Dear friends,

The folks on the message board over at byzantines.net have been arguing with me over ethnicity. They believe that the Byzantine Catholic Chuch exists for Eastern Europeans, and that the Byzantine Church should preserve the Rusyn ethnic identiy.

I am of Italian / French ancestry. But like many persons of my generation, I consider myself to be American first. Really, I don't have any signficant ties to the "Old World."

So, since I am not a Slav, is there a place for me in the Byzantine Church? Or should I just pack up my bags and go back to the Universal and non-ethnic Roman Church, from which I came?

I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. I love the Byzantine Catholic Church. But I can sometimes be made to feel like a second-class member because I'm not a Rusyn. This really hurts, because I love the Byzantine Tradition.

God bless,
Anthony

Does it work that way in your own parish? If not, I wouldn't worry about what Kurt et al have to say at the other board. You have to remember that we have been having an ongoing discussion there for at least 6 months about ethnicity, culture and the eastern church. Kurt has strong views, I have strong views (that differ from his) -- but the reality is that it's a bulletin board for exchanging viewpoints and ideas - it's not a church.

If you feel welcome in your local Byzantine parish, then I wouldn't worry about these discussions very much. If you feel less than welcome there, try addressing it with your priest. If that doesn't avail, try another parish -- even in a different Eastern Catholic jurisdiction, if necessary.

In Christ,

Brendan

Brendan,

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote:

"I wouldn't worry about what Kurt et al have to say at the other board... If you feel welcome in your local Byzantine parish, then I wouldn't worry about these discussions very much."

This really puts things back in perspective for me. My fiancee and I have been made to feel very welcome in our parish, and in almost every other parish that we have visited. As a matter of fact, the folks on this message board have been wonderful with me also.

Just because a few very vocal folks at byzantines.net say disturbing things, I shouldn't let them get to me. Their kind are dying out anyways... almost all of the younger Byzantines that I know consider themselves Americans before they are Rusyns.

I feel better now. God bless,

Anthony

P.S. Please say a quick prayer for me.

Byzantines don't say quick prayers. Just be patient;we ARE praying!


In Christ our True God who raised Lazarus from the dead.


PS-As far as I am concerned and according to the realities of my daily life, Byzantine and Catholic are, if not linguistically,they are spiritually, synonyms. I cannot separate the two without "separating" my soul. I tried to be Orthodox. I was married to a wonderful Greek woman for almost fourteen years and I believed I could make the transition successfully - I was very wrong. I now know that I can never be RC or EO; I must be myself. That is why many of us stay within the BC fold. It is our home. Leaving is futile and destructive.


Part of that attachment certainly is ethnic. Those of us who share in that ethnic soul-force should nurture it by "adopting" those who come to us from other ethnic or even racial backgrounds. Rusyns are gifted with customs that are "user friendly" for all people because they are so positively human. All can share in these gifts. To borrow from the Spanish: "Nuestra iglesia es su iglesia." (Our church is your church.) Besides, we need the infusion of new blood. Our survival depends on it.

I am what I am and I don't allow pharisees of the Roman, Orthodox, or Byzantine varieties define what I am or how I live my Catholic Byzantine life. Christ gave His life that we might be free; slaves to no man or group of men, and certainly not slaves to circumstances. There is no reason at all for you to leave the Byzantine Catholic Church. We need you.

In Christ our True God who raised Lazarus from the dead.

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LazarusDos (edited 07-21-2000).]

Since my name was invoked here, let me make some clarification of my views. Anthony says he feels welcome in the parish he has chosen to be a member of. That is good. I would think that would be the begining and end of the discussion.

I don't believe the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia exists for Eastern Europeans nor do beleive that the Metropolia has any particular obligation to preserve Rusyn ethnic identity in the U.S.

I am also not particularly pleased to be the butt end of a comment like "Their kind are dying out anyways." I think it lacks Christian charity. (and my health is quite good, anyway)

Now Anthony, you had the gift of the Catholic faith before you began attending a Ruthenian Byzantine Church. Having already received the greatest gift in the world, the Byzantine Church gave you nothing new other than a different human and earthly ritual expression and human community. You clearly find value in that, which is wonderful. Use it to your best spiritual and social advantage.

But why the need to suggest to others that they need to leave their "Old World ways" at the Church door? I don't beleive the Metropolia should take any affirmative action to either preserve or to cleanse our parishes of their social characteristics. But, what is, is.

I have spent my entire life avoiding the debate on my nationality. When asked if I am Rusyn, Carpatho-Russian, Ukranian, Slovak, Ruthenian, Lemko or Uhgro-Carpathian, I answer yes. You notice here and elsewhere I have never raised this topic.

I will tell you this, a point I think you do not understand. I have been at a Roman Mass about a dozen times in my life. I have never witnessed a celebration of the Roman Rite Liturgy fo the Hours, Baptism, First Communion, Chrismation, or Ordination. I actually would at some point like to participate in the Roman Holy Week services, particularly the Easter Vigil, which I have read about but never exposed to.

I have no philosophical belief that the Byzantine tradition is superior to any other, just as I do not believe my nationality is superior to any other. If I worked on it slowly, I might be successful, but I do beleive I am part of that 99% of Catholics for whom suddenly having to change patrimonies would be a difficult feat. I would prefer to continue my life in the patrimony I have been inculurated in, for that is the purpose of patrimonies.

I appreciate the fact that the Catholic Church carefully guards the rights of its members to life in the patrimony they are inculturated in. That is why we try so hard to support our Byzantine young people in our rite. That is why as we migrate, the particular ritual chruches follow with us.

You are clearly a special and exceptionable person in that your human nature gives you the rare ability to develop or adopt a second patrimony. But given that you have abilites others of us likely lack, I would hope you could have a little more sympathy and respect for the rest of us. I am sure you would find in the Roman Church, there are Spanish language or Polish ethnic parishes you cannot just walk in a feel totally included. So given the fact you are welcome and happy in your own parish, why do feel the need to lecture other Byzantine parishes on their ethnic character?

Kurt,

I do not support "ethnic cleansing," and I think that the Rusyn traditions are pretty cool and actually practice some of them.

Your write:

"So given the fact you are welcome and happy in your own parish, why do feel the need to lecture other Byzantine parishes on their ethnic character?"

First of all, the message that sparked all of this over at Byzantines.net was my defense of our esteemed Metropolitan Judson. "Rusyn American" posted a message which said some very cruel and unkind things about Metropolitan Judson, whom I deeply admire, and I instinctively jumped to his defense. He is my bishop, and I love the guy. He has welcomed my fiancee and myself into the fold, and treats us like pure gold. If I stand in judgement for defending my shepherd, so be it.

The message that I wrote stated my support for "Metropolitan Judson's program of de-ethnicization." This was, in hindsight, a poor choice of words on my part. Apparently you and several others thought that I was advocating "ethnic cleansing," as you put it. I am not. But I do agree with Metropolitan Judson that the Byzantine Catholic Church MUST BECOME a Church for persons of all ethnic backgrounds. Overemphasizing a parish's ethnicity, which does happen, is very unwelcoming to non-Rusyns. When we visit such parishes, we know that we would never fit in. And like it or not, the reality is that almost all of the young people in hyper-ethnic parishes do eventually join the Latin parish down the street.

