I now know several of the minute details about the proposed liturgy but don't really know the big picture. Can you give it to me in a nutshell, please?

For instance, is this ONLY the Ruthenians? Only one eparchy? Is this a common practice to revise the liturgy? (I've seen several references to other revisions/translations/updates.) Is the only real problem that it is inclusive? (I understand that that is problem enough, but is it the major one?) What's the big picture?

From what I can understand there are three major problems:

1. The use of inclusive language which seems to place secular concerns of a few decades ago above theological concerns.

2. Other and sundry translations of words that seem to obscure rather than shed light upon meanings.

3. The way it is being presented. It seems strange that Eastern hierarchs would treat us as the great unwashed or worse as enemies. Yet this seems to be the case. The new translation could be an occassion for great renewal but by pushing it upon the people it appears that the bishops are going to buy the very problems they are trying to avoid. It is a shame.

I think some see each of these as the main problem. I see #3 as the greatest problem. It's an opportunity wasted just when we need bold and compassionate leadership we get something else. It is a real shame.

Apparently the commission and bishops are determined to promulgate the liturgy as a fait accomplished before they present it to the people.

What a shame. It will be left to the rest of us through prayer and much energy to make this into a positive when it should already be a positive.

It is extremely confusing and frustrating to see this happening.

CDL

It occurs to me that some may think that these are my issues with the liturgy. As I've said several times if there were no conflict I would accept almost any liturgy translation put forward. Yet, there obviously are many questions about the translation which could, I believe, be easily addressed and answered and if needed be amended. I have never taken any stand on what some see as inclusive language. Others have and I simply reported that they have. I have never made any claims about any of the other issues that have been raised. I think I've avoided these issues because it was such a long and arduous journey for me to make the conversion. I gave up almost everything I knew for the love of the Eastern Catholic Church.

Yet, here is a commission and a hierachy that is telling me that they have very little respect for this sacrifice. I've read that converts are just trouble makers and the only reason we need them is so that the Church will live into the next generation. I've read that some consider all converts as troubled Latin Trads or crazy Protestants who want their own way and will force it upon the Church.

I apologize if I've ever said or done anything that would make anyone have that impression of me. There may well be Troubled Trads or Crazy Protestants who converted for the wrong reason but I'm not a Troubled Trad. I wish I knew Latin well enough to be one. I may be crazy and may have been a Protestant but I began my conversion over 30 years ago.

Again, I'm not trying to change our Church. I'm very happy with it. I wish it to grow. I wish that the commission would set aside its defensiveness and simply show the translation as it is now formulated, show us how it will help us become more vital, and be open to the changes that people have consistently brought up.

Is the commission so unsure of its translation that it must force it upon the people in the face of their appeals to see it ahead of time? This is the impression that the commission is giving. Why else won't they show us and educate us? Why?

I still believe the BC Church has a future and that the liturgy can be the spark that will make that future very bright.

CDL

Are there something like opposing camps in all of this? There seem to be a few running battles going on in different threads here. I can't really make sense of who is pushing what, or who is in disagreement with somebody else.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Andrew

Andrew,

I would say there are three camps.

1. Those that favor the new Liturgicon.

2. Those that favor complete adherence to the 1965 Liturgicon. Few or no abbreviations.

3. Those that favor the 1965 Liturgicon but allow many abbreviations and some features of the 1905 Liturgicon.

There is probably also a subcamp who favor the new rubrics but not the translation. 1 and 2 are porbably in the minority and 3 is in the majority, at least in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Wondering,

This is only the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, Eparchies of Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys.

The problems various people have with it:

1. Inclusive language, even though it is horizontal and sparingly used.

2. Changes to the current translation that some feel aren't needed becasue the new translation isn't all that better that it would be worth making the people relearn texts they have memorized.

3. The new Liturgicon does not print all the text and rubrics found in the 1965 Liturgicon, i.e. missing Small Litanies and rubrics, etc. and therefore prevents apriest from celbrating the full Litrugy if desired.

4. Music. Music has been recast to be more faithful to the Slavonic originals. This is a change from what we have been singing for 40 years. Many question whether it is worth going back in this regard, if it will disturb the faithful.

Fr. Deacon Lance

5. Language changes that also make the theology less clear if not in outright error.

Eli

Thanks Fr. Deacon. I realize I could probably figure this all out on my own, but there’s a lot to wade through. I have a few more questions too based on your response.

I have heard the term “Ruthenian Rescension” used many times. When people say that, what exactly do they mean?
What are the differences between the 1905 and the 1965 Liturgikon?
Are both the Typikon and the Liturgikon changing with this new translation?
I have heard the name of “Fr. David” mentioned a number of times, is he an important figure in one of the above three camps?
Lastly, which of the above most closely resemble how the services are ordered and worded in the ACROD?

Nutshell answers would be most welcome.

Also, please don’t think I’m asking to make anyone angry or upset. I’m just curious and would like to understand the issues being discussed.

Thanks.

Andrew

4. Music. Music has been recast to be more faithful to the Slavonic originals. This is a change from what we have been singing for 40 years. Many question whether it is worth going back in this regard, if it will disturb the faithful.

