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

Nicely said. The Liturgy & Gospel first, ethnicity a bonus. That's how we will grow our beloved Byzantine Catholic Church.

Cathy

We all have ethnicity. People with other ethnicities brought the goodies to many other lands to peoples of different ethnicities.

I was watching a TV program on Finnish Lapland and showed an Orthodox Church with the liturgy in the Lapp language. I recognised the music but no the language at first, then we were told these Lapps were Orthodox.

So taking the jewels of Byzantium to others is still on just going further these days. ethnicity and culture s not static and no one should be shamed into dropping their culture. My own country goes to great length to support and encourage to celebrate who they are. We were very integrationalist in the past.

I don't think you offended anyone here, John. What you are saying is not odd. It simply does not reflect an ecclisiastical reality.

I think what some of us have been pointing out is the fact that those ethnicities that you'd like to jettison are what made the eastern Churches "eastern" as distinguishable from "western."

Liturgies are not overlays on a culture. They emerge from and are molded by the cultural matrix in a particualar geographic space, some of which remain static for many generations, some of which transform slowly, other more rapidly. But in no case does the "seed" culture ever really disappear from the mix. Liturgies are not overlays upon a culture. Liturgies are organically tied to cultures which is how we have an "eastern" and "western" set of traditions.

As I said, there is, currently, no Byzantine-use liturgy.

A rite is a liturgy and an anthropology. A particular Church is there to shepherd particular people. Remove that and you have a liturgical use, not a rite.

So IF the dominant rite in the United States is the Latin rite, then if the particular peoples who make up the particular Churches using the Byzantine rite were to all assimilate culturally, then it would only be expected that we would merge into the Latin rite and disappear, or we might apply for a Byzantine usage first and then disappear later, but the particular Churches, and their hierarchical structures and canonical offices [bishops, pastors] would disappear.

There is more than money that "supports" a Church and Rome does not grant sui juris status lightly.

Eli

If you are still lost after my last note, then allow me, for and immediate and typical example, to refer you to your contributions to the discussion in another section of the Forum on whether or not pews impede Eastern Christian worship.

How long have you been Byzantine? What is a prostration in the Eastern Christian tradition?

Do you see where you might have missed something along the way and are now essentially busy arguing that you have every right to miss those kinds of things and still call yourself "eastern"?

Eli

Just as immigrating Orthodox should not have to become "American", "Canadian", "Australian" or "Scottish" to worship Christ; the Americans, Scots, Australians and Canadians should not have to become something other than what they have always been to worship as Orthodox (or BC, as the case may be ). The church that erupts out of the culture can be genuinely Orthodox (or BC) as well as genuinely American.

The Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh is already highly Americanized, it has been moving that way for a long time and that has always been one of the attractions to me. The bulk of the Rusyn migration was around the turn of the last century and now I would not be surprised if there are five generations in the USA if not more.

Naturally these long-time residents are mostly anglophones, and the rate of intermarriage is quite high. They are not receiving large numbers of new immigrants either. The BCC does very much look like a church that has been reaching out to the American people. In fact it is just being itself because the Ruthenian population has become American.

I know that there are Ruthenians who strongly identify with the Rusyn/Slovak/Hungarian ethnic origin of the church and fear losing those qualities, but the church is shrinking, mostly because the Rusyn people are leaving it behind. If Rusyns want to have any eastern church around in the next generation from which to receive their burial rites (at the very least) it would be nice if they would encourage the plain vanilla Americans to participate and grow the church in the best way they know how. Otherwise it could be destined for the dustbin.

Interestingly many of these white bread Americans are committed to Orthopraxis (capital O) and eagerly support the restoration of the church traditions as shared by the mother church of Constantinople and the sister churches. Who can blame them?

It may be time to embrace these non-Rusyn Americans, who need and want the spirituality so badly and may be able to carry it forward to the twenty-second century for the salvation of souls.

+T+
Michael

The local adult Ukrainian dance group in Western Australia is an example of how things ahve changed for that community. One of their best dancers has a Scottish surname. Mum is Ukrainian. We have wives/husbands who are Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Welsh, Polish, Irish, Austrian & USA Ruthenian ( ). Thats just the combinations I can think off. The parish has only just started to be aware of them and cater for them. Sermons and now in English and Ukrainian and the current priest has often conducted some the services in a combination of English and Ukrainian. We have not quiet got there with the Div. Liturgy but we are going to have to get there soon.

Eli,

Valid questions. Hopefully, I will give you some valid answers.

I haven't been a Byzantine Catholic for very long, and I don't have the experience that others do.

That said, it was not what I missed that made me want to convert. It was what I found that made me convert.

