www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Any News on a Metropolitan?

Nope, but the point was that Byzantine Churches of various traditions can work together. This seems to take place more on the local level, then at the top. The Russian/Melkite and the Italo-Greek/Rutheian co-operation is an example of that.

Sorry to digress from the original subject...

Back to the original subject, what specifically are the prerequisites for the Ruthenian Metropolitan? How big of a field of candidates are we talking about here?

The Council of Hierarchs is required to submit three names to the Pope, who can either choose from those names, or name a different candidate of his own choice.

The most obvious thing to do is promote one of the remaining three bishops, which would also require the nomination of someone to fill the new empty see.

Less obvious would be selecting someone from the ranks of the presbyters.

Really daring would be the promotion of a deacon (once upon a time, the protodeacon usually succeeded the bishop).

But, no matter how you cut it, the pond is small, and the number of big fish can be counted on one hand.

That the local parishes are working together with other Eastern Catholic Churches is a credit to our hierarchs; if they were NOT in favor this activity it wouldn't be happening. Conversely, if it were mandated that all work together there would be controversy and progress would actually be slower.

Stuart, off the cuff, here are actions which have been occuring:

1. Opening up the seminary to non Ruthenian Churches
2. Acceptance of Melkite priest accepted into our eparchies and parishes
3. Retreat masters from other Eastern Churches Opening up the seminary to non Ruthenian Churches
4. Acceptance of Melkite priests into our eparchies and parishes
5. Retreat masters from other Eastern Churches; they talk of the same common situation

We are not in a fortress mentality. Yes, we know that our Church, like many others, is losing people. Our local newspaper just reported two local Lutheran parishes are being closed; they just celebrated their 100th Anniversary. They were booming parishes in the 1950's.

I disagree that our numbers are grossly inflated; in fact they are probably more accurate than in most Churches.

I recently visited Michigan and attended a Ukrainian Catholic parish; they have one DL on Sunday; counting my wife and I there there 12 people. This was a vibrant parish which build a new church in the 1950's; now its clinging on to life. I pray they may continue, but the DL is in Ukrainian so it won't attract English only speakers. At least our parish have the POTENTIAL to attract English speaking members.

We have been in a transition period; things are evolving and we will adapt with the guidance of the Good Shepherd.

Fr Deacon Paul

Why, I wonder, do we have a seminary at all? Why not send our students to a Ukrainian or Melkite seminary? But, while I am at it, why are there Eastern Cathollic seminaries at all? If there is no difference in our theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline, we should be sending our students to Orthodox seminaries, which will certainly work to bring us closer to our Mother Churches, while simultaneously freeing us from the overhead of maintaining underutilized facilities (the real reason for opening the seminary to non-Ruthenians) and freeing up a number of priests to minister to parishes.

I'm still waiting for an unambiguous statement from the Hierarchs that they will be ordaining married men to the presbyterate (there are more than enough qualified candidates). And, of course, the repeal of the Revised Divine Liturgy would demonstrate real seriousness on the parts our our God-loving Bishops.

In the meanwhile, might I suggest moving all those deck chairs aft and to portside? They'll stay out of the water longer, that way.

That has to be one of the weirdest things I have heard in a long long time. Look at the logical implications of your statement. You are saying that there are no differences between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, therefore there should only be eastern seminaries. The logical extension of your question is what possible reason there is for eastern Catholic churches (let alone their seminaries) to exist if you really believe they are Orthodox churches anyway? Do you really believe what you just said is workable, or did you just get carried away?

Stuart,

To address a few of your points ...

Why not send the Ruthenians to a Melkite seminary? Because we don't have an active one at present. When we did, we trained seminarians of other Churches. (And, significant numbers of Melkite clergy have trained at Holy Cross GO Seminary in Boston.)

Among others, Sayedna Raymond of the Maronites and Kyr John Michael of the Romanians both did some of their priestly formation at St Basil's Melkite Seminary, when neither of their Churches has seminaries in the US. Deacons of several Churches trained in our diaconate program, when some of the other Churches didn't have such programs.

Our current seminarians are studying at Ss Cyril & Methodius and one of our priests is the Professor of Canon Law there.

We afford spritual omophor to St Andrew's Russian in El Segundo and Our Lady of Fatima Russian in San Francisco, as we once did for Our Lady of Kazan Russian in Boston, of blessed memory. One of our priests serves St Michael's Russian in NYC. The governing body of Our Lady of Grace Italo-Greek-Albanian Society and Mission in NYC includes a priest and archdeacon of our Church.

The Italo-Greeks in LV are under the Ruthenians because Bishop George, of blessed memory, saw an unserved community and reached out to them, as did we and the Romanians to the Russians.

There is significant reaching out among and between the Churches. You can see it in articles in the various eparchial publications where one reads of priests from the various Churches giving talks, retreats, iconography workshops, etc, at temples of their Sister Churches. As well, you read of things so simple as coming together to celebrate events.

