www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Addressing Heterodoxy

Welp, my last post got yanked, but I'll have a go anyway. I can't answer the question, but I can at least share anecdotes from the parish priest in Atlanta for the Ruthenian church which may shed light indirectly on the question.

Fr. always gives good homilies. (I haven't been back to his parish since the adoption of the RDL.) I recall several though in which he recounted things he had been taught in the seminary for the BCC. A couple were major heresies, things along the lines like "there is no bodily resurrection -- you die, you die." Of course, Fr. went out to explain how these things had already been dealt with in Paul's writings, but he was always obviously saddened that he had to deal with it all while in seminary. He made some wonderful points and used something bad to make a good point about Christian life. Some of the other whoppers were like, you know, condemned in the ecumenical councils of the first millennium ("Jesus wasn't really God, etc.") I don't actually remember all them now.

The things Fr. took head on were the very same heterodoxies that a good Latin priest I had as a chaplain warned me about when I began looking into religious life. I'd wanted to learn all about the Eastern Church and he gave me a list, including the Ruthenian seminary, and said "PLEASE be careful with them -- they've sorta lost their way." Words to that effect. This came to mind instantly the first time the Ruthenian priest here in ATL began talking about the heterodoxy he had been exposed to at the seminary. Orthodox = "taught rightly." Hmmm... not always.

Now, perhaps all the heterodox have since been removed from the BCC seminary (in PA I think?). In which case, one would certainly be way off in drawing any links with it and the RDL. However, I'm not so optimistic. Dissent and heterodoxy have a way of going all stealth when the need arises -- there's more to be gained by planting the seeds of doubt in small classrooms away from prying eyes. OTOH, it's suggestive of a "culture" that *may* have spread beyond the classrooms and into other parts of the church.

Now, let's see if this post gets yanked as well...

I received my training at the Byzantien Catholic Seminary and I can assure you that no heresy is taught there.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Did Fr. Scott attend Sts. Cyril & Methodius Seminary in Pittsburgh? I thought he had transferred from the Latin Church, and had attended one of their seminaries. While I have heard other "complaints" about our seminary, Modernism/Dissent against official Church Teaching/Heresy has never been the subject of any of those complaints.

Dn. Robert

I'm not sure Fr. Deacon. He was a convert from the Episcopalianism to the Roman Church, but I wasn't aware that he had been trained in a Latin seminary. My understanding was that he had gone East before going to seminary. If in fact he was ordained in the Latin rite, then things might not be so bad in the BCC.

Fr. Scott has been pastor in Atlanta for twenty or more years, so it was so long ago that it might not matter anyway. Fr. Deacon Lance has indicated that the doctrine taught at Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the present day is sound, so that's a good thing.

I will say that in the Roman rite, it does make a pretty huge difference where clergy are trained. A bad seminary produces some noxious problems in parishes later on. I imagine the same is true in the BCC, so at the very least, it pays to keep an eye on the formation program. One good sign I think is whether a seminary is drawing students; I've heard that St. Vladimir in the NE is busting at the seams as is the Fraternity of St. Peter in PA. The more liberal dioceses simply don't draw as many vocations.