For the record, I would not classify St. John Chrysostom's in Pittsburgh nor Holy Ghost im McKees Rocks as "hyper-ethnic parishes." I have visted both, and had great experiences. But do visit a little mining town or two in Western Pennsylvania, where the parish has no icon screen nor any canonical icons, and the parishioners suspiciously ask all visitors what their last name is. Such a parish is surely more ethnic than it is Byzantine!

A lot of us on here complain that the Roman Catholics don't take us seriously. I can tell you one of the major reasons why: to the average Roman Catholic, the "Byzantine rite" is a special place for ethnic Slavs, and it bears no real importance for the universal Church. If we as Byzantine Catholics desire a place of importance in the universal Church, we must make an effort to become universal ourselves! I dream of a Byzantine Catholic Church that will one day serve the spiritual needs of millions of Africans, Asians, Hispanics, and even some American Indians. So does Metropolitan Judson.

Kurt, I bear you no ill will and wish you only the best. This is a philosophical difference, and (hopefully) not a personal one. I do not intend for this to degenerate into personal insults as the discussion between you and Stuart unfortunately has.

God bless,
Anthony

Anthony,

(Pretend for a moment that I'm tall enough to look down my nose at you - mebbe I'm standing on a box, while I draw myself up with a pompous sniff and say..)

"MY grandparents came from the CARPATHIANS!"

(Yeah, and they were all Jews, too.)

God BLESS Vladyko Judson! It's not going to be easy. People quite naturally brought their ethnic culture with them on the boat to America, and into the Church that was their refuge. It's been so tied up with the Church that it's sometimes hard to differentiate "sacramental" from "ethnic custom" anymore. (Look at the Slavonic/English debate!) But last time I looked, we don't baptize in the name of the Pysanki, the Holupki and the Buttered Pierogi - even tho' there are places which make ya wonder....

Theoretically our churches are organizations dedicated to spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, who COMMANDED us to share the faith with ALL nations. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Gospel is only to be shared with those of a specific language or culture group. In fact, if you remember the events of the first Pentecost, you'll recall that the Holy Spirit spread the word to ALL present, in their own languages.

Roll ahead to the time of Cyril & Methodius. Following the type of logic that the "Slavs Only" crowd holds to, Sts. C & M should have refused to come to the backwoods of the Rus' in the first place. If did come, they should have refused to catechise, baptize and admit to worship anybody who wouldn't learn Greek first. Obviously they didn't have the benefit of this perspective - they were foolish enough to translate, and open the doors to all comers.

If the Holy Spirit wants you, who is anyone else to say you no?

(But then, I'm not "nas" either.....)

Cheers from the Jew,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

As one who grew up 100% Ukrainian, this is a special topic for me.

I have found that as one moves from east to west in the US, the concentration of ethnic groups rapidly deminishes. In my neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest, a person of a single ethnic background is becoming something of a novelty.

Eastern churches of all varieties must face the demographic facts. Americans of a single ethnic background are a threatened species and are rapidly heading for the endangered species list with every passing generation. Outside of immagrants, extinction is not far behind.

And it isn't ending there.

As a child, a mixed race couple was something to talk abount. In the PNW (don't know about your area) it doesn't even merit a second thought. In the next 50 years, single race Americans will be on the threatened list. Face it Cabalasians like Tiger Woods are the future. (CAcasian-BLack-ASIAN by his own statement as to his race)

Churches that were previously ethnically oriented must either deal with this. To choose to ignore this is to choose suicide.

If the Eastern Churches are to bring the gospel to the non-christian, (and there are plenty of them out there. 2/3 of the folks in the PNW never darken the door of any church, and many of those haven never been in one in their lives)

Do we want their souls on our conscience because we did not bring them the gospel? Or we made them feel unwelcome? How many will never learn of the riches of the East [Catholic or Orthodox] because they figured "I can't go there, I'm not [insert ethinic group here]." Isn't there a duty to do better?

Andy

Anthony,

First of all, as I am sure you now know, the post re: Metropolitian Judson was a joke. he never said those things; it was a parady of the press release I previously posted.

Also, I wish you would withdraw your statement where you appear to be gleefull over what you believe is my coming death. ("Their kind are dying out anyways..."). I don't think rejoicing at the death of one's adversaries is very Christian.

I've been to the little mining towns in Pennsylvania you mention. I wil tell you my impression. It would be nice if every parish and mission was totally welcoming to every biritual visitor that comes their way. However, these places are hardly tourist meccas. If you go to the Roman parishes, they are just as "ethnic" (Polish, Bohemian, Italian, etc.). And sadly, thank to shiping all of our jobs overseas ("free trade") these towns are dying and cutesy "Orthodox" liturgies are not going to bring them back. Lastly, you would be surprised how many unevangelized "ethnics" live in these places.
Further, I think your concern as to how the Roman Catholics view us is not much of a concern to those of us who are not Latin. we wish our Latin brothers and sister well; we help when asked and as our abilities allow; but ultimately its their duty to educate themselves as to the universality of the Church. Certainly heaven is full of Roman Catholic who died never knowing of the existance of the Eastern Catholic churches.

Anthony, I've never doubted your good will or sincerity. But I will tell you this. You will develop a better understanding of the Eastern Catholic Church by associating with those who received the gift of Catholic faith through the Byzantine patrimony (and this is NOT the same thing as being ethnic Rusyn) than from those who had the gift of Catholic faith and subsequently developed an interest in the externals of Byzantine Christianity.

Kurt

>>>Anthony, I've never doubted your good will or sincerity. But I will tell you this. You will develop a better
understanding of the Eastern Catholic Church by associating with those who received the gift of Catholic faith
through the Byzantine patrimony (and this is NOT the same thing as being ethnic Rusyn) than from those who
had the gift of Catholic faith and subsequently developed an interest in the externals of Byzantine Christianity.<<<

That would be me, Anthony. I received the gift of the Catholic faith directly through the Byzantine Patrimony. So you can rely on me (and Sharon) to steer you straight.

New Byzantine Catholics need to associate themselves with all types of Byzantine Catholics.

Association with new converts (under 10 years) helps show them the immediate path to follow in steeping themselves in all things Byzantine. It is from this group that they acquire a special zeal.

Association with established converts (of 10 or more years) will provide them with a solid role model of someone who has come into the Church and 'learned the ropes'. This group tends to have moved from everything being new to everything being comfortable. They have asked most of their questions and have usually discarded any baggage they have brought from other traditions. After 30 years or so many of these people develop a spirit that is even more solid than those who grew up in the Faith.

Association with cradle Byzantines is the most important, particularly with cradles who can discern between the Byzantine patrimony and the ethnic patrimony that is part of our Church. These are the people you watch when someone invites you to "Come see how we pray!" These are the people who live the Faith and are, at times, simply not aware of exactly why (although if you asked they would stop, think a minute, and then tell you in plain words). Our parishes are full of grandmas and grandpas who - despite some external forms that are Latin - are true possessors of an authentic spirit. But one must also be aware that there are cradles who take everything for granted and who never develop the spirit of Byzantium.

