www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I have never.... (A discussion regarding BCA and Orthodox practice and behavior

Pyrohy, I would venture to guess he was referring to the rather unseemly Ben Lomond affair.

The OCA in truth has never completely forgotten this. Among their oldest parishes are the ones in Alaska. They remain in many ways distinctly Russian. What does the OCA diocese of Alaska call itself on its web site? - The Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska. I grant you part of the crisis in the OCA (aside from finances) is the different ideas about what they are overall as a church. They are not settled in that regard.

The big picture to me is that Orthodoxy grew in cultures that were transformed by what was given to them by the Byzantines. These were transformations en masse, and the transformation filtered down in to every level of society and in to every day routines. They comprise what is not simply a part of ones life that is religious, but taken as a whole they comprise a way of life itself.

These cultural traditions that were fused with the gospel message of Christ are the �old world� traditions that were brought to America. They are not held in a separate compartment from the faith. The cultural expression and the faith are one. All of us who convert are adopting these cultures, because the fact is we don�t have an Orthodox culture of our own and probably never will. American culture is not Orthodox. Remove the �ethnicity� from the church as some like to say, and sooner or later you will find something else enters in to fill the void. What fills this void will most likely not be Orthodox or even recognizably Eastern. I have seen this first hand.

When I converted it was not with the condition that they abandon or downplay their culture to accommodate me. It was with the acceptance that the culture that holds their faith, a faith and culture that have developed through the centuries, would become mine by adoption.

Andrew

I have been holding off adding my 2 cents worth here as 1. I am Orthodox and the question at hand is in regards to the BCC. and 2. What I feel and believe is very easy to misinterprate and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. But I will try my best. I ask forgiveness in advance if my words hurt anybody.

This subject has been an ongoing debate in the American Orthodox world for the past 30 years. We have to remember that the Church is not an ethnic club, but rather a local assemblege of the faitful. The problem lies in the fact that we find ourselves in 21st Century America, which for all practical purposes is all cultures and at the same time, none at all. Therin lies the problem. No basis for commonality. Greeks want Greek, Russians want Russian, Americans (Whatever that really entails!?!) want English. The Orthodox world has been all over the spectrum with this question. We have strongly ethnic jurisdictions in the GOA, ROCOR, UOC, SOC, (Not a blanket statement! I know that things are improving at that end, so please don't flame me!) and we have strongly American jurisdictions in the AOC, OCA and the JP. The truth, as we have been slowly finding out, lies in the center. There is and has been a strong voice calling out for an American Orthodox Church, led by such groups as the Orthodox Christian Laity, Orthodox For Change etc. There platform is one country one Church. The unfortunate thing is that they are looking at the Church through American "instant gratification" eyes. The Church is eternal. The Church grows with time, but at Her pace. And as She is approaching 2000 years, we have to remember that Her perception of time, fast and slow, is different than ours. The argument I put to those demanding an American Church, and even an American Patriarchate, is that America, as she exists, is just not spiritually mature enough to exist as an seperate entity. What great Monastic centers are flourishing here? What American born saints have there been? I mean English speaking, American saints? What teachings have come forth from the American lands and what great Podvishniki have arisen here? The only one I can even remotely think of who meets the above stated requirements is Father Seraphim Rose of Blessed memory. It took Russia 500 years of incredible spiritual growth to set itself up as an independent Church, separate from our Greek mother Church.
The problem on the other hand is phyletism. Greek for Greeks, Russian for Russians, Po Nashemy for those on the borderlands. This is an error and a sin. So where do we go?
A Church, whether an Orthodox Church or a Catholic Rite, is based on a geographical location with a homogenous population, i.e., Greece, Russia, Serbia, etc. Here we have a multicultural, everchanging mix, found nowhere else in the world to such an extent. It has been my experience that Eli is right. You can't have a "Ruthenian" Church that is not "Ruthenian", whether in language, custom, tradition, or whatever. By the same token, you cant have a American Eastern Church, as America is not Eastern in outlook, self perception, or geographical location. So where does this leave us?
It has been my experience that the best case scenarios that I have witnessed are those parishes which are mostly or all converts who are under the omophorion of an ethnic Church, preserving the local traditions of said Church, but in a way that is understandable to the converts in question. In my Church for example, whicjh is roughly 1/3 Russian, 1/3 American and 1/3 Carpatho Russian, we have a wonderful mingling of the best of all 3, along with a scattering of Arabs, Romanians, Serbs and Greeks. Our sermons vary as to language, and who is present to hear. We combine a tetrapod with kiosks, in our kitchen you can have pirohi, piroshki, pelmeni or just a hot dog. We serve in English and Slavonic, changing week to week. And this is the way I see the future to be. Unfortunately there is no American Orthodox culture and Tradition YET! It is our job to create it. And that is why these boards are so important. The sharing of ideas from different perspectives, confessions and rites, forming common ground and spiritual outlooks tempered by our Old World fathers but with western implementation.

