books would do more to accomodate non-Ruthenians than all of the above.

I think what we're talking about here are two different things. I want us to be Ruthenian in our Liturgy, it's beautiful and it doesn't need monkeyed with. But our "flavoring" should not determine who is welcomed to a parish and who isn't -- that's not Christian.

What I'm saying is that you can't have parishioners going around asking people their last name, then replying "well what are you doing here?" Obviously, the Holy Spirit brought them to us, we need to do what the Gospel tells us to do. Do you refute the Gospel?

Exactly! Where we can be inclusive we should be. But we're not always. How much easier would it have been for you if people didn't question your motives in joining a Byzantine Catholic Church? What we should be doing is sharing our Ruthenian Heritage, not punishing people because they have a different ethnic make-up. But too many times that's what happens.

Cathy

Cathy

Take my word for it, I am not quaffing from that cup.

Hypothetically speaking I think the argument could be made that shorter services, simplifications, gender neutral language, etc. could have a broader appeal and could fit better with American culture where the outsiders are coming from and would make them feel less out of their element and more at home. I happen to disagree with the idea of doing this, but fundamentally I think there could be substance to this argument.

I agree, it shouldn�t determine who is welcome and who isn�t. I think fundamentally though, the culture and the liturgy at some level are tied together. Remove the Ruthenian part and outsiders may feel completely welcome, but the remaining Ruthenians may simply walk out. I think the key is finding the happy medium that Eli mentioned.

Last I checked no, I don�t, but give me time! (KIDDING!). I could relate my own experiences (including being asked what my last name is), but I don�t think they�re applicable. A., because they�re boring, and B., for the most part they have been in Orthodoxy.

Andrew

It may not really be pertinent to confuse maintaining some usage of Slavonic, even if only once a month (or even Greek, maybe once a year) to maintain historical roots and awareness with the foolishness of nosing around into people's genealogies in the parish vestibule. They are two different things, essentially unrelated to each other. If you can stop the nosiness, that will be an enormous help, and has no interaction whatever with the Liturgy itself, to my mind.

Staro

Besides, asking people their last names as evidence of their ethnicity is stupid. Is a person with an Italian father and a Ruthenian mother less Ruthenian than one with a Ruthenian father and an Italian mother? Name any other nationality instead of Italian, if you wish. If that's to be the case, one look at the roster of our clergy and hierarchy ought to dissuade one of that. On that basis, then Pavel's insistence on having a "non-Ruthenian bishop" has long since been filled. Schott is not a Ruthenian name root. Others of our hierarchy have not been "Ruthenian" so much as they have been Slovak, Czech, Hungarian and even Croat in the past.

I agree completely!

The way that I approached those piercing inquiries concerning my motives and my patrimony was precisely as though it were the preamble for sharing our respective stories.

And when I responded kindly and not, in kind, a whole new world opened up. First I was a guest, and finally I was granted my own key to the front door. So I do not believe that it cannot be done.

Eli

I agree as well. The problem is that such confusion can occur in many ways: witness my own head cantor, who seldom mentions singing is Slavonic, but simply refers to singing "in our language."

Regardless, each liturgical rite comes TO US as a gift from God through the Church, and it comes via a cultural matrix. It is the task of the bishops to determine which parts of this matrix MUST be preserved, and the clergy and people to support them in this work of preservation (and, sometimes, restoration); similarly, it is our job as layfolk, and parents in particular, to make use of the cultural matrix as seems best, to foster the GROWTH of the Christian life in ourselves, our children, and our community. (As Peter Maurin used to point out, the whole point of culture is growth - cult, culture, agriculture...)

There may be much which does not HAVE to be kept. but which would be GOOD to keep.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

That, Jeff, is the meaning of "riches"....i.e., "more than is absolutely needful at a minimum".....and think here of spiritual riches.