"We have gifts that differ according to the favor bestowed on each of us. [Each gift] should be used in proportion to his faith." Romans 12:6

>>>New Byzantine Catholics need to associate themselves with all types of Byzantine Catholics.<<<

Never mind new Byzantine Catholics--ALL Byzantine Catholics need to associate with ALL other types of Byzantine Catholics. One of the more insidious effects of uniatism as a model of Church governance is that it creates a stovepipe model for the Eastern Churches. We are in communion with our own hierarchs, who in turn are in communion with the pope. On the other hand, there is very little contact at a hierarchical or parish level between the different Byzantine Catholic Churches--we look to our own. Period. Thus, Ruthenians associate with Ruthenians, Ukrainians with Ukrainians, Melkites with Melkites, etc. This is symbolized by the fact that while we commemorate our bishops and our archbishop/patriarch, as well as the pope, we do not commemorate the heads of the other particular Churches with which we are supposed to be in communion.

For this reason, for a while now I have been mulling over the idea of an Association of Byzantine Catholic Faithful, which would be comprised of members of all the Byzantine particular Churches, to deal with pastoral and evangelical matters, as well as to extend the bonds of fellowship beyond our own little sandboxes.

I would be interested in the opinions of others regarding this idea.

You mean those who don't preach the doctrine, "Sine pieroghium nulla sallus"?

Y'all can just cross me off the list of "role models." Come December 19th (Old Calendar feast of St. Nicholas) I'll be 18 years in the Church. This qualifies me to stumble and fall FREQUENTLY, and to make lots of noise in Church. Oh - and to be FIRST among sinners. A well placed elbow helps.


BTW, per Stuart's observation - one of the coolest things about the "East Toward Carmel" retreat this past weekend was the mix of folks we had, with clergy including Orthodox, & Ukrainian, Ruthenian and Roman Catholic - and Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Maronite & Roman Catholic layfolk.

Cheers,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com


[This message has been edited by Sharon Mech (edited 07-27-2000).]

Dear Sharon,

Thank you for the encouraging message.

Interestingly, if things had gone the way that some of the earliest Christians would have liked, you would be the ONLY one here who would be a Christian. As you recall from Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's Epistles, many of the early Christians believed that only ethnic Jews could embrace Christianity. Peter and Paul bringing the Gospel to "those Gentiles" was a scandal at first!

Other early Christians were somewhat more tolerant, and believed that Gentiles could become Christian IF they adopted all of the Jewish customs and traditions (you know, started eating Pierogi and praying in Slavonic). St. Paul vigorously opposed this also, and instead brought the Gospel to the Gentiles in the context of their own culture. He rocked the ethnic boat!

St. Paul even stood up to the mighty Pope Peter I and uttered these famous words:

"We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by Rusyn ethnic traditions but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by eating holupki and buttered pierogi, because through ethnic cuisine no one can be justified." - Galations 2:15-16 (Non-Rusyn Byzantine Convert Revised Standard Version)


Kurt,

I apologize if it appeared that I was gleefully hoping for your early demise. That was not my stated intention. I did not even mention your name. Rather, I was asserting the fact that those who believe that it is the mission of the Byzantine Church to preserve the Rusyn culture are diminishing in number, while an increasing number of young people are more interested in being a Church for persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

May God grant you many years in peace, health, and happiness.

Also, I didn't become Byzantine Catholic because of external bells and whistles. Rather, I was drawn in by the rich spirituality, which soothes my aching soul. I am not a "biritualist." I am of one ritual only - Byzantine. I was born from a mixed Protestant marriage, passed through the saving waters of the Roman Catholic Church, and then found myself instinctively drawn to Byzantine Catholicism. I have been here for three years now, and readily admit that I still have a lot more to learn.

God bless you,
Anthony

[This message has been edited by Dragani (edited 07-27-2000).]

>>Never mind new Byzantine Catholics--ALL Byzantine Catholics need to associate with ALL other types of Byzantine Catholics. <<

This is, of course, obvious and has always been my experience. I am sorry that Stuart does not experience this. I was, however, directing and limiting my comments to those who are new in the Church.

I would add two things to my previous post:

1) All people should have an elder in the faith to turn to for guidance. This need not be a formal spiritual director or even a formal arrangement. Any levelheaded long time Byzantine with a decent prayer life will usually do just fine.
2) As I have noted many times before, the primary catechesis we undergo is in the liturgy. We learn from both the actions of others as well as from singing our theology. One cannot overstate the importance of praying the Divine Services.


>>Y'all can just cross me off the list of "role models."<<

Sharon hits something vitally important. None of us is, in a sense, worthy of being a role model. We should be careful of those who come offering advice. We should look to our parish community to see the status of any person that we might consider as either a role model or as an elder to guide us. All of us - cradle and convert - live the same life. We take a step and fall down in sin. Though the Sacramental Mysteries we are cleansed and fortified to take another step along our journey.


In one sense, those who are converts can and should offer a special gift to their parishes. When those who are super-ethnic ask why you are there you can remind them that hidden behind the basket of pirohi and kielbasi (or kibbi and baklava) is the fullness of the Gospel. Perhaps the converts can gently help some of the cradles to remove the basket covering the Light and place it in a more appropriate place.

Anthony,

I appreciate your point and Moose's comments. Let me just say you are not a convert to our Church family. You were previously a member of our family; you are just our sister's son who has come to live with his aunt for what I am sure are legitimate reasons. Same family, different living arrangements.

K.

Anthony,

I got quite a chuckle out of your addition to Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

This thread is an anthropologist's goldmine or nightmare, depending on one's perspective.

People talk about "Byzantine Churches" of varying flavors; Rusyn/Ukrainian/Arab/Greek, etc ethnicity; ecclesiastical jurisdictions and the 'borders' between them; Orthodox vs. Catholic 'churches'; who is to serve as a 'role model'; etc.

From my perspective, the absolute root of all of this discussion is the desire of the person to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to follow His teachings. Different ethnic groups developed patterns for life based upon their cultural values; these lifestyles and cultural values interacted with the Gospels to create a "Christian lifestyle", that became the hallmark of a Church. Missionizing further complicated the issues, as the Greeks evangelized the Slavs, the Latins evangelized the Gauls and the Gaels, the Egyptians evangelized the Ethiopians, and the Syrians evangelized the Indians; each group brought the Gospel as well as its own Christian lifestyle to the missionized. The new converts generally accepted the whole kit and kaboodle, not only the Gospel but also the ethnically flavored Christian lifestyle. (The whole thing is yet further complicated by 'borrowings' across the whole panoply of Christian communities.)

So, two thousand years after this whole process began, what do we have? A whole mess of Christian churches, most of which claim direct linkages to the Apostles and Christ, and who are busy lambasting anybody who does anything different.

Yes, the Byzantine metropolia in America has Ruthenian roots-- but it's also got Kievan roots, and Greek roots, and Palestinian roots, etc. So, to suggest anything like ethnic purity or even predominance in 'our' or any other American ecclesiastical community is just not true. Even those most stalwart ethnic enclaves like the Ukrainians and Greeks are already disintegrating through intermarriage and monolingual offspring.

So, Stuart's idea of an Association of Byzantine Christians would seem, on the face of it, to be a viable concept. And it might be interesting to see what would happen if such a group were to arise. However, I think it does something that is actually very un-Byzantine, and very Latin: it sets up an organization that will go beyond the structures of our churches. While I believe that interaction and intermingling and social intercourse amongst Constantinople's spiritual children would be a good thing, our individual churches are still dealing with the 'ethnic identity' issue. (Parishoners at the local Greek Orthodox church refer to the local Byzantine Catholic parish as the 'Slovak Church'. No animosity, just ethnic identification.)

