I ain’t no expert on the ECC’s, but it seems as though Father Loya is criticizing those who do not adhere to the decisions of their bishops.
Actually, the bishops are part of the problem. But the thing is, the eparchy was in trouble and parishes were in survival mode. The priests couldn’t agree on any programs, so nothing bold and daring was being tried anywhere in the eparchy.
We had one in Gary Indiana which had twelve old people. The temple had statues on either side of the altar and no iconostasis. They didn’t know about Divine Praises.
When they had a chance many years before (they were all younger and more numerous) there was literally no effort made to evangelize the neighbors, so as the neighborhood changed the little parish declined.
In discussions with them you would find that they didn’t believe their ancestors had been Orthodox, very curious little bunch. Apparently these lifelong Ruthenians had never heard of the Union of Uzhorod,
or didn’t really understand what had transpired there.
They still had rosary before Mass though, and a nice new Lourdes grotto in the side yard, at least they had their priorities straight.
The priests of the eparchy would pilot old declining parishes like that, afraid to upset the congregation because they would threaten to leave and join the Ukrainians (which actually did happen to father Tom when he sold the property on Seeley). While at the same time these people would die or move away and the congregations would inevitably shrink to nothing.
A poor economic analogy might be someone not investing their retirement savings, afraid they would lose it in big bites (a natural concern), but having to spend a bit each month the money would just disappear, like snow melting in the spring, until it is all gone and one is living out of bags.
Father Tom had been a pastor in Solon, OH. He was essentially the youngest priest in Parma at the time. He was given an opportunity, or challenge, Bishop Basil (memory eternal!) had two parishes in very serious difficulty (very far from each other) and one small mission all in Illinois. They had some lifelong members but they were dying off. Bishop Basil threw it at him to fix, and father Tom moved to Illinois, he had to try and serve all three as the old monsignor in Chicago was planning on retiring, so something had to give. He politicked the two congregations into selling off everything including the mission and building a new temple in the posh SW suburbs. Bishop Basil agreed to the scheme.
Many people were angry (especially that the Seeley property was worth a lot more than the other parish, but the new church location was going to be a bit closer to the other people). He built a nice new suburban temple with the money and combined the membership (that would follow him). It was risky, but there was a lot of synergy in the new arrangement and people were excited, one parish had a good little choir, one had a deacon. New people from the neighborhood came in to see the strange new church and some stayed. Father introduced new concepts of stewardship and pledging, including asking people to name the parish in their wills and beneficiaries on their life insurance
.
Father introduced Vespers and Orthros. Rosary became a private affair before Orthros. When I suggested he start a Saturday night Mass or a second liturgy on Sunday he politely but firmly said “no, we don’t do that here.”
After the initial unfortunate losses of some of the angry parishioners from the old parishes, the numbers started to climb and the collection began to rise higher than before. For example when I joined in I began giving four times the weekly amount what I had been giving in my old Latin parish, plus volunteering and separate donations for icons and such things. It was a pretty exciting place.
I was a Benedictine Oblate but I was being much more spiritually fed in the parish, which was a complete reversal of my personal situation when I was a Latin Catholic.
Also, judging from Fr. Roberson’s Eastern Catholic statistics, though the Ruthenian Church is losing members, the trend is that the loss is definitely slowing down, at least since 2005.
Blessings
I think you are right. There has also been some consolidation of parishes, with the sale of properties that provide the diocese with a little cash.
There should be a hard core of supporters, but the network of parishes is incomplete, so when the younger ones finish college and move away there is no place for them. Newcomers to the neighborhood have to be evangelized in to assure the continuity of it.
If this same process were happening elsewhere and the church was widespread enough the children starting new familes far away might also be able to find a church in the tradition. So, I work to grow the church here for the future of your children, you work to grow the church there for the future needs of my children.
This is not just a BCC problem, all smaller churches face these issues. A congregation needs to add 6% population a year to remain viable (allowing for deaths and departures), and if it is on life support already that figure has to be much higher to recover viability and then maintain it.
I think that the problem is, in the salad days right after World War II everyone was enjoying the new prosperity, moving to the suburbs and spending Sunday afternoon washing the car. They weren’t thinking about the future health of their little parish and inviting their neighbors to church.
