www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Ruthenian Church and Ukrainians

Referring to a country like Ukraine as having 'geographic' boundaries is meaningless when borders criss cross the same mountain range or take in the upper reaches of a river and the lower but not the middle. The borders which have changed a few times in the past 50 yrs are 'political'. Lets not confuse geography and politics.

I don't know if that is true...it has been very clear over Bishop Andrew's 20 years as a bishop that he was/is looking to get rid of Hungarians...I understand where the annimosity towards Hungarians comes from as them being rulers of the empire and many Rusyn's losing their identity and thinking they were Hungarian since that was "in vogue" and culturally acceptable in the "home lands". That being said...I know I came from a parish of true Magyars not Rusyn's who think they are Hungarian...(believe me I studied the parish long ago to see a justification for pidgeon holeing us as Rusyn's) and we were extinguished...+Andrew is just as ethnocentric as the Ukrainians...And just as cocky thinking everyone is really Rusyn. Just like many Ukrainians think Rusyns are really Ukrainian...How far back do we want to go...Maybe we are all Iraqis since we all stemmed from Adam and Eve in the garden which has been placed in Iraq

Isn't that what was tried in the "old country". Make everyone conform to the cultural norms (Hungarian). "I see us as deja vu all over again" Just like some want to homaginize everyone over here as American without cultural diversity. Time and time again that has been tried with heavy backlash down the road.

I saw that Bishop Andrew was recently over in eastern Europe and he was conducting a service in Hungarian according to the text under the photo. I had heard that the bishop has been referred to 'as the Hungarian' in certain circles. I did not think he was anti Hungarian but we live and learn.

Me must to be together ,not to fight but to consolidate not even thru territory but in our mind and ideas ,all descendants of rusyns or ruthenians /galicians ,boykos ,lemkos ,huculs , et cetera/
of cource with God*s name and help.

OK, so Mukachiv was never dependent on Kyiv-Halych. Can anyone convince me that at this point in history the Eparchy of Mukachiv will be better off being directly under the Vatican and the Congregation Against (sorry, "For") Eastern Churches than being part of a Kyivan Patriarchate? This reminds me of a phrase uttered by certain Byzantines/Greeks: Better the turkish turban than the papal tiara. It seems that certain Rusyns (and Magyars and Slovaks and ...) would rather deal directly with the Vatican (who will never see them as anything better than a red-headed step-child) than with a Church of the same 'recension', a Church which speaks (more or less) the same theological/ecclisiastical/spiritual langauge.

Rusyns aren't Ukrainians? Fine. To be honest it doesn't make the least bit of difference to be. But when it comes to the Church, and the barriers that have to be overcome being "Catholic" this anti-Ukrainian attitude is suicidal.

I think it's time to step off my soap box and don a flame-resistant riassa...

DEar Eli,

Why "ignored?"

Have not anti-Ukrainianism and anti-Orthodoxy been identified as major issues in the entire matter of cooperation in the creation of shared liturgical texts?

I'm asking about this to better understand the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I believed it is supposed to be open to everyone.

And now I learn that there is an Eparch who is quite anti-Ukrainian.

Certainly, he doesn't stand alone as such in the BCC or does he?

But this is not a matter to be ignored. It appears that the Eparch's stand with respect to Ukrainians has put back the clock on a number of inter-church projects by several years or even decades.

Such anti-Ukrainianism can also help explain a lot about the development of the BCC and also the directions it takes in future.

It would also seem that the anti- this and that of the Eparch and also perhaps of his liturgical committee that must toe his line in one way or another is what is really at the root of the conflict involving liturgical translations that have been an ongoing concern on this forum.

I am saddened at the news of this fact, I mean, anti-Ukrainianism. It is disturbing to me and upsetting.

With sadness,

Alex

Why because...

There is nothing Godly to be served trading this anti-Ukranianism for that anti-Ruthenianism.

And because we are a particular Church and need to have the space and time and opportunity to take out our own splinters without someone else grabbing the needle out of our hands and sticking us with it.

