Ethnicity and Eastern Catholics

[Catechesis]

When analyzing the Eastern Churches you often find that most are situated in one country. In example we see that the majority of Maronites reside in Lebanon, Syro Malabar and Malankara Catholics in Kerala, Chaldeans in Iraq, and Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine, these are among a few of the ethnic lines.

Does ethnicity ever play a role in the ideologies of these churches? Since the majority of these churches reside of one major ethnic group, do any biases ever occur? Do the adherents often have ideals set of marrying within the particular church? And what was the historical stand point on the ethnic views of the churches members. Do any of the particular churches have two residing ethnic groups, does this ever cause rivalries? Also do ethnic lines play a role towards evangelization in any form? Is there a strong sense to maintain the identity of the particular church?

Another major question is, what does the Church do in the stance of new members out of the ethnic group? Have provisions been made, for example are liturgies changed for a more universal understanding. Since Liturgies are often in a particular language are they translated to attain the needs of these new members? I know this is a mouthful but I posted this thread just to gain a better understanding of how Easterners have broken the shell of residing in their ethnic homelands.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There are Syro-Malankara Catholics of Knanaya (endogamous Malayali community) background, and also Tamils who converted to the Syro-Malankara Church from Hinduism and other Christian sects. There are no ethnic tensions as far as I know, although some individuals may harbor such sentiments. Liturgy and prayers are translated into the language of the people: Tamil in Tamil Nadu, Hindi in Northern India, Marati/Hindi in Mumbai, German in Germany, etc.

 

[Holly3278]

My boyfriend is from India and he is a Syro-Malabar Catholic.

 

[MichaelinMD]

When analyzing the Eastern Churches you often find that most are situated in one country. In example we see that the majority of Maronites reside in Lebanon, Syro Malabar and Malankara Catholics in Kerala, Chaldeans in Iraq, and Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine, these are among a few of the ethnic lines.

Does ethnicity ever play a role in the ideologies of these churches? Since the majority of these churches reside of one major ethnic group, do any biases ever occur? Do the adherents often have ideals set of marrying within the particular church? And what was the historical stand point on the ethnic views of the churches members. Do any of the particular churches have two residing ethnic groups, does this ever cause rivalries? Also do ethnic lines play a role towards evangelization in any form? Is there a strong sense to maintain the identity of the particular church?

Another major question is, what does the Church do in the stance of new members out of the ethnic group? Have provisions been made, for example are liturgies changed for a more universal understanding. Since Liturgies are often in a particular language are they translated to attain the needs of these new members? I know this is a mouthful but I posted this thread just to gain a better understanding of how Easterners have broken the shell of residing in their ethnic homelands.

Christos Voskrese! Voistinu Voskrese!

What do you mean by “ideologies of these churches”? A definition of “ideology”=

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

I didn’t think churches had or dealt in ideology.

With regards to bias, well…yes. Particular churches, whether in Ukraine, India, Lebanon, Pittsburgh (P’Burgh is its own country, you know ), or Ireland, or wherever are made up of human beings. Given our fallen-ness, we tend to prefer or give greater favor to those who are more like us. How and how much that manifests* will be different in each and every parish.* Making broad generalizations about whole populations or groups can tend to give one a skewed view of that particular population or group. This is what, in general cool: ), I have found to be true.

 

[ByzantineHeart]

I’m guessing I could give you a fairly good answer although my experience lies in the Orthodox church, from which I came to Roman Catholicism.

I’d guess parishes run the gamut from downright hostile to extremely welcoming. If you’re not Serbian, Greek, or what nationality have you, you may be tolerated but not really included socially. I belonged to a church begun by Greek immigrants that later added to its numbers more recent Serbian and Ethiopian immigrants. Relations between the groups weren’t always warm. Blue-eyed, “apple pie” converts from other traditions were regarded somewhat aloofly. Sadly, the rich folks tended to stick together, so there was a division along lines of class. As one woman said, she never fit in, because she was a “poor Greek.”

I also attended a parish that had a large number of converts and that church by contrast had a friendlier atmosphere. Perhaps you’ll find that some EC churches also have differing ratios of cradle Ruthenians or Maronites and converts from non-Catholic groups and in addition Roman Catholics who regularly attend or have switched sui juris churches. Each parish will have it’s own feel. The liturgy may differ a bit–but it will always still be glorious and beautiful, and you will encounter the Lord there, whether you’re Romanian, Scottish, or Brazilian.

 

[Vico]

When analyzing the Eastern Churches you often find that most are situated in one country. In example we see that the majority of Maronites reside in Lebanon, Syro Malabar and Malankara Catholics in Kerala, Chaldeans in Iraq, and Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine, these are among a few of the ethnic lines.

Does ethnicity ever play a role in the ideologies of these churches? Since the majority of these churches reside of one major ethnic group, do any biases ever occur? Do the adherents often have ideals set of marrying within the particular church? And what was the historical stand point on the ethnic views of the churches members. Do any of the particular churches have two residing ethnic groups, does this ever cause rivalries? Also do ethnic lines play a role towards evangelization in any form? Is there a strong sense to maintain the identity of the particular church?

Another major question is, what does the Church do in the stance of new members out of the ethnic group? Have provisions been made, for example are liturgies changed for a more universal understanding. Since Liturgies are often in a particular language are they translated to attain the needs of these new members? I know this is a mouthful but I posted this thread just to gain a better understanding of how Easterners have broken the shell of residing in their ethnic homelands.

Q1. Does ethnicity ever play a role in the ideologies of the eastern sui iuris churches?
A1. Yes.