When we are willing not only to KEEP the riches we have inherited from the past, but ADD to it the gifts others bring when they come to join us, then can we truly "SHARE FROM OUR ABUNDANCE", as Christ commanded. Giving away the seed corn is a BAD way to feed your children.

BINGO!, venerable father. As much as you dislike it you have the winning card.

Eli

I find Andrew's suggestion, which I have heard elsewhere, that the revised liturgy is intended to facilitate the inclusion of non-Ruthenians a dangerous idea. Most of the families in my little parish have come over from the Latin rite. (Indeed, I am one of the few members who actually grew up with the Byzantine rite.) Far and away the most important reason they have come to the Byzantine church is the liturgy: they wished to worship with a traditional liturgy in communion with the Pope of Rome. They are deeply concerned about the proposed changes in the liturgy, especially the dumbed-down language and (so-called) inclusive language. They fear that the Byzantine church is abandoning them and they worry that they may be forced to leave. There is a general sense that the liturgical reformers have not considered them and others like them in making their decisions. If the reformers intended to make the Ruthenian Recension more accessible to non-Ruthenians by their proposals, the reaction in my parish would seem to be evidence that they were mistaken.

Dr. Michael

Ah, Dr. Tkacz (with my respects to your wife.....I'm trying desperately to find a copy of "I, Rachel" again and cannot.....they are totally unavailable! <sob>"............ I must echo and amplify your comment.

It has been my experience over nearly 50 years in the clergy that those who DO come to us from outside DO have a love and respect for the older forms, *especially* including the Slavonic and Greek. Far from making it more attractive by eliminating them, we would be removing one of the most attractive elements OF it.

There is the danger of people who come running FROM something instead of being drawn TO this Church by its own inherent qualities......but THAT is a problem we will always have, regardless of what changes we make to our liturgies, practices and external prayer life. People who run FROM are always dangerous when they get to where they think they're going........

'Nuff said on that.

Thank you, Doctor Tkacz.

Interesting. Great minds and all that.

I received this from one of the priests of the Byzantine Metropolia this morning. In the past he has likened the experience of liturgy to marriage, wherein also there must be mystery or it all goes flat and stale. I know that his words speak directly to my own experience, east and west.

A tree with severed roots will bear no fruit.

Those without a past have no future, either.

I just want the Ruthenians to learn to share, because they don't play well with non-Ruthenians. I hear it's different once you leave the Midwest.

Sadly, they are being abandoned by a Bishop who doesn't like the Ukies or Orthodox and will do anything to distance our church from them.

It is proven, the more traditional you go, the more people are attracted to it. For Catholics, it's really the only option to having a traditional Liturgy without turning Orthodox.

Just read Helen's post in "The Rest of the Story..." on this forum.

Starokatolyk:

You are quite right that there is always the concern about those who are, as you put it, running from something rather than to something. We have had our share of that, as have many other Byzantine parishes.

For the most part, however, those who have come to us from the Latin rite and remained have been those who seek, first, a historically and ritually authentic orthodox Christian ligurgy and, second, theological depth. I am impressed and often humbled by my fellow parishioners who know far less about the history and theology of the faith than I do and yet live it far better than I--and this includes their liturgical life. These are the people whose concerns about the revised liturgy I take very seriously.

I have followed with deep interest the discussions of the revised liturgy on this site. Yet my mind continues to return to thoughts about my fellow parishioners who are quietly caught in the middle of all this. They are fully open to the necessary corrections and restorations in the revised liturgy--so their reactions are hardly knee-jerk rejections of change. At the same time, they recognize mininalism, de-ritualism, and politically-prompted impositions when they see them.

Again, it is not at all clear just how the revisions are supposed to benefit such people.

(By the way, I sent you a private message with information on the Rachel book.)

Dr. Michael

Mercy. I hope I haven't killed the discussion!

