Dear in Christ,

Everyone interested knows that eventually Bp. Ivancho ended up living the married life in Florida somewhere.

Some claim he was married while a bishop, and it was discovered during his illness.

Others claim he was set up by those wishing to get rid of him, by putting that nurse to work to take care of him and hope that they would fall in love (which they did).

So what's the real story? What are some facts?

anastasios

Anastasios:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I understand your curiosity, but may I suggest -- with charity -- that your question is not a suitable discussion topic for this forum. God knows that the Byzantine Catholic Church in America already has enough problems with gossip, innuendo, unhealthy speculations about what Fr. so-and-so is doing at St. such-and-such's, and the like.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear in Christ Theophilos,

Your point is well taken. However, Bp. Ivancho has been deceased for awhile now. Plus, I asked for facts as I hear these rumours from time to time and I would like to know the truth. I don't want to believe myself something that isn't true. I am assuming that if no one knows facts, they will not post.

As for this not being the place to discuss things, this point was brought up on the thread about the seminary. I don't agree. We have in many cases been kept in the dark about things, and while we don't need to know everything, I see nothing wrong with discussing things publicly.

anastasios

I would like to respond to this inquiry about the life of our good Bishop Ivancho, but do not want to offend the conservative or cautious attitudes of some here. Please let me know if you want to hear what many of our priests who were in active ordained service at the time, have told me over the years. Much of it is evidently, already known to some of you. Understand that, like many aspects of church history, including many lives of the saints (these did not fall from the sky, but were human, personal accounts of historical figures held in high regard, often written after considerable time had passed), it has been passed down from generation to generation, to those who have been deeply involved in a service of love to the community.

Therefore, the accounts that have been made known to some of us, are from those who had direct experience with the situation, but, like many other parts of ecclesiastical oral history (yes, even like some saint's lives), some are difficult to prove or disprove. This is in no way the same thing as "gossip" or "innuendo" or a prying into the personal lives of the clergy. That type of action is despicable. What we have in the difficult task of studying our history with deeper insight naturally involves employing what has been operative among our people for centuries: the passing down of oral history, not much unlike the way that the biblical stories were originally related, thus one occasionally comes into contact with varying or even conflicting accounts of the same events, based on the relater's memory and purpose.

I agree that it is not enough in our day and age, to simply "sugar-coat" those parts of our history that in a different era, were believed to be too hard for the faithful to bear or that, to protect those involved, should not surface. I don't find anything so dramatic in the story of our good bishop that would scandalize people now or then. Traditionally, our history books have been written by dedicated priests such as Msgr. Shereghy or Father Pekar, who, while good historians in their own right, were not allowed by the hierarchy, to address certain sensitive subjects in detail, such as the conflict over celibacy and the subsequent "independent movement" or the story of Bishop Ivancho's resignation. Therefore, these chapters were breezed over, often with simple, one-line descriptions of what we are still, fifty or more years later, trying to make sense out of. I agree that people have a right to know the situation, while being ever so careful not to assassinate a person's character, no matter who he or she was. That would not be becoming to anyone. But, allowed to see a situation for what it is, I think, except for a few distracters who will always try to undermine a well-intended situation, that many of our people would surprise the "worriers" with their sense of understanding and non-judgmental attitude. And yes, many decades have passed since the departure of Bishop Daniel from episcopal service and now almost three decades since his death in 1972.

Given the wide variety of opinions voiced here, I am being cautious that once again, a particular question not initiated by myself, but never-the-less of obvious interest to many, not become hostile or misinterpreted due to the difficulty of accepting it for what it is and the patience required to withstand the time and energy it takes to address such an unwieldy topic.

