Any word anywhere on a Metropolitan for the Ruthenians (Pittsburgh)?

Not yet. There is a recent thread on this same topic here.

If you take a look at the Church News section, you'll see that there has been quite a lot of news from the Eastern Catholic Churches recently, but nothing so far about the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

Who would possibly want the job?

Stuart,

I'm sure you'll agree that the best bishops are usually the ones who never wanted the job in the first place.

Oh, I am. But since we don't get to pick, it's definitely the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. And I don't hear any wheels squeaking right now. The tendency has been to play musical chairs--promoting one of the remaining three to the first chair, then raising a senior presbyter to fill the empty slot. I would like to see someone reach down deep and pick a young, dynamic presbyter who will do more than act as receiver of a bankrupt enterprise.

Podaj, Hospody.

I hear a lot of speculative, contradictory rumors. Keep in mind that Rome comes to a halt in the summer months. Too hot to do anything.

In support of the above statement of the good Deacon. They have left town. Rome is closed for the summer holidays.

Shhh! Don't say anything. We might get exactly what we are asking for.

Maybe we could elect someone and not tell Rome. It might be years before they get back to us, by which time our new Metropolitan could have conducted a thorough overhaul of the Ruthenian Church (at which point Rome will say, "What a great appointment! Glad we thought of it".

ROFL

LOL!

I was gonna suggest that, but since we seem to have our own issues these days with the same problem over in ACROD, I thought better of it! (Please don't suggest we get together on that over a cup of tea or a bottle of slivovitsa more likely. It wouldn't work out.....but it would put a scare into a whole lot of folks!)

The North American Carpatho-Rusyn Ruthenian Greek Catholic Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Patriarchal Church of Johnstown and Pittsburgh.

It's enough to send a chill up any Curial spine.

It might chill spines not just at the Vatican, but the Phanar too!

I did not know my ex-boss was made Pope? What happened to Pope Benedict?

Shalom,
Memo

You left out 'Indepedent'. The old timers loved that word.....LOL

For short that is the NACRRGCBCMPCJP. Or is that for long? Maybe we could just call it the Byzantine Orthodox Catholic Church in America abbreviation BOCCA. But, of course that acronym would give problems with its other definition.

bocca - a Florentine traitor

"Bocca" in Italian means "mouth", whence presumably the alternative meaning "traitor" (or "informer", "squealer"?). But you also have the "Bocca della Verità" [en.wikipedia.org] ("Mouth of Truth") at Santa Maria in Cosmedin (the Melkite church in Rome, by the way). So I still think BOCCA sounds good.

Also left out Autocephalic!

I suspect, though, that the chills would stop at the neck, to be replaced with suppressed grins at the head of each . . .

And perhaps mutual sighs of relief.....

BTW, It is nice that we can chuckle a bit at each other's expense, as we each have our own problems within our greater Churches with respect to being taken seriously by them for one thing.

No, no, just call it the "Carpatho-Russian People's Church." Oh, wait, that's been tried already!

Dn. David

Then there was 'St. _______ Carpatho Russian Independent Christian Church' of ____________, PA. We used to call them the " up the 'Cricc'" church in the old days...... They really, really, really wanted everyone to know that THEY owned the place - not any bishop, patriarch or pope......

Mind you, I am not endorsing any such stuff, just reminiscing!

Like they said in the old days,'Ani do Rim, ani do Moskvi!'

LOL, it occurs to me that the very 'vanilla' title of this thread allows for the query it poses it to serve a dual purpose and audience

Many years,

Neil

David,

There aren't any of the 'Independents' left, are there?


Translation, I think, 'Neither (to) Rome, nor (to) Moscow!' - am I right?

Many years,

Neil

I think there are still a scant handful of "Independent" churches - without counting such phenomena as breakaway Polish parishes.

That slogan should read "ani do Rymu . . ."

Fr. Serge

You got me Father, my memory failed me a a bit. Irish Melkite does have the meaning though...

Just our luck, our next one will be named, Barsanuphius the Latinizer. I guess I can hope not.

I hope that ours isn't something like 'Eupsychius, Scourge of the Western Lands'.

Really though, a simple, real person name would be great, like the common names we hear over and over again in the Hramota would do!

I remember standing there for what seemed an eternity as an altar boy years ago..."Familia FillintheBlank: Maria, Maria, Maria, Zuzanna, Zuzanna, Anna, Anna, Anna, Anna, Maria, Zuzanna,Parasaka (I had to get one odd one in there!)...."(I won't give any male examples as that would make some of you speculate....)

As strange as it may seem I actually heard a rumor today about the original subject of this post. I was told there is likely to be an announcement about the new Metropolitan in the next couple of weeks. My source is as credible as any I guess especially since it isn't me.

At least as of a couple of years ago, there was still a breakaway priest calling himself something like, "the American Byzantine Catholic Church" here in town, apparently a schism from my parish with a former priest.

hawk

Is that the parish where the priest was running a dope ring from the rectory, or the other one?

