www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Parishes being run into the ground in the Eparchy of Passaic

That's a good question and I sure wish I had an answer. I've been reading the thread as it develops and can't comment on whether the intentions of the Eparch or the ArchEparch, for that matter. But my question is---how did Bishop Pataki get appointed in the first place?

I have read so much of how when Bishop Pataki was in Parma, he did much of the same things. If someone has a known track record of doing something, and let's presume the ArchEparch doesn't like that track record--how could Bishop Pataki have been appointed to that position in the first place? I'm not saying I condemn or support Bishop Pataki. The sensitivity shown is pretty un-Christian, to say the least. If everything said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it for a moment, then it seems as if the Bishop is being pretty heavy handed and forgetting that if it weren't for our ancestor's pennies and nickels and dimes, there wouldn't be any of those churches to close. Real estate has increased in value-but if it weren't for sacrifices made by past generations, there wouldn't be a cemetary to sell and realize a profit. And in many cases, the present parishioners may be the sons/daugters or grandsons/granddaughters of the people who made those sacrifices. To slap them in the face that way--it's pretty shameful. Somone needs to go to the Mystery of Reconciliation for their behavior.

I'm curious as to how the process works. Wouldn't someone have had to nominate Pataki in the first place? Is there an election among the other Eparch's and the name is then submitted to Rome for approval and appointment? Exactly how does one get to be an Eparch? And I understand that Bishop Schott is first among equals here and can't order another Eparch what to do, but surely there is some influence and power that could have been brought to bear? Why wasn't it done? Or was it done and Bishop Pataki simply went ahead and did it anyway? We can spend all day coming up with conjecture after conjecture. But if someone can explain the process that would be a start. Then we need to think of how to stop it from happening in other Eparchs.

Tim

Actually Sam...I believe these are all considered Mergers not supressions...If I remember correctly there was a substantial distance between the merged parishes with the closure in FL...Also, In CT...the Trumbull parish is only 20 minutes away...which is not an issue for someone young like myself...but a 80 year old who really shouldn't be driving down the street has a far distance to travel...

Part of the problem is, as I believe someone else mentioned earlier is "double dipping" from the eparchy...although the $ may (I don't know if in reality that happens or not) go to "the other local parish"...expenses get driven up...many of them, at least in the case of HT and what I have gathered from discussion with people in Smithtown...are payments to the eparchy that get increased to get the money from the local parish to the eparchial coffers...

That's what I have said all along...Some bishops and priests are more willing to "do the dirty work" than others...otherwise this scandal would not be allowed to continuously occur...


I would think the "Ruthenians" could be downsized...get rid of Passaic and Van Nuys...getting rid of two chancery offices wouldn't be a bad thing...I think the Ruthenians should also begin to look at reuniting with the UGCC...which split in america almost 100 years ago...and have a merger between the Ukrainians and Ruthenians and it would help some of their overlapping jurisdictions as well (eg. Parma)...Nah...shut the doors, turn off the lights and return to your Orthodox counterparts...

Chris

The Ruthenian Church in Europe chooses to remain independent from the UGCC so it only makes sence that her daughter Church in America remains independent too. Besides, a few here claim that Rusyns are "of no relation" to Ukrainians... so why merge with a national Church that caters to a different nationality?


Nah, I have a better idea: the ACROD and half of the OCA parishes should return to the Greek-Catholic Church from which they caim...

BRAVO for Job.
And two BRAVOS for Zan.
The UGCC would welcome all.

I do not recall that we were ever informed regarding Bishop Pataki's installation as Bishop of this Eparchy. All I recall is that Bishop Michael Dudick retired; enter Bishop Andrew. Things have never been the same since.

Your reading this thread...and I assume the others...why leave heaven for hell...no heavy handed closings in ACROD...Can't speak for the OCA...No RDL...latinisms as "pius beliefs" not dogma...returning to the Greek-Catholic Church in communion with Rome...I don't think so...

The Catholic Church is not "Hell". Please do not insult us.

I choose to be Catholic, I am proud to be Catholic, and I would die with out hesitation to remain Catholic, just as scores of Holy Ukrainian Martyrs did before me. I love my faith, as do many, many Rusyns. We are not idiots nor (despite Orthodox claims) were our ancestors idiots who blindly followed a few bishops and the Metropolitan of Kiev into communion with Rome. I would never sacrifice my faith to become Russian Orthodox, or communist, or anything else.

The legacy of Judas is well alive in the Catholic Church, as it has been for the last 2000 years. This legacy is nothing new. You say that joining some Orthodox jurisdiction is the answer to solve the Byzantine Catholic Church's problems. Well I say prayer, not schism, is the weapon to defeat the demons.

God bless -Zan

I apologize...it was typed with "tongue in cheek"


I would never sacrifice my faith either...that was why with prayer and years of discernment I realized remaining in communion with Rome I was sacrificing my faith...

Enough of this though...we are straying far from the topic...

Chris

I would never sacrifice my faith either...that was why with prayer and years of discernment I realized remaining in communion with Rome I was sacrificing my faith...

Enough of this though...we are straying far from the topic...

Chris

Chris, to get back to the topic....

In our area, most of the Ukrainian priests are married. I understand that although there is a terrible shortage of priests in this country, in the Ukraine there are plenty of married priests. I don't know if this is true for the Ruthenians also. From what I have been told, the Latin Rite in the US does not look favorably upon married priests being brought in from other countries, thus contributing to the problem of the priest shortage.

As far as any kind of merger, I wonder how willing the other Eparchies (such as the Ukrainian one, for instance), would be to be united. I know that we are not the only ones discussing what is happening to Church of the Resurrection, and other entities are quite nervous about it. - "There but for the Grace of God go I."

Let's extrapolate this reasoning to it's logical conclusion!



Alexandr

In ten years or so when the Ruthenian Metropolia no longer exists and the few remaining Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics are served only by Bi-ritual priests, will there be the introduction of Bi-ritual bishops???

Ungcsertezs

If parish has canonical members of the Church those members can appeal the decision for closure, and the closure is stayed (put on hold) until the appeal is reviewed.

I hesitate to post the following link because it does contain some material that is irregular(advocates women presiders) but you may be able to glean some useful information on the right so parishioners:

Save Our Parish Community [futurechurch.org]

One has to wonder then why the larger parish that generates more income would be the one chosen to 'merge' into the smaller parish?

Sam

Is the concern of a merger income?