www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Results of examining Eastern Code of Cannon Law

No, the extra-territorial bishops and clergy, like Winipeg and the North American Melkites very much enjoy the status quo and were quite instrumental in maintaining their position. It has ntohing to do with latinizaion but with the degree of national ID of the extraterritorial eparchies. Among the extraterritorial churches, opinions spilt down almost exactly along lines of language of worship (Ukrainian or Arabic for patriarchial authority, English or French for autonomy). Basically these eparchies feel they are in a different environment than Lviv or Damascus and beleive they should have a certain autonomy from the patriarchate.

I find it interesting it is not self-evident that this relates to the agenda of those who would like to see the community have less of an "ethnic" ID. Patriarchial authority is recongized by everyone as detrimential if not fatal to that agenda.

As to the Orthodox, I'm not sure that is true that they take offense with this and I would certainly lose respect for them if it was. They have their own admitted difficulties with the pluralism of bishops in the same territory. The canonical authority for any patriarchial church to set up shop at will within the jurisdiction of another particiular church seems questionable, at best.

Obviously, the Ruthenians have already made our decision as to if we are an eastern church in America with a special relationship with our forebearers in Europe, or an appendage of a European church. had we chosen the later, I would bet this conversation would not be taking place in English.

K.

Just as a point of clarification, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the operations of the Byzantine Catholic Seminary Press. Proceeds do not benefit the seminary. The BCSP originally began operations in the basement of the seminary, hence the name. Having said that, I am not advocating that one should not support the BCSP, but if one wants to support the seminary, funds should be sent directly to the seminary.

As to the BCSP, Sr Seraphim has done a remarkable job in transforming the BCSP into a true resource center. If some of you had ever visited in the past, a new visit is in order. On display for sale were handwritten icons from Greece (Ikonotechniki)reasonably priced $15-$35 depending upon the size. She is also working on expanding the titles offered by the bookstore.

Sorry for going off topic, but I felt a clarification was needed.

OOPS! I just clicked on to the BCSP website from the byzcath.org homepage, and at the bottom of the page, there is a note that the BCSP does in fact support the seminary. Things must have changed under Sr Seraphim's management, because according to the seminary treasurer no support came from the BCSP to the seminary from prior management. Sorry for my confusion.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: bisantino ]

This should not be the place to debate the credibility of past or present Byzantine Seminary Press management, but implications made in the previous post, I believe demand it. It is well known that the late Msgr. John Opalenik worked tirelessly for the good of the "seminary press" over the course of many years. To attempt to discredit his long tenure of dedication to this cause, especially without concrete evidence, is cowardly and in poor taste. I find it overwhelmingly disappointing that someone would, first make claim that, the well publicized premise upon which the Byzantine Seminary Press has operated since its inception was not true, only to qualify this claim by stating that, while true now, it is something totally new to the philosophy of the organization. It is not a new premise at all, but has been the goal of the press ever since it was located in that "basement room of the seminary" which many of us remember from visits to the facility over the decades.

The issue of exactly how much support the seminary has received through the operations of the "bookstore" is also not something which necessarily reflects on the capability of past or present managers, but rather would more indicate an effect of the economy during various times, the increase of availability of product and the amount of business generated into the seminary press through a growing demand for Byzantine style church goods. I do not believe that "bisantino's" source among the Pittsburgh echelon, identified as the treasurer of the seminary, would stand behind the alleged quote that no financial support has come into the seminary coffers from past management of the seminary press. If nothing indeed was ever submitted, the entire basis for the foundation of the press (again, it was always the case that proceeds go toward the support of the seminary) would have been defeated and certainly noticed by administrators. To be sure, the major sources of support for the operation of the seminary may come from elsewhere, such as individual eparchial contributions, fund raising campaigns and the generosity of faithful benefactors, to name just a few.

So, unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary, I would assert that much is indebted to Msgr. Opalenik for decades of service to the Byzantine Seminary Press, traveling long distances from his parishes in Eastern Pennsylvania to oversee the operations of the store, not to mention many hours spent ordering products or dealing with customers, a task that those of us who had the privilege of dealing with him know that he did quite well and efficiently. His professional style was only enhanced by the capable assistant who actually ran the store, a person who took the time to know customers personally and cater to their diverse needs.