My reference to the 'Independents' was to the principally Carpatho-Rusyn (and a few Ukrainian, I believe) parishes that maintained an independent staus after separating from the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholics in the aftermath of the splits involving the clerical celibacy issues.

The majority of these were, I believe, initally motivated by a desire to avoid involvement with the then Russian Orthodox Metropolia. Most ultimtely came into communion with the ACROD, the OCA, or the Ukrainian Orthodox.

[None of these involved vagante, such as the one you describe. It was formed in 1994, still exists on S Eastern Ave, and styles itself as the ABCC Shrine of Our Mother of Perpetual Help.]

Many years,

Neil

Now Philadelphia has a new Latin Metropolitan. Cardinal Rigali was replaced today by Archbishop Chaput of Denver. It sounds like a pretty big change...

So, who knows, maybe the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh is next? Appointments do get made, even during the Roman summer holiday.

I have been told that this takes time....usually 3 are suggested and then one is chosen.

How hard can it be? There are only three remaining bishops. This means either (a) someone doesn't want the job (a distinct possibility) or (b) that one or more of the bishops objects to the candidacy of one of his brother bishops; or (c) that it has been made clear through back channels that one or more of the current bishops is not acceptable to the Holy See. All of those mean that the Council of Hierarchs must now dip down into the ranks of the presbyterate to find a candidate, which opens a whole new kettle of worms. Do they follow the example of the UGCC and pick some young, dynamic and eminently Eastern priest to lead the Metropolia? Or do they find some nice, safe, and relatively elderly monsignor who will maintain the status quo for the next decade or so? It's a critical decision, as the Metropolia will not survive another decade of drift.

We will survive in some shape or form. I don't expect any decision in August. The fact that Bishop Gerald will be ordaining the deacon class in Oct indicates that we aren't expecting installation before November at the earliest.

The timetable is my speculation only; I have heard nothing official (or even unofficial).

Anyone know how long after the Resurrection the Apostles named a replacement for Judas? Or elected the 5 deacons?

Apparently a few weeks in the case of Matthias. It was shortly after Pentecost, according to Acts. The Apostles considered it symbolically important to have an inner circle of Twelve, so as to represent the New Israel.

As for the election of the deacons (it was seven, not five, wasn't it?), that happened in response to an emerging pastoral need; i.e., to care for the "Hellenized" (non-Judean Jewish) members of the Church and to free up the Apostles to celebrate Liturgy and think weighty thoughts. From the internal evidence of the Bible, this must have happened within a year or so of the Resurrection. If Paul's conversion is dated to AD 36, and occurred after the death of St. Stephen, then the institution of the diaconate had to have occurred between late spring AD 33 and some time in AD 35, but probably much earlier than that, if Stephen was able to make such a name for himself as to attract the attention of the Sanhedrin.

Indeed, my impression from reading the Acts of the Apostles is that these issues were acted upon swiftly. According to the psedepigraphal Acts of Simon Magus, however, they sent names to Rome and are still waiting.

Wish I'd said that.

Maybe Stuart's got it right. His reasons sound spot on. How about the idea that no one wants the job, given the RDL. Would anyone actually want to be the one presiding over the final sinking of the ecclesiastical ship?

Bob

Theophan/Bob,

With all due respect, unless you are a prophet, speaking into the future may be suboptimal at best.

At the same time as I am in disagreement with your one sentence summary, I must admit that I pray not that my Ruthenian Mother Church will thrive by staying as she is, but that she would grow in faithfulness to her traditions, and by uniting with the other Byzantine jurisdicitons in this country. We have been divided for too long, for too few reasons. Keep the musical diversity, lose the canonical overlap. This is my prayer, even if our Metropolitan had been elevated in June of 2010.

In XC,
J. Andrew

Dear J. Andrew,

Your points are well taken and clearly articulated. May I suggest a serious discussion with Patriarch Sviatoslav during his forthcoming visit to the USA?

Fr. Serge

Not my party so to speak, but why would the Carpatho-Rusyns of the BCC want to be united under Philadelphia today any more than in 1920? Munkacs and Kiev hardly get along in Europe, wouldn't this just cause more strain within the Church? Same problem we Orthodox have.

The Ben Franklin cartoon of 1774 more than the Byzantine double-eagle applies to we Catholics in America today:

[Linked Image]

On the other hand, Roman policy towards the Eastern Catholic Churches has always been Divide et Impera.

DMD: This is exactly the kind of pessimistic attitude that stands in the way of reunion.
Ukrainian Greek Catholics and Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics have so very, very much in common, yet we worship in separate Churches. Perhaps in the 1910's and 1920's regional ethnic identification was an issue especially among the new immigrants from Eastern Europe, but today ethnicity should not be an issue relative to the merging of the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh Archeparchies.
Why not seriously consider the advantages of reunion? It would seem to be the only Christian and practical thing to do.

