I heard that Bishop Pataki is retired? Is this true?

Yes. It was announced Thursday.

Yes...it was released approximately 6 am on 12/6

Bishop William from Van Nuys is moving to Passaic...Fr. Dino is being elevated to the new bishop of Van Nuys...

May His Excellency, Bishop Pataki have a blessed and fruitful retirement! Prayers for the new Eparch of Passiac.

Slava Isusu Khrystu!

I am going to miss Bishop Andrew Pataki. I really liked him. He gave some really good homilies.

I met Fr. Dino briefly about a year ago while doing some research on St. George's parish in Linden. He was a very nice and helpful Priest. I think Van Nuys got a good one there.

Thank you!

I have also heard that Fr. Gerald is a great priest. A fellow parishioner here at St. John Chrysostom (Seattle) has a relative in his current parish and has met him. By the way, is his last name pronounced DEE-NO or DIE-NO?

I'm not sure. I said DEE-NO when I met him and was not corrected, but sometimes that gets a pass. I attended the liturgical vespers there as well. It was a well attended service and there was a choir singing the responses. The church building was, shall we say, Unique.

If someone tells me how to do it I'll try to get and download some pictures.

He will be installed in March, we were advised on Sunday.

A.M.D.G.

hawk

Glory to Jesus Christ
Hawk, I believe the term is ordained.
Actually, the ordination of a bishop is a magnificent event. I would recommend all who could attend on March 27 be there.
The date in 2008 is Bright Thursday.
Additionally, the installation of a bishop in a new eparchy is referred to as an enthronement.
Deacon El

I can only hope that the new bishop is more attentive to our church than Pataki.

Bishop William has been our bishop for three years now (or about that, I don't remember exactly). He is young and can keep up a busy schedule. The Van Nuys Eparchy contains New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawiaii, and Alaska. Talk about geographic diversity! I've had the pleasure of meeting him several times when he visited our parish in Seattle and at the annual Pilgrimage to the Shrine of our Lady of Perpetual Help in Olympia. He will probably welcome a smaller (geographically) epachy--though certainly larger in number of churches and people.

Is the west coast larger than the east coast???

Of course not. At least the coast itself, but by the time you add Alaska and Hawiaii and the distances necessary to travel in between, it does add up. Most of our parishes are somewhat distant from each other as well.

Hey! We're the new kids on the block out here for the most part. That's something for a 1300-year-old church. (I'm thinking of the conversion of the Slavs as the beginning date for Ruthenians. I realize other dates are also valid.)

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am reminded of the story when Metropolitan Basil was still the Bishop of Parma. He visited the Eparchy of Van Nuys (which had previously been part of the Eparchy of Parma), and when he was greeting the faithful, he said �I bring you greetings from the Old Country...Ohio�!

Deacon El

Deacon El,

It is charming to hear people at our church in Ohio refer to Pennsylvania as "the old country" or even better, "the holy land."

John Murray

When I visited Descent of the Holy Spirit UGCC in western Massachusetts a few years ago, one of the parishoners I talked to said, "Oooooh! The HOLY Land!" when I told him I was from Pittsburgh originally.

My pastor had Fr. Dino (DIE-NO) for dogmatics when he was in seminary, and said he is a wonderful teacher.

I remember that when Bishop William was to be ordained, we were all encouraged to attend because they said it would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to experience, given that Bishop William is so young. I believe that Fr. Dino (God grant him many years!) is about 67 years old, so it looks like we will have not only a twice, but possibly a thrice-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I thought the term was *consecration* since the priest becoming a bishop was already *ordained*. Is the term *ordination* used for both ranks of clergy?

Ed

Ed
Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Church there are three Major Orders - Bishop, Priest and Deacon to which one is ordained. The Holy Apostles appointed seven men (Church Tradition calls them "Deacons") to perform a special serving ministry (Acts 6:2-6) and in his first Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul speaks of various ministries in the Church (1 Cor. 12:28). Likewise, he addresses his Letter to the Philippians, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). In his first Letter to Timothy, the Holy Apostle also speaks of the qualifications of Bishops and Deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13), as well as in his Letter to Titus (1.5-9).

Ordinations to the Major Orders always occur during the course of the Divine Liturgy. Only the Bishop has the power to ordain. Because of the collegial nature of the episcopacy, a college of Bishops (at least two or three) are necessary to ordain another Bishop. And since any ordination requires the consent of the whole people of God, at a particular point in the Service the assembled congregation proclaims Axios! {He is worthy!), showing their assent.

The rite of ordination to the episcopacy is very solemn and the Bishop is ordained in the Sanctuary, in the midst of the Congregation before the singing of the Trisagion. Thus the reading of the Holy Gospel is done already with his blessing.

The Priest is ordained after the singing of the Cherubic Hymn before the sanctification of the Holy Gifts. The rite of ordination to the Deaconate is less solemn and takes place before the singing of the Lord's Prayer, when the sanctification of the Holy Gifts has already taken place, since the Deacon only assists at the performance of the Sacraments and does not perform them. At the conclusion of the Liturgy the Priest goes out to the people in order to read the Prayer Before the Ambo and the Deacon to say the final litany, these actions being the first external signs of their ministry.

In all cases of ordination to the "Major Orders," there is a laying-on of hands on the head of the one being ordained and the grace of the Holy Spirit is invoked.