So, I think that Moose is correct in essence when he suggests that those who are drawn to Byzantine faith should learn from the long-term members of the community.

It is in participation in the liturgical life of a community (and we've GOT TO GET BEYOND the liturgy only perspective!!)and also in the social interaction among the members of the parish that one becomes a Byzantine Christian. For the cradle folks, we learn from our Grandparents and the other older folks in the parish. For the newly arrived, the learning comes from the liturgy, but also from the long-term folks with whom they worship.

The faith is transmitted through the prayer and life of the community. And this keeps us connected to the apostolicity of the Church. Otherwise, we might as well be fundies who establish 'ministries' willy-nilly based upon some 'charism' supposedly bestowed upon some local visionary with the talents of P.T. Barnum. We've got our own version of this in the folks who grab the Typikon/Scriptures/CanonLaws, and rise up in righteous leadership for 'true O/orthodoxy'. (This is what scares the crap out of the cradle folks. We could only wish that they had Babas who'd smack 'em upside the head.)

It disturbs me when I catch a flight to Boston and see some red-headed/bearded, cream skinned, freckled, blue-eyed guy whose ticket says: O'Malley, wearing a cassock, three-bar cross and skoufya debark from the plane heading for Brookline looking for all the world like he's heading for Vladivostok. It embarasses the daylights out of me, and it pisses me off because he's making my patrimony the laughingstock of all who see him. He's not converting anybody; in fact, he's affirming people's notion that Eastern Christians are physical (and spiritual?) anachronisms. If he were an ethnic, his grandma would probably tell him to put on a pair of pants -- and get a haircut.

So, after raving all this time, it comes right back to the first statement: our lifestyles should be essentially a response to the Gospel's invitation to 'come and see'. The other stuff is just costume. Fine for the PRIVATE spiritual theater that is our liturgy (".. the doors! the doors!..If you don't know the mystery of what is going on: Get out now! This way to the Egress!!), but it is NOT for public consumption. Because the outsiders just won't understand.

Blessings to all. (Get ready for the Dormition fast!! We begin next week. It's our Byzantine secret!!!)

Moderator Dr. John (JonDoc?)

You need not be so envious of the Irish, and your racist remarks are not befitting a Moderator.

Amen to Dr. John!

He highlights the necessity of Byzantines to live in accordance with the parish community in order to receive proper formation.

I remember reading something a few years ago, an account of a homily (I think) given by the OCA bishop of New England. He was talking about the need of converts to receive a proper formation in Orthodoxy. One of the examples he used was that of a person named "John Smith" who was an Evangelical Protestant who discovered Orthodoxy. He took 4 months of convert classes and was Baptized, Chrismated and received the Eucharist at Pascha, taking the name Vladimir. Six weeks later he was deep into the typicon asking questions. Six weeks after that he was pointing out to the pastor that the parish wasn't conforming to the letter of the typicon in its celebration of the Divine Services. Six weeks after that he was finding fault with everything the parish did and left to find a parish that was more faithful to Orthodoxy. One year later John Smith left Christianity for Mormonism. The point of the bishop telling this story was that people coming into the Church are oftentimes not properly catechized in what the Church teaches. Mr. Smith was given the proper books, but lacked the understanding of how to interpret them. Had he developed a relationship with a long time Orthodox they may have been able to nudge him in the proper direction, making him accountable to the community for his faith.


Scythian,

I saw no racism in Dr. John's post. I've read it several times and the only thing I can see as even remotely ethnically insensitive is his reference to Mr./Fr. O'Malley in clerical garb. But I seem to remember from another post that Dr. John's own ethnicity is Greek and Irish. Is there something I'm missing?

Dr. John,

You truely are "the good doctor".

Your remarks are the most sensible comment posted in quite some time.

K.

Dr John wrote: "It disturbs me when I catch a flight to Boston and see some red-headed/bearded, cream skinned, freckled, blue-eyed guy whose ticket says: O'Malley, wearing a cassock, three-bar cross and skoufya debark from the plane heading for Brookline looking for all the world like he's heading for Vladivostok. It embarasses the daylights out of me, and it pisses me off because he's making my patrimony the laughingstock of all who see him. He's not converting anybody; in fact, he's affirming people's notion that Eastern Christians are physical (and spiritual?) anachronisms. If he were an ethnic, his grandma would probably tell him to put on a pair of pants -- and get a haircut."

Hmmm. I don't see this as racist at all, but I can't say that I agree with it.

In substance, I agree that the principal witness to our faith is living our lives in accordance with the norms of the Gospel -- I agree with that 100%. But that is not to say that *all* external manifestations are bad, or that to express them in public is bad, gives us a bad reputation, brings scandal to the Church, etc. This is partiuclarly true for a cleric.

Look at the Latin Church -- clerics there dress differently than lay people do. Sure, they don't have beards and long hair, but they also didn't 1,000 years ago either. For Eastern clerics to dress as is appropriate for their own tradition should not, in my opinion, be considered scandalous or embarassing.

I'm not saying that every cleric should always be wearing a riassa! But if they want to wear a riassa and have their hair in traditional Byzantine style, why can't they? I agree that if their Christian witness begins and ends there, it is a sad thing indeed. But if they wish to do this AND witness to the norms of the Gospel, why not? In fact, in our present secularized world it is good, in my opinion, for someone to pop up like that every now and then to remind people that there are Christians who are very committed to being different from the norms of contemporary society.

If the Greek Old Calendrist heading to Holy Transfiguration Monastery wants to wear his riassa and long hair, let him -- let's just hope that this dress is not his only witness to his Christian faith.

Brendan

Brendan,

I can't speak for Dr. John, but I think he is speaking specifically to is those who come into the Church and are mainly concerned with the letter of the law and the cut of the dress. I have known a few men who have became Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox priests, coming from one of the Protestant Churches, who take things too far. When a priest is out and about doing the Lord's work he should dress appropriately (with different styles of clerical dress for diocesan and monastic priests). But when it's 90 in the shade and he is cutting the grass and trimming the bushes, shorts and a t-shirt are more appropriate.

It is possible he was speaking to the type of clerical dress used by Eastern Christians in America. It is my understanding that Metropolitan Philip and most of the priests in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese wear the standard clerical business suit (like RC priests) as their street clothes and the ryassa inside the church. I don't know if I agree with this, but I do understand it and accept it. One thing I do know from my priest friends is that a gray, short sleeved clerical shirt is much more comfortable in the summer than a black ryassa. There most likely will come a time when Byzantine clerical dress undergoes a transformation for American culture and climate. As long as this is faithful to our tradition, then it is appropriate. But I hope it doesn't come too soon.

>>>It is possible he was speaking to the type of clerical dress used by Eastern Christians in America. It is my
understanding that Metropolitan Philip and most of the priests in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese wear the
standard clerical business suit (like RC priests) as their street clothes and the ryassa inside the church.<<<

This is true, and recently caused me some problems. There's this really big portable iconostasis that we use at the Orientale Lumen Conference, and the cantor of St. Georges AOC saw it at one of the liturgies, and thought it would be perfect for the Antiochean Youth for Life Retreat they were holding at Arlington Cemetary the following week. So she asked her priest to come down and see it. I made arrangements to meet the priest at the West Entrance to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at 11. Eleven, and no priest. Eleven fifteen, and no priest. I go outside, looking for an Orthodox priest. Not one to be seen. I come back in, see this short, dark, priest in black jacket with clerical collar, looking just like all the myriad Hispanic Latin priests who congregate at the Shrine, talking anxiously into his cell phone. I go up to him, wave an Eastern Churches Journal in his face, and say hello. Yup, it's him. We had been passing each other in the hall for half of an hour. So, if I had my druthers, I would like a Byzantine priest who looks like a Byzantine priest.

