www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Holy Resurrection Monastery changing ???

I know the Byzantine Franciscan's operate within both the Ukrainian and Ruthenian dioceses. I know when they had a Monastery in New Caanan, CT some of the priests taught at St. Basil Ukrainian Catholic Seminary in neighboring Stamford, CT. I know Brother Gus is Ukrainian.

I suspect there is more to the change.

Could I encourage people to move on and not engage in pointless speculation. They are now in the Romanian Eparchy and they are still in the same location they were before. Offer your prays and support them with your donations and visit them. They are very hospitable and enjoy having visitors and guests. Encourage others to visit and support the monks. How many people could include a bequest in their Will for the monastery. They still have those cells to complete. Anyone know any generous millionaires who are Catholic. We need to talk up the the Church, the Metropolia, Eparchy and the monastery. We need positive action at this point.
I apologise if i sound like I am preaching.

Isn't the owner of Dominoe's Pizza a rich multimillionaire, and also a Catholic?

I think the KFC CEO is also a rich Catholic.

Give 'em a call...

Pavel,

I could not agree more with your point about the worthlessness of pointless speculation. Except for the fact that I read all of the posts here and saw none. No one is asserting anymore than the obvious - HRM is now out of the Metropolia and in the Romanian Eparchy of Canton. As a member of the Metropolia, I am only sorry for our loss, even though it is not an ABSOLUTE loss by any means!

I'm all for a strong focus on our future. Now, thankfully, Holy Resurrection will have a future. I plan on making the pilgrimage next year. Perhaps I will see you then? Although Australia is hardly a hop, skip and a jump away, now is it!

God bless,

Gordo

And what is exciting about that is, as stated on HRM's website, there is now a broader reach in the US since the jurisdiction of Bishop John Michael (God bless him!) is the entire nation rather than just a region. This is great for being able to help the spread of eastern monasticism into other states. I also pray that this will mean that the annual pilgrimage will draw more people from other states and that HRM will receive more support through prayer and donations from coast-to-coast!

I hope I don't gush too much in my posts about Holy Resurrection Monastery but my visits there have really deepened my love for Christ and has helped me get more out of the Divine Liturgy and our Eastern Christian spirituality, which I then bring to my parish, home, and workplace. Yes, I love and respect the souls that make up the Brotherhood there but it's actually the fact that my "Spiritual Batteries" get recharged every time I go there. I come away fully amped in my love for Christ and ready for the next phase of the spiritual battle. I heartily thank HRM for the spiritual recharge. I especially thank Hegumen Nicholas for his amazing sermons. They always inspire and challenge me! He is definitely annointed!

You know, to be honest, the more I think about this change in jurisdiction, the more excited I'm getting. I believe God is doing great things with this and that each person involved with this change is doing their part, whether they realize it or not, to begin this special project that is now underway. That's my gut feeling anyway. The part for the rest of us is to visit Holy Resurrection Monastery and Holy Theophany (in Olympia, WA), then bring the monastic life home with us, thereby becoming the leaven in our part of the world.

Anyhow, enough of my gushing ... :rolleyes:

In Christ, Michelle

Michelle,

I for one think that your enthusiasm is appropriate and your loyalties well placed!

HRM is truly a work of the Holy Spirit, and I agree: their new situation offers many more wonderful opportunities and we can all praise God for it!

God bless,

Gordo

I had thought it best to avoid posting on this thread, but I don't think Gorod's recent remark should pass without comment.

This is simply not correct, Gordo. You yourself had written:

This latter statement certainly goes well beyond the one quoted above it. I don't know what criteria you have for a "reasonable person", but such a perspective is not "obvious"; it is a complete invention, at least in terms of what has been stated openly by the knowlegable parties.

This perspective - that this separation is rooted in a lack of sympathy for HRM, or not much caring for it, or a failure to realize the treasure that HRM represents, or a failure to understand its importance, or an undervaluing of it, etc. - on the part of the Bishop William, and even the whole Ruthenian church - has permeated this thread, and has also been quite explicitly made in two prior threads on this same topic.

I couldn't tell you with assurance that none these accusations are true. But I can tell you that none of them have any foundation in what has been disclosed by HRM on their site or by anyone else on any of these threads. And it wrong to suggest that speculative fault finding has not been done, by saying that the discussion has been restricted to the obvious fact of the jurisdiction-hop itself.

Given what actually has been disclosed, it is by no means obvious that one should be faulting our Bishop (or our church) for this outcome. But Bishop bashing is, of course, a recurring theme of the forum, so it comes as no surprise to find it on these threads too. And now it's to the point of being so automatic, that it seems invisible. Just asserting the obvious. :rolleyes: God bless Rose 2 for reminding us: "Blessed are the pure in heart".

As pointed out by HRM, that the very idea of a monastery that is "self-governing" yet under a Bishop had some kinks in it that had to be worked out. And it's not hard at all to imagine that, even with all parties acting in complete good faith to discharge their respective, onerous responsibilities, an impasse might have been reached that was solved most easily, if not optimally, by adopting the new structure.
In the absence of further disclosures, ISTM that this is about all that can, and arguably should, be said.

djs,

Not surpisingly, I vehemently disagree.