It is true that Sr. Seraphim has done a marvelous job in bringing the seminary press into the next chapter of its existence, and the accomplishments of Msgr. Opalenik only compliment her own personal style and goals for the future. Things all change at some point, out of necessity and in answer to differing times. But this transformation is nothing new. Msgr. Opalenik, in the years prior to his death, had added many new facets of the seminary press, including vestments and an increased resource of church goods and vessels from Greece and elsewhere. Both managers are being true to the historical aim and style of the bookstore, in offering needed and reliable products. One of the features that distinguishes the seminary press is that it has always offered products that no other firm makes available, and many items that are particular to its own production and inventory, several of which include icon and leaflet series, metalware, liturgical books and gospel book refurbishing services. It does not simply carry items that are available at every other Eastern Christian supply house. That would be redundant. There has always been creativity in the stocking of the shelves at the seminary press.

So, the "transformation into a true resource center" that "bisantino" sites is merely a continuation of the good progress that the seminary press has made over the years. As with any retailer, a "new visit is certainly in order" to the seminary store, as there would naturally be new items available each season. If I shop at a local department store, for instance, Macy's or another competitor, I would not logically feel that I have seen everything they have to offer and I would return each season for new and divergent items. If their stock was the same each year, then they would not be meeting the demands of the consumer population. The same holds true for the Byzantine Seminary Press and other religious suppliers. There is often new merchandise available, and in my observation, Msgr. Opalenik did his best and Sr. Seraphim is doing her best to meet new customer trends and an increasingly versatile market.

I hold firm to my encouragement that everyone support the Byzantine Seminary Press (this is the official name that has been used for years, not the "Byzantine 'Catholic' Seminary Press" as given in the last installment on this thread - trite I know, but we should sound as if we are familiar with our topics - BSP not BCSP would be the proper abbreviation) as much as possible, as their inventory meets your particular needs. Our mutual goal is singular, to support our own firms when available and to contribute to the overall support of the seminary, which holds the key to the future of clergy in the Ruthenian Church of the US.

While I apologize for the length of this contribution, I too felt that a clarification was needed, one based on the long history of the seminary press, not ill-founded presumptions which are not true. I would hope that bisantino is willing to apologize to the readers of this forum and the larger community who are faithful customers of the seminary press, for his comments directed at the long-time manager of the firm, Msgr. John Opalenik. Fairness to his good name, especially now that he is deceased and unable to defend his accomplishments personally, dictate such a "clarification" and retraction of unfounded statements.

I regret sounding harsh, but the reputations of good people are at stake and Christian service to defend the dignity of those implicated compelled me to this long post. God bless all of you and may the operation of the Byzantine Seminary Press continue to be beneficial for both clients from the ecclesiastical community and those for whom the seminary is a vital part of life.

[ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Joe ]

I'd like to share some of my thoughts on the overall topic of the seminary and its implication for the whole church. This obviously should be a topic of its own, and I will also place the posting below into a new installment within this category. I feel that the significance of the seminary merits its discussion, so as to identify important goals for the present and future of the church, while focusing also on the historical contributions the institution has made since the 1950s. Someone once said, "All roads lead to Pittsburgh," and this phrase carries with it much truth in regard to the interaction of the whole Ruthenian Church in the United States that is facilitated through the medium of our seminary.

The building on Perrysville Ave. has been a source of both pride and concern during the more than five decades of its operation. The issues penetrating the life of individual parishes find a meeting place at the seminary, where they are shared and expounded upon, ideally to be brought back to the parish front, refreshed and instilled with new insight. At the seminary, gather priestly candidates from diverse parishes of the Metropolia, as well as now, non-resident students from the greater Pittsburgh and other areas. Each bring with them, a different insight into the church and individual needs and hopes. We are fortunate to be living in an era in which the seminary has evolved into this source of unity and creativity that was originally envisioned by its incorporators. The old saying "times change" is true in the case of "our" seminary and in this as in other instances, the change is, "not always for the worse but often for the better." I am speaking about the more open policy that has been adapted by the present seminary administration, reaching out to make the institution an important resource for the entire community.

The value of having our own seminary, where students can be trained, not only in theological knowledge, but also in the spirit and heart of our church, is worth much more than meets the eye. The benefit of daily Ruthenian liturgical services, familiarity with chant and language, and an overall all feel for the history and experience of the church can be gained at our seminary in a unique way that could not possibly be attained at any other institution of higher learning, no matter how good the academic reputation. The founders of the seminary, particularly the visionary Bishop Daniel Ivancho, were well aware of this when they moved to establish our own facility in which to educate candidates of the priesthood. Without the "dukh" or spirit of ecclesiastical life, which can be absorbed by weeks and years of living in the heart of the Metropolia at the seminary, our church runs the risk of assigning clergy who do not reflect the makeup of the church at large and who do not have a feel for where it has been and where it may be going. This, to me, is crucial to our future, while I do not deny the existence of some fine priests who have not matriculated in Pittsburgh, but who have absorbed the historical ethos of the church through other means.

