Fr. Loya -- EC churches are not diaspora

  • Thread starter Thread starter DadDave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DadDave

Guest
I was listening to “Light of the East” and Fr. Tom said something that rather surprised me. He said something to the effect that the Eastern Catholic Churches in the US are not to be churches in the diaspora simply serving immigrants until they’re fully inculturated. But rather these churches need to grow into their own US churches separate from their “Mother” churches.
I can understand from the Byzantine Catholic Church standpoint, given their situation as I understand it, but I couldn’t figure how that work from… say the UGCC stand point.
Any thoughts on this?
 
Well if EC Churches are just seen as “branches” that serve immigrants in the West, their growth will be limited and if the Vatican and the RC’s in North America see it this way as well, then they will act in a way that will stifle the growth of these parishes in North America.

But the problem is two way as well. I know the Ruthenians want to be a North American Church. The UGCC, because of the sizable number of Ukrainians in North America, they still focus on Ukrainian immigrants and the generations that follow rather than focus on becoming a Church that is more welcoming to all. Although some Ukrainian parishes have realized this is the only way to grow, some are still “spoiled” I would say, that there are still many Ukrainians in their area. Thus not having the need to cater to the greater and more diverse ethnicities out there.
 
DadDave said:
I was listening to “Light of the East” and Fr. Tom said something that rather surprised me. He said something to the effect that the Eastern Catholic Churches in the US are not to be churches in the diaspora simply serving immigrants until they’re fully inculturated. But rather these churches need to grow into their own US churches separate from their “Mother” churches.
I can understand from the Byzantine Catholic Church standpoint, given their situation as I understand it, but I couldn’t figure how that work from… say the UGCC stand point.
Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to comment without hearing the full statement.
 
Another brave and correct call from Father Loya. The eastern churches should not think of themselves as diaspora, and elite or foreign to these lands. If they do think that way about themselves, how will others see them? It is time to start believing that the spirituality and tradition belongs here, is needed here and is good and a proper inheritance for everyone.

It is unfortunate that when the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh was more vigorous and full of potential there was not more of an effort to evangelize. Now it is almost too late.

It is the same for all immigrant churches, like the Ukrainian, Romanian etc… The spirituality of the tradition is a great gift to this culture and a source of hope for many. It seems to be fading away.
 
Hesychios said:
Another brave and correct call from Father Loya. The eastern churches should not think of themselves as diaspora, and elite or foreign to these lands. If they do think that way about themselves, how will others see them? It is time to start believing that the spirituality and tradition belongs here, is needed here and is good and a proper inheritance for everyone.

It is unfortunate that when the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh was more vigorous and full of potential there was not more of an effort to evangelize. Now it is almost too late.

It is the same for all immigrant churches, like the Ukrainian, Romanian etc… The spirituality of the tradition is a great gift to this culture and a source of hope for many. It seems to be fading away.
Click to expand...
As Peter J noted, it’s hard to comment on Fr.Loya 's remarks without the actual statement, but the statement above is odd.

I am not a fan of people from one particular church telling those of another what they ought to be doing. So I have misgivings if Fr. was talking to Ukrainians, Romanians, etc. But if he was talking about his own church - wow - get in the ballgame. That sense was central tot he feeling of the church since the days of Bishop Elko. I am not sure about Hesychios’s swipe about evangelization, but the BCC was the first ECC to vigorously undertake establishment of mission outside of early immigrant home areas.

I have been around the BCC for well over 50 years - I never heard much of any talk of our link to a foreign Mother church, or to any sense that the church was provisional until the enculturation of the community. The idea that the spirituality of the tradition is a great gift to this culture and a source of hope for many was always present.

I think we really need a reality check on this one.
 
I think this goes back to what I was saying about Papal authority. Rome says Eastern Churches are this way, we should accept it. If we cannot, then we should follow the path of St. Alexis Toth.
 
Peter_J said:
Open question for anyone: do you know whether Rome has ever used the term diaspora of Latin Catholics in the East?
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

26. A particular thought goes to the lands of the diaspora where many faithful of the Eastern Churches who have left their countries of origin are living in a mainly Latin environment. These places, where peaceful contact is easier within a pluralist society, could be an ideal environment for improving and intensifying cooperation between the Churches in training future priests and in pastoral and charitable projects, also for the benefit of the Orientals’ countries of origin.
 
Peter_J said:
Open question for anyone: do you know whether Rome has ever used the term diaspora of Latin Catholics in the East?
Click to expand...
The term “diaspora” is used specifically of a sizeable group of people who leave their home country to travel to another. The Irish and Poles were termed “diaspora” when they came to the U.S. It has nothing to do with the Church or particular Churches, but with the nationality.

