www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New apostolic administrator for Eparchy of Mukachevo

There are many Ruthenians that would like to have a patriarch. They belong to the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. As far as Carpatho-Ruthenians, if they don't care about it, and it is not important to their Catholicism, then why do they spend money and time over the Mukachevo eparchy in Ukraine? After all, they are Byzantine Catholics now, not Ruthenians. They intermarry like you say with Latin Catholics, etc .

Let Ukraine be and concentrate your efforts on your own American Church. Is it perhaps because the Byzantine Catholic Church has a hidden nationalism inside? If you don't care about "it" in "this" country and your Catholicism is identified through Rome and not Ukraine, then why does the Byzantine Catholic Church in America concern itself with a Greek Catholic eparchy in southern Ukriane?

I agree with you: Joe and dts. Many of the faithful would not understand and it is impractical, at least, until the older generation dies off. But will we continue the same mindless seperation between our people? Will you? I still have not found anything in Ruthenian and Ukrainian culture that one can say, "Wow! These guys are two different ethnicities." Perhaps that is why Slokavia considers us to be one in the same? Most people who are unattached by blood or emotion, generally do not see a difference between the two. But those inside the dysfunctional triangle cannot see it.

Should we disregard the rights of others? No we should not. And for that matter it might not happen.
Our people are the biggest obstacle because they are too ethno-nationalistic. The only difference between the two is that the Ukrainians are more overt about their nationalism, while the Ruthenian Church tries to suppress it, but it still exists. And I think this is why both of our Churches are struggling in the US.

One could argue that it is a response to the Moscow Patriarch. Personally I don't care about the MP at all. I am interesting in reviving a solid ecclesial structure for my church and for her health. At first I thought an American Byzantine Church would be best. But now I favor a patriarchal church that is world wide and faithful to the Slovanic confession and has more potential in its structure, especially when having to deal with the Roman beaurocracy.

But you are right, noone really knows where it will go.

I insist that it is not nationalistic but only the best solution for our church. But, Joe, you constantly read into my position as being one of a Ukrainian nationalist.
But what can I do or say? This is not my point of orientation. I think that we have a great opportunity to build together and come together in an ecclesial structure that has never been possible until 11 years ago. whether you see this potential or not, I cannot control, I can only propose the idea.

ALity

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your postition. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is not in solicitude with the Ukrainian Government's position on the Carpatho-Rusyns. Judging by what is stated on the link you posted earlier, it does not take a rocket scientist to infer that the reason the Ukrainian Government does not support Rusyn "self-identity" is that they insist, as your report clearly indicates, on the autonomy of the Sub-Carpathian region. To do so, could spell the entire destruction of the Ukrainian state itself, with the east and Crimea then wishing to unite with Russia and even those in Galicia who want there own seperate Western Ukrainian Republic.

What government would support such a position?

Your arguments here are based on nationalism. Do you really support risking the entire stability of Europe in order to carve out another tiny country from Eastern Slovakia and Southwestern Ukraine? The Byzantine Catholic Church divorced herself, more or less, from any ethnic affiliation in the USA. Am I to understand NOW that the reason your Church supports the Mukachevo eparchy and is against its unification into the UGCC is, because she supports the establishment of a seperate Rusyn state out of what is now Slovakia and Ukraine?

How can you accuse the Ukrainian Catholic Church with complicity? What evidence do you have?
Yes, my question is ecclesiological. But my interpretation of your arguments against it are consistently nationalistic. Are you from sub-Carpathia?

My arguements are not based on politics, but rather, what I think is the best ecclesiological organization for the Eastern European Byzantine Catholic Churches. Yet, I seem to be responding to many political statements by those who are opposed to it on political grounds. So who is the nationalist?

Quote

Asserting that insistence on the individuality of one's group is "the wrong point of view", is not IMO a tactic that manifests solicitude or builds confidence.

Sorry, but that is what I think. Coming from the ethnic heritage of Rusyn and Ukrainian ethnicities, that is just the way I feel. I believe it to be a false dichotomy with it's roots sowed in hatred. Show me something that distinguishes the two. And language is not an option, since there is no universal agreement on what a codified Ruthenian language actually is at this point.

Quote

I am not an advocate for ethnic subdivision; I would only oppose integration that is not undertaken willingly. It would likely be very divisive; the purported benefits would be outweighed by the problems it would cause.

You and I, my friend, completely agree here. Although, if the people of our respective Ruthenian jurisdictions could be educated to accept it given time, the benefits are far greater if we united.