One of the big stumbling blocks to me considering orthodox church is the jurisdictional overlap and back-biting between them.
The orthodox churches can't understand how EC's can be in communion with Rome since there is an alleged chasm doctrinally. Yet I can see the example of EC trying to unite the two as a great act of love.

As many of us know, there are serious woes in both the Pittsburgh and the Philadelphia Metropolias. However, a serious discussion with Patriarch Sviatoslav might possibly be helpful. It would probably be impossible for most (if not all) the parishioners of the Pittsburgh Metropolia to explain what the difficulties were which brought on the original division.

I am unaware of any particular problems between Mukachiv and Uzhhorod. With the possible exception of the Hungarian parishes, the clergy and faithful all speak Ukrainian. The Bishop of Mukachiv was our guest here in Dublin one summer, and had no trouble serving, preaching, and conversing in Ukrainian.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge (et al.),
In the San Diego area (which is clearly not the rule as there aren't nearly as many parishes in places like Pan-Slav-ania), our Ruthenian parish has a growing relationship with the Ukrainian parish. As a concrete example, this past Lent we didn't have Presanctified liturgies on Wednesdays, and our parish bulletin noted that we can/should go to the Ukrainian parish on Wednesday nights. Conversely, we did have Friday evening Presanctified Liturgies and the Ukrainian parish didn't, and their bulletin noted that we had them.

This past week we had a catechist enrichment session, and it was led by the Father James of the Ukrainian parish. We invite each other to other events as well. Again, San Diego is a paradise not only in terms of weather, but in terms of seeing more interactions happening than what has been the case historically. I've heard that Bishop Nicholas Samra has this same goal in mind.

At any rate, I have thought about going to Chicago in September-some people from the local Ukrainian parish are going, and I may indeed coordinate with them. Does anyone know whether Patriarch Sviatoslav will be visiting other parts of the States?

In speaking to current or recent seminarians from our Ruthenian Seminary in Pittsburgh, I can sense that the tides are changing, albeit not to everyone's liking. And I can't help but pray that this will lead to more fidelity to our Orthodox traditions, as well as to more unity between Greek Catholics in the USA.

In XC,
J. Andrew

Hmmm...using some forward thinking:
1. A Rusyn/Hungarian (and a Romanian maybe??) metropolia within a real Patriarchate?
2. An ironclad agreement that all Rusyn traditions, chant and language be protected and honored.
3. An agreement that within the non-Ukrainian metropolia(s) there be encouragement to use the vernacular.
4. Rome's full agree that the Patriarchate extend into the diaspora
5. Along with #2, reinstitution of our traditional married
priesthood.

These "radical" ideas may sound impossible, but with God all things are possible. They would unite the Mother Churches with their daughter Churches in the diaspora.

I don't know. Even assuming a wildly optimistic 90% probability for each of those five events happening, cumulatively that's only 59%. Being more realistic, the probability falls close to nil. There will be communion with the Orthodox before there is jurisdictional unity among even the Ruthenians and Ukrainians in this country.

In Houston, TX, there are both Byzantine and a Ukrainian churches.
Fr. Elias who is priest at the Byzantine church speaks Ukrainian and serves the Liturgy at the Ukrainian church when their priest is not available. I believe the Byzantines even altered their Liturgy time so that their priest could serve both churches.

Is this unusual?

Many of the ethnic members of the two local Ukrainian parishes were once members of our Ruthenian parish in the early 70s, including one of the priests. One of the parishes is made up almost exclusively of immigrants and their children and we don't have much collaboration with them. We have a very close relationship with the other parish, however. This Sunday, their usual space for liturgy is going to be unavailable, so the entire parish, including their priest, will be joining us for Divine Liturgy. Our usual attendance is around 50 and theirs is somewhat less, so we're looking forward to having a full church for a change. I'm planning to arrive early to make sure I can get my usual seat!

Well, let's consider those "radical" ideas:

1. A Rusyn/Hungarian (and a Romanian maybe??) metropolia within a real Patriarchate?

There is already a Romanian diocese in the USA. Creating a separate Rusyn/Hungarian metropolia "within a real Patriarchate" needs full and careful consideration. What is meant by "a real Patriarchate"? Antioch and All the East?

2. An ironclad agreement that all Rusyn traditions, chant and language be protected and honored.

"Rusyn" traditions and chant are protected and respected in the Mukachiv Eparchy. As to language, see the next point.


3. An agreement that within the non-Ukrainian metropolia(s) there be encouragement to use the vernacular.

There is serious encouragement within the Patriarchate of Kyiv-Halych and All Rus to learn and use vernacular languages, including English, French, Irish, Spanish, and Ukrainian. I should think that this applies to languages; dialects are problematic


4. Rome's full agree that the Patriarchate extend into the diaspora

Rome seldom argues with success. But Rome is less likely to take the initiative.

5. Along with #2, reinstitution of our traditional married
priesthood.

Married priests for North America are ordained by the Romanians and the Ukrainians. The Ruthenian bishops seem to be reluctant in the matter.


