Friends,

What must be done to start new parishes? What obstacles block our way? What changes must we make? What resources do we have now that if used in different ways could help us get some started? Must we always wait upon the bishops to act before something can be done?

Dan Lauffer

Yes, you must wait on the bishop, because if you don't, the bishop will find out eventually, and he has a right to be upset if his priests and laymen didn't ask him for a mission.

Meeting together for prayers is a good start though. You can put up a website of interested persons, collect phone numbers, etc.

anastasios

Must we "wait for the Bishop"? That question is not as simple as it sounds. A new parish cannot be created without the bishop. But there is nothing to prevent a cleric or a lay person from investigating the possibilities in a given place and reporting the results of such an effort. If there are a serious number of people who want to have a new parish and are willing to declare this on paper over their signatures (including addresses and contact information), the Bishop is more likely to take it seriously. If we can show significant support for a proposed new parish, the Bishop is likely to take the idea still more seriously. And so on. The teaching "let nothing be done without the Bishop" does not mean that we must sit quietly with our hands folded and expect the Bishop to do all the work and take all the initiatives.
Also, this begs the question of WHICH bishop. In the current situation of jurisdictional pluralism, if a group in East Noplace wants a parish and Bishop X is uninterested or unable to be of help, try another Bishop. "For he who seeks, finds, and to him who knocks, it shall be opened." I don't like the current state of jurisdictional pluralism in the least, but since we're stuck with it, we might as well put it to use. Incognitus

There is an Antiochean mission in Mesa which started out as a group of disillusioned Episcopalians who were seeking Orthodoxy. They first met to pray the Typica together. Locally, there was only one Antiochean church, which was not exactly centrally located. Once clergy support was obtained, interested parishioners from the existing church joined the mix of converts, usually for other reasons like being closer to home. (Also, the mission's services are in English, while the church uses a good bit of Arabic, a situation that caused some to prefer the mission.)

Each jurisdiction has certain criteria for agreeing to establish a mission. It goes without saying that a priest has to have a means of supporting himself (and his family) in a given place if he is to lead such an effort. Some jursidictions require a certain amount of local seed money and a minimum number of willing start-up members before they willl commit their own resources to such a project.

Hope that helps.

Father Alexis Toth did not wait, and started the first wave of Greek Catholic parishes that broke away and formed a core of what is now the Orthodox Church in America.

During the celibacy crisis that came to a head in the 1930s, those who did not wait, broke away and formed what is now the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese.

The Byzantine Catholic Church is not a grassroots organization, although it is the faithful who are its foundation: physically, financially and spiritually. While the people obviously can attempt to exert influence over the hierarchy, it has never been a democracy.

In that organizational structure, it is part of the greater Catholic Church. The structure of the church is one of its strengths -- a key to its survival over the centuries. And it is one of its weaknesses, in that it can't respond quickly to changing conditions.

--Tim Cuprisin

A community does not need the permission of the bishop to gather and pray and have fellowship. This is how all Christian communities are built. With the Reader's Services nearly all of the riches of the Byzantine liturgical tradition are accessible without a priest. Food and fellowship also build community after prayer, so Reader's Vespers or Typika followed by a meal and fellowship or study session, etc. are a great way to get started.

In most eparchies a "community" or "fellowship" or something along those lines preceedes the establishment of a mission. Once a base of people who are interested and committed to building a Greek Catholic community are identified, then eparchial recognition can be requested for the community.

Official and formal recognition of a mission typically is given by the Bishop. Also for the Eucharistic celebration, a priest will be needed to assist, even if it is infrequently. A priest should eventually be found to act as a chaplain to the community and look after the spiritual welfare of the mission.

Recognition is a key part of establishing new missions and parishes. "Marketing" has to be done because if no one knows you are there, no one will come. For Greek Catholics we already have a free (usually) advertising medium through the Roman Catholic parish bulletins and newspapers.

According to the guidelines established by the US Catholic Bishops Conference, Roman dioceses are obliged to assist Greek Catholics in any way possible in this regard. Many RC parishes are also quite amenable to offering space for worship as well for fledgling Greek Catholic communities until more permanent quarters can be found.

