www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Byzan. Population Drops Significantly?

Interesting article. It only echoes several bishops' concerns about former Protestant Christians who bring their sola Scriptura to the Catholic/Orthodox Churches only to translate it into sola canonical.

What can we make of those folks who were added to the faith immediately after Pentecost? They too were leaving something - Judaism - even though they may not have considered Jewish Christianity a new religion (being one of several Jewish groups, often living in contradiction with one another). All conversion equations are balanced with a "going to" and a "leaving from." What is important is that it is filled with the Holy Spirit, thru Christ, to the Father.

But leaving one communion of Christianity to join another communion is somewhat different. One form may emphasize politics more than Christ; another may emphasize the Bible over charity; still another may not care about the Bible or Christ. To re-iterate what was stated earlier, it may be more about the final conviction that grace no longer fills the church one originates from. Converting may be like switching lanes on a multi-lane freeway. Some get entirely upset about the driver ahead of them who is going only 30 MPM in a 60 MPM zone. Politiks and nasty liars wearing collars may be just too much in the way and holding one back from reaching their goal: Christ Jesus.

Our church is no exception to the church-jumping phenomenon. Not only individual converts, but our church has been riddled with schisms and unions. Such is OUR history as a Church. The Orthodox presbyters who signed the Unia agreement with Rome in Uzhorod over 300 hundred years ago were not only joining something, but were also leaving something behind. They were exchanging one form of Christianity for another. The presbyters, who found communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch after the damnable act of mandatory celibacy was placed on our clergy as a big yoke, also were leaving something behind. They thought it wise to exchange one form of Christiantiy for another. Then history is later written to justify how both acts were for the 'good' of the Church.

Cantor Joe Thur

Joe,

"Is it the rule that we must continue to uphold the ignorance and past failures of one particular group in disfavor of others?"

No, but in restoring our proper traditions we must be pastoral and by that I don't mean we don't change or restore because someone will be upset becasue no matter what you do someone is going to be upset. But we must take their feelings and dispositions into account. We cannot just say too bad you poor Latinized jerks we are in charge now, like it or leave. That is not Christian.

"From experience, the ONLY ones who never show up for adult ECF are the older cradle Greek Catholics."

From experience, I have cradles, converts, and marriage transfers in my current adult class.

"They DO bitch a lot, but rarely contribute to the building up of the Body of Christ."

Rarely contribute? Yet here we stand and have Churches to worship in and a morality that is quite high and faith that is quite deep compared to many other Churches.

"They are usually the first to scare new prospective parishioners away when they tell them in the narthex that Father won't allow the wife to be handed over during the marriage Mass.

Why any woman in today's society and culture would appreciate a ritual that was used when a daughter was exchanged as property is beyond me. Why they would choose to leave the Byzantine Church because a Byzantine pastor refuses to do it is also beyond my comprehension. But sentimental journeys, not spiritual ones, are quite forceful. The fact that such a rite doesn't exist in the Byzantine Church OR the Latin ritual is a mute point for them. But this is for another topic ..."

Another topic but a good example of exactly what I am talking about. Many of our parishes allow (or did allow) the bride to be given away. Now should a new priest come in and disallow this becasue it isn't in the books? Joe wake up to reality. Nobody in modern America sees the giving away of the bride as a property exchange. It does no violence to the substance of the service and it is not worth losing a parishioner or potential parishioner over. I am sure some have no qualms about it though.

"The only unfortunate thing that can occur is when pastoral ministry revolves totally around converts and former Latin Catholics ONLY"

Sorry, but I do not see evidnece that this happened or happens on any scale.

"Doing what is actually in the liturgical books is not rigorism, nor is following the Typicon. How can it be? What, exactly, is rigoristic about following the darn books that are ours? What, exactly, is rigoristic about following the darn books that are ours? Why is following the liturgical text considered rigorist, but doing your own thing not considered lazy and ignorant?"

It can be when no sense of accomodation is made. It is when following every obscure rubric is more important than doing something the people can understand and participate in. I am not advocating everybody do what they want but there are accepted abbreviations and compromises. But for some it is all or nothing. An example here is Vesperal Divine Liturgy inplace of Regular Divine Liturgy or Vespers alone.

"What exactly do you appreciate and admire? Please list them."

Pretty much everything they have accopmlished. Combinig two parishes. Building an authentic Byzantine Church. Implementing a fuller liturgical cycle. Beautiful iconography. Getting parishioners involved and active.

"Did we not already experience severe losses to our church when our traditions were challenged?"

The only tradition that mattered and caused those lossess was a married priesthood. Nobody left because of the Rosary or Stations of the Cross or First Holy Communions because we have Monsignors. In fact many of those things can still be found in ACROD parishes.

"And don't forget those old babas and papas who cursed their priests because the disgruntled Latins after Vatican II were getting preferential treatment (the Mass was changed for them and they also contributed well too) and not cradle Greek Catholics. Don't they count, Fr. Deacon Lance?"

How was the Liturgy changed for them? The only thing I can think of is removal of iconostases. The few Latinizations that are in our Liturgy were present in Europe and were legislated in the 18 & 19 th centuries. I do consider it strange that you have sympathy for those people but not the papas and babas now who are having the same thing done to them (i.e the Liturgy is changed from what they were used to, they aren't allowed to say the rosary before Litrguy, etc.) even if it is the right thing do.

I tire of those who have all the answers but don't have any responsibility to anyone but themselves. I see myself as answerable to all my parishioners not just those whom agree with me.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

In regard to the bride being 'property', that may well have been the case in the past, but in the present it is a beautiful representation of a young woman leaving her father's house and care, to be joined to the care and new home of her husband.

Personally, I think that it is a beautiful gesture and tradition, and one that can fit in easily with the Byzantine ceremony, especially if there is an aisle to walk down. In the Greek Orthodox church in the U.S. it has been common for as many years back as I have pictures of relative's weddings to look at! As the wedding ceremony stays the same with no 'modern' innovation allowed, I don't see the incorporation of this tradition as being 'liberal'.

Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

Respectfully,
In Christ our Lord,
Alice

//� in restoring our proper traditions we must be pastoral and by that I don't mean we don't change or restore because someone will be upset becasue no matter what you do someone is going to be upset. But we must take their feelings and dispositions into account. We cannot just say too bad you poor Latinized jerks we are in charge now, like it or leave. That is not Christian.//

I don�t think I discussed HOW our proper traditions were to be implemented. I was discussing principles, not tactics. Read my previous posts where I stated how willy-nilly changes shot from the hip go nowhere unless proper instruction comes first - even from well-meaning bishops! That was also my argument if you didn�t notice. Love at first sight is different from a longer lasting love that comes from getting to know someone personally. Time and desire is of the essence. Nobody that I know tells Latinized jerks (your term) to take it or leave it. Did you know that re-introducing our chant takes a good number of years? It takes time, patience, and lots of instruction and example.

//Rarely contribute? Yet here we stand and have Churches to worship in and a morality that is quite high and faith that is quite deep compared to many other Churches.//

There is such a thing as past tense.

//Many of our parishes allow (or did allow) the bride to be given away. Now should a new priest come in and disallow this becasue it isn't in the books? Joe wake up to reality. Nobody in modern America sees the giving away of the bride as a property exchange. It does no violence to the substance of the service and it is not worth losing a parishioner or potential parishioner over. I am sure some have no qualms about it though.//

Since nobody sees it as a property exchange, then it is OK? Nobody saw private Masses and private baptism a problem, but slowly but surely they are disappearing. What exactly IS a private baptism, but an oxymoron like a private liturgy. Until people woke up to reality about the meaning and purpose of baptism and liturgy, they did what suited THEM. And isn�t this what it is all about? Now, you do admit that many of our parishes �did allow� such a practice. Of course, one must utilize proper tact and teaching to convey the beauty of a man and a woman walking together down the aisle. Like the ordinand at his ordination liturgy, they are invited by the Church to enter. They don't enter on their own. And nobody baptizes themselves either. But that theology from our tradition only needs to be taught ... properly and ... someday.

But here is another problem: the Church allows people to tell it how to celebrate its liturgies, but the people won�t allow the Church to tell them how to celebrate their reception. There is an imbalance. Clergy are not employees of the parishioners even though that might be the understanding.


//It can be when no sense of accomodation is made. It is when following every obscure rubric is more important than doing something the people can understand and participate in. I am not advocating everybody do what they want but there are accepted abbreviations and compromises. But for some it is all or nothing. An example here is Vesperal Divine Liturgy inplace of Regular Divine Liturgy or Vespers alone.//

�Pastoral prudence� and �Pastoral necessity� are very important. I don�t think most people want an eight hour liturgy, however spiritually inclined they are. My argument is not for �all or nothing.� My argument is, to use business lingo, �sell what you advertise.� That is all.


//The only tradition that mattered and caused those lossess was a married priesthood.//

Technically, it was mandatory celibacy, not a married priesthood that caused those losses. But I think that is what you actually meant.


//Nobody left because of the Rosary or Stations of the Cross or First Holy Communions because we have Monsignors.//

No. But many have left since then because they have become convinced that that is what true Catholicism is. Hence, our identity problem that Administrator brought up elsewhere. People learned under that model to put Catholicism first, Byzantine last. This is a false dichotomy. I think we lost more from the latter than from the first ecclesial schism.

//How was the Liturgy changed for them? The only thing I can think of is removal of iconostases.//

That�s it? How about the removal of our feasts, liturgical services, and chant?

//I do consider it strange that you have sympathetic for those people but not the papas and babas now who are having the same thing done to them (i.e the Liturgy is changed from what they were used to, they aren't allowed to say the rosary before Litrguy, etc.) even if it is the right thing do.//

I bring it up only because others never do. The horrors of change seem to be only a recent problem. The older generation taught their children to remain in the Greek Catholic Church. The recent generation taught their children to leave it. Something can be said when the children of the latter generation, who live nearby a Greek Catholic parish, will never attend it, but converts and Latin transritualists will. If it wasn�t for the efforts of the converts and former Latins, I would guess a good number of churches would be closed.

//I tire of those who have all the answers but don't have any responsibility to anyone but themselves.//

Should I consider that comment personal? If so, I would consider your remark unworthy of this forum, especially as a moderator. I believe there are guidelines about making personal remarks such as that. It is selfish and lacking in charity. You DON�T know what I do in my parish and it behooves me to think that you do.

//I see myself as answerable to all my parishioners not just those whom agree with me.//

Again, I suspect that such comments are directed at me personally. I work with all types of parishioners. I�m unaware of p*ssing people off at church. We DO have clerics who think they are employees of their parishioners, but that is another topic (and problem). My goal is not to force people to agree with me. Obviously, my position disturbs you greatly since it doesn�t agree with you. Why it has to turn personal is beyond me.

God bless,
Cantor Joe Thur

Joe,

"Should I consider that comment personal?"

No you should not. You asked the questions. I tried to answer them. I apologize for the position of that comment. Since it came after I addressed you I can see why you took it that way. However, I think you know me well enough to know I don't make personal comments. We are talking about the "more Orthodox than the Orthodox" crowd and I am not aware that you are a member nor did I acuse you of being one.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr. Lance,

Good. I guess we can conclude that this thread isn't about you.

The thread's topic is about the significant drop in Byzantine population.

Things would be a lot different if the children did not leave our Church after leaving parental care; or if there were no ecclesial schisms; or intermarriages; or a false sense of Catholic identity; or mandatory celibacy forced upon us from outside; or an overbearing culture that is anti-Christian. But the product of this is our current task at hand. And hopefully, Christ gets included.

God bless and good night,
Cantor Joe Thur

Joe,

"The thread's topic is about the significant drop in Byzantine population."

True. My point is there is no one perfect answer. We don't restore tradition we lose people. We restore too much, too quickly we lose people. Every parish's composition and experience is different. The plan that works at one will not work at all others. Those who are fortunate to be ahead of the curve should not look down on those not as far along as they are.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Lance,

I believe this is the quote from Dan Lauffer about you having little or no faith in our people or God.

Let me throw out a hypothetical scenario: What if the Pope of Rome, in conjunction with all the Orthodox Patriarchs, opened an Ecumenical Council to discuss one and only one topic: the role of the Pope of Rome in the Church?

If one believe in God, that He is active and present in the Church, and that the Holy Spirit does truly exist, then my faith would welcome the new Ecumenical Council. We would all gain for the truth will set us free.

If I really didn't have faith in God or the Holy Spirit being active in Ecumenical Councils, then I would be worried because the Pope of Rome is going to possibly loose out big time. My lack of faith in man ecclipses my faith in God. Man's involvement in the life of the Church just seems to be too overwhelming for me. I can't imagine that the Holy Spirit shining through such sinfulness and politikal mongering. But that is a lack of faith in people AND God.

Peter began to sink in the water when his focus turned to himself. In the Synoptics, faith preceeds miracles. Samaritan, Roman centurions, and sinners can have more of it than righteous believers. Jesus never argued that non-Jews were a brood of vipers. He did get extremely frustrated with his own people and even instructed his disciples how to shake the sand off their sandals. Even those who actually met Jesus in person didn't get it.

Given our own church history, many have lost faith. This is unfortunate because they too put too much faith in man than in God. Many people in the Church had bad experiences with clergy who mislead them and lie to them. Some leave; some don't.

As for those churches being ahead of the curve, just remember: it didn't happen overnight and without a struggle. But it did happen. From the nave, it took ordinary people to finally reject all the recycled excuses. We can't wait until the last poor Latinized soul dies and is buried before we make a decision to begin the process. We must begin NOW so that we have clergy and cantors to bury them later.

If new people venture into our communities and their faith gets fired up, then we have to ask ourselves why our own folks aren't. Their fired up faith should make us actually feel giddy for having something of value all along. If people come so their needs and wants can be met - with no desire to know God or our traditions - then we have reason to suspect them and their motives. Too many a cleric chased after self-serving interlopers at the expense of pastoring the flock. If newbies arrive and see Christ in our midst, then maybe we are too much like Thomas ... or that gorgeous woman who can't understand why any man would admire her?

But nobody is looking down at those who are behind the curve. This is a forum where ideas are discussed and matters of principles are always at stake.

God bless,
Cantor Joe Thur

I wonder why we kneel all year ? I know the priests from Ukraine have cut back, but we still do it all year.

Wow - 200 people for a regular Sunday Devine Liturgy. That's impressive for any parish ! We will have to visit your parish to see what the magic trick is.

Hritzko,

You kneel all year because you were taught to do so, but that isn't the tradition of the East. Standing has been the tradition from at least Nicea I and since it codified what was standard practice then it is presumably from much earlier. Heck, Latins don't even kneel anymore all the time.

The first time I ran across an Eastern Catholic Church with stationary pews and kneelers I didn't quite know what to do. I was singing along and all of a sudden I looked around and I was the only one standing. I sat down so as not to offend. But kneeling is a penitental posture reserved in the ancient Church for Lent and a few other times. In fact during these times the purest form of devotion is full prostration. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

One thing that hasn't really caught on is the greeting with a holy kiss. The deacons and priests regularly do this. Father has encouraged me to do this but so far I can't even get my wife to do it. It really only amounts to a touching of the cheek or even a touching of the shoulder, but no dice. We are still too Western. Too cool for touching I guess. We have had ocassional Orthodox groups visit liturgy. I appreciate the natural way they greet each other this way. Someday.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

You know, we should have you come visit our church and do a 'an interior make-over'. The frescos are magnificent (one of a kind) - you would be amazed. our new iconostas is alo nice. But we still have the stations of the cross and - yes - believe it or not - statues of the Virgin Mary and Jesus (the only church in Montreal - believe me). Nobody has the heart to take them down for fear of resembling the commies (who use to do that kind of stuff).

We can call you 'Byzantine Religious Makeover Guys". You know, if you guys had a travelling road show, people would show up .

I know this will probably go in one eye and out the other, but . . .

Joe,

I think you introduced some over-generalizations of "facts" and, most likely unknowingly and unintentionally, began the process of demonization.

Joe, although I am happy and proud to see that you included a qualifier ("from experience"), I'm not sure it sufficiently qualifies "the ONLY ones who never show up for adult ECF are the older cradle Greek Catholics." The two words "only" and "never" come to mind. I'm sure there are exceptions. Other terms such as "bitch" and "rarely" are also demonizers.

I don't think that you intended to demonize cradle BCs. I believe you are one. However, in this debate the terms used are a bit broad for my taste.

That being said, I would agree with your statements with some qualifications. I certainly and absolutely agree with what I believe is the spirit of your posts (not necessarily with the tone). I pray that your position wins the day.

Fr. Lance,

I believe I stated my opinion of your overactive generalizations in a previous post.

I think this is an issue that must be resolved before the Byzantine Catholic Church will grow. It is a tension screaming for resolution. The proper resolution, however, can't be reached by appeals to overgeneralizations of former Roman, convert, or cradle Byzantine Catholics. If a valid study is conducted (whatever that means), the data and results should be considered. In the meantime I think you (vas/y�all) should approach this with what you know and believe and not with vague �statistics� about particular groups. The right answer will come through prayer, fasting, amicable debates, more prayer, some fasting and even the acceptance that you won�t please everyone if you do what�s right.

P.S. I have to add that I am the uber-guilty of generalizations and master of unqualified statements. I hope no one thinks I'm going about a demonization campaign myself. If I were, I'd be the first prisoner.

Well the topic has drifted from one of population drop and the causes to one of what is the best way to implement restoration of tradition in our parishes. I'll will start a new topic on that. If anyone wants to continue to talk about population and demographic shifts feel free to continue.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Question: djs (I think) mentioned my "Humpty-Dumpty idea of tradition". I haven't a clue what this may mean; can someone explain? Incognitus