www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Patriarch for Carpatho-Rusyns?

Father Al bless! You are right ... I answered my own question.

Rusyn is an official language. Are you aware that the Rusyn language has been codified? It was codified in Slovakia in 1995. There are many schools that teach it in Eastern Slovakia (as well as in Poland and Ukraine).

Why do Rusyns have to have a country to have a Patriarch? Before the institution of the Holy See and the Vatican City (as well as Italy), where did the Roman Catholic Patriarch come from?

What needs to be explained is that Rusyns have always been oppressed by the dominant nationality of the times (Hunagrian, Slovak and/or Soviet forces) and therefore Rusyns have never been allowed to be independent and totally free to choose their own fate, as well as a Patriarch!

It would be great to have someone specifically to represent the Rusyn cause, we've been oppressed for so long, it would be nice to have our own Patriarch.

Indeed, His All-Holiness is a fan of a great many different groups and expressions of the Orthodox faith that he gives succor and leadership to his role as the EP.

It is a low-down-dirty-shame at many levels how terribly he is treated by the Turkish state, not the least of which is the restrictions on freedoms that make it (at the very best) difficult to bring in the faithful and their clergy who are Greek, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russian and Albanian Orthodox in North and South America, Western Europe and folks from Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, Southeast Asia, Korea, The Phillipines, and more... (to name a few!)

Would that the situations and freedoms were such that the environment was more hospitable, it would be a resplendant sight to behold to see the grand and beautiful traditions all of these peoples represent gathered in a Cathedral in Old Constantinople from around the world.

Sorry to go off-topic, the idea of such always captures my imagination!

Benedicite!

Surely someone has given thought to the possible creation of a sui iuris Church for all the Catholic faithful of the Byzantine rite in the United States? If Greek Melkites, Romanians, Ukrainians and Ruthenians were brought together into a single American Byzantine Catholic Church, this Church would have some 10 Bishops and almost 500 parishes across the nation and would be a powerful witness to the Byzantine Christian tradition. Presumably it would merit the status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church sui iuris.

If we do that, create one Byzantine Catholic Church in American, than we should have one Greek Catholic Patriarch for America.

I don't think that comes into Orthodox thinking. Orthodox Patriarchs are different in status to Eastern Catholic Patriarchs inasmuch as they head autocephalous Churches. Eastern Catholic Patriarchs head autonomous Churches. As far as I know the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church?

While I would fully support the proposal that the best solution for the eparchies derived from the Eparchy of Mukachevo (how's that for a circumlocution?) would be some form of a distinct status within the larger context of the Greek-Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv-Halych and All Rus', I must nevertheless take issue with the claim that a "requirement" for Patriarchal status is an "official country" for an ethnic group. No such requirement exists, nor is there any basis for one - there is not now and never has been any such place as "Maronitia" or "Melkitia". There was once a place called Chaldea, granted, but if it was ever a country it ceased to be one long before the Chaldean Patriarchate came into existence.

As for language, we may note that the Melkites, the Maronites, the Syrian Catholics (as distinct from the Catholic Syrians), and the Coptic Catholics all speak Arabic, and all except the Copts retain some use of Syro-Aramaic. The Copts and the Melkites retain some use of Greek.

These two issues are a pair of twin red herrings.

Again, I fully support the proposal to include these eparchies within the Patriarchate of Kyiv-Halych and All Rus' while simultaneously providing a suitable structure to maintain their common identity (presumably making Mukachevo-Uzhhorod the seat of a Metropolitan heading a synodal structure of his own while at the same time continuing to include all the hierarchs in the Patriarchal Synod - but the details are no concern of mine).

Fr. Serge

I have two questions for the sake of this discussion:

#1



Surely you would make it 'North American', not just in the USA? Canada has a large number of Eastern Catholics too. And I am sure that any parishes that may exist (or come into existance) in Mexico would also have more in common with a North American Church than not.

#2


Perhaps I am also not aware...
(maybe the division does not affect Canada)

What difficulties? Why don't we work together at least side by side here and now? (I have always wondered why we don't have more collaboration beween Canadians and the States, and between the different EC Churches.)

Kadylo

Benedicite!

Obviously there can be no (North) American Byzantine Catholic Church unless this is indeed the wish of the Churches involved. But I do think it would be a very powerful witness. If the Churches of the Byzantine tradition in Canada and Mexico were to join in, so much the better! Then indeed you might have your very own Patriarch!

I don't know if a North American Byzantine Church which would unite all the Byz EC churches together is possible in the short term, but cooperation between them all is. (and would have to happen before any possibility of the other).

As for...
symantics... perhaps the USA and Mexico should join Canada.

Kadylo

Wouldn't there be an issue with joining those in union with theri proper Patriarch (Melchites and ???) and those out of Union with Constantinople?

hawk

Benedicite!

I think there would indeed be an issue here. However, while the Greek Melkites in America belong to the Greek Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East, they are deemed to be outside the proper patriarchal territory. The same applies to the Ukrainians, who are deemed to belong to the Ukrainian Catholic Church but to be outside the proper territory of that Church. There are two ways to resolve this anomalous situation:

a) To extend the territory of the Greek Melkites and Ukrainians, or
b) To create a new patriarchate in North America.

To ensure the long-term presence of the Byzantine Catholic Churches in North America I would definitely favour option b) in accordance with the decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council:

By the same logic, there should certainly also be a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate of Kyiv-Halych, but the very confused ecclesiastical situation in Ukraine suggests the need for both patience and prudence.

PS! While the Roman Pontiff does indeed have the right to establish new patriarchates (CCEO can. 57 � 1, cf. can. 44 � 1), I don't think this right has ever been exercised. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) All the existing Eastern Catholic patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, Cilicia) would seem to have been recognized rather than established by the Roman Pontiff. Thus, the Holy See might understandably be reluctant to establish new patriarchates in the face of possible opposition from the non-Catholic Eastern Churches.

... under the sacred omophorion of His Beatitude the Patriarch of Winnipeg and All the Americas?

Neither am I, Fr. Bo. I would posit the internal struggles and frictions even on the parish level far outweigh any external struggles. In the US the "Eastern Catholic Associates", the vehicle for the Eastern Catholic bishops to confer, meets regularly and cordially.

As for Canada, sign me up.

Camada is a lovely country - I lived there for two decades, have lots of friends there, and am still quite fond of it. But the Canadian ethos is different from that of the USA.

Mexico? I've never been there, so I could be off base - but I would see it as an eventual part of a structure for at least Spanish-speaking Latin America.

An American Patriarchate? Both the Ukrainians and the Melkites wish to remain part of their respective patriarchal Churches, and indeed to strengthen the bonds with those Churches. The Ukrainians, at least, would see such a proposal as part of an effort to deracinate them. They might be right.

Fr. Serge