"True" Catholicism, traditionality, and Eastern Orthodoxy

[Mort_Alz]

Hello everyone! Peace of Christ be with you all

This thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, Traditional Catholicism, and reasons to be Catholic at all.

As I’m sure most of you here know, the Christian world is (unfortunately) divided up into three great traditions: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. I once belonged to Protestantism of the Evangelical kind, but I’m enrolled in the RCIA program and I am scheduled (Lord willing) to be confirmed this Easter and to receive my first Communion.

Inevitably, when I began to question my own Protestantism and invest an interest in more traditional forms of Christianity, I simply had to look into Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Admittedly, this has taken the form of balancing things out rather than earnestly investigating the EO. If I found something foreign to my own Evangelical Protestantism, (like, say, Marian devotion, for instance), I would check it against Eastern Orthodoxy to see if they believed something similar to Catholicism. If they did, I would feel better about it because that would make the Protestant view truly a minority view in terms of history and Christian population.

Again, I am fully aware of a bias within myself towards Catholicism on this issue. (Perhaps it is because I am a “Westerner.”) This means something sort of like I almost want the Catholic Church to be true, so I am more willing to thoroughly search it for truth.

This bias is not without reason, however. There is no Orthodox church near where I live. I recognized that if Orthodoxy was the One, True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, this would mean that I would have to drive a good hour every week just to get to the Divine Liturgy to celebrate the Sacraments correctly and then an hour to get back to my house. I would have no support at home for branching out of the Protestant communion that I was born into and no support in my town, either. There are zero Orthodox in my home town. Essentially, I would be going this alone and probably having very limited fellowship with the Orthodox who are geographically nearest to me (probably somewhat on account of my “Western” heritage).

Suddenly, this bias finds its roots in a very real and critical point: the Eastern Orthodox church just isn’t quite as “catholic” as the Catholic church! In contrast, there are three Catholic parishes within my town/county. My state isn’t even a very “Catholic” one! This spoke volumes to me, so I began to study history as well. I do not intend for the following to be a “nanny nanny boo boo” to the Orthodox; I view their tradition with great respect. (In fact, I view it with more respect than the tradition I was born into). But, when I studied history, I found that the Orthodox have a severely lacking track record when it comes to evangelism. I am aware that they are responsible for proselytizing Russia to the Christianity, but that is dwarfed in comparison to Catholicism. Catholics converted nearly all of South America and have even got great numbers in the United States, which is a very Protestant country in mindset and in history. On the other hand, the Orthodox are very few in America. If the Orthodox church is the true Church, then I hardly find the gospel to be available to a person such as myself. It seems one can go anywhere in the world and find the Sacraments available through the Catholic Church. The same cannot be said of Orthodoxy. Our Lord commanded His disciples to “go into all the world.” St. Paul brought our attention to prophesy, saying “their voice has gone out into all the world,” and “how can they believe without being told?” That’s question I ask of the Orthodox with regards to where I live.

Now, here’s the catch; and now I am addressing you, Catholics. The three parish churches in my home town area are all ones that celebrate the Mass in the ordinary form (Novus Ordo) and in English. They also take the liberty of celebrating the Eucharist in versus populum position. However, there is a church in a neighboring county that celebrates the Tridentine Mass in Latin; ad orientum. Now, if I wanted to attend that Mass, it would require about a 1 hour drive there and then another hour to drive back which would put me in the same predicament as in the Eastern Orthodox church.

Now, what bothers me about this is that some Traditional Catholics will come across as if the Tridentine Latin Mass is the one best way to celebrate the Eucharist. This is not a perspective of “I simply prefer to hear the Mass in Latin and doing so augments my worship of God and communicates best to me the reality of Jesus’ true presence in the flesh,” this is a “the Tridentine Mass is objectively better and intrinsically more pleasing to God than the Novus Ordo.” They seem to come across as if the Tridentine Mass fell right out of the sky as a gift from God and is the one that objectively pleases Him the most. (Ironically, this attitude is almost analogous to how some sola scriptura Protestants approach the Bible). I do not deny the Tridentine Mass’ heavenly origin (same as I do not deny the Sacred Scriptures’ heavenly origin), but I do not condone the attitude that it is objectively best or “most heavenly” in the face of the Novus Ordo or, say, the Byzantine Rite Catholic Divine Liturgy.