Quote

The situation of course in the latin rite was very different. By the time of high volume, multi-ethnic immigration there was a pre-existing American hierarchical structure, which was not about to accept the erection of ethnic parishes subject to overseas hierarchs. (You will recall, moreover, that the American bishops felt this way also about Catholics of other rites includsing ours.) [/QUOTE}

We already had a structure in place in the eparchy of Philadelphia. But Rome did seperate us anyway.
And this eparch was not subject to the jursidiction of overseas hierarchs. As regards to how the American Catholic bishops felt about our Church, I do not recall them having much pastoral concern for us back then.

And what about the Hungarian factor? Do you believe this to be unsubstantial?
[QUOTE]
The mass of Rusyns who went to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church did so during the height of the campaign to have Ortinsky recalled by Rome (and to get a Bishop of our own Blood.)

We we aggresive in our demands, and had shown, in contrast to the RC's who suffered very limited defections, that we would bolt en masse if Rome did not comply with the demands.

We ought to be able to take responsibility for our decisive role in creating this division. IMO it shows a lack of independence to play the victim, instead, and blame Rome for not stopping us from shooting ourselves in the foot.

I think you are right. The Carpatho Rusyns were very adament in their hatred towards Ukrainians. And we should take responsibility for this as well. I used "all too happy to divide" with a bit of sarcasm. The truer point is that they probably did not care, wanted the issue resolved, and were influenced by the noise in Pennsylvania and the Hungarian Government's foreign policy which was designed to protect their empire.

Thank you for the lively discussions, but I must really get back to my term papers.


ALity

"But, Joe, you constantly read into my position as being one of a Ukrainian nationalist."

You mean there is a religious factor involved? What, pray tell, may that be? In all of this talk about unity under a Kyievan patriarchate, I never hear words like God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. Have you? This is what worries me.

But I am not TOO concerned since this tends to remain a Ukrainian nationalist issue and not one that has permeated the religious consciousness of Byzantine Catholics in this country, at least the Byzantine Catholics that I know. People really don't talk about it, it isn't promoted in the pulpits or any guidance given by our eparchs. Out of sight, out of mind. It doesn't even show up on our Doppler 2.3 x 10^34.

Ality,

I do not in any way suggest complicity of the UGCC in the actions of the Ukrainian government. Nor do I suggest in any way that they are acting together. I only say that given the ongoing ethno-political situation, any effort to advance ecclesiastical integration must be done with great solicitude - "care or concern, as for the well-being of another" (American Heritage).
IMO, your advocacy is lacking in this regard.

Your comparison, regarding "existing structures", of the newly created Philadelphia eparchy with the RC diocese dating to the late 1700's and early 1800's really misses the point. The RC structure came before big wave immigration; our structure, whatever it would be, was created after immigration and after the formation of separate brotherhoods that had clear ideas about what they wanted to see created. Things got a bit messy.

The role of the Hungarian government is not clear to me. Moreover, our attitudes toward Hungary (both in the US and over there) were very mixed at that time, so I am not sure what our response to such an intervention would have been. But here again, the control experiment provided by the Orthodox experience is probative: it is abundantly clear that Hungarian politics had absolutely zero to do with the parallel juridictional structures that emerged within Orthodoxy.

The second sentence of your penultimate paragraph should be edited, unless it is your aim not to be taken seriously. Lots of luck on your term papers.

Dear Friends,

I'm back from unpacking in our new home - God bless you all.

So my "Top Ten List" elicited some response, as I see . . .

I was venting, to be sure. As Lance pointed out, our Eastern Eparchy had quite the time with our imposed Apostolic Administrator - a very painful and terrible time for many of us.

But the question posted by Joe Thur as to how this list helps anything is a fair one.

And I'm also sensitive to David's concern, echoed by Cantor Joseph, about the schismatic and negative tendencies in the list.

I'm not about to "dox" as some have written me privately by way of some encouragement!

And the way I presented those points was deliberate and intended to exaggerate what I think we have all felt about our communion with Rome at times.

There was nothing there that I didn't here said in all sincerity by associates and friends, all of whom are Catholics.

One wrote to me to say I was far too timid on a number of points!

There is a part of me that whines about the issues that Lance raised earlier, the administrative conundrums and problems we have with respect to jurisdiction and married priests, to name but two.

Another part of me tells me that I'm not being a good Catholic if I air what I feel to others and in a more public way. To touch on those subjects is to strike a taboo, in other words.

A friend of mine who "doxed" called me on Saturday to say he is now a deacon in the OCA. He reminded me of why he left the Catholic Church and my "Top Ten List" came immediately to mind!

