Will there be EC in America in 40 years?

[Hesychios]

Well, at least in the US. Not in Canada, their presence [The Ruthenian GCC ] is sparse here. Canada is more of Ukrainian territory as far as the ECCs are concerned.

Actually, it doesn’t exist.

There is, however, the small Slovak GCC, which separated from the UGCC in Canada. Slovak Greek Catholics are usually included in the Pittsburgh Metropolia in the USA. The Pittsburgh Metropolia (Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian) has no authority in Canada.

As far as the Vatican is concerned, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are in the Ruthenian Recension, so it seems kind of odd to refer to “Ruthenians” and “Ukrainians” as two separate groups (as is the case in the USA). Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians are probably expected to join in with the UGCC in most places around the world, and that would have been the case in the USA too, if not for the unfortunate blow-out.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, it doesn’t exist.

There is, however, the small Slovak GCC, which separated from the UGCC in Canada. Slovak Greek Catholics are usually included in the Pittsburgh Metropolia in the USA. The Pittsburgh Metropolia (Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian) has no authority in Canada.

As far as the Vatican is concerned, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are in the Ruthenian Recension, so it seems kind of odd to refer to “Ruthenians” and “Ukrainians” as two separate groups (as is the case in the USA). Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians are probably expected to join in with the UGCC in most places around the world, and that would have been the case in the USA too, if not for the unfortunate blow-out.

Yeah, very unfortunate that use Sub-Carpathians got our own Church rather than being subsumed into the Ukrainian Church.

 

[Aramis]

Well, time for this non-Byzantine to make a second comment. (Yeah, I know, “three jeers” … I can hears the groans already … but anyway …)

As I watch the process continue, I can’t help but ask myself what is “Americanization” if not an aspect of neo-latinization?

The most obvious is the use of English. Which the Ruthenian Church has done since the 1950’s… with Rome’s approval. Use of the vernacular isn’t itself an Americanization; the particular dialect used is. And, for what it is worth, the current translation is pure American…

Less obvious:* the extension of the vigil divine liturgy outside it’s normal 2-4 days a year in order to allow for those who need to work sundays* moving many feasts celebrations to evenings to allow for weekday work schedules* filigree and/or glasswork iconostasi so that the faithful can (imperfectly) see what goes on behind the iconostas* adding certain civil holidays to the Church Calendar (4 July, Memorial and Labor Day) as optional commemorations.

 

[dzheremi]

filigree and/or glasswork iconostasi so that the faithful can (imperfectly) see what goes on behind the iconostas

I’m curious about this. What is the reasoning behind this particular change?

 

[Aramis]

Actually, it doesn’t exist.

There is, however, the small Slovak GCC, which separated from the UGCC in Canada. Slovak Greek Catholics are usually included in the Pittsburgh Metropolia in the USA. The Pittsburgh Metropolia (Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian) has no authority in Canada.

As far as the Vatican is concerned, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are in the Ruthenian Recension, so it seems kind of odd to refer to “Ruthenians” and “Ukrainians” as two separate groups (as is the case in the USA). Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians are probably expected to join in with the UGCC in most places around the world, and that would have been the case in the USA too, if not for the unfortunate blow-out.

The Slovaks are a separate GCC, period. The thing is, in the US, where they have no parishes of their own, they are canonically ascribed to the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church.

In Canada, where, again, the Slovak GCC has no parishes, they are ascribed to the Ukrainian GCC.

Both the UGCC and the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia have errected their own parishes to serve their localized Slovak GCC parishioners. But those parishioners remain Slovak GCC members… in exactly the same way that Latins in Ethiopia are ascribed to the Ethiopian Catholic Church’s care, and yet, the Ethiopians have many Latin-Rite parishes of members of the Roman Church, staffed by Ethiopian priests.

 

[Aramis]

Well, at least in the US. Not in Canada, their presence is sparse here. Canada is more of Ukrainian territory as far as the ECCs are concerned.

The Ruthenians in Canada are ascribed to the care of the Ukrainian GCC. They have no separate hierarchical presence. And so also are the other Churches Sui Iuris which are ascribed to the Ruthenians by default in the US.

