www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings 1 Tim 3:5 - Orthodoxy Breeds Vocations

To all:

There is a very good article at

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/sep1993p4_808.html

I found the following statement interesting:

“Just as a business rises or falls on the prudential judgement of the owner, or a family is directed to good or evil by the parents, so a Diocese receives its direction and strength from its Shepherd, the Bishop.”

This seems to be just a derivative of an earlier statement from St. Paul:

“If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?” (1 Tim 3:5)

What the Roman Catholic Diocese has done in the area of vocation with only a population of 82,000 people should make us take note. Strong leadership, co-operation between clergy and laity, fidelity to church teaching, substantial seminary education, and a bishop who is not afraid to instruct his faithful in good orthodox religious education make success.

http://www.stgregoryseminary.edu/dedicate/front2.jpg

http://www.stgregoryseminary.edu/cnstrct2.htm

Even the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) built a brand new seminary nearby Lincoln, NE:

http://www.fssp.org/en/seminaires.htm

Blame is not put on the candidates or the laity when their is failure. The man "wearing the jewels" must also act accordingly. Acting like a bishop is one thing; BEING one is another. It is, indeed, a noble task riddled with problems.

It is my prayer that our new bishops head this wise observation. I wish them well. A terrible bishop can deplete the population of their diocese 50% in only a matter of a few years simply by acting like a terrible despot or a back-seat administrator who steers his ecclesial ship like a canoe without a paddle or water. Both are formulas for disaster, and in the end people "vote with their feet."

These words of advice quoted above deal with LEADERSHIP, a characteristic that is not automatically received simply by receiving authority or canonical jurisdiction. It is earned in matters of trust and integrity. Saying what one means and meaning what one says. True leadership sets the tone of direction and mission. No one wants to be equated with dysfunctionality, but rather be associated with those who have a reason, especially if it is based on Christ's gospel. If the Church has no direction and no orthodox orientation, then it is begging for disaster.

I would suggest reading, "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael S. Rose. It is amazing how those dioceses that stick to orthodoxy (the formula that works) have full seminaries and are prospering. There is no "priest shortage" in these churches! One can also replace 'liberals' with any other term other than 'orthodox' and get the same story. Try it.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/mar2001p6_149.html

If there is disorder in the manor house, then there will be disorder and confusion in the field. 1 Tim 3 is worthy of reflection. Head this!


Best regards,
Joe Thur

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe,

The Lincoln diocese has since seen the opening of another seminary, of the Fraternity of St. Peter, which is training priests for the Tridentine Rite. Bishop Bruskewitz must be doing something right.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Yea, because the Tridentine Mass is the only valid Latin Church Mass. Just Kidding!

Dear Joe,

It is always such a blessing to see you hear and receive the unction contained in your words!!

I don't mind saying that I would LOVE to be a Priest in our Church.

It still bothers the HECK out of me that I didn't get ordained.

I will probably live with that disgusting feeling for the rest of my life.

I think I post here as many times as I do because it gives me a "crypto-priestly" feeling.

But when I was in my prime for priesthood, I faced the alternative of either going into the local RC seminary and thus be effectively cut off from the liturgical and spiritual traditions of our Church or else go to Rome where I would spend all sorts of time learning Latin and Italian when my Ukrainian was rusty - and also run the risk of being cut off from the spirituality of the people I would later have served.

I needed a seminary that reflected the spiritual/liturgical/cultural identity of our Church and people.

There wasn't one when I was in my prime.

Now I'm passed my prime, but I still feel the need to reach out and minister to people.

May God help me!

Alex

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

You are never too old

We have just ordained a priest who will be 65 in October. And sadly that is the only Ordination in Glasgow this year.

You never know till you try. Fr Frank has always wanted to be a priest but he had to look after his Mother so trained as a doctor first.


May Our Mistress keep you in Her care and present your cause to Her Son

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Our Lady's slave of love ]

Dear Angela,

Well, the only problem is that I wouldn't be able to take the time to get myself a proper theological education.

I've read this and that over the years, when I felt moved or just plain wanted to.

As you can tell by my posts, that kind of "theological formation" leads to a haphazard orientation at best with heavy reliance on flippancy et al.

I can't be a priest with that kind of training.

Although perhaps I just might be a tad more entertaining, do you think?