 

[Mort_Alz]

It is important to note at this point that I am arguing from a position assuming “all other things being equal.” I am not considering the Novus Ordo Masses conducted with liturgical abuses, but the Novus Ordo itself as approved by the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. That means it requires our obedience if we are faithful Catholics. If we break away because of a council, what separates us from the rest of the heretics who didn’t like any of the previous councils or dogmatic definitions? Doesn’t the heretic always think he is orthodox? Preserving the faith of their fathers as passed down by the Apostles from Jesus? If they are not too careful, the more extreme Traditional Catholics begin to sound just like the Eastern Orthodox. (If you will recall, the more charismatic schismatics during the East-West Schism got their support by nitpicking at the details of how the West practiced the Faith.) It is important to realize that the Novus Ordo actually has quite a lot of ancient tradition lurking behind the controversy. Celebrating the Eucharist versus populum actually has roots in the Ancient Church. Even the Eucharistic Prayer as said properly in the Novus Ordo is still very much the same as the Ancient Church’s. My point is that, if the Tridentine Mass truly is the best, then I am in the same boat as if the Eastern Orthodox is the best. The Gospel has done a very poor job of making Jesus truly available to the world. If the Novus Ordo as approved by the Second Vatican Council is objectively less than the Tridentine Mass, then I’m afraid Jesus has not been shepherding the flock that we thought He was. We would be better off knocking on the Eastern Orthodox door. Tradition is not the only vein of Truth in the Church. It is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. If it is only Sacred Tradition, then I’m afraid that is a fatally capital ‘o’ Orthodox notion. Let us not forget that there is a difference between Sacred Tradition and that which can change. Our Lord Himself condemned holding on to “human traditions” and passing them off as if they were Divine.

Those are my main points. However, I do have some consent to the Traditional Catholics and some points on which I overwhelmingly agree with them. I would prefer to have a Mass available to me in which the Eucharist is celebrated ad orientum. To me, this makes the most sense. To my girlfriend, versus populum makes the most sense. I would also like to see the Bishops do something to make the Tridentine Mass more available. If I am going to pride the Catholic Church on how they respect all valid traditions, then I would be a fool to think the Tridentine Mass does not deserve more respect and attention. I also overwhelmingly agree with the traditionalists on the condemnation of Modernism. Artificial contraception is a grave matter of sin. NFP should only be practiced in situations of emergency. Homosexual behavior should not be encouraged. The Catholic Church is the one true Church, and our evangelism should take that as the truth that it is! Glory to God in the highest! Peace of Christ be with you all.

 

[ConstantineTG]

First of all you forgot about Eastern Catholics, or the Orthodox who are in communion with Rome. We exist too.

About the evangelizing part, you forgot to take into consideration many things. First, the lands of the Eastern Churches were cornered by an expanding Latin Church in the West, and the Muslims in the East. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which enjoyed expansion into territory they dominated (such as Spain into South America and the Philippines, Portugal into parts of India, East Timor, and France into Eastern Canada, etc.), the Eastern Churches were the ones dominated. The Muslims took much of their lands including the prime city of their Churches, Constantinople. Constantinople today is in Turkey, a Muslim country. The Vatican on the other hand has become an independent country itself, self ruling, free from unfair policies. Do you know that the Patriarch of Constantinople has to be a Turkish citizen otherwise Turkey will not let the Patriarch in the country and occupy the Cathedral? They’ve also closed down an important Orthodox seminary in Turkey, again because of the Muslim bias. That will never happen to the Vatican because it is an independent state. Even if Italy would fully secularize and become anti-Catholic, they cannot effect policy that will affect how Popes are elected or how the Vatican is run.

Also another thing to consider is that the countries in Eastern Europe never developed into the explorers that those in the West came to be. There are a few people who eventually make it to other lands here and there, but not to the scale that happened in Western Europe. Spain, Portugal, England, France and even Denmark sought to expand their territory by colonization. Evangelization wasn’t their primary goal, but the missionaries jumped on the opportunity to preach whenever the state has established a new land as their territory. For example, when Magellan got to the Philippines, he wasn’t looking to bring Christianity there. He was looking for a new shipping rout to the Spice Islands. And it wasn’t a few decades later when Spain finally decided to colonize the Philippines and then baptize its inhabitants.

