www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News O Bishop, Where Art Thou?

Dear Serge (Slave in training),

You speak more truth than you know, Friend!

During a New Year's levee, in the time of the Apostolic Administrator, the Orthodox bishop approached him to ask, "What is going on in the Ukrainian Catholic Church that I'm getting so many new converts from you?"

Mind you, I don't think he was complaining . . .

Alex

Alex,

I really like you to. The next time that my wife and I travel to Toronto (one of our favorite cities) you will be on our short list of people to see.

I am so very sorry to hear that your current bishop will not ordain married men. I assume that his reticence is due to fear of certain Roman authorities?

How can we possibly expect the Orthodox to reunite with the Catholic Communion when they witness situations like this?

Anthony

"If we wanted you to have a family, the Corps would have issued you one."

Actually, no.

Dear Anthony,

The day I will get a chance to see you in person will be a blessed day for me indeed!!

Kurt is right. The new bishop won't ordain married men out of conviction rather than fear.

Most of our bishops happen to be Basilians and Redemptorists, especially in recent years.

Enough said?

Alex

Alex,

Do you suspect that your current bishop was selected by Rome specifically because he opposes married priests "out of conviction?" Or was he really selected by the Syndod in Ukraine, with Rome rubber-stamping the selection? In either case, was his firm opposition to married clergy one of the factors that influenced his election?

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

We were told that the Synod chose him for our Eparchy, so it must be true . . .

When I suggested to one priest that it wasn't, I was summarily dressed down.

It was worse than being told off by Kurt, let me tell you!

Many here believe as you said about Rome appointing him to "grab hold of us by the collar" with respect to married priests etc.

You are undoubtedly right on the money in what you said.

There is no proof other than the old adage, "actions speak louder . . ."

God bless,

Alex

Alex,

What I had heard is that he was selected by the Church as someone who could mediate betwen and resolve the divisions betwen those alined with th former bishop and those with the Apostolic Adminstrator.

K.

Dear Kurt,

Then that must be true!

Certainly, no one in the Eastern Canadian Eparchy doubts that . . .

So far, we're as united as we're going to get, I suppose.

Perhaps we can try the Redemptorists next time.

And what's wrong with the Studites?

Alex

Alex,
Yes, that is where I got it. There has to be a "Johnny Appleseed" converting these pagans to the Eastern Catholic Faith up here in the Pagan Pacific Northwest. How many orchards are in one seed!

Serge,
Do you really think there are alot of people who hold the married clergy issue as their breaking point from their Catholic faith? If so, should this really be the deciding issue or is there not more important theological issues to worry about? Or is it just an issue with the old "Babba's"?

Dear nwappleseed,

Interesting!

There is one Episcopal calendar of saints I came across that have Johnny Appleseed listed there with a Proper for his feast . . .

God bless,

Alex

Do you really think there are alot of people who hold the married clergy issue as their breaking point from their Catholic faith? If so, should this really be the deciding issue or is there not more important theological issues to worry about? Or is it just an issue with the old "Babba's"?

nwappleseed, that was true in the 1930s after the 1929 Vatican decree Cum data fuerit enforced its 1907 Ea semper ban on Eastern Catholics ordaining married men in North America. It lit the fuse that caused the 1938 split in the Ruthenian family that is now the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese based in Johnstown, PA. I don't think it is so now. No, it shouldn't the deciding or main issue.

Johnny Appleseed sounds like a good man, but his inclusion in an Episcopal calendar is very telling of the Episcopal Church's lack of doctrinal orthodoxy. He is better known as a planter of trees than for his work traveling as an evangelist for the then-new Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgians), based on the New Age-like visions of a Swede, Emanuel Swedenborg.

http://oldworldrus.com

"Do you really think there are alot of people who hold the married clergy issue as their breaking point from their Catholic faith?"

I think that this is not the case any more, because of the prior two schisms over this issue. The fact that so many left the Eastern Catholics for Orthodoxy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries over this precise issue should provide some indication of how important it was considered to them.

It's really important not simply because of the disciplinary issue involved, but rather because of the implications of what can be perceived as (and was perceived as) Roman domination and not truly communion. That's an issue of the understanding of the church -- a larger issue than the issue of clerical discipline, and the issue that lurks behind the married priest issue.

"If so, should this really be the deciding issue or is there not more important theological issues to worry about? Or is it just an issue with the old "Babba's"?"

I think it is a theological issue -- what is the right ecclesiology.

Brendan

Ah, but this is PRECISELY the meaning of "rite", that is the collection of customs and practices. Not just liturgical, but also lifestyle.

By banning the ordination or reception of married men into the presbyterate in America, the "rite" was changed just as violently as it would have been if the reading of the Gospel had been banned during liturgy.

While the "rite" of the early 20th century Ruthenians (and others) was to enjoy the benefits of married clergy, in the intervening years of wife-less priests and no permanent deacons, the nature of the "rite" has been changed and the people's mindset now sees the 'accommodated' Byzantine Church in America as the true Byzantine rite.

The hard part is to convince folks that what we are doing now is only "Johnny-come-lately Byzantinity" and not the same as what the great-grandparents did (either here or in the old country).

While there are some who will energetically pursue the renovation of the 'rite' (broadly speaking), I suspect that there are significant numbers of folks who think that what we have now is just fine and not to be tinkered with. Convincing them will not be an easy task.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

Your posts are always a welcoming breath of fresh air! (Unlike mine on some days, it would seem . . .)

The definition of "Rite" you pose is the best of all, to be sure.

When we talk of "culture" which is another name for what you discuss, then we can't really "subdivide" it into rituals etc. It is a comprehensive experience where the "whole" is reflected in the "part" even when that "part" has to do with the issue of married priests.

Not to have them is already to hurt the integrity of our Rite and Particularity as a Church.

Happy New Year.

Kali Khronya!

Alex