We should discuss the negative sides, and there are such, of being in communion with Rome within the context of our current relationship with Rome.

I think that is a part of our vocation as Eastern Catholics, as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Orthodox spirituality with respect to sin and spiritual healing emphasizes the role that exposing sinfulness, in all its negative perspectives, as the pre-condition to healing, forgiveness and transfiguration/Theosis.

The same should ideally apply to our relationship with Rome, a relationship that our Orthodox brothers and sisters NOT in communion with it today say is wrong.

I was surely venting and perhaps exaggeration had a role to play in my playing David Letterman.

But I think the validity of those points remain.

To any who may get the impression I or anyone is promoting schism here, please remember that we on the Byzantine Forum are critical of our Church not because we hate it, but because we love it.

We don't leave our Church because we come up against something negative that has crept into its life.

Nor can we afford to ignore it under the pretext of being respectful as pious Catholics.

We owe it to our Church to identify and discuss our experiences as they are, even at the risk of exaggerating them, in the hope of restoring greater ecclesial health to it.

I would never consider "doxing" because I've been hurt and discouraged within my Church and its relationship to Rome.

I'm the "stay and work from within" kind.

I want to prevent others (not as charismatic or charming as myself ) from feeling they must leave our Church because of these issues.

One could also do a "top ten list" for reasons why we should remain in Communion with Rome.

If you like, and after my arms start to get more blood circulated through them, I'll do one up later.

I had a lousy week moving, and my entire body aches. It was an opportunity to pray unceasingly for you all, your families and for your health etc.

God bless and keep you all,

Alex Letterman

Dear Ality,

An excellent analysis!

I don't pretend to understand the Ruthenians - or the Ukrainians for that matter.

Cantor Joe's charge of nationalism certainly does hold true for many of our people who saw and continue to see in a Kyivan Patriarchate a Ukrainian expression of religious-cultural identity and even victory.

But the other side is that this is about one Church's greater sense of inner self-possession and control of its affairs.

Again, North American Christians tend to see a chasm between religious and cultural commitments with "culture" being relegated to material culture only. And perhaps that is inevitable.

Elsewhere in the world, "Particular Church" refers at once to spiritual AND cultural factors within an integrated whole, including language, national identity and the like.

That can be "nationalistic" but it doesn't have to be.

The Russians like to throw that in our face, that we are "nationalistic" because we, in effect, refuse to submit to Russian imperialism that continues to be represented in the Russian Orthodox Church.

That is not to attack the Russian Orthodox Church, only the imperialism that remains within it and doesn't have to.

In addition, many of us don't really understand what "nationalism" is all about - and that is natural, on the face of it, given that there are so many different kinds.

Nationalism need not be negative. National consciousness need not be nationalistic.

The Patriarchal Ukrainian Catholic Church has just come out of the catacombs and is feeling its own feet for the first time in a long while following repression.

The Church of Kyiv of history was one that included many ethnocultural groups within it, including Siberians and Crimean Tatars.

There is no reason why the same could not develop in our Church today.

There is also no reason why the Ruthenians could not have their own sui juris Church without fears that they are being forced into a union with someone they don't want to be in union with.

Again, Rome made that appointment, not Kyiv.

Go to Rome for the answers.

I'm just wondering out loud about the comments made by Cantor Joe and others.

Do some here really think of Ukrainian Catholics as nationalists at prayer?

The Cantor said he has heard no mention of Jesus or the Holy Spirit in this discussion.

Is that a valid criticism?

The notion seems to be advanced here that North American Eastern Catholics don't care what occurs with Patriarchates elsewhere.

Do RC's care about what happens in Rome and should they? OCA with what happens in Moscow? Other Orthodox what happens at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Axum et al?

Do you think I've asked enough questions?

Alex

An overstatement to be sure. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, nationalism or national consiousness need not be negative. I think that the UGCC played a critical role in the emergence of Ukrainian national consciousness and the nation state - a great and laudable achievement.

This role, however, was one point of division between the Rusyns and Ukrainians in our early days in America: the former did not share the Ukrainian nationalistic view of the latter. (And this distinction may exist, albeit less acutely, to this day.) We had been neighbors and close relations for a millenium. But we were not a part of Kievan Rus', nor of the Kievan Church, nor of any common nation state, until after WWII.