As for Russia, the Orthodox didn’t proselytize them. Prince Volodomyr of Rus wanted to introduce a religion to his people to unite them. He looked at the worships of the Latins, the Muslims, the Jews and the Greeks. Of the four, his emissaries commented about the Greek worship as, “we don’t know if we’re still on earth or in heaven”. Thus they accepted Christianity, was baptized, and adopted the Byzantine Rite. When Rus was sacked by barbarians, the royal family fled. This is where the stories diverge. There was a claim that they fled to Moscow. The Ukrainians maintain that they fled to Galicia. Either way, this is what led to the Christianization of Russia. Russia looks to the baptism of Prince Volodymir as the birth of Christianity in their lands, their culture. Same for Ukrainians, they are all Slavic people anyway that is why its a common origin.

 

[Ceil-1]

The Tridentine is lovely, but, there is something about it that gives people a spiritual superiority complex. It tends to creep up on people.

What’s wrong with the Byzantine rite? You get all the beauty and tradition of the ancient Church and still are in line with the Magisterium.

 

[Mort_Alz]

First of all you forgot about Eastern Catholics, or the Orthodox who are in communion with Rome. We exist too.

About the evangelizing part, you forgot to take into consideration many things. First, the lands of the Eastern Churches were cornered by an expanding Latin Church in the West, and the Muslims in the East. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which enjoyed expansion into territory they dominated (such as Spain into South America and the Philippines, Portugal into parts of India, East Timor, and France into Eastern Canada, etc.), the Eastern Churches were the ones dominated. The Muslims took much of their lands including the prime city of their Churches, Constantinople. Constantinople today is in Turkey, a Muslim country. The Vatican on the other hand has become an independent country itself, self ruling, free from unfair policies. Do you know that the Patriarch of Constantinople has to be a Turkish citizen otherwise Turkey will not let the Patriarch in the country and occupy the Cathedral? They’ve also closed down an important Orthodox seminary in Turkey, again because of the Muslim bias. That will never happen to the Vatican because it is an independent state. Even if Italy would fully secularize and become anti-Catholic, they cannot effect policy that will affect how Popes are elected or how the Vatican is run.

Also another thing to consider is that the countries in Eastern Europe never developed into the explorers that those in the West came to be. There are a few people who eventually make it to other lands here and there, but not to the scale that happened in Western Europe. Spain, Portugal, England, France and even Denmark sought to expand their territory by colonization. Evangelization wasn’t their primary goal, but the missionaries jumped on the opportunity to preach whenever the state has established a new land as their territory. For example, when Magellan got to the Philippines, he wasn’t looking to bring Christianity there. He was looking for a new shipping rout to the Spice Islands. And it wasn’t a few decades later when Spain finally decided to colonize the Philippines and then baptize its inhabitants.

As for Russia, the Orthodox didn’t proselytize them. Prince Volodomyr of Rus wanted to introduce a religion to his people to unite them. He looked at the worships of the Latins, the Muslims, the Jews and the Greeks. Of the four, his emissaries commented about the Greek worship as, “we don’t know if we’re still on earth or in heaven”. Thus they accepted Christianity, was baptized, and adopted the Byzantine Rite. When Rus was sacked by barbarians, the royal family fled. This is where the stories diverge. There was a claim that they fled to Moscow. The Ukrainians maintain that they fled to Galicia. Either way, this is what led to the Christianization of Russia. Russia looks to the baptism of Prince Volodymir as the birth of Christianity in their lands, their culture. Same for Ukrainians, they are all Slavic people anyway that is why its a common origin.

I am sorry. I did not mean to sound like I was excluding Eastern Catholics. Quite the contrary. My criticisms of the EO were strictly criticisms of those outside of communion with the bishop of Rome.

I actually have a private appreciation of Eastern Christianity. I love icons, their theological emphasis, and their benevolent work in establishing and running hospitals.

That is good historical info. Thanks!

 

[Mort_Alz]

The Tridentine is lovely, but, there is something about it that gives people a spiritual superiority complex. It tends to creep up on people.

What’s wrong with the Byzantine rite? You get all the beauty and tradition of the ancient Church and still are in line with the Magisterium.

Nothing’s wrong with the Byzantine rite. I did not intend to say or imply that.

 

[pollycarp]

I attend all 3. The only difference I find is a great deal of noise at the end of the novus ordo, so if you want to stay and pray, you’re struggling to concentrate, but even at the TLM, people say a loud rosary before Mass, so if you want to say other prayers, you’re struggling to concentrate. However, when the Divine Liturgy ends, everyone but everyone leaves , so I go early to pray most times.

