www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic churches

what is the main difference between these two churches that keeps them from being a single particular church? there seems to not be very much of a difference, so why not merge ?

The Ukrainian Church has a strongly ethnic orientation.

The Ruthenian Church has an assimilationist orientation.

The two don't work together.

--tim

I would have to say the biggest difference is attitude.

Please pardon this intrusion but it seems that the history of the two must be presented as well.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church was born of the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 in the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church was born of the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646 in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Tony

Well, here we go again!
I was of the few that the basic difference had to do with liturgical music. I've had to modify that opinion somewhat in recent years, for reasons I won't go into at the moment.
The Holy Fathers teach us that it is wicked to divide the Church. Owing to historical circumstances reaching back many centuries, the Catholic Church has accepted the necessity of recognizing as distinct Churches those ecclesial bodies which have distinct liturgical traditions - thus, for example, it would be hopelessly impractical to attempt to create, say, one Archdiocese of Damascus to which all Catholics in Damascus would belong. It would also be a grave violation of the rights of the distinct (or particular) Churches in question.
Trouble arises when we are faced with two or more distinct ecclesial bodies of the SAME liturgical tradition, in the same territory, yet maintaining distinct (and overlapping) Churches. It became downright bizarre in the case of Chicago a few decades ago: Bishop Jsaroslav Gabro was the son of an ethnically mixed marriage (one parent was Ukrainian and the other Romanian) yet the Romanian parishes in the territory of his diocese were nevertheless subject to the Latin Bishops, even though the Latin Bishops were not Romanian at all and would have known far less than Bishop Gabro knew about the situation and problems and pastoral needs of the Romanian Greek-Catholics. Thus this reached the point of ecclesiological nonsense.
At the moment the USA is blessed with several parallel Greek-Catholic (or Byzantine Catholic, if you prefer) jurisdictions, on an ethnic or quasi-ethnic basis. This would certainluy have given the Holy Fathers a severe case of the heebie-jeebies. Even attempting to explain - let alone justify - this situation requires some elaborate mental gymnastics. What basically happened is that in the early years these various communities formed in the USA and sent back to their specific home countries for priests. In many cases, the communities were probably unaware of each other. Since ethnic bonds tend to be strong, and as every sociologist knows, ethnic bonds are closely related to religious affiliation, there have been relatively few voices to cry out for an end to this anomalous situation, and those few are "voces clamates in deserto".
The division between the Ukrainian and Rutheninn jurisdictions is particularly painful, particularly contentious, and particularly difficult to justify. But so far, at any rate, there seems to be little effort to resolve that division.
To end as I began, it is wicked to divide the Church.
Incognitus

It is also wicked to keep posting long blocks of type that are difficult to digest.

--tim

Mateusz:

While it may be a bit of an over genralization, there is perspective among Ukrainians in the America that see their church as both a church and a center of Ukrainina culture. That perspective was clear not only in the Romanian church thread but also, for example here:
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000383;p=1

Other's on this forum have praised St. Basil's, which certain is Ruthenian, but it clearly did not suit the needs of the Ukrainians.

And I think you will also appreciate, from the Romanian church thread, that Americans who consider their ancestry as Rusyn are not expecially keen on their churches being center of Ukrainian culture.

Hence the regrettable division.

My apologies to Tim over my long blocks of unrelieved type - either I'm using a primitive e-mail program, or I don't know how to use the bells and whistles, or both (the last of the three is the most likely).

Oddly enough, the discussion has to do with one of those conflict areas which have a great deal to do with perceptions and feelings, and which perpetuate themselves, in part by searching out reasons to maintain antipathy even after the previous reasons have gone out of date.

Rational analysis is needed, but will not by itself cure the problem. I could develop that point, but were I to do so I would be laying myself open to a fresh charge of partisanship.

So here's a novel suggestion: both Churches these days include people who do not belong to the dominant ethnic group of either Church, but who are in this for religious reasons uncomplicated by national agendas (even as a Bulgarian who for some reason belongs to a Melkite parish is unlikely to be concerned about the fine points of Arab dialects - or the vowel points of Arabic, for that matter). At least some of these people might be interested in attending and participating in a conference - preferably held on neutral ground and under neutral auspices - with the aim of trying to begin a peaceful discussion and exploring possible ways to bury the hatchet. As it is, the double-jurisdiction solution is no solution; it is rather an acceptance of failure and a freezing of the problem.

Any takers? Don't all volunteer at once! Oh yes - we wlll gladly accept financial sponsorship from the relevant ethnic groups, provided that the contributions from one side match the contributions from the other side dollar for dollar. Gifts in kind, such as wild blueberry pirogies, are also highly acceptable. Slovaks are welcome to provide slivovitz and becherovka. Off hand I can't think of any particular Ukrainian adult beverage - perhaps we'll accept Armenian cognac instead.

