www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ireland quote?

With all due respect, I think a little more balance to the whole situation here is called for, as a proper corrective.

To be sure, Archbishop Ireland could have and should have been more respectful, chartiable, and responsive to Fr. Toth, his needs and his situation. There was no need or excuse for such behavior on the archbishop's part.

Having said that, what has gone without study is the even more disturbing question as to how and why Fr. Toth thought that being subject to improper treatment by a bishop should be a green light to pursue, in effect, material schism.

And as one who has belonged to both St. Mary's Orthodox and St. John's Byzantine Catholic here in Minneapolis, I think Fr. Toth's legacy is open to serious quesiton.

When St. Mary's annually celebrates the story of Ireland/Toth, I don't think it's to the credit of the OCA to talk about its birth by way of a disgruntled Catholic priest being disrespected.

And as for St. John's, whatever happened with Toth and Ireland should not be license for the kind of Catholic heterodoxy and anti-Roman and anti-Latin overtones that were clearly present in the 2003-2006 period.

Best to all,
Robster

Robster,

Please note our brother Lance G's post above:This seems like a balanced approach to me.


I must admit, you do have an interesting perspective on this matter, and you are quite right in judging the bitterness you observed at both St. Mary's OCA and St. John's BCC to be a poor example of Christian witness. I think, however, that this may not be so much a judgment on Fr. Toth as on the pastors who have allowed and fostered such a spiritual environment.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

While I don't doubt that Saint Alexis (Toth) found Archbishop Ireland's behaviour personally offensive - since it was - that was not the major part of the problem which led to the departure of both priest and parish from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. Simply put, Father Alexis could not conceive of an "independent" church with no bishop, and he also was not in a position to return to Austria-Hungary (his parishioners had paid his way to Minneapolis in the first place, but could scarcely have been expected to pay him to abandon them), nor could he in conscience abandon the parishioners to no pastoral care at all.

According to all the records we have, the suggestion to adhere to the Russian Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco came, not from Father Alexis, but from one or more of the parishioners themselves (which is not particularly surprising; the parishioners had been in America longer than Father Alexis, and no doubt word had reached them that there was such a bishop). Before taking decisive action, Father Alexis sent parishioners to San Francisco to investigate. Further initiative came from the Bishop and his subordinates.

What alternative did Father Alexis have? He had managed to ascertain that the Bishop was a canonical Russian Orthodox Bishop, not an imitation (that is not a joke; there were already various adventurers in North America with dubious claims). Msgr. Ireland had already made it clear that he had given no permission for the organization of the parish, nor for the building of the church, and would not recognize the parish nor any priest which might serve it. Bishop Vladimir was prepared to come to Minneapolis and to provide normal archpastoral care for the parish. At that, Father Alexis waited about a year, attempting also to seek a solution with the aid of his Bishop at home in Preshov. But that door was also firmly closed. Bishop Vladimir represented the only serious possibility.

So his critics have an obligation to answer the question: what, precisely, was Father Alexis to do in this concrete situation?

Fr. Serge

Direct his flock to the nearest "real" Catholic church.

No doubt, that's what Bishop Ireland would have liked.

Note: there is sarcasm in my answer to Fr. Serge's obviously rhetorical question. Forgive me.

Fr. Serge,

Perhaps parish and priest would have had to go their separate ways. The parishoners could have been entrusted to the care of others in St. Paul/Minneapolis (or wherever they could go) while Fr. Alexis could seek out service in another location.

Best,
Robster

Dear Father Serge,

Father Bless.

Thanks for an enlightening presentation of the difficulties Father Alexis faced. Truly he was a good pastor who cared for his flock.

Respectfully in Christ,
Elizabeth

It's also worth noting that according to stories of his life that I have read, St. Alexis had been considering Orthodoxy before his meeting with Bp Ireland. The crisis of how to care for his flock and their salvation was simply an event that made his considerations more pressing and forced him to reach a conclusion sooner than he otherwise might have.

That his conversion was not merely one of convenience can be seen in the zeal with which he worked to bring more Byzantine Catholics back to the Orthodox faith.

Grace and peace,
John

In light of the above, which I did not know, I can still say that Archbishop Ireland should have comported himself more respectfully and appropriately. But if Fr. Alexis' affirmation of Catholicism was this tenuous, then I'm forced to conclude that, while it may have been at the time for the wrong reasons and only clearly seen in retrospect, his being denied standing in the archdiocese was not a wholly unjust decision.