If we are trying to attact new members we have to look outside our Slavonic originals.

Many of the parishes have few faithful members and no cantors. Chances are that these parishes will continue to use the music they know. Who is going to teach them the "new way"

The Metropolitan Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh has been teaching the "new musical settings" for some four years now, and has a website with a great deal of the music online. But in addition, the proposed peoples' book has ALL sung text written out WITH MUSIC (several versions for some of the hymns), and the Music Commission has had the music recorded and plans to make it available on CD to every parish (and for sale to cantors) if/when the new book is released.

The "new music" (which is largely the old music, but without the radical "dumbing down" that took place in the 1960's) is in some ways independent of the changes to the texts, and could be used with either the old or new translations, as the bishops decide. It involved both an attempt to keep the older melodies, and to produce a "common minimum standard" for chanting. As was explained at the Cantor Institute, we know many parishes will keep other melodies of their own, but all Ruthenian Catholics (and especially all cantors) should know common melodies so they can sing together on pilgrimage, at other parishes and events, etc.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Cantor, Ss. Peter and Paul Byzantine Catholic Church
Endicott, New York

Andrew,


"I have heard the term “Ruthenian Rescension” used many times. When people say that, what exactly do they mean?"

After several years of study and research, the Oriental Congregation decided that the Liturgical uses of the Eparchies of Lviv, Peremyshyl, Stanislaviv, Mukachevo, Preshov, Hadudorog, and Krizevci constituted a use of the Byzantine Liturgy older than the Niconian/Synodal Use of the Moscow Patriarchate but not analagous to the Old Rite, although sharing some features. Among the Orthodox the only Churches that use this Recension would be ACROD, UOC-USA and Canada, and UAOC.

"What are the differences between the 1905 and the 1965 Liturgikon?"

The 1905 Liturgikon had several Latinizations in the rubics that were purged in the 1941 and 1965 Liturgicons.

"Are both the Typikon and the Liturgikon changing with this new translation?"

Only the Liturgicon.

"I have heard the name of “Fr. David” mentioned a number of times, is he an important figure in one of the above three camps?"

Fr. Archpriest David Petras, SEOD is professor of Liturgy at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary and a member of the IELC. He would be in Camp 1 but I think his ideas are more subtle than credited here.

"Lastly, which of the above most closely resemble how the services are ordered and worded in the ACROD?"

In terms of structure and rubrics the standard ACROD Liturgy does not differ much from ours. For many years ACROD used both our Liturgicons and Pew Books, some still do. Their current Pew Book is almost exactly like our current one, save they print the Beatitudes. The new Liturgicon and Pew Books would be even closer as they print the Beatitudes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks, I started a thread specifically about the Ruthenian Rescension.

What is it specifically that people object to? Is it just the style of English?

Also, what is the IELC?

Andrew

Andrew,

Look under any thread in this subsection. Complaints are manuy and diverse.

Modern English has been used since 1965 and even before that so that is not the problem.

IELC is Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon and everyone else,

I want to thank you for the information so far. I'm reading and learning from it all!

Another simple question:

Using current time tables, when is the revised liturgy supposed to begin being used?

Dear Jeff,

The parish I attend on an average sunday has maybe 50 people. The average age is over 65.

We have no cantor.

Who is going to go to cantor school?

Green Coat, you raise a good question. Obviously, this hasn't been very well thought out. Currently, the only way to learn music is if another cantor in the parish can teach it, or going to the Cantor Institute in Pittsburgh. And from my experience, some of our old-time cantors are very resistent to change. Maybe the old-time cantors will be the "cog in the wheel." Let's face it, if they can't sing it how will we?

Originally posted by ByzKat:

So, again, you can put this in their hands, but that doesn't mean they will use it.

I need to agree...ACROD's "Pew Book" is essentially the same translation as the current Ruthenian pew book...although not exactly

...The "new" music (definite plug for the metropolitan cantor webiste - Great job!)is definitely more like ACROD. It is different in that there are additional notes the "dumbing down" is taken away...that being said...it sounds a little different at first...you will catch yourself making mistakes but if you keep plugging at it you will get it without issue...I left the BCC formally back in April (although, I guess I actually left when HT was closed back at the end of October since I have not been to a Byz. Catholic since) and I am currently cantoring with ACROD with little issue...the melodies are the same so it's easy to "slip into the dumbed down mode" but people don't notice since it is so close...also, I know individual parishes have tweaks so it is (at least in my experience) never going to be exactly as the book says (musically)
My 2 cents is...
Don't worry about the change in music to be perfect the first week, or first month...but don't give up...it comes and you'll be amazed at how quickly you get it and it becomes natural...

Chris Gombos

If your parish is with 40-50 miles of another Byzantine Church why not seek to unite with it. If your parish members are all that old it will preserve the life of the parish past a few more years and by combining strength the parish can learn all sorts of songs.

CDL

I live in an area where the closest town with a professionally organized support group for people suffering from lupus is 50 miles away.

None of the social workers from there can understand why nobody from here goes there.

Fact of the matter is that these people are simply too ill to make the drive.