I hope people can always have the liturgy that helps them best - some are afraid of Latin. TLM is best for me if I want to do some serious, intense prayer. If I need friendly people and to talk, I go to the others. Wish we could all just get along. God reads hearts.

 

[manualman]

The Islam issue is a big deal in regards to the geographic spread of eastern orthodoxy. Catholics haven’t been any more successful in evangelizing muslims than the EO have.

My bias may be obvious, but I’m not entirely sure that it is 100% geography that has left the EO almost tethered in place while catholicism became truly catholic. The EO focus so strongly on the teachings of the Early Fathers that they’ve maintained the faith in spite of major hardship and oppression. But the lack of cohesion from having the Petrine office (pope) makes it very difficult to resolve disputes and to advance in comprehension of the implications of the revelation we’ve been given by God. It’s harder for them to authoritatively teach on new moral issues like chemical contraception, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research that the EF simply can’t give clear guidance on. Sometimes their patriarchs agree and sometimes they don’t. What then? I think this is a real problem in their evangelical appeal. In fairness, its also a major problem in catholic evangelical appeal in this century of “create your own catholicism.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Islam issue is a big deal in regards to the geographic spread of eastern orthodoxy. Catholics haven’t been any more successful in evangelizing muslims than the EO have.

My bias may be obvious, but I’m not entirely sure that it is 100% geography that has left the EO almost tethered in place while catholicism became truly catholic. The EO focus so strongly on the teachings of the Early Fathers that they’ve maintained the faith in spite of major hardship and oppression. But the lack of cohesion from having the Petrine office (pope) makes it very difficult to resolve disputes and to advance in comprehension of the implications of the revelation we’ve been given by God. It’s harder for them to authoritatively teach on new moral issues like chemical contraception, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research that the EF simply can’t give clear guidance on. Sometimes their patriarchs agree and sometimes they don’t. What then? I think this is a real problem in their evangelical appeal. In fairness, its also a major problem in catholic evangelical appeal in this century of “create your own catholicism.”

Don’t forget that even the West, the Latins, have encroached on traditional Eastern territories. Again, didn’t help their own expansion. The Western kingdoms were more stable in the middle ages and thus, richer. After the Great Schism the West just saw the East as a bunch of heretics (the feeling is mutual, the East saw the West as heretics) and thus sought to convert the Eastern Christians to Roman Catholicism.

 

[5Loaves]

I’m dyslexic so forgive me for only responding to most elements of your post. I’m not really confident I can read and digest the whole post.

Now, what bothers me about this is that some Traditional Catholics will come across as if the Tridentine Latin Mass is the one best way to celebrate the Eucharist. … They seem to come across as if the Tridentine Mass fell right out of the sky as a gift from God and is the one that objectively pleases Him the most.

This is of course entirely contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium which teaches the equal validity and dignity of both the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. As we observe the Holy Father celebrates in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

I am sorry. I did not mean to sound like I was excluding Eastern Catholics. Quite the contrary. My criticisms of the EO were strictly criticisms of those outside of communion with the bishop of Rome.

I actually have a private appreciation of Eastern Christianity. I love icons, their theological emphasis, and their benevolent work in establishing and running hospitals.

That is good historical info. Thanks!

I’m unclear from your post whether you are using “Eastern Catholics” and “EO” interchangeably. We are both part of “Eastern Christianity” but we “Eastern Catholics” are Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris in communion with the Pope of Rome. “EO” usually means Eastern Orthodox here, what documents of the Latin Church call “the oriental Churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church”, “non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid” etc. (as compared to protestant bodies which are not referred to as churches but as “ecclesial communities”)

 

[Mort_Alz]

I attend all 3. The only difference I find is a great deal of noise at the end of the novus ordo, so if you want to stay and pray, you’re struggling to concentrate, but even at the TLM, people say a loud rosary before Mass, so if you want to say other prayers, you’re struggling to concentrate. However, when the Divine Liturgy ends, everyone but everyone leaves , so I go early to pray most times.

I hope people can always have the liturgy that helps them best - some are afraid of Latin. TLM is best for me if I want to do some serious, intense prayer. If I need friendly people and to talk, I go to the others. Wish we could all just get along. God reads hearts.

Hey, cool!

I plan on attending the Latin Mass with some good friends of mine sometime, but I’ve only experienced the Novus Ordo. (It’s the only one available where I live).

