www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Trusteeship

The fact that the tsar or emperor or whatever civil authority was in power, also had control over the parish churches' temporal goods, demonstrates yet again how these often "foreign" powers attempted to manipulate our people. Far from a likeness to the situation in this country, where the parish committees or "upravas" had the direct responsibility for ensuring the ongoing welfare of the parishes, making sure that all matters temporal were provided for, including the upkeep of the church buildings, the salary of the priest and cantor, improvements and advancements of the church in the material realm (schools, new churches, rectories, etc.), that members kept up to date with their stewardship (dues, weekly and special contributions, etc.) and much more, the civil powers in Europe cannot always be said to have had the same concerns. Moreover, it was easy for a temporal ruler to keep control over his/her subjects when their very existence depended on that ruler's benevolence.

That the Orthodox Church was directly supported by the state in countries such as Russia, up to and including the Soviet period, is evident in the mentality of the church even today. As an official "state religion" Orthodoxy had the comfort of a captive audience in regards to membership and the control exercised by the state over the church was easily translated a step further, to that of the hierarchy over the uneducated and manipulated laity. Besides creating an oppressive atmosphere all around, this comfortable arrangement also stymied any great evangelical zeal that those churches would have otherwise have had to maintain in order to keep people in the church. The effects of this arrangement can be seen today in the mentality of the Russian Church, which clearly wishes to remain the one and only source of spiritual edification in the country.

Of course, a similar situation can be said to have existed in those officially Roman Catholic countries, where the Latin monarchs acted much in the same way as those in Orthodox states.

In the case of our people in the Carpathian mountain region of then Austria Hungary, our bishops had their hands full merely trying to get the support due the clergy and parishes out of the then-called "religious fund." Being "second class" citizens, both of the empire and the Catholic Church, "the powers that were" did not easily relinquish any extra funds to our people. The bishops had to appeal time and again to the government at Budapest, in order for our clergy to be on the payroll and our church buildings and institutions supported in the manner that the Roman ones were. Eventually, this arrangement was secured through repeated efforts of our hierarchy.

So to say that the tradition of lay leadership in Orthodoxy in both the old and new countries is consistent, is to over simplify the issue and to look at it simultaneously from two different perspectives. As difficult as the trustee system has often been for our clergy and parishes, I think it is fair to say that the interests of particular congregations were met with a far greater amount of concern than in the days when the churches were directly supported by civil rulers, often far withdrawn from the experiences of the "common people in the pews."

Fr. Joe

Oh yeah, what Fr. Joe just said.

Here is an interesting commentary on "trusteeism" from the perspective of the OCA, taken from the history section of their website:
__________________

The creation of "new immigrant" parishes was independent of any ecclesiastical assistance and, in many cases, even formal hierarchical approval. The experience of a New Britain (Connecticut) parish was typical:

In Russia only the Tsar builds churches. How can you build a church in America?" questioned one immigrant. So the brotherhood devised the following plan. First each of them placed $5 on a table; then the new immigrant was asked to do the same. The new man was then asked to select one of his own friends as treasurer for the money, holding it in trust until such time as it would be needed. Using this approach, the Brotherhood found and attracted many. [2]

The parish churches that resulted from the efforts of these local brotherhoods were responsible only to their own "trustees," that is, to a democratically elected parish council composed of prominent laymen. In most instances it was only after purchase (or less often, construction) of a building that the trustees turned to a bishop for a priest.

Unlike other Eastern European Catholic immigrants (Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, etc.), Uniate Slavs could not easily merge into the Roman Catholic Church in America. Seeking to forestall a resurgence of "Cahenslyism" -- a 19th century lay movement in American Roman Catholicism that demanded that priests and bishops be of the same ethnic background as their parishioners -- the Catholic bishops in the United States openly sought to discourage the establishment of specifically Uniate (Greek Catholic) parishes. Largely ignorant of the historical, cultural, linguistic, and liturgical particularities of the Uniate Church, the Catholic bishops preferred that Uniate "new immigrants" attend instead existing Latin-Rite Hungarian, Polish, or Slovak parishes.

This general hierarchal antipathy was exacerbated by the reluctance, and often refusal, of Uniate "trustees" to sign over their new parish properties to Irish-American bishops as required by Roman Catholic canon law. Lawsuits, forced evictions, and even occasional rioting were not uncommon as "independent" Uniate parishes, led by their trustees, struggled with authoritarian, and increasingly hostile, Latin-rite Catholic bishops for control of Greek-Catholic properties and assets throughout the United States.

_________________

Across the board, trusteeism in our early history is well documented and in general agreement. I thought that some might appreciate this evaluation of the situation from a source outside of our church, as it relates to the topic here.

Fr. Joe

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

Fr. Joe,

I have heard it said that one of the contributing factors in the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church was the issue of lay ownership of Church property and control of parish finances. In your studies have you come across any information that supports such a claim?

Thanks again for sharing your wealth of knowledge and your wisdom with us here.

Steve

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your kind words. They really mean a lot to me.

Regarding the Polish National Catholic Church, I have not studied its particulars that much, but I believe that you are most likely correct in your estimation that trusteeism, which was prevalent in "ethnic" parishes was one of the factors in the formation of the PNCC.

Some other issues may well have been married clergy and the make-up of the episcopacy, but I'm not certain.

Good point and an insightful contribution.

Fr. Joe