www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Embracing Celibacy follow-up

Thank you J. Andrew.

So, once again, for those who wish to be constructive, call your vocation director for those who wish to inquire about a vocation. We had a "called by name" program in which ALL the faithful were to submit the names of anyone who may be good candidates. I wonder if anyone actually submitted any names, or is the role of BC's just to grumble. BTW, how many of those gurmbling and demanding are actually Byzantine Catholic (a rhetorical question.)

Hegumen Leo would be DELIGHTED to have 5 or 10 names submitted to him to follow up on for monastic vocations. His phone number is 724-287-4461

Here are the phone numbers for the vocation directors:
Pittsburgh:
Fr. Dennis Bogda 412-461-0944 dmbsjbc@comcast.net
Fr Kevin Marks 724-375-2742 kevmarks@hotmail.com

Passaic:
Fr. Salvatore Pignato 407-351-0133 stnicholascathhol@bellsouth.net

Parma:
Fr Dennis Hrubiak 440-734-4644 fdhrubiak@yahoo.com

Phoenix:
Fr Robert Pipta 858-277-5191 rmp.byzcath@juno.com


Replace your talk with action, give them a call with a serious list of names!

I've only just caught up with this thread, and find to my dismay some falsehoods being spoken about my community, most notably from Father Deacon Lance:

I didn't say they broke any canons, I said they did not like abiding those they were under. They thought they had the right to erect other monasteries, the Bishop saw that as his perogative.

We were perfectly content to live under the canons, and to say otherwise is calumny. We asked only that the canons be respected. And we never--NEVER--arrogated to ourselves the "right to erect other monasteries."

I wish people wouldn't talk about things they apparently know nothing about.

BTW, I'm please to say we're really thriving here in our new home in Wisconsin and under the spiritual and canonical care of His Grace Bishop John Michael! We continue to have extremely good relationships with many of the clergy and faithful of our previous jurisdiction, for whom we have nothing but respectful thoughts and fervent prayers.

Fr Maximos

Father, bless! And other jurisdictions as well...

Of course! Every jurisdiction :-)

In the interest of fairness, I should also point out that, of course, we were never under "interdict" whatever that means. As to what did happen, frankly I'd much prefer to let the past stay where it belongs and give thanks for the present and what the Lord will bring tomorrow. I just cannot allow outright falsehoods to stand uncorrected. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Fr Maximos

I've got to hand to my EC brothers and sister, you guys sound just like us Orthodox! One big happy, but a bit dysfunctional, family.

I don't see what this has to do with married men being included in the priesthood or how it can be translated into action that would help bring a married priesthood about.

Are married men even eligible to be included on the list of leads?

JJ,
Do you know a better way? You'll never get such a seminarian if no one applies, will you? Certainly talk on a forum doesn't accomplish anything, so the past 10 years I've been a member tell me. Actually, it probably keeps good men from applying.

Christ is amongst us!
Fr Deacon Paul

Fr. Maximos,

I ask your forgiveness. My wording was poorly chosen. Obviously however, your Monastery and the Bishop disagreed in the interpretation and implementation of the canons or you would still be in the Metropolia. As to the erection of monasteries your typicon contains the right to erect dependent sketes. Are you saying the situation with Holy Theophany played no part in your decision to leave? I bear your monastery no ill will but this is not the first time your situation has been presented as Metropoltian William had a vendetta against you and I tire of it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My thought is that if the church, particularly its leadership, is vocal in encouraging married priests (and monastics), creates favorable conditions for accepting married priests (and monastics), and is outspoken in its advocacy of such, the rest - with prayer - will fall into place.

You can have a list of leads as big as the Bible, but who would want to take on such a burden, not to mention invest the well-being of his family, when one can't even be sure if his own church is going to support him?

Leaders need to lead, and the rest will follow. Not cautiously, but boldly. Caution is a good thing in and of itself, but is detrimental when it leads to paralysis and decay.

I appreciate your thought, and yes, leadership has to lead. But it also needs supporters. Constructive criticism only leads so far.
Are there any interested young to middle-aged men interested? Who will push the envelope?

I know that govt and churches are different, but they are alike in many ways. Take our federal government, for instance. Will they take leadership on there own, or does the grass roots have to push them? This supports your contention, but remember, complaining about Congress/President accomplishes nothing. You have to vote. In our case we have to encourage vocations and we have to pray and we need to be helpful to build the logistics to support the re-establishment of a married priesthood. In language that Stuart will understand, the supply bases of the army has been destroyed, they have to be re-built. No general can just order it.

You need somebody to give the order, unless you propose to work at cross-purposes with your superior.

If the church won't support married priests and monastics, there is little use in attempting to start a grass-roots married clergy effort without the support of the church.

People are voting - the onlyway they can, with their feet.

Dear Father Deacon Lance:

Thanks for the apology. I assure you, no one is more tired of this topic than I am. But our reputation is important enough that it needs to be protected.

The situation with regard to Holy Theophany is too complex to go into fully here. I would point out, though, that the section in our Typikon that refers to dependent houses invokes canon 436, which in turn requires the permission of the canonical authority to which the sui juris monastery is subject before the erection of a dependency. Bishop George Kuzma, of blessed memory, had blessed the initial formation of the womens' community. We knew we needed Bishop William (as he then was) to approve the next step. Yes, the fact that this was unlikely to be forthcoming, despite the fact that three sisters had committed themselves to this project, was a factor in our looking for a new canonical home.

You’re correct to say the fundamental problem was a clash of understanding and, I think, of vision, regarding the place of a monastery in the American Byzantine Catholic Church. It wasn’t a problem of canonical malfeasance. That’s why the Holy See agreed with both bishops that the best solution was a transfer to an eparchy in which we’d be a better fit.

Fr. Maximos

I don't know of this issue, but from the Orthodox side, I thought it should be noted that the relationship between monastic communities and Orthodox diocesan Bishops is not always smooth and easy-going either. This is so even though Orthodox Bishops are theoretically monastics - albeit many are so in name only. God bless you and your endeavors.

Not always, but most times this is a copout. This is why we have lost so many members to the Latin Church, a shorter and/or more convenient Mass is a "good" reason to switch Churches.

It's sad as I've heard that from BCC friends who don't like the 'easterninzations' - meaning 'longer' Liturgies - it's easier to pop into the Slovak church down the block on a Saturday afternoon for 30 minutes to fulfill one's 'obligation'. Probably teaching that Liturgy is less of an 'obligation' and more of a spiritual fountain is a good starting place from an Eastern pov.