Friday, December 26, 2008
Now we are in the feast of Christmas, til Jan 1 2009.
Perhaps this next year will be a brighter year for our troubled church. I hope and pray that our bishops will look positively toward the future rather than pessimistically as semi-retired Bishop Andrew has done in the Eparchy of passaic.
It was sad news hearing of the closing of St Nicholas in Edison, NJ. For 11 years the parishioners had enjoyed the fruits of their labors in a newly built church only to have a pessimistic and somewhat spiteful bishop callously sell it out from underneath them to pay for undisclosed 'expenses' of the Eparchy.
Our metropolia is shrinking in numbers largely due to our own lack of evangelisation both within and outside our church. We have failed to educate our youth in what our church means to us and how it relates to the world at large. We have become lazy in our own attendance at major feast days opting for other churches.
Monday, September 15, 2008
"I should have noted it further, but even comparing the official Liturgicon with a Pew Book is a bit of comparing apples and pears. [Sorry, oranges are already taken.] I don’t give credit to the RDL for restoring the Third Antiphon and the Beatitudes since in my former parish they were in use for the past 25 years (we simply pasted them in the book). For us and a number of other parishes the RDL shortened them. How could you possibly consider that to be a restoration?"
Many time on that BBS I have seen references to RDL liturgies that are under an hour in length. I find it hard to believe especially in the Pennsylvania region where the singing is considerably slower than out here in the Van Nuys Eparchy that the Divine Liturgy could be celebrated so quickly. Our Sunday Liturgies regularly last 1.5 hours.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Byzcath.org posted on the main page:
Forgiveness Requires Forgiveness – The God of all men releases us from the difficulties of our faults, according to the parable. This is what is signified by the forgiveness of the debt of the ten thousand talents. But this happens only on the condition that we ourselves release our fellow servants from the hundred denarii, that is, from the few minor faults they have committed against us. (St. Cyril of Alexandria)
I don't suppose the administrators or moderators are ready to forgive those they banned and reinstate their posting priveleges? Nah! Taht wouldn't be the proper Christian thing to do now, would it? Gotta show "tough love" to those miscreants who dared to oppose the heirarchy of the BYZCATH.org church.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
I thought it so appropriate given how many they have banned or otherwise turned away at what purports to be a "balanced" bbs welcoming to all who desire to learn about eastern Christianity (even if the byzcath name implies a particular affiliation with the Byzantine Catholic Church-Metropolia of Pittsburgh). The administration there is similar to the chief priests and Pharisees in that they refuse to listen to any opinion regarding the changes in the BCC (particularly in regard to the "RDL" promulgated by the metropolitan and bishops of that church.) The hypocrisy did not go unnoticed.
Tenth Week After Pentecost
July 14-20, 2008
Matthew 21:43-46 – “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him to be a prophet. (RSV - Gospel for Thursday)Is the fruit you bear sweet or bitter? - Although [the chief priests and the Pharisees] were hard of heart and on account of their unbelief and wickedness blunted in their understanding against the Son of God, nevertheless they were unable to deny Jesus’ straightforward statements and understood that all the judgments of the Lord were directed against themselves. So they determined indeed to kill him but feared “the crowd, for they considered Jesus to be a prophet.” But crowds are easily moved, and do not persist in their resolution. The man they now honor and revere as a prophet they later shout against: “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” (St. Jerome)
Friday, July 04, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Perhaps it is summed up by the very posters;
Originally Posted By: Etnick
I'm sure that many OCA and other Orthodox people are far flung and whatnot, but the point is the services are always held. It's not up for debate. It's the Byzantine tradition. If you choose to call Byzantine Catholics as "Ersatz", maybe they are. Sort of a cafeteria mentality. We'll take this and this, but not this or this.
Rome keeps telling the EC's to be authentic. Why aren't they?
We aren't because you say we aren't? By Etnick's standards we fall short?
I don't choose it, these insults and monikers - I accept that is how those with a view to look down on us - often smugly - will put it. And boy do they.
I am happy for you who are located "Where we say men and mankind" that you have found the true fullness of Byzantine praxis by your standards. I wish you well and hope that you flourish and grow in holiness.
I really just cannot take a lot more of ByzCath during our Great Lent though. Some time off may be needed. I love the BCC and on here the way some are taking every opportunity to insult the Byzantine Catholics is just sad. Though it seems to be well accepted and allowable.
It is constant snyde mark and barb and criticism, one right after another, by folks inside and out... I just don't get what the attraction is to focus this VERY negative attention on our small church is all about.
Or perhaps it is the number of excellent posters such as Byzkat who were banned by an administrator, likely due to compelling posts and replies being hard to refute by Byzcath.org administration unwilling to accept the RDL that our Bishops promulgated.
I stopped posting there and mostly stopped reading that board back in Feb 2008 when Byzkat (Jeff Mierzejewski) was banned. Also after defending several friends who were defamed through libel, by malicious posters who remain active on that board (ungcertez, etnick, among others), I, and they (ByzKat, Fr David Petras, Prof Thompson, among others) left the company of that board (some INvountarily and othersvoluntarily), shaking the dust off our feet so to speak.
A closed thread which underscores the hostility found on Byzcath is here:
www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=279617#Post279524]I guess they are right again...