Incognitus

Dear Mateusz,

Perhaps it should be made clear that there were three Ruthenian Unions:

(1) Ruthenian Union of Brest (1596)
(Ruthenians living in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)
Kyiv - Now Ukraine
Lutsk - Now (Volhyn) Ukraine
Lviv - Now (Galicia) Ukraine - (joined in 1691)
Chelm - Poland
Przemysl - Poland - (joined in 1700)
Pinsk - Now Belarus
Polotsk - Now Belarus (almost Lithuania)
Vladimir - Now Russia

(2) Ruthenian Union of Uzhorod (1646)
(Ruthenians living in the Kingdom of Hungary)
Mukachevo - Now Ukraine
Uzhorod - Now Ukraine

(3) Ruthenian Union of Maramures (1713)
(Ruthenians living in Kingdom of Hungary)
- Desolved

It should be noted that the UGCC has represented all of these eparchies (except Belarus and Russia) outside of Ukraine since at least the end of the last world war. For example, in Canada, Australia, all of Western Europe, Brazil, Poland and many other countries around the world.

In Canada where there are many Greek-Catholics, even the Hungarians and Rumanians are represented as deaneries of the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Greek-Catholic Church.

Even in the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church included the Mukachevo Eparchy. It was as a combined entity that the bishops of the various eparchies of the church travelled to Moscow where they petitioned the Soviet Government of Mikhail Gorbatchev for legalization of their banned church.

Unification of the Ruthenian Greek-Catholics under one church has always been the norm, except for the United States of America where there has been an artifical separation with both Pittsburg and Philadelphia Metropolias.

The objection of some of the Pittsburg Metropolia members is that the UGCC is too 'ethnic' for them. This in spite of the fact that the largest and most important Carpathian Ruthenian Church - the Mukachevo (Uzhorod) Eparchy - is an integral part of the Modern Ukrainian Republic and everyone speaks the language of the land: 'Ukrainian'.

Another objection of the USA Byzantine Metropolia has been that the UGCC is culturally specific to the Ukrainians. Without a doubt this is true and the UGCC has gone to great lengths to include comprehensive Carpathian cultural and religeous patrimony within the greater Ruthenian group's.

Outside of the United States, the Carpatho-Rusyns who were raised in the UGCC and were fortunated enough to learn the liturgical language of the church (ie: Ukrainian) can now converse with Greek-Catholics of the Mukachevo Eparchy. The same is not true for those who were part of the assimmilationist Pittsburg Metropolia.

Not withstanding the fact that there are many new immigrants to the West from the Core Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Eparchies, the reality is that many people outside of Ukraine (Ruthenia) no longer speak Ukrainian (Rusyn for those who have an aversion to the word Ukrainian). For example, in Poland, Slovakia, Canada, and the United States, increasingly many do not speak the language and may not actually have any 'ethnic' Ruthenian-Ukrainian heritage relating to the church. This can be a problem for the long term growth and survival of the church in the diaspora.

For example, UGCC Deacon Peter of Chelm (Kholm) has in the past indicated on this forum that the only way of reviving and growing the Greek-Catholic Church in Poland is with the use of Polish as a liturgical language since there are increasingly fewer people who speak Ukrainian. He did not say that Polish had to replace Ukrainian, but that the church has to accommodate the increasing numbers of people who speak Polish but not Ukrainian.

The division in the United States between the UGCC and the Carpathian Ruthenian Church is an exception to the Global norm, however, there could be little doubt that the two could complement each other well here also. The combined church could well serve as a model for the rest of the UGCC diaspora church. In Ukraine they already work well together.

Hritzko

Dear Incognitus:

Is there really a proverbial hatchet? What I mean is that the various Eastern Catholic Churches in the USA basically ignore each other as a general rule (this forum being the exception).

That having been said, I agree that "conferences" would be very beneficial. However, if the publically stated goal is eventual jurisdictional union, then you might as well forget it becasue we Ukes will never go for that. Sorry.

Rather, I would suggest that one begin by presentations and discussions of issues that are common to all Byzantine Rite Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) in the USA and Canada. Develop some good will on important but non-divisive topics first.

Then, if the Churches begin to understand each other better, perhaps the time will come to discuss a North American Byzantine Rite Catholic Patriarchate.

Yours,

hal

Hritzko is incorrect. While the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo is located within the current borders of Ukraine it is not part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of Lvov (Lviv).

Since Hritzko is not going to believe anything someone from the Ruthenian Church says I offer the following from the website of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church: [ugcc.org.ua]

Hritzko certainly has a right to hold his own opinions on these issues. His opinions, however, are neither accurate nor shared by the people of Transcarpathia. Every new post by Hritzko seems to rally against Carpatho-Rusins. Each brings me a full mailbox of complaints about his offensive remarks. I am sorry he chooses not to respect Carpatho-Rusins.