Alex

Alex,

Do you think the first bishops and priests had years of theological training? Not at all, in fact, for most of the history of the church, Holy Tradition has been passed down within the local churches to her children by other priests and laymen. Not in "theological" seminaries.

This works when people realize that true knowledge comes to holy men through prayer and spiritual reading. Knowing through experience answers questions that have never been asked. This is spiritual knowledge.

Knowing only though intellectual reading such as in the seminaries only eduacates the mind.

The difference is profound. The same difference perhaps as an astronaut who has gone to the moon and an astronomer who has only studied it affar.

Now I'm not saying I want you to be a non-orthodox anything, but it is within everyones reach to go to the spiritual seminary.

<<<

Will wonders never cease? We are entirely agreed on this point. Perhaps I am a bit more pravoslavnich that you think?

Dear Friends,

O.K. you two "OrthodoxyorDeaths"

Yes, I agree that such intellectual "book-larnin'" isn't the way of the Fathers etc.

And I guess Stuart is a walking example of what can happen when one studies these things too much - kidding, kidding, put down that stick please Stuart!

I am trying to be open to what OOD has said is the "seminary of the spirit." I find I am reflecting on my reading and prayer more etc.

Unfortunately, that doesn't cut it with the modern requirements for ordination.

So, although I feel better from a) OOD's reflective comments and b) that people on seemingly opposite ends of the spectrum like Stuart and OOD can find agreement, I'm still where I started from.

Thanks anyway!

Alex

Can we relate to what was said to the original post regarding those dioceses that do NOT have a vocation crisis?

1 Tim 3 covers the ability to manage (economia) a household as 'A' requirement for being a church overseer. Does it stipulate 'HOW' that overseer should manage? How does that requirement relate to the form that theological education takes? Maybe the traditional seminary format is over-rated? I recently watched a program on TV about how Ethiopian Orthodox Christians study for the priesthood. Nothing was mentioned about 'seminaries.' They studied under a priest and learned the Scriptures by writing the entire Bible by hand. No computers. They have maintained their tradition unadulterated for centuries by this method, whereas seminaries can introduce Latinisms and scholastic principles almost overnight and nearly destroy the patrimony of a church.

Orthodoxy has proven, in the links above, that fidelity to church teaching is the key formula for success and not all these 'isms' and/or agenda-driven programs. How can we as Byzantine Catholics benefit from this fact? How can our current forms of theological training/education preserve our patrimony better than the Ethiopians? Is it possible? Should we mandate every seminarian to write out the entire Bible by hand, read all the Fathers and Councils, attend Matins and Vespers and sing ALL the stichera, etc? Or will this be too simple? Will this method help church overseers manage the church household better and get more vocations?

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe,

Sorry to have strayed from topic, Big Guy!

The Ethiopians also have a church order called "Debtera" which is the old role of the "Temple Scribe."

Priestly formation begins rather early with years of memorization of liturgical and scriptural texts.

For example, they must know by heart the first 17 verses of the Gospel of John.

The Russian Church trained people in this same way under communism, and are now obliging these priests to take seminary training.

Arguments supporting seminary-based training say that the priests should be as educated as the members of their own flocks are and should also have formal training in pastoral counselling etc. that goes beyond scriptural/patristic training and is necessary for relating to people's problems in contemporary society.

The canons of our Church still seem to stipulate the old methods of priestly formation when they require candidates to know the Psalms and the Gospels and the Canons in general.

Are you suggesting that seminary training as we have it today should be overhauled completely or somewhat? Is seminary training one more Latin thing that we have tended to swallow hook line and sinker?

You've raised a fascinating issue.

Alex

Alex,

My questions are in regards to establishing orthodoxy and maintaining vocations - as evidenced by the links in the first post. The Latin dioceses that stick to orthodoxy (and have traditional seminaries) are not having a vocation 'crisis.'


Let's say you have a person who has learned his or her faith via the liturgy, singing the hymns, and studied scriptures. The person is very orthodox in belief and dedicated to his/her particular patrimony in conveying that faith. They have also read the Fathers of the Church.

Let's say you have another person who has been well educated in theology with degrees and all. He/she is very Latinized, will not attend Byzantine vespers or matins (too Orthodox), and will continually rely on Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Trent, and Vatican I because they "speak the mind of the Church."

Which person do you want in charge of your parish religious education program?

Dear Joe,

Since I'm an idiot, please bear with me!

I understand the very important and dynamic argument you are making.

It is probably the sociologist in me that is having trouble understanding small "o" orthodoxy versus big "O" Orthodoxy here.

By "traditional orthodox" I take it that there could be a Novus Ordo seminary that can fit this bill as there can be one that does not.

If I were a traditional Catholic parent, I would tend to prefer the "traditional orthodox" but I just might be worried about such "to" people teaching my kids in the event they should decide to criticize the Pope or the Vatican for what THEY perceive is a policy that doesn't fall under their definition of 'traditional Catholic."

If the Eastern CAtholics have seminaries that are largely Latin holding tanks of Thomistic thought, then does this mean we shouldn't have seminaries at all?

There are Orthodox seminaries that aren't Latinizing.

There is also a mindset that sees someone who knows the Scriptures, the Fathers et al, but that would question their competency to teach religion because they have no formal theological training as evidenced by a lack of a degree in that area.

I had a similar issue when I taught religion. Our bishop gave me his blessing to teach and even to counsel etc.

The principal wanted a seminarian.

As for who is "traditional" in all this is a mystery to me.

I agree with you and your argument, but the people can look at things differently and I don't feel comfortable predicting what they would do as I don't know and when I have, I was wrong.

As for increased vocations when there is a traditional orthodox commitment - that could also be due to the fact that people may be fed up with the insecurity of doctrinal variations such as is found in the liberal Catholic tradition.

People may be fed up with change for the sake of change and may want a "no-nonsense" theological approach that is secure and non-threatening, hearkening, as it does, to the "good old days."

That kind of mind-set can be very attractive, to be sure, and can lead to more vocations.

But does it solve the problem of having more visionary leaders who are willing to make the needed changes in the Church that others see and that bishops often blindly oppose?

A visionary leader is by definition "non-traditional" in that he is willing to try new roads and act on his own insights in terms of how he sees the Church growing.

The weakness in both the traditional seminary "Thomistic" training and "traditional orthodoxy" is that they are focused on what was, rather than on what can be.

Alex

"The weakness in both the traditional seminary "Thomistic" training and "traditional orthodoxy" is that they are focused on what was, rather than on what can be."


This got me asking: Isn't Christian theology founded on the what was? Isn't Tradition the "handing down" of something from before? Isn't anamnesis a participation of the eternal then? Can we quench our thirst from a wellspring of worship that is dried up or plugged?

Thinking outside the box is quite different than having an open mind (whereby one's brain can fall out). The curriculum of those Latin seminaries that are full are not simply stuck in the past (though they do include Thomas Aquinas in their studies) but also the current here-and-now directives of Vatican II, papal encyclicals, their catechism or the CCC, etc. They maintained the old wine by putting it into new wineskins.

Why is orthodoxy (do not read: traditionalism) such a sure-fired formula for success? Why is fidelity (the implied living meaning of orthodoxy?) such a worthwhile adventure? Traditional-ism is something totally different. Traditional-ism is stuck in the past along with its partner, Fundamentalism. Neither is cut out to "hand down" the faith to future generations like Tradition and orthodoxy.

The interesting thing is that these bishops remained faithful to their church teaching and are ministering to their people. They have an identity and are acting on it. The people aren't confused or wondering when the authorities will finally get things right. And the overseers didn't have to wait until somebody gave them a green light to act like a bishop.

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe,

O.K., O.K., now we're cookin' with gas!

Yes, the Christian message is both historical and must be adapted to contemporary times without modernizing it.

But I still can't help thinking that what you, as one of our foremost Byzantine Catholics, mean by "traditional" would be different than what an RC would mean.

And if the differences between you are complementary, rather than divisive, then isn't the reason for increased vocations among "traditional" dioceses run by traditional bishops something other than the fact that they have decided to "go by the book" in terms of faith and morals?

Our Byzantine Catholic communities tend to be "traditional" in ways that exceed the RCs.

How do we become more traditional than we are?

Or is it a question of us becoming more of what the successful RCs are - with a greater emphasis on good public relations, outreach and "hands on" applied Christianity?

You make great arguments when you're even slightly annoyed with someone like me, Joe!

Alex