How experienced are you in the actual lived environments of most of the parishes in your adopted Church? How many have you spent periods of time in longer than one Sunday or so, here and there, if that much?

Eli

If the wish is for closing in a few years then the church should do nothing. As I've said many times I've not been in very many others. I really don't need to be. This phenomenon is little different from thousands of United Methodist Churches across the country.

The congregations that choose to do nothing wind up dying out. Sometimes they are forced to merge. A few make a courageous decision to merge with another congregation and life goes on. Each decision has its advantages and disadvantages. I offered one option. Most congregations unless ofered the option will simply choose to die where they are. There is nothing unique about a Byzantine Catholic congregation in that regard.

However, when it is possible a congregation may choose to merge and have the best of all worlds. They can continue to live and by freeing up a priest can choose to give life to a new congregation in a growing area.

I don't need to visit every little Church to know this. Besides I have many many close friends who are lifetime BCs who propose the same option.

I'm curious, since you asked, how many Churches have you visited? How much time and thought have you given to how to bring new life into dying Churches? If it's fair for you to ask me and for me to answer, I think it would be imformative for all of us for you to offer some answers as well.

CDL

BTW Are you thinking that everyone in these small churches has lupus?

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.

Eli

Following these last few postings...

I need to ask you Carson why are you a fan of "mega churches"? It's the wrong place to take this thread but that, in my humble opinion is the real reason the BCC is dying. Getting away from the "roots" (small, close communities) is what has Killed the BCC...it takes you further down the road to becoming more like the Latins...If you really want the BCC to survive the "mega church" phenomina needs to be extinguished...

Just another 2 cents...I'll go back into seclusion...

For us Eastern Christians megachurches are likely not the answer ... except for Hagia Sophia.

That said though we need more than five to ten folks in a parish.

A mega church is usually defined at 10,000 or above. So, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

CDL

It seems to me that merging with another parish which is an hour away and is encountering the same problems as you is not a very helpful move. Better yet would be to find a way to bring in younger people and to encourage them to take on leadership roles in the church. Those in the age bracket mentioned (50-80s) are in a wonderful position to mentor younger people.

Make sure visitors are welcomed, have a way for more contact clearly established, and when someone starts showing up regularly, offer further assistance. These older people can pass on the traditions, the explanations, the customs, the prayers, the history, and the faith of the church to these younger people. That will, in turn, empower them to be the next generation of the church and to be effective leaders and witnesses themselves.

If a parish is in a position where one type of ministry is not feasible, my mind would turn to what gifts they ARE blessed with and how they can use them to bring about the desired change. Being a senior citizen does not mean they have no gifts to provide the church. They have such a store of knowledge and history and experience to pass on. Use that to your advantage!

(Added bonus to those same senior citizens: If they mentor the younger generation now while they are able, the younger generation will be there to minister to them when they are older. Some might not be able to drive themselves to church, might need help walking to the church hall or the car, or in cooking that yummy food for church functions, or might need someone to read the Bible to them. If they don't bring in the younger generation and incorporate them into the church now, who will be there for them in the coming years?)

But why would they? They do not know how nor do most wish to given their track record. I've been down these roads before. Why would a young family wish to attend a Church in which they know that the regular members don't want them there or they would have more younger families there already? I suppose in theory your idea ought to work but in practice it does not.

However, if that is what you are committed to doing then I wish you God speed. You may be able to create a new model for Church development.

If I were a young person I would seek out a Church that was either starting from scratch or was doing something new and creative or was something of a mixture of old and young already. But there may be people who are seeking to attend a Church that has only shown interest in older people for the last 20-30 years. Go for it.

CDL

Once a few younger people are there, more will follow. College kids will come if you feed them. They like it when older people take them under their wings (especially when they have good food and a strong and welcoming faith). Young people are thirsting for this and only need places to invite them. Many 30- and 40-somethings would be happy to bring their own children to a church with older people present because of the lack of multi-generational interaction in the average American's everyday life. You have to start somewhere, so a generation below is not a huge step. I have no doubt that any church which was behind this strategy would be able to do so effectively. The key is in getting the older group enthused enough to want the younger generations there. I would keep hitting them with the line that younger generations are needed to take care of THEM. Not to keep the parish going, or the church, or any other intangible. But that they themselves need this and will benefit from it directly.

If that wasn't working, I'd probably mention that some people had the suggestion we close up the parish and start going an hour away to a different parish (which could easily double some of their journeys if they are already coming from an hour in the other direction.) I think that combination of fear and self-serving actions should motivate anyone who is able to be motivated. If that doesn't work, I'd write them off as unsalvagable.

Dear Wondering.....

Your post is right on! No church should be closed, the parish should evangelize! If the church is struggling, the parishioners only need look to themselves. If we aren't going to get any help from the Eparchy, we've got to take matters into our own hands regarding our individual parishes. Study after study has been done, and they all come back to say if a visitor isn't welcomed the first time they come, they rarely come back. First impressions count!

