P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks for the info. However, it doesn’t seem to substantiate the assertion in question, i.e. “The Americas is Latin Church territory according to the ecclesiastical standards of Eastern Christianity itself.”
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Latin Church extended onto the Americas first, therefore it is their territory. In the Early Church, there was no such thing as overlapping territories. One bishop has a defined are of his territory and it is his exclusively.
E
Elizium23
Guest
The ecclesiastical paradigm of the Eastern Churches is simple: one autocephalous Church per country. It seems to me that the Protestant Reformation was partly about the restoration of this autonomy to the nascent nation-states of Christian Europe in the face of an increasingly monolithic and consolidated Latin Church.
However, by the Catholic ecclesial paradigm, there are no autocephalous Churches, only *sui iuris *Churches in communion with Rome. It seems to me that the variety of 22 Eastern Churches is a mere convenience for complementarity with the equivalent Orthodox Churches. Otherwise it makes little sense not to consolidate tiny Churches that are not distinguished by different Rites or vernacular.
It seems that the right thing to do would have been the creation of brand new sui iuris Churches to coexist with the Latin Church in new territories as they were evangelized. But this novel concept never would have flown in the heyday of the Latin Church and worldwide exploration and expansion. The Latins had the majority and they wouldn’t have tolerated the competition inherent in allowing the East to expand simultaneously.
In the modern age, it makes sense to overlap territories and have a plethora of sui iuris Churches serving the same locations. But perhaps another novel idea would be to designate one Eastern Church to be the sole “growth” Church in a given territory, permitted to evangelize to the natives, and restrict the others to serve only immigrants in diaspora and their descendants. Each Church could enter a competition to be selected, submitting proposals and galvanizing the faithful with incentives for growth. This would both preserve all Churches’ rights to operate unmolested in a given territory, yet prevent perpetual competition and hard feelings among two dozen tiny Churches that are all trying to evangelize and grow. The selection process need not be inequitable: large swaths of territory could be ceded to each Church equally, at least as much as they could administratively handle. This could be seen as a reward, a great boon to evangelization and growth if it were done properly.
The drawback is that I am not sure that there is enough worldwide interest in Eastern Christianity, and at the same time there is not enough manpower present in these tiny Churches to handle massive evangelization pushes.
However, by the Catholic ecclesial paradigm, there are no autocephalous Churches, only *sui iuris *Churches in communion with Rome. It seems to me that the variety of 22 Eastern Churches is a mere convenience for complementarity with the equivalent Orthodox Churches. Otherwise it makes little sense not to consolidate tiny Churches that are not distinguished by different Rites or vernacular.
It seems that the right thing to do would have been the creation of brand new sui iuris Churches to coexist with the Latin Church in new territories as they were evangelized. But this novel concept never would have flown in the heyday of the Latin Church and worldwide exploration and expansion. The Latins had the majority and they wouldn’t have tolerated the competition inherent in allowing the East to expand simultaneously.
In the modern age, it makes sense to overlap territories and have a plethora of sui iuris Churches serving the same locations. But perhaps another novel idea would be to designate one Eastern Church to be the sole “growth” Church in a given territory, permitted to evangelize to the natives, and restrict the others to serve only immigrants in diaspora and their descendants. Each Church could enter a competition to be selected, submitting proposals and galvanizing the faithful with incentives for growth. This would both preserve all Churches’ rights to operate unmolested in a given territory, yet prevent perpetual competition and hard feelings among two dozen tiny Churches that are all trying to evangelize and grow. The selection process need not be inequitable: large swaths of territory could be ceded to each Church equally, at least as much as they could administratively handle. This could be seen as a reward, a great boon to evangelization and growth if it were done properly.
The drawback is that I am not sure that there is enough worldwide interest in Eastern Christianity, and at the same time there is not enough manpower present in these tiny Churches to handle massive evangelization pushes.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Or, there could be one ruling bishop per area, and every Church then just becomes a Rite of the one Catholic Church.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It would have been a little challenging to do so until relatively recently, given the suppression of the Mother Church in the Communist era.
