For me the title sounds less than desirable. Yet, haven't we taken a step in that direction by not having any relationship with Kiev, or...? Wouldn't we be taking a major step in that direction if we were to unite all the Eastern Eparchies into one Archeparchy?

The problem did not register until someone on the Catholic Convert page predicted with much consternation that an American "Catholic" Church seems on the horizon.

Doesn't "one" already exist? It's called "Protestantism"?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

Very often dissenters in the Roman Catholic Church identify themselves as ‘American Catholic’ as opposed to ‘Roman Catholic’. Traditionalists and conservatives (who both in turn ID themselves with the latter label) have contracted ‘American Catholic Church’ to ‘AmChurch’.

Something to consider, sure, but it’s not directly related to the Byzantine Churches in the US (both Catholic and Orthodox) so why not have a Church in America? But of course not an American Church that is more American than Catholic/Orthodox.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</A>

I agree with Rusnak on this one. It has been my observation that the Eastern Churches are more impervious to the herisies then the western church. Maybe this is because you are more local and ethnic then the Roman Church?

Joe Zollars

I'm really too new to have clearly formed opinions on the future of the BC in America. Yet, I do know how self centered American culture is and how corrupting it is of religion. I pray that we not cut ourselves off even more from our Eastern heritage.

Dan L

Brother Lauffer: do not despair about the Byzantine Church. We've been through a lot and we have survived. The contemporary culture that we live in in the US is no more or less destructive than the elements of past cultures.

Some Romaniaks' preoccupation with the status of the Roman vs. "Catholic" vs. "American" is their issue, not ours. Leave 'em be. We have enough issues of our own than to get embroiled in their problems.

I pray that they resolve their 'traditional' vs. 'Tridentine' vs. 'Novus Ordo'problems.

But it's not our fight or issue. The real question is: how do we Byzantines spread the Gospel?

Blessings!

Serge,
How about the Orthodox Catholic Church in America. One jurisdiction following several eastern usages.
Stephanos

Rubbish.

It has been the right wing Catholics who have been the promoters of the "American Catholic Church". Who see their culture as superior to every other, who engage in unjust, war-mongering imperalist adventures, who (even secretly and illegally as Reagan did) financed fascists who martyered bishops, nuns and priests standing up for justice.

And of course, it has been their unchristian worship of the "free" market that has promoted consumerism, selfishness, and excesive individualism.

Start with Bill Grace, William Simon, Deal Hudson, Mary Ellen Bork, etc, etc.


K.

Dear Friends,

What a fascinating thread and conversation!

You've taken what, on the face of it, appears as "simply" a cultural/ecclesial issue, and raised it to new and interesting heights.

Adapting our Church to mainstream North American society is both a challenge and a problem.

When Poland liberated itself from communism, it began to focus on western capitalism.

The Pope was happy when the Soviet Yoke was thrown off his country and others, but he wasn't so happy when he saw his people turn to the evils of western capitalism.

Kurt has put his finger on a number of them.

Friends, you have given me an insight that came as a pleasant surprise to me and is great food for future thought.

Your point about ties to the "Old Country" transcends the usual talk about ethnic language and customs.

The "Old Country" can actually represent, even if only symbolically, a source of traditional values that impact the spiritual in the first instance.

Perhaps the "Old Country" ain't what it used to be.

But it does represent a way of life that is less focused on the material and more rooted in human and Divine relationships.

Sometimes our very Rite and Byzantine traditions become associated with "Old World" ways. That is unfortunate, but this can also prove to be the salvation of the Church in "with it" and boringly cosmopolitan North America. It can also prove to be a help to our salvation, as Serge and others have said.

I know I'm rambling (sorry to shock you ), but I need to ponder some more on what you have written here.

In essence, I don't want my Church to have anything "modern" in its title or any reference to North America. The reference to Byzantine and Ukrainian or Ruthenian or what have you puts a focus on ideals and traditions established in other historical and geographical contexts. It helps us realize that we are here to witness to and prophesy against the very anti-Christian values of North American society, as Kurt and others have discussed.

With people like you in its bosom, our Church will truly prosper, to be sure!

Alex

I don’t agree that Byzantines, Armenians, et al. should be lumped into one American Church. One Byzantine Church? No problem. Have ethnic churches either under one bishop per city or under ethnic vicariates, like the Russian Orthodox mission in America through the 1920s or the OCA today.

Dismissing the civil war in the Roman Catholic Church as irrelevant when one is in communion with that Church is, IMO, a copout. Suppose you’re married, your spouse cheats on you and you get HIV as a result. So it is when you’re in communion with something that’s infected with heresy, etc. on the local level. One can’t claim to be o/Orthodox and at the same time insist that AmChurch is OK. Such reduces ‘o/Orthodoxy’ to a liturgical style or an allowable opinion in a church of ‘pluriform truth’ as the Episcopalians believe.

It seems Kurt is being disingenuous by identifying ’80s-era ‘Catholic’ dissent with legitimate Catholic social teaching, which does in fact criticize capitalism and much of our American culture. But the dissenters’ platform is 1) counterfeit (an altered copy of Catholic teaching), 2) discredited (Communism and socialism don’t work) and 3) already regarded as out of date.

Though at face value, many of his words can be seen as valid criticism of the globalist, interventionist ‘neoconservatives’. But that has more to do with American politics than the issue of this thread. He seems to be identifying ‘right-wing Catholics’ with the sins of American political conservatism. Part of the problem is the ambiguity of the label ‘right-wing’. It could refer to political neoconservatism, but as I remember the post-er has used this label before to put down traditional Romans. Deliberately confusing two unrelated things? (Dorothy Day was a traditional Roman but not a political or economic ‘conservative’ in the American sense.)

For all its faults, give me the free market over the worker’s paradise any day.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</A>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 08-21-2001).]

"So it is when you’re in communion with something that’s infected with heresy, etc. on the local level. One can’t claim to be o/Orthodox and at the same time insist that AmChurch is OK. Such reduces ‘o/Orthodoxy’ to a liturgical style or an allowable opinion in a church of ‘pluriform truth’ as the Episcopalians believe."

Amin!

It appears that one must go to extremes in order for something to be done -- as was the case with Fr. Jim Callan's parish in Rochester, for example. Barring the massive abuse that was taking place there, it appears that almost *everything* will be tolerated, and all for the sake of preserving a superficial unity. I think that's a fundamental difference between Orthodox and Catholics -- Orthodox tend to be willing to sacrifice unity more quickly to preserve what they perceive (rightly or wronly) as correct/orthodox from what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as incorrect/heretical --- while Catholics tend to be willing to sacrifice much in terms of correct/orthodox for the sake of preserving unity.

Brendan

if a civil war is going on in the Catholic Church inthe US, 95% are non-combatants and the five percent who are leading the charge, of either extreme, are the problem, the reactionaries as much as the radicals. A pox on both their houses.

K.

LOL!

How we disliked all this talk about being lumped together as the "Eastern Church" because we all look alike. Such a Western presupposition!

We are individual Churches, not one Mega-Rite. Even in Constantinople, John Chrysostom allowed foreigners to worship in their own way. Now, we all talk about being one big Mega-Eastern Church! Such silliness from a bunchh of people who should know better.

There is a difficulty here: our Eastern Church"ES" come from not one, but several apostolic sees. The West only had Rome. Sometimes, me thinks we are just never satisfied; always on the move to twist and distort our church into more pretzel shapes for poops and giggles.

Who's liturgy do we use? Who's theology? Who's canon law? Who's liturgical chant?

Joe

How we disliked all this talk about being lumped together as the "Eastern Church" because we all look alike. Such a Western presupposition!

We are individual Churches, not one Mega-Rite.

Exactly! Fr Serge Keleher tells a story of being invited onto a radio program and being ID’d as a Maronite. To some Westerners, all us Oriental Grease Balls (his joking expression and his capitalization) look alike.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</A>

Dear Friends,

This thread gets better as it develops.

I'm not even annoyed with Brendan any more

Love y'a Brendan, just love y'a!

Alex

Serge,

Don't worry. Someone will come up with some other church model to confound us with.

Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 08-21-2001).]