Note the language these days. The 'Archibishop' and others the 'Metropolitan'. I have noted how since the death of Metropolitan Judson that there has been a shrinking back to 'Archbishop'. Not the head of a church just another American Archbishop, one amongst many. Is it that the Byz bishops are not ready for this self governing church stuff, all a bit too much for them. Did it all come to quickly to them?

Now to make more coffee.

Real Renewal is a whole package. The MCI has done wonderful work on our chant. The ECF programs are full of great materials. Now we need the full and complete Divine Liturgy.

Well, we agree on two out of three!

The ECF has great materials, and we need the full and complete Divine Liturgy.

Nick

I've noted that presumption. Why don't they find out through a conference. They may fear that we are more capable than they presume.

CDL

Make it strong. We're going to be up late I think.

Which tradition are you following in your suggestion of criticism here? Greek or Slavic?

The Crown represents the Metropolis. The Crozier represents the Ecclisia.

There is a Slavic and Antiochian tradition with the use of Metropolitan and Archbishop, in rank order.

There is a Greek tradition with the use of Archbishop and Metropolitan, in rank order.

To which tradition is the Byzantine Church going to hew? Greek or Slavic?

Also an Archbishop may have provenence over suffragen bishops in his Archbishopric.

Does the Byzantine Archbishop Basil have provenence over suffragen bishops?

Does he not have it?

Why not?

Does he have it and not use it?

If so, and no, why not?

Eli

The one that matters is the answer. The one that is appropriate to the statement. I very well aware of the Greek Church and my own Slavic tradition and the usuage of the titles in both and how they line up with each other.

His Beatitude the Metroplitan heads the Particular Church (BCC). There are 4 Hierarchs in that particular Church including the Metropolitan. These details are available through many sources.

Dear Pavel,

I hope you do not think me rude here but this does not answer my questions. In fact I don't really understand what you are saying here at all.

Not only is your response unclear to me but the behaviors of the hierarchy of my Church do not make the answers very clear to me, at all, so I will ask one last time here in hopes that someone can answer, what I believe to be, legitimate questions. I may have possible answers in principle but I do not know if the Archbishop of the Byzantine Church for example has provenence over suffragen bishops? Some Archbishops do, some do not. What does it mean? How does one know? What are the canons that regulate such things?

Which tradition are you following in your suggestion of criticism here? Greek or Slavic?

The Crown represents the Metropolis. The Crozier represents the Ecclisia.

There is a Slavic and Antiochian tradition with the use of Metropolitan and Archbishop, in rank order.

There is a Greek tradition with the use of Archbishop and Metropolitan, in rank order.

To which tradition is the Byzantine Church going to hew? Greek or Slavic?

Also an Archbishop may have provenence over suffragen bishops in his Archbishopric.

Does the Byzantine Archbishop Basil have provenence over suffragen bishops?

Does he not have it?

Why not?

Does he have it and not use it?

If so, and no, why not?

Eli

Ok. The BCC is a Slavic Byz. Cath. Tradition. This means that in decending order it is Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archibishop (may also be the Metropolitan), Bishop (in Greek usuage refered to as Metropolitan.

The BCC Province (also a 'Particular Church' in this case) is one Metropolitan who is the Archbishop of Pittsburgh and 3 suffragan bishops (of Eparchy of Parma, Eparchy of Van Nuys and Eparchy of Passaic) This provides coverage for the entire USA (ALL states). There are no assistant bishops. However there is a retired bishop in ill health formerly of Van Nuys.

I hope that clear this up for you. Further info is available on http://www.byzcath.org/

I hope this has been helpful.

There are actually two retired Bishops (Bishop Michael and Bishop George).

But, we are well off-topic in this thread calling for a conference.

the unworthy,
Elias

Yes, I have to agree, this thread is way off topic. Can be get back on topic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I'll give it a go...

I think we talk ourselves to death so we won't have to actually do anything. Fear makes us all avoid loving action. If we loved God and His Church more than we feared repurcussions we'd have a conference on the future of the Church with the liturgy as one of the topics.

Do you all want our Church to continue the downward spiral we're in?

We let Luke stick his neck out in New Mexico and watch as the rug is pulled out from under him. Such courage. :rolleyes:

Father Maximos and the HRM was willing to offer wonderful spiritual fortifications to the Church but because of cowardice their support was pulled. We watched it happen. :rolleyes:

Several Churches are closed? Sure the bishop had the power to do it but nothing was done to make these positive moves. They were just shut down with no redeeming reason. We watched it happen. Such courage. :rolleyes:

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the liturgy but many of you have complained strongly about some of the changes. Having a conference would be one way for our bishops to show some positive leadership. Nothing. Nothing at all except the word that it would take a miracle if the liturgy was not promulgated as is. We watch it happen and do nothing. Such courage. :rolleyes:

We see tiny little churches all over the place. There's certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with tiny little Churches but why are half of all of the Churches in the eparchy of Parma in Cleveland? Why do we have people begging to be considered for ordination and nothing happening? Why don't we hear from our bishops in clear, compassionate, and passionate terms where they intend to lead us? We watch and nothing happens. Such courage. :rolleyes:

Let's bring it even closer to home. There must be more real evangelization going on than what anyone reads on these fora. There has to be. A person can do more evangelization than what we've read here by simply taking a few breaths. How can one say one is moving along in theosis if they are not sharing the Gospel?

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm thankful for the few stories that we've read and I'm certain that God is using them for His glory and for our good, but really, its like pulling teeth. So much talk around the subject and so little offering of what is being done. (God bless you Sophia and Luke. Keep up the good work.) But how can we just sit by and watch this decline and this lack of leadership and do so little? How can we sit back and watch some priests and some laypeople stick their necks out and watch them get chopped off and do nothing? How can we just watch it happen? Such courage.

Someone advised me to just sit back and watch. Don't let others know what you are doing. This is Church politics and people play dirty. As you can see I'm not taking his advice.

Why? If my priest who has much to lose can stick his neck out I'm sure not going to sit around and do nothing when I have virtually nothing to lose.

There is something very freeing when one leaves everything they knew, almost all of their friends, everything one has trained for and practiced, and the only means of support to become a member of the BC Church. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

What have you given up for the Gospel and for the most beautiful liturgy the world has ever seen? What? What?

CDL

Here here!

There, there!

I can't see that happening. Engagement, capacity building, Inclusiveness and collaboration are not in the language and style of the Holy Synod of the BCC.

The churches in Cleveland are there because that's were the Slavs emigrated to -- plain and simple. Scott you shouldn't be hung-up on the number of churches in Cleveland, or in any other area for that matter. As one poster said, we should not be closing churches, we should be evangelizing to people in the surrounding neighborhoods. Those churches in Cleveland should be full -- filled with people who live in the area whether or not they are Slavs.

The down fall of may current Byzantine Catholic Churches is that the people believe the Byzantine Church belongs to the Slavs. Our people (the average joe in the pew) need to be educated on the state of our church. I firmly believe that many people would be more welcoming if they understood the peril the church is facing. Byzantine Catholics need to understand that the Byzantine Church is open to all, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Should we have churches in every state and major city -- yes! Should we close churches in Cleveland, no -- we should evangelize so that those churches become the model. But, alas, we have to begin, and in that I share Carson Daniel Lauffer's frustrations!