I think I’m a little younger than you, yet I’ve heard plenty of talk about Mukachevo and Presov over the years.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
My dear brother, I do believe the notion of territoriality is still very much an issue within the Catholic Communion. I would argue that it has likely doomed the Ruthenian Church to near obscurity, perhaps extinction.
While I might not blame the Latins for inventing the concept, I would say that it is very much alive. Discussion of “controversial” aspects of differences in discipline, particular with regard to mandatory celibacy vs. the married priesthood, are laced with references to practice “outside the canonical territories of the churches of origin”.
R
Rejoice_Always
Guest
In my area, we have a UGCC that tries to reach out to non-Ukrainians, but it doesn’t work too well. This may be due to the fact that DL is mostly in Ukrainian and all the festivals and events center completely around Ukrainian culture. If one isn’t Ukrainian, one must be a Ukrainophile to avoid alienation.
I noticed plenty of talk about inclusion, but I felt that most were excluded from it.
I noticed plenty of talk about inclusion, but I felt that most were excluded from it.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
And on the other hand, the Byzantine Catholic [Ruthenian] Church has been seen as attempting to shed its ethnic identity, and has sometimes been criticized in the regard.
I do think Fr Loya’s point is related.
It is an interesting issue to consider in light of the history of Christianity in the Slavic lands. Sts. Cyril and Methodius endeavored to spread the Gospel and provide a means of worshipping in a language understood by the people they evangelized. While the Byzantine-Constantinopolitan roots of the Churches springing from this effort is undeniable to this day, it is interesting to ask whether adapting to a native culture outside a country of origin or adhering to an ethnic identity from a country of origin is actually more in line with the historical legacy of these churches.
I say that with the greatest of respect from my Ukrainian “cousins”, as I can genuinely see the benefits of both approaches.
In either case, we are both (Ruthenian and Ukrainian) losing numbers of faithful in the U.S., and the question as to how to reverse this trend remains.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
This sounds awfully familiar
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
A thought that I had: there seems to be two approaches to parishes “outside the traditional territories,” diaspora and missionary. Even Roman Catholics struggled with this issue when they first immigrated over here. There were many parishes that were very ethnically focused and very unwelcome to outsiders, even other Roman Catholics. I remember hearing a story of an Italian and an Irish parish that eventually split over ethnic issues - the Irish moving kitty-corner across the street, erecting an identical church, and then opening its doors for business.
I think the real problem for Eastern Catholics today is how to maintain at least some aspect of their ethnic identity, while instilling in the parish itself the missionary spirit. This, admittedly, can be a very difficult balance to maintain. In my experience the Melkites and the Ruthenians seem to lead the way, but even there one often finds that such a delicate balance is often thrown off kilter in favor of either ethnicity or a loss of ethnic identity, depending on the parish.
But the fact remains that America, and the U.S. in particular, is mission territory. Eastern Catholics from all the particular sui iuris Churches really need to embrace the missionary spirit and start bringing the Gospel message fully to the people of this secular society.
I think the real problem for Eastern Catholics today is how to maintain at least some aspect of their ethnic identity, while instilling in the parish itself the missionary spirit. This, admittedly, can be a very difficult balance to maintain. In my experience the Melkites and the Ruthenians seem to lead the way, but even there one often finds that such a delicate balance is often thrown off kilter in favor of either ethnicity or a loss of ethnic identity, depending on the parish.
But the fact remains that America, and the U.S. in particular, is mission territory. Eastern Catholics from all the particular sui iuris Churches really need to embrace the missionary spirit and start bringing the Gospel message fully to the people of this secular society.