JMHO--Cathy

Wondering,

I'm still troubled by the motivation for getting younger people into Church. The things you mentioned don't seem very noble let alone very Christian. If the level of spirituality is so low that the only things that will motivate people to evangelize is a. self service or b. self service what kind of organization is that? It doesn't seem like a Church to me. Why is something like that worth saving? I would think the Elks club would be at least as beneficial and probably would cost less.

It is possible for an old goat to change so some really strong sermons on conversion aimed at the people in the Church might have some effect. Strong catechesis might do the trick but that assumes that they've never really heard the Gospel before. That's possible I suppose.

As a former pastor I've butted my head against enough congregations like that. Sometimes they catch fire. It does work sometimes.

Re: Mega Churches

I don't mean to be insulting but the idea that the Byzantine Catholic Church would ever have a mega-church strikes me as rather odd. Moreover, to think that I came to the BC Church rather than the RCs because I wanted a mega Church also strikes me as very humorous. If the stats are correct one could combine all of the BC Churches in the US into one and one would have a respectable mega-Church. How would that happen? But if we had predominately self sustaining Churches that could afford to pay a full time priest and have a deacon and cantor and maybe even a choir and did not have to take mission money but could send out some mission money each year now that would be a healthy Church. Imagine that most of our Churches had at least 50-60 families most were between 50 and 500 families. Imagine as well that for every two or three of those Churches there was a mission that they were supporting. Imagine also that each of those parishes had one candidate for holy orders every two or three years. Imagine that we were working together with other Byzantine Churches so that we had one solid seminary with 50-100 students with 8-12 faculty. That's closer to my vision.

I can't imagine one BC Church with 10,000-50,000 families. Can you? There are RC Churches that large. There are some Independent Protestant Churches that large but I cannot imagine a BC Church that large.

But thanks for the chuckle.

CDL

I believe that it is possible to change the mind through the actions (psychologists say it is actually easier to change the actions first which will then bring the thoughts into alignment than to do it the other way around, though both methods are effective), and that a pastor sometimes has to find a way to make the medicine go down a little smoother. As the father of the church, it is his job to know what they need. Perhaps they are just being good to get the lollipop, and I agree that it isn't the end goal, but I also believe that it has to start somewhere, so why not meet them where they are? Yes, you are right. It is not ideal. But it is better than the current situation.

I also believe that the church, as a group of believers, is inherently good and worth trying to save. Of course, sometimes it is best to close a parish. But sometimes you must meet them where they are and grow their zeal over time. I would rather think that the average parish in this situation is able to be saved and to grow than to think the only way to deal with it is to combine resources, weed out the not-so-committed through various struggles and trials in simply getting to the church, and eventually allowing the parish to die off anyway by being absorbed into Orthodoxy (which probably will have a much closer parish than 60-120 miles away), the Latins (which assuredly will have a closer parish), or the secular culture at large.

This solution is not the best for the short-term, but it meets the people where they are, it utilizes the gifts they have, it encourages their growth to where they ought to be, and it provides a long-term plan for evangelization, integration, outreach, and the survival (and not only survival but flourishing) of the church and the faith.

If the situation is so dire, I think this is worth a shot before packing up the rectory and sending the priest on to new frontiers. There isn't a whole lot to lose if they are going to die anyway, and there are a lot of souls to gain (both those in the church already and those in the future). Just my two cents.

It would be helpful to have stats or examples. In one Church this may have been given a serious shot and nothing has happened. In another this may never have been tried. It's hard to imagine given Little Green Coats example that the church had not noticed that they were growing older and that they had no cantor. It wasn't a secret was it? But maybe another shot in the arm would do it. Who can say?

CDL

Sorry Carson...I forgot your Protestant background...the BCC could never have a "megachurch" by protestant definition (or Roman Catholic) of over 10,000 people...a Mega Church as I see it by definition (granted my own) is over 100 families. The Byzantine/Greek Catholic Churches history was smaller parishes in most areas (30 - 50 families) anything above that is very rare...this is how things have been done for centuries...it works...it's not until the scandals where the Eparchies needed $$$ and the "wisdom" that we could close parishes and the faithful would follow...the number of families is not the issue...can the parish support themselves...I KNOW in the case of most parish closings in the Ruthenian Church they were sustainable without this mindset to close and merge...these parishes were driven, I have to believe from the Bishops level (or the garbage that has been pulled wouldn't be allowed) into the ground purposefully...I always believed that and now see that first hand...There are 3 ACROD parishes in a 20 minute radius...the one I chose (and many others was comparable in size and feel to my old parish...(Large Churches to me are a cold place.) One thing I asked was how much it cost to run their parish...the last thing I wanted to do was once again become nothing more than a fund raiser...the answer about $60,000 and 1/2 that was the priests salary...now if something comparable was less than 1/2 of what was being spent/wasted at Holy Trinity with a priests salary of $30,000 included in that figure it just goes to show what the parishioners of HT had been saying all along was correct. It could have cost alot less to run the parish...You get more people willing to attend and participate if they feel like they matter...Large merged Churches don't give that (for the most part/maybe to a few hand picked people) getting back on the topic at hand...the 20 parishes His Grace closed were handled, as I see it, exactly how this "new version of the DL" is being handled...have a few people do it then force it on people...All these things should be done with gentleness and love...the OCA had it's problems when the "New"/Revised Julian Calendar was imposed from above. If the people wanted the "New" calendar they could be brought to move toward it...ACROD leaves it up to the parish to decide and they have approximately 1/2 of the parishes on the Julian Calendar and 1/2 on the Revised Julian Calendar...

