www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Answering Eastern Orthodox points

Dear Friends,

Once again, I'm not against the canons of the Church.

And I'm not against unity.

Some of you are speaking as if I"m the last hold-out against a unified model and that if I changed my mind, everything would come together!

Well, if I have that kind of power - then, all right, I agree with you - Hocus Pocus and . . . ?

Still no change . . .?

I agree with Fr. Thomas that the time is coming. I also agree with Irish Melkite that there has to be a respect of various ritual/cultural traditions within a unified jurisdictional framework.

But the fact that there are autonomous Churches here already does not necessarily mean that they are moving toward a unified church.

I really think that theological/canonical considerations should be better informed by the behavioural sciences to help balance the "canon law solves everything" view.

And I've always felt that this is a serious lack at our seminaries, Catholic and Orthodox.

But I'll be quiet. The morning has gone smoothly and I don't want to be upbraided by anyone just yet . . .

Alex

Alex,

You are to be commended, not upbraided!

The most interesting aspect of this discussion is the oft-forgotten point that every autocephalous Church establishes its own internal organization, while respecting the canonical principal of "one bishop, one city."

OBVIOUSLY, the letter of this canon is violated all of the time by EVERY autocephalous church.

The practice of having a monastery or school that is geographically inside of a local diocese but existing as a stavropigial institution under the Metropolitan/Archbishop/President of the Synod and his own Archdiocese is a perfect example of this "every day" violation. Two bishops in one city.

An "embassy church," as the OCA has in Moscow, is a classic violation of this principle. Why do Americans of the OCA jurisdiction need their own extraterritorial Church in Moscow inside of the Archdiocese of Moscow? Two bishops in one city.

Why does the Archdiocese of Moscow have 50+ parishes inside of numerous territorial dioceses of the OCA? Two bishops in one city.

I'm not opposing any of these situations as inappropriate, just poiting out that they are outside of the canonical norm.

Only ecumenical councils have the authority to discard a canon, but a local church may decide how to apply a particular canon in their own context.

If we are going to talk about applying the canons strictly, let's apply them strictly to everyone in North America, including the Russians and the Americans.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

I don't think it's a matter of not observing canonical norms. It's a matter of recognizing where we are and where we're going.

One bishop in one city also implies that both the bishop of Pittsburgh and the bishop of Philadelphia (PA) are members of the same Synod. Overlapping autonomous and autocepalous churches do not "accomplish" this, even if we are careful to move each bishop around like so many pieces on a chess board. The GOAL is to have one autocephalous church in this country, with one Holy Synod, whether it's tomorrow or in the year 3000 is anyone's guess.

And for the record, representation churches have been around for many years. In the case of the OCA, it is a dramatic illustration of the close bond between the MP and the OCA that such a podvorye exists. It is not meant to "infringe" at all on another territory. That's just silly. The Church of Antioch also has a representation church in Moscow, as do many other national churches.

The presence of MP parishes in America is an agreement that came out of the Tomos of Autocephaly, granted to the OCA by the MP. Those parishes that wish to remain with the MP did not have to go to the OCA, but the agreement also states that no new MP parishes may be started. This agreement demonstrates the idea of a canonical territory in very concrete terms. And there are not 50+ parishes, there are 30.

That the OCA also has "ethnic" dioceses is, once again, a concession to the reality of the extraordinary nature of today's situation in North America. It is not meant to be a norm, but rather a transitional structure.

PT

And maybe while we're hiring sociologists to teach us about how to be sensitive to cultural differences we can also hire scripture professors who will teach our seminarians and our people that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek"?

The idea of one united church in a territory is not to fulfill some irrelevant canon that melting-pot countries cannot possibly relate to. It is not even to follow some "historical norm" which may not relate to our sophisticated 21st century minds. It is simply the fulfillment of a basic ecclesiological principle in Orthodoxy.

PT

Bless, Father,

With all due respect, if that is the Church's understanding of what sociology is about, then social science awareness is keenly needed.

Culture is not simply language, foods, and costumes.

Reader Andrew's points are well taken - and they won't go away by standing on a soapbox and pointing to scripture and canons.

Alex

Well, thank God that our church is ruled by bishops.

Bless, Father,

Yes, and they always know what they're doing, don't they?

Alex

Well, I suppose the same could be said of the hierarchical system of government that Churchill said of democracy. "It's the worst system, except for all the others."

Well stated. In the end it is very unimportant whether one is American, Ukrainian, Chinese or Nigerian. What is important is if one comes to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. For too long we have allowed people to think that ethnicity is integral to Christian faith. We really should be teaching them that, while ethnicity is generally a good thing, the elements that are detrimental to living and proclaiming the Gospel need to be jettisoned and quickly.

I do agree with Alex that many in the ethnic communities see their ethnicity as integral to their Christian faith. This is unfortunate. It is the major reason why the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches in North America (both Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox) have lost half our respective populations in the past 20 years. Both ethnically based Churches are on a course to disappear within another 20 years unless people are educated and a course based upon Matthew 28 is implemented.

Administrator's point is the key one, I think. Brothers, just stop and think about this: one half of the population gone in the last 20 years! What will become of us if the Church folds? Where will we go? Won't then different Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have to sit down and work together? Or will we all just fade away (or dissolve into Rome?).
Sometimes I get the feeling we like to squabble about the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Without sounding too apocalyptic, I sometimes feel there is a mystery of iniquity at work in our times. (No gremlin here, just a heartfelt sigh).