R
Rejoice_Always
Guest
Have you heard similar stories? My experience is fairly limited.This sounds awfully familiar
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Sadly, many ECs only switch to “missionary mode” when they realize immigrants form the motherland aren’t coming in droves and the succeeding generations are more secular. They only start doing this when the parishes are on the last ropes. It may be too late.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
True. But that seems to be mostly true of the Ukrainians. The leaders of the Melkite Church in the U.S. have been urging this missionary attitude for a few generations now, ever since our eparchy was officially established. I remember reading some writings of Archbishop Joseph Tawil with regards to these matters. He, Raya, and our current bishop, Nicolas, are all very adamant that our identity as Middle Easterners comes second to the missionary spirit of our Church. That being said, there are still Melkite parishes out there that are EXTREMELY ethnocentric.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Well, the Ruthenians and the Melkites are the first ones to feel the dwindling number of people from their motherland. His Beatitude Sviatoslav is now speaking about the same thing, but the attitudes in the parishes won’t change I believe for another generation. Here in Canada where there is a sizable population of Ukrainians who have been here for a hundred years or so, the attitude might not change anytime soon. This is great for them but unfortunate for us who have found the path to spiritual growth in the Eastern praxis. We are not only to become Eastern Christians, which is fine and great, but we are also to absorb a foreign ethnicity. It’s a very tall road block for many.True. But that seems to be mostly true of the Ukrainians. The leaders of the Melkite Church in the U.S. have been urging this missionary attitude for a few generations now, ever since our eparchy was officially established. I remember reading some writings of Archbishop Joseph Tawil with regards to these matters. He, Raya, and our current bishop, Nicolas, are all very adamant that our identity as Middle Easterners comes second to the missionary spirit of our Church. That being said, there are still Melkite parishes out there that are EXTREMELY ethnocentric.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m living in that situation right now. The people in the parish are very warm, loving and wonderful people. But their spiritual life and cultural life is intertwined. I’m there to be Ukrainian Catholic, not to be Ukrainian. And it is hard for someone who’s not Ukrainian, I’m not even Canadian. Its a huge disconnect. No one is intentionally alienating me, but it just happens by the nature of the community.
R
Rejoice_Always
Guest
:yup:
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
I am a convert, Roman canonically but Ruthenian in my heart. I’ve been going to a Ruthenian parish in the Eparchy of Phoenix for nearly the last two years - a majority of my time as a Catholic.
We get on the order of five converts a year who come in through our parish. Our parish runs a college program that has grown to fifty students (mostly Romans from surrounding parishes - our Newman Center, to be as kind as possible, needs the assistance). Bishop Gerald wants every parish to have one now, so we’re working expanding it.
The Ruthenian Church, at least in Phoenix, is trying very hard to maintain its ethnic identity - we’re still Rusyn, don’t doubt it, but it’s also trying to evangelize the whole world, fallen away Romans, Protestants, and non-believers alike. It’s absolutely wonderful. Furthermore, we have the great benefit of that all nineteen priests in our Eparchy are solid and orthodox. I met them all a few weeks ago. We also have a strong liturgy - something the Romans are struggling to regain. And our parishes are filled with little ones.
So, I don’t know how things are back in the home country (Pennsylvania,
), but we’re making a big effort out here and I think it’s working.
L
lssanjose
Guest
Nice to hear of this kind of progress. I’ve been to three Ruthenian Divine Liturgies; and love each one I’ve gone to. You’re kind of right, in that, the liturgies are something some Roman rite catholics are missing out on, IMO. As far as ethnic identity retention, I don’t think I get that vibe from the parish I’ve been going to. Then again, I’m a language junkie, so I don’t mind trying my hand at singing the Slavonic versions of hymns.I am a convert, Roman canonically but Ruthenian in my heart. I’ve been going to a Ruthenian parish in the Eparchy of Phoenix for nearly the last two years - a majority of my time as a Catholic.
We get on the order of five converts a year who come in through our parish. Our parish runs a college program that has grown to fifty students (mostly Romans from surrounding parishes - our Newman Center, to be as kind as possible, needs the assistance). Bishop Gerald wants every parish to have one now, so we’re working expanding it.
The Ruthenian Church, at least in Phoenix, is trying very hard to maintain its ethnic identity - we’re still Rusyn, don’t doubt it, but it’s also trying to evangelize the whole world, fallen away Romans, Protestants, and non-believers alike. It’s absolutely wonderful. Furthermore, we have the great benefit of that all nineteen priests in our Eparchy are solid and orthodox. I met them all a few weeks ago. We also have a strong liturgy - something the Romans are struggling to regain. And our parishes are filled with little ones.
So, I don’t know how things are back in the home country (Pennsylvania,
R
Rejoice_Always
Guest
L
lssanjose
Guest
ha ha. Last I checked, no. But, mileage may vary
Is that in the DSM IV?
.- Status