As an Orthodox Christian my view is let the BCC destroy itself and let the Orthodox pick up the true faithful and let the "part time Christians" who only go out of a sence of "duty" go to the Latins...I guess that's my 4 cents can you tell I have not posted in a while...alot to get out...let's move away from this and back to the original thread

One more thing Carson...

This condecending attitude is exactly what the issue is with the people behind the "close em and merge em" crowd. (We know what's best, even if reality doesn't prove that to be the case.)

I don't know you, so I don't know if you actually have that type of attitude, or if you are "hanging out with the wrong crowd" and just picking up their contemptable lingo...To me that simple phrase I quoted above smacks of the direction that the BCC Heirarchy has gone in...the direction that has ruined the BCC...

Chris

Chris,

How soon you forget your friends.

The point is by any reasonable standard a mega Church is not 100 people. I suppose if $60,000 will actually pay for a priest and his family so pani doesn't have to work, and insurance, housing, and utilities plus pay for icons, incense, maintenance etc. for the Church then fine. I don't believe it, but if you have seen the books then I won't doubt it.

I don't believe that Bsp. Pataki needed to behave in the way he did and does. I do believe your testimony about how he acted in your former parish. It is very sad and infuriating.

I do not believe a household except in severe poverty can run on $60,000 if you count all the costs. But even if a Church could run an entire parish on $60,000 and they covered it all themselves without help from the Eparchy what of the mission responsibilities of the parish? How is that handled?

In any event I'm glad that you have found your way to a good parish. Who knows? Your hope for the BC and ACROD may come to be. Many of us here now may follow your lead. God works in mysterious ways.

CDL

Sorry Carson...these quotes continue to tell me you are not part of reality...I live in Fairfield County CT...one of the highest priced areas of the country...a family can run without severe poverty on $60k...they may not be "keeping up with the Jones'" In the case of the "Jones'" with the BCC they are the RCC and the "Jones'" for the RCC are the Protestants...

I have no idea why any Eastern Christian Church would compare themselves to any of the western churches...it's like comparing an apple to a watermellon...there is no comparison...

I need to know what your definition of "mission responsibilities is? Are you speaking locally? are you speaking on a Diocessan or Patriarchial level?

I do appreciate your "sympathy" when HT closed...but you are espousing much of the same language they utilize...

Dear Chris,

I believe that you have hit an unpleasant nail on its unpleasant head.

There is something in the leadership style in our Church that has become over the decades, I believe, the primary cause in any Church, and for this particular Church, for empty seminaries and shrinking parish numbers and enthusiasm for an evangelical life.

That cause is an attitude that breaks out into view and is manifest in public tempertantrums and public sneering on the part of clergy and hierarchs, but it begins in private and it is there, in its private expression, where it begins to erode that which is good.

I don't think there are any Ruthenian Byzantines here who have not either witness such sneering, or such a tantrum or heard about one at a close second hand.

Now I do not know if that is a problem exclusively for the Holy Spirit, or if enough of us can get past the gate-keepers long enough to make it clear that it is a problem, out here in the pews, where it counts, so as to turn the hearts of the those who are overly and unduely convinced of their own personal rightness.

There was a time, under bishop Elko, when the seminary was full to bursting and we were opening parishes all over the place.

That growth died, when Bishop Elko was forcibly removed and reassigned and the authority in the Church took overt anger and sneering as marks of virtue and superior knowledge and spirituality. You can track that development in the stories of the people.

Out of the mouth, the heart speaks.

I am sorry you felt that you had to leave. Your family, most likely, is not. Thank God you had a place to go. Remember those who remain.

Also for those who manage to read this far, it is still the case in the Catholic Church, statistically, that the bulk of our vocations come out of small intimate parishes where priests stay for a generation, rather than being shuffled around to a new place ever six years.

In those circumstances, even what we might think of as ineffectual men, live lives of holiness sufficient to inspire the young who are called. That is the Catholic way and has been for two thousand years. It is the way of kenosis.

Eli

Chris,

Hmm... don't you support any missions outside your local parish? Don't you help start new Churches here and there? Don't you fund mission work in other countries? Hmm...I must think on these things.

About the $60,000...if you say so.

I'll repeat it once again and let it go...I supported your cause because I believed what you and Sam wrote about Bsp. Pataki's secretive ways. I believed your report because I've read about his activities with other parishes including ones here in Parma. I believed your report because I know some other things. I don't know why you would wish to cast aspersions upon me. But I guess the anonymous forum sometimes encourages that.

CDL

Eli,

I think the story about Bishop Elko is more complex than what you say from what I hear.

CDL

Do you believe everything you hear? That is a general inquiry.

And I have made no other comments about Bishop Elko as a person or Bishop Elko's time as bishop than you see in my note. It was, objectively speaking, a time of record growth.

