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