If you read as many online bulletins as I do these days in the course of compiling the directory, you'd see many notes of appreciation for coverage provided to parishes by priests of Sister Churches during illnesses, vacations, etc.

I am decidely not a fan of a unified American Church. I love the diversity, but I am a major fan of working together to serve the peoples of our Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Correct. But what I said was Eastern Orthodox seminaries. We Greek Catholics are Orthodox--or should be--otherwise we should fold our tents and become Latins. There is no tertium quid.


Correct again. As Bishop John Michael of Canton of the Romanians has said, "The vocation of the Greek Catholics is to disappear"--that is, to return to their Orthodox Mother Churches as soon as this is made possible by the reestablishment of communion between the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome. Our only reason for being is to manifest the possibility of being fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome, ergo, once communion is restored, our raison d'etre has vanished. As there are no theological differences between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholic (pace Patriarch Lyubomir), and since we believe all that the Orthodox Church believes (pace Patriarchs Maximos V and Gregorios III), everything we need to learn can be taught at an Orthodox seminary.


Every last word. Already Greek Catholics attend Orthodox seminaries for higher studies, so why not make a move that will create a common mindset among both Orthodox and Greek Catholic clergy? If, as the Liturgical Instruction says, we should remove all unnecessary differences between us, then this is an excellent place to begin, not the least in installing a truly Orthodox liturgical outlook in the Greek Catholic clergy.

As an unusual corollary, I might point out that there are Catholic institutions such as the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome and the Catholic University in Lviv that provide training to both Catholic and Orthodox students. They can do so because what they teach is unimpeachably Orthodox theology, liturgy, spirituality, doctrine and discipline.

Since I pretty much agree with Stuart one must ask "what function does our Metropolitan serve that makes filling the position important?" Maybe we would be as well off without one. I'm just suggesting.

A brother who left asked me if I would attend his Chrismation. I said "no, I could not. You have already been Chrismated. If I attended such an event I would be renouncing the faith you and I share." Another asked me if I would attend his ordination should he be ordained. I said "Yes, because we have the same faith." I think I've got that right. If I do I don't see the point in different competing seminaries. Since we don't seem to have any mission distinct from either the Catholics or the Orthodox, at least we don't seem to be doing much about it if we do, I wonder why we need a Metropolitan.

Well, there is an Eparchy that needs a bishop.

Why?

Maybe we could elect someone and not tell Rome. It might be years before they get back to us, by which time our new Metropolitan could have conducted a thorough overhaul of the Ruthenian Church (at which point Rome will say, "What a great appointment! Glad we thought of it".


I'm just catching up but this is the best idea I've ever read on this subject. Except for this one: Why not fold all of the Eparchies into one and have one bishop. Do we really need four?

It depends on your point of view. I would prefer that bishops not be distant figures, and have a real place in the life of the local Church. The large size of eparchies in the Orthodox jurisdictions here have tended to encourage parochialism and congregationalism, to the detriment of the authority of the bishop and the unity of the Church. On the other hand, when you have a bad bishop, it's no bad thing that "God bless and keep our bishop. . . far away from us!"

But, assuming that the bishops are worthy men, it is better to have them closer at hand, which, in the case of the Ruthenian Church, would mandate more rather than fewer bishops--even if some of these would have only a few thousand faithful under their care.

Here is how I would break it down:

Eparchy of New England--Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Eparchy of the Mid-Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware.

Eparchy of the South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennesee and Florida

Eparchy of Pittsburgh (so we don't have to change the letterhead): Western Pennslvania, West Virginia, Eastern Ohio.

Eparchy of the Midwest: Western Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska

Eparchy of the Gulf: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas

Eparchy of the Southwest: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Hawaii

Eparchy of the Northwest: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota.

That would make eight eparchies in all, which would allow the formation of a real synod, would ensure closer pastoral oversight of regions outside of the ethnic heartland--and especially in those places where the Church is actually growing. Sure, some bishops will have only a couple of thousand faithful in a handful of parishes, but that's not unusual--Greece, for instance, has ninety eparchies for an Orthodox population of 9 million, most of whom live in and around Athens and Thessaloniki. So, nominally, the average Greek eparchy has 100,000 members, but, discounting those in and around Athens and Thessaloniki, the average is closer to 10,000.

**
Okay, let's take off with that thought.
The implication is we should have regional seminaries so students could be closer to their homes. The remaining seminaries (and either Pittsburgh or Johnstown would have to be one of them), both Orthodox and Catholic could attend, regardless of affiliation. Orthodox would attend Eastern Catholic and vice versa.
Can you imagine THAT happening? You would hear screams clear to Moscow, back to Pittsburgh and back to Lviv, back to Damascus. The echoes would be endless.

Shared seminaries with the Orthodox would be amazing. Just consider this excerpt from the article in the "Church News" forum about the Pontifical Oriental Institute: