Maybe it's also time for a unified Byzantine Church in North America, too. http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990731orthodox7.asp

Seamingly as the Ruthenian Byzantine church in the US grows and expands it becomes less ethnic, but still is thank God. Do you really think the Ukranian Byzantine would ever think of coming all together under one Church? Look at the Ukranians in British Columbia, Canada.... a new Bishop that mandates only using Ukranian for the Divine Liturgy and homilies. Lost alot of Parish Priests, brought in Priests from the Ukrane, and lost a tom of parishioners to the RC, Evangelicals, and orthodox. the Ruthenian Church is growing in the USA, why mess with something that is great and working. By the way, I was raised RC and attending a Ruthenian Parish in WA for the last 5 years. We're growing and do you really think the others would want to mesh?

Unity can be a good thing. But a "melting pot" church isn't necessarily such a good idea. One of the things that holds a people together is common heritage. As one who was drawn into a non-Catholic church but seems to be on her way back, I recognize the strength of tradition and heritage. The Western church in America did away with ethnic churches, and lost much of the rich tradition and community that these groups had. Perhaps that's why it sometimes seems cold. Probably if one were to attend Mass in a Hispanic parish, it wouldn't seem so cold. The people are just as much a part of bringing liturgy to life as the theology and ritual. Where people share traditions and culture, there seems to be more spirit. If advocating a unified Eastern Church, why not go "whole hog" and have just one rite? It seems strange to hear someone calling for unity among the branches of the Eastern Church when our country is only beginning to appreciate the benefits of cultural diversity.

I don't think that the Orthodox are proposing to create a 'melting pot' church. What the OCA has now are separate dioceses for the various 'ethnic' churches, such as the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Albanians. The proposal of more than a few Orthodox is to expand this approach so that one large American 'jurisdiction' would have various subdivisions perhaps mirroring the present 'jurisdictions'. The idea is to have one autocephalous Synod for North America. I think the goal they have is to eliminate the very real friction that results from too many 'jurisdictions' overlapping and butting heads -- getting in the way of providing a common witness, and serving their faithful. In any case, this will be a long time coming, as the overseas Patriarchates, esp. Constantinople, need to 'play ball'.

I question whether we need this kind of thing at all. Unlike the Orthodox, we have already great unity among us, thanks to our communion with Rome. We already have realized some of the tangible benefits of this, such as shared priests, facilities, joint catechetical materials such as the "Light for Life" series. I'm not sure, given our situation, that we ought to be so quick to mimic the approach that the Orthodox are taking. For their approach sees as its goal a united but autocephalous American church -- something that we, being in communion with Rome, do not want.

Orientale

I would suggest reading some of the other posts that have appeared throughout this forum that have touched on this subject.

Ethnicity, although it did hold the various immigrant churches together in a somewhat hostile RC environment, has also proved to be extremely divisive. The problem isn't ethnicity per se. The problem is putting ethnicity before and above living out the Gospel. I know of a number of people who were snubbed by parishoners at both Eastern Orthodox and BC churches not because they weren't EO or BC, but because they didn't have Greek or Russian, or Rusyn, or Ukrainian surnames or they could not speak the mother tongue. This is absurd. What is even just as absurd is having a congregation of Melkites, a congregation of Ruthenians, a congregation of Ukrainians all within 10 miles of each other... each struggling with priest shortages, building/maintenance costs, religious education, and community good works and charity.

It is both the Byzantine approach to worship (orthodoxos) and the Byzantine approach to living the Gospel of Jesus Christ (orthopraxis) that should be of first and foremost concern to us. As Dr. John and other have stated many times before in this forum: "Pirohi are not necessary for salvation."

As an aside, I recently heard an individual get extremely upset over the fact that the organizer of one of our parish events said "perroggi" [Chicago Polish] instead of "pirohi" [Pittsburgh Rusyn]. Sad!

Rick summed the issue up quite well and I can't add much to his words. If my understanding of Orientale's post is correct, I must disagree. I look forward to the day when all Byzantine Catholic Americans are united into one autocephalous Byzantine Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of a Byzantine patriarch headquartered here in America (Judson for patriarch!). Currently, only the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church is sui iuris (and theoretically, sort of autocephalous). Our ecclesiastical government is here in America. The other jurisdictions (Melkite, Ukrainian, Romanian, etc.) are all still considered diaspora Churches and are governed from their mother countries. If we Byzantine-Ruthenians had a Synod of Bishops (instead of a Council of Hierarchs) we would be much more self-governing and have the right to elect our own bishops. Imagine the witness we could offer America if all Byzantines were united into one ecclesiastical structure without any ties to foreign Slavic or Arabic Churches. Joint projects already realized (like common catechetical materials) are but a first step in this direction and cannot be an end in themselves.

We are certainly ahead of the Orthodox in organization. The OCA plan to create different ecclesiastical structures for the different ethinic groups could be roughly compared to where we would be when all the Byzantines in America become suri iuris and are no longer subject to the Churches in their ethnic homelands. I am sure at some future time as these ethnic groups melt into America they will return to the "one bishop per city" model and the ethnic jurisdictions will disappear (certainly not for several generations). That should be our goal as well.

Our common heritage is neither cabbage nor kibbi. Our common heritage is Jesus Christ.

"I am sure at some future time as these ethnic groups melt into America they will return to the "one bishop per city" model and the ethnic jurisdictions will disappear (certainly not for several generations). That should be our goal as well."


Question: Which bishop? Roman Catholic? Byzatnine Catholic? Orthodox? Who should be this 'one' bishop?

Elias

Moose: I like your definition of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church here in America...sui iuris (and theoretically, sort of autocephalous). How true!

Elias raises excellent questions.

Ideally, the "one bishop per city" model should be kept regardless of particular Church. This is certainly unrealistic in an age where even the Roman Catholics maintain a patriarch in Jerusalem. If this model were applied to America we would no doubt be swallowed up in a Catholic Church where we are outnumbered by 60 to 1 (all Byzantines) or 500 to 1 (specifically, Byzantine Ruthenians).

The ecclesiastical unity I am hoping for in the short term is along these lines:

1. 2000: Merge all Byzantine Catholic in America (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Italo-Greek and Russian) into one Church governed by a Synod of Bishops while keeping all existing eparchial structures. Elect a patriarch for America and create a new eparchy for him in Washington, DC. Evangelize America and begin to quickly grow our Church.

2. 2000-2030: Begin to function as a single Church. Develop unified approaches to evangelization, particular law, common translations of all liturgical texts and etc. Continue to evangelize America.

3. 2030-2050: Melt ethnic jurisdictions and slowly reassign parishes to eparchies based upon geographic locations rather than ethnicity. Example 1: Assign all Byzantines in California and the West to the Eparchy of Van Nuys. Move either the Ruthenian or Ukrainian bishop of Parma to Florida and assign all Byzantines in Florida and the Southeast to him, while assigning all parishes in Ohio to the remaining bishop of Parma. Assign all Byzantines in Eastern Pennsylvania to Philadelphia, those in New Jersey to Passaic. Etc. Continue to evangelize America.

4. 2050-2100: Reorganize the eparchies based upon geography. Create new eparchical structures as necessary. Those located in Pittsburgh and to the West are under the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, those nearest Philadelphia under the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia and those in New England under a possible Metropolitan Archeparchy of Newton. This way, no current ethnic eparchy gets lost. At worst it gets moved to a new location and can be "tracked" by those who will seek to retain ethnic ties and would see the abolishment of a particular eparchy as an ethnic insult. The general ranking would be 1) Patriarch of Washington, 2) Metropolitans and 3) Bishops. Continue to evangelize.

I have no doubt that this is the long-term plan for the OCA (over the next 100 years). When full communion is re-established between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches we would simply start the process again over the following 100 years.

Could this model be extended to integration with the Roman Catholic Church without the minority Church losing its identity? I don't know. I do know that if there were no splits in the Byzantine Catholic Church (1890's - OCA and 1930's - Johnstown) and that if we had kept the majority of our people within the Byzantine Churches (and not lost them to the Roman Catholics) we would number somewhere around 4 to 5 million people. Much larger than any combination of the various Episcopal or Lutheran Churches.