Eli

Eli,

I don't even believe all that much that I read on this forum. I guess my concern was not so much about Bsp. Elko but your assertion about his successors. I heard some pretty intriguing stuff about the way he was moved. But who knows. Chris may be right about his predictions for the future of the BCC. I do not know.

CDL

Chris,

When I left the United Methodist ministry in 1999 the cost to a Church for pastoral support alone ran to over $50,000. This included: Housing maintenance and repairs, mortgage* (if there was one) or housing expenses, utilities, transportation, a small stipend,insurance (on the house, on health, and perhaps life) and retirement. If the Church wasn't able to cover these expenses the judicatory covered them and the expenses became hidden to those who did not investigate. Due to inflation I suspect those basic costs are closer to $60,000. Add to that the cost of building, maintenance, utilities, repairs, religious items, educational materials, etc. which surely comes to $20-30,000 and one already has $80,000 to $90,000 for just the basics. We haven't even begun to talk about mission. Churches generally are asked to give to the Eparchy. That is anywhere from $5-15,000. Lively parishes also give to various other causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers, New Church developments, mission help to people outside the USA. If a Church has a building and isn't inward looking, and doesn't get monatery support from the judicatory the costs of almost any parish is at minimum $100,000. This is true whether the Church has 5 or 50 families.

I would suspect you aren't counting all of the costs of running a parish when you say it can be run on $60,000 a year. I suspect that many of those tiny congregations, those under 40 families, are not giving to causes outside the confines of their members and are probably being subsidized in some way by the Eparchy.

CDL

What ever happened to giving the priest a salary and if possible insurance and having him not live the "high life" on someone else's dime. If a parish has a rectory and the priest is being given a $30k salary why would the parish pay his living expenses...heating, utilities etc...if his salary is not covering those expenses he is doing nothing more than taking a very large allowance...and people wonder why some priests do things like collect cars...they have nothing better to spend their "allowance" on...

In regards to mission work...the dues that each parishioner is required to pay cover things such as Eparchial expenses and missionary work is taken in separate collections that have nothing to do with the "parish finances" and neither do personal giving outside those collections...

That is the fallacy that you are continuing to put forward...my experiences say it can be and in many areas (outside the BCC) is being done...

A side note...on Bishop Elko...I am too young to have lived during his tenure...the one thing I do know is the stories the priests tell seem to be very different than the common faithful tell...I have to believe that there is a bit of truth to both sides but growth did occur so something right must have been done...

Chris

Before it becomes an issue...I apologize...I should have said some have nothing better...

I never received $30,000 in salary though the utilities and mortgages were paid by the Church. For further discussion, since this thread is really not about budgets, I encourage your observations on a thread I've begun in Town Hall on Church Expenditures.

CDL

No. You should not have. It is not that long ago that priest salaries plus stipend did not equal 30k in our Metropolia. And some of those "do nothings" that we speak so blandly about in our day to day critiques, did not even take mass stipends and they tithed to their own parishes and gave to the poor. Now they are old, and poor and we spit on them with our words and our deeds from a great distance, but believe me they know.

Bite your tongue and if you must refer to the wealthy ones then do it by name or parish, then look hard, and you will find there something other than a priest salary buying mulitple toys, IF that is the case at all.

Eli

Eli,

We are on the same page here. I have yet to meet an independently wealthy priest who fleeces his members. Never.

CDL

The attitudes and behaviors toward clergy, on this issue of money, among our faithful has often been to the contrary. That kind of false presumption, along with gossip has undermined the spiritual lives of the folks in the pews,and weakened parish and family life. A robust Church can manage such things rather adroitly. To a faltering one it is guaranteed devastation.

You and I would probably agree on just about everything if you had just a bit more exposure and talked to a broader range of priests across the Metropolia, and valued the role of the ethnic Church in terms of forging a path that is clearly eastern Catholic and not something other.

We speak of universalizing the eastern Churches. We enthusiastically shake a finger and accuse "Phyletism!" all the while forgetting the importance of ecclisiastical anthropology in the spiritual life and history of a people or peoples.

You could take any of those Methodist churches that you talk about. Teach them a liturgy and a chant. Give them all the trappings of the east and a pre-packaged prayer life too. And for as long as they remained together they would never be eastern Catholic. They'd be something entirely else.

When I came into the Church it was like asking to be adopted into another family in a totally different culture and hoping that somebody would say 'c'mon!' Several somebody's did just that for me and will always be grateful.

Some of us are asking our Church: Do you wish for us to become something entirely else?

You have a way to go yet before I would not be able to detect your Protestant roots, Daniel. You are not yet knee-jerk Catholic in your thinking.

That is not a condemnation. That is an observation.

These things take a great deal of time. One might say the same thing about me as an eastern Catholic. I am not quite there yet. In some ways, you and I will always stand apart, but only on some things and not in any truly soul-damaging way.

God bless you, Carson Daniel.