I suspect those who want to do strange things to the liturgy will come up with all kids of reasons to justify their stant. Watering down the teachings of the Church is supposed to make them more attractive. It's very insulting to the people of the church but sadly there are those around who are into dumbing down for the laity. The good think is there are many lay people who know their stuff and can stand up from themselves.

some years ago a priest freind told me of a conversation he ahd with some bishops. The bishops were insisting that what ever they were on about the people should just follow their instruction and went on about how they were leaders in the Church etc etc. The priest reminded them that only one bishop in England stood up for the Church, while the rest went into schism and eventually heresy. If the laity had followed their bishops there would be no Catholic Church in England. That shut them up...for awhile.

I think those who love the BCC need to be very careful...if ALL ethnicity is shed and we become an "American Church" doesn't that open the door to where the BCC in America was 100 years ago? When things followed this logic:
"Your Eastern faith is foreign to America".
Soooo...you need to become American
Once you become American Catholics it is clear there is only one American Catholic Church...that happens to be the American Roman Catholic Church...

Ethnicity is not something to shed...However, bringing in others should encompass their ethnic background as well...(I'm NOT suggesting changes to how things are done liturgically or spiritually)...taking an opening hymn in Spanish (or whatever language) when there is are spanish members of the community...Singing Christ is Risen in Spanish...being primarily english but not letting go of peoples ethnicity (in practice this is already done...primarily everything is taken in English with a little Slavonic or Hungarian thrown in...why couldn't another language be substituted if there is a large enough contingency???)...reading the gospel on Pascha in the languages of the ethnic diversity within that specific parish...just some thoughts...

And good thoughts they are! I don't know how anyone can look at our society and not see potential mission territory. I think the time is right for Eastern Christianity to catch on.

And excellent thoughts they are. We do exactly that in my parish. But this year was the first year that we did not have the Paschal Gospel read in Slavonic. Bishop read it in English, our priest in Hungarian (his language from home) and our deacon in Spanish (his language from home). The Paschal greeting was done in Slavonic, English, Hungarian, Spanish, Greek and Arabic (we have a few native Arabic speakers).

I do miss hearing "Slava Isusu Christu" and answering "Slava na viki" at the beginning and end of the homily, however. I really don't know why that had to disappear. Anyone can learn a short phrase like that, and I'm sure that a lot of very American children whose parents aren't Slavic at all came to know, understand and repeat it quite well.

Sophia

"I do miss hearing "Slava Isusu Christu" and answering "Slava na viki" at the beginning and end of the homily, however. I really don't know why that had to disappear. Anyone can learn a short phrase like that, and I'm sure that a lot of very American children whose parents aren't Slavic at all came to know, understand and repeat it quite well."

I remember the lunch line at my Byzantine school. Msgr.was at the end of the line and every one of us had to say that. I was 9 years old...

Eli and Andrew,

Very well stated and re-stated by both of you. You have grasped one of the most important issues
which members in our churches currently face.

Mark, I have heard it proposed in several places that some sort of ethnic cleansing will be the silver bullet for the church in this country. What I have seen is some truly odd things come out of such thinking. I don't know if something similar is going on in the BCC with this liturgy to try and stay somewhat in relation to this thread.

Etnick said

At the church I've been attending they do this. Last week actually the priest reminded people that when they greet each other at church they should say "Slava Isusu Christu", and not just hello or hi.

Andrew

Oh my.

You and Andrew are starting to winnow, and I don't have much time to do anything systematic this morning but my head is full of ideas and images. We seem to be thinking enough along the same lines for my ideas to be used kindly till I get back. In fact you may take them out and do much more with them than even I might have with more time.

The first: No one, who understands my thinking on this issue, is seeking any kind of ethnic purity. In some ways one does with ethnicity in this instance what is also done with language.

Language of liturgy is transformed, raised up, set aside, purified, for example.

The true meaning of piety comes in the taking of the profane and offering it for sanctification. We do that with our language in liturgy.

