www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Romania Churches to Lure Tourists

I don't think it should surprise anyone that imigrant priest from Mukachevo tend to serve UGCC parishes. The UGCC has a high immigrant population and serves the Liturgy primarily in Ukrainian. The Pittsburgh Metropolia does not have any significant immigrant population and serves its Liturgy in English. That said the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh has two Ukrainian priests serving it: one married from the Eparchy of Ivano-Frankivsk, one celibate from Archeparchy of Lviv. Those who want to be Americans will come to Pittsburgh Metropolia those who want to be Ukrainians in America will go to the Philadelphia Metropolia and there is nothing wrong with either, except that I think the evangelical outreach of the latter will be limited due to the ethnic factor.

I also agree that Greek Catholics need to be united but not along the old model of all Slavs under Kyiv and Greeks and Arabs under Antioch. Even the Orthodox are rejecting being under jurisdiction of those in the Old Country and are seeking autonomy/autocephaly and unity in this country. In my opinion, the US and Canada should be one united Patriarchate/Major Archepiscopate. Pittsburgh should be the primatial see, duplicated/overlapping jurisdcitions should be eliminated and each ethnic group should have an episcopal vicar who will be an auxillary to the primate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I think you may have a tough sell getting some to unite under a see which does not keep the Eastern tradition of ordaining married priests.

I am coming around to the unified ecclesiastical structure, if established similar to the OCA.

But practically I see the establishment of the unified see near Washington, D.C. or New York with much greater educational resources as a smarter move (including more pptions for study at Orthodox establishments).

Sell everything, move it to a smarter location. Realignment/reorganization is necessary. The current system is not working for either Church (UGCC and PM) and we need to think outside of the box.

Subdeacon Randolph,

In a united North American Byzantine Catholic Church, married priest would not be an issue. And while Pittsburgh would be the primatial see the primate would be elected by the synod so he could be Rusyn, Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite etc. Pittsburgh is my choice because it has a cathedral and seminary in the same city. The cathedral is brand new. The seminary is fully endowed and accredited to grant degrees. Pittsburgh's educational resources equal NY or DC. Carnegie Mellon, Pitt, and Duquesne are schools of national standing and there are smaller quality colleges as well. There is no need to incur the expense of moving to DC.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Lance, first of all I know Americam married priests who would be in the PM now if they would ordain married men. These guys are now Melkite, Ukrainian or Romanian Greek Catholics. Those biases unfortunately are deeply set in some, which are more pragmatic and praxis-based in nature than ethnic issues.

I am proposing a new, "neutral" location partly to get away from any pre-concieved provincial notions and to foster unity in approach with much fewer "hard feelings". If everyone has to participate (and sacrifice) equally in the realignment and restructuring, the end result will be a team much more committed to the end goal.

None of those educational resources you mention stand up to a CUA or Fordham. Additional proximity to St. Vlad's, Dominican House of Studies, JPII Institute, the list could go on and on. New or not, Pittsburgh is simply not the place for this type of unified jurisdiction just based on regional resources. It really is time to look at this from a much bigger, less provincially motivated perspective.

Simply incorrect. Factually wrong.

The Union of Brest-Litovsk created what is now the UGCC, that event took place in 1596 and involved Orthodox living in the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

The Union of Uzhhorod created the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church, that event took place in 1646 in what was then Hungary.

The two jurisdictions in their European homelands were distinct in the eyes of Rome as they continue to be today.

With the shifting of borders things have been impacted in such a way as to allow a greater cooperation for the good of all but that does not indicate the disapperance of one Church.

Here [ewtn.com] you can read the pope's letter on the occasion of the 350th anniversay of the Union of Uzhhorod. He makes no mention of the Ruthenian Church being subject to the Ukrainian Church, rather he uses language to the contrary. The model for the Union took form at Brest based on notions from Florence.
In the US the attempt was made to unify the two jurisdiction but that proved too difficult for both sides as they have separate histories and usages (musical and otherwise) and notions of self identity.

To say "[o]utside of the USA, the Carpathian Greek-Catholics have always been part of the larger UGCC" is simply wrong.

