0 members (),
274
guests, and
67
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,493
Posts417,361
Members6,136
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282
Greco-Kat Member
|
Greco-Kat Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282 |
I have posted this query on Cineast but I am not optimistic about getting real information there as opposed to debate.
Can anyone on this list shed light on the thinking that labels some, although apparently not all, Eastern Catholic jurisdictions by nationality? (My web searches thus far suggest that the geographical labels are the official ones as they appear in the Annuario Pontificio.)
Why do the 'official' Latin titles of the Parma and Passaic Byzantine eparchies use the word "Ruthenorum" (as apparently did the title of Munnhall as it was once called)? The official Latin title of the Byzantine Eparchy of Van Nuys contains only the geographical name. The title of what is now called the Pittsburgh Archeparchy uses only the term "ritus Byzantini"? Is there a reason for the differences?
Similarly, the Ukrainian Catholic eparchies in Philadelphia, Stamford and Chicago all bear the label "Ucrainorum" while the Parma Eparchy is identified only by its geographical name. Is there a reason for this?
I note that the Romanian Byzantine Eparchy follows the pattern in using the word "roemanorum" (sp?).
What significance do these geographical labels have? I recall that the Chicago UC Eparchy once used the words "for the Ukrainians" on its English letterhead and in its newspaper. I once asked whether it considered itself to be "for" anyone else and I notice that the words seem since to have disappeared in English.
What happens to an individual in the Parma or Passaic eparchies who no longer considers himself "Ruthenian" (if he/she ever did)? What happens to a person in one of the three eparchies labelled as "Ucrainorum" ("of" or "for" the Ukrainians) who is not or no longer thinks of him/herself as Ukrainian?
The labelling practice seems to 'ghettoize' the Eastern Churches. Is it necessary? Is it a relic of the time when the Eastern Churches outside their traditional territories were thought of as analogous to "national parishes" in the Western Church? Is the labelling fair? Is it wise? Is it stunting the natural growth of the Eastern Churches and inhibiting them from evangelizing? Is it consistent with the ecclesiologies of either East or West? Is it consistent with the canonical ppractice of the Orthodoox Churches?
Tim
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282
Greco-Kat Member
|
Greco-Kat Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282 |
Further to my own question:
If 'Rutheni' in Latin still means what it used to mean in Rome (i.e., I think, non-Russian, non-Belarussian Slavic Byzantines), then is not an eparchy "Ruthenorum" an eparchy that should/could serve not only those of Rusyn, Magyar and Slovak descent currently served, along with many other nationalities, by the Pittsburgh Metropolia, but also Ukrainians, and perhaps others? Are the words 'Ucraini' and 'Rutheni' in today's Roman Latin meant to indicate nationality, ethnicity or what? Is a Russian-speaking citizen of Russia, of partial Ukrainian ancestry, living in Novosobirsk, a 'Russian' or a 'Ukrainian' in the eyes of the Roman dicasteries?
Tim
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964 |
Dear Tim, It might be helpful to reflect upon the words of Fr. Chirovsky of the Sheptytsky Institute, on the subject of Ethnic and Church names. I have excerpted an article he wrote for the newsletter of the Holy Family Shrine in Washington, DC about two years ago. http://www.ucns-holyfamily.org/ChurchName.html After WW I, our people in Galicia followed Eastern Ukrainians and began using an ancient nickname for our nation of Rus', namely Ukrayina, and called themselves Ukrayintsi (Ukrainians). Thus, we came be the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Interestingly, our brethren on the southwest side of the Carpathian Mountains kept the ancient nomenclature, Ruthenians, and identified themselves with the Transcarpathian region, where one can drive form Uzhhorod to Slovakia in 15 minutes, to Hungary in 30 minutes, and to Romania in 70 minutes. To get to L'viv, one had to drive at least six hours and cross the treacherous Carpathian mountain passes. Imagine what that was like before cars! Thus the Transcarpathians, not surprisingly, found it more convenient to identify with their multi-ethnic regional neighbors than with the Rusyns who had switched to a new-fangled name - Ukrainians.
To disassociate themselves from ethnic Greeks, the Transcarpathian people chose, ever more frequently, to use the term "Byzantine," that referred to a liturgical tradition. So, (Galician) Ruthenian Greco-Catholics became "Ukrainian Catholics", while those from Transcarpathia became "Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics".
... From a theological viewpoint, calling it Ukrainian was not correct, for it implicitly excluded anyone not ethnically Ukrainian. A Church for just one ethnic group cannot be a Christian Church. Jesus commanded us: "Go and make disciples of all nations..." We would not be good Christians if we closed our doors to non-Ukrainians. The only legitimate way to keep our ancient Christian identity and the treasures of our religious tradition, was to do so in a way that shared the riches of the faith. We are a Church that came from the Ukrainian people, but a Church that is open to all people, no matter their ethnicity.
Accordingly, our Bishops have been seriously examining alternative names for our Church that focus on the name of the ecclesiastical see that is the center and identifying mark of our Church. That is the Church of Kyiv. Just as we do not refer to the Italian Church, but rather to the Church of Rome, or to the Church of Constantinople vs. the Turkish Church; just as the Patriarchate of Moscow is the correct name for the Orthodox Church in Russia, so we are the Church of Kyiv, in full, visible communion with Rome and Western Catholics.