All the noise after Mass is what I’m used to with what happened in my old communion. I never perceived it as irreverent (though it may be for some). Jesus is there with us, I know He’s there, He knows I’m there.

 

[Mort_Alz]

The Islam issue is a big deal in regards to the geographic spread of eastern orthodoxy. Catholics haven’t been any more successful in evangelizing muslims than the EO have.

My bias may be obvious, but I’m not entirely sure that it is 100% geography that has left the EO almost tethered in place while catholicism became truly catholic. The EO focus so strongly on the teachings of the Early Fathers that they’ve maintained the faith in spite of major hardship and oppression. But the lack of cohesion from having the Petrine office (pope) makes it very difficult to resolve disputes and to advance in comprehension of the implications of the revelation we’ve been given by God. It’s harder for them to authoritatively teach on new moral issues like chemical contraception, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research that the EF simply can’t give clear guidance on. Sometimes their patriarchs agree and sometimes they don’t. What then? I think this is a real problem in their evangelical appeal. In fairness, its also a major problem in catholic evangelical appeal in this century of “create your own catholicism.”

100% agreement from this guy

 

[Mort_Alz]

Don’t forget that even the West, the Latins, have encroached on traditional Eastern territories. Again, didn’t help their own expansion. The Western kingdoms were more stable in the middle ages and thus, richer. After the Great Schism the West just saw the East as a bunch of heretics (the feeling is mutual, the East saw the West as heretics) and thus sought to convert the Eastern Christians to Roman Catholicism.

Yes, the behavior of both to the other side is, of course, regrettable. I’ve seen some very genuine, heartfelt attempts at reconciliation lately. (I have no idea if it’s going to happen soon, but one can always pray, and, indeed, we are commanded to pray).

 

[Mort_Alz]

I’m dyslexic so forgive me for only responding to most elements of your post. I’m not really confident I can read and digest the whole post.


This is of course entirely contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium which teaches the equal validity and dignity of both the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. As we observe the Holy Father celebrates in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

I’m unclear from your post whether you are using “Eastern Catholics” and “EO” interchangeably. We are both part of “Eastern Christianity” but we “Eastern Catholics” are Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris in communion with the Pope of Rome. “EO” usually means Eastern Orthodox here, what documents of the Latin Church call “the oriental Churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church”, “non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid” etc. (as compared to protestant bodies which are not referred to as churches but as “ecclesial communities”)

I’m sorry for the confusion. When I say “Eastern Orthodox” or “EO,” I am referring only to the church in the east that is outside communion with the bishop of Rome. When I say “Eastern Catholics” or “EC,” I am referring to Eastern Christians (or Christians of Eastern rites) who are in communion with the bishop of Rome. i.e. Byzantine Rite Catholic, etc.

When I say Eastern Christians or Eastern Christianity, that could encompass both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

my friend, don’t let some of those folks at Society of St Pius X lie to you, Tridentine Mass is not a gift falls from heaven, it is nothing compared to the Holy Scripture. It is simply a tradition which has developed over centuries. The original Mass was said in Greek. The Church later changed into Latin because it was the common language (a change which I must say resembles those in Vatican II)

 

[pollycarp]

Hey, cool!

I plan on attending the Latin Mass with some good friends of mine sometime, but I’ve only experienced the Novus Ordo. (It’s the only one available where I live).

All the noise after Mass is what I’m used to with what happened in my old communion. I never perceived it as irreverent (though it may be for some). Jesus is there with us, I know He’s there, He knows I’m there.

I hope you can find a high mass with choir.
The low mass (usually weekdays) is very quiet and you follow everything in the missal, no music.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you will trace the spread of Christianity during the age of Enlightenment, you will find that it is closely linked with colonialism (especially so in the Americas). Given that the Russians were the only colonial power that was Orthodox during this time period (and not a very strong one at that), it is not surprising that Catholicism has spread more than Orthodoxy. Had the British been more gung ho about converting everybody in their empire to Anglicanism, we might be saying the same thing about Anglicanism today.

 

[Nine_Two]

You will certainly find yourself without a Catholic Church throughout much of the Muslim and Orthodox world. Only in the major cities would you find them, much like Orthodox Churches in the West.

While 12 of the 13 original states were Protestant, a significant amount of its territory was originally colonized by Catholics, and Catholics showed up in great numbers. As it is they make up a very large minority of American Christians (being the largest single Christian organization). The fact that you can find them where you are is unsurprising.