Of course, that has its own disadvantages. Once, Jack Figel asked me to "Go find Fr. So-and-so". "What's he look like?" "Well, he's wearing a black cassock and he has a beard". OK, and I actually started to go, when I looked around me and saw a sea of black cassocks and beards. "Very funny, Jack! You'll be a real scream on the banquet circuit when they make you a bishop".

I dread the possibility of dragging this useful discussion down into the gutter, but more in line with the original post, a few thoughts:

(preface: If you've read some messages of mine you can guess that I come down firmly on the side of the ethnic -- but not ethnic-exclusive! -- point of view.)

We're talking about this issue in a more or less abstract way. We can all agree, I think, that:
1) the Gospel is for all people;
2) if our churches do not reach out they will eventually die, and for some it may already be too late to change this fate.

However, why is it that certain peoples are Latin Christians, others are Byzantine Christians, others are Syrian, Coptic, etc. (the ethnic tags of these Traditions notwithstanding)? In some cases, it can be chalked up to "they were in the right place at the /right, wrong/ time." But because the Byzantine Tradition, to use our case, is a product of the people as much as the people being formed by it, cult and culture are not so easily divided.

Most of the historically Byzantine Christian peoples are mainly Byzantine Christians even today because it matched their psyche, their temperance, their way of life. Given that, is it really useful for us to say
"The Byzantine Church is for all peoples" when historically, this is probably not true?

Just on a purely experiential basis, I can reasonably claim that the Byzantine Tradition does not appeal to or fit even most Americans. Many of my friends and family, when exposed to it, just did not respond positively if at all -- even the most beautifully-served & sung and felt Liturgy was for them "ehhhh..."

I don't want to say that the Byzantine Tradition must remain restricted to Eastern/Southern Slav, Greek, Arab, etc. peoples, especially in "the west" where many of us have either multiple ancestries and/or little of substance remaining of our "ethnic heritage," but I fear we are being way too optimistic if we really believe that the Byzantine Tradition is the best Christian way of life for ALL AMERICANS.

Many peoples will find it attractive and that it "fits" them. Many others will not -- and even more unfortunate (perhaps), some of our own Byzantine Christian peoples in the west are no longer finding that Byzantine is a meaningful way of life and prayer for them. Those who remain steeped in their ethnic roots/culture I would place at the top of the list of those most likely to find Byzantine Christianity the way for them. For others, their mileage will surely vary. That's my honest assessment.

By all means, we should preach the Gospel to all -- but with the goal of converting them to Christ, not converting them to the Byzantine Church. They should be aware of it and welcomed to it, but let us not fool ourselves -- it ain't for everyone!

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 07-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 07-28-2000).]

>> I fear we are being way too optimistic if we really believe that the Byzantine Tradition is the best Christian way of life for ALL AMERICANS.<<

I disagree. In my experience what turns off many visitors to our parishes is the oftentimes super ethnicity in many of our parishes. Just as Byzantine Christianity spread to the various parts of the world and adapted and matured within those cultures so, too, will it adapt and become organic to the North American culture. For example, look at SS Cyril & Methodius. When they began to christianize our spiritual ancestors in Europe they brought with them the liturgy in Greek with Greek chantmasters. The first thing they did was to put the liturgy into the local language (giving us he Cyrillic alphabet). During succeeding generations the people took the ethos and chants of the Greek Church, changed it, and made it distinctively their own. In the same way, we Americans will develop new liturgical chant and new recipes for our parish dinners. Pirohi and kibbi simply have to take their place next to hamburgers and french fries. I have known more people - Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox - who have wound up in the Roman Catholic Church because it is the American Church, where all are welcome and one does not have to know what pirohi or kibbi are in order to be a member in good standing.

I am not rallying in any way against ethnicity. I am proud of my own Slavic heritage. What I am saying is that my Byzantine Christian heritage is the means of my eternal salvation. And that we as the Byzantine Catholic Church have an obligation to call all Americans to this salvation, without baptizing them with butter and onions.

If you are ever visit Las Vegas, visit the parish of St. Gabriel. One Friday each month they have a pirohi and tamale sale. Every have pirohi with salsa?

With a minor adjustment, I appreciate Rich's point and Moose's remarks are helpful too. Let me just add one development, that I will be the first to admit this is not a "Slam-dunk" for any point of view, but leaves some of these questions open but hopefully with a clearer understanding.

We should recognize the North American Catholic situation is abnormal to unprecdented (and therefore should be a little slow to demand that things MUST be s certain way because of TRADITION). Saints Cyril and Methodius preached to a previously unchristianized population. They, like other evangelizers, approached a given people or social group with a common Christian expression. The norm would be for Catholicism to speak to a society through a single idiom, language and ritual expression. Here in the USA, through migration, things are different, new, mixed up. How the Church responds to this is an unresolved question.

My contribution to the discussion would be that I think it is best to be very wary of a suggestion that the Church should, rather than speaking to social groups or through these ritual expression should speak to individuals within the same society through multiple ritual expressions.

Kurt's comments do go right to the point. I think that the essential element of our effort is to accept the Gospels first and then use the philosophical framework of the Byzantine approach to re-incarnate the Byzantine approach in American terms.

By this I mean that, for example, our calendar/liturgical life contains a cycle of feast days commemorating major feasts of Our Lord and the Mother-of-God. These feasts are generally preceded by a day/week/fortnight/month or longer of preparation. While the traditional Byzantine approach counsels us to abstain from meatflesh and dairy products (and I know that a decent number of Byzantines --Catholic/Orthodox-- do follow the tradition)perhaps this is not the best physical/somatic expression for a period of preparation. Perhaps in our time and place, some other preparation activity would serve to guide us to the celebration of the feast? Would this be 'wrong' and an abdication of our Byzantine faith? While I myself have gotten into the habit of abstaining during Great Lent (I LOVE Presanctified!!), I don't do it for Peter and Paul nor for the Dormition fast. Would it be OK for me to say that I'll give a buck or more a day to a homeless person I meet on the street downtown when I'm on my way to lunch during the preparation period? And perhaps ask them to whisper a little prayer for me? The 'tradition at all costs' folks might have a serious problem with this, but I think it might be beneficial for my own spiritual development. I don't know.

I sometime fear that any number of our Byzantine customs-- like Litiya's bread, wine and anointing oil -- are performed but without the understanding of the symbolic nature of the elements. We have the lamp-lighting prayers of Vespers; and too often the ushers just hit the buttons without any understanding of why the lights should slowly be coming up at this point. In the old country (whichever one tickles your fancy) the altar servers would come out from the sanctuary with lighted tapers and light the candles at the icons. And they'd extinguish them during the dismissal prayers, leaving the church in eerie shadow prior to the final blessing and our quiet departure from the building.

It appears that we need to do a lot of education and guiding so that our people(s) can understand the reasons we do what we do. For me, in general, this is preferable to trying to find new modes of expression for the philosophical/theological precepts that constitute our spiritual patrimony. But I guess that some things just need to be updated because their message is 180degrees from what we are trying to witness. (The poor Anglicans are still trying to get around the traditional hymn's "awful power of God", when the 18th century 'awful' meant the equivalent of our: 'awesome'.)