That we are the Church of Kyiv is clear. It was the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the bishops of the Kyivan Metropolia that re-established communion with Rome in 1596. The more difficult part is how to express the rest of our identity for that part of the Church of Kyiv now in full, visible communion with the Church of Rome. Various alternatives have been examined: The Kyivan Catholic Church, The Kyivan Church of the Catholic Communion, The Kyivan Ecumenical (in Ukrainian: "Vselens'ka") Church, The Orthodox-Catholic Church of Kyiv, to name but a few.
One thing is certain. We cannot go on officially calling ourselves the Ukrainian Church, because that is heretical. We must embrace the entire Christian heritage established under the rule of St. Volodymyr in Kyiv. John Pilgrim and Odd Duck
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Tim,
The names can be confusing. Ruthenian, from Rome's point of view can mean liturgically the Ruthenian Recension used by Ukrainians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Slovaks, Hungarians, and Croats. Ecclesiastically nowadays it refers only to the Carpatho-Rusyn Eparchy of Mukachevo, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh Which besides Carpatho-Rusyns includes Slovaks, Hungarians, and Croats), and for now the Czech Exarchate (Carpatho-Rusyns and Ukrainians)
The reason behind labeling jurisdictions "of Parma" vs "of St. Josaphat in Parma" is I believe this: the first see in a city has title to that city anything after is really a violation of the one city one bishop rule. Now of course the original two jurisdictions violate this as they were just named of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians and of Philadelphia of the Ukrainains. However, if you notice every other Eastern jursidiction after that was given a city which did not have a Latin see in it or was designated of St. N in City N. and this continues. It also works in reverse for the Latins notice the Latin Catholic diocese in Russia are of St.N in City N.
As far as what oes one consider himslef, one must be enrolled in a Church sui iuris. Once enrolled you are a member till death or canoncial change of sui iuris Church. One may of course go where he wanst but canoncially he remains what the canons say he should be.
As far as hindering us it is hard to say, perhaps. More of hindrance is divided and overlapping jurisdictions and duplicated adminstrations. The US and Canada need one united and intergrated Byzantine Church. I think I may live to see it happen but it is years away. The Orthodox are stuggling with this now as well.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33 |
John,
It is somewhat premature to suggest that our Church's ethnic emphasis is heretical.
Our church leaders and religious did play a major role in the development of a Ukrainian national identity in western Ukraine. They also helped to preserve it in the diaspora.
That this characteristic is maintained and nurtured is not phyletism. Ours is a great Particular Church. It is not any different from any of the other great "National" churches that have been "ethnic-based" for centuries.
Antrodox
"Phyletism is heritical only to those ethnics in the majority."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
My disgraceful, unkind and cynical opinion (who, me?) is that this represents an application of the principle "divide et impera" and an attempt to keep us locked up in pickle jars and ethnic ghettoes. Incognitus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,240 |
I can't speak for others, but I'm happy in my pickle jar and have discerned the glory of God moving within it. I've also been in other pickle jars and have found the same to be true, each pickle of a slightly different shape and size, with spices of various origins.
All are pickles and all the pickles glorify God.
Why do people want to break my pickle jar? Let them break their own pickle jar and then see what holds the pickles together?
In Christ, Andrew
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 788
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 788 |
Help Preserve Wildlife - Pickle A Squirrel Today!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282
Greco-Kat Member
|
Greco-Kat Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 282 |
1. I fear that Father Andriy's perspective on the nature and name of the Church of Kyiv is not as widely accepted within the UGC Church as one might wish. Wider accetance of that view would certainly cause the ethnic labelling of eparchies to be seen as anachronistic and unnecessary. Acceptance of his transnational/trans-ethnic view, however, would bring the thus-newly-rechristened 'Kyivan Church' face to face with some difficult internal problems, including the as-yet-unmet-by-the-UGCC spiritual needs of unchurched Russophones in Ukraine.
2. I wonder if the good Deacon could expand his thoughts on labelling a bit further: My query was generated by the fact that Pittsburgh's official Latin title seems to be "Pittsburghensis ritus Byzantini" with no reference to Ruthenians of any nationality, while the official title of Passaic is something like "Passaicensis Ruthenorum" and Parma's something like "Parmensis Ruthenorum". At the same time, Van Nuys is titled simple something like "Vannaisensis" with no ethnic modifier. (I don't have the pages in front of me so I may have misspelled some of the geographical names in Latin.) The names of the Ukrainian eparchies are more uniform, but still, Bishop Robert's Parma Eparchy seems to have no ethnic modifier while the others all seem to bear the word "Ucrainorum". Reasons? Error on the web sites I consulted? Error in the Annuario? Clerical error in some Roman dicastery?
3. I think the "pickel jar" image is quite appropriate, both from the standpoint of each church having been put in one by Rome, and from the standpoint of the 'pickel' in which our Churches now find themselves as a result. But, since pickels are part of the culinary tradition of many Eastern Europeans, I also wonder how much ethnic rivalries among "founders and benefactors of our holy churches" (and even among their spiritual fathers) might have encouraged, or at least allowed, Rome to balkanize us? It seems unfortunate to me that Rome's 'solution' to those problems (if that it was) involved inflicting on the Eastern Catholic communities in North America the very structure (separate hierarchies) that it had rejected in the case of the Irish/Polish rivalries of the 19th century.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 37 |
Dear Friends,
Fr. Prof. Andrij Chirovsky is an excellent theologian.
But the idea that using "Ukrainian Church" is heretical is simply cultural naivete that is born of a lack of a socio-historical perspective on these matters.
The "Kyivan Church" as such does not exist today as a culturally-neutral jurisdiction.
The Moscow Patriarchate sees itself and it alone as the descendant of the historic Kyivan Church of ancient Rus'.
The Belorusyan Church will have nothing to do with the Ukrainian Church etc.
And there is a big problem with trying to name Greek-Catholics while referencing "Kyiv." It angers the Orthodox and for a good reason - historically the Uniates have tried to "sell" the idea that Kyiv was always in union with Rome or at least was originally in union with Rome and that the Union of Brest simply restored the former status quo etc.
Fr. Prof. Chirovsky's ideas about heresy would engender quite the reaction among our Ukie parishes.
That it has not only attests to the fact that what goes on at the Sheptytsky Institute in Ottawa is basically "parish priest training" that has no real further intellectual, cultural or religious impact on our people than that.
That is a shame, but I think that our seminary really needs a better relationship with the social, as well as the theological, sciences.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary in Winnipeg is much more "Ukrainian" and in tune with the Ukrainian people than the GC one in Ottawa in this and other respects.
The Orthodox Churches have always wonderfully contained and defended their respective peoples' cultural and national heritage. Perhaps some here would call that "ultra-nationalism" or "phyletism" - but this also shows an extreme cultural naivete that is usually a very Western perspective.
Ask a Pole about the relationship between RCism and Polish history/identity, or an Irishman for that matter.
But there are Western Christians who really do want to be a part of the Eastern Churches for various reasons.
They prefer the ritualism of the Eastern Churches as they are turned off the NO Mass and the like. That is the main reason, as I know from RC's who have become EC's in our parishes up here.
And it is truly difficult to do so if one is coming into one of these EC Churches where there is a strongly defined cultural identity and language.
That is a challenge that the EC Churches must deal with and they must deal with it soon.
But neither is a given Eastern Church's cultural identity and heritage to be reduced to culinary and other forms of material culture.
That is offensive to the people and these Churches.
North Americans of the cosmopolitan cultural persuasion should at least try to understand the identity and historic heritage of these Churches, just as they try to get those Churches to open their doors to accept them in the same spirit of understanding.
And the idea that "Rome balkanized us" shows just how "innocent" some are with respect to the actual historical realities of these Churches.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
NOTHING holds the pickles together once I get my teeth into them! Preferably, you understand, at Katz's delicatessen, accompanying a large pastrami on rye and a chocolate egg cream (as you may guess from that, Katz's is not kosher). We are, of course, discussing dill pickles. Other pickles are heretical, schismatic, and an outrage to the pious devotees of pastrami on rye. Don't forget the mustard. Incognitus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,310
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,310 |
By which we have also proven that incognitus is NOT a Jewish Rabbi... Gaudior, wishing no one mentioned pastrami because it is still so far from Pascha...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Gaudior: By which we have also proven that incognitus is NOT a Jewish Rabbi...
Not true. He could still be a Reformed Jewish rabbi. :p Dave
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
I've never really considered becoming a rabbi - and it's probably true that no rabbi, however reformed, would want to be seen in public eating pastrami and drinking a chocolate egg cream at approximately the same time.
However, someone suggests "Ask a Pole about the relationship between RCism and Polish history/identity, or an Irishman for that matter." The point itself is well taken, but I've not met many Irish people who would know all that much about "the relationship between RCism and Polish history/identity".
Now back to those pickles . . . unfortunately I can't afford to buy any caviar to eat on Lazarus Saturday (all contributions to the Caviar Fund gratefully accepted).
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33 |
A New York Pastrami on Rye is a deviant abberation , a falsehood, and a rejection of tradition. Now, if it was a Smoked Meat Sandwich from Montreal, that would be a totally different story. Everyone flocks to those. As for pickles, people say that its a question of personal preference. Many prefer the uniform taste of butter pickles--their size, nature, and flavour remains the same, from jar to jar. It could be a personal prejudice shared by the majority. Only the initiated know about the true sidedish to a smoked meat sandwich: not quite gray, but with a pale yellow tinge, lightly soured pickles*. (There is an exclusion: those with hard-core traditionalist orthodox tastes seem to prefer nothing else but pickled red peppers.) Both agree on the importance of the mustard to this cosmopolitan combo. The Montreal Smoked Meat Sandwich is an acquired taste. Hopefully all the newbies flocking to it won't change the recipes....and turn it into a pastrami. *made from a select, secret and exclusive Yiddish recipe.
Antrodox
"Phyletism is heritical only to those ethnics in the majority."
|
|
|
|
|