Moose: Damn (sorry), a man with a plan. I like it. It makes my stuctured, anal-retentive, German-heritage heart just leap for joy! Seriously, what better witness to the Gospel than this. Let us continue to hope and pray and work.

Moose,

First, even assuming that there will ever be an American Patriarch (not likely, I think), why should we merge all of the Eastern Catholic American eparchies? Why would smaller groups like the Melkites and the Romanians agree to this, when it would effectively mean subordination to a Byzantine-Ruthenian dominated Synod? Yes, we are all Americans but our customs and approaches to similar problems are rather different. This is not a matter of pierohi and kibbe either. For example, take the Ruthenian approach toward particular law vs. the Melkite approach. Or, the fact that the liturgical uses are different – why would we want a single translation when there are (and should be) divergent uses? Why the drive for uniformity when it’s not really needed? There would need to be a recognition of these differences, and a preservation of the legitimate ones, in whatever structures we would come up with for a unified American Eastern Catholic “jurisdiction”.

Second, there are definite advantages for Eastern Catholicism in the USA if the ties, for the time being, to the overseas churches are not severed. Again, look at the Melkites, who have a Patriarch in Damascus, and a large number of faithful throughout the Middle East. The fact that the Melkite Church is Patriarchal has given the American Melkites, as small as they are, relatively more play-room, in my opinion, than the American Ruthenian Metropolia has – because the Melkites, as a whole, are much larger in Rome’s eyes than the American Ruthenian Church is. We are in a position where we need to establish our churches as sui juris churches, in the full reality of this, vis-à-vis Rome. Rome takes this easier if it is coming from the Patriarchate of Antioch, I think, than from the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh. In the short to medium term, therefore, these overseas alliances help to build up the overall position of the Eastern Catholics within the Catholic Church, rather than splitting us into ever smaller groupings, thereby diluting our voice.

Again, I disagree that we ought to follow the approach taken by the OCA. We are in a fundamentally different position than the Orthodox are. For the former Russian Metropolia, autocephaly was a way to disentangle themselves from the Moscow Patriarchate; and the present drive for administrative unity among American Orthodox is an attempt to deal with the different issues facing them. Our ties to overseas churches, on the other hand, are not embarassing like the Russian Metropolia’s was during the communist era – we are not seeking to disentangle ourselves from overseas churches as a means of establishing our legitimacy, as the Russian Metropolia was. We, on the other hand, and by great contrast to the Orthodox Church in America, have, collectively as Eastern Catholics, as one of our principal tasks the definition of the role of the Eastern Churches within the Catholic Church as a whole. This effort is, by necessity, a worldwide effort, as this is the way Rome looks at things. Anything we do to dilute our voice with Rome is objectively an obstacle to this. For the American Melkites, it would be a definite dilution in influence to be separated from the Melkite Antiochian Patiarchate. It would probably be the same for the Ukranians. The Ruthenian Metropolia is in a different situation, I agree – but this isn’t a really good reason to expect the other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions to merge together with the Metropolia. And, again, it’s not a question of ethnic particularism or parochialism – it’s a question of what keeps our voice in the overall Catholic Church strong, and enables it to speak more forcefully, both here in America and worldwide. Division into ever-more local Churches following the Orthodox model would be, in my opinion, counterproductive.

Orientale

Moose,

IDEALISM RUN AMOK!

Whose CHANT are you going to use? Melkite? Ukrainian? Ruthenian?

Diversification or Centralization?

Incarnation or Triumphalism?

OCA talks about one church? Whose?

Greek Orthodox patriarch is taking more control of its parishes in the US. It wants one church too - under its control.

Byzantine Uniates talk about one church?

Have we dumped 'Uniatism' for 'Conformity?'

More developments without the Orthodox included - again?


