American Identity in Eastern Catholicism

[Diak]

I think there is definitely an “American” religious identity, and as has been pointed out is rooted in modernism amongst other currents. American bishops like Ireland in Minneapolis and others were champions for such a thing. He even stated once publicly that the reasons the Church was having difficulty was specifically because she was not embracing modernism fast enough.

I suppose the simple answer to the opening post of this thread is that there is no need for it. There are Eastern Catholic churches with patriarchal and major archepiscopal jurisdiction already here. These would in no way benefit from being coerced into an American hierarchy (and both clergy and people would likely revolt en masse).

Observations of our Ruthenian brethren in their recent experiments to become more “American” liturgically (admittedly moving away from the official Slavonic books promulgated by Rome, mandated liturgical abbreviations and use of inclusive language even to the point of modifying the Creed, musical adaptations suited for the American singer, etc.) are not helping in this regard, either.
FDRLB
**
Note from Moderator:**
I moved the thread Why no “American” Orthodox Patriarchy? to the Non-Catholic Religions forum because it was directed to Orthodox participants and about Orthodoxy. This post began a new topic on an American identity in Eastern Catholicism so I moved it and the responses to it back to Eastern Catholicism. -Catherine

 

[Aramis]

I think there is definitely an “American” religious identity, and as has been pointed out is rooted in modernism amongst other currents. American bishops like Ireland in Minneapolis and others were champions for such a thing. He even stated once publicly that the reasons the Church was having difficulty was specifically because she was not embracing modernism fast enough.

I suppose the simple answer to the opening post of this thread is that there is no need for it. There are Eastern Catholic churches with patriarchal and major archepiscopal jurisdiction already here. These would in no way benefit from being coerced into an American hierarchy (and both clergy and people would likely revolt en masse).

Observations of our Ruthenian brethren in their recent experiments to become more “American” liturgically (admittedly moving away from the official Slavonic books promulgated by Rome, mandated liturgical abbreviations and use of inclusive language even to the point of modifying the Creed, musical adaptations suited for the American singer, etc.) are not helping in this regard, either.
FDRLB

I’m not a big fan of the new pewbook, not so much because of the music reforms (I find them closer to the Prosopinij book I studied years ago, which was printed in Eastern Europe than what we have been (and still are) using, which apparently is a variation taught by a Monsignor in the 1960’s.

I dislike it because it is a cumbersome book to work with.

The “change” to the creed is a translation; a translation from the greek rather than the slavonic … and one which renders gender neutral all references to mortal man, and renders most of the creed in modern rather than slightly archaic “modern” (Victorian) English.

I do wish matins were included in it, too.

Personally, I would rather have a text only pewbook. It’s much easier to work with.

It very clearly does show a difference in praxis from the other churches. Eparch John from Torronto came, and for the first time, I heard the priest’s prayers spoken. Eparch William (then of Van Nuys) sang them, as did every priest I’ve heard.

Little things differ. The Ruthenian Metropolia is diverging from the European Ruthenians; this is inevitable, and part of our heritage as a national church for the US. Our tendency for lattice Iconostasi, quite likely, is a heritage of His Grace Nicholas Elko. We catch glimpses of heaven when we peek through the doors…

 

[Diak]

The “change” to the creed is a translation; a translation from the greek rather than the slavonic … and one which renders gender neutral all references to mortal man, and renders most of the creed in modern rather than slightly archaic “modern” (Victorian) English.

Not small changes at all, but very major ones. Regardless of how one wants to cast it, it is a change to the Creed from all previous Greek Catholic usages, and does not reflect the standard translation in use in nearly all Orthodox and other Greek Catholic churches. We should be moving closer to standard usage with our Orthodox brethren (or even other Greek Catholic brethren, for that matter) and not creating a new particularity farther removed from both.

It is far more than separating from just the European Ruthenians; it is the creation of a new American particularity set apart from other Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches which is again manifested in such aspects as abbreviated liturgical usage and modern inclusive language. It is aping some of the unfortunate experimentation of the Latin Church and may be a form of neolatinization.

It was inserted not because of precision of translation (which it is not according to most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgists) but because of a purported need for more “inclusive language” by admission of the chief crafter of this translation.

As someone who formerly served in a parish that had restored the liturgical fullness of the 1964 Liturgikon consistent with the Rome *Ordo * only to see it taken forceably away, I can assure you this is far deeper than an issue of precision or a cumbersome pew book. There was no need for mandated abbreviations or inclusive language. This effectively takes away the ability for any parish to restore liturgical usage to the full Ordo since the letter of promulgation clearly states this is the “sole liturgical text”.

As to the new music my experience as a diak is primarily with Galician and Kyivan chant, and I will not make any judgement there.
FDRLB