Now I realize that I have been rambling. Does any of this make sense?

I question now whether I should even post this, but I do feel strongly about this.

Da Budyet Volya Tvoya

Alexandr

Appropos to this discussion, which is not had for the first time here (although the revision of the Divine Liturgy places a somewhat new perspective to it), is an excerpt from a Christmas Pastoral Message given almost 4 decades ago, by Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, then relatively newly-appointed to the Apostolic Exarchate of the Melkite Greek-Catholics in the US.

I have always believed that the core thoughts which Sayidnha expressed on assimilation and a ghetto mentality had as much application to every one of our Churches, Eastern or Oriental, Catholic or Orthodox, as they had to my Church in particular:

Full text, see The Courage to be Ourselves; Christmas 1970 Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Joseph Tawil [melkite.org]

Many years,

Neil

It does seem as if this thread has strayed from the topic of the revised Divine Liturgy, to the topic of ethnicity, and whether it is possible to have Eastern Christianity in a non-ethnic, ie American ethnic setting.

It is certainly possible to have the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostum in a non ethnic setting, as mostly convert congregations of Antiochian Orthodox show. What excuse Byzantine Catholics would have for keeping their beautiful liturgy if it were not the liturgy of an ethnic group, I am not sure. I'd like to think just that it is beautiful and holy and so much more truly Catholic that what is going on in most of American Catholicism right now, would be enough. But I am not sure it would be.

Meanwhile, I consider the little bits of ethnic identity the Slovaks share with me to be a bonus, not a drawback. I have no Slovak background (Dutch, English, Scots Irish,and a tiny bit -1/16- of Melanesian) and no sense of cultural identity with people from that part of the world, but if they will welcome me into their midst for worship, I am grateful. And the little bits of Church Slavonic I am picking up are neat and interesting. If I were one of the old people there, I know I would be treasuring every word that I got to hear in the language I learned to worship God in. I think for their sake we could with no harm to anyone have one liturgy a month ALL in Slavonic.(not that anyone is asking me, but if they did that is what I would say.) I know they all sing louder when we repeat parts of the liturgy in Slavonic. The missal (or whatever you call it) has the Slavonic on one side, not in the old lettering, but phonetically, which means that it is easy to follow along and learn to say it.
As for Slava Na Viki, that wasn't printed anywhere, so I stopped the choir director (cantor?) after church and asked him to teach it to me. Back in Easter season, I looked up the whole "By death He trampled death" sequence on the internet and memorized it in Slavonic.

One of my sons became Orthodox (that is what started me along this path) and was married in an Antiochian church that still has many ethnic Arabic speakers. The scripture readings were all chanted in Arabic after they were chanted in English. If I attended there, I would try to learn some Arabic. Why not? The shape and sound of languages are fascinating, sometimes beautiful. The connections between different languages, the meanings of root words, often teaches us more about our own. I can't see a reason to resist this, to insist on being purely "American."

I would like to keep the language of the liturgy traditional, and to avoid everything which is trendy, ephemeral, and politically correct. But I guess what I believe is best is, again, not going to be consulted. I hope it hasn't gone too very far.