Ed Klagese is a good one to ask this question too, since he is helping to establish the Knoxville, Tn mission for the Ruthenian Church.

Tim Cuprisin writes that "The Byzantine Catholic Church is not a grassroots organization, although it is the faithful who are its foundation: physically, financially and spiritually. While the people obviously can attempt to exert influence over the hierarchy, it has never been a democracy." - Hmmm. - There is a long and depressing record of litigation over such matters. In many of the early parishes, it was precisely the local laity who took the initiative in founding the parish, incorporating the parish, buying or building a church, and somehow acquiring a priest. Incognitus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by incognitus:
In many of the early parishes, it was precisely the local laity who took the initiative in founding the parish, incorporating the parish, buying or building a church, and somehow acquiring a priest. Incognitus [QUOTE]

That's quite true.

And the result of what you rightly call a "long and depressing record of litigation" is clear: The parishes involved in these court actions are either under the control of the bishop, or they're no longer part of the Byzantine Catholic Church.

--Tim Cuprisin

Looking at the history of almost all our people(s) in the US and Canada, it was usually a group of folks from some place who were living in X-town, PA, who established and incorporated as a "society", e.g., St. George Greek Arcadian Society of Somerville, Mass., who then bought a social hall for their dances and dinners, etc. And who, when some $$ had been salted away, asked the bishop to send them a priest.

Any bishop in his right mind would be more than willing (if he could) to send a priest to a group that was already organized, watching its finances, and was ready and able to support their priest.

Although the original society was incorporated as a lay/social group, the parish foundation - i.e., the Church, was constructed as part of the Diocese. But of course there is always the ying-yang between parish and trustees and bishop/diocese. But this is what makes us Byzantine and 'confusing'.

I think the best way to go is to get one's self established as a "society", do all the social things possible, and also make sure to include the lay-run prayer services. When the group has been around for awhile, at some point earlier or later, make contact with the bishop.

Obviously, if the members of the group lay claim to one or other particular ethnicity, they will naturally keep in touch with their "own" bishop. If they're not 'ethnics', then I suppose they are free to shop around for a diocese that is willing to take a chance on them by sending a priest.

But whatever - . Perhaps Malcolm X's statement is most relevant here: "By whatever means necessary". If it is God's will and plan, then just do it. (Lord, I'm filled with cliches tonight!!)

Blessings! (And real estate!)

Perhaps Tim has misunderstood my posting - or perhaps I was not clear. I was not suggesting that the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh is NOW a democratic, grass-roots organization - I was remarking that at an earlier stage of development, that which ultimately evolved into the Metropolia did have some important characteristics of democratic, grass-roots organizations. In the earliest days, there was no bishop whom the parishes (and in many cases the clergy) recognized (this is about 100 years ago, before the arrival of Bishop Soter), so things were done on a DIY basis. As to whether ALL the parishes who - how shall I put this - preferred to retain some remnant of the Old Ways in this regard eventually sought alternate roads to heaven, I'm not so sure. There might still be one or two pockets of active resistance, and some parishes whose legal status is not altogether clear. But I don't know. Incognitus

Dr. John,

"I think the best way to go is to get one's self established as a "society", do all the social things possible, and also make sure to include the lay-run prayer services. When the group has been around for awhile, at some point earlier or later, make contact with the bishop."

These are hopeful words. I wasn't thinking of learning some new dances so I could help form an ethnic society. But the idea of forming a society prior to a mission and prior to a Church with a priest seems an excellent strategem and one very often used in many parts of the world and in many religious traditions. Since I'm entrprenuerial and adventuresome by nature you might just read about such a series of events some day with my name associated with it.

Dan Lauffer, former member of a Methodist Society

I've found that exactly what are the ways various Catholic parishes are legally incorporated to be one of the questions the Catholic Church is most resistant to answer. It might be the only thing that causes Diocesan Chancellors to say, "hmm, let's talk about protecting kids from abuse.