Blessings to all!

Dear all:

Like most of you I hope that the Byzantine Catholic church is truly an American church. I have four children and the slavic blood is getting rather thin. The Eastern mindset and approach has much to offer to this society. At times, though, I find our approach to spirituality has more in common with American Indians than it does with the modern world. We too live in the moment and for the moment. We strive to be one with the world that is around us. We see God in everything including nature. Our worship is highly symbolic and here's the problem. It is very intimidating to the uninitiated, or at the very least, the underinitiated. The problem is further complicated by the fact that we don't practice it fully (e.g. the Liturgy of the Hours) so that the various feastdays, etc. lose their organic link. Eastern theology is only learned by becoming immersed in it. It is not so much understood as it is experienced and appreciated. The American style is to wade into anything just a few inches and then go out and buy a new bathing suit (one that makes one look more flattering!) The deep water of the Byzantine church is very intimidating; just ask my wife.

I like Br. Maximos' idea of Americanizing the customs. I too believe this is essential. The church must be relevant to the greater community or it ceases to be authentic. How is this done? The Roman Catholics are adopting a new method for catechetical instruction called "shared praxis." In this mode, a person of faith witnesses his faith to the uninitiated. The faith is presented in a personalized fashion because it exudes from within. Isn't this the same as the uncreated light of the saints? Now why didn't we think of that.

A humble sojourner;

John

"Our liturgy is highly symbolic"

Yup. And some of those symbols represent actions that used to be concrete. A fine example of once again making them "meaningful" was given by Fr. Peter Galadza in one of his talks about Vespers at the NAPM conference a year or so ago. Seems that in the parish in question (which happens to be in a college town with lots of folks living on the financial edge) they bless more than those petrified wheat grains during the Litija - they also bless the non-perishable food brought in by the parishioners which goes to stock their food pantry. We could all stand to do some more of that....


Cheers,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear Moose et al,

Moose writes:

"I have known more people - Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox - who have wound up in the Roman Catholic Church because it is the American Church, where all are welcome and one does not have to know what pirohi or kibbi are in order to be a member in good standing."

This is the main crux of the matter. I have written in the past of the many young former Byzantine Catholics I have met at Franciscan University. Since I arrived here, I met two former Byzantines who are finishing MA degrees in Theology and Christian Ministry. One of them is the grandson of two priests. I have encountered six other young former Byzantine Catholics who were completing BA degrees in Theology and Catechetics. One of them is studying to become a Roman priest. Although there are two Byzantine Catholic parishes nearby, all of these young people - who are really on fire for Jesus - attend the various Roman parishes in the area, as well as the school's chapel.

Each one of them is completing a degree in Catholic Theology, and plans to devote their lives to serving Christ and the Church. And each one, who was raised in the Byzantine Church, have decidedly abandoned it in favor of the "American" Roman Church. I have asked several of them why they have decided to leave their traditional Church. I have even pleaded with some of them to stay Byzantine - as we really need people with their zeal. Their general response, "The Byzantine Church is too focused on ethnicity. I want to be a part of the universal Church."

Don't get mad at me for repeating this, folks. But these are your kids, and this is what they have told me. There are doubtlessly countless other former Byzantines attending Franciscan University that I haven't met yet. But of these eight or more kids who raised Byzantine Catholic, and were raised in ethnic households, none of them remained Byzantine. They are now passionate, on fire for Jesus Roman Catholics. But there are THREE students at the University who have become committed Byzantine Catholics: myself (I'm Italian), my fiancee (she's Irish), and an hispanic girl! The three of us are the only practicing Byzantine Catholics attending the university - and none of us are ethnic Eastern Europeans. But the ethnic kids, from what I have seen at this school, are very quick to abandon their Byzantine Church.

God bless,
Anthony

However, on the issue of is our church too ethnic and is it turning off potential converts, once again, let us go to the hard data.

The Latin Church in the U.S. is rather static -- few converts and few disaffiliations. Fr. Greeley's research seems to show Roman Catholicism has a staying power far beyond what its critics admit but generally makes few converts.

As for the Byzantine Catholic Church, well, if we are so ethnic no one who is not Rusyn is put off, how to you explain half (80%) of the posters here? Based on folk's testimony, your parishes seem to have more converts than the average Roman Church? So what's the beef?

Anthony. Greetings!!!

Congratulations on getting married to an Irish woman. When I was very young, I remember the reminiscent conversation between my father and "Pappa" Navone, regarding the missegination issue of these marraiges. However, as farmers, we were aware that this sort of thing actually improved the line. My own wife's Irish family had their encounter with the Russians a generation ago. My children are far superior to anyone else in either family.

Many years go, when I was at university, I had a part time live-in job as a "Shabbos Goy". In that job, I had to learn quite a bit of Kashrudt and Hallackah, and history. I was, and still am, impressed by the daily prayer life, culture, and most of the cooking I encountered. I even considered converting, but after a couple of years of searching, I realized that I am a Catholic through and through, Irish, thanks be to God.

My question about your fellow students is whether or not they would have remained Byzanteen if there were no ethnic baggage. Do they still fast and pray?

Also, Do they at all appreciate the gift of their ethnic patrimony? Do they ever lovingly tell stories about their ethnic families?

Is it possible they are merely kicking aside the traces in the university environment?

Michael

>>My question about your fellow students is whether or not they would have remained Byzanteen if there were no ethnic baggage. Do they still fast and pray?<<

This is a valid question. I would suspect that, in addition to the ethnic factor, a large percentage of Byzantines who wind up in Roman Churches are also interested in being part of the dominant Church. This is different than rejecting ethnicity and can be linked to the perception we have allowed to persist that somehow we are "second-class Catholics", with Roman Catholicism being the norm. As long as this notion continues, it will severely limit our ability to bring the Gospel and our Byzantine Tradition to America. This, of course, begs the question regarding how we teach our people that the Gospel and our Byzantine Tradition is not just for us, but for all the world.

Scythian,

"Congratulations on getting married to an Irish woman."

Thank you! We are getting married next week, on August 12. Please keep us in your prayers.

"My question about your fellow students is whether or not they would have remained Byzanteen if there were no ethnic baggage. Do they still fast and pray?"

Oh yeah. I see them all the time, genuflecting in the Roman chapel on campus, praying the Rosary, doing stations of the cross. Almost all of them attend daily Mass at the various Roman parishes in town. To the credit of their Byzantine upbringing, they are some of the most devout students on campus.

However, I want to be clear on a point. I may have not been clear enough on this earlier. I don't think that most of our parishes have a very strong ethnic character. Many of them aren't very ethnic at all. But the REAL PROBLEM is the unspoken rule that our parishes exist only for "our people" - Eastern Europeans. At least in the minds of most visitors, this is the perception. So it isn't so much a problem of parishes emphasizing their ethnicity, all though this does happen. It is more an issue of the general perception that the Byzantine Church exists only for ethnics.