Whatever the methods of attaining it, an understanding of the historical and cultural placement of the Ruthenian Church in the USA is vital to a pastor who both understands and meets the needs of his faithful. If we loose our sense of identity, which is particularly reflected in and communicated through the clergy, we will run the risk of loosing our very selves and thus there is the possibility of an irrelevant, if not non-existing church in the century to come. No matter how much some may wish to Americanize and remove the ethnic element from the Metropolia, (and I realize that many do), it is not helpful to loose identity with that which has molded our church into what it is today. To do so would be foolishness and contrary to the goals of any healthy institution. It can mark the death of a subculture, and in some ways, already has. In short, the church must both be aware of its past and present, and open to changing possibilities for the future, in order to exist as a part of society that meets the needs of all of its communicants, both new and old. Young people want to have a strong identify, but they also bring to the church new insights and needs. Attention to new concepts however, does not necessarily mean that we must throw away all that is old and has contributed to the church over its period of existence, making it into what it is today through great sacrifice and dedication. Change is important, but so is history, and the two cannot be separated for a strong future to be guaranteed.

It is interesting that just one facet of church life, the seminary, and within that grouping, the seminary press, can lend so much to an understanding of what we are about as a church, where we've been and where we are going. It strengthens even more, the vitality of the seminary as the epicenter of the life of the church at large, and its value as an asset that the whole community can participate in by using the seminary resources and activities to the full extent of their potential. This goal, of opening the seminary to the use of the whole church, both clergy and laity, seems to be on the top of the list of priorities of the current seminary administration, and they are to be commended for it. Much has been accomplished in recent years and the realization of the dreams of generations past are beginning to be fulfilled. A healthy seminary is a reflection of a healthy eparchy and Metropolia. We should all hope that our seminary will provide the link between past and future that is so needed for the church to continue to evolve and to remain strong for our posterity. It is my prayer that this continuity will become a reality for years to come.

Joe Lavryshyn

In light of the historical consciousness that is vital to any church, I want to address a statement made in a previous response to this posting. It is a small matter, but one that I feel is important to a fair evaluation of the ongoing role of heritage as a means of strength in the present day. While I agree with much of what Kurt posts, I want to clarify what is the reality in many patriarchal churches. If history had taken a different route, and the Ruthenian Church in the US was in fact, a part of a larger patriarchate or major-archbishopric in the ancestral homeland, this would not mean at all, (as was stated in the response about canon law and the territorial boundaries of patriarchates), that we would not be having these discussions in English. This is a shallow assertion. From what I have observed in countless large parishes which are strong entities, those who support both a historical and active connection with the churches to which their communities owe their origin, are not all new immigrants who do not have a command of the English language or American customs, but are often very well educated and diversely versed second and third generation Greek Catholics or Orthodox, who realize the importance of maintaining a living relationship with a larger body that gives their individual parishes a sense of belonging and a grip on the basis of why they exist.

To assume that everyone who insists on the value of historicity and the connection of our churches to our ethnic roots is a backward individual is both insulting and inaccurate. So too, the ecclesiastical institutions that include churches in the infamous "Diaspora" are not by nature, unaware of or insensitive to American concerns and realities, and are very capable of conducting business in English or whatever language may be spoken where the parishes exist. After all, a patriarchate by nature should at least ideally, consist of a synod of bishops from all of the locations in the jurisdiction. Historical consciousness also means a service to the truth of history and the reality of the present, not one's own preconceived and possibly inaccurate notions of what may or may not be historically correct as well as their desires for the present situation. This is not to say that problems may not exist in an understanding on the part of "old country" bishops of their "new world" adherents. It would be hoped however, that dialogue could exist in these situations and also that there would be a large degree of autonomy on the part of local eparchs and eparchial councils. This how it is supposed to work, at least. I do not want to define whether or not a church should belong to a larger patriarchate, only to show that a church organized in this way does not mean that it is backward, illiterate in English or uncomprehending of global situations. . In the case of the Ukrainian Church, this position is strengthened by the fact that Cardinal Husar is an American citizen and spent much time living in the United States.

From an outsider looking inward I can see your frustration with Rome.

It seems to me that our Eastern Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) connectivity to the old country is still a very important element. There is surely a problem if the hierarchical structure in the 'old country' considers the diaspora folks subservient and unable to survive on their own.

There are obviously two ways to approach this: either the 'diaspora' Christians establish their own synod and policies while remaining in close contact with the mother Church, or, they say sayonara and constitute an independent entity under their own synod that is in communion with the mother church but are administratively independent.