We do that with our infants at Baptism. We do that with our prayer. We do that with Eucharist. We do that with our very bodies. Why not do that with the very history and cultures of the peoples standing together as natal and as spiritual family in a parish church?

It is in that meaning of ethnicity that a particular Church may grow organically without loosing the seed corn.

That's one analog for ethnicity.

The other primary one comes in the Church's use of symbols and expands on the issue of the languages used in Church, in the kinds of attention paid out in the community as expressed in symbols and symbolic acts, and I will let you fellows mull on that and fill in the etceteras.

Time to run off.

God bless you both, and venerable father Staro, and all.

Eli

PS: The Monastic analog. The parish in analogy to the community of monks. How? First and foremost in that deep sense of at-homeness!! One needs not only to "feel" at home. One needs to "be" at home! There's more to it that feeling. There's more to it than papering over disparity. There must BE transformation in the person and that means an absorption and adaptation of culture. Does the monk transform Athos or does Athos transform the man?

Cheerio! Happy hunting!

Fascinating: This comment seems to encapsulate so much of this thread.

I remember hearing some people who insisted on greeting me like that. I know they meant well, but I found it really annoying. It was like they were turning the Gospel into a secret code or a secret handshake that makes people feel like they are members of a special club by (in effect) excluding others who don't speak their language. I know that�s not what they meant to do, but that was the impression I took.

I realize that many people take their ethnic heritage seriously, as immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and I can respect that. However, when it comes to the Gospel and the Church, I want the prayer and worship to be in my own language, and I don't want my church to feel like an ethnic club.

That is why I joined the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church . They don�t deny their Slovak / Ruthenian roots, but they are trying to be open to everyone in America. They are trying to preach the Gospel and offer the Tradition of the Christian East to all Americans. The Liturgy (at least, in my parish) is almost entirely in English; and people are welcomed regardless of their ethnicity. It works.

I thought that part of the genius of Eastern Christianity was to preach and worship in the language of the people.

I realize that some Eastern Christians (e.g., the Greek Orthodox, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, etc.) want to preserve their ethnic heritage and language from the old country, along with the Gospel. Fine; I wish them well.

But I also think that there should be a denomination of Eastern Christianity that seeks to serve the people of America as Americans. In other words, I think there should be a jurisdiction of Eastern Christianity that tries to serve the American "ethnicity" . . . instead of trying to preserve the ethnicity of another country. The OCA is doing that for the Eastern Orthodox, and the BCC seems to be trying to do that for the Eastern Catholics.

-- John

John, do I understand that what you want is for the existing BCC'ers to forego "their culture" so you can feel more at home with "your culture"? If I have it wrong, forgive me and correct it, please.

Staro

One of the several problems with the term "Ruthenian" is that it encourages confusion between a liturgical tradition and a nationality or an ethnic community.

The ethnic community of the Greek-Catholics originating on the southern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains is presently often termed "Rusyn" or "Carpatho-Russian", and sometimes "Carpatho-Ukrainian", depending on whom one is speaking with. As usually happens in places of mixed population, one can also find Slovaks and Hungarians who follow the "Ruthenian" liturgical tradition (which is differentiated from the present-day Ukrainian Greek-Catholic liturgical tradition primarily by the music, and by the somewhat stronger tendency to retain Church-Slavonic as a liturgical language, both in Transcarpathia and to a lesser extent in Eastern Slovakia).

Nothing whatever, though, prevents a Polish group from adhering to the "Ruthenian" liturgical tradition, or a Croatian group, and so on.

It is, no joking, difficult to deal with this word - and I've only scratched the surface, since the same term has still more potential meanings depending on the context and the time of its use (somewhere in an old issue of the Journal of Byelorussian Studies there is a footnote which assures the unwary reader that "Ruthenian" means "a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church"! That would come as news to almost everyone.

Fr. Serge

You know, it is a wierd thing in my parish and others that I have visited. Greek born Greeks and those of Greek heritage will usually say 'Christos Anesti', and most, though not all, will respond correctly 'Alithos Anesti'.

