Joe,

Given that many priest I know get $0 nor do they ask for any money to do any service I tend to think not. I do think that many people like the Christmas/Paschas only get their kids baptized and never contribute to the parish or attend Liturgy so I can see that baptisms might be high compared to actual participating membership.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Its good to know that there are unmercenary clerics out there.

Anyway, it was short and sweet. Gotta depart once more to pursue other things in life.

Bye,
Joe

Admin,

I'm sorry you've misconstrued my words. To clarify things, I in no way believe the Byzantine Tradition to be somehow inferior to that of the Roman Tradition, or any other Tradition within the Holy Catholic Church.

And the fact that Byzantine Catholics "cannot be good Catholics without first being good Byzantines" isn't the point. I'm not disputing that at all; I agree with you. But you seem to imply that it's better to be a good Byzantine than to be a good Catholic. Why else would it be acceptable for one to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (with which, unfortunately, Catholics are not in communion) than to the Roman Church, with which BCs have been united for a total of about 1500 years (with about 500 years of interruption, of course), and with which BCs are in communion to this very day?

How does this translate into snubbing the Byzantine Tradition? I see no connection whatsoever, and that's probably because there isn't one. I think I'm being caricatured unfairly as somehow being anti-Byzantine. If this were the case, then why have I been an active member at the Forum for over a year and a half?

Logos Teen

This is a nonsensical statement. It suggests that our being faithful Byzantines puts us at odds with Catholicism. The exact opposite is true. We cannot be faithful Catholics without being faithful Byzantines. The two are the same thing. Unless you are also suggesting that being too faithful a Latin Catholic somehow puts one at odds with Catholicism? I recommend again for your reading the writings of Pope John Paul II, who has reminded the entire Church that the Eastern Catholic forms of Christianity are equally Catholic to the Latin form.

It translates into snubbing of the Byzantine Tradition because it speaks once again of your belief that the Latin Tradition is the measuring stick of Catholicism.

If you really cannot understand how offensive some of your posts are then I think it might be best if you left this Forum.

It seems that Logos Teen is saying that the fullness of the Byzantine Tradition consists not only in the Byzantine-ness but also in communion with the Petrine see.

Logos Teen never stated anything about the "Latin Tradition", or that it had anything to do with being a good Byzantine Catholic.

E.G.--there are groups who follow the Latin Tradition exactly, but I don't consider them Catholic, and I don't think Logos Teen would either. The reason they are not Catholic? Because of their lack of communion with the Petrine see.

Similarly, Logos Teen would not consider EO groups Catholic because of their lack of communion with the Petrine see. So that is his beef--his beef has nothing to do with the Byzantine vs. Latin traditions.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

>>>If you really cannot understand how offensive some of your posts are then I think it might be best if you left this Forum.<<<<

WOW! I personally didn't think the posting was THAT offensive. Most of "our people" including clergy think the same way. No offense to any Orthodox member here. I am sure if the argument were the other way around an Orthodox Christian would rather see movement inside the Church than a move outside of the Church.

I still find it hard to believe Logos is a 'teen' though. No teens I know are anywhere NEAR that knowledgeable about their religion these days. God bless him - but leave? Why? If everyone here talked the same talk it would be a pretty boring place!

My 2 cents-
Sam

Not to beat a dead horse or anything.

I hope my comment also does not elicit the same invitation the Admin forwared to Latin Trad above but.....

Here we go, this is exactly what I have been talking about...

It seems as though when an orthodox makes comments against our catholicism no one raises an eyebrow.

I do not think that LatinTrad has ever made me think that he believes that the Latin Tradition is the measuring stick of Catholicism.

I think this could be to my bias as I strongly believe that I am a Catholic.

And he does make a good point that seems many byzantine catholics see nothing wrong with, and at times seem to cheer, when one goes orthodox, but it seems to border on anathema when one starts going to a Roman Church.


Now for the topic at hand. I think we should explore more fully the fact that the population is becoming more dispersed. That they are moving to areas without a byzantine church.

Also the fact that there may be other byzantine chruches, such as a Melkite or Ukranian, but they do not go there as it is not a Byzantine-Ruthenian Church.

For example, there was a post a couple of months about here about the closing of the Mission in Milwaukee, WI.

Now, with a Melkite parish, and I believe a Ukranian one, why would we have a mission there?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear David, BC:

Although LatinTrad and LogosTeen may be in the same predicament just right about now, the subject of the Admin's reprobation this time is LogosTeen and not LatinTrad.

But I thank you sincerely for taking up the cudgels for us Latins, who seem to be viewed as "offensive," "disruptive," or outright brimming with "superiority complex."

Perhaps, some, but not all, of us come as such but without malice nor premeditation, especially during this week of prayer for Christian unity!

I, for one, value the Eastern part of the One Church and have learned so much from this "Eastern Christian Forum."