I know you understand, better than most, I'd say.

So I think that the other guy trying to grab the needle ought to be ignored and we ought to get on with what is necessary for our house, and leave him to take care of his own house, for now.

Eli

Dear Job,

Yes, we are all guilty of ethnocentrism in one way or another.

What really bothers me about the Byzantine Catholic Church is the fact that you have an Eparch (rather than a layman, individual priest from the old country etc.) who is known as being anti-Ukrainian.

I don't think I've ever come across a UGCC eparch who would ever think of rejecting Greek-Catholics of ANY cultural background. Or who had a particular cultural axe to grind against anyone.

In my Eparchy, we have Roumanian, Hungarian, Belarusyan and Slovak Greek-Catholics, as well as others.

They all came out to greet the new UGCC Eparch Vladyka Kyr Stephan, we were and are one big happy family.

The fact that your Eparch SEEMS to have been allowed to go on like this unchecked by anyone in the BCC also speaks.

In addition, the feeling of "anti-Orthodox" - if an EPARCH is like that, by what right do BCC'ers claim the title "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as if they are the primary movers and shakers of that?

Doesn't the BCC see this as THE problem, even ahead of your bickering over English liturgical translations and the "legitimacy" of "true" Eastern Catholic parishes on the grounds of how closely their praxis approximates that of the Orthodox?

It seems that you need to clean your own house first before you can pontificate on:

a) Being inclusive toward everyone (except Ukrainians - who are not welcome)

b) Being as closely aligned to the Orthodox as possible (with at least one influential Eparch who doesn't like the Orthodox, is the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" group among the BCC a fringe movement?)

Sociologically, this whole matter does cast a lot of light on the foundation for the entire liturgical debate here.

It didn't make sense to me before, but it certainly does now!

Perhaps all UGCC'ers should just stay away from anything having to do with the BCC until things are resolved with you guys?

Otherwise, the BCC can really come across as two-faced and self-contradictory on a number of scores.

We UGCC'ers don't pretend we don't have biases.

The BCC seems to.

Again with sadness,

Alex

Kobzar

It�s something of a subjective question, because it depends on ones perspectives and priorities. I would think if you have as a priority the protection of a distinct Rusyn identity, the answer would be yes it is better. I�m not on either �side� btw, I was just pointing out to Ebed Melech that simply coalescing under a single see would not put these issues to rest, nor would it be a return to the previous way of doing things.

I will say in answer to your question, that as an outsider, it would seem to me that in some ways the UGCC and Ruthenian Church are both subject to many of the same problems (as you identify them). The flocks of both in the diaspora are dependencies of Rome and both are subject to the same overall governing framework (i.e. the CCEO).

To flip it though Kobzar, are there any �anti� mentalities at work in the UGCC?

My own experiences with the UGCC were not terrific, but they're of a different nature.

Alex

Actually that brings up a question I was going to ask. Why did the Slovaks ask for and get their own Eparchy up there?

Andrew

I think one important thing to keep in mind, is that posters on this forum don't necessarily represent any majority in Byzantine churches. Some posters have positions that are on the ends of the pendulum swing, not the middle. It is even fair to say that some have been hurt, and have axes to grind. Another thing is that Bishop Andrew is not the only bishop in the BCC, and he is not the Metropolitan. Some seem to have personal axes to grind with him, rightly or wrongly, since I can't possibly know the details behind this. And besides, who said Ukrainians are not welcome? Certainly, they can be disruptive and contentious, but that seems to me to be a fault of 2nd and 3rd generation American Ukrainians - who are more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians. The real Ukrainian immigrants seem to be lovely people.

Sorry for taking these out of their original posting order...

Ahh but it's not only Ukrainians in these circles...True Ethnic Hungarians don't fit in as well...only those who consider themselves Rusyn are allowed in the "private club"

being referred to as "the Hungarian" is actually a slap at him...as a child I met him and in a childs innocence simply stated that my grandmother was a Pataki and who knows maybe we are related...knowing I was Hungarian that ended the conversation abruptly...he turned and ignored me and my brother from that point forward...it was then that I was told about his hatred of the Hungarians and how he denys his Hungarian Heritage and as bishop it's been clear over 20 years that he looks to extinguish all things hungarian...

Many do see this as the problem and accept it. Since the only value (at least to me (that should create a fire storm))of being united with Rome was to have a check on absolute power...Rome has been informed of these issues repeatedly (going back at least to the time he was elevated to bishop of Parma (20 years)) Rome has done nothing but elevate people to be his peers who will not do anything but cower...

1st "you guys"...I am no longer a member of the BCC because these issues overshadow everything that the Church is to stand for...
2nd...I agree...I guess that's why I am critical of the Evangilization movement...I have no doubt that movement is out of true love and devotion...and at a different time could take root...however, you can not plant on concrete...no matter how hard you try, until these "issues" are taken care of there will be no sustainable growth in the BCC...

I found this site with info on the 'Slovak' Eparchy (for Greek Catholics whose ancestors came from the Hungarian Kingdom) which has juristiction over all Canada.

http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/carpatho_rusyns.html

Dear Andrew,

The Slovaks wished to have their own Metropolia once they grew strong enough in numbers etc.

The multicultural situation in Canada is one that pulls one in the direction of having one's own jurisdiction etc. as opposed to what I've noticed to be the case in the Grand Republic to the south of us where there is this movement to unite everyone under one roof etc. Their desire to have their own Metropolia is just that.

In fact, one parish is currently experiencing some difficulties, and their clergy asked my in-laws' parish if they could hold services there until things blow over. And, of course, they receive every support etc.

The Hungarian and Roumanian Greek-Catholics are welcome to the same, of course, they are currently part of our Eparchy and get along with the Bishop famously. No one tells them what language to use in the liturgy, or what they should be called as Catholics etc.

Way back, there was one Ruthenian poster here who seemed to express his own Anti-Uke attitude by accusing our late Vladyka Kyr Isidore Borecky of being "mean" and worse toward the Slovaks.

Nothing is further from the truth! The Slovak Bishop Rusnak always attended all the UGCC Eparchial functions, he was invited to speak at them (I was personally present at one where he did speak and received the most applause of any speaker). Vladyka Kyr Isidore supported the Slovaks in every way, evil rumours to the contrary (again, perhaps based on Anti-Uke sediment).

And the idea of being, in the U.S. at least, one with a Church with such sentiments is . . . well, horrors! Who needs that? And how dare the BCC pretend to be a general umbrella for all Byzantine Catholics! Sheesh!

Again, the UGCC doesn't pretend it doesn't have definite biases. However, I believe we have a much better record than the BCC (sorry about assuming you were still a member of the BCC, Job - come to think of it, that really was offensive on my part!) with respect to relations with other Churches in general.

Patriarch Joseph the Confessor meant no harm to anyone when he extended his hand out to the Ruthenians (only to have it slapped back at him).

Ruthenians have every right to be annoyed that there are Ukrainians who believe they are really Ukrainians without a national consciousness etc. In fact, Ruthenians should probably be more annoyed that there are Carpatho-Ukrainians who think the same way.

But not all do, and many just don't care about the Ruthenians and those with anti-Ukrainian paranoia (and anti-Orthodox paranoia too).

And if we're apparently not welcome in the BCC, who cares? What, we're going begging for parishes? We need to go to a BCC parish?

Frankly, after everything is said and done, I wouldn't touch anything BCC with a ten foot pole from now on.

And that includes this forum, truth be told. The scales have finally dropped.

Yes, this truly does hit home.

Alex

Alex, thanks for the explanation on the Slovak Eparchy.

If the comments posted about why the new liturgy is coming about are true, I would think Orthodox folk would have just as much right to be offended as Ukrainians. See, the BCC brought us together, we have something in common!

Seriously though, I think the people being hurt in all of this are in the BCC, not outside of it.

Andrew