But when you say 'Christ is Risen' in English to those who know no Greek, they look at you as if you have two heads.

The same with the custom of the kiss of peace in my particular parish. The weekly bulletin every single weeks prints that the exchange we say to each other is: 'Christ is in our midst'.. and the refrain is: 'He is and ever shall be'. Most don't even say the 'Christ is in our midst'. Instead they will just smile and shake your hand.
Forget about the refrain!

I don't know why this is. Maybe it is just where I live. People are very secularized in the New York area. They seem really uncomfortable with sharing these deeply religious professions of faith in a language which they fully comprehend.

Anyway, my point to John is that maybe it is better to share these exchanges in another language (atleast in my unique experience) than not to share them at all? Just a thought...though I do like them in English better, because you really feel and understand your own language better.

Alice

Dear John,

Eastern Orthodoxy and eastern Catholics are not denominational. They are Catholics arrayed in particular Churches based upon a cultural heritage, place, peoples,language, habits of mind, habits of being, habits of doing. The seed stock is eastern in language and in culture. It may be transplanted and hybridized, but there is nothing without the seed stock.

There are no Catholic denominations.

What you are talking about cannot happen. There is no way to plant a mustard seed and get a cow.

You want a cow. The east has a mustard seed.

I am not being nasty. I am expressing a reality.

And for your contemplation, parish by parish, the OCA, in order to survive is expressing itself in the language of many peoples, and the many peoples are learing to know one another and become transformed. The OCA is not a success story and I am not talking about its current kerfluffle over finances. That is insignificant in comparison to their spiritual crisis.

Rather than simply being an Orthodox Church they tried to be that grand umbrella for all people and what they wound up with was an umbrella that only fit over people like you, John, and they began to loose members and purpose and their theology because dilute, and they are in crisis currently and you, John, are suggesting that we follow?

Nah.

Eli

In all fairness to John, whom I have had the honor of knowing for a few years on this forum--he is not expressing any frustration that I have not heard many cradle and convert Orthodox of all the different ethnic bodies express at one time or another.

There is no sin and there should be no offense in John expressing himself. He is being honest with us and I respect that. We don't all have to fit into one mindset here.

However, as I tell/warn those others, we must be careful not to want to transplant one ethnicity (Americanism) over another. One could easily say that the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are ethnically 'American', for instance.

In Christ,
Alice

No, that's not what I meant; and I botched the job in trying to espress myself.

What I want is Eastern Christian Church that is American in ethnicity, i.e., using English (or Spanish, for the new immigrants from Latin America) and developing its own American heritage within the Eastern Christian tradition.

I thought that was what the BCC was trying to do, and that is one of the reasons I was attracted to it.

But, if I am mistaken, then I apologize. I don't want any church to divest itself of its heritage.

I just wish there was an Eastern Christian church that was American as its ethnic heritage.

-- John

Just a note. The local OCA parish is growing beyond belief! Our BCC parish should do so well.

That is simply not the overall pattern nationwide. That is why our hierarchs ought to be checking with their Orthodox brother bishops concerning strategies and tactics designed for growth, if they are not already doing so.

I am not talking out of my hat here. I have been in an OCA parish for nearly a decade now, off and on, and now quite regularly. So I am not guessing.

Eli

Alice, thank you for defending me and correcting me.

Everyone else, Goodbye. I am fed up with the endless, acrimonious debates about liturgy, translations, and who's right and who's wrong.

-- John

If you're near the mission in Knoxville, that actually doesn't surprise me. They have three factors very much working in their favor.

1. Demographics (the South is growing).
2. A very good priest.
3. A very good bishop.

Andrew

John,

Right, wrong, or whatever one's opinion may be - what you have described above is pretty much the dominating view of the Antiochians. I would say almost without exception.

The OCA is a different story.