Here is what I found:

-- a spirituality of theosis

-- a theology of direct, personal, practical experience of God

-- an intellectual tradition going back to the apostles

-- a liturgical heritage that goes back to the apostles, that has changed a lot over 2000 years, but which is still reverent and focused on God

-- a community of people who are primarily focused on living the Gospel: directly towards God and with the neighbor.

That why I converted. I did not convert for Eastern European culture, language, traditions or heritage. I converted because I found my way to God.

Now, the points that you made in an earlier post --about how the Church on earth is always located in time, place and culture -- are true. My points, however, are twofold: first, that the Church is now located in this time and place and culture and that's ok; second, the genius of Eastern Christianity does not depend upon a given culture, but in can flower in any culture, including this one.

If people want to preserve their ethnic heritage, fine. But, please don�t force it upon me. And, please don�t tell me that it is a necessary part of my religion. When I joined the BCC, I wasn�t taught, tested or asked about anything regarding Eastern European culture, heritage or language. Instead, I was taught, tested and asked my faith and my morals and my religious practices. It is the faith, morals and religious practices of the Eastern Church that can and do permeate a given culture and are given expression by it. That�s all I�m trying to do, and that�s all I�m trying to argue for. But, if you want more converts in the U.S., that�s what you might be interested in too.

-- John

Eli,

Sometimes I'm slow in realizing things; my apologies. It has only dawned on me this morning that, yet again, the real debate is about the future of the Byzantine Catholic Church. Shall it be about both the Gospel and preserving the ethnic heritiage of its forebears? Or shall it be about the Gospel and adapting its expression to this time, place and culture ? In short, shall the BCC be like the Greek Orthodox; or shall it be like the Antiochians (and, perhaps the OCA)?

I realize that preserving Ruthenian heritage is important to you and that it is an important part of your religion.

Do you realize that it is unimportant to me and that it has virtually no role in my religion ?

And, is it just me, or does it appear that two different religions --or, perhaps more accurately, two different kinds of religion-- are growing up within one one Church jurisdiction ? And if so, how will that be resolved?

-- John

John, I agree with you. Aren't we all glad that Cyril and Methodius were not as xenophobic as some who post here? If they had been, we might all be hearing Greek at Divine Liturgy.

As I noted earlier the OCA is slowly learing that it is the traditions of the east, which are a blend of spirituality, liturgy and culture, that are attractive to more people.

In other words many, perhaps most, people want those aspects of worship that are intermixed with a cultural expression, particularly language and music, and priestly habits and behaviors, devotional habits and behaviors.

They seek those traditions out and in many parishes there are people from other cultures who are there to help and to teach and explain and demonstrate.

So it is not an either/or proposition. Either American OR ethnic. It becomes a both/and comingling of cultures and a particular religious expression.

As noted earlier here, the seed corn is not consumed nor is it thrown away, if we are wise.

That is how all particular Churches became particular. If you look at the histories you will see that none of them emerged in rigid isolation along the lines of some mythical ethnic purity. But came into being as recognizable entities that were identifiable but not ethnically purist.

So the Byzantine Church will not emerge either in any rigid isolation along the lines of some mythical American ethnicity that has no time for the music and language of all of the people who turn to her for worship.

We are the Ruthenian expression. That cultural, liturgical and spiritual history is what makes us a particular Church.

Eventually the gravy train will come to a halt and the Antiochenes will learn the same lessons that the OCA is learning. It is already beginning in California.

Eli

HEY!!!

The Greek Orthodox church in the U.S. has plenty of satisfied converts (it sounds like I should have said 'customers' LOL )....and, no offense meant to the Antiochians, but unlike them, we are not touting our own horn, putting other jurisdictions down, and pushing for married bishops.

Infact, alot of those converts like the warm ethnic component to the religion.

Last night, my parish had a supplication service to the Theotokos. One of our chanters was a seminarian from St. Vladimir's seminary (OCA) which is close by, and the other is an Archdiocese youth worker, former seminarian, and American born of Greek descent. Together with my young American born priest, there wasn't a dry eye in the house. The entire service was chanted in English exclusively (save for a 'kyrie eleison' here and there), and their chanting made you wonder if you were in heaven or on earth.

Did I mention that our charismatic church president is one hundred percent Irish descent?

Best regards,
Alice

"how will that be resolved?"

Well like this John. "Stand still John" *bang* "I said stand STILL" *takes another pot shot & misses yet again*

Eli, please enlighten us on what you mean by this last paragraph of your post?

You are more likely in a better position to do that but first we'd have to decide if we are speaking of the Orthodox or the other Catholics.

Eli

Dear Alice - you have me positively green with envy (Green, after all, is the Irish colour). I love the Paraklesis and it would almost (not quite) be worth the heat in Athens this time of year to go and enjoy it.

Fr. Serge