AmdG

I think that there are several reasons for the decline.
1) The older folks are dying off.
2) Yes, people are moving where there are jobs, and often no Byzantine Catholic Church exists in those places.
3) Many of the females marry Latin spouses, and therefore do not raise their children Byzantine.
4) Lack of manpower (priests). Our seminaries and religious orders do not accept candidates for the priesthood so therefore we have no one to minister to them.

I would agree with djs (too much of that lately) that the reason Byzantines move to the Latin rite church has NOTHING to do with their belief that the larger group is somehow superior. It's all of the other reasons which have been listed on several threads prior to this one. "Once raised in the beauty the Byzantine church, it is very difficult to find God in other less 'majestic' church". My mother's uncle Joe (really her cousin but much older) who was raised in the Ukrainian Catholic Church told me this at my grandmother's funeral. He lives far from any Ukie church and had not been to one in years he said (I didn't ask which church he was attending).

I'm not a history professor, and I surely do not know what goes on the Byzantine Church USA, but I do see some parallels with our Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

I see immense parallels between the two groups. Both tried to develop strong religious communities on the American continent, and both were parts of repressed minorities in Eastern Europe. The pressure to be Catholic over all else was also true within our church. Some opted for the Orthodox Church for this very reason.

However, UGCC and the Ruthenian USA churches diverged significantly after the second world war. There were about 120,000 UGCC members who entered the United States and probably about 50,000 to Canada immediately following the war. These were all young men and women who had 'baby boom' families of their own and boosted the UGCC membership. These immigrants lived through the hell of Russian Soviet occupation, NAZI terror, and loss of home and coutry (as most ended up in the DP camps of Eastern Europe).

From my understanding, it was at this point (50's and 60's) that the UGCC tried in vain to come to a consensus on joining the two churches to form a stronger entity. Both were now oppressed by the Russian Communists and were in the same dire predicament. Further as MJ points out in one of his past posts, the stronger church could do the real work of Christ. I know at least our now deceased bishop Boretsky (UGCC Canada) tried to keep one strong Greek Catholic Church like the one envisioned by Metropolitan Sheptytsky. His arguments were exactly those of MJ - better one strong church than two weaker ones. Both spoke the same language (although one called it Ukrainian or Halych Rusin, and the other Carpatho Rusyn).

In light of many of your comments, perhaps it is now time to re-evaluate our need to join into one modern strong Ruthenian-Ukrainian Church (with Patriarch to come) for the good of it's existance here and in Ukraine (Halychyna and Subcarpathia).

O.K. - Now fire away !

PS: Please no "Ja buv, Jest, i budu Rusyn" it really dosen't mean that much.

My gusses is that the are going to Roman Catholic Churches or are Converting to Orthodoxy.

In Christ
Daniel

I'll check my Catholic almanac when I get home.

1.) I believe most of the growth in the Latin Church is due to infant baptisms.

Recomendatioon: Have larger families.

2.) Next is converts through mixed marriages.

Recomendation: Send your boys out to marry other Christians. RC women are a good catch when marrying an EC is not possible.
Don't forget about the attraction of a man training for the priesthood. Some women are atracted to the clergy. Married priests: have large families.

3.) Youth, Youth, Youth. Without youth all our Churches are dead. Minister to their needs. Youth leading youth is the best approach.

Just a few suggestions.

You have the answers.

Paul

I really don't see much traction here. Although it seems to surprise Ukrainians, whatever bond there may have been between those north versus south of the Carpathians little or nothing is left of it in the US. The idea of the administrator, to forge an American Eastern Catholic church might resonate with BC's, but appears, on the basis of past discussions here, to seem odd, to say the least, to Ukrainians. The idea of merging into a Patriarchate centered in L'viv or Kyiv, would strike little resonance with BC's; not much different than merging into one of the Antiochian Patriarchates.

Had we had, like the Ukrainians a continuing influx of immigrants post WWII and post Soviet Union attitudes would be different.

The last time someone made this comment I invited them to list the offending posts, as I was surprised by the comment. I still am.

I think that the better course to take when far removed from any EC parishes is not obvious; it will depend on a great deal on the entire life history of an individual in that situation. I don't begrudge Teen's giving his opinion, nor do I think that it an opinion without merit, nor do I think it immediately evidences anti-byzantine feelngs.

In fact this difficult decision is made by many Byzantines, not necessarily because of a lack of love of their patrimony or a feeling that Latin is better, but because the alternative choice requires, at some level, a turning of one's back on one's patrimony - a willingness to accept as acceptable the opinion that the church that one loves, and its faithful that one cherishes, are without grace. This perspective is unambiguously anti-Byzantine, in the sense of being mightily. Some adapt to it, others cannot.

It is a damnable shame that we are faced with such choices.