Andrew

Thank you for the clarification, John.

In what specific and particular ways would this American culture manifest itself in ways the BCC currently does not? What forms and shapes and sounds would it take?

What precisely is American culture? Hot dogs? Baseball games? But what do these and similar phenomena have to do with religion? We can eat the hot dogs and play baseball quite regardless of what religion, if any, we adhere to.

There has been considerable work done on the religious elements of American life and history - they include a large dose of Nativism and anti-Catholicism. I'm still recovering from the time that John Paul II first visited the USA and a well-known television commentator bemoaned that he could not find "a respectable anti-Catholic". I won't even ask what could render a bigot respectable while allowing him to go on being a spokesman for bigotry! In any case, that sort of thing has no place either in Orthodoxy or in Catholicism.

Then there is the phenomenon of what Bellah and other scholars have termed "American civil religion". It's not quite what it used to be, but it's still very much around and a part of American culture. It too has no place either in Orthodoxy or in Catholicism (unless we wish to approve the sort of "Orthodoxy" and "Catholicism" which would excuse, for example, support for abortion on the specious argument that we cannot impose our morality on someone else!).

I write all this to suggest that we must think carefully about what it will mean to have a Church that is purely American - and we must make certain that we are not proposing some sort of watered-down religion.

Fr Serge

If baseball is is like Aussie Rules Football then it is a religion all of it's own.

If one lives in the great city of God, Melbourne (ask any Melbourne Greek and they will tell you) where following of the above mentioned game is compulsory regardless if you are the Archbishop (also Metro for the Uks)or a humble something or other. So sometime mixing footy and Orthodox/catholicism is OK. It must be the same at the baseball.

Amen! That is the issue. I think someone important has recently said something about the ""culture" of death."

Actually, I was referring to St. Anne's OCA Church in Oak Ridge. That's about 20 miles from Knoxville. They are doing quite well.

Father, Yale Professor and literary critic Harold Bloom wrote a book called the "American Religion" in which he asserts most of what is called religion in America is essentially gnosticism. It is a cross confessional phenomenon. What he means I believe is that it tends to be highly individualistic, contra authority and focused on the spiritual as opposed to the physical. The Publisher's Review of the book says the following:

Without knowing it, American worshipers have moved away from Christianity and now embrace pre-Christian Gnosticism, asserts Bloom ( The Book of J ). In his most controversial book to date, the Yale professor defines "the American Religion" as a Gnostic creed stressing knowledge of an inner self that leads to freedom from nature, time, history and other selves. Every American, he writes, assumes that God loves her or him in a personal, intimate way, and this trait is the bedrock of our national religion, a debased Gnosticism often tinged with selfishness. The core of this odd, ponderous book focuses on Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and especially Mormons and Southern Baptists--the two denominations Bloom believes will dominate future American religious life. He argues that mainline Protestants, Jews, Roman Catholics and secularists are also much more Gnostic than they realize.

Many of his conclusions may be wrong (and certainly he has an agenda), but I do think he hits on something. I think it is the kernel of truth in what he is saying that is the potential danger for the church if it somehow gets imbued with these negative aspects of American religious culture. A warning sign to me for instance would be hostility to monasticism.

Once the cultural context of our churches is removed, it is not clear to me what will fill the void.

Andrew

Is this a new book? Is it available? Based on your brief description of it, you have definitely caught my interest...

Although, I think Fr. Kelleher's book must come first.

Chris

John, please don't go!

You are bright and insightful. The community here needs your input and I for one agree with and enjoy reading much of what I have seen from your keyboard.

Michael

In my area the OCA convert-based parishes are faring very well. The Rusyn and Russian based parishes are not on the whole faring so well in membership. But this is not having the same dire consequences as the BCC parishes in the same situation, because the old parishes have their own money in trust.

They survive the lean periods better and can relocate if they find it necessary or desireable. Relocation can give them a good shot in the arm because a new temple in a neighborhood will attract inquirers and inspire the congregation with renewed enthusiasm.