So the "radical ideas" are not all that radical.

Fr. Serge

Here in the Dallas area I understand the UGCC broke of from the Ruthenian church because the priest refused to say DL in Ukrainian. Of course this is all heresay.
This is very sad and reminds me a lot of Protestantism... If true. The UGCC also missed a golden opportunity to grow as well when th RC down the street closed imo. But then again I am not amember so I don't know all the inner workings and goings on.

This talk about the chances of what we want to see happen being low does not ultimately matter. We cannot predict what can happen, we can only work for what we think the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to do.


What would most people have thought about the chances of Eastern Catholicism resubmerging after Communism fell? Regardless of the probability and statistics calculations, a reflowering has occurred/is occurring. If that is something we can work on in this country, that is where I will spend my effort. I think one needs a constant heart of prayer for this, and a consistent set of actions that seek to bridge gaps and point to the fullness of the faith.

May the most holy Theotokos guide us into more unity and fidelity.

In XC,
J. Andrew

A story:

A hurricane was about to hit a coastal region, and the authorities ordered everyone to evacuate the area. The police come by this house in a jeep, and see an old man sitting on the porch. "Come with us, old man. The storm's going to put this whole area under water". "No thanks", says the old man. "God will provide." And so the police move on.

The storm hits, and the water starts to rise. Soon, it's lapping around the porch, where the old man is still sitting on a rocking chair. A boat with National Guardsmen comes puttering down the flooded street. "Get in the boat, old man. We'll take you to safety". "No thanks", says the old man. "God will provide". And the boat moves on.

Soon the storm hits in ernest, and the rising waters force the old man first up to the second story, and finally, to the roof of his house. A helicopter flies over, and through a loud speaker the crew call to him, "We'll haul you up, old man. Grab onto the line". But the old man waves at them, and say, "No thanks. God will provide".

Finally, the rising waters tear the house from its foundations, throwing the old man into the swirling flood. He's pulled under, and as he begins to drown, he calls out to God, "O Lord, I have always trusted in you. Why have you abandoned me?"

And the voice of the Lord responds, "What do you mean, old man? First I sent you a jeep, then I sent you a boat, and finally I sent you a helicopter."

Not in Tucson. We also have both a Byzantine and a Ukrainian church in town. When Fr Chirovsky, the Ukrainian priest, is out of town, our Byzantine priest serves the liturgy at the Ukrainian church. Both liturgies are usually at 10am, so the Ukrainians change theirs to 12:30 when our priest serves it. He has to serve in English, but the parishioners, most of whom are Ukrainian, are already becoming accustomed to this, as when Fr Chirovsky arrived a couple of years ago, he decided that the liturgy would be in English the first Sunday of every month.

Also, on Wednesday of Holy Week, it has happened that our priest is not able to offer the Sacrament of Anointing, and it was announced, and in the bulletin, that we were invited to go to the Ukrainian church for this service, which some of us did. Ditto when our priest was unexpectedly out of town on an emergency one year on Transfiguration.

Also, Fr Chirovsky gave a wonderful Lenten mission at our Byzantine church last year, which was open to parishioners of both parishes, and we had a good turnout from both. We also invite the Ukrainian church to have a booth at our annual Slavic festival, which they have done.

I must agree with J. Andrew's vision for one united Greek Catholic Church in America. I envision it much like the Orthodox Church in America, which has Eparchies for Romanians, Bulgarians, ect. So, it is possible to live side by side in a united Church while respecting each others unique Liturgical Traditions and other differences in praxis.

Stuart K:
Guess you are one of those "half glass is empty" people rather than one who sees the same glass as half full.
Reunion of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Archeparchies is not impossible.
Come Holy Spirit!

Paul B:
Excellent points.

I don't advocate pessimism but I do admire objectivity and reality checks.

None of these jurisdictional divisions have anything to do with Jesus - just like so many other things in Christian religiosity.

Such a reunification is certainly possible but IMO highly unlikely. People in positions of power/control/authority often have hidden agendas, like self-promotion & self-exaltation rendering them incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

IMO a good question to ask on this topic would be, who fears his ox would get gored if such a reunification were to happen?

Maybe "nobody" but I suspicion the answer would be "somebody".

Remember - none of this has anything to do with Jesus.

Well then, Sielos, let's be objective and have a reality check. We have personalities and self-promotion, and we have Jesus.

Somehow the Roman Empire could not withstand the Church. A few bishops with n<1 million followers collectively are quite easily dwarfed by the hearts that have been changed and the churches that have been strengthened by Jesus in history.



When Jesus is involved, the status quo can change.

May we see Him in all things and people, and pray for repentance where His voice is not being heeded.

In XC,
J. Andrew

at some slight risk, may I point out that the term "Byzantine" is not the unique property of a particular jurisdiction? It applies equally to anyone and everyone who uses the Byzantine Liturgy. It becomes annoying after a while when people assume that "Byzantine" and, say, Romanian are two different things.