Tony,

I have read the quote you mentioned before, but please be honest and metion the fact that it was ONLY delivered in ENGLISH because it was targeted to an ANGLO AMERICAN audience of a couple of hundred of people in Rome. Rome has clearly stated that this text was specifically created to promote the Byzantine AMERICAN Metroplia's raison d'etre or agenda which includes combined Americanized Hungarian and 'Ruthenian' groups. Why else would it have delivered the speach in ENGLISH ONLY ?

Most church analysts would agree that the AMERICAN Byzantine Metropolia is by far an ANGLO institution with a Slavic heritage and does not at all serve or represent any of the Slavs comming from Eastern Europe. The Slavs now attend the United Ruthenian Church called the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

The rest of the world has changed so dramatically that the document you mention no longer applies to Eastern Europe were the isoethnoliguistic Ruthenians (Ukrainians) have finally had the opportunity to unite themselves in a country called Ukraine.

Even the United States has changed so much that there are no longer separate 'Hungarian' Greek-Catholic parishes but nothing but small remnats; ie: people who aren't sure if they are ethnic Hungarian, or from the Hungarian empire, or Hungarian Professors.

Outside of the United States the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church has always included the Carpatho-Ruthenian tribes (ie: Hutsuls, Boyks, etc...) and this has been aknowledged by Rome on numerous occassions.

In 1988 as part of a week long activities over 15,000 UGCC member form around the world gathered in Rome to celebrate the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine (which if I'm not mistaken includes the Carpathian mountains). At least 30% of our church members are of Carpatho-Ukrainian origin and that equates to tens of thousands of members around the world. The Pope told us IN UKRAINIAN that we were Ukraine's (Carpathian Mountains included) future.

As part of the Rome celebrations our 60 member marching band from Montreal played Greek-Catholic hyms while the 120 member choir from Great Britain sang in unison. The Ukrainian bandurists (harp like instrument) from Germany played and the dancers from Australia performed, and other ensembles from Poland, Yugoslavia, France, and Belgium performed at the evening Papal gala. The 'Youth Rally' alone had over 7,000 participants. Thousands of us marched in a candle light procession to commemorate our Greek-Catholic 'church in catacombs' (including Carpatho-Ukraine) while the Pope watched from his Vatican balcony.

In Canada which has no fewer Greek-Catholics than the United States, the Hungarian and Romanian Greek-Catholic communities are deaneries of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. The UGCC in Europe works in a similar fashion.

The University of Kyiv is preparing a comprehensive scholarly study which will support my statements. They have centuries of archives at their disposal to fully support the conclusions. We must put an end to this AMERICAN-USA Political Ruthenism which is destroying and not preserving Ruthenian culture.

Hritzko

Hritzko,

Either you are in need of reading glasses or you are simply trying to smear someone. I did not write that. I was in Prague last in '00.

The original post can be read here . Anastasios went to Europe this year, not I.

Now, correct it and apologize or I will presume the worst.

Tony

Hop on soapbox.

This is very similar to what I have been saying for the past 20 years, except with the provision noted by Diak that the Major Archbishop be located either in Washington, DC or New York City.

A very short account of my recommendation is:

1. Create a new Major Archbishop of Washington, DC or New York to include the Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Melkites, Romanians, Italo-Greeks and Russians. Leave all other existing eparchial structures alone, with the exception of moving the Italo-Greeks and Russians to the closest Byzantine jurisdiction (rather then the RCs). (this can happen now, although a patriarchate would take time)

2. During the next 10 years, produce a common set of English translations for all liturgical books. If possible, work with the rest of Orthodoxy so that the translations are common in all English-speaking Byzantine Churches. The differences in the different liturgical recensions are not so great that they cannot be accommodated within a single set of liturgical books. Also produce musical settings with the new translations respecting each of the traditions.

3. At the 10-15 year point begin to realign the eparchies. Assuming (for the sake of this conversation) the new Major Archbishop is located in Washington, DC, I recommend a realignment something like this:

-Major Archeparchy of Washington, DC: All parishes in Washington, DC, Virginia and Maryland.

-Archeparchy of Philadelphia: All parishes in Eastern Pennsylvania and in the state of Delaware.

-Eparchies of Passaic and Stamford: Combine and rename as the Eparchy of New York and include all parishes in the states of New York and New Jersey.

-Eparchy of Newton: All parishes in New England. Rename as Eparchy of Boston.

-Archeparchy of Pittsburgh: All Parishes in Western Pennsylvania and in the state of West Virginia.