I do believe the practices in the convert parishes are slowly evolving. There is nothing really deliberate about it but when the founding members are from mixed Orthodox backgrounds almost every little detail and procedure is subject to consensus of the most active collaborating participants.

I am no expert on this but I think the way they sing the tones is evolving in some places as well. In other words I don't think they are really good at keeping to a standard in all places. Naturally they will follow the Typicon, but how they do everything called for is subject to the interpretation of those at hand.

If parishes and missions like that have more success spreading into the American-Canadian heartland we might see a North American "recension" develop yet.

+T+
Michael

I honestly don't know.

Part of the problem I have is my limited experience. I know one (1) Byzantine Catholic parish. So, that parish has assumed the status (rightly or wrongly) of "normal" in my mind.

At my parish, ethnicity is not a defining issue. Most of the people are Slovakian (sp?) in ancestry, and they rightly take pride in that. Some of the people even speak Slovakian at home or amongst themselves. And, a little Slovakian is used in the Liturgy. But, otherwise, the Liturgy is in English. And, Slovakian ethnicity is not a quasi litmus test for membership or orthodoxy or orthopraxis. Slovakian ethnicity is just part of who they are.

I'm sorry: I think I am messing up again in my attempt to express this. Let my try it like this. When I visited services at two Greek Orthodox parishes, it was clear that preserving Greek culture and the Greek language were very important --almost as important-- as preserving and living the Gospel. This was evident in the Liturgy (at least half of which was in Greek; the rest was in English) and at the socializing outside of Liturgy. Both practicing the Gospel and preserving Greek culture and language seemed to be equally important goals for those two communities.

Now, I am not faulting that. But, I'm not interested in that. I have nothing against Greeks, but I'm not Greek, and I really don't want to have to adopt Greek culture and language in order to practice Eastern Christianity. In short, it was Eastern Christianity that I was interested in and not any particular ethnicity.

Hence, I was very pleased at what I found at what eventually became my parish. Preserving an ethnicity and practicing the Gospel are not two equally important goals there. Practicing the Gospel is the main goal; preserving ethnicities (Slovak and others) are secondary. Ethnicity is there, but it's no more than a few lines in the Liturgy and four ethnic dinners throughout the year. Otherwise, ethnicity is not the reason they go to church or stay in the parish. The Gospel, according to the Eastern Tradition and as part of the Catholic Church, is why they are part of the parish. And that's what I found attractive and (perhaps mistakenly) that's what I assumed is "normal" in the BCC.

Put another way, it seemed that the BCC was striving to be an Eastern Catholic Church for people who had assimilated into American culture and who were not particualrly interested in preserving the culture and language from their ancestors' homelands. In short, it seemed like the BCC was trying to be an Eastern Catholic church for the American ethnicity.

Perhaps I was wrong in that conclusion, but that was the conclusion I drew. And it was a serious factor in my application to join the BCC instead of one of the more ethnically oriented Eastern Churches. I wanted the Gospel and the Eastern Tradition, and I did not want to have adopt another ethnicity; hence, I joined the BCC.

I genuinely do not want to offend anyone here, and I apologize if I have done so. But while I am trying to understand that preserving an ethnicity is important to some people in the BCC, please try to understand that it doesn�t matter very much to others in the BCC.

-- John

Nicely said. The Liturgy & Gospel first, ethnicity a bonus. That's how we will grow our beloved Byzantine Catholic Church.

Cathy

We all have ethnicity. People with other ethnicities brought the goodies to many other lands to peoples of different ethnicities.

I was watching a TV program on Finnish Lapland and showed an Orthodox Church with the liturgy in the Lapp language. I recognised the music but no the language at first, then we were told these Lapps were Orthodox.