I was rather startled at a Pontifical Divine Liturgy in Preshov Cathedral to be told that I ought not to be there because "this is a Byzantine Cathedral, and I was Ukrainian (I happen to be Irish). Preshov is, of course, in Slovakia where Greek Catholics are commonly called, of all things, Greek Catholics, and the only people who use the term "Byzantine" in a religious sense are in a discussion of points of Liturgy. It can also be used to discuss almost anything which originates in Constantinope (the Imperial City originally founded by Byzas the fisherman and named after him).

I strongly recommend visiting the Byzantine Museum in Athens. It's worth the trip.

Fr. Serge

So, who is going to be the Greek Catholic Constantine, one wonders?

Actually, I am one of the more consistently optimistic members of this forum. But I am also a realist who believes that God does indeed help those who help themselves.

Prayer is powerful; the power of the Holy Spirit is irresistible. But God works through human agency--He works through us. So, when I hear people say things like, "Let's pray for more vocations", or "Let's pray for Christian unity", or even "Let's pray for the reunion of the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches in America", I am always inclined to say, "Yes, that's nice. Now, what are you doing to make it happen?" And the answer is usually, "Well, I'm praying".

Sorry, God requires a bit more. When he sends you the jeep, the boat or the helicopter, recognize the gift for what it is, and get in.

Stuart,
With all due respect, I have never created a metaphor that accuses you of cowardice for having left the Ruthenian Church for the Melkite Church, and I will not do so in the future.

Likewise, I would appreciate it if you drop the Jeep analogy. Our lives are different. I've visited your parish in the DC area, and loved the ethnic diversity and vibrance. And maybe your parish situation as a Ruthenian was quite different from that of my own here in San Diego. Regardless, I avoid judgment on that issue.


My answer to your question of what I am doing would not simply be that I am praying for reunion, and I will leave it at that.

I've described real ways in which my parish is interacting with parishes of other Byzantine Catholic Churches (as a side note to Fr. Serge, I too denounce the idea that we Ruthenians are "The" Byzantine Catholic Church), and I could give more examples of this, but don't feel the need to prove myself, so I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps what I will do is share with you guys good news as I see it happening, signs that we are sensing a need for each other-A need that supersedes the "objective reality" that you've pointed to.

Blessed Dormition to you and to all!

In XC,
J. Andrew

Maybe if you pointed to objective progress on the ground, I would be more inclined to feel some optimism on this front. But, to be honest, I don't. My efforts over the years to encourage cooperation on a pastoral level between the different Greek Catholic jurisdictions in the Washington area fell on deaf ears; all continue to go their own way, each lacking the critical mass needed to accomplish major undertakings. Each will therefore sink or swim based on its own individual merits.

My outlook for the Ruthenian Church is dire, not the least because of the degree of willful self-deception by the hierarchs and the vast majority of the clergy. Parish numbers are greatly inflated, and trend lines are sharply negative in all meaningful areas. The first step towards reform is recognizing one has a problem, and that the problem is critical. I see no sense of urgency in the Ruthenian Church, which proves again that one of Satan's most useful lies is, "There's plenty of time".

I can foresee one circumstance in which the Ruthenian and Ukrainian jurisdictions do consolidate, and within the next generation, too: when the Ruthenian Metropolian becomes too small to sustain itself, and can only survive as an element of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. But I can also see quite a few among the clergy who would rather close up shop altogether than undergo what they would undoubtedly see as a humiliation worse than death.

If the Ukrainians and Ruthenians cannot combine, who share just about everything including the same liturgical recension, what chance for unity with the Melkite (who already feel themselves to be part of a patriarchal Church), or the Romanians (whose usage more resembles the Greek than the Slavic)?

Aside from that, there is the problem of ecclesial outlook: the Melkites know who and what they are; and the Ukrainians are rapidly getting to the same place, under the leadership of strong and assertive patriarchs. But the Ruthenians? Their crisis of identity and confidence continues. Until they know who and what they are, they have no idea where they are going.

J. Andrew did point this out Stuart. We in San Diego are working more and more with the Ukrainian Parish. The Ukrainian young Adults come to our young adult events. We have gone to their liturgies and they come to ours.



It is much easier to be critical of a Church from the outside. I for one am sick of it. We all know that the Ruthenian Church is going through struggles but instead of beating us over the head over, and over again, which is un-Christian and un-Charitableite Church and PRAY for our Church.

Our Ruthenian parish is truly pan-Eastern Catholic with Ukrainians, Rusyns, Slovaks, Melkites, and Americans of all strips. We worship together and are active in proclaiming the Gospel to our community. We even have worked with St. Innocent Orthodox Orphanage in Mexico. This IS progress is it not?

Our Eparchy is working with other jurisdictions and serving with them. An example is that I was at the annual pilgrimage to Our Lady of Perpetual Help Shrine in Olympia. Bishop Gerald served the Liturgy on Saturday with Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and Melkite Priests. Is this not progress? We also had the sisterhood of Holy Theophany attend and participate in the Liturgy. We out West seem to be making progress!

