www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Update on Holy Trinity in Bridgeport, CT

JOB:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

The real question is what is happening witht his community? Are you all dispersed the rest of the year? Has anyone spoken about starting another formal community with another bishop?

???????????????

BOB

Hi Bob,

It's funny that you mention that...I did have a "community member" mention once again how great it would be if we were able to have a formal community like we originally discussed. The problem is, some of us have become Orthodox and some went to the RCC. Two families went to the UGCC. At this point we would not be able to remain cohesive group. Those who went to the RCC are "wed to the papacy" and those of us who went with various Orthodox Jurisdictions would not return to Rome (unless there was formal agreement between Orthodox and the RCC).

We do see each other periodically throughout the year. We normally try and have a large get together over the summer as well...although the St. Nicholas gathering is clearly the best attended.

Job

That leaves me to ask why: It wasn't "Rome" that closed the parish. Was there more than the usual discontent with Rome before the parish was closed?

I can only speak of myself. There is not anger, at "Rome" but having finally returned to Orthodoxy. It is if a "burden" had been lifted. The ability to be "eastern" without having to explain and try and justify being eastern in a "roman catholic" world.

JOB:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

But no one discussed the possibility of calling Bishop John Michael of the Romanians to pass under his omophor before heading out for other places.

I'm saddened that a local expression of the Body of Christ has been destroyed--something like crucifying Christ all over again.

May the Lord bless each one of His friends who have been members of this community and now find themselves dispersed.

BOB

It was discussed...those of us who went to the various Orthodox Churches tended to see it more along the lines of this was "the continued revelation from God" that it was time to continue the journey back home...and those who had no interest in returning to Orthodoxy had less interest in remaining eastern and more interest in remaining Catholic (read RC)

to me this is the greatest problem with the UNIA..."under the Pope" becomes more important than anything else...

Agreed.

My parents have said that if the BC church ceases to exist, they would join the Roman rite. They would never become Orthodox.

Job,

I don't think that's entirely fair or accurate.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Based on over 35 years of experience with the BCC and its members I think it is greatly accurate. I have to believe those who truly "leaned eastern in their praxis" left with Fr. Toth or Fr. Chornack (hence their children would have left as well). Although some with a "true eastern bent" have come along since then, it is definitely the minority. Please Fr. Deacon, let us know why you feel my statement was not entirely fair or accurate. I actually feel, based on experiences, with about approximately 1/3rd of the Holy Trinity people returning to the Orthodox Church that is actually a pretty high number. The unfortunate thing (for the BCC) is they are all the younger people (including approximately 5 children under the age of 12). Which as I am typing this makes sence, those who were not "Wed to Rome" would have left with the earlier departures (read Fr. Chornack)...

To a large extent this is accurate. From the time of the union until about Vatican II there was a tendency (exacerbated by Rome itself) that all things Roman were superior and anything Eastern inferior. There seems to have been a purposeful “Catholic First, Byzantine Second” mindset whereas in truth we cannot be good Catholics unless we are first faithful Byzantines.

This statement is demonstrably false. Those who left in the splits in the 1890s and 1929 did not originally leave for Orthodoxy because they concluded that Catholicism was in error, or that they wanted to change their praxis to be more Eastern, or that they were already more Eastern then those who remained in communion with Rome. They left because of the poor way they were treated by Roman Catholics. They did not see a return to Orthodox communion as either a change in faith or praxis. For them it allowed them to remain Greek Catholics and continue their life of faith as they had received it – latinizations and all. In the 1929 split that is what the cry “neither Rome nor Moscow” was all about. Constantinople would leave them alone. An Orthodox identity would only develop later (in most).

Two further points.

1. When I was in high school one of my teachers was a life long member of an OCA parish. Yet if you walked up to her on the street and asked her what religious denomination she was she would say simply: “Greek Catholic” (she was probably in her late 30s then (in the late 1970s)). It is only the generation born after (roughly) the 1970s that has an Orthodox identity (rather then an “Orthodox Greek Catholic” (or simply "Greek Catholic") identity – and I limit my comments to the northeast and central United States).

2. Change has come slow to the Johnstown parishes (but progress is being made). You can still find parishes with first communion and May crowning, not to mention liturgical rubrics that are at times more Latinized than those in the Byzantine Catholic Church.


A final point. Had Holy Trinity Parish in Bridgeport not been closed and instead had been assigned a pastor who was willing to celebrate the Liturgy fully and correctly the parish would be growing and no one would have left for either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicsim (and this thread would not exist).

Therein lies the heart of the issue, I think. It appears to be from all reports a dreadful failure (even worse - I think it rose to the level of pastoral malpractice) of leadership.

Regarding the point of union with the Pope being more important than anything else, I agree that historically that has been the case. I was reading it as a general commentary on the contemporary Byzantine scene. I would not use such reductionism to describe the state of ALL Eastern Catholic churches today.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

And let's face facts, had the same priest not been pastor of the nearby Greek Catholic parish of the same jurisdiction, many if not most of Holy Trinity's parishioners may have remained Greek Catholic and gone to that parish. Just a merger of the two parishes into one, making a stronger parish. Unfortunately that was not the outcome.

Actually, even if the same priest had not been pastor of the nearby Greek Catholic parish of the same jurisisdiction...the damage was done not only from the local pastor but the bishop and "his minions" so we can not blame all of it on the local administrator.

I agree with this...however, let's all take a look at the parishes...the majority of members of the BCC were alive at the time of Vatican II...thus as of today "Catholic First, Byzantine Second" still holds...