Nevertheless I believe some Byznatine parishes still have trusteeism. Moreover, this issue is the one Latinization that the BCC seems unwilling to part with.

As many Byzantine Catholic parishes went Orthodox over supression of trusteeism as suppression of married priests.

I also would bet it all that if Catholic-Orthodox reunion meant giving up ou rlau church councils, the deal is off.

Axios

I understood you quite clearly.

What happened before the organization of a Greek Catholic hierarchy in the United States has no bearing on the modern day. That battle's over. The bishop will allow the formation of a mission or a parish if he sees it being in the best interest of the diocese.

And a bishop will close a parish if he decides it's in the best interest of the diocese. That's what happened with St. Mary's in Chicago and St. Mary's in Joliet, Ill., a few years ago.

I'm not saying those decisions are infallible, or even correct at all. The point is that the Byzantine Catholic Church isn't a free-lance operation.

--Tim Cuprisin

AMDG

Axios, not to be pedantic or anything, but why do you feel the need to always attack the Catholic Church, even when your attacks are not REALLY related to the substance of the thread?

The "abuse" problem is due to the infiltration of the Church by certain men who find nothing wrong with homosexual behavior. Most of the "abuse" cases currently being prosecuted have nothing to do with "children", but with homosexual relationships between priests and teenagers or young men. Homosexual behavior is the problem. And yet, the website in your profile indicates that you think homosexual behavior is OK.

So, please attend to your own views and opinions; bring them into accordance with reality, and then maybe offer some helpful criticism to others. In all charity (I know this has been discussed here ad nauseam), please know that only the Truth can set you free.

If you wish to criticize bishops or other individuals, fine. But your postings, on several threads, seem useful only to incite hatred for Christ's Church.

In Jesus and Mary,

LatinTrad

I have been asked to assess the content of a posting above by Axios, specifically a comment that could be understood as attacking the Catholic Church.

Axios wrote:

"I've found that exactly what are the ways various Catholic parishes are legally incorporated to be one of the questions the Catholic Church is most resistant to answer. It might be the only thing that causes Diocesan Chancellors to say, "hmm, let's talk about protecting kids from abuse."

I needed to read the whole post several times over to try to understand the intent of the message. It appears to relate to the issue of Trusteeism, which has been dead and buried in the Roman Church in this country for a very, very long time, but which is still in the living memory of many of the Eastern (both Catholic and Orthodox) persuasions.

After coming to the conclusion that the issue of trusteeism was the central point, I then understood that the comment: "hmm, let's talk about protecting kids from abuse" was meant to indicate that Chancellors would rather discuss ANYTHING else, even severely distressing matters, rather than the trustee-ism issue.

I think that this was probably a very poor choice of example, one that picked at the scab of a very serious wound that has afflicted the Church (both Catholic and Orthodox). And it has certainly both angered and hurt people who want this issue to be resolved equitably, fairly and -- quickly. And their reaction of anger is certainly understandable, i.e., why should this particular issue be raised, yet again, in the context of another discussion. Point well taken.

It certainly highlights the need to step back from the posts we intend to make, and to read and re-read them before hitting the "POST" button with an eye towards NOT offending or hurting anyone else.

What struck me as unbelievable was the vehemence over the issue of trusteeism. This issue was settled (among the Roman Catholics) in the mid-19th Century with some pretty nasty court cases.

The issue lived on in Eastern church communities for a much longer time. For Byzantine Catholics, the issue came to a head in the late '20s and early '30s when dissention over priestly-celibacy as well as trusteeism tore many parishes apart. For this reason, in any given town one can find St. Mary's Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church around the corner from St. Mary's Byzantine Greek Catholic Church. Usually, the result of a nasty divorce.

To my knowledge, essentially ALL Byzantine Catholic parishes are legally the Bishop's. While parishes still have 'trustees', they are oftentimes appointed by the pastor or the bishop and have purely an advisory role. My understanding is that there is a handful of Byzantine Catholic parishes that are still legally run by/owned by the trustees. But this is very much the exception to the rule.