Q2. Do any biases ever occur?
A2. Yes.

Q3. Do the adherents often have ideals set of marrying within the particular church?
A3. Yes.

Q4. What was the historical standpoint on the ethnic views of the churches members?
A4. Ethnic is (Collins dictionary) “designating or of a population subgroup having a common cultural heritage or nationality, as distinguished by customs, characteristics, language, common history, etc.” The sui iuris churches are derived from this ethnicity. CCEO Canon 28.1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.

Q5. Do any of the sui iuris churches have two residing ethnic groups?
A5. Yes.

Q6. Do two residing ethnic groups ever cause rivalries?
A6. Yes.

Q7. Do ethnic lines play a role towards evangelization in any form?
A7. Yes, based upon location of the parishes. Evangelization is of non-Christians and Christian non Apostolic ecclesial communities.

Q8. Is there a strong sense to maintain the identity of the particular church?
A8. Yes.

Q9. What does the Church do with regard to new members out of the ethnic group?
A9. They must conform to the liturgical norms and sacramental discipline. These people will be visitors or approved transfers. The traditions are to be maintained.

Q10. Have provisions been made, for example, are liturgies changed, for a more universal understanding?
A10. Translations are made to the vernacular and liturgies are revised by the synod of the sui iuris Church bishops.

Q11. Since Liturgies are often in a particular language are they translated to attain the needs of these new members?
A11. The new members are primarily the children born of the members of a sui iuris church. Since time changes language, this will lead to adaptations.

 

[Thomas48]

Following up what Brother SyroMalankara said, historically the Christians of Kerala were known as what the Hindus and Muslims called “Nasranis” and the Europeans called “Syrian Christians”. The Nasranis were split into two ethnic communities the larger “St.Thomas Christians” and the smaller “Knanaya Christians”.

According to the folk lore of Kerala and also historical research, the two communities differentiate in origin, the St.Thomas Christians being those families who are the direct descendants of the Jews and Brahmans whom St. Thomas converted when he arrived in Kerala in the year 52. The Knanaya have origins from the Middle Eastern Merchant Knai Thoma (Thomas of Kinai) and those families who came with him to Kerala in the year 345.

The two communities vastly differed in culture especially that of marriage customs. Throughout the centuries they held different priests as well as separate churches. For some reason the two communities from the ancient times up till the early 19th century, had a great animosity for each other, always trying to one up the other in a sense. This hatred was to the point where the two communities would have street scuffles and blood shed which the Europeans would try to subdue. Even though the Knanayas already practiced endogamy, either community found it a shame and a disgrace to marry into the other. I remember asking my priest about why this hatred formed and he replied it was all due to dirty politics and the stupidity of human ego. In the early 19th century the quarrels became less and less and eventually vanished. Today even though both communities still remain separate in terminology, they have a close friendship.

 

[ByzantineHeart]

My RCIA director told me about a small Midwestern in which the German and Irish Catholics fought so much they each built separate churches, refusing to worship together. This was years ago apparently, and I will assume/hope things are different now. We think of the non-Latin churches as primarily guilty of ethnic squabbles, but not necessarily so.

 

[MorEphrem]

My RCIA director told me about a small Midwestern in which the German and Irish Catholics fought so much they each built separate churches, refusing to worship together. This was years ago apparently, and I will assume/hope things are different now. We think of the non-Latin churches as primarily guilty of ethnic squabbles, but not necessarily so.

Well the Latin Church in America’s up-until-recent ethnic division is very apparent if one looks at NYC. I can think of several places in the city where there are literally Latin churches around the corner from each other and, in one case, side to side because they served different communities. Without knowing the history of NYC, one might just think there are two Latin churches down the road from each other but one could probably even infer from some of the names that one was for Italians and the other for the Irish - I have also been told that it was pretty clear that African Americans knew they were not welcome in some of these churches as well.

I would just like it to be abundantly clear that Latin ethnic parishes are not too far in the past. I say this prompted by the fact that a relatively prominent Latin archbishop made a remark to me yesterday about “you people” and our propensity to being racially exclusive (I told him, ironically, I’m not Lebanese).

 

[MichaelinMD]

Christ is Risen!!!

Unfortunately, ethnicity (or what we might mistake for ethnicity, like national origin) seems to pervade society. It’s nothing new at all, and it’s certainly NOT restricted to the Catholic Church by any means. When I lived in Israel, the kibbutz that neighbored ours had originally been established and settled (before the Holocaust, I might add) by two groups of Jews–Polish and German. For many years, the two groups remained as segregated as they could manage, even to the extent of not sitting in the same sections of the communal dining room or working together. Oy vey!!!
(And I’m still interested to know what was meant by “ideologies” with reference to the various churches. Anyone…???)*

 

[SyroMalankara]

If you listen to the racist rantings of an infamous LA Clippers owner of Jewish identity, he will confirm the racism prevalent in and outside of Israel!

 

[tomgosse]

My RCIA director told me about a small Midwestern in which the German and Irish Catholics fought so much they each built separate churches, refusing to worship together. This was years ago apparently, and I will assume/hope things are different now. We think of the non-Latin churches as primarily guilty of ethnic squabbles, but not necessarily so.

In my hometown there were separate parishes for the Irish, Italians, Polish and Lithuanians. I now live in a town that had three parishes (Italian, Irish and French Canadian) within two blocks of each other. Two of them are now closed (the Italian and the French) and the parishioners from those parishes no go to an “American” parish on the other side of town.

The remaining Irish parish now has masses for the Spanish and Portuguese speaking communities.