www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Russian Catholic parish being created

He wasn't born of Russian parents, either. Why is it that when he became Catholic, he became a Latin? The Ruthenians weren't good/Russian enough for him?

I would hope there might be some actual Russians, too, who might logically find a Christian home in this new mission.

We seem to lack some information on this matter. Are the "Russians" people who were evangelized or just moved from one christian commmunity to another?

I am trying to figure out an Orthodox take on this. If members of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow decided they prefered the Bulgarian use and began attending the Bulgarian Patriarchate representational church, what would be the Orthodox commentary on this?

Axios, puzzled by Catholicism

But Axios, you know this story.

In the US an Orthodox parish might get into some tense situation that winds up with half the parish going over to another jurisdiction. Lot of examples. While Orthodox live with this problem, it is, AFAIK, considered as an ill, and certainly as non-canonical, and probably drives bishops nuts. But people (participants and spectators alike) do, in such disputes, set aside their concerns over the problem of multiple juridictions, and take sides. They like one or another of the parties, and find all sorts of reasons for supporting their actions.

(This is what Ben Franklin called the convenience of being a reasonable person: it allows you to find or invent a reason for whatever you have a mind to do!)

djs,

Yes, yes. I didn't mean to imply any one upmanship. But the situation you described is common in the USA. And I personally think the results of the situation were the best of reasonable possibilities.

But is it universally understood that this is, at best, irregular?

Axios

Axios,

I didn't take it as one upsmanship, at all. Yes it is common in the USA: stemming from
the existence of multiple jurisdictions and closley related churches combined with the so-American prelest of "I gotta be me".

Best of reasonable possibilities? No, I don't think it fair to characterize this as involving reason, except in the Franklin sense.

I think, as in Orthodoxy, upon reflection people will see this as irregular. (And frankly I am very steamed about even the possibility that a Latin hierarch played a role in breaking up one of our parishes.) But, IMO, at the moment (like analogous situations in Orthodoxy) people are mostly involved in taking a side and cheering it on, and too busy in that activity to reflect on the irregularity.

My points are these:

Church communities are supposed to be organic growths from other communities. Unlike the Protestants, who can establish "ministries" willy-nilly, based upon the charism of the founder, canonical communities grow from an established, canonical group. (Do the word: "apostolic orders" ring a bell?)

To be a Latin, who achieves bi-ritual status, and then works with a Byzantine community and then leaves it and establishes another community under the omophor of another canonical bishop NOT of this church, strikes me as opportunistic.

Second: WHY does the term "Russian" make its way into this community's name? It sounds like a "flag of convenience" as is done in registering ships.

If the congregants are Ruthenian, then they should be under the omophor of the Ruthenian bishop. Period. If they don't like what the Ruthenian bishop and Metropolitan Province are doing, then they should scream and holler to the appropriate authority or go somewhere else. But to jump ship and then claim to be "Russian" is just being a wuss and a fake. And for a Latin bishop to play fast and furious with the canons to accommodate x, y or z persons is to sin against the Eastern Church.

If you are "of the East", then grow where you are planted. If you are a newbie, then great! Welcome! But if you are a newbie and you don't like what is happening in the community: then seek your salvation elsewhere. There is no reason to play politics with our canonical and apostolic Church. Once again, the Western mindset of "church" as organization rears it ugly head. For those of us cradle Easterns, we KNOW that the Church is community - - ie, a group of loving folks who form praying and supporting communities.

To suggest that a group of disaffected Ruthenians should follow a Latin rite priest and affiliate themselves in a "Russian" parish under the omophor of a Latin diocese is both heinous and a verification of their love of "form" rather than the substance of loving community.

While I appreciate Orthodox Student's perspective, I think that it is a mindset that represents the Western Idea of "Church", and does not in any way embody the "koinotis" that is the hallmark of our Eastern communities. And it also allows for the fractionization of our peoples that leads to uncanonical "flake" jurisdictions and the dismemberment of the Body of Christ.