As Americans (and Canadians too, Alex!) and perhaps even in South America and in Australia and New Zealand, the Eastern Church cannot possibly survive by being totally subservient to the old country. It would be suicide what with intermarriage and outreach to the non-ethnic non-churched.

So, for survival (presuming that this is important), the Eastern church in a pluralistic land has got to be "of the nation" where it is serving. But, I'm afraid of the fact that without connections to our ecclesiastical brethren in the "old countries", we are in danger of becoming the Catholic/Orthodox equivalent of Protestant sects. We need to be sure that the spiritual patrimony and "pathway" are available to those who are in need of it, and that the Church community does not sever itself from its nourishing patrimony without at the same time being subordinated to it.

The main problem appears to be making sure that our ancestral Church brethren understand our need to be more independent and self-governing while still following our patrimonial pathway. The interaction between the old-country inheritors of the heritage and the new-country inheritors has got to be based upon the spirituality but not necessarily upon administrative structures. It is true 'fraternal Orthodoxy' and NOT subordinative hierarchy.

For Greeks, there is a connection with the Church of Greece (hey, that's where we're from!) but also with the Patriarchate of Constantinople which is inclined to allow American, Canadian, S. American, etc. groups to become more independent while remaining patriarchal.

I suspect that something is also true for the Ukrainians: diaspora Ukrainians can either identify as either "Ukrainian Ukrainians" (Kiev or Bust!) or as "Ukrainian Christians outside Ukraine" who love and respect the old country but are capable of governing themselves and making decisions based upon their peoples' territorial needs. (As an example, Ukrainian Christians in the U.S. NEED to have a dispensation from Philip's fast for Thanksgiving. You're just not 'American' if you don't celebrate the Thanksgiving feast with turkey and all the fixin's. In Kiev, they would have no clue.)

So, I guess my response is: Set up multiple synods within the patriarchate. Let each synod do what it must for its people. Let the synods come together for a "great Synod" under the Patriarch, but NOT let them infringe upon the wisdom of the local synodal hierarchs.

For the Ruthenians, let there be a Patriarchate. Let there be multiple synods: for Carpathia, for the Magyar, for Croatia, for the U.S., for Canada, for Latin America. Let them come together to do what is necessary for the Church. But allow each synod to shepherd its own people. Let the synods elect their own patriarch under a specific title (Uzhorod, Mukachevo, Preshov, etc.) but let the Patriarch live where he is planted. If we could get the "Church" to appoint bishops based upon the number of people and parishes being served, then perhaps -- just perhaps!! -- there might be an election of an American (Ruthenian) Patriarch based in Pittsburgh or elsewhere -- because that is where a large number of the faithful live.

The same could be done in Orthodoxy. Perhaps our Father in Constantinople could be allowed to live elsewhere while holding the title of Constantinople but could avoid the nastiness of living with the T-people.

Perhaps the idea of "geography" being the hallmark of the episcopal-directed Church, perhaps we should allow the multiple spiritual pathways to be the guide. I know that the 19th century response in the U.S. was the geographic one -- subordinating all the ethnics into one diocese. Maybe this was a mistake?

Blessings!

<<Last evening PBS broadcast a most wonderful documentary on the Papacy. It was glorious! Replete with ceremonial, history, pomp, pageantry, and all the other good stuff. And, while I was happy to feel "Catholic", I was also aware of the fact that this was "them" and I was "us" -- in communion, but not "of them".

OK?

Blessings!>>

I personaly like to think that we are all part of the One Body of Christ, the One Bride of Christ and the One Family of God. Rather than seeing it as a "Them and Us" kind of thing (I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite), I see it as an "ALL of us", kind of thing.

We all share one very important thing. We share the Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. It is this that unites us as One. So we have different ways of celebrating our Liturgies. Its what happens on the Altar that is the most important.

At the Divine Liturgy and at the Mass, we recieve our Lord. ALL of us do.

Sometimes I get the impression that some Western and Eastern Catholics believe that we are standing on opposite sides of some giant mountain, but we aren't. Our common faith in Christ MOVES mountains. Anyway, I just wanted to add my two cents. God bless you!

Bless you, SeaZephyr, for your thoughts and prayers. It is indeed true that on the spiritual level we share the Eucharist and the blesings that come from it.

The only difficulty is the fact that when some folks do different things and some other folks are uncomfortable with that, then what can we do? You are probably blessedly unique in your ability to even bother to visit here with us Byzantines (most Western Catholics wouldn't even bother), and your desire to understand where we are and where we are coming from tells me that the Holy Spirit has given you a special grace.