So taking the jewels of Byzantium to others is still on just going further these days. ethnicity and culture s not static and no one should be shamed into dropping their culture. My own country goes to great length to support and encourage to celebrate who they are. We were very integrationalist in the past.

I don't think you offended anyone here, John. What you are saying is not odd. It simply does not reflect an ecclisiastical reality.

I think what some of us have been pointing out is the fact that those ethnicities that you'd like to jettison are what made the eastern Churches "eastern" as distinguishable from "western."

Liturgies are not overlays on a culture. They emerge from and are molded by the cultural matrix in a particualar geographic space, some of which remain static for many generations, some of which transform slowly, other more rapidly. But in no case does the "seed" culture ever really disappear from the mix. Liturgies are not overlays upon a culture. Liturgies are organically tied to cultures which is how we have an "eastern" and "western" set of traditions.

As I said, there is, currently, no Byzantine-use liturgy.

A rite is a liturgy and an anthropology. A particular Church is there to shepherd particular people. Remove that and you have a liturgical use, not a rite.

So IF the dominant rite in the United States is the Latin rite, then if the particular peoples who make up the particular Churches using the Byzantine rite were to all assimilate culturally, then it would only be expected that we would merge into the Latin rite and disappear, or we might apply for a Byzantine usage first and then disappear later, but the particular Churches, and their hierarchical structures and canonical offices [bishops, pastors] would disappear.

There is more than money that "supports" a Church and Rome does not grant sui juris status lightly.

Eli

If you are still lost after my last note, then allow me, for and immediate and typical example, to refer you to your contributions to the discussion in another section of the Forum on whether or not pews impede Eastern Christian worship.

How long have you been Byzantine? What is a prostration in the Eastern Christian tradition?

Do you see where you might have missed something along the way and are now essentially busy arguing that you have every right to miss those kinds of things and still call yourself "eastern"?

Eli

Just as immigrating Orthodox should not have to become "American", "Canadian", "Australian" or "Scottish" to worship Christ; the Americans, Scots, Australians and Canadians should not have to become something other than what they have always been to worship as Orthodox (or BC, as the case may be ). The church that erupts out of the culture can be genuinely Orthodox (or BC) as well as genuinely American.

The Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh is already highly Americanized, it has been moving that way for a long time and that has always been one of the attractions to me. The bulk of the Rusyn migration was around the turn of the last century and now I would not be surprised if there are five generations in the USA if not more.

Naturally these long-time residents are mostly anglophones, and the rate of intermarriage is quite high. They are not receiving large numbers of new immigrants either. The BCC does very much look like a church that has been reaching out to the American people. In fact it is just being itself because the Ruthenian population has become American.

I know that there are Ruthenians who strongly identify with the Rusyn/Slovak/Hungarian ethnic origin of the church and fear losing those qualities, but the church is shrinking, mostly because the Rusyn people are leaving it behind. If Rusyns want to have any eastern church around in the next generation from which to receive their burial rites (at the very least) it would be nice if they would encourage the plain vanilla Americans to participate and grow the church in the best way they know how. Otherwise it could be destined for the dustbin.

Interestingly many of these white bread Americans are committed to Orthopraxis (capital O) and eagerly support the restoration of the church traditions as shared by the mother church of Constantinople and the sister churches. Who can blame them?

It may be time to embrace these non-Rusyn Americans, who need and want the spirituality so badly and may be able to carry it forward to the twenty-second century for the salvation of souls.

+T+
Michael

The local adult Ukrainian dance group in Western Australia is an example of how things ahve changed for that community. One of their best dancers has a Scottish surname. Mum is Ukrainian. We have wives/husbands who are Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Welsh, Polish, Irish, Austrian & USA Ruthenian ( ). Thats just the combinations I can think off. The parish has only just started to be aware of them and cater for them. Sermons and now in English and Ukrainian and the current priest has often conducted some the services in a combination of English and Ukrainian. We have not quiet got there with the Div. Liturgy but we are going to have to get there soon.