To set the post straight, I never, ever made such a comment.

You criticize or offer commentary, but you become upset if others don't heed your opinion, and that reeks of pride. As related to the topic at hand (renaming the eparchy and transfering the eparchial see), I had never seen you post (though you may have) your concern that the Eparchy of Van Nuys for the Ruthenians had been a "fiction" since the earthquake and move to Phoenix. I assume you wrote letters to our bishops informing them of this "fiction"? So for all those years you have been concerned and critical of this continued "fiction", but now that the "fiction" has been "corrected," you cannot share in our joy???

Those in authority (the bishops) make the last call. As someone who works as a military analyst, you certainly understand this. How often do you personally confront and criticize your military "betters" when they don't follow your advice? As a construction industry executive, I value input from my employees, but at the end of the day I make the final decision for better or for worse. My employees have 2 choices- assist in the implementation of my decision or, if they cannot abide by my decision, they may leave. I will not tolerate those who want to undermine our stated objectives. Fortunately, in many ways, the Church is much more tolerant. So once you are in authority, you can make the call, and all will be right in your world.

Frequently. I have been called some very interesting names by some of them. A retired major general even denounced me in print. I'm rather proud of that.

Also, for the record, I think I am perfectly in my rights to express my opinion concerning the supine way in which the Council of Hierarchs conducts its business with the See of Rome. And I believe that history is very much on my side when I say that the Ruthenian Church has been very badly served by its bishops since Bishop Basil Takach back in the 1920s and 1930s.

Accountability runs in two directions.

Actually, accountability that is of any import runs in one direction- "For a good account before the fearsome judgment seat of Christ, let us beseech the Lord!"

Which is why, according to St. John Chrysostom, "not many bishops will be saved".

Didymus,

There are, undoubtedly, many valid personal and spiritual reasons why you are neither any longer a Byzantine Catholic nor Ruthenian, but one cannot logically use this event as an example of the reasons why. No Apostolic Church, Catholic nor Orthodox, erects, resites, or retitles canonical jurisdictions without the approbation of its governing hierarch or synod. Now, the Metropolitan Archeparch is the governing hierarch of the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolia but - let's be frank; all things considered, in the episcopal pecking order, while metropolitans outrank eparchs, not one who comes immediately to mind stands alone with the authority to do such.

The Ruthenian Metropolia has its issues, but this isn't one. Don't become afflicted with Stuartism.

Many years,

Neil

Stuart never suggested that the titular Bishop of Van Nuys could unilaterally shift his see, but the Council of Hierarchs most certainly could, and should have done so.

Note that Didymus said the bishop could suggest to the Metropolitan that the see should be moved, he did not say that he would do it himself. Of course, functioning as a synod, the Council of Hierarchs (a non-canonical title of the same sort as "Major Archbishop") would discuss and vote on it--that is what conciliarity is about. Having decided, they would do so, because a synod without autonomy is no synod, and a Church without a synod is, well, like a fish without a bicycle. So, having decided to move the see, the Council of Hierarchs should have done so, and informed the Bishop of Rome, whose business it is not.

The principle of subsidiarity is much touted by the Catholic Church, but the Holy See tends to follow it in the breech more often than not.

Hmm, seems to me that the historian is slipping, as the Ruthenians had no bishop in the US when the first schism happened.



Let's see ... oh, now I understand ...

Bishop Basil, of blessed memory, should have outright defied Rome back in the day (actually, Stuart, he did establish his seat at Pittsburgh, rather than NYC as he had been directed to do - does that get him any points in your book?).

If he had only done so, the remaining body of Ruthenian faithful could have left communion with Rome en masse - so much less messy than having a second schism. But wait, you would then not have had the opportunity to become Ruthenian - you'd have become Orthodox - and that would have ill-suited you, seeing the lack of warmth you express toward our Orthodox brethren.

Must give this more thought ...

Many years,

Neil

Soter Ortynski doesn't count?



Yes, he should have. Rome violated the terms of the Union. Rome disfigured the Tradition. In the words of Father Lawrence Cross, it is the obligation of the Eastern Catholics to defy--to the point of schism, even--any attempt to infringe upon our legitimate Traditions.



Perhaps that might have been better, but I seriously doubt it would have come to that. Many Ruthenians at the time begged Bishop Basil to defy the Constitution being imposed upon them. Rome may have backed down. It may not have. Either way, the integrity of the Tradition comes first.

Also, Neil, you are very much mistaken if you think I lack warmth towards our Orthodox brethren. It's not often I hear that accusation made. Normally, I am accused of being too much on the side of the Orthodox.

But don't let facts get in the way of your animus.

Stuart,

Before I forget, you best get letters off to most of the Eastern & Oriental hierarchs in the US. The sheer number of them whose jurisdictions are mis-nominated vis-a-vis the geographic location of the cathedra is appalling. They need to jump on this and get it fixed; else, what will people think?

Our Lady of Nareg in New York of the Armenians - actually in Brooklyn
St Thomas the Apostle in Detroit of the Chaldeans - actually in Southfield
St Peter the Apostle in San Diego of the Chaldeans - actually in El Cajon
Newton of the Melkites - actually in Roslindale
Our Lady of Deliverance in Newark of the Syriacs - actually in Union City
St Thomas the Apostle in Chicago of the Syro-Malabar - actually in Bellwood

Thank goodness for the well-ordered thinking of the Maronites, Romanians, and Ukrainians (and, now, belatedly, the Ruthenians) - otherwise, folk would think us all to be idiots who can't read maps.

Many years,

Neil

Not for purposes of your statement, he doesn't.

By the time Bishop Soter, of blessed memory, arrived in 1907, it had been 15 years since Father Alexis had led the first 350 or so Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy. In the 15 year interim, that number increased mightily. The issuance of Ea Semper was frosting on the cake, the other ingredients were well-mixed by that point.

Many years,

Neil

I totally agree with Alexis.

I agree. Is the Ruthenian Church truly self-governing, or is it governed from Rome?

Yes, it is a truly sad reality, and it is why I no longer consider myself a Ruthenian.

Getting back to the topic . . .

What will whatever is left of the former cathedral in Van Nuys now be called? Or is it just a condemned builidng that hasn't opened since the quake?

And, as most know, Bishop Soter (who consecrated my church in 1914 - ironically, a church which the state court awarded to the Orthodox faction in 1941) was not acceptable to the Ruthenians (nor for that matter, as I understand it, to the Galicians) and, accordingly, the Ruthenian and Ukrainian administrations were created leading to the appointment of Bishop Takach. Part of Bishop Takach's difficulties arose from the internal split within his Diocese between the clergy trained by the seminary in Presov, Slovakia and those trained in Uzhorod - and the Hungarian influence that permeated the Uzhorod diocese and seminary at that time. It is said that he spoke Rusyn with a Hungarian accent and he could not sing on key - both of which were strikes against him with the immigrant population. ( A further note, Bishop Takach came to my parish in 1929 to celebrate its Silver Anniversary. Five years later that parish was engulfed in a bitter civil war.) All of this is discussed at length in Good Victory, by Father Barriger.