-Eparchy of Parma: Rename as Eparchy of Cleveland. There are currently two (one Ruthenian and one Ukrainian) plus the nearby Eparchy of Canton. Merge all three together into one Eparchy serving the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.

-Eparchy of Florida: Move one of the bishops of Parma to Florida and create a new eparchy serving the states of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama.

-Eparchy of Chicago: All parishes in the states of Illinois west to the Dakotas and south to Iowa and Nebraska

-Eparchy of Dallas: Move the third bishop from Parma to a new Eparchy of Dallas to include all parishes in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

-Eparchy of Van Nuys: Rename as the Eparchy of Los Angeles and include all parishes in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii.

4. New parishes would take on any of the liturgical traditions of the group that formed them. No doubt that sometime in the future new chant traditions will appear just as the Slavs eventually replaced Greek chant with their own chant.

If New York City was chosen as the see of the major archbishop then Washington, DC would be created as an eparchy. Also, a good census might reveal the need for fewer eparchies or an adjustment of borders.

The major problem that this plan will create is that the Ukrainians will not wish to cut ties to Ukraine. The Melkites might go along with it. Such a problem exists in the rest of Orthodoxy but we can now see that the various Orthodox jurisdictions are gaining their independence (the Antiochians are the latest).

Hop off soapbox.

Tony,

Yes I'm sorry, I did confuse you with someone else. Please ignore the comments I made above.

Hritzko

My, this thread is proving active!

The Administrator writes: �I think it was appropriate for all bishops to participate in the 1969 Synod. Were they informed in advance that participation in said Synod was a formal renunciation of their Carpatho-Rusin identity and a formal acceptance of a Ukrainian identity?�

Forgive my asking, but in what possible way was Blessed Basil's participation in the 1969 Synod a formal renunciation of his own ethnic identity and a formal acceptance of another ethnic identity? I have no reason to believe that anyone speaking on behalf of the Patriarch or the Synod suggested such a thing to Blessed Basil.

Likewise, the Administrator surely does not literally mean that �it was appropriate for all bishops to participate in the 1969 Synod.� All what bishops? The Syro-Malankarese? The Italo-Albanians? Should the Patriarch have proclaimed a General Council and invited the Old Catholics? Myself, I would suggest that what worked in Metropolitan Andrew�s time could work again; check and see who attended these meetings of the hierarchs in L�viv in those far-off days.



"Within the current borders of Ukraine today I think that all Catholic bishops should have voting rights in their equivalent of a �National Council of Catholic Bishops�. Observer status within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate would be nice but not necessary."

What, then, would be the proper role of the Synod? A Synod is a much more important and far-reaching body than an episcopal conference. There could conceivably be a justification for an episcopal conference to include both the Roman Catholic and the Greek-Catholic hierarchies (and hypothetically the Armenian Catholic Archbishop, although there is no such hierarch at the moment), but that justification is based on the presence of various �rites�, not various ethnic groups. [It is often difficult to put this point across to the Ukrainians, incidentally � to take a simple example, the existence of Greek-Catholic schools within the aegis of the Separate School Board of Ontario is based on the premise that these schools serve Greek-Catholic children, not the children of a particular ethnic group. The Ukrainians do not appreciate the distinction, but there it is. ]

So far, at least, no one has suggested that the Eparchy of Mukachevo is a separate �rite� unto itself, nor is such a suggestion tenable, since the Eparchy uses the same Church-Slavonic service books as other people who follow the Ruthenian Recension use � and have been using the same books as the said other people for the past few centuries at least.


�What I am trying to understand is why Hritzko won�t simply admit that Carpatho-Rusins are a legitimate ethnicity, one that is equal to the Ukrainian and other ethnicities that make up the current county of Ukraine.�

That question must be addressed to Hritzko. But obliquely, I'm curious: what distinguishes a legitimate ethnicity from an illegitimate ethnicity? [My 1965 Webster�s Dictionary does not include �ethnicity�; does someone have a more recent edition which defines this term?]