It should be evident to everyone here, that I hold a deep respect for the person of our late Bishop Daniel, an admiration that I have acquired from the very generous and positive opinions of him passed down to me from our priests, cantors and lay people with whom I have had the privilege of working, that knew the bishop personally. Unfortunately, age did not allow me to come into direct contact with the man himself. The bishop was a very visionary and pastorally minded person, who had a promising career ahead of him before the unfortunate circumstances interfered. If allowed to live out the natural course of his episcopal carrier, there may well have been a different course of events in our history, positive goals that were left unaccomplished. Perhaps it was the intention of some, who were challenged by the bishop's foresight and wisdom, to halt this progress. But, God's time frame is not necessarily our own, and the annals of history speak for themselves about the turn of events after Ivancho's episcopacy ended.

Let me know if anyone wishes me to expand on this topic or, if you wish to contact me "off-list" through a personal message here, I would be glad to continue the discussion that way, if interest persists. And please, I don't think that a demand for "facts" vs. "oral tradition" is productive to a topic such as this, because often times facts are indeed facts, but, in order to protect the innocent relaters of the incidents, confirming citations to individuals may not always be possible or desirable. But, to the best of our ability, I believe that we should substantiate historical accounts with tangible evidence.

I hope that everyone knows that I participate in these historical discussions because the history of our Ruthenian Church is very dear to my heart and what I relate is done completely with this love in mind and in the hope that others will come to understand the complexity of our history as I have. It is an exciting and faith-filled journey, unlike many in the course of human events. I have high hopes of safeguarding the future of our church, so that it looses neither its flavor, rich tradition or Christian purpose. God bless our Ruthenian Metropolitan Province and all of its people.

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Joe ]

Quote --
"I hope that everyone knows that I participate in these historical discussions because the history of our Ruthenian Church is very dear to my heart and what I relate is done completely with this love in mind and in the hope that others will come to understand the complexity of our history as I have. It is an exciting and faith-filled journey, unlike many in the course of human events. I have high hopes of safeguarding the future of our church, so that it looses neither its flavor, rich tradition or Christian purpose. God bless our Ruthenian Metropolitan Province and all of its people."

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Joe ][/QB][/QUOTE]

Deja Vu so soon. The recent and mercifully deleted seminary thread began with similar oh-so-concerned-and-respectful sentiments and ended in the spirit of
"We've got the issues! We've got the names! Ice Cream Caper Cracked - Find out who had the butter brickle on his fingers!!!"

(Besides, exactly how does "Bp. Ivancho" fit under the "Byzantine Faith and Worship" category description?)

Everyone I know who knew, worked for, or just knew of the good Bishop - everyone - already holds him in high and fond esteem. I'm for leaving it at that.
Wisdom's counsel silently kept often trumps "The people want to know!" spirit of the times.

It's fine with me to stay off the topic of our beloved Bishop Ivancho, if durak is concerned for more "silencing" on the matter. I was simply responding to a topic that was already posted. Our brother Anastasios initiated the inquiry, not me, but I cannot help take an interest in something that catches my attention. While I did not initiate the implied negativism of "issues" before either, I will keep silent as you wish and correspond only with those who may find my contributions helpful. Maybe I'm the one who is the "durak" for thinking that we could have an intelligent discussion without insult and sarcasm and "coded" phrases meant to demean and belittle.

I had been inspired by Dr. John's description of this forum, quoted below from another "thread." Now I am wondering if he and I were both naive in our conclusions:

Dr. John wrote: Although we get heated sometimes, and even say things that are somewhat unkind . . . this is the place where RCs, Orthodoxes, Moslems, Questioners, and even Byzantine Catholics can post freely without fear of being excised from the community of posters, . . . where folks can come and interact without fear of being 'anathematized' by one group or another . . . Perhaps this is the 'dreaded Ecumenism' that strikes fear into the hearts of the "truly faithful" who cannot afford to be tainted by contact with the "unclean" . . . It is my understanding that there are lots of 'lurkers' who visit this site daily or at least several times a week. Perhaps they are somewhat skittish or even afraid to post for fear of retaliation from some "power" or another. (Joe: I wonder what would make them feel that way?)