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

Oh my, what a beautiful church that must have been.

On to the point of sharing churches that Stuart brought up, it is not all uncommon. There are many instances in Ukraine where churches are shared. And here in my hometown, there is a Romanian Orthodox (OCA) mission that meets at a local Roman Catholic chapel and the priest says Divine Liturgy over the RC altar.

Interestingly enough, lightening hasn't come down from heaven and struck dead anyone who shares the altar, so perhaps Stuart's idea would work for Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes on these shores.

Well, you've hit on something. If it really boils down to bucks -- developers' versus concerned congregants then I can accept that as being a reason (despite how horrible it might be.)

PA and NJ outside of places like Philly, Pittsburgh and Newark are less urban than much of (populated) California where I live and the property is certainly less sought after in most cases.

"Demographics" should not be used as a universal excuse for killing off parishes. Lack of keeping family members in the faith and lack of recruiting new members to the faith are the real problem. Both often boil down to a great deal of work.

Those other faith communities you mention often do a FAR better job of welcoming/enticing people into their places of worship.

Given the typically small size of Eastern parishes, I will bet there are more than a few examples of those that thrive still today due to outstanding pastors and laity. Parishes that are very strong even though neighboring parishes are dying...

Demographics are destiny. Cardinal Gibbons, the great opponent of John Henry Newman, once asked Newman, in a fit of pique, "The laity, sir? Pray, who are they?", to which Newman responded, "They are those without whom, M'Lord, the Church would look silly".

Well, that's becoming true in a literal sense in many parts of the country. We aren't just talking about the loss of a particular ethnic group or religious community, we are talking about absolute losses of population as people migrate in search of jobs and a better quality of life. A town of 100,000 people has, say 100 churches (of all sorts, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike). That's an average of 1000 people per church. The town loses half of its population, which then means each parish has only about 500 people. Worse, the people who leave are those who should form the heart of every congregation--young families with children. Who remain behind? Those too old or too young to move (I've seen this not just in the Midwest, but in my wife's small hometown in Texas, where everybody is either under sixteen or over sixty). You can't build a thriving parish on such a base, and the only logical thing to do is consolidate and relocate.

This has happened before. During the Dark Ages, the population of Europe contracted by almost a third, and there was a massive migration from cities to the countryside. Many smaller cities and towns were either abandoned altogether or became little more than villages. Mighty Rome, which in the 2nd century had two million inhabitants, was by the end of the sixth century reduced to less than 50,000 people, mostly clustered around the Palatine Hill, the sheep grazing amidst the monuments of the Forum Romana.

It happened again, in the wake of the Black Death: villages disappeared, towns became villages, cities degenerated into towns. Hundreds, thousands of parish churches simply disappeared--you can find their ruins all over Europe. The Church did not attempt to keep these buildings open, or even in good repair; it walked away and went where the people were, the people who needed the Church. Just because the Orthodox like to pretend that the Bishop of Podunk, IL is really the bishop of some fly-blown hamlet in Anatolia doesn't mean you can go there and find his cathedral. There are five or more Patriarchs of Antioch, but if you ever go to Antioch, you'll find only one or two small churches at most--the site is largely abandoned. On the other hand, there are lots of churches in Damascus--including a lot of cathedrals.

If present trends continue, then there just won't be the population or economic base to support as many parishes as we have, at least in the places we have them now. Suppose the priest shortage ended tomorrow, and we had one, or even two priests for every parish--do you think even then it would be possible--or even desirable--to keep all those parishes open for the sake of nostalgia?

In some ways, the priest shortage is masking the problem--with one priest handling two or even three parishes, his stipend derives from the offerings of two or three parishes, and barely makes ends meet. Now, suppose each of those parishes had a full time priest, each of whom needed his own stipend, his own rectory, his own car, etc.? The excuse of clerical shortages would be revealed as a red herring: the real problem is too much supply (church buildings), too little demand (Greek Catholics) in those particular areas.

On the other hand, once you get out of the Old Country, it's not unusual to find one parish servicing an area with a radius of up to sixty miles. People will drive for an hour or more, each way, each Sunday, and on feast days, to attend the Liturgy, whereas in other areas, people won't drive five or six miles down the road to the next town, because it's not "their" church.

But, Abraham, our people are no longer there - or are so few in number that they can't support a priest, or we don't have the priests. I know of one instance where a single Byzantine priest serves 4 parishes - you need GPS to find the man.

Many years,

Neil

And, as I said, if the priest shortage disappeared tomorrow, it would simply expose the demographic/financial problem in all its immensity. Four parishes with 25-50 people supporting one priest might be (marginally) viable; four such parishes supporting four priests is an exercise in futility. Of course, if people would be willing to accept priests who have full-time employment, or married priests whose wives have outside income, that might make a difference. But people seem to want priests who are on call 24/7, which makes that approach difficult.

To follow up on the point I made above about our people (and, by that phrase, I mean my Ruthenian brethren) being "no longer there" ... I suggest one peruse our Directory entries for Byzantine (Ruthenian) parishes in Pennsylvania.

Even ignoring 'historical entries' (those for parishes that have been suppressed, translated to Orthodoxy, or otherwise are no longer serving as active Byzantine Ruthenian temples), there are a remarkable number still of parishes/missions in townships, villages, and boroughs that are little more than the coal patches/camps that they were at founding. Although I'm not from PA, I've spent enough time there over the years to have felt that I knew it well - until I started work on the directory and had to map the locations of some of these temples - literally in the midst of nowhere.

Many years,

Neil

Following up on Neil's comments, if you add the ACROD, OCA and UOC-USA directories to his list of BCC parishes across the 'rust belt', it lends further suupport to his point.

Also, as to Stuart's comment: "Of course, if people would be willing to accept priests who have full-time employment, or married priests whose wives have outside income, that might make a difference. But people seem to want priests who are on call 24/7, which makes that approach difficult..." I have an observation. As the son and brother of Orthodox priests, our people expect the priest to be on call 24/7 anyway! There is an interesting blog entry on this subject by a ROCOR Abbot, Tryphon from August 29th which is worth reading. http://morningoffering.blogspot.com/2011/08/to-support-your-priest-how-to-lovingly.html#comments

Stuart:

In some Protestant churches that I've worked in, the mantra is to "keep the pastor poor and in line." Makes me shudder.

Bob

^ That's probably why some of them go 'indy' and set up their own pastorates and 'mega-churches.'

Have there been any attempts at evangelization over the years? Other groups (including some Christian groups) seem to be doing a lot better. Has anyone every pushed aside all the preconceived notions and analyzed the reasons?

That was an ever present temptation. But I was always stopped because my desire was to get to heaven and help others get there, not to become popular and rich. Although the latter would have been nice.

The problem seems to me one of a 'preserve' mindset: we presume that our church's function is to preserve our fill-in-the-blank identity. But the Church of Jesus Christ is not bidden to 'preserve' anything but rather to squander prodigally, to broadcast lavishly the Gospel. Our churches have the same task as every other true Church: to proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes, in season and out of season, to Greek and Jew, slave and free, man and woman. When we lose sight of that fundamental given, we turn in on ourselves and fester. Some of our churches are now gangrenous with this contagion! In the face of such life-threatening sickness only radical amputations are in order to save the rest of the healthy body.

Agreed.

To sacramentally celebrate His Birth, Death and Resurrection and the salvific grace that flows from that most holy of mysteries. That would seem to be task #1. But a close second would be to "get" as many souls to take advantage of that economy of salvation as possible.