The fact that HRM began in the Metropolia and is now out of the Metropolia indicates that there was a reason to leave. A reasonable person might say that it "seems" that there is not the support for a self-governing monastery, especially since HRM began in one jurisdiction and has left for another. I never used the term "obvious", so do not attribute to me what was not actually said by me. My issue was that I thought that Steve should not apologize, and he was only talking about "appearances" as an observer of events. You'll notice that a few sentences later I said that if he asserted it as fact, than I think that he would be incorrect, unless he had evidence to support his claim.

Nowhere do I say that the bishop is at fault or that we should rally against the hierarchy or other such nonsense. Nor do I encourage speculation as to why (you will recall that I say it is a spiritually unproductive exercise). I am just disappointed that the Metropolia has lost a self-governing monastery. Period. And that we should be diligent in the future to ensure that it does not happen again (wherever the reasons come from).

An objective reading of my posts should make this clear. Again, please do not attribute to me what was not said.

Gordo

What you said was:

Having read all of the posts on this thread (not to mention the other two), it is clear you are in error in suggesting that that no speculation has occurred - that "no one is asserting anymore than the obvious...". And I include your comment as asserting more than the obvious.

Not to belabor this point...

But I was only referring to this thread. At the time, I did not see anything that lead me to believe that anything was being asserted other than the sad fact of HRM moving on. I just did a quick rescan and can find some minor points (Steve's reference to hoping that Van Nys would value HRM being one), but nothing as bold or brash as what you ascribe to others, including, apparently, myself. Perhaps you are unintentionally telescoping multiple threads? I do not believe I weighed in on any of those particular threads, and only "chimed in" when I felt Steve had a right to his opinion, so long as he did not assert it as fact.

Regarding my own, I stand by what I said. You are wrong to attribute more to me than what was written, and nothing that I wrote implies or asserts the belief in any wrongdoing or negligence on the part of any member of the hierarchy.

As a matter of principle, I agree with you. It is not right to assert wrongdoing on the part of others without sufficient evidence. Bishops have a difficult and challenging enough job, without the faithful second-guessing them constantly. But they do make mistakes and the shepherd's staff is often a lightning rod. Ultimately God is their judge, not us...and they, like all of us, will have to give answer before the dread judgement seat of Christ.

For my part, this conversation at an end.

Godspeed to HRM and to Bishops John Michael and William of Van Nuys!

Gordo

Reznut brings up an interesting observation. Now, that HRM is in a jurisdiction that is nation-wide, and also supportive of their unique form of outreach, there seems to be a better sentiment of them bringing Eastern monasticism to the rest of the U.S.

Might having multiple jurisdictions as in the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches be an obstacle for any development? It is quite interesting, I think, that the growth of the number of bishoprics has increased inversely proportional to Eastern Catholic members. Of course, having only one bishop, who may be a despot, might be a problem too.

But I am talking about Eastern Monasticism. How many new monastic foundings have there been in the last decade? How many have left? In the past several years, we have heard of several monastic communities departing either one Eastern Catholic jurisdicition or the Catholic Communion altogether.

Do we, as Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics, have trouble dealing with monastic communities? How can one be happily supportive of such new communities if the only thing we hear about are departures? And why all from the Ruthenian Metropolia?

One last item: Now, that HRM has left the Ruthenian church building, will our priests get remprimanded for referring their monastic vocations to HRM, which lies outside "our" jurisdiction? I rarely heard about HRM in our eparchy in the past, maybe we will never hear about them in the future. Priests, not monks, seem to be needed. Am I hallucinating?

Joe

If one was in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, where does one direct monastic vocations?

It was our eparchies that sent out the Vocation Icon and instituted the Called by Name program. Now what? What do we do with those who are called to monasticism in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh?

Please list the monastery/ies you would direct a man to. Also, list the monastery/ies you would direct a woman to. I would like to hear them.

Would HRM be on that list? It is still listed with its own link on the home page of byzcath.org even though it is not part of the Metropolia. Just wondering.

Thanks,
Joe Thur

I first what to thank djs for commenting as I was holding back but I agree with everything said by him.

Not to add to any speculation or anything but a "reasonable person" might also see blame on the other side or maybe an unwillingness by both sides to work together.

With out being privy to the whole story any sort of speculation and/or attributing blame in this matter is wholly uncharitable in nature and should not be done.

And let us no forget, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Just a question though. What happens if the next bishop to head up the Romanian Eparchy has a different view of this? Will there be another hop?

I really do not think that this is a fair question. First it implies that they (HRM) are spiritual gadflies. The next point is, if you sit back and examine the situation, all three parties had to sit down and discuss the matter and agree to the change before it could be submitted to Rome for approval.

Instead of trying to assign blame to one party or the other or read into to a situation that may or may not exist, rejoice that a monastic witness is alive and still available for you to draw from.


In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Bless Father,

Yes you are correct, my question is not fair, yet neither is all the speculation against Bishop William and the Metropolia that has been going on here even when attempting to make it an abstract with the inclusion of "a reasonable person".