Whether the GCSSSCM are a separate and distinct ethnic community is the point at issue (is it possible to appeal to the ethnographers for some assistance?). But the difference between an ethnic community supported by a state established and maintained by that ethnic community (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Greece, Bulgaria and a host of others come to mind � probably a majority of the world�s independent states) and an ethnic community which is not directly related to a state based on that community is far from negligible. The Pennsylvania Dutch are certainly an ethnic group; who would doubt it? But their particular community is in some ways unequal to, say, those Amerindian communities which have recognized treaty rights (the Pennsylvania State Police can and do function in the areas of Pennsylvania Dutch settlement, but there are Indian reserves in upstate New York where no US police presence can enter without previous agreement for each specific case).

Some of those posting have pointed out � accurately � that Rome treats the Eparchy of Mukachevo as a separate sui iuris Church (by providing her with Latin bishops at the moment, which offers food for thought). So Rome does. Rome also treats the Eparchy of Preshov as a separate sui iuris Church, perhaps with some sort of relationship to the Exarchate of Kosice. Rome treats the Exarchate of Prague as a separate sui iuris Church. Rome treats the Eparchy of Hajdudorog as a separate sui iuris Church. Rome treats the Eparchy of Krizhevtsi as a separate sui iuris Church. Rome treats the Pittsburgh Metropolia as a separate sui iuris Church. The Pittsburgh Metropolia does its best to ignore the existence of the Slovak Greek-Catholic Eparchy in Canada. None of these �separate sui iuris Churches� have any canonical connection with each other in Rome�s eyes. But if this continues � and it shows no signs of abating � we shall be faced with the �sui iuris Church of Ivan and Ol�ga� as the ultimate in the policy of �divide et impera�.

�People simply do not appreciate being labeled as something they are not. Why is it so hard to respect this?�

The easy answer is that it is not hard to respect that principle. The more controversial response, though, is that sometimes two self-determinations can come into conflict, and sometimes group A can perceive the choice of a name - especially a relatively new name - as an act of aggression by group B. That seems to be the case with reference to the shift from "Rusyn" to "Ukrainian" - some people perceive that shift as aggressive and threatening.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incognitus wrote:
Let us suppose, for example, that the students from Transcarpathia currently enrolled in the Ukrainian Catholic University / Greek-Catholic Theological Academy in L'viv requested their own chapel, which they would furnish with the best available examples of iconography from Transcarpathia and where they would use their distinctive chant (presumably in Church-Slavonic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the Administrator writes in response: "Such a move would certainly help build up the patriarchate. It would also succeed in taking away a vehicle for the restoration of the Ruthenian Church in Mukachevo / Uzhorod. No. It is much better to help the seminary in Uzhorod flourish."

Well, that answers my question, no doubt about it. I can at least respect the honesty of the answer, but the content is problematic. Two comments: a) it is a fact that some people from Transcarpathia go to L'viv, to study or to work or whatever, and the implications of the Administrator's response to my question are that while they are in L'viv they should not have access to their particular chant tradition and iconography, and b) making use of the unique academic possibilities at the Ukrainian Catholic University / Greek-Catholic Theological Academy would damage the seminary in Uzhhorod. Please reconsider - a first-class post-graduate theological faculty supports local seminaries by providing future professors (the Pontifical Oriental Institute, with which the University/Academy in L'viv is closely associated, does this, and nobody accuses the Pontifical Oriental Institute of undercutting local seminaries).


The Administrator adds that my proposed chapel "would not aid the building up of Mukachevo / Uzhorod as much as creating first class educational facilities within those eparchies."

But why not? There is no contradiction, unless someone is seriously proposing to create and fund a post-graduate theological faculty in the Mukachevo-Uzhhorod eparchy, and even then such a faculty would scarcely eschew all contact with the University/Academy in L'viv. At the present moment, who is to teach in such a faculty in Uzhhorod? No one can deny that Metropolitan Andrew and Patriarch Joseph each dedicated much time, effort, human resources and money to providing their Greek-Catholic Church with some impressive cadres with thorough, excellent education. This has proved to be an important asset to the Church in Ukraine, not only in staffing actual schools, but in filling other positions for which a complete scholarly and professional education is necessary.

But there is no basis for any opinion that Metropolitan Andrew and Patriarch Joseph made this huge investment in education in order to subvert the Eparchy of Mukachevo. Nor did any external force prevent the Pittsburgh Metropolia from seeing to it that a similar proportion of clergy were equipped with such educational credentials.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote:
I hasten to add that I have no personal stake in this discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Administrator responds: "I�m not so sure. Many of your posts in these threads are distinctly pro-Ukrainian. Your suggestions in this thread all seem to focus on how that Carpathians can assist to build up the Church in Lvov/Lviv."