Surprisingly, with very little effort, we can easily put this perception to rest. I think I have outlined a way to do this in my essay, "Seven Simple Ways to Help a Byzantine Parish Grow." You can read it at my web site, with some of my other rantings:
http://byzantine.20m.com

God bless,
Anthony

It was interesting to read all of your replies to this thread. I believe there is a place for non-Eastern Europeans in the Church. However, I don't think that it is accomplished by having negative impressions of those Eastern Europeans who established the Church here in America. These people were very courageous and were blest with a deep faith in our Lord. Praise God that they were! Believe it or not, it was because of them that the Byzantine Church survived and in many areas thrived.

I'm not going to get into a debate on this.... but comments about the ethnic foods is a bit much. We should keep in mind that the money from those ethnic foods built many of our churches!

I was struck with the comments about the Byzantines who are now Roman. Maybe the Lord is calling them to the Roman Rite to bring a deeper spirituality to that Rite. Or maybe like me, sometimes one goes in search of a "home" and like the prodigal son, returns to the home of the Father. I have been able to experience the best and believe me the worst of both rites. And I have found the Lord waiting for me in both. This is a precious gift He has given me. One that I hold tenderly.

My last point, I liked the story about the man who became Orthodox and then started telling everyone what they were doing wrong. Sometimes we tend to do that, especially with the older members. I'm experiencing that now. A new member of the Byzantine Church (Roman Rite) is alienating many in the parish because of this, "I know the Byzantine Church better" attitude. It grieves my heart to see her admonish and "try to set straight" the older members of the parish. My prayer is that the Lord will touch her heart and show her the damage this is doing to the parish family.

Thanks for letting put my 5 cents in!

the Lord's peace......

Boy, are you right!! This is a serious problem today in the Orthodox Church in America. They've got all sorts of folks who are coming in who study the texts and then become the self-appointed benchmark for the true tradition who chastise the older folks for being hybrids. An Orthodox friend of mine who was being lectured on what it means to be a true Orthodox came quite near pushing a dyad of these folks down the front steps of the OCA cathedral in his home town. (He's a Russian, of high class family which includes a general, who was an advisor to Czar Alexander II.)

But for those of us who were born here, we are very happy to claim our ethnic heritage(s), but we are very aware that the spiritual gift we have been given must absolutely be shown to all who come to us, without linking it to an ethnic identity. This is Christianity.

So, may the Lord be ever mindful of our spiritual ancestors who ran food festivals, ran 50/50 raffles, and who carried the hods of bricks to build the church building. To be true to them, we must pass on the faith of the Gospels of Christ at the same time recognizing the times and places they came from. Their memories will be eternal as long as there are souls who come to pray.

Blessings!!! (To you and to your forebears)

[This is a serious problem today in the Orthodox Church in America. They've got all sorts of folks who are coming in who study the texts and then become the self-appointed benchmark for the true tradition who chastise the older folks for being hybrids.]

As an Orthodox, I don't know if I would call it a serious problem. But it is there. We have this ex Lutheran turned Orthodox who showed up at our parish for the summer. In fact he was a professor at Oral Roberts University for seven years. So far ORU has given us eight Orthodox priests! And eight ORU students just converted a few months ago in the Anatiochian parish in Tulsa. I understand that some of their parents are demanding their money back from ORU! But I'm getting off the subject.
I spent the whole summer with this ex Lutheran trying to explain that Orthodoxy is not just a religion of rules & regulations that one group of people uses to brow another group.
He has a thing about clean shaven priests. As if somehow a priest is judged by the length of his beard. I told him I would take a clean shaven priest with a kind soul, gentle heart, and spiritual attitude, over a long bearded tyrant any day.

An incident that happened to my grandmother prompted me to respond to this thread.

We have a Roman Catholic sister who has been attending my grandmother's church. (I'm not sure if this sister has changed to become a Byzantine). One day my grandmother and sister were discussing the icon screen and some other Byzantine practices and sister began "teaching" my grandmother about the Byzantine rituals. My grandmother responded that she was raised in the Byzantine faith and was aware of the rituals and the meanings behind them. Siste ignored her and continued to "teach". Sister then told my grandmother that the parishioners were not "true" Byzantines because they were not following "true" Byzantine practices and traditions. Sister continued by saying the size of the altar was wrong and the candles were in the wrong place and that people were not singing the Divine Liturgy and Vespers correctly....you get the picture. Needless to say, my grandmother was very upset. (She's in her 70's).

I suggested she speak to the pastor about Sister's commments. Well, to make a long story short, she did and he was very supportive of Sister! He agreed with everything sister said and told my grandmother that he also saw that the parish was not practicing the "true" Byzantine way! I asked her what he meant by that, but she told me that she was too shocked to ask.

The last time I visited my grandmother's church, I noticed many changes....candles were moved, a curtain was placed behind the Royal Doors, the altar was changed. But the biggest change was in the people. A lot of the joy that I loved so much about the Church was missing!

When we got home, my grandmother told me that she is thinking about leaving her "childhood" church. She said she feels like an outsider. That the "new" Byzantines have gotten what they wanted.....HER CHURCH!

Please pray for her and her parish. I would hate to see her leave.

Yikes! This is really unfortunate. While I'm sure that the nun and the priest were well intentioned in trying to recover the traditional, historical elements of the Byzantine-Constantinopolitan tradition and to bring them to the people, it appears that they were both incredibly unkind. They seem to have forgotten that the people ARE the Church. This Romaniak mindset "we clergy - smart; you people - uneducated/stupid" doesn't belong among our peoples.

If you're going to re-instate or revive older traditions, you've GOT to spend as much time as necessary to explain what and why you are doing this. For many of the older people, waaaaaay back in their memories, they'll recall their grandmothers or grandfathers talking about this or that old custom. This is the way to do it: link up with their memories and gradually introduce one or the other practice. And for heaven's sake: EXPLAIN!

(By the way, I've got a couple of trenchcoated friends up North who for $200 bucks will "come and explain it" to these guys. No questions asked. Let me know. <g>)

LOL LOL

I may take you up on that offer!!!!

Well Anthony, I am an American Roman Catholic with mostly Irish ancestry but with some German, Slavic, English, and some remote Spanish Morrocan heritage. I too like the Byzantine liturgy but must remember its purpose. It is to offer Russian Orthodox a way to celebrate their unique method of worship to Jesus while being in communion with home.

You feel second class because you allow yourself to feel second class. Nobody said you were. You should also remember you are there to uphold the mission of the church.

I am curious, do your wife and children attend too ?

Eamon wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++
I too like the Byzantine liturgy but must remember its purpose. It is to offer Russian Orthodox a way to celebrate their unique method of worship to Jesus while being in communion with home.
++++++++++++++++++++

'scuse me?????

Eamon, would you also say that the purpose of the Novus Ordo Mass is to offer Latin-Rite Catholics a way to celebrate their unique method of worship to Jesus while being in communion with home?


Just wondering...

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor, sinner and definitely not Russian Orthodox
sharon@cmhc.com

Maybe the model we are all searching for here is the Xian family. Normatively, couples marry, perform the martial act and produce children, who they are responsible for raising. This is the model of family life.

Non-normative situations arise. Adoption, abandonment, special needs, etc, sometimes because of difficulties in the family , sometime for legitimate and non-adversaial reasons.

It is normative that the faith tradition that gave you faith raises and nutures you. That doesn't mean that those who are non-normative are second class. It also doesn't mean that switching parents should be the social model.
K.