Eli

Eli,

I thank you for your kind words. However, I think this conversation would be more fruitful if we stuck to issues rather than trying to analyze each other motives. That I am a convert from Protestantism is easily discerned by the fact that I've given my conversion testimony and I've referred to my background on occsion. That my ideas about evangelization and Church growth are in opposition to what I've learned in the BC Church is demonstrably false. They are the ideas that existed in my present parish prior to my arrival and continue to part of the evangelization efforts of said parish.

One distinctive addition to my ideas is the idea of the way beauty itself is part of the evangelistic life of the Church. I knew that in principal but see it in fact at Annunciation.

That I will never be Eastern European or Middle Eastern is rathr a given. But I am Eastern Christian from my Patristic studies all the way down to the joy I experience at worship.

It may be of some use to talk about our ethnic deficiencies but I doubt it has much value.

CDL

Perhaps you could become a naturalized Albanian?

This is a joke - it is not intended seriously!

Fr Serge

I am afraid we have stepped out into a bed of prickley pear. Humor is a lost cause at this point. Perhaps on some other later day. One can hope. :p

I am an adopted Serb. I was adopted by an Irish monk who was raised by Serbian monks. So I am twice removed. Actually I've been removed far more often than that but if you don't tell, I won't.

Eli

I guess that makes me an adopted Hungarian or perhaps Ukie since my pastor is Czech and Hungarian and my God father, not Italian, but Ukie.

CDL

One of Thomas Merton's strongest areas of interest and where he shone brightest as a teacher, I think, was in his teachings on the Catholic understanding of beauty. A much denser and more formal Catholic work can be found in the central corpus of the theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar. The main body runs to nine volumes, in case you were thinking of taking the short course. And oddly enough he has a little book on living the evangelical life.

I was rather hoping you would not put this twist on what I said earlier. Can't be helped I suppose. Perhaps some other time we can have a better conversation on the subject of the importance of the anthropology of the eastern Churches, putting them and their peoples at the center of the dialogue, rather than our feelings about having to adopt into the mix.

Eli

Independently wealthy is in the eye of the beholder...give someone $20k a year with no expenses and that is someone I would consider independently wealthy. Thousands of dollars and no expenses. I don't know anyone who would turn away that sweet deal. Except for the fact that someone would have to give up life as married man with wife and God willing...children

I have seen priests who are not afraid to live in a "common man's rectory" and I have seen those who move into the same rectory and don't think twice about dropping $100k "to make it liveable" (only liveable if liveable means a palace with only the finest)I have seen that numerous times!!!! That to me is fleecing the faithful. I also do know of a priest (who will remain nameless since he is deceased) who did collect automobiles. The money comes from somewhere. I do not mean to imply theft from the Church. I simply that points to the extravagance some can live with when they have no personal expenses.

I apologize to everyone this is not the purpose of this thread but things can not get thrown out and be unanswered.

No priest lives without paying expenses of some kind. A huge percentage of our old priests spent some part of their income either helping to build or maintain a parish, and did not and do not get, to this day, so much as a thank you. In fact, some might say of our clergy that 'no good deed has gone unpunished.'

As I said before it is only recently that a priest's salary and expences reached the 20k limit. For all those years of not keeping up with inflation, do you account for their losses in the lean years, or not?

I know OF the exceptioinal few. I have never met any of them. You seem to speak as if they were the norm. That is not respectful of those whose sacrifices have gone just as thankless as those of the members of Holy Trinity who now have no real home.

Eli

Eli,

I still agree with you. Is the notion that priests should be in poverty, even their families, part of the Eastern European anthropology of which you speak? Chris may have seen priests that can make 20k turn into 100k but I never have.

Chris,

What is included with the phrase "all of the expenses". Does the Church pay for the priests food? How about his cars and furniture?

What are the things priests typically pay for from the stipend they are given? Would there be enough to support a family?

CDL

Many priests live on not very much indeed. The Parish Priest of the UGCC where I go gets $500 a month. I thing with conversion rates of $1USA =$1.30Aus. So he does have to watch his cents very closely and the Christmas and Easter gift envolope is very handy. I know the money one Christmas a few years ago was used to replace bald tyres on his car. Dont forget the health insurance.

Let me first say, as a former candidate to the priesthood (we're going back 15-20 years) for the eparchy of Passaic...I have seen this in parishes in the Eparchy of Passaic and in my travels in the Eparchy of Parma. I have spent ALOT of time in Rectories...I was a quintesential "Rectory Rat"... A priest can get along with essentially not paying for food...or at least very minimal...why do I say that...a good priest often has invites to parishioners houses, parties, etc...(if they are liked - I cringe when I think someone in charge of leading people to Christ not being liked how can they do their job? How can they lead if nobody will follow?) I can think of 2 specific priests (one in Parma (now deceased) and one in Passaic (don't know what ever happened to him we lost contact at least 10 years ago) who had routine schedules to eat every meal (at least the one in Parma was every meal) out with others picking up the tab...diner in the AM...bar & grill in the afternoon and dinner was normally at a parishioners house...I saw it I lived it in different parts of the Metropolia. If you had to make something since you didn't have somewhere scheduled...find a parishioner to take out and use "petty cash" that the parish allows for entertaining...

I have seen it too many times in the BCC and not simply 1 or 2 isolated incedences...It seems to be more the norm than the exception...think about it...it makes sence...otherwise the celebate priest would be home alone every day/night...for their sanity they need to do that...and as a priest they should be out with the people...

My experience is their car is their only real expense...although the parish picks up insurance...the parish unfortunately picks up the tab for "Fr. Leadfoot with apparently the numerous speeding tickets" which raise the insurance costs...Furniture goes in the rectory so it stays in the rectory...I have only seen one instance of a priest purchasing his own furniture and taking it with him...so furniture is also a parish expense...Which in the days of no longer having "trustees" minding the finances and wishes of the parishoners who give the money allows for hand picked "lackys" to simply give Fr. a blank check (literally) for whatever he needs...(Give me back the days when I saw trustees getting things repaired and asking (and not granting) why do you need that new refridgerator the one you have is only 3 years old? If a good case could be made they got it (excessive repairs in that period of time, etc...) not "well I want to redue the kitchen and this will not fit in with the plans I have and what I want...I remember when the days when the trustee would tell the priest in some not so nice words to "go jump in a lake". And they lived with it...Unfortunately, now there appear to be so many parishes that have those handpicked yes men they live above the means...and that is the main financial detriment to the parish...

The key question...would it be enough to support a family...with the much higher amounts that appear to be paid in the BCC over the last few years...
I know, again I live in Fairfield County CT, (I only state that so as to give no one the impression that I live in some backwater little community where you could live on practically nothing)I have a wife, daughter (5 years old) and twins on the way...if you gave me 30K a year with no insurance expenses and removed my mortgage we could live comfortably. If not I see no issue with a Pani taking a job (full or part time to allow for nicer things just like two wage earners in every other family - the priest is no different except the priest has the advantage of NO MORTGAGE and that is the key expense in most households) Some I know would say "your nuts"...If you don't live the "high life" but live simple and don't try to always keep up with the person next door...you could live just fine...

I'll see you and raise you. What you are describing is not the norm in the Byzantine Chuch. It is not even the norm in the Latin rite. Ask Father Bitsko. You seem to appreciate him as a priest. Ask him about the norm.

You are making the exceptions the rule, and that is very very unfair.

You know most of our people find it hard to believe that there are no housing and elder care provided for our priests. Why the chanceries collect money for priests every year, don't they?

Show me the elder care.

I am truly sorry to have to step up to your notes this way, Chris. I know that you have had a difficult time of things. But fair is fair and what you are doing here is not.

Eli

I can only say I find that hard to believe with the extensiveness with which I saw it throughout the Metropolia...I will say I did see it as being less so in PA.

I've never had the pleasure of meeting Fr. Bitsko...All I could say regarding him was I have never heard a bad word about him. I have only heard high praise over the years and I think its sinful the way he has been treated.


Final thought...I have moved on and am very happy and feel most at home with ACROD. However, there is tremendous evil at play in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America...and heirarchs who turn a blind eye to it are complicit by their non actions...allowing untruths to be spouted...that which I know to be untrue (from first hand knowledge), I feel would make me part of the problem by not shedding light on the situation...I don't go looking for these issues...but when I see the "untrue corporate line" being spouted as fact...I would be immoral by not challenging them with the truth...I feel bad for my brothers and sisters in the OCA who have uncovered scandalous financial situations...they at least have priests vocally speaking out...that to me shows more health in a Church than having priests who know that is the case and feel better just "going with the flow" since the bishop won't be in place forever...(how many times I have heard that line makes me sick)

Chris

Yes. You have moved on. Leaving the rest of us to worry about our aging population of priests who were NOT greedy men and who did sacrafice for their people and their Church. How many of us will see the problem and actually do something?

When an aging man's very life depends on his bishop, it is not likely that he, or any of his friends, will speak too loudly about anything.

I agree it is a spiritual killer, but I do not blame the men who placed their lives in the hands of a hierarch and promised obedience and a life of heroic service to the Church, to the Body of Christ.

I pray you may remain comfortable.

Eli

I absolutely agree with you...our older priests did sacrifice and love their people and it is time to help them...it is the 60 and younger crowd that concerns me since they have been the ones to allow these abuses to occur and encourage them to continue...I have the utmost respect for these older priests...even those I don't agree with their latinizing ways have sacrificed alot more than the younger generations...

Eli lets allow this thread to get back to discussion of the revised DL...and move it to the thread that DCL set up in the town hall forum...

In fact Chris, it is long past time to help our aging clergy. For some it is much too late.

You forgot to mention something when you praised the trustees in a parish for not "overspending".

Sometimes that refusal to spend when the need first arose, resulted in long term disrepair that then became three, four, five...ten times more expensive as the degredation in the property spread. Some of our rectories are not worth doing over at all any more. You might think in terms of "penny wise and pound foolish."

The same thing has been done to far too many of our priests, and so off they go into oblivion and nobody even remembers to put flowers on a grave.

I don't have much more to say on the subject at any rate.

Besides you don't need to worry about it any more. I only hope, for the sake of your newly adopted Church, that you see a bit more clearly than is in evidence here.

Eli