Excuse me? I'm not aware that I've suggested anything that the Carpathians might do to assist building up the Church in L'viv (kindly remember your own comments on allowing people to call themselves what they like - that goes for the name of the city in question too). I've suggested two small initiatives (a chapel and some CDs) to provide for people from Transcarpathia who are, in fact, in L'viv - if anything, those small initiatives would encourage the people from Transcarpathia to retain a consciousness of their own distinctive identity. But the response I received supports my own point (which is that the controversy is primarily an emotional issue).

Might I request a notarized statement of the suggestion that I am working to a pro-Ukrainian agenda? I would take sinful pleasure in presenting it to several Ukrainians of my acquaintance! Meanwhile, please allow me to state that to the best of my informed knowledge, there simply does not exist any sort of Ukrainian (or pro-Ukrainian cabal) to dragoon the GCSSSCM into a Ukrainian ethnic identity if the people in question do not care to accept that ethnic identity. All that I have done is offer some objective, verifiable information which seems germane to the whole discussion, along with my own position that dividing the Church is detrimental to the Church�s best interests.

It's time to eat, so I must take leave of this for the moment.
Incognitus

It makes a difference indeed.

It establishes your lack of credibility.

This thread is full of comments by you that direct rather than inform opinion. This is one, neat example.

You make a sweeping claim that our Ruthenian Bishops of the inter-war period claimed to be Ukrainians. Now you admit that you are unfamiliar with a number of these bishops. Thus your claim clearly lacks substance. When you gain the familiarity that you ought ot have had before making such a claim you will discover how laughable it is.

Blessed Bishop Hopko, btw, is not directly relevant to the remark that I challenged, inasmuch as he was not a bishop in the inter-war period.

You spin on his life is interesting, as are the comments on the UGCC link. FYI, Hrabske, the place of Bishop's birth is not in Ukraine. It is a Rusyn village in Slovakia. The word Ukrainian was not by anyone in describing the place, the people, or the language when I visited there. Of course the chauvinists who deny a unique Capatho-Rusyn identity force the "Ukrainian" identity on Bishop.

There is no question that Bishop was a staunch opponent of Slovakization. I don't have copies of Bishop's writings in the original language, but accounts of them in English editions use "Rusyn" or "Ruthenian" not "Ukrainian" in detailing his work in opposition.

As Tony has pointed out this is nonsense. Perhaps this is the perception in Canada, and L'viv; certainly not in Presov or Uzhhorod.

I am not shocked at all. Of course these people are, as a simple matter of fact, wrong. I am disappointed that these folks, who probably know a great deal about their own particular church, are so ignorant of others's. Perhaps you can help to educate them. It is a sui juris church. Stop the denial.

Two?
Of course the UGCC has no say in the matter of bishops in a separate sui juris church.

Originally written by Hritzko:
A breaktrhough?

The Apostolic Letter quoted above is from 1996, that is 8 years ago. Modern Independent Ukraine exists since 1991. "Have finally" sounds like something momentous happened in the ensuing years. What has changed since 1991? Again, wrong. Uzhhorod, Preshov, Hajudodorog, Krizhevci, etc, have not depended and do not depend on the UGCC.

Hutsuls and Boykos are not part of this discussion as far as I can tell.

This is smear with or without glasses. But with no substance.

I think most people here know of Anastasios's immersion, if not fluency, in Slovak. And his familiarity with the region. I think his point is simply that with greater fluency in Slovak he might have made better headway with the Czech.

Given the geographical territory, this eparchy would be better served as 2 eparchies: the Eparchy of Phoenix which would include Arizona, Southern California (counties south of the northern boundaries of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties) Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. The Eparchy of Seattle would serve the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Northern California (Counties north of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties).

Hritzko,

From the link above relative to Blessed Vasil's beatification:

Note that the tenor of the article (from the UGCC site) clearly intimates the incidental nature of Cardinal Husar's participation, rather than that he was participating as the presiding hierarch of the Church of which Blessed Vasil was a hierarch.

Note also that it was the Pittsburgh Metropolia, not the UGCC, which initiated the process of Bishop Vasil's canonization.

Many years,

Neil