In Alaska the Catholic and Orthodox populations are nearly equal. The Orthodox population was arrived at through missions, while the Catholic and Protestant population through immigration.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Manualman,

The Islam issue is a big deal in regards to the geographic spread of eastern orthodoxy. Catholics haven’t been any more successful in evangelizing muslims than the EO have.

I agree.

My bias may be obvious, but I’m not entirely sure that it is 100% geography that has left the EO almost tethered in place while Catholicism became truly catholic.

The term ‘catholic’ means ‘according to the whole’. While it’s meaning and may have evolved somewhat over the years it basically means ‘complete’ as in complete and correct. It referred to the theology. It did not mean ‘widespread’ as some people will use it today.

In fact when the term was first used for Christians the church had a very limited geographical scope, so the fact that it wasn’t present in Thailand or Patagonia in the second century was not an issue. It was that wherever there were colonies of Christians at least some people were in theological agreement with other Christians in every other Christian area, hence a strong logical case could be made that those people believed the earliest and most conservative set of Christian teachings. Heretics in the second century (when the church was young) were usually recognized as being restricted in distribution, since they were so close in time in those days to their founders or originators, in fact the founders were generally known by name and in some cases the founders were still alive. That has nothing to do with later missionary efforts or successes nor with the presence of the church in Texas.

http://www2.div.ed.ac.uk/courses/Animated_Maps/divinity_map/images/ad250_2.gif

Another point worth mentioning is that at one time the greatest and most widespread Christian church was neither Orthodox nor Roman catholic, but the Nestorian church! It literally had 90 to 100 million supporters at one time and dwarfed all other Christian churches, reaching India and China by the seventh century. So if we lived at that time and had chosen to use geographical spread as the litmus test of authenticity we would certainly all be seeking to join that church.

Had history been kinder to them they could have dominated world Christianity to this day.

The presence of one church or another in north America, particularly the USA, has a lot to do with immigration patterns, and the laws of admission. Irish and Germans were early immigrant groups (in fact both were present before the revolution and both saw accelerated expansion in the early nineteenth century 1800 - 1840), central Europeans and eastern Europeans started to come much later, mostly especially as industrial recruiters were actively promoting the prospects of working in the mines and factories of the USA after the US War Between the States in the 1860’s. Orthodox belong to the latter group, except for a number of native Americans evangelized in Alaska in the 17th & 18th century.

http://web.missouri.edu/~brente/usimmigr.jpg

So let us examine the immigration policy and the effect of quotas …

At some point in the late 19th century (I am not sure when) the law of the USA restricted the number of new immigrants by country according to a ratio [3%] of how many living immigrants were already present. Thus if community A had 5 million living immigrants in the USA the quote would be 3% of that (or 150,000) as a limit for immigration that year, and of course as that initial population died off the numbers would be ‘squeezed’ accordingly. A group which had only 250,000 living immigrants would be limited to 7,500 new immigrants in the calendar year.

Later this ratio was changed to 2%.

The groups who had had an early start thus had an enormous advantage if they had a large number of still-living residents in the USA. Western European nations (mostly Roman Catholic and Protestant) came in large numbers early, eastern Europeans came very late in the game, in a period when immigration policy was becoming very restrictive.

The effect shows something like this:



In this time frame, as immigration was being restricted, nations like Germany and Austria-Hungary were sending much larger numbers of people than countries like Russia, Serbia or Bulgaria (traditionally Orthodox nations).

Here is a nice map depicting a general idea of the ethnographic make-up of the USA today. It does not show everyone, just the dominant ethnic group in each county where that can be determined. No predominantly Orthodox nationality appears here due to historical immigration trends…

So it is no surprise that there isn’t an Orthodox parish around every corner yet, but we are working toward that goal.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, the behavior of both to the other side is, of course, regrettable. I’ve seen some very genuine, heartfelt attempts at reconciliation lately. (I have no idea if it’s going to happen soon, but one can always pray, and, indeed, we are commanded to pray).

Definitely. The Eastern Churches were trapped in terms of expansion, and they didn’t send out ships like the Western powers had. The faith did spread north to Russia, which is the only opening the Eastern Churches have, then slowly East into the rest of Russia above the Muslim nations. But with the Latins in the West, the non-Chalcedonians in the south, and Muslims in the East, it was no picnic for the Eastern Christians to spread out.