While it certainly flies in the face of current US Orthodox practice, I don't see it as quite the big deal that Axios proposes it to be. I'm sure that the whole issue would create blank stares among most contemporary Roman Catholics, and probably among most Byzantine Catholics too. The issue was dealt with a very, very long time ago.

And when the day of reunion comes, I think that the issue of trusteeism will be dealt with fairly easily in Catholic/Orthodox discussions. And this makes the 'vehemence' and the 'protecting the kids from abuse' comment beyond the pale of reasonable response.

For the record: all institutions and parishes of a Catholic diocese are held in the name of the "Catholic Bishop of _____". If a group of parishoners is unhappy with the "Church" and its protocols, they can either stay and make noise, or leave. But the physical plant remains the property of the Catholic Bishop. And the courts have upheld this.

In closing: please, make sure that we read what we are about to post; and then read it again. And if it is "strong", perhaps it would be best to do it in the word-processing program, save it, and then reread it before posting it the next day. There's more than enough pain going around for most people, including us Christians. Let's try to mitigate any and all things hurtful.

Blessings!

Axios et al.,

Is trusteeism common within Orthodoxy, or is it a peculiarity of the OCA, linked to its connection to our trusteeship problems? Presumably it does not apply, at least in the same way, for the Antiochians as the Ben Lomond litigation made clear. What about the Greeks, Serbians, Russian Patriarchate in AMetica, ROCOR, etc.? What about outside of America?

Incognitus,
My impression is that the trustee system of our early years in America was not of the "Old Ways" but a new, American innovation.

The "trustee" system in the USA arose because of the absence of our own hierarchs and the need to have a civil incorporation of a parish (so that the parish could own property, have a bank account, make contracts and so forth). Almost invariably the lawyers whom the parish council approached to handle the legal end based the civil incorporation on the example of similar forms of incorporation used by Protestants without an episcopal structure. Incognitus

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!

I seem to remember something from the mid '70's about a Bulgarian Orthodox community building a church after many years of fund raising. The property was very valuable. They brought the Bishop from Sofia, gave him the keys and he promptly turned the building over to the government who sold it.

Anyone else ever hear this story?

I remember hearing it at Bulgarian picknic in Virginia...

mark

And where IS His Grace buried?

Blessings!

I knew an older Orthodox priest (I won't mention names or jurisdictions out of concerns of charity) who had the trustees change the lock on him when one of them had a disagreement and swayed the rest against him.

They changed the locks and the service time and got another priest to cover. So when he showed up for services there was a "Dear John" note on the door and no one around.

He told me that when he went to the bishop the bishop just shrugged his shoulders...

So, I guess when the priest who came in to "cover" went off to his other assignment, the folks in this parish were S.O.L. Too bad for them that they just can't pick up a coverage-priest at the 7-11 or Store-24.

Gee, this is just a GREAT reason to get ordained. If they like you, you're in like Flynn at minimum wage or slightly better; if they don't like you, go get a job at K-Mart -- but pay off your seminary loans. As a colleague of mine said: "the elusive and highly coveted M.Div. with which and a token you can get a ride on the Boston subway."

Some layfolks just are too full of themselves and too demanding. Were I the priest in this situation, I would go -- fully vested with kadilo - to the front sidewalk outside these persons' houses and place a solemn condemnation upon them and their households. I would do the whole thing in the archaic language, make a HUGE scene, and then just leave and let them deal with the reality. And then just let them find a priest to remove the curse. And I would fully inform the bishop, and I would suggest that if he were to give me a future assignment, I would expect it to be among folks who were Christians. If not, then go hire somebody from central casting.

Blessings!

PS: I get a bit vehement about this type of situation because when I was in seminary I met a Russian Orthodox priest, from Connecticut, who was 'barred' from his parish because it was decided that he held his hands in too high a position during certain parts of the Anaphora. They did the same thing: they changed the locks, but at least he got a letter from the parish council informing him that it was time for him to move on because his manner of celebrating Liturgy was not acceptable to the congregation. The bishop didn't have anybody else to send (=no priest would go there), and so they remained priestless for an extended period of time. I believe the parish no longer exists.