I don’t understand the negative connotations people are attaching to it.🤷

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Constantine,
ConstantineTG said:
Interlopers in Roman territory
Click to expand...
When you say “Rome,” surely you are not speaking of the Pope or the papacy. Just want to be sure.

The beautiful thing about Catholicism is that there are no boundaries. Territoriality is actually an Eastern concept adopted by the Church, beginning with the rise to prominence of Constantinople. So don’t blame the Latins for this one.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Peter_J said:
Open question for anyone: do you know whether Rome has ever used the term diaspora of Latin Catholics in the East?
Click to expand...
I believe it was used of Poles who went to Russia. As noted, it is a reference to nationality, not Church affiliation.

The other thing about the term “diaspora” that some may not be aware of is that it has a definite connotation that the movement was forced in some way (economic pressure, warfare, etc.).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
ConstantineTG said:
I think this goes back to what I was saying about Papal authority. Rome says Eastern Churches are this way, we should accept it. If we cannot, then we should follow the path of St. Alexis Toth.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with papal authority. It has to do with the needs determined by the local episcopal conferences.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Constantine,

When you say “Rome,” surely you are not speaking of the Pope or the papacy. Just want to be sure.

The beautiful thing about Catholicism is that there are no boundaries. Territoriality is actually an Eastern concept adopted by the Church, beginning with the rise to prominence of Constantinople. So don’t blame the Latins for this one.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I’m not blaming anyone. I think you are misreading my intentions here. If the Church says the Americas is Latin Church territory, then we as faithful and good Catholics should accept that and submit to the Pope whom we are all under. It is not a bad thing, it is a reality. We should accept it for what it is.
 
Dear brother ConstantineTG,
ConstantineTG said:
I’m not blaming anyone. I think you are misreading my intentions here. If the Church says the Americas is Latin Church territory, then we as faithful and good Catholics should accept that and submit to the Pope whom we are all under. It is not a bad thing, it is a reality. We should accept it for what it is.
Click to expand...
I guess my apprehension about your view of things is that the reality of the Eastern Churches in the U.S. was the fault of the Pope. The Americas is Latin Church territory according to the ecclesiastical standards of Eastern Christianity itself. The rules of the American Church were set by the Synod of Baltimore several decades before the Pope ever came into the picture. Perhaps you don’t realize that.

Perhaps you don’t realize that the first Eastern bishop in the U.S. was given by the Pope to the Ruthenians CONTRARY to Tradition and the wishes of the Latin bishops in the U.S. Perhaps you are unaware that ever since the first unions with non-Latin Churches, Popes have affirmed that any priest who tries to force or persuade a non-Latin Catholic to become a Latin Catholic is to be placed under interdict. Perhaps you are unaware that despite the local rules forbidding married priests to serve in the U.S., the Pope was granting individual indults for married priests to come to the U.S well into the mid-thirties. The Pope has been on our side all along, but because the Pope cannot do all that he wishes to do for us (given that the Americas is indeed the ecclesiastical territory of Latin bishops), for some reason, you think the Pope/papacy is to blame. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is my impression of your position:

You think the Pope has the power to do anything he wants in the Church regardless of the wishes/necessities of his brother bishops. The local episcopal conferences have set down specific rules that are in the short-haul detrimental to Easterns and Oriental Catholics. And you seem to be saying that this is the Pope’s fault. And - according to you (correct me if I’m wrong) - it is the Pope’s fault because he has the power to do anything he wants, and this is the reality of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics because it is what the POPE wanted/wants.

But that is not the way it works in the Catholic Church. It is the way it is for Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the “diaspora” because we are in Latin ecclesiastical territory, and it is the local episcopal conference that decides the matter. Contrary to what you may think, the Pope is morally, canonically and practically bound to work WITH the bishops (much more, if it’s a great majority of the bishops), not against them, in any given ecclesiastical territory.

We as non-Latin Catholics are getting the short-end of the stick (in the short-run), not because “the Pope said so,” but because the great majority of the bishops in the “diaspora” (who happen to be Latin) have said so.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted anything you have stated as being anti-Latin. On the other hand, I really do believe your frustrations against the papacy are misplaced (and I do appreciate greatly that you are so far willing to remain Catholic despite your frustrations).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother ConstantineTG,