There are many good Priests, Bishops, Deacons, and laity who are fighting for the Ruthenian Church. The young Seminarians and new Priests know who they are and proud of it- an American Byzantine Catholic Church. Pray for them and stop repeating the same old grips. It is getting old, very fast and it accomplishes nothing.

Dear J. Andrew,

My thanks for your agreement. I was expecting brickbats, and am happy that the brickbats have not materialized.

Fr. Serge

I think it was about 2002 or so on this forum when several of us proposed the idea of two worldwide Greek Catholic Patriarchates, one for Greek liturgical usage under the omphorion of the Melkites, and one for the Slavic-usage under Kyiv. These two Churches are the sensible choices since they are multi-continental in organization, have a patriarchal structure and have multiple world-wide educational facilities.

Within the Patriarchal structure there is certainly room for particular variations, such as the Italo-Greeks within the Greek usage or the Rusyns for the Slavic usage. We need to think outside of national or even continental borders to be part of a worldwide evangelizing Church.

Stuart,

there are some bright spots. Isn't it ironic that the Italo-Greeks of Las Vegas are under the care of the Ruthenian Eparch of Phoenix, while the Russian Catholics of El Segundo (and New York) are under the care of the Melkite Eparch of Newton.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, Jr., who said, "All politics is local." Perhaps in some ways one could say, "All ecclesiologies is local."

One reason might be the absence of a Melkite parish in Las Vegas, more than anything else.

Nope, but the point was that Byzantine Churches of various traditions can work together. This seems to take place more on the local level, then at the top. The Russian/Melkite and the Italo-Greek/Rutheian co-operation is an example of that.

Sorry to digress from the original subject...

Back to the original subject, what specifically are the prerequisites for the Ruthenian Metropolitan? How big of a field of candidates are we talking about here?

The Council of Hierarchs is required to submit three names to the Pope, who can either choose from those names, or name a different candidate of his own choice.

The most obvious thing to do is promote one of the remaining three bishops, which would also require the nomination of someone to fill the new empty see.

Less obvious would be selecting someone from the ranks of the presbyters.

Really daring would be the promotion of a deacon (once upon a time, the protodeacon usually succeeded the bishop).

But, no matter how you cut it, the pond is small, and the number of big fish can be counted on one hand.

That the local parishes are working together with other Eastern Catholic Churches is a credit to our hierarchs; if they were NOT in favor this activity it wouldn't be happening. Conversely, if it were mandated that all work together there would be controversy and progress would actually be slower.

Stuart, off the cuff, here are actions which have been occuring:

1. Opening up the seminary to non Ruthenian Churches
2. Acceptance of Melkite priest accepted into our eparchies and parishes
3. Retreat masters from other Eastern Churches Opening up the seminary to non Ruthenian Churches
4. Acceptance of Melkite priests into our eparchies and parishes
5. Retreat masters from other Eastern Churches; they talk of the same common situation

We are not in a fortress mentality. Yes, we know that our Church, like many others, is losing people. Our local newspaper just reported two local Lutheran parishes are being closed; they just celebrated their 100th Anniversary. They were booming parishes in the 1950's.

I disagree that our numbers are grossly inflated; in fact they are probably more accurate than in most Churches.

I recently visited Michigan and attended a Ukrainian Catholic parish; they have one DL on Sunday; counting my wife and I there there 12 people. This was a vibrant parish which build a new church in the 1950's; now its clinging on to life. I pray they may continue, but the DL is in Ukrainian so it won't attract English only speakers. At least our parish have the POTENTIAL to attract English speaking members.

We have been in a transition period; things are evolving and we will adapt with the guidance of the Good Shepherd.

Fr Deacon Paul

Why, I wonder, do we have a seminary at all? Why not send our students to a Ukrainian or Melkite seminary? But, while I am at it, why are there Eastern Cathollic seminaries at all? If there is no difference in our theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline, we should be sending our students to Orthodox seminaries, which will certainly work to bring us closer to our Mother Churches, while simultaneously freeing us from the overhead of maintaining underutilized facilities (the real reason for opening the seminary to non-Ruthenians) and freeing up a number of priests to minister to parishes.

I'm still waiting for an unambiguous statement from the Hierarchs that they will be ordaining married men to the presbyterate (there are more than enough qualified candidates). And, of course, the repeal of the Revised Divine Liturgy would demonstrate real seriousness on the parts our our God-loving Bishops.

In the meanwhile, might I suggest moving all those deck chairs aft and to portside? They'll stay out of the water longer, that way.

That has to be one of the weirdest things I have heard in a long long time. Look at the logical implications of your statement. You are saying that there are no differences between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, therefore there should only be eastern seminaries. The logical extension of your question is what possible reason there is for eastern Catholic churches (let alone their seminaries) to exist if you really believe they are Orthodox churches anyway? Do you really believe what you just said is workable, or did you just get carried away?