Please don't take our sometimes emotional response to inter-church affairs as a sign of lack of love. It isn't. It's just that we can't allow ourselves as a distinct minority-group to be overwhelmed by the majority way of life. What the majority do is most wonderful; but what we do is also wonderful and has led millions of our people home to the Father. We don't want to lose that because for some people, it is the only viable pathway to God, and the only viable route to salvation.

This is true not only for us "cradle" folks --it's our way of doing things; but also for the more sensitive (or artistic or emotional or liturgical) folks who just can't cut it in a Western spirituality church. If we weren't around, then they'd either leave Church-dom altogether, or join some other Unitarian style group (Love them, too; but they're still missing one hell of a lot of revelation!!!).

So, as I often say to Western Christians, PLEASE!, give us room to be who we are and don't use the usual yardstick to judge what we do and who we are. Our western brethren are family; we love y'all; but please don't come in and redecorate our home. We like our clutter and messy way of doing things. Hey, it's "US".

Blessings!

To Joe and others,

I apologize for my inability to convey my post accurately. It was certainly not my intent to cast any shadow upon Msgr. Opalenik's tenure as the manager of the Byzantine Seminary Press. Joe is right, Sr Seraphim is building upon the foundation left by Msgr Opalenik, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

What I wanted to convey was that the best way to financially support the seminary is through direct contributions. I know this may sound elementary, but given the reports in the BCW, we, the faithful of the metropolia, do a poor job of regularily financially supporting our seminary. (however, the recent capital campaign for the seminary, was a right step in that direction).

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: bisantino ]

<<This is true not only for us "cradle" folks --it's our way of doing things; but also for the more sensitive (or artistic or emotional or liturgical) folks who just can't cut it in a Western spirituality church. If we weren't around, then they'd either leave Church-dom altogether, or join some other Unitarian style group (Love them, too; but they're still missing one hell of a lot of revelation!!!).

So, as I often say to Western Christians, PLEASE!, give us room to be who we are and don't use the usual yardstick to judge what we do and who we are. Our western brethren are family; we love y'all; but please don't come in and redecorate our home. We like our clutter and messy way of doing things. Hey, it's "US".

Blessings!>>

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and loving response. Believe me, I would never dream of comming in and redecorating your home, nor have I any desire to. If I did, I certainly wouldn't feel as much love for my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters as I do.

In my immediate, earthly family, One of my sisters are of another culture than mine. My family has adopted numerous children, and one of them is a beautiful little Native American girl. I love her very much, she is in now way less my sister than my caucasian brothers and sisters. I have no desire to "Caucasianize" my beautiful little sister, and redecorate her native culture, my family celebrates her Native American heritage with her and teaches her how special and wonderful that it is.

So just as with my earthly family, so with my spiritual family, I can love and appreciate the cultural and liturgical differences without trying to change them.

Personaly, I have a very special love for Eastern Christianity, I find it extremely beautiful and have a few small Eastern Ikons in my home. My Great Grandfather was Russian Orthodox and my Grandmother was until she married my grandfather and converted to Latin Catholic. I still recall taking a certain test in Highschool Careers class where I learned that I was "whole brained", lol, if you have any idea what that means. It means that I use both sides of my brain almost equally so I can appreciate artistic and sensitive attitudes, which is why I love my Latin Rite, I find the artwork very beautiful and I take great joy in my own liturgy. Believe me, if I disliked liturgy, Latin Catholic would be the LAST thing I would have chosen (I am a former Pentecostal, and then, former Pagan and witch, I discovered the Truth of Christ and His Catholic Church through the intercession of the Theotokos).

I am alway trying to get my fellow Latin Catholics to have a proper understanding and attitude toward our Eastern brethren.

Many forget that it is not the Latin Rite that is the Apostolic See, it is the Church at Rome that HAPPENS to be OF the Latin Rite, and that all the Rites are completely equal. I try to make them understand that the Pope's office as Patriarch of the West and his office as the Holder of the Keys must be understood as two separate things (although I suppose the latter might have somehow influenced the result of the Pope being the Patriarch of the West).

Anyway, I take great joy in BOTH the East and the West, I have cultural ties to both (they are BOTH in my blood), but unfortunately, I cannot be both at the same time, as far as I know, so I will continue to love the Eastern Rites and Practices and artworks and continue to be a visiting brother when I desire to attend the Eastern Divine Liturgy while remaining a member of the Latin Church. Thanks again for your lovely response to my post, and God bless you!

Your Brother in Christ,
Rick Okarski Jr.

Hey, brother Rick, thanks for your response. Blessings to you and your wonderful family -- all of them! Let's continue to do what we can to make everyone in this world aware of the fact that we are all family because God is our Father.

Be well and Blessings!