 

[mardukm]

An Oriental inquiry:

There has been a reference to an “American” Church in the Byzantine context.

What is being referred to here?

Why should there be any “resentment” for the Ruthenians having done this? I’ve noticed someone said it’s because the Ruthenians should have included other sui juris Byzantines in the formation of this “American Church” (whatever that is ). But what canonical justification could there be to insist that Ruthenians should do this?

From an admitted outsider, it seems the issue here is that some Byzantines have a problem with the status of the Ruthenians as being a sui juris Church (?).

Thank you for any forthcoming explanations.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

These are all things that are present to various degrees in various churches with various explanations that generally revolve around some middle-aged man’s idea of what will attract and keep the youth. Well, I can’t think of a nice way to say this, but to hell with that idea.

I see this as saying, “to hell with the Church’s attempts to try to attract and keep its disaffected youth.” If that is the case, I obviously and strongly disagree. Is there another way to interpret what you wrote?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know, Mardukm, but I suspect that you’ve read it exactly as I meant it. I do believe that this is a serious enough problem that euphemisms and niceties are not appropriate.

It is so because the liturgy is the most serious activity of the church. The very idea that anyone should be catered to in any way at the expense of maintaining the traditional liturgical practice of the church is an affront to God. If you are “disaffected” with the reverence and solemnity of a traditional liturgy, then you have a problem with God. Your problem is not with the church or with the priest or with the hymns or incense or whatever. Your problem is with God. That is what being “disaffected” means: rebellious or resentful towards authority. God is the ultimate authority, The liturgy is where we encounter Him in the most profound way possible on His earth.

I know that the Catholic Church agrees with this. I have read many, many books and official Vatican documents and statements that attest to this truth. But I have never, ever experienced this actually IN the church, outside of a monastic setting. My experience is definitely not normative among Catholics, but seems to be heartbreakingly so among ex-Catholic, now-Orthodox Christians I have talked to. It ultimately comes down to ontologically different experiences of Christianity, to borrow an idea from another thread. If you do not see what is wrong with the state of the Roman Catholic communion then no amount of argument that I don’t want to have will change your mind, just as if I do not see the truth behind your arguments in favor of the Roman Catholic communion, I will not be swayed.

And no, my friend, I will not be swayed. There is a reason why I am willing to come off as an inflexible absolutist, and it’s not because I like being contrary. It is because I think that some things ABSOLUTELY should not be trifled with, ever, for any reason. The doctrine of the faith is one of those things. The sacred liturgy that is the expression and affirmation of the same is another. I should hope that my earlier commiserating with a Maronite poster in this very thread should illustrate that I do not apply this principle with prejudice towards Catholicism, and that it does come from a mindset that is well within a certain traditional approach to Christianity itself – one that I believe was much more common in the days before the two main schisms that affected the Church. The extent to which it now seems extreme is a measure of how far we’ve come since those fractures. Take that intentionally-ambiguous sentence as you will.

 

[dvdjs]

The Slovaks are a separate GCC, period…

I am not sure that what you have written is completely correct. The Slovak GCC, as a particular church (in the VII sense as opposed to the diocesan sense), has not been in existence very long. Certainly its existence does not antedate the earliest developments of the BCC in America. Until the twentieth century there, of course, was no Slovakia and no Slovak Church. Nearly all if not all, of the GCs throughout Austria Hungary were connected to the mother church of Uzhhorod/Mukachevo. Presov, in NE Slovakia, became a separate eparchy in 1818. This event was similar to the creation of the Passiac, Parma, or Phoenix eparchies in the US. Even in the aftermath of WWI Czechoslovakia included the Zakarpatskaja oblast which was only incorporated into Ukraine after WWII.

So in the early immigration to the US the “nash”, people from the Hungarian lands of Austri-Hungary - whether from Prjashev, Mukachevo, etc., and whether they spoke, Rusyn, “Slavish”, Hungarian, etc. - all of these people would naturally have formed parishes with each other or connected to each other under the same bishop. They would seen each other as members of the same church, and are now part of the sui juris BCC. I don’t see how there could be any canonical connection to Slovak, Hungarian, etc. particular churches. All of thw subdivision into particular churches that follow national lines (even the intriguing connection of the Czech exarchate to Uzhhorod) happened long after these people came to the is and forged the BCC.