I apologize for being so harsh; but the Eastern Churches and their communities are in severe jeopardy of assasination - not from outside secular or anti-Christian forces, but from well-intentioned co-religionists who are totally clueless about what is the lifeblood of our Churches.

To be blunt: either you're in or you're out. If you're in, then BE in and live with the community. If you don't like what we are doing, then please, in all charity, go away. (And one's ethnic heritage is of no consequence whatsoever.)

Blessings!

A day or so ago, I mentioned that it was interesting to see that people (who presumably do not live in Colorado) felt threatened by the establishment of a Russian Catholic parish. This produced several indignant responses. But the ongoing postings make it only too clear that many people do, in fact, feel threatened, and feel that they have some sort of right to tell the folks in Denver what the folks in Denver (with whom the critics are unlikely to be acquainted) may and may not do in living out their own Christian vocation. That attitude is highly offensive, and I don't hesitate to affirm that I find it threatening. Just for the record: Father Chrysostom was never in his life a Roman Catholic, Latin Rite priest. He was received into the Catholic Church as a Russian Catholic. What makes the ethnic tomfoolery unavoidable is that Rome insists that generic Byzantine Catholicism does not exist; one must belong to an (ethnic) sui iuris Church. Please don't blame Father Chrysostom and/or his parishioners - and don't blame me either - we don't make these silly rules. Incognitus

Dr. John,

Excellent points! So far, history shows:

Presbyterian -> Lutheran -> Greek Orthodox -> OCA -> Latin Catholic -> Ruthenian Catholic -> Latin Catholic/Russian Catholic

What's next?

Joe

Dear Dr. John:

While I like most of what you said, I really think you are far too harsh in some respects.

This will inevitably be taken, I fear, as a cradle vs. convert slam and and ethnic vs. non-ethnic. I think then that your history, if I have it right, non-cradle and non-ethnic Ruthenian, needs to be appreciated for readers to understand your remarks correctly.

Moreover, I think that the "go ..." remarks are over the top. I am grateful and truly indebted to every member of our church. And passion about our praxis should always be welcome. It is part of our Duch. And no one should ever feel unwelcome to give expression to their issues.

I don't know about the Western idea, but I see this as a fundamental point, both on this thread and on the "Becomming...". What is a church?

Greetings all,

I just cannot believe the tone of this thread.

There are Russian Catholics in the USA, they are underserved and spread out. They have a right to worship in any Catholic church available and they will. I am sure that it would be a rare occasion for a mission or parish established for them but there WILL be missions or parishes established for them. This may be the only one in the Mountain time zone, they are entitled to it.

Immigration from the former Soviet Union has picked up considerably in the past decade, percentage-wise they could be the fastest-growing group of Eastern Catholics in the US (although I doubt it).

The rules concerning sui iuris churches are required because of all the accusations that ROME cannot be trusted to treat the Orthodox Traditions, theology and customs with respect.

So WE in our glorious wisdom have developed multiple patriarchates, national churches and local customs that must be respected. That's why there are 22 particular churches, because the Orthodox are so fragmented. WE could solve this problem pretty quickly if the autonomous churches gave deference to Constantinople and the Patriarchs of Moscow, Kyiv, Bucharest, Sofia and Beograd all resigned in favor of Constantinople but that's not going to happen is it?

If Rome decided that there was no difference between Byzantines and commited all Byzantines to one hierarchy there would be hell to pay. Every individual Byzantine Orthodox MUST retain their own church affiliation when they commune with the Pope of Rome. IF they should decide to change jurisdictions it must be of their own free choice and for an acceptable reason.

Almost everybody is getting wedgies here over this and it cannot be such a big deal. Face it, the Ruthenian parish was dominated by a group of troglodytes. They were pastored by a Russian Catholic priest on loan from his ordinary. The "regulars" didn't like what he was doing and complained, shouldn't they be happy he is gone?

The Russian Catholic parish was established in another part of town. If anyone believes there are no Russians involved in the parish I would have to ask them for proof.

Michael

My own experience of "Russian" Catholic parishes in the US was that they were formed not because of pastoral need, but rather back when Rome was planning on sending 'missionaries' into the former Soviet Union. And the priests who could not get in, ended up setting up Russian parishes in their homelands. The Jesuits set up John XXIII center in New York (with an ultra tiny parish-ette); Jesuits set up San Francisco (also quite small) and Fr. John Mowatt set up OL Kazan in Boston. I was involved with this parish for a good number of years. We had three ethnic Russians in the parish: Zazoulin, Samodelov and Pecevich. Everybody else was of some other ethnic background. I don't know about St. Michael's in New York. None of the priests was Russian. Fr. Palczynski, of the Marian fathers, was of Polish-Ukrainian descent and did speak Russian quite fluently, and did intermittent parish work all over the country, including in some Old Believer communities in Oregon.

Thus, when I hear "Russian", I wonder. Despite the influx of new immigres, most of whom are unchurched because of the oppression in the Soviet states, my experience is that they go OCA. This is the case here in Washington where the Sobor has two Sunday "parishes", one English and one Russian. And the English community is a mixed group of Russian and generic Slavic Americans, including a number of folks whose roots are in the Greek Catholic era.

So, while there may indeed be real Russians in Denver, I wonder how many of them are cradle Byzantine Catholic? My suspicion is that they would be Orthodox. And to set up a parish for Russian Orthodox runs counter to Balamand and against the will of the Holy See. And if the numbers from elsewhere are any indication, I find it nothing short of miraculous that a group of Russian Byzantine Catholics clustered themselves in Denver and find themselves in need of a church.

If this whole situation has its roots in disaffected members of a Ruthenian community seeking to remove a priest, then that is a matter for the Carpatho-Ruthenian diocese to resolve.

As for getting all riled up about the situation, I suggest we imagine a Byzantine bishop setting up a Latin language Tridentine parish in some diocese or other to "serve the unserved", and watch the steam rise from the other side.

Blessings!

Is it? I mean in most of the world, a generic Church does exist. For the Orthodox in Greece, it is the Church of Greece, regardless of one's ethnicity. For Byzantine Catholics in Hungary, it is the Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, regardless of ethnicity. The USA is the oddity.

Axios

Yeah, actually I do to.

Yes, it is a definate concern. A pastoral letter, visit and sermon are in order for starters.
I accept your point. Perhaps that is why only one sui iuris church in an area can have that responsibility.

I think that whole situation stinks but I can't see any way around it. What if all jurisdictions in an area were allowed to do that? Ukrainians building Maronite churches and Chaldeans building Melkite churches, etc. ? The local ordinary there is Latin, they are the majority in the region. As a practical matter they are also the only ones to have the resources.

Since that is the case, we will always have the latin church to blame for our problems.

The only place I know where it might be different is Kerala, where the Syro-Malabar bishop might have responsibility to set up a parish for their local Russians. Perhaps in the Ukraine the UGCC would but I don't know about that.

If there was a petition by ethnic Russian Catholics (amazing) and the Archdiocese of Denver did have the resources the Archdiocese would be pastorally irresponsible if they ignored the request.

I don't know the real story here, I just would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

PAX
Michael

What if the priest decides to move on to work with some other Church when the opportunity arises? Who will be responsible in sending a pastor to minister the Russian Catholic community? Denver? Van Nuys? The other Russian Catholic communities? Will it be left to disappear?

Joe

I'm not usually one to walk away from a fight. But the anger, fear and just plain bigotry which are multiplying by the hour on this thread scare me. My best - and last - advice is that everyone who is so angry and upset by Father Chrysostom and his parish should find something else to get upset about, and allow Father Chrysostom and his faithful to get on with their Christian lives. If you cannot support them, at least leave them in peace. Incognitus