Stuart,

To address a few of your points ...

Why not send the Ruthenians to a Melkite seminary? Because we don't have an active one at present. When we did, we trained seminarians of other Churches. (And, significant numbers of Melkite clergy have trained at Holy Cross GO Seminary in Boston.)

Among others, Sayedna Raymond of the Maronites and Kyr John Michael of the Romanians both did some of their priestly formation at St Basil's Melkite Seminary, when neither of their Churches has seminaries in the US. Deacons of several Churches trained in our diaconate program, when some of the other Churches didn't have such programs.

Our current seminarians are studying at Ss Cyril & Methodius and one of our priests is the Professor of Canon Law there.

We afford spritual omophor to St Andrew's Russian in El Segundo and Our Lady of Fatima Russian in San Francisco, as we once did for Our Lady of Kazan Russian in Boston, of blessed memory. One of our priests serves St Michael's Russian in NYC. The governing body of Our Lady of Grace Italo-Greek-Albanian Society and Mission in NYC includes a priest and archdeacon of our Church.

The Italo-Greeks in LV are under the Ruthenians because Bishop George, of blessed memory, saw an unserved community and reached out to them, as did we and the Romanians to the Russians.

There is significant reaching out among and between the Churches. You can see it in articles in the various eparchial publications where one reads of priests from the various Churches giving talks, retreats, iconography workshops, etc, at temples of their Sister Churches. As well, you read of things so simple as coming together to celebrate events.

If you read as many online bulletins as I do these days in the course of compiling the directory, you'd see many notes of appreciation for coverage provided to parishes by priests of Sister Churches during illnesses, vacations, etc.

I am decidely not a fan of a unified American Church. I love the diversity, but I am a major fan of working together to serve the peoples of our Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Correct. But what I said was Eastern Orthodox seminaries. We Greek Catholics are Orthodox--or should be--otherwise we should fold our tents and become Latins. There is no tertium quid.


Correct again. As Bishop John Michael of Canton of the Romanians has said, "The vocation of the Greek Catholics is to disappear"--that is, to return to their Orthodox Mother Churches as soon as this is made possible by the reestablishment of communion between the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome. Our only reason for being is to manifest the possibility of being fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome, ergo, once communion is restored, our raison d'etre has vanished. As there are no theological differences between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholic (pace Patriarch Lyubomir), and since we believe all that the Orthodox Church believes (pace Patriarchs Maximos V and Gregorios III), everything we need to learn can be taught at an Orthodox seminary.


Every last word. Already Greek Catholics attend Orthodox seminaries for higher studies, so why not make a move that will create a common mindset among both Orthodox and Greek Catholic clergy? If, as the Liturgical Instruction says, we should remove all unnecessary differences between us, then this is an excellent place to begin, not the least in installing a truly Orthodox liturgical outlook in the Greek Catholic clergy.

As an unusual corollary, I might point out that there are Catholic institutions such as the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and the Catholic University in Lviv that provide training to both Catholic and Orthodox students. They can do so because what they teach is unimpeachably Orthodox theology, liturgy, spirituality, doctrine and discipline.

Since I pretty much agree with Stuart one must ask "what function does our Metropolitan serve that makes filling the position important?" Maybe we would be as well off without one. I'm just suggesting.

A brother who left asked me if I would attend his Chrismation. I said "no, I could not. You have already been Chrismated. If I attended such an event I would be renouncing the faith you and I share." Another asked me if I would attend his ordination should he be ordained. I said "Yes, because we have the same faith." I think I've got that right. If I do I don't see the point in different competing seminaries. Since we don't seem to have any mission distinct from either the Catholics or the Orthodox, at least we don't seem to be doing much about it if we do, I wonder why we need a Metropolitan.

Well, there is an Eparchy that needs a bishop.

Why?

Maybe we could elect someone and not tell Rome. It might be years before they get back to us, by which time our new Metropolitan could have conducted a thorough overhaul of the Ruthenian Church (at which point Rome will say, "What a great appointment! Glad we thought of it".


I'm just catching up but this is the best idea I've ever read on this subject. Except for this one: Why not fold all of the Eparchies into one and have one bishop. Do we really need four?

It depends on your point of view. I would prefer that bishops not be distant figures, and have a real place in the life of the local Church. The large size of eparchies in the Orthodox jurisdictions here have tended to encourage parochialism and congregationalism, to the detriment of the authority of the bishop and the unity of the Church. On the other hand, when you have a bad bishop, it's no bad thing that "God bless and keep our bishop. . . far away from us!"

But, assuming that the bishops are worthy men, it is better to have them closer at hand, which, in the case of the Ruthenian Church, would mandate more rather than fewer bishops--even if some of these would have only a few thousand faithful under their care.

Here is how I would break it down:

Eparchy of New England--Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Eparchy of the Mid-Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware.

Eparchy of the South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennesee and Florida

Eparchy of Pittsburgh (so we don't have to change the letterhead): Western Pennslvania, West Virginia, Eastern Ohio.