Deacon El

Deacon El,
I feel that with your recent post I had flashbacks of my Holy Orders exam this past Monday

So, did you pass?

I think so - with flying colors, I think.

Protology / Theological Anthropology... well... we were all scratching our heads on that one.

But in seriousness, the development of the Church's teaching on Holy Orders and such truly is something else!

My family tells me that they were never consulted in who gets ordained in their church. It is usually a fait accompli by the time of the ordination service, and the choir usually sings it for the people.

What would happen if a number of the people began shouting *non Axios!*??? Would they and their lack of consent be escorted out of the church by the local police for having caused a public disturbance at a public worship service? My aunt tells me that there was much protest regarding one case (information withheld), but the bishop ordained him anyway because he needed priests. A few years later, the priest resigned after being charged in a pedophile case. Would that have happened if the bishop really listened to the consent or lack of consent?

This *Axios!* part seems to be no longer a real consent part of the service, but a mandatory response to a fait accompli. I don't buy it. One of the protestors of the ordination I mentionied above was the man's pastor!

Ed

Notoriously, about 30 years ago two bishops were ordained in a certain US city. The ordinations were about as popular as greased pigs in an Orthodox Jewish synagogue. The church was packed to the gills for the ordination service - with people shouting ANAXIOS at the top of their lungs. The noise was so great that the clergy at the altar could not hear the attempts of the choir to sing the responses (nor could the choir hear what they were supposed to be responding to). It was completely impossible to attempt to give Holy Communion to any of the faithful, nor could the two men go through the church to give blessings (which, presumably, the people did not wish to receive anyway). And on, and on - adding any more details would serve no good purpose.

Fr. Serge

Father Keleher,
Obviously, their shouts were not *heard* despite being the loudest. This is why I don't buy the idea that an ordination requires the consent of the whole people of God. What really matters is the ordinations were still carried out to satisfy whoever picked them, right? From what I have been reading here on these forums, church leaders aren't even picked from one's own local community; they are hand-chosen from outsiders, ordained, and assigned to a community. Fait accompli. I think Eastern Catholics are mistaken when they actually believe or fooled into believing things about themselves that are not really accepted or practiced in their churches. this is my opinion. I could be wrong, but your story only confirms that the people's consent really doesn't matter anyway. *Axios!* was still said by someone (the choir supposedly singing it for the people) and that is what mattered.

Ed

I didn't offer an analysis. Yours is far too simplistic. But you're welcome to try again.

Fr. Serge

I didn't think you did. My analysis, no matter how simplistic it is, is simple (no pun intended) - consent of the people does not exist. It is mere lip service. Real consent probably existed in the early church. The people's consent has become liturgized into a hymn carrying with it no meaning or weight other than another response to be taken from the service books. I am interested in knowing when the last time, if ever, Eastern Catholic churches actually voted for their own bishop? My guess is that Rome picks who is acceptable to them. I would say that this also the case when clergy are ordained to the priesthood. Clerical votes before an ordination and the people's assent during are not part of church tradition anymore. They get in the way of fait accompli.

30 years ago brings us to 1977. Let's see ...

Ed

I carefully wrote "about 30 years ago". But seek and perhaps ye shall find.

As to when Eastern Catholic bishops were last elected, the answer will surprise you.

Fr. Serge

Christos Razdajetsja! (Christ is Born!)
Slavite Jeho! (Glorify Him!)

I remember reading several times in different books about how popes used to be elected. And the crowd back then definitely had a say! If the crowd didn't like the person put forward, back went all the Cardinals to elect another one more desireable. I love the fact that the people would actually lock the cardinals into a building and not let them out until a pope was elected. And if needed, put them into a building with no roof to help speed the process up a tad!

Of course, there's the wonderful election of the pope at the beginning of the 1900's and the Ambassador of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's opinion/orders.

How far back do we really need to go to find a time when the election of anyone was a true event, not laden with politics and agendas? I guess the word "agenda" might have a meaning that is relative to one's own viewpoint. A cynic would say Ignatius the I. But I'm not a cynic. The job was too dangerous to have until Constantine came along and made it into something that was desirable, not something that could get you martyred.

Happy New Years to one and all, a bit early.

Tim

OK, I give up.
Ed

How else can one talk of Sub-Alleghanian Rus?

There were only two incidents of actual conclave, iirc--though the name has stuck. The people of Rome, upset about the cardinals' enjoying their stay a bit to much to bother with the business at hand, locked them in the building with the leaky roof with (con) a key (clave), where they were forced to subsist on water, wine, and bread until they delivered a pope.

I want to say the 1100's, but I'm fuzzy on that. I also want to say that there was a similar event a couple of hundred years later.

Anyway, it certainly leads to daydreams about the five Great Patriarchs: "You may come out when you figure out how to concelebrate . . ."

hawk

Meetings, including church meetings, should be held in a conference room with no chairs. Some companies practice this, and so much gets accomplished in so little time.

For the next conclave: no chairs, no room, little food, no shoes to stand on stone floors. The next Pope will be elected in fifteen minutes.

Ed

The College of Cardinals is indeed locked in - Prince Chigi usually holds the outside key. And at least the last two or three conclaves have not roused complaints of having lasted too long!

Fr. Serge