The canonical situation for more recent immigrants may be different for more recent immigrants, I suppose. But the idea that “Slovaks” are somehow under the care of the BCC in America, but are canonically part of another church, doesn’t seem correct.

Am I misinterpreting you?

 

[BVM_1221]

I’ve heard that, due to declining numbers, Eastern Catholicism essentially will cease to exist in America within the next generation or two.

Do you believe this will happen? Or, is there hope that Eastern Catholicism will survive and possibly even thrive in America?

It could survive, and even increase, if it were better known. It would help if the mental mindset of Latin-rite churches was not to regard ECs as a sort of appendix to the “main” Latin-rite churches

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Ruthenians in Canada are ascribed to the care of the Ukrainian GCC. They have no separate hierarchical presence. And so also are the other Churches Sui Iuris which are ascribed to the Ruthenians by default in the US.

You say that Slovaks and Ruthenians are ascribed to the UGCC in Canada but then can you explain this Eparcy to me?

Eparchy of Ss. Cyril and Methodius for Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada which is based in Toronto along with the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto

 

[Hesychios]

Yeah, very unfortunate that use Sub-Carpathians got our own Church rather than being subsumed into the Ukrainian Church.

My point was that the circumstances were unfortunate.

I suspect that Rome (the Pope, or the Roman Curia) would have preferred that there were just one hierarchy for all of the Ruthenian Recension in north America, regardless of ethnic origin, but it is not clear to me that Rome would have planned them to be subordinated to the Major-Metropolitan of L’viv.

Of course, this is something we will never be able to determine (one way or another) in these days and times unless some forgotten cache of documents comes to the surface explaining what they were thinking in those days.

 

[RuthByzCat3]

You say that Slovaks and Ruthenians are ascribed to the UGCC in Canada but then can you explain this Eparcy to me?

Eparchy of Ss. Cyril and Methodius for Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada which is based in Toronto along with the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto

Aww Br. David, I wanted to make that comment!

Bishop John is a nice guy. He comes to Uniontown sometimes. We met him and Bishop William in a Red Lobster. They thought I was a waiter because I had come in my school uniform . Digression aside,
If certain naysayers in the Church would just shut their mouths, we might be able to pull something together. As Dn. Paul Boboige said, we are our own worst enemy. I know for a fact that the ByzanTEEN movement is alive and strong. If people wouldn't be so annoying to us and claiming we can't understand the inner workings of the Church, we might be less prone to leave. Sorry. Just saying.

 

[Aramis]

You say that Slovaks and Ruthenians are ascribed to the UGCC in Canada but then can you explain this Eparcy to me?

Eparchy of Ss. Cyril and Methodius for Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada which is based in Toronto along with the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto

It’s a UGCC non-territorial* eparchy established within the UGCC, specifically for their Slovak faithful.

It is to the Canadian Archeparchy as the Military Ordinariate or Anglican Ordinariate is to the Roman church.

• in the sense that it overlaps other UGCC eparchies in Canada of the same metropolia.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My point was that the circumstances were unfortunate.

I suspect that Rome (the Pope, or the Roman Curia) would have preferred that there were just one hierarchy for all of the Ruthenian Recension in north America, regardless of ethnic origin, but it is not clear to me that Rome would have planned them to be subordinated to the Major-Metropolitan of L’viv.

Of course, this is something we will never be able to determine (one way or another) in these days and times unless some forgotten cache of documents comes to the surface explaining what they were thinking in those days.

But the beauty of the East is the various small-“t” traditions found within the greater Byzantine Tradition. I think a problem in the Roman Church is that since they are under one particular Church and one hierarchy, when the small-“t” traditions get mixed up in place, you have people complaining about abuses and such. Not that I’m saying all abuses are traditions from elsewhere. But fact is, Roman Catholicism in the Philippines for example is different from the expression of Roman Catholicism in America or Europe. Now given the amount of immigrants to North America, you have the Filipinos with their incultured traditions coming into parishes they identify as Roman Catholic, then doing something thats foreign to American Roman Catholics.

At least in the East you’d expect Ukrainian traditions in a Ukrainian parish. The differences may be very little or subtle, but nonetheless you will know what to expect when you come into a parish.

 

[Vico]

The statistics for the USA Eastern Catholic 2008 are in descending membership order are shown below. I imagine that if they decrease, then by 2050 the topmost will still have membership in the USA. However, there have been increases of USA memberships due to persecutions leading to migrations from the Middle East.

1. Chaldean CC:
   Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego, USA – 40200
   Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Detroit, USA – 101000
2. Ruthenian Byzantine CC:
   Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, USA – 59484
   Eparchy of Parma, USA – 12328
   Eparchy of Passaic, USA – 20258
   Eparchy of Van Nuys, USA – 2795
3. Syro-Malabar CC:
   Eparchy of St Thomas of Chicago, USA – 85000
4. Maronite CC:
   Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles, USA – 41592
   Eparchy of Saint Maron of Brooklyn NY, USA – 33000
5. Ukrainian Greek CC:
   Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia, USA – 22428
   Eparchy of Saint Josaphat in Parma, USA – 10862
   Eparchy of Saint Nicholas of Chicago, USA – 10500
   Eparchy of Stamford, USA – 16873
6. Armenian CC:
   Eparchy of Our Lady of Nareg, New York (US and Canada) – 36000
7. Melkite Greek CC:
   Eparchy of Newton, USA – 26704
8. Syrian CC:
   Our Lady of Deliverance of Newark, New Jersey – 13436
9. Syro-Malankara CC:
   Exarchy of United States of America, Hempstead, NY, USA – 10000
10. Romanian Greek CC:
    Eparchy of Saint George’s in Canton, Ohio, USA – 5800

 

[malphono]

The statistics for the USA Eastern Catholic 2008

Where is this from? The Annuario Pontificio?

 

[Vico]

But the beauty of the East is the various small-“t” traditions found within the greater Byzantine Tradition. I think a problem in the Roman Church is that since they are under one particular Church and one hierarchy, when the small-“t” traditions get mixed up in place, you have people complaining about abuses and such. Not that I’m saying all abuses are traditions from elsewhere. But fact is, Roman Catholicism in the Philippines for example is different from the expression of Roman Catholicism in America or Europe. Now given the amount of immigrants to North America, you have the Filipinos with their incultured traditions coming into parishes they identify as Roman Catholic, then doing something thats foreign to American Roman Catholics.

At least in the East you’d expect Ukrainian traditions in a Ukrainian parish. The differences may be very little or subtle, but nonetheless you will know what to expect when you come into a parish.

There are personal parishes which are one way to address this cultural issue. Consider (Latin Catholic) Diocese of Lansing:

All Saints, Flint (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries)
Christ the King, Ann Arbor (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Charismatic)
**Christ the King, Flint (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Black Catholics)
Cristo Rey, Lansing (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Spanish Speaking)
Holy Trinity Student Parish, Ypsilanti (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni of Eastern Michigan University and their families)
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Flint (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Spanish Speaking of Genesee County)
St. Andrew Dung-Lac, Lansing (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Vietnamese)
St. Dominic Chapel, Clinton(a canonical oratory within St. Elizabeth Parish, Tecumseh)
**St John the Evangelist Church and Student Center, East Lansing **(a canonical oratory within St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, East Lansing)
St. Joseph Chapel, Jackson (a canonical oratory within St. John the Evangelist Parish, Jackson)
St. Joseph, Owosso (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Slovaks/Czechs of Shiawassee County)
St. Mary Student Parish, Ann Arbor (Personal Parish - no geographical boundaries - Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni of University of Michigan and their families)
St. Stanislaus Kostka Chapel, Jackson (a canonical oratory within St. Mary Star of the Sea Parish, Jackson)

CIC Canon 518: As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ’s faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful, however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of Christ’s faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis.

 

[Vico]

Where is this from? The Annuario Pontificio?

Yes, to which I added the 10000 for the new Exarchy. The numbers for 2010, are here:

cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat10.pdf