The appointment was announced today of Bishop William Charles Skurla as the new Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan of Pittsburgh.

The Metropolitan-elect was born in 1956 in Duluth and was ordained priest in 1987. He served as Bishop of Van Nuys from 2002 to 2007 and has been the Bishop of Passaic since 2007.

Ad multos annos!

many years. Notice that no replacement was named.

Indeed, may God grant him many years!

As for the absent news of a replacement for Passaic, I'm not surprised this was a singular announcement. It seems logical that the Metropolitan first be appointed, as it would seem appropriate that Rome give the new Archbishop a chance to ponder recommendations. The amount of time it took to get here, however, might suggest that a full plan could have been developed and approved.

Many years! Met him once at Metropolitan Nicholas' 50th anniversary at St. John's in Perth Amboy in 2009. It was remarkable as he was vested and given a place of honor opposite in the nave from Archbishop Demetrios. https://picasaweb.google.com/11328162611...725984034127778 https://picasaweb.google.com/11328162611...726962230935074

May God grant Metropolitan-elect William many blessed and Spirit-filled years!

I would be very surprised if Bishop Gerald did not return to the East Coast...

All praise and glory to God!

Many years.

I pray that my skepticism is proved wrong, although I do not expect it. Everything I understand of Metropolitan-elect William tells me that the liturgy isn't going to be changing as a result of this, and that is all that I truly care about in terms of this appointment.

This was one of the benchmarks I set in terms of my future in the Ruthenian Church.

God grant Metropolitan-elect William many blessed years!

May God grant Metropolitan-elect William many blessed years!

Just a question - I note that the new Metropolitan was not educated at the BCC seminary in Pittsburgh, but rather ...'he completed his theological studies in the Washington Theological Union in Washington, DC, and in the Vincentian Seminary of Palmerston, Pennsylvania. His religious training was supervised by the Byzantine Franciscans Order of Friars Minor, in which he ordained to the priesthood May 23, 1987. He was Director of Vocations for the Franciscan Friars of the Byzantine Monastery of the Dormition in Sybertsville' (from the original link.) Is that the norm?

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pope names Byzantine archbishop for Pittsburgh archeparchy. Archbishop-elect William Skurla, 55, of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, NJ, will be enthroned April 18 at 2 p.m. in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Munhall.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12019/1204588-100.stm#ixzz1jwAqO3wa

Many years.

The article states that the Pittsburgh Eparchy(Ruthenian) is the only self governing Eastern Catholic Church in the US. If I recall correctly, when the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine recently had a vacancy in the position of its leader, a Synod was convened and a nominee was presented for formal acceptance by Rome. I don't recall the Pittsburgh Eparchy having any such procedure with this, or any prior, vacancy. Are there 'self governing churches' who have greater 'rights' than do others? It seems as if the Ukrainians at least followed some of the historical processes of an Eastern Church in this matter. Why the difference?

The vast majority of our priests are trained in Pittsburgh but you will have one here and there that go elsewhere.

Yes. Patriarchal/Major Archeparchial Churches' elect their own bishops. Metropolitan Churches submit a list of three and the Pope appoints one. Why? Good question.

May God grant Metropolitan William many blessed years!

Time to elevate the Metropolia to a Major Archepiscopal Church.

Many years!!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

With the exception of Bishop Gerald our recently appointed bishops have been monastics, or former monastics. I suspect Rome is trying to revive the ancient Mukachevo tradition.

Axios! Axios! Axios!

May God grant Vladyka William many blessed years in service.

Franciscans are not monastics. Not even close.

I must confess that I am familiar with the Canon Law governing the BCC and the UGCC to some degree. However, Deacon Lance's question points to the real issue and I was hoping it would be raised in response to my inquiry.

Broadly speaking, there are Orthodox Churches across the world which are somewhat equivalent to a 'sui juris' Church; i.e. the autochephalous churches (like Russia, Greece etc...) or the autonomous self-ruling ones like in Slovakia. Of course, given Orthodoxy's absence of the concept of a 'universal primate', they are not dependent upon the approval of a 'third party' for their episcopal selections or internal management practices.

With respect to being in neither of those catagories, the ACROD parallels the BCC regarding episcopal succession in some ways.

Since we do not have a self-ruling Synod, we 'lack' the eccelesiological ability to self-regenerate. HOWEVER, unlike the BCC, we maintain the historical precedent of convening a Sobor/Council and selecting a Bishop-candidate who is then presented to our overseeing Synod - that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - for for their 'formalistic' approval - not unlike that of the Pope's recent approval of Arch. Sviatoslav.

The abolition of this right with respect to the Ruthenian Church was one of the driving objections to both the appointment of Bishop Soter Ortynsky by Rome in the first instance for both the Galican and Rusyn populations and the subsequent appointment and, more importantly, the behavior of Bishop Takach.

Both of these actions by Rome were viewed, correctly of course from my perspective, as critical abrogations of the contractural rights granted the Orthodox who pledged loyalty to the Holy See under the eastern european unions of Brest and Uzhorod during the 16th and 17th centuries.

I am curious as to how my EC and RC friends here view this.

regards,

dd

They are not monks but mendicants and take solemn vows and live by a rule. Very close.

It is my view that the CCEO needs revision such that whatever rank the primate of a sui iuris Church holds Patriarch/Archbishop/Metropolitan, the sui iuris Church have a Synod that elects its own bishop everywhere in the world.

God Grant Our new Metropolitan many years!

God grant Metropolitan-elect, Archbishop William C. Skurla, many happy and blessed years!

I heartily agree with my brother, Deacon Lance.

Many years,

Neil

Father Deacon is correct.

As a mendicant myself I feel highly qualified to address this (yes Carmelites are also mendicants).

Mendicants are monastics but are not monks. We take colemn vows, live by a rule, have common prayer, common meals, and scheduled recreation in common.

We Carmelites even wear the monastic belt and have the monastic hood. Franciscans just have the hood.

Thanks to both you and Fr. Deacon Lance for these explanatory remarks (I know I learned something)!

Is it not the Eastern tradition for monastics (not necessarily monks) to be preferred as candidates for elevation to the episcopate?

It is the Orthodox tradition. As far as Catholic orders are concerned we all know that there are great differences between the eastern and western approach to monasticism going back to the time of St. Benedict and earlier. I have the greatest of respect, admiration and appreciation for Catholic monasticism for it saved western civilization during the period of Muslim advance and the so-called Dark Ages and has been a provider of great works, educational and social in our modern times.

My point is that in many ways comparing the east and west on this subject is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits, both are round and both are beneficial - but they are, in the end very different.

Anyway, I prefer my bishops to come from the ranks of pastoral experience as I firmly believe that for one to come out of the shelter of a strict Orthodox monastic life and enter the world to run a Diocese is a prescription for disaster many times. A whole 'nother topic indeed and one that is sure to provoke a vigorous debate among my fellow Orthodox!

Even if it is true that in the East the bishops were chosen among monks, it sometime was simply a formality.
For example the Ecumenical Patriarch Maximus III was elected whan he was still a lay-man: he became monk and the day after he received the kirotonia (consecration).
And there are lots of other examples in the history of Costantinopolean Church.

I think my friend and brother, David, makes an excellent point, though the disastrous prescription of which he speaks has not been such a likelihood for EC Churches since our monastic orders are, on the whole, more akin to Latin religious orders than the historic, strict, Orthodox model.

As well, in the diaspora generally, a very significant number of EC monks have functioned in pastoral roles throughout their entire priestly careers, as a consequence of the often scarce numbers of 'secular' clergy. The Priestly Necrology of the Melkite Church in the US is replete with the names of Basilian Salvatorian, Chouerite, and Aleppine monks who founded and pastored the majority of our parishes. Our Church in the US would never have survived the three-quarters of a century before it became an exarchate had it not been for them.

Many years,

Neil

Bishop Gerald noted that at his age (72), it would not be reasonable for him to assume that see.

when it takes two years to fill the role, putting someone in for a similar length is not conducive e toleadingthchurch.

hawk

Pity about that. If we keep choosing often, we'll eventually get it right.

I'm surprised. After meeting Bishop Gerald, I'd have guessed him to be a good four years or so younger than that.

Many years,

Neil

Metropolitan Judson was seventy, but looked twenty years younger.

Quite true, thanks for pointing out the distinction. If a Bishop came from an EC 'Athonite' style monastery, my point would be apropos, but I suspect that is quite unlikely to ever occur - regardless of the methodology used to elect or appoint a Bishop!

The Ukrainians have been picking their Patriarch from among Studite ranks since at least Patriarch Miroslav Ivan.

I know very little about our new Metropolitan. Here are the few things that I know. It seems he was or is a disciple of the late Bishop Andrew Pataki. He is a Fransiscan. He has no beard. He suppressed or at least discouraged HRM and the boot camp for Byzantines.

God gives us bishops that we deserve and/or need. It is up to us to discern just what that means.

Don't know the code, what's HRM? Thanks!

Holy Resurrection Monastery, now in Wisconsin under the Omophorion of His Grace, Bishop John Michael (Botean) of the Romanian Greek Catholic Eparchy of Canton (OH). It was the only truly Eastern monastery in the Ruthenian Church, and a constant thorn in the side of those who wanted Byzantine-lite liturgy and spirituality.

Stuart gave you the correct information.

Here is a recent post about bishops from Abbot Tryphon's blog, The Morning Offering:

http://morningoffering.blogspot.com/2012/01/bishops-click-on-photo-to-enlarge.html#comment-form

All Merciful Savior Monastery on Vashon Island in Washington state is a wonderful place. Abbot Tryphon is an old friend.

Thank tou, this certainly helps clarify things.

If this is God's doing based on what we deserve, then Lord have mercy.

And there you should have stopped.

But you continued anyways.

He sent Resurrection on Long Island Fr. Jack Custer reversing Bishop Andrew's treatment of the parish.

Was a Franciscan.

Very important that...

HRM left his omophor.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent when all we have are a few facts and a lot of speculation.

This chair sadly remained vacant for almost 18 months after the repose of + Metropolitan Basil.

Shouldn't we, those of us who are the faithful of the Ruthenian Church, at least extend our prayful hope for the new Metropolitan-elect?

YES!!!!! We can't know what the future holds for the Metropolitan Church but what we can do is pray for our leaders that God's will be done for His Church.

We all know that things in the Ruthenian Church need to change and I pray Metropolitan-elect William carries the cross of leadership and leads us into a new spring time.

Yes, and on this specific point, I will comment directly - more directly than I am accustomed.

I am a member of this parish. I first moved to Long Island right as the parish was being systematically dismantled - timing could not have been worse. It was absolutely horrible to witness, especially as a faithful son of our Church. I could not bring my family there. We remained in limbo for over 2 years until Fr. Jack's arrival. There's more to the story from my direct experience, but I'll leave it at that.

Each and every time I walk into that church, I quite literally thank God that Fr. Jack was sent and that then-Bishop William had the wisdom to send him. I know I'm unworthily in good company in that regard, as many long-standing parishioners endured much more yet remained faithful and are just as grateful, if not more so.

Only those who lived through this could fully understand and appreciate the extent of the damage that was done. We can also see quite clearly what we have now through the action, courage and love of Fr. Jack, achieved with the support of his bishop.

Again, even our most basic calling to offer Christian charity would dictate we at least give our new Metropolitan-elect a chance!

Thank you, Fr. Deacon Lance, for mentioning this - certainly not an inconsequential act on then-Bishop William's part.

Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I'm happy to see that there may have been some misinformation before.

However, I think it is folly to hope and pray without also acknowledging reality as it currently stands. Then-Bishop William, from all I can see, was at best silent in the face of the promulgation of the RDL, at worst complicit, and there is no reason to think his mind will change now, especially since this stance has been validated so. I would love to be wrong, but the RDL and all that it entails seems here to stay.

And what is more important than Liturgy?

There seems to be a continuing intent to pontificate and/or editorialize on the suitability of the Metropolitan-elect for the office that he is about to undertake. Any member who has posted here for any length of time should well remember prior occasions on which it has been pointed out that threads announcing the elevation of anyone to a hierarchical office, albeit posted in the News forum, are historically held to a standard that focuses on congratulatory wishes and prayers for the candidate-elect.

It seems that some do not, as Deacon Lance has pointed out, know where to draw the line and insist on prophesizing what the future will bring, based on perceptions that, in some instances, are uninformed, and in others partially informed at best. Even in those instances where there are legitimate criticisms to be leveled as to past actions taken, we've had those discussions - then was then, now is now, and the future is yet to be foretold. Bottom line, this thread is closed.

Members may feel free to civilly, charitably, and appropriately critique the Metropolitan-elect's performance as Metropolitan, once there is any barometer against which to measure it. Such opportunity will only come with time.

In the interim, let me just note that doomsaying is highly overrated as a constructive conversational medium.

Many years,

Neil