www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization What must be done in order to start new parishes?

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.