Elias

Let's not miss the key point in Moose's plan: evangelize, and continue to evangelize, America. Frankly, separate ethnic jurisdictions dilute our Eastern Orthodox or Catholic witness. Outsiders do not see the underlying unity for the splinters on top. Eastern Catholics must surely have a tougher time than the Orthodox when the need to witness must be balanced with enough distance from Rome to provide a distinct witness. Nonetheless, witness is what we are called to do, and a single American jursidiction could project the unity of faith while allowing a diversity of practice.

Peter

"...a single American jursidiction could project the unity of faith while allowing a diversity of practice."

Whose chant melodies will be used in this single-yet-diverse jurisdiction? Will this be matched in Europe too? What exactly is UNITY?

Elias

What ever direction matters take, it will have to that which naturally evolves. The North American situation is unprecedented. Always before, even when two or more particular churches existed in the same geographic territory, each jurisdiction consisted of culturally distinct communities (i.e. Latin Poles and Greek Ukrainians in Galicia).

If we want to be helpful to the Byzantine Church, the best efforts might be to support them in those places were they are the primary expression of Catholicism -- Ukraine, Eastern Slovakia, Transylvania, Syria, Lebanon and the Holy Land.

Greek Catholics may fully assimilate into American culture, but doing anything to artifically speed that process up is very dangerous.

1. >>Why an American patriarch?<<

The creation of patriarchates is well within the history of the Church. If the Church saw fit to create separate patriarchates for Moscow, Romania, Serbia, and many other countries then the question becomes one of justifying the refusal to follow the established, ancient precedent.

2. >>Why should we merge all of the Eastern Catholic American eparchies? <<

Because it would help us to more effectively proclaim the Gospel and is the natural process of the Church. Again, this would take a hundred years (maybe more), start to finish and should be encouraged to develop naturally. Does anyone really think that in the year 2100 that the Ukrainians will insist that only the Ukrainian language be used in the liturgy? Or do we expect Ukrainians and other ethnic Byzantines to intermarry and attract your average American named Smith or Jones? (And, yes they will intermarry and they should evangelize their neighbors.)

3. >>Why would smaller groups like the Melkites and the Romanians agree to this, when it would effectively mean subordination to a Byzantine-Ruthenian dominated Synod? <<

I don't disagree that the tendency would for each group to want to do its own thing. I would hope we could pool resources to more effectively present Christ to America. We are not called to be a Church for Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks or Arabs. We are called to be a Church for everyone in America. Ruthenians and Ukrainians each have 4 eparchies. Ruthenians would not dominate. In fact, if one was to use population as a rule then the Ukrainians would dominate since they are numerically the largest.

4. >>The fact that the liturgical uses are different – why would we want a single translation when there are (and should be) divergent uses? <<

A common translation into English of common texts that were identical in Slavonic or Greek only makes sense. Using the argument for multiple translations of once common texts would also justify the creation of separate translations of the Holy Scriptures. The differences in liturgical practices are all within the valid traditions of the Church of Constantinople and both should and would be kept. The idea of liturgical uniformity was never suggested. Uniformity of common liturgical translations into English is something altogether different than liturgical uniformity and is something we should also pursue with the rest of Orthodoxy. This is one element of the plan that can be achieved within a single generation.

5. >>The fact that the Melkite Church is Patriarchal has given the American Melkites, as small as they are, relatively more play-room, in my opinion, than the American Ruthenian Metropolia has – because the Melkites, as a whole, are much larger in Rome's eyes than the American Ruthenian Church is.<<

The bully pulpit of a Byzantine Catholic patriarch in Washington, DC would do wonders in helping Byzantines rediscover and reclaim their authentic Byzantine heritage. One can understand the desire to maintain ethnic ties to the spiritual homelands. If, in the next 50 years, large groups of Byzantine Catholics moved to Brazil, taking their priests with them, would you also expect them to remain under the ecclesiastical authority of bishops in America? Set up fresh ties to Europe or the Mid-East? Or simply want to follow the tradition of creating their own structures as they became less American and more Brazilian? Look at the history of Roman Catholics in this country. Each ethnic group differed in liturgical practice (less so in the Latin Mass and very greatly in hymns and paraliturgical celebrations). Did each ethnic group set up separate dioceses? While I condemn the Americanist Movement that began in the late nineteenth century I strongly agree with their development of single ecclesiastical structures. The first structures for Byzantines in America were not along ethnic lines. If our spiritual ancestors fought less and cooperated more we might just have had a quite different history.

