www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Holy Resurrection Monastery leaving the Ruthenian Church!

Christ is Risen!
Looking at their typikon, which is posted on their web site, they are clearly a traditional Byzantine monastery. For example, the services for tonsuring monks come from the Trebnik (Evchologion).

Photius

Though your question was directed to Pseudo-Athanasius, I will vouch from personal experience (having visited many times) that they are indeed Eastern!

Steve

Thanks Steve and Photius.

Charles

Father Deacon John,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Pseudo-Athanasius did a great job of detailing my thoughts on this.

It would be tragic if we viewed the monastery as a competitive threat to our churches. I know there are many folks who receive many spiritual benefits from visiting the monastery to receive the Holy Mysteries. I hope we don't hold the view as a church that all priests need to be in parishes either.

After all, our own Eastern Christianity was largely born from the monasteries.

The Metropolia needs the monastery and the monks.

In Christ,

John

According to my source in Canton, the move is being done amicably, and Van Nuys is as willing to be rid of the monks as they are eager to be under Romanian jurisdiction. The change in jurisdiction will result in greater freedom to live authentic Byzantine monastic life...
-Daniel

Daniel,

Your comment above was certainly uncalled for and is a slight against Bishop William. Father Maximos described the problem as follows:

"It is important to understand that the 1990 Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches is in some ways unclear on what is the proper relationship between a monastery sui juris and its eparch. It is probably no secret that Holy Resurrection Monastery and the current administration of the Eparchy of Van Nuys differ in their interpretation of some of the provisions of the 1990 Code. Personally, I think the most important questions have to do with the admission of new monks and the ways in which one monastery can help another monastic community to begin. There are other questions as well, but these two go to the heart of how our Church can best make the monastic vocation available to those who are called to it."

Father Maximos points to the Code's being muddled on the point of the relationship between a monastery sui juris of eparchial right and its eparch. Nowhere does Father Maximos describe the problem as not having the "freedom to live authentic Byzantine monasticism." As one can tell by the monastery's website and newsletters, new men have been admitted to HRM.

On another note:

Not as well known, but certainly following a period of formation that began under Bishop George, there is another monastic group within the Eparchy of Van Nuys, Christ the Good Shepherd Monastery. I've had the pleasure of first meeting Hegumen Jon Jensen and some of the brothers a few years ago in Phoenix. Bishop William and the Eparchy of Van Nuys do support an Eastern monastic presence.

I agree with Father Deacon John that Daniel�s post was uncharitable.

It seems to me that the issues here are those of growing pains. We have a new and young monastic community and a Church in America that is not used to having monastics. We have been without authentic Eastern monastics for so long in America that we have forgotten how necessary a healthy and vibrant community is to the larger Church.

In the few short years they have been part of our Church we have benefited greatly from their witness. But mostly we have benefited from their prayers.

May the Lord God continue to bless them as they live the radical evangelical life of monasticism!

Admin

Please accept my apologies; I meant no harm.
Other posters had described it as some sort of tragedy. I was trying to indicate that it is not perceived as such by those involved; I am sorry if it seemed uncharitable.

Father Deacon, are we to understand that the "formation" of Good Shepherd Monastery is over? Has Good Shepherd now been erected as a monastery sui juris? That would be support indeed.

unworthy monk Maximos

Father Maximos,

I really do find this veiled sarcasm unworthy of you.

I agree that Father Maximos� sarcastic comments were uncharitable.

But equally uncharitable was Father Deacon John�s open sarcasm that the monastic community he referenced (which I praise, but which has not yet attained the maturity that was granted to Holy Resurrection Monastery) was somehow superior to HRM, and his post earlier in the thread suggesting that there were no criteria from which to judge that we have benefited by their presence in our Church (that was a cheap shot).

As I noted yesterday, the issues here are those of growing pains. We have a new and young monastic community and a Church in America that is not used to having monastics. We have been without authentic Eastern monastics for so long in America that we have forgotten how necessary a healthy and vibrant community is to the larger Church.

Admin

Dear Deacon John,

I was scolded by you earlier for saying that there were difficulties between Bishop Skurla and HRM. May I take your later posts on this forum as a de facto admission that there are difficulties?

Would you care to spell out what they are?

Father Maximos, be assured of our prayers and support wherever the jurisdictional highway takes you. Your monastery is a gem, and your spiritual paternity vital to all Greek Catholics.

By the way, may God bless you abundantly for the First Things article on celibacy. I have used this not only in my college class, but have handed it out to many.

To your entire brotherhood, chronia polla, as you lead the way for us with your prayers through the darkness of the world.

I am very sorry to have offended Father Deacon John.

I can only say that people understand the word "support" differently. There have certainly been times when I have felt that the monastic life did not receive the suppport it needs from people I thought were in a position to offer it. Perhaps I am too acutely aware of how difficult it is to start a monastic community from scratch in a world utterly hostile to the ascetic ideal. On the other hand, I can only imagine what it is to administer a diocese or a parish in a world equally as hostile to the work of the Church in its midst. It is certainly possible that what I interpret as a lack of support from my perspective may well be the best support possible from the point of view of the other.

Perhaps reaching past these different understandings is part of what our Administrator calls "growing pains". This dialogue is certainly better conducted in charity, and I am sorry again that I failed in it.

unworthy monk Maximos

Admin,

Please reread my post, I cannot see how anyone could read into my post that another monastic group is somehow superior to another. By virtue of precedence and establishment, Holy Resurrection Monastery is well beyond any other fledging monastic group within the Eparchy of Van Nuys, yet given the ideal of monastic humility, no monk would ever be so arrogant to say his monastery is superior to another. However, as one who attempts and fails to follow the monastic ideal, I apologize if you were able to infer this from my post.

My point was to confront those who have stated now and in the past that Bishop William is looking to rid the eparchy of a monastic presence. That there is some disagreement, as Father Maximos has stated, over the interpetation of the Code, should not lead to the accusation that Bishop William is somehow an "enemy" of monasticism.

Do not the monks of HRM continue to pray the cycle of liturgical services and continue to be a very visible witness of Byzantine monasticism? Is this not the essence of the monastic vocation?