I had an odd experience today, fairly new to the world of Eastern Christianity as I am. I had gone with my husband, who is an Episcopalian, to a very early service at his church. I then found myself with some time on my hands away from home before the time for Divine Liturgy, and was driving towards my Byzantine Catholic church, through the neighborhood which was once almost entirely Eastern European immigrants, and which has a church on every block, sometimes two. I saw a church named St. _______'s Greek Catholic Church, which was engraved on the corner stone,with the date 1915, but also written on the fairly new looking sign on the parking lot. There was even a crucifix in the front yard in a style which looked much more western than Eastern, more like a sculpture than an icon. Naively, I though, Hey, it looks as if they are just starting Liturgy here, maybe I can go here instead. I went into the vestibule and picked up a bulletin...where I read that St._______ was a community of Orthodox Christians. Looking in, I saw an iconstasis like the style I had seen in Ukrainian Catholic churches. But I also saw a large painted picture in a style which was not Eastern at all- which was in fact, the standard painting you see in Roman Catholic churches, of the Assumption (!) of the Blessed Virgin. The corresponding painting on the other side was a very Western looking Jesus the Good Shepherd. The stained glass seemed very Western...but then there were lots of very Eastern looking icons all over the place.

I stayed and observed the liturgy for a while, until it was time to leave to go to my own parish (a block and a half up the street.) It really was not very much different. They did some parts we leave out. The music and way of singing were very very much the same. Had I not picked up the bulletin, I wouldn't have known it wasn't a Byzantine Catholic church until they prayed for their Archbishop and Metropolitan and Bishop instead of for the Pope.

When I asked some people at my church later about this church, they told me that "that was the church we came from." It was a Byzantine Catholic Church that decided to go Orthodox. I had heard about this before but didn't realize this church down the block was where they came from. The congregation was split almost in half over this, but a slight majority wanted to be Orthodox, so the other half had to leave. They then built themselves a larger...and less Westernized! church than the one they had left behind.
(When you think that most of these people worked in factories, it is amazing that they came up with the money to do this!) I am not exactly sure how long ago this was, or what provoked the split. The other parish associated with my parish had the opposite situation. It was an Orthodox church which decided to "go under Rome." The slightly under half of the parishioners who didn't want to do this left and founded another Orthodox church.

I would love to find out more about these splits, and what motivated the people in each case. I somehow don't think they were arguing about the Filioque. I am sort of afraid to ask people, though, as the people I did speak to about it, sort of lowered their voices and said that they heard from their parents that it was a terrible time, and split families apart.

The Orthodox children of this split do appear to be more flourishing than the Byzantine Catholic half. The pamphlets in the Orthodox church vestibule seem to indicate that they think someone not already Orthodox might actually come to see what they are doing, and once there, might really want to convert. There is nothing like that in the Byzantine Catholic church lobby. There were maybe only a third more cars in the Orthodox church parking lot than in the Byzantine Catholic one, but from the look of the people in the church, a lot more of the Orthodox cars carried a family, and a lot more of the BC cars carried one old person.

Why?
Maybe this should be a new thread. But it is too late to start one tonight.

One thing I am sure of is that a revised more politically correct liturgy, is NOT the way to reverse this situation.

Susan Peterson

Susan,

Judging by your location, I'd hazard a guess that you visited Saint Michael\'s Greek Catholic Church [saintmichaels.info] in Binghamton which, name aside, is a parish of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD). The westernized aspects of Saint Michael's, in part, harken back to its days as a Ruthenian parish but, to be honest, some have also been accrued in the years since. However, the liturgical services served by Father Michael are devoid of any westernized influence anytime that I've ever had occasion to visit there (as they were during his father's pastorate).

The split that resulted in the formation of ACROD occurred in 1937-38 and indeed divided families. I suspect that the lowered voices reflect the pain that accompanied these events and would, likely, be similarly expressed by those in either parish, Saint Michael's or Holy Spirit. It was no different elsewhere across PA, NY, and the Coal and Rust Belts. There is a brief history of the events [acrod.org] at ACROD's website - but it doesn't convey the details of the personal agonies suffered on both sides, the lawsuits between congregational factions. etc.

Although relations between ACROD and the Ruthenian Church are certainly free today of the rancor of the time (and ACROD's Metropolitan Nicholas, God grant him many years, is one of the most respected Eastern hierarchs in the US - in both Orthodox and Catholic circles), there are families on both sides of the divide whose wounds have never healed.

I do recommend that you not miss Saint Michael's food festivals however; if you have developed a taste for pirohi, there is nowhere that matches theirs

Many years,

Neil

Dear Susan,

You might be right about starting a new thread regarding the points you brought up. If the topic is liturgical in nature, start it in this forum, if not depending on the nature of what you want to have discussed, either the Faith & Worship Forum or East-N-West Forum.

Wishing you the best and welcome to ByzCath.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator