I haven’t made myself clear enough. All Churches are called to serve the whole of mankind. Mankind however, is divided amongst the various nations and ethnicities of the world. The Roman Church was created in the context of the Roman empire, it’s traditions, style and culture was shaped by it - because it was born out of that context it was tailored to the customs and culture of Rome. Many nations have adopted this rite, as many nations were placed under the influence of Rome. As nations adopted this rite, various cultures had their influence, but it was shaped by the people it was meant to serve.
Indeed what you say about the division across nations and ethnicities is true. To deny this is tantamount to iconoclasm. And, as you note, the Roman Church was shaped by the prevailing Roman culture at the time of its development, and even throughout history (e.g. Renaissance, Baroque, etc.)
However, it must be remembered that the Roman Church is noted throughout history for its rigidity. In terms of missions, the Latins took their faith with them, and notably the Latin Church’s praxis was to be adopted no matter what the culture was. For example, the Latin missionaries who went to Bulgaria eschewed the Greek rites and imposed the Latin way of doing this as the orthodox way. The same happened when Latin missionaries took the Catholic faith throughout Africa, Asia, the Americas, and so forth. The Liturgy was the same (at least from the Council of Trent onwards), and it expressed the same faith. Therefore, up until the reforms of the recent century, the Latin Church was not really shaped by the people; rather, it was the people who were shaped by the Church. The Latin missionaries were often forceful, politically manipulative (spurred on, of course, by secular political powers, but not exclusively limited to this reason). One need only look at the Jesuit missions (proselytism) among the St. Thomas Christians in southern India to realize how serious the matter became.
Therefore, this is why the Roman Church spread. They were active, vigorous missionaries (edged on by good and bad motives). The people adopted the faith, and consequently the Roman Church’s customs, which in turn shaped them to develop their culture along the lines of their newly-acquired faith.
The Ukrainian Church was shaped by the Ukrainian people - it is defined by that culture just as the Roman Church was originally shaped by the Roman people and eventually to the whole of Western Europe and it’s influence. Western Europe has had a huge influence on the world, hence its widespread use.
Churches are shaped by their people, and the people are shaped by the Church (in terms of practice, not teaching). The Truth is the same, but the exterior practices vary. Still it would do violence to any Church to try and take away its cultural identity.
…
I think eneryone agrees that someone shouldn’t be scorned for their ethnicity. However, I think a serious problem occurs when you have a convert who asks that they tone down the cultural identity of the Church because they don’t identify with it. I should think that a convert would be drawn by the culture of that Church, and would embrace it. Any request to mettle with the specific identity of a Church does extreme violence to the traditions of that Church.
Granted, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was shaped by Ukrainian mentalities. However, Rus’ was originally evangelized by Greek missionaries. The Greeks could argue that, because the Church came from Constantinople where it was shaped by the Hellenic mentality, the Church should remain tangibly Greek. Ss. Cyril and Methodius were inspired by God to do otherwise. It would be of no practical use to evangelize a people without reaching them where they are at (St. Paul realized this in declaring that he became all things to all people, a Jew with the Jews, a Greek with the Greeks).
You are very right in extolling the diversity of practices, and this contributes to making the Church truly catholic (humans are indeed both corporeal and spiritual). Perhaps it would be well to distinguish between a ‘culture’ (e.g. liturgy and spiritual traditions), which should be accepted along with the Church, and the nation and ethnicity originally expressed in that Church. Having adopted the first, converts can find their home in a particular Church. However, my problem is with the second. That (unfortunately prevailing) mentality has and will continue to exclude people, rather viciously, from the Church of Christ.