Interestingly, this was the thread which ByzKat was banned. I notice he appears to be "un"-banned. I would guess he and others won't be coming back soon until there is a true metanoia amongst the administration of this bbs, which I would feel is highly unlikely.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In the future I will focus more on my travels again and the more positive aspects of the Byzantine (Ruthenian/Rusyn) Catholic Church. In particular I will add more pictres to the blog.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
| Administrator Administrator |
Originally Posted By: Happy Latin
"Pope John Paul can say what he likes on the issue but that does not make it so."
Amazing how some people can be so dismissive of the words of the pope.... I'm sorry, but we really don't need posters who place their personal understanding above Church Teaching. I stand by my post, and recommend Happy Latin find a forum where his opinion triumphs Catholic theology and praxis.
No, what Byzcath.org needs is an administrator who is capable of handling uncomfortable posts which challenge his authoritarian (and of course "correct") views. The poster he is so blithely dismissing has only posted six posts compared to the esteemed administrator who has posted well over four thousand posts. Obviously quantity wins over quality. Sheesh!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Administrator replied to a Watched Topic at the site:
[quote=PrJ]My ecclesiology teaches me that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and as such have been given the grace of God to lead the Church. From talking to those involved in the translation project, it is clear that the Bishops engaged in this project with a very deep reverence both for their calling as apostolic leaders of the Church and for the grace of God that they have received in their consecration. Therefore, this work (in my opinion) is an example of Apostolic and patristic praxis.[/quote]
I disagree respectfully with PrJ. The good intentions of the bishops and those who served on the committees that created the Revised Divine Liturgy in no way guarantees that the outcome is an example of Apostolic and patristic praxis. Good people can do bad things and we have in the Revised Divine Liturgy nothing less then a tragedy. We have texts and rubrics that are less accurate than those given in the 1964 edition. We have music that both disrespects what people have memorized and makes those singing it sound like English is not their native language (due to the improper accents). Good intentions have hurt a lot of people. Unfortunately, PrJ has fallen into the trap of judging things by the good intentions of those who created rather than the quality of the product."
Wow, what aggrandisement! The Administrator (and owner of) Byzcath.org who is probably a good person himself and who can do no wrong in his own eyes is just as guilty of falling into the trap of believing that if we change what people memorized over the last 40 years (a wink of an eye in liturgical time), there will be tragedy!
People learned those translations and setting from 1964, grew to memorise them and are now the older generation. Before them was another generation which had memorised the entire Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic with music that was substantially different than the 1964 settings (which were greatly simplified at the direction of the bishops, not the cantors given the task of setting the words and music).
Now since the Admin who wrote that statement is himself a cantor who has arranged (set) music for the Byzantine Catholic Church, Eparchy of Passaic, he would of course be beyond reproach himself even though his settings followed the same oversimplifications of the 1964 setings and even had his own syllAble problems (which most of us just ignored, being that the inserts weren't official outside the Eparchy of Passaic).
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
The original poster had merely mentioned the fact of Prof Thompson's resignation. Yes, it is fact, I know first hand.
I had posted a rather strongly worded, perhaps too strongly worded for some, as the post has been deleted prior to the thread being locked, which called for some form of censure of those posters who were publicly revelling in Professor Thompson's misfortune of "resignation".
There have been numerous posters over the years at Byzcath.org who were outright banned or disallowed from posting for less over-the-top postings about others with whom they disagreed.
I had hoped the thread would have been locked or removed before the "If it is true, all I can say is Wooohooo!!!" post by Secret Squirrel who like Etnik, Ung-Certez, Rusyn31, Pisankar, InCogNeat3's and others have made no secret their dislike of Prof Thompson using Byzcath.org as a public platform to foment their anger at Thompson and anyone connected with the IELC/IEMC, all with the implicit consent of the administrators of the board.
Interestingly, the Administrator/owner of Byzcath.org posted this reply to me:
"Steve’s ongoing conflation of all judgment of Mr. Thompson’s work with judgment of his person is itself not charitable. Those who post negative comments about persons are dealt with by the moderators. Ultimately such comment only succeeds in reflecting negatively upon the man who posted it. Men of good will can and do comment legitimately on the work of another (be it Mr. Thompson’s, Msgr. Levkulic’s, Mr. Jumba’s, or anyone else’s). Great care should be taken both in expressing it (so that it is not personal) as well as in reading it (so as not to interpret legitimate commentary on work as judgment of person).
I can certainly agree with Steve’s comment about those who step forward undergoing very close scrutiny. This is the case with all who offer their work to the Church and I have certainly seen it many times, including with my own meager offerings. The best thing to do is to listen to it, accept and profit from legitimate criticism, and reject the rest. "
This from the previous 'de facto' top cantor, John Vernoski, for many of the parishes in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. His "meager" offerings spanned 25 years, an impressive mailing list and the imprimatur of Bishop Andrew (Eparchy of Passaic). His work did not undergo anywhere near as much international scrutiny by cantors as Thompson's.
Notable has been cantor Vernoski's ongoing difference of opinion with Prof. Thompson from day one broadcast clearly via byzcath.org. Efforts to counter the onslaught were rebuffed. a number of those who disagreed were banned or just stopped posting, realising that they were outgunned.
Now that Thompson is out of the picture, who becomes the next in line? If there is a revision of the rubrics (restoration of the 1942 rubrics) will the text be again set to the proper melodies, or highly modified, (almost experimental) settings with the proofreading of as many cantors who proofed the settings currently in use. There was close to 200 cantors who were regularly proofing the texts and settings. Of course, those cantors had little say regarding the translation.