And until Rome told us to do this, we were going to pretend the cathedral was still in Van Nuys, right? Sheesh! Ruthenians, man up!

Stuart,

Your incredible knack for interjecting inappropriate commentary, as well as your unwillingness to demonstrate either common civility or the genteel and time-honored praxis of allowing others moments of enjoyment, never ceases to amaze.

One does marvel that your sense of order and historical bent has allowed you to forget that, until now, the cathedral was in Van Nuys (or, more properly, Sherman Oaks, as that particular area of the municipality is now named) - and that St Stephen's was, until now, designated a pro-cathedral (together with St Nicholas of Myra in Anchorage).

Many years,

Neil

dear brother Stuart - reading some of your posts is like getting a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Neil,

one can always count on Stuart to provide snarky commentary.

Interestingly, Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks are not incorporated cities or towns, but are neighborhoods within the City of Los Angeles, so even the former eparchial name was a misnomer.

I'm not sure whom Stuart means by "us," but Rome did not tell "us" anything. The Holy Father approved the changes as requested by Bishop Gerald.

I am not sure why Stuart's comment was snarky and hope he explains. The change here is not reflective of anything except good housekeeping. After the North Ridge earthquake in 1994 Bishop George Kuzma moved the eparchial offices from North Ridge to Phoenix and designated St. Stephen's in Phoenix as a pro-cathedral (later St. Nicholas in Anchorage was also designated a pro-cathedral).

Well, for starters, how long has it been since the earthquake rendered the cathedral in Van Nuys unusable? Must be going on sixteen years. Since then, we have maintained the fiction of a "pro-cathedral" in Phoenix, moved the chancery to Phoenix and conducted all eparchial business in Phoenix, but continued to call it the Eparchy of Van Nuys as if there was any hope of rebuilding the old cathedral and moving back there.

The obvious thing to do would be recognizing the facts, declare that the seat of the Eparchy had formally moved to Phoenix, change the letterhead, and raise the principal church in that city to cathedral status--and then let Rome know what we had done. Instead, for sixteen years we maintain the fiction of an eparchy in Van Nuys as though the place had some symbolic importance like Antioch, while waiting for Rome to clear its desk of more pressing business and allowing us to move the see.

Real Churches deal with their pastoral needs like real Churches, and not as though they were mere suffragans of some other Church. The Ruthenians never do.

Amen!

First, a letter could have been sent to the Archeparchy in Pittsburgh laying out the idea of the move. Second the Archbishop could have approved it himself and sent the notice to Rome. The letter should be respectful and imformative about the changes being made, the moving of the See to another area and the changing of the names. Simple and to the point: "we moved the Eparchy and changed it's name, peace out." The Pope has too much on his shoulders worrying about his own branch of the Church.

This is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Byzantine Catholic or a Ruthenian. It is like I belonged to a pretend church, but in reality there was always someone else pulling the strings.

By the way, congrats on the new cathedral and the new name, it is suitable and pleasant to the ears.

Since Stuart continues to use the terms "we" and "us," he, along with the previous eparchs, must know that only the patriarch, with the consent of the synod of bishops, may modify an eparchy and transfer the eparchial see. Since our particular Church is not under the jurisdiction of an Eastern patriarch, the Holy Father acts as such. Whether one likes that arrangement or not is not the question at this time. All I know is that the request was made and it was granted February 6, 2010 and it was effective immediately.

To preserve good order, the Church has enacted canons which are followed in order to modify eparchies and transfer eparchial sees. The eparchial bishop does not act unilaterally.

So our eparchs (George, Wiiliam, and Gerald) did not act in accordance with Stuart's liking and continued to operate a "fictious" eparchy? Apparently his position as a military analyst allows him to tell those in authority over him how they should perform their duties.

The purpose of my post was to share good news with this cyber community. The real tragedy is that there are some who are not able to accept good news.

Well, here's where we differ: I'm not willing to wait around for Rome to get its ecclesiology straight. What we have now does not maintain good order, but results in a sclerotic over-centralization that denigrates the real meaning of Church.

Over the history of the Ruthenian Church in America, our God-loving bishops have continually acted in accordance with the directives of the Church of Rome (except when it interferes with their own preconceptions of what they want to do), and the results are plain for all to see: two schisms and the loss of four fifths of the faithful.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

I think you answered your own question, John. Stuart perceives the change as a reflection of the lack of intestinal fortitude by the Ruthenians and their willingness to roll over and let Rome dictate to them. On the other hand, you see it as simply a matter of good housekeeping. If you are correct, then Stuart's comment is indeed uncalled for and snarky, IMO.

Well, there you again... once you receive the mitra and omophorion from the metropolitan you'll be in a better position to tell the Holy Father how to serve the Church.

As we are about to begin the Great Fast, I am keen to keep the admonition of Thomas a Kempis, "At the Day of Judgment we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken, but how holy we have lived."

Yes, by their fruits shall ye know them.

So, basically, we of the laity are to pray, pay and obey--and never, ever criticize our betters? I believe that's what got us in trouble in the first place.

Your duty, per the CCEO, is to inform your bishop of your needs, to pray, and to obey, not to be a public scandal.

I do not want to quibble over numbers, but I do not see evidence for saying the Ruthenian
Church in America had a "loss of four fifths of the faithful."

The Hartford Institute for Religious Research estimates the real membership of the
American Carpatho Russian Greek Catholic Diocese of USA to be 20,000 and the Orthodox
Church in American to be 115,000 in the year 2000 (total = 135,000), not all of whom are
Ruthenian Americans. See http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question17.html

ANNUARIO PONTIFICIO for the year 2000 shows 142,820 members in the Ruthenian Byzantine
Catholic Church in the USA (94,865 in 2008). See Eastern Catholic Churches 2008 in
www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat08.pdf

In any case, there were two schisms.

Why the Protection of Mary, instead of the Protection of the "Mother of God"? Just curious. The names "Mary" and "Jesus," when accompanied by no other titles reflecting their importance to us, have increasingly not settled well in my ears. That's why traditionally in the Latin Church saying "Our Lady" and "Our Lord" were encouraged (and still are by many holy priests and layfolk). Names that are said all the time begin to seem overly common to us.

Alexis

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.

Someone asked about the former Cathedral. It's still standing and is now being referred to as the proto-cathedral. One parishioner maintains a blog.

As to historical issues with Bishop Soter. There's a lot of historical information about him in the book Historical Mirror, edited by Fr. John Slivka, which can be read online.

Dearest Father Deacon John,


I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

"only the patriarch, with the consent of the synod of bishops, may modify an eparchy and transfer the eparchial see. Since our particular Church is not under the jurisdiction of an Eastern patriarch, the Holy Father acts as such."

This same ecclesiological principle is evident in the OOC (which, it should be noted, also reflects the same tension). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same principle at work among the EOC's as well (i.e., with regards to metropolitan Churches in relation to a Patriarch)?

I really, really don't understand why people are complaining that the Ruthenian Church is not a real Church because of this ecclesiological exigency. Until we have an Eastern Catholic Byzantine Patriarch for the Slavs, it seems perfectly normal for the Holy Father to fulfill that function and purpose.

Humbly,
Marduk

dochawk,

Stuart misspoke in refrence to the proto-Cathedral of St Mary. Although it suffered some minor damage in the Northridge Quake, it was never closed, condemned or otherwise rendered unusable. The eparchial office and bishop's residence did in fact suffer major damage and rendered unusable. As a result, Bishop George, of blessed memory, moved the chancery and his residence to facilities located at Saint Stephen, Phoenix, AZ.

As I recall, during that quake (1994, I believe) there was a large 3 story apartment building that collapsed and was featured on the nightly news for several days as rescue efforts were underway. I remember being told that Bishop George's residence was just across the street from that severely damaged building.

Dave,

In fact, the parishioner who maintains the blog is Steve Petach, a member of our forum community.

Many years,

Neil

May God grant many blessings to the Eparchy of Phoenix and its members!

Too back the news was accompanied by this bickering; hopefully with the start of the Great Fast this time will be spent in prayer.

Fr Deacon Paul

According to my own recollection and also according to Fr. James, Bishop William requested "Protection of the Theotokos Eparchy of Phoenix"...

Father James said that it is hoped that the Nuncio merely made a bad translation from the Latin of the decree.

Wow, I hadn't realised that the Proto-Cathedral was condemned.

The Eparchial offices were not on the actual Cathedral address in Sherman Oaks, CA rather they were located in Northridge, CA. The building the offices were in was conmemned and would have cost too much to rebuild. Fortunately the Cathedral, the rectory and the parish hall sufferd only minor damage that was easily repaired.

Earthquake insurance is available out here. At the time (1994) earthquake insurance was strictly optional. I don't think the Eparchy had earthquake insurance prior to Jan 1994.

The reason the offices are not at the cathedral address were mostly due to the high cost of construction and real estate at the time. Also, there is no room to expand the Cathedral property as we are surrounded by large apartment buildings on three sides and a major boulevard on the fourth.

The Cathedral (now Proto-Cathedral) is very much alive, active and open. I maintain an unofficial blog and a facebook group for the cathedral.

We all knew it was just a matter of time for the name change to be official. It does seem strange that while Rome encourages us to be a sui juris church, we still had to wait for a formal approval of a name change from Rome.

\\but continued to call it the Eparchy of Van Nuys as if there was any hope of rebuilding the old cathedral and moving back there.\\

Well, didn't the Eparchy of Mukachevo move to Uzhorod centuries ago, and it's STILL called "Eparchy of Mukachevo"?

The distance by road between both town in Ukraine is on only 40 kms (25 miles), so in effect both places are just down the road from each other. This is not the case of the recently renamed eparchy.

Paul, my brother,

But, 'just down the road from each other' is a relative description. Twenty-five miles was no mean travel feat in the days before motorized transport - about a day if one were traveling with any load, half that at a sustained gallop such as might have been done by troops under arms. The 400 miles distance between Van Nuys and Phoenix is, today, about a six hour journey by car - less than an hour by flight. BpBasil's point is valid - they are not the same place.

Many years,

Neil