Dear Administrator,
I know where you're coming from and respect you're points of view and you may be right as well, but I'm not sure. If a church for some reason is ethnic that's because this particular church was constructed by a group of immigrants and that for some reason these people may have been rejected or could even have been classified as some kind of ETs from the western society that we live in. I do believe that native Americans, South Americans and even Canadians have the right to worship God in the same way we do and participate in the Liturgies,but maybe they need to construct a Byzantine American Church or a Byzantine Brazilian Church etc., but do not destroy and take away the church of the old folks, for many it's all they have. I'm very conected to my Ukie church, I know that sometimes I complain a lot about how it's being administrated, but for me it's a house of worship where I feel comfortable and where I can sing in Ukrainian and where my children can sing in Ukrainian and if God wills it where my grandchildren will sing in Ukrainian. By the way Carpatho-Rusyns are also welcome.
Lauro

Lauro,

I appreciate your point and agree that we need to minister to people of all ethnicities � including Ukrainians � in a style that conforms to their respective cultures. The problem is that Christ did not commission us to witness Christ only to people of our same cultures. In Matthew 28:19,20 He told us: �Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.� Our Churches have yet to live up to this command in the New World. The reality is that if we do not heed this command we will cease to exist.

I certainly have no wish to take anything away from the older people who populate most of our parishes. They certainly deserve to be ministered to in the ethnic context that is an integral part of their identity. But let us be clear that history has shown that most of the grandchildren of the emigrants from central and eastern Europe have already left our churches because they have no desire to worship in a language they do not understand. Once the older generation is gone there will be no one to populate these parishes and they will not be sustainable except in a few big cities.

I post the following question to whoever is willing to consider it. Who is responsible to tell the unchurched people of the Americas about Jesus Christ and share with them the Byzantine patrimony? How are they going to learn about our way of worshipping God if we do not teach them?

Admin

Posted by Administrator:

"I post the following question to whoever is willing to consider it. Who is responsible to tell the unchurched people of the Americas about Jesus Christ and share with them the Byzantine patrimony? How are they going to learn about our way of worshipping God if we do not teach them?

Admin"

That is a question that gets to the vitality and richness of the all of the Churches who share communion through the Pope. Though it seems strange to some, I think, it is a question that also has repurcussions among those of us in the Western Church.

If more of the unchurched people of the Americas do not learn about Jesus Christ and the riches of the Byzantine Patrimony from the Byzantines and the Antiochians and the Maronites and the Chaldeans among us, where else will they learn? Where will we who are in the Western Church experience the incredible riches available to us directly before reunion with the Orthodox?

We need your witness, too. The Documents of Vatican II and the teachings of the Popes since that time repeat this over and over.

The missionary challenge for witness from your Churches seems daunting to me.

The young respond to a good challenge.

I try not to post about issues in the East and her churches much. But I keep hearing about the huge drain of people from them and the possible death of sister churches in twenty years. This leads me to a question.

Time goes quickly. Isn't the need for survival a kind of prime directive that can serve as focus?

How can we in the West help?

Is there time and the will to survive?

I mean no offense. I am sincerely concerned.

Steve

Steve,

You raise some very good questions as well as points for discussion. I can offer my own thoughts.

The important thing is that the peoples of the Americas come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The fullness of His Gospel can only be found in the Catholic and Orthodox Church and we need to invite everyone to come into a perfect relationship with Christ through his Church.

It is not important that people enter into a particular Church (Roman, Byzantine, Chaldean, and etc.). We should not wish to be known primarily for our faithfulness to any ethnicity or even to our Byzantine patrimony. We should be known primarily for our faithfulness to Jesus Christ. Imagine a Church being known primarily for its faithfulness to Christ as in 3 John 1:3: �It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth.� This is really the only way to bring others to the Lord.

I firmly believe that if we Byzantine Christians get off our respective tails and get busy we can convert the people of the world to Christ and made a change for good in our culture. I cannot really express it but there is something about the style of Byzantine Christianity that can speak to the American culture in a way that Latin Catholicism � as magnificent as it is � cannot. Unfortunately we have chosen not to share Christ and our Byzantine Way with people outside of our traditional ethnicities.

Is there time to survive? Yes.

Is there a will to survive? Among most Byzantine Christians, no. It appears that most of our Church will die off in the next generation and those who are left will need to begin planting new seeds.

Admin

From what I can tell. Our churches are deminishing mostly due to the materialistic society that we live in. The western world never had the same mystical theology as the East. We in the West are founded on the principles of "Hollywood". The leaders, symbols and idols of our teenagers and even adults are TV celebraties and sex symbols, most of the population tries to somehow immitate these people wearing the same clothes that they do, using the same hair style that they do even using the same jargon or slang that they do. Many people know more about the life of their Rock & Roll Star than they know about Christ. Our Western society stinks and it seems that many people have lost their sense of smell. In Ukraine for example the churches are packed and if you don't get up early enough you're going to attend the Liturgy outside even if it's raining or snowing and that's what the people do. I'm trying to show my kids this contrast, I'm trying to show them that our colorful, modern, materialistic society must be seperated from our spiritual world. We have to live with it but we must know how to seperate things and we need the knowledge to know the limits.
Lauro