www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Proposal for Move Towards Byzantine Catholic Unity in North America

Lemko, your ethnophobia of Ukrainians is showing again.

In your historical analysis you have missed the mass exodus of our faithful and priests which had nothing to do with the Rusyn/Ukrainian issues, like that of Alexis Toth and those which followed Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit. These had to do with canonical issues such as married clergy and the acceptance of the validity of orders and jurisdiction of our priests coming from Eastern Europe.

Those movements to Orthodoxy were much larger in the US than any ethnic conflicts whose significance you inflate. You have also missed the fact that all who went to the OCA, Rusyns, Ukies, whatever, ALL became russified. Period. Their identity became that of the Church of Moscow. How's that for respecting identity?

The very use of the term Kyivan to designate a patriarchate is neither ethnic nor nationalistic. It is liturgical and ecclesiological.

And we are simply thinking out loud. Noone is demanding anyone give up anything or be forced to go or do anything at this point.

As already stated on this thread, there are parishes who use English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Croatian, Macedonian, Russian, Polish and Ukrainian along with Slavonic in the UGCC.

Under the successors of Metropolitan Rahoza there was an attempt at Greek Catholic ecclesial unity. Under Metropolitan Sheptytsky, in spite of tremendous difficulties of the first World War and all kinds of diverse nationalism, there was a strong ecclesial unity and rallying under his omophorion. I do not disgree that there are still problems with hypernationalism both inside and outside the UGCC.

But at the same time we should not let this type of nationalistic bickering or narrow-mindedness get in the way of an ecclesial union that can benefit all in the long run and make legitimate room for the minor differences in liturgical, ethnic, and linguistic expressions present.

We have had historically Old Believers, Russian Catholics, Galicians and Trans-Carpathians within the UGCC all with their own personalities.

I don't think Kyr Slavomir Miklosh of Krizhevtsi had to get a tryzub tattoed on his arm and chest when he recently met with Metropolitan Stefan Soroka. On the contrary, they strengthened ecclesial ties. We have a couple of Kyr Slavomir's married priests serving in the US and Canada in the UGCC.

We have to think about what's best ecclesially for the Greek Catholic churches as a whole, the "big picture", which often necessitates thinking out of the ethnopolitical provincialism we often box ourselves into.

Diak:

I am interested about the Greek Catholic Church of Krizhevtsi, the ethnic background of the faithful, their traditions. Do you know if they still follow the Serbian Orthodox tradition?
Have you talked to those priests?

Dear Remie,

Byzantines in Croatia are quite a mixed bag. You have Ruthenians, Slovaks and a small number of Croatians (Don't call them Serbs!). I can't speak about specific liturgical usages in the Stari Kraj. However, here in the US they are part of (as you probably know) the Ruthenian jurisdiction and their usages are along the lines of their northern brothers. The diocese of Krizevci is so small it is tough to get information on.

There is one Croatian Byzantine parish in Cleveland, Ohio. The members there identify themselves as Croatian, specifically Zumbercani.

It's sad that they're not Serbs anymore. The Serbian Orthodox Tradition would really enrich byzantine catholicism.
Then the Serbian Orthodox Church would be the only one without a catholic counterpart.

As of the last record I have (2001) there are about 40 priests in that eparchy. There is also a Basilian religious community.

The geographic area for this eparchy ranges from Croatia to Serbia, Bosnia-Herzigovinia, Slovenia and Macedonia. There are two married Macedonian priests from this eparchy currently serving in the Eparchy of Stamford. There is another married priest from Bosnia also serving in the Stamford eparchy.

If my screen name were "Lemko Ukrainian" but my message were the same, would you still say that?

Can you honestly read the testimony of the Lemko immigrant miners in the court cases of Wilkes-Barre and Olyphant and honestly say that these people had any understanding of or concern with "canonical issues" and "jurisdiction"? The conflicts over married clergy did not arise during Bishop Ortynsky's reign because despite the 1907 promulgation of Ea Semper, there was never any attempt to enforce it.

Really now, I don't think you realize who you're conversing with.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the rock-throwing incidents in McKees Rocks, Northampton, New Britain, Barnesboro... between the Russophiles/"katsaps" and the Ukrainophiles/"Mazeppaites" (supporters of bishop Ortynsky) at the "narodnoe vieche"/"narodne viche" held in these towns circa 1909-1912.

Perhaps you would like to explain why before 1907, virtually all of the parishes that were formed by St. Alexis Toth were majority or all-Subcarpathian:

Minneapolis MN
Bridgeport CT
Buffalo NY
Sheppton PA
Catasauqua PA
Osceola Mills PA
Philipsburg PA
Scranton PA
Streator IL
Cleveland OH
Reading PA
Philadelphia PA (St. Andrew's)
were all Subcarpathian parishes--but after the arrival of the good bishop, the number of Galician/Lemko parishes formed under Orthodoxy were legion:
Coaldale PA
Mt Carmel PA
Jersey City NJ
Olyphant PA
Philadelphia PA (St. Michael's)
Alden Station PA
Auburn NY
Waterbury CT
Terryville CT
Akron OH
Jeannette PA
Conemaugh PA
Minersville PA
and many others (sorry, that's just off the top of my head since I'm away from my library).

Some documents reprinted in Fr. John Slivka's Historical Mirror bear this out.

They may have been "Russified" but in most cases, they did so willingly, since they already thought of themselves as Russians. They were just given some encouragement. Some of the strongest living Russophiles I know today are highly educated 3rd-generation descendants of Lemko immigrants; they are fully aware of the peculiarities of Lemko/Rusyn history and culture, yet they are firm in their adherence to the Russian idea. And some of them are Greek Catholics.