6. >>We, on the other hand, and by great contrast to the Orthodox Church in America, have, collectively as Eastern Catholics, as one of our principal tasks the definition of the role of the Eastern Churches within the Catholic Church as a whole.<<

Our role as Eastern Catholics is to proclaim the Gospel in a manner faithful our Byzantine heritage and the Church fathers. The issue here is a practical one. Who speaks louder, one-half million people united under a single patriarch and a Synod of Bishops or 4 or 5 ethnic jurisdictions with about 100,000 each? As I've repeatedly stated, this is not asking Ukrainians or Melkites to join the Ruthenian Metropolia or a division into more local, fractured eparchies. This is creating a new ecclesiastical structure where our strengths can be pooled to more effectively proclaim the Gospel to America.

7. >>Whose CHANT are you going to use? Melkite? Ukrainian? Ruthenian?<<

All of them. Established parishes should retain the chant they have always used. At some point when an English translation of common texts becomes available it would be made available in all chant traditions. Eventually, we would prepare common texts with the rest of Orthodoxy. In time people would start composing new melodies that would sit alongside the current ones (just as the Slavs did with the Greek chant) and in five hundred years a unique American chant tradition based upon the ancient ethnic chant traditions would be firmly rooted.

8. >>Diversification or Centralization? <<

Both. Centralization where it makes sense: ecclesiastical structures, liturgical translations, education of priests and a singular approach to evangelization. Diversification where it makes sense: liturgical customs, local parish customs and culture.

9. >>Incarnation or Triumphalism?<<

Incarnation.

10. >>OCA talks about one church? Whose?<<

Jesus Christ's, of course. Our unity comes from our common faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are already in full eucharistic communion with the entire Catholic Church and therefore in complete unity. There is also little that prevents full unity with the rest of Orthodoxy and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will come. Our effective presentation of the Gospel to America is what we should keep front and center when discussing these issues. Holupki and kibbi are nowhere near the top of the list. And hot dogs and french fries just aren't healthy. [Unless, of course the hot dogs are Hebrew National brand.]

11. >>Greek Orthodox patriarch is taking more control of its parishes in the US. It wants one church too - under its control.<<

This is a sad situation and we must pray for our Greek Orthodox brothers and sisters. But are we not already in a position of being totally controlled by a non-Byzantine?

12. >>More developments without the Orthodox included - again?<<

If anything, the idea of a national patriarchate is quite Orthodox. I suspect that those in the various Orthodox jurisdictions seeking unity want nothing less. Imagine a future where all Byzantine Christians - Catholic and Orthodox united - work together in proclaiming the Gospel to America. When full eucharistic communion is established between Catholicism and Orthodoxy I would be quite happy for the Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Washington to resign in favor of either the Orthodox patriarch of America or a new patriarch elected by an integrated Byzantine Catholic / Orthodox Synod of Bishops.

Just catching up on all the replies to my original posting... been in Denver for 10 days on business and a little vacation. Did make it to the Ruthenian parish south of Denver University (there is also a Ukranian Catholic parish too in the city). I think that even though God is everywhere present, He must spend most of His time in the Rockies. If any of you ever get the chance to visit Rocky Mountain National Park, do not pass it up. Anyway...

Moose: I thank you for you comments. Your most recent post articulated much better than I could the response I would have given to many of the comments in this thread.

Traveling down my own spiritual road, I've have noticed a major swing in how I view my "religion." Please bear with the cake metaphor, but I used to see the Byzantine ritual and traditions as the "cake" (main part) and the living of the Gospel as the "icing on top"... a nice, extra that I could take or leave. Now, it's the cake part (the main part) that is the living of the Gospel and the ritual/tradition has become the icing on the top. And you know, this combination produces a much better tasting, more satifying cake.

Pax tecum.

Rick,

And to think: You can have your cake and eat it too - without getting your head cut off!

Elias