I guess my apprehension about your view of things is that the reality of the Eastern Churches in the U.S. was the fault of the Pope. The Americas is Latin Church territory according to the ecclesiastical standards of Eastern Christianity itself. The rules of the American Church were set by the Synod of Baltimore several decades before the Pope ever came into the picture. Perhaps you don’t realize that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do know that the original intention of the Church in the early days is to not have overlapping territories as we have today in North America. Even the Orthodox violate that “rule”. There should be only the OCA for the Orthodox and all immigrant Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians should go to the local OCA rather than errect a Russian or Serbian or whatever Orthodox Church.
mardukm said:
Perhaps you don’t realize that the first Eastern bishop in the U.S. was given by the Pope to the Ruthenians CONTRARY to Tradition and the wishes of the Latin bishops in the U.S. Perhaps you are unaware that ever since the first unions with non-Latin Churches, Popes have affirmed that any priest who tries to force or persuade a non-Latin Catholic to become a Latin Catholic is to be placed under interdict. Perhaps you are unaware that despite the local rules forbidding married priests to serve in the U.S., the Pope was granting individual indults for married priests to come to the U.S well into the mid-thirties. The Pope has been on our side all along, but because the Pope cannot do all that he wishes to do for us (given that the Americas is indeed the ecclesiastical territory of Latin bishops), for some reason, you think the Pope/papacy is to blame. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is my impression of your position:

You think the Pope has the power to do anything he wants in the Church regardless of the wishes/necessities of his brother bishops. The local episcopal conferences have set down specific rules that are in the short-haul detrimental to Easterns and Oriental Catholics. And you seem to be saying that this is the Pope’s fault. And - according to you (correct me if I’m wrong) - it is the Pope’s fault because he has the power to do anything he wants, and this is the reality of the Eastern and Oriental Catholics because it is what the POPE wanted/wants.

But that is not the way it works in the Catholic Church. It is the way it is for Eastern and Oriental Catholics in the “diaspora” because we are in Latin ecclesiastical territory, and it is the local episcopal conference that decides the matter. Contrary to what you may think, the Pope is morally, canonically and practically bound to work WITH the bishops (much more, if it’s a great majority of the bishops), not against them, in any given ecclesiastical territory.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said. And that is why I am saying we should accept it for what it is. To keep claiming that we deserve more is contrary to the reality of our communion with Rome. If we are to be in communion with Rome, we have to accept such jurisdiction over us.
mardukm said:
We as non-Latin Catholics are getting the short-end of the stick (in the short-run), not because “the Pope said so,” but because the great majority of the bishops in the “diaspora” (who happen to be Latin) have said so.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted anything you have stated as being anti-Latin. On the other hand, I really do believe your frustrations against the papacy are misplaced
Click to expand...
What I am trying to say is that perhaps we are getting what is due to everybody but we are just thinking that we deserve something else. The source of our frustration it seems comes from an ecclesiology that doesn’t seem to exist. That is why I am saying, this is the way it is and we should accept it. You are right, all the issues extend far beyond the Pope himself. But I am addressing the current issue of ECs claiming the Pope’s authority is not what it is supposed to be. I guess I jumped threads a bit here, but in some ways it is still a relevant argument.
mardukm said:
(and I do appreciate greatly that you are so far willing to remain Catholic despite your frustrations).
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath over this one 😉
 
mardukm said:
I guess my apprehension about your view of things is that the reality of the Eastern Churches in the U.S. was the fault of the Pope. The Americas is Latin Church territory according to the ecclesiastical standards of Eastern Christianity itself. The rules of the American Church were set by the Synod of Baltimore several decades before the Pope ever came into the picture. Perhaps you don’t realize that.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on “The Americas is Latin Church territory according to the ecclesiastical standards of Eastern Christianity itself.” and the Synod of Baltimore?
 
Peter J, some US immigration history, related to the Catholics:On 7 Nov., 1791, he held the First Synod of Baltimore, attended by twenty-two priests of five nationalities. To train priests for his diocese of three million square miles, Bishop Carroll had asked the Fathers of the Company of Saint Sulpice to come to Baltimore, where they arrived in 1791 and started the nucleus of St. Mary’s College and Seminary. Bishop Carroll issued his first pastoral letter 28 March, 1792; very practical, yet tender, appealing for support for the clergy by means of the offertory collections. In 1793 for the first time, Bishop Carroll conferred Holy orders, the recipient being the Rev. Stephen Badin, the first priest ordained within the limits of the original thirteen of the United States. In 1795, he ordained to the priesthood Prince Demetrius Gallitzin who was to add 6,000 converts to his flock. In 1798, Bishop Carroll won an interesting and important lawsuit, the famous Fromm Case (Shea, op. cit., 448-5), in which Judge Addison, President of the Court of Common Pleas of the Fifth Circuit of Pennsylvania, decided that “The Bishop of Baltimore has the sole episcopal authority over the Catholic Church of the United States. Every Catholic congregation within the United States is subject to his inspection; and without authority from him no Catholic priest can exercise any pastoral function over any congregation within the United States.”

About a hundred years later in the 1870s when the Ruthenians immigrated to the USA (from two areas that were then the 1- Austria and 2- Hungary) the Catholic Church had a US Catholic diocese in the same areas that they were moving into. It was Bishop John Ireland of the Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, that was enforcing the rule of jurisdiction there. (Pope Pius IX setup the predecessor diocese in 1850 called St. Paul Minnesota).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top