Best,
Robster

What should be of much greater concern to all Catholics was Bishop Ireland's well-documented modernist leanings.

I would recommend Dr. Wangler's (of Boston College) excellent articles on Bishop Ireland including "John Ireland and the Origins of Liberal Catholicism in the United States," and "John Ireland's Emergence as a Liberal Catholic and Americanist, 1875-1887,". Dr. Wangler points out how much of the advent of 20th century liberal Catholicism in this country can be traced to his influence.

After looking at the entire historical and philosophical milleu surrounding Ireland, I had a much different view of Fr. Toth's actions.

How do you figure this? From all accounts, St. Alexis just wanted to be able to tend to his flock. He wasn't screaming and threatening to join the Orthodox church. He was a professor of canon law, and knew exactly what the procedures were. The union was clearly being violated by the actions of Archbishop Ireland.

Maybe St. Alexis had been contemplating Orthodoxy, but who knows what would have happened if things had gone smoothly.

Robster has put forward the following suggestion:


How gracious! There was no one else available in St Paul/Minneapolis to care for these faithful - that's why they built their church and asked the bishops in Europe to send them a priest at their own expense. Father Alexis should have abandoned them to "seek out service in another location"? The same problems were arising elsewhere, and I seem to recall something in the Gospel about the pseudo-shepherd who runs away when the wolf is approaching.

The story that Father Alexis already wanted to join the Orthodox Church and was simply watching for a chance is unsubstantiated and does not fit the known facts - it seems to have been concocted later. Had he wanted to join the Orthodox Church, he did not need to go from Preshov to Minneapolis for the purpose; he could have gone to Bukovyna, to the Kholm Region, or to the Tsarist Empire, all of which were much closer to home for him.

Neither then nor later did Msgr. Ireland attempt to justify his outrageous treatment of Father Alexis and the parish by the claim that Father Alexis was there to lead the faithful into schism - nor did Msgr. Ireland request a Greek-Catholic priest of firm ecclesiological convictions to come and serve the faithful instead of Father Alexis.

Instead, we are faced with a fascinating inconsistency: Msgr Ireland and others of his ilk insisted with one side of their mouths that they did not recognize the Greek-Catholic clergy as Catholic priests, but with the other side of their mouths demanded that Rome should recall the Greek-Catholic clergy! Excuse me? If these disgraceful bishops honestly had not believed the Greek-Catholic clergy to be Catholics, how could they possibly have expected Rome to do anything with regard to such clergy? Did they also demand that Rome should recall Lutheran clergy, Anglican clergy, Calvinist clergy, and, for good measure, Jewish rabbis? To ask that question is to answer it - these bishops knew full well that the Greek-Catholic clergy were married priests, and these bishops could very easily verify the presence of significant numbers of faithful who wanted and need the pastoral care of the Greek-Catholic clergy.

So Msgr. Ireland's abuse of the parish, and of Father Alexis, was indeed wholly unjust. However, he is now in the hands of Divine judgement.

For the sake of Christ, forgive me.

Fr. Serge

I agree fully with Father Serge's comments. I'd also note that a comment attributed to Archbishop Ireland - that Greek-Catholics could be served by the "Polish priest" - was a common response by certain Latin hierarchs of the era. The basic premise was "a Slav is a Slav"* and at least a Polish priest - however distasteful his presence might have been - was unmarried. That would have made him at least a lesser evil.

*no, I'm not interested in arguing whether Poles are Slavs, merely noting the thought processes of the time.

Many years,

Neil

I suppose I don't know all of the details that are involved here. Am I to understand that Fr. Toth and his bishops in Europe did not have any prior contact with, communication with, or coordination with Bishop Ireland prior to folks arriving in St. Paul/Minneapolis?

Best,
Robster

I doubt there was any kind of contact beforehand. He was told to report (by Bishop John Valyi of Presov,
I'm assuming) to the Bishop of the diocese where the parish is. Since there was no Greek Catholic Bishop in the U.S., the bishop he had to report to was Archbishop Ireland. The rest is history.

I have many books that deal with this subject, and none of them say anything about the Bishop in America being contacted beforehand.

I have no reason to think that there was any previous contact, although the Polish priest was aware of the incipient parish before Father Alexis arrived, and might have kept the Latin chancery abreast of things. Then again, he might not, especially if he saw trouble coming and preferred to stay out of it.

At the time, the Greek-Catholic hierarchs in Europe simply assumed that they had the jurisdiction to send priests to their own people upon request.

Fr. Serge