At this time I would like to ask Hritzko to refrain from posting on the Forum on all topics excpet for a detailed summary of his conversations with the people at the Uzhorod Seminary. Once he has done that and we can determine that he has asked his questions fairly and honestly we will consider his status as a member of the Forum community.

Dear Administrator,

Re-read my comments carefully and find a single statement which is not the truth. I can support every one of my statements with good scholarly information.

My post was addressed to Mateuzs who is a Polish immigrant to the United States. Clearly his family knew oppression in Poland and he can serve as an excellent reference for what oppression is vs freedom. The Ukrainian-Ruthenians of Poland were largely assimmilated as were those of Slovakia. He could serve well as an example of what repression is versus what you have imagined it to be in Ukraine.

My comments are no different to those of Incognitus, Hal, Diak, and our old friend 'Alex'. I'm not sure why I'm being singled out by the 'thought police'.

What would you consider a 'detailed summary' of the Mukachevo seminary ? (Please give specific details about what and whom you would like asked to ensure that it is a fair and honest survey).

Hritzko

Dear Hrtizko,

Your statement that was incorrect is the one I quoted in my previous post. The Carpatho-Rusin and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches in the current borders of Ukraine are not the single, normative Church that you claim they are. �The autonomous status of the Greek Catholic Church's Mukachiv Eparchy has been preserved. It is formally a sui juris church not subordinated to the Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.�

For a detailed summary of your questions to those at the seminary in Uzhorod I ask only reasonable unbiased scholarship. I recommend preparing your questions in advance, reviewing these questions with a scholar who is neither Ukrainian nor Carpatho-Rusin (and, preferably, a non-Slav), asking the questions in a manner that is not considered to be seeking a particular answer, and recording the numbers and names of the individuals you spoke with.

Some reasonable questions would be:

-Do you believe that the Carpatho-Rusins constitute an ethnic group that is distinct from Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Romanian, Slovak, and etc.? [This question can be asked of several of the many different ethnic minorities within Ukraine to indicate the level the person being questioned is answering at. Asking them politely assures the person being questioned that you are willing to listen to anything he or she says.]

-What do you consider your ethnic group to be? [You can allow them to respond or to give them a listing to choose from.]

Questions can be worded to obtain desired answers. One could ask people across Ukraine what country they live in and take their answers of �Ukraine� to then state that �100% of those asked stated that they are 'ethnic Ukrainians'.� But such a question would clearly be meaningless to the issue at hand. One could also ask, �I believe that you Carpatho-Rusins in Transcarpathia are not a separate ethnic group but really Ukrainians with a mountain accent. Are you going to disagree with me?� and have them hang up on you.

The skillful questioner will word his questions in a manner that will best obtain what the person being questioned believes. He will then summarize the answers without prejudice towards or against his personal opinions on the issues.

If you desire we could start a separate thread to formulate the questions. Perhaps I could even ask my friend who is a professor at the Uzhorod seminary to work with you to take a formal survey of all students and faculty? I could not guarantee his cooperation but I am certainly willing to ask.

Admin

Here we go again.
Since you bring up the scholarship issue...

from Hritzko on the closed thread:
I don't doubt your sincerity, but don't think that "scholarly" applies. You direct rather than inform. Documentation is rarely offered - apart from the utterly unscholarly "this is well-documented" claim. And when ostensibly supporting links are attached they turn out to be at best obliquely connected to issues at hand. Words are given novel meanings to achieve vioctory be definition. You write in the style of a propagandist, not a scholar. This is the internet, thus this style is not inappropriate. What is inappropriate, however, is claiming it to be "scholarly".

As far as matters of fact, at the minimum, defend or amend your claim that the Pittsburgh Metropolia has published anti-UGCC material.

While my conference proposal would certainly have as a long-term goal the restoration of jurisdictional unity, that is not for the immediate agenda nor even the middle distance. I specified, I believe, that it would be well to have such a conference composed specifically of people whose connection with these two communities is religious, not ethnic. Far be it from me to predetermine the agenda, but one aspect which should be explored is the question of just where the animosity is coming from. Looking at the record of the past century, the goal posts seem to have been shifted more than once.
I am not necessarily opposed to a North American Greek-Catholic Patriarchate, but I don't think it's in the least a practical ambition for the middle term.
Certainly it would be nice to know what was/is/will be the result of Hritzko's telephonic inquiries in Transcarpathia. That is the main reason which caused me to be grieved at the sudden closing of the previous thread - assuming that Hritzko is indeed making such telephone inquiries (and keep in mind that getting through on the phone is not necessarily easy), all sides in the discussion will be apt to find the data thus produced worth having.
Incognitus