Eparchy of the Midwest: Western Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska

Eparchy of the Gulf: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas

Eparchy of the Southwest: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Hawaii

Eparchy of the Northwest: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota.

That would make eight eparchies in all, which would allow the formation of a real synod, would ensure closer pastoral oversight of regions outside of the ethnic heartland--and especially in those places where the Church is actually growing. Sure, some bishops will have only a couple of thousand faithful in a handful of parishes, but that's not unusual--Greece, for instance, has ninety eparchies for an Orthodox population of 9 million, most of whom live in and around Athens and Thessaloniki. So, nominally, the average Greek eparchy has 100,000 members, but, discounting those in and around Athens and Thessaloniki, the average is closer to 10,000.

**
Okay, let's take off with that thought.
The implication is we should have regional seminaries so students could be closer to their homes. The remaining seminaries (and either Pittsburgh or Johnstown would have to be one of them), both Orthodox and Catholic could attend, regardless of affiliation. Orthodox would attend Eastern Catholic and vice versa.
Can you imagine THAT happening? You would hear screams clear to Moscow, back to Pittsburgh and back to Lviv, back to Damascus. The echoes would be endless.

Shared seminaries with the Orthodox would be amazing. Just consider this excerpt from the article in the "Church News" forum about the Pontifical Oriental Institute:

Already happens elsewhere. Why not here? I'm perfectly happy to have ALL the seminaries under Orthodox administration, should that prove to be necessary. Joint administration would be better, though.

How about adding/creating four more. Cheaper by the dozen you know!

It would, but I tried to ensure that each bishop would have at least one parishoner.

Stuart,

Texas should be assigned to the Eparchy of the Southwest... or split it between the Southwest and the Gulf. Now if you ask a Texan... the response would be, "Texas is large enough to be its own Eparchy!" <G>

If the bishops would be pastors of Churches I can imagine that happening. But we have so few viable congregations now I don't see much point in more bishops. I suspect that we have fewer than 100,000 parishioners, probably fewer than 50,000. That a heck of a lot of bishops per member. Then who would you think would have the leadership capacity to be bishop. How many leaders do we have now? I wouldn't think that we have very many.

When I lived in Oklahoma state law only allowed the sale of reduced alcohol 3.2% beer. The saying went that in Oklahoma Catholics were weaker than the beer, less than 3.2%. I would guess that here in Texas Byzantine Catholics are weaker than near beer.

I agree, Texas should be with the Southwest. We have far more in common with the Phoenix Eparchy than with Pittsburgh or with any place in the South. Of course, no one asked me.

I'd be favorable to transferring our parishes here in the Lone Star State to the Phoenix eparchy. Pittsburgh has no significance for me - I've only been there once.

Your post reminds me of that important but little-explored theological principle: a little bit of bishop goes a long way. Kinda like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think it is exactly like that. I did a study of Conscience once to discover that it is a negative force to keep us from doing the wrong thing. Bishops too often are a force to keep us from doing anything. Let us pray for courage among our bishops. Let us pray for courageous leadership. I really don't think we need more bishops. I do believe we need more courage among our bishops.

It wasn't until I joined the Melkites that I realized there were actually people who loved their bishops and looked forward to meeting with them. I know that I am looking forward to the first visit from Bishop Nicholas after his formal installation, and cannot wait until His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios comes to the United States once more. It isn't necessary for the people to have a dysfunctional relationship with their bishops.

Actually, believe it or not, many Ukrainians expect to have (and go to the trouble of developing) a close connection with their bishop.

The Latins seem reluctant for the bishop even to meet their own laity.

Fr. Serge

Say what you will about Bishop William on other matters, when he was Bishop of Van Nuys, he frequently traveled to our parish, at his own expense, to celebrate Sunday liturgy with us because we were without a priest. For this reason alone, most in my parish have some fondness for him. Bishop Gerald has yet to make a visit.

This is also true with the ACROD faithful. They expect their bishops to rub shouders with them and enjoy a good dish of holubki with an occasional touch of slivovica!

Memory Eternal to Vladika Nicholas! Let's pray that continues!

I had a wonderful oppurtunity to spend time with my Eparch, Bishop Gerald last weekend while in Olympia.

He made it a point to greet people and listen to them.

I was then able to spend an hour with him, my parish priest and Fr. Chris Zugger and another young man from my parish. Bishop Gerald had a wonderful since of humor and took an active interest to get to know myself and the other young adult with me.


He did eat plenty of dessert made for him by the local parish.

What if the bishop has a dysfunctional relationship with the people of his diocese/eparchy?

Well, Many of us can think of Bishops, both Greek Catholic and Orthodox who had that problem. I'll not name any though in order not to defame the dead.....

Some are still breathing.

Its not appropriate for posters to use this forum to build an anti-bishop(N) campaign. Self control is called for.

This topic has wandered off its original question. It seems to have served it purpose so I am closing it.

Bob
Moderator