The root cause for the exodus of Toth was his difficulties with Bishop Ireland. I don't think Ireland was working with any larger Galician/Ukrainian conspiracy to force that exodus. It was a case of prejuidice and ignorance on the part of Ireland.

There were also Galicians who went with him to Orthodoxy. That can and is documented. I appreciate your depth of knowledge of sources from the Rusyn perspective but there are also other historical accounts, some also quite objective. I also do not disagree that there was hypernationalistic tendencies on both sides and external political factors exacerbating ethnic tensions. I stated that in the above post.

The difficulties with clerical celibacy and relations with the Latins played a central part in the overall picture of the movements to Orthodoxy. There is ample documentation of this outside of the Rusyn sources and perspectives you have cited. There are two Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions in the US composed partly of former Greek Catholics as well. There were also Galician priests who gravitated to the OCA, by the way.

The correspondence between Ireland and Toth, well documented, seems to ignore your deeper ethnic suppositions and relates to, strictly, the vailidy of his orders and jusrisdiction and his married state as a priest. Sorry, I don't read any deeper meaning into the exchanges between Toth and Ireland. I am also not eliminating the possibility that there may have been some who were opportunistic and used the Toth situation to enter Orthodoxy and thus distance themselves from Kyr Soter. Nor that there were genuine ethnic tensions between Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, all with Rusyn backgrounds.

And you have agreed on the end result, that upon joining the OCA there was the loss of the Rusyn identity for a pseudo-Muscovite identity. It's fine if these people want to be Muscovite. I thought they were Carpatho-Rusyn. There is a difference, you know.

As for your name, I respect whatever handle and identity you wish to impart on yourself. Rusyn, Ukrainian, Ugandan, you are who you are. I do not, however, appreciate your insinuations of some kind of underlying Ukrainian supremacy in the earlier post with the "united under the tryzub" line etc.

The kind of problematic ethnic relations you continually regurgitate are painful, sinful and devisive, all "sides" sharing in mutual sins against charity and love. Supremacism of any kind is not appropriate. And there were attempts at supremacism from all sides in these ethnic conflicts.

Why the need for dredging up the past difficulties and laying a smokescreen for future cooperative work, I don't understand.

And they are in the PAST. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russian Empire are gone. The ethnopolitical viscitudes which precipitated those are gone with the empires.

What concerns our church is the FUTURE. Without FUTURE there is no Church.

The relations between the eparchies of Krizhevtsi, Uzhorod and Marmures with the UGCC indicate they are willing to work towards a larger good for the Church, and don't appear to be afraid of a larger Ukrainian expansionism.

There were representatives from all three of these eparchies at the recent Sobor in Kyiv. No one had to get tryzubs tattoed to their arms.
The UGCC has reciprocated by assisting in the education of their vocations and placing some of their married vocations in our parishes in the US. What have you done for them?

All suffered under the Soviets, Rusyn, Galician, Slovak, Romanian, regardless of what eparchy's boundaries were involved. The UGCC can't even get some of its parishes and property back within Ukraine, is still fighting registration requirements for establishing new parishes, and therefore I don't think empirical conquests are in the plan. The resurrection of our churches is an effort we all should share in.

How can we best spread the Good News to an increasingly securalized world through the Constantinopolitan tradition? Not by dredging up the reasons for this or that parish going to this or that jurisdiction in the early 1900s. The history of these parishes and ethnic difficulties are interesting tidbits for the parish history book and students of history. But to the non-believer "man on the street" they are not very significant in the big picture. And we should be careful as these issues could actually keep them away from the faith as they might see only squabbling over ethnic baggage.

Out here in Mission-land west of the Pennsylvania border we simply have other concerns. Those of diverse Greek Catholic descent get along, as there is very few options for us for Liturgy. I am getting ready to serve as subdeacon for a pontifical with one of your Ruthenian hierarchs this weekend. I was invited by them to serve. And I look forward to assisting in any capacity I can.

The bottom line is that historical ethnopolitical divisions do not serve to further the kingdom of God here on earth, which those of us serving the Church are called to do. The point of this thread is not to parade a particular biased ethnic view of church history.

The point of this thread is working towards a unified approach in evangleization and working towards the good of all Greek Catholics in the US of whatever extraction, respecting with all dignity particular backgrounds and identities. The point is working towards forwarding that goal.

The Romanian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Teoctist has a Ukranian Orthodox Vicariate, whose members were part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which was also supressed in 1948.

Do you know what happened to them when the Greek catholic Church rised again in the 90's?

Have they tried to become Greek Catholics again?

As far as I know, the Ukrainian Vicariate has its own parishes and there would not be a dispute with Romanian orthodox parishioners.

From “Greek Catholics in America”
Cath. Encyc. ca. 1909
In many ways we really didn't leave the old counrty - we brought it with us. The divisions of our people into distinct brotherhoods in the US, arguably set the stage for the much later division of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic jurisdictions and large departures for Russian Orthodoxy. (Saint Alexis opened the door, but the flood occured after him.) Ruthenian publications were hardly friendly to Bishop Ortinsky. Moreover, according to "Clash of Titans" some Ruthenian churches incorporated under him maintained the proviso that his title to the property was provisional until such time as as we have a Bishop "of our own blood".

It is also worth noting that these divisions are paralleled in US Orthodox jurisdictions: Carpatho-Russian , Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian Greek Catholic (OCA)(etc.) - where the celibacy issue is irrelevant.

Having said all of this, I agree that the cultural factors behind these divisions are largely irrelevant now. We hardly even remember how this happened! There is much to be gained by UGC's and BC's working much more closely together.