Anthony,

In my husband's family church, St. John the Baptist Greek Catholic Church in Lyndora, Pa I am told there are many converts and new parishoners from various ethnic backgounds mostly through marriage. Every sping they have a spaghetti dinner whose sauce and meatballs are among the best I have tasted and as I am half Italian I am an expert. They are made by a woman of Italian descent who married into that church and rite. They also make the best halupi and haluski I have ever tasted outside of my sister-in-law of course. Maybe they just have great cooks in Butler.

I got married by the priest I wanted and we raised our children in the church we wanted. I had people yelling at me and guess - what they are out of my life now.

Franciscian U is a great place. God bless.

Barbara

My heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Hungarian). I am not Slav. Yet, the Ruthenian and Hungarian Churches joined forces in this country. As far as I understand it, one did not take over the other. Therefore, I fail to see how one can argue that the Byzantine Church in American is Slav.

I now attend a Ukrainian Catholic Church (Byzantine Rite). They could not be more accepting of me; and, if any of the Byzantine Churches have a reputation of ethnicity, certainly the Ukrainians have it.

I have learned to appreciate the ethnic aspects of the Church. These traditions are rich. On the other hand, I have never been made to feel that they are exclusive.

The people at my church go out of their way to include me and my family.

I am sorry to hear that someone is using ethnicity to exclude you, Anthony. My experiences in both the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches is that they are both trying to be more inclusive and more accepting of diversity. If they do not, they are, in a sense, commiting suicide. The young will go where there is less discord and more acceptance.

PS: St. George has recently developed a web site. To see pictures of us, go to: http://stgeorgemission.org

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Ethnicity is a two-edged sword - it is a living classroom to teach Christianity, a Christianity incarnated in a culture, and a hedge against the worst aspects of American culture. But the Church isn’t a lodge for fill-in-the-ethnic-group either.

>Or should I just pack up my bags and go back to the Universal and non-ethnic Roman Church, from which I came?

I think a lot of bandwidth has been spent by Eastern Christians in the noble cause of trying to show that that ‘Universal Church’/‘Catholic Church’ and ‘Roman Church’ aren’t synonymous, though one may be a subset of the other. Seems most Roman (and Eastern!) Catholics are conditioned to assume they are.

The one Church is made up of Churches: both in the apostolic sense of each see being a Church and in the sense of particular Churches such as the self-headed (patriarchal) Byzantine ones. Catholicity and particularity are a paradox (like God is One in Three), something that must be understood as being in a kind of necessary balance or tension. It’s easy to overemphasize one aspect or the other. Catholics have a keen sense of the universal Church, but this often is at the expense of understanding particularity. There is the ongoing problem of confusing Romanness with universality, and also the problem of treating particularity in a condescending way, as if the Orthodox tradition is nothing but a trapping one can put on and take off like a stage costume. I’m afraid I have seen this attitude among Catholics online (but not here ). The Orthodox tend to err in the other direction, hence the Latin-bashing (reminds me of get-whitey reverse racism) and intramural jurisdictional beard-pulling wars that mar its witness in America (like Protestant denominational fractiousness but with holy orders, icons and a Liturgy). Where are the Eastern Catholics in all this? I think the Orthodoxophiles are on the ball here, understanding the necessary balance, not forgetting either Catholicity or particularity. But other Eastern Catholics really see themselves as RCs in costume: they’ve bought into ‘Roman equals universal’.

http://oldworldrus.com

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 09-01-2000).]

Ed,

You are the excellent model of Byzantine Catholicism. The ethnic variances of Hungarian, Rusyn, Ukrainian, make no difference in your participation in Byzantine Catholic life. What make you Byzantine is that this is how you received and live out the gift of faith. It is the package the gift came in. God bless you.

K.

I have been reading some of this forum,and the only thing I can see which is missing is, I feel that where ever you find to worship God can be home, but no matter what you decide to do is all in what you put in it. If you go to services and just sit there maybe that is what you what, but if you put your whole self in it you will what to come back without any question in your heart, no one can tell you how to worship or where you can worship but you and God! If you feel at home there then just stay, but you have to want it and feel it. God gives each and everyone of us a different call, and we have to pursue our way. The church is a place for us to share our beliefs and feelings to one another. To have rites together, to have special celebrations with one another, but it is all in strenghting our beliefs in God and to share this with all. Jesus said that we are the deciples of God, we are to go forth and spread the word. I can say this much I belonged to a parish in a richy end of town. I never felt at home their, it was OK but something was always missing. the services were very up, the celebrant used visual aids, music, modern songs to help communicate the word of God, but when the service was over, it seem like there was a mad dash for the door to leave. my family moved to a different community and the parish was more middle class, and also it was not so hip but, the thing I really injoy is after the service I have a hard time leaving. the people there just stop and start talking, making you feel right at home. they share themselves with each other. a complete family. It is hard to just leave there without talking to someone. I have been attending this church for ten years and it is not uncommin to spend an hour after services just talking to people. I do not sing because I am the worst singer in town, but I try to make up that in other ways.I have been teaching religious ed for ten years to 5th, 6th, and 7th graders. and this is where God has given me my call. I know that, when I leave my class and get home totally exhausted, I know God has sent the holy spirit to guide me that day, and I really feel really great, It gives me a total uplifting everytime. the best part of the whole thing is when the child comes to you grown up and give you a big hug and says thankyou, you made a big difference in my life, That is what it is about. Not the fact race, creed, color, ethinik back ground,or even what church it is the fact that God, the holy spirit is there with you, giving you that guidence, and what you put in it you will get out twice as much,Sorry I am alittle windy but really enjoy myself at this church, I feel right at home there it is a complete family. So like I said you will get out what you put in it, you have to want to be there or there will always be something missing. I know in myown heart is that when you get the call from God it will push you till you find it, and the key here is not to egnore that call.

Anthony wrote:

"However, I want to be clear on a point. I may have not been clear enough on this earlier. I don't think that most of our parishes have a very strong ethnic character. Many of them aren't very ethnic at all. But the REAL PROBLEM is the unspoken rule that our parishes exist only for "our people" - Eastern Europeans. At least in the minds of most visitors, this is the perception. So it isn't so much a problem of parishes emphasizing their ethnicity, all though this does happen. It is more an issue of the general perception that the Byzantine Church exists only for ethnics."

I think this is an interesting point. In my experience, the attraction of Byzantines to the RCC relates to a wide variety of factors, depending on the motivations behind the move.

For those who are more committed to the faith (even to the point of being candidates for holy orders), some of the prevalent factors I have seen are the perception of the RCC as the default Catholic Church here (which it is, at least in terms of number of parishes -- we can't argue that), and the reality that the RCC is much more "American" ( which is ironic, because this is largely because it has embraced many more of the trappings of American Protestantism, in terms of liturgy, meaning that people who grow up here and live in this culture find it easier, or more natural, to "relate" to that liturgy).

Other factors include (1) moving to areas where there are no Byzantine parishes (common today where people are so mobile), (2) convenience of being located closer to a Roman parish, and fact that Roman parish has more convenient liturgical schedule, with more options, (3) availability of Catholic schools at RC parishes (often not available at Byzantine parishes), (4) avilability of a wider variety of programs, groups, outreach, etc -- the typical Roman parish has a lot more, simply because it's so much bigger, and, last but not least, (5) anonymity -- a lot of people really prefer a more "anonymous" setting where they feel more "free" or less "watched" -- another product of our increasingly rootless, overly mobile contemporary American culture.

Brendan