I should have commented on this earlier, lest this quote, lifted from its context, is misinterpreted as generally indicating that Rusyns and Ukrainians are one ethnic group. The point made in cited article:
http://wwics.si.edu/kennan/ukraine/briefs/duleba.htm
is that the Rusnaks of Slovakia are one ethnic group. It was official policy of the Soviet Union and its satellites to force a Ukrainian identity upon these people. More recently they are free again to identify as Rusyns. Many do, while others still identify as Ukrainian. The point made in the article is that these particular people are of the same ethnic origin.

I would hazard a guess that, for most Ruthenian BC's in America, there is a very limited awareness of what is going on in the mother eparchies. Whatever awareness exists involves e.g., Mukachevo or Presov. Not Eparchies of the UGCC, and not Kyiv. Similarly, OCA members may maintain an interest in Moscow, they are probably much less interested in Alexandria.

Dear djs,

An excellent analysis and commentary on your part, as always!

My point about the mother Patriarchates is that I think our very identity as Eastern Christians living in North America almost demands that we take a vital interest in our origins that derive elsewhere.

But your comments, and those of Cantor Joe, about Ruthenian cultural consciousness and identity are fascinating.

Has there ever been something like "Ruthenian nationalism?"

What do you see as the future of the Ruthenians in Europe and in North America, both in ecclesial and in cultural terms?

Alex

I have a couple of comments here and I would appericate some consideration of them, and answers where applicable.

I hear some of you say "we're all Ukrainian" then I hear others say "we're all Ruthenian".

So what is it, I know my grandfather and his family would not say that they are Ukrainian, nor would they call themselves Ruthenian (It is my understanding that the term Ruthenian is a term that was made up by scholars). I think, and I will check this to be sure, that my grandfather and he family, who immigrated to American from the mountians near Sarajevo, Yugoslavia.

That if pressured, they would identify themselves as Russian, though they felt a close kinship with the Macedonians.

I also see talk of the UGCC being a patriarchal church... When did this happen?

Also, there is talk of the Byzantine Ruthenain Catholic Church in the USA. There is no such entity. It is the Byzantine Catholic Church, this name changed to drop the enthnic connotations. Now please help me understand, how joining with the Ukrainian Catholic Church would help this? We would then be forever under the Ukrainians, never would one of the Bishops within our jurisdiction ever raise to the top.

Just some thoughts of mine (hence the beating of the head on the wall),
David

Dear Alex,

Welcome back! I remember the move to Florida a few years ago and the aching body and tired mind that resulted from unpacking goods and reordering life. Thank God that's over.

I do not want to inject anything into the discussion of what are or are not reasons for being in communion with Rome.

I just wanted to point out that some of the concerns about centralization that seem to underly your comments have been concerns within the Roman Church, too. Similar comments, on related issues, have been made before.

The issues you raise are much more serious, it seems to me, since they involve the nature of a Church. For that reason, though, they are related. Whether perceived or real, intrusions by the dicasteries into the life of the Churches that make up the Latin Church are not unknown.

Latin Catholics have not been silent in the face of these activities either. Protests and cries for reform have been misunderstood for an invitation to schism or heresy. As you point out they really indicate a love for the Church and a concern for her health on all levels.

We are not going to "dox" either.

Many happy years in the new abode for you and Tanya!

Letterman?

Steve

Dear Steve

Yes, Letterman? Is that a Ruthenian mailman?

What you say is very true and, as you know, even in the American Catholic Church there were rumblings to ask Rome to create African-American and Hispano-American Patriarchates.

When I was younger and really active in the Patriarchal movement, I remember an article in Ukrainian was published by the Association of Ukrainians of America.

The article was an attack on Rome (some Patriarchalists were into that) citing "evidence" of the Masonic infiltration at the Vatican etc.

Well, afterwards their office received many calls from American Catholic priests asking for an English translation of the article so they could give copies to their parishioners . . .

The office was overwhelmed with requests as a matter of fact . . .

For simple old me, a freemason is someone who is going to fix my front door steps for free . . .

Alex

Dear David,

Excellent points and questions, Big Guy!

The term "Ruthenian" was used by Rome to describe the Kyivan Church in communion with it way back when.

Earlier documents refer to St Vladimir the Great as the "Rex Ruthenorum" or "King of the Ruthenians."

It is essentially, as you know, the Latin for "Rus'" and "Rusyn."

I've never completely understood the name change of the Ruthenian Catholic Church to "Byzantine Catholic."

Since you are our resident "wordsmith," isn't "Byzantine Catholic" confusing?

I see it as a generic, blanket term referring to all Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine liturgical tradition.

It would be like the Ukrainian Church deciding this afternoon to drop its national/cultural identifying name and simply referring to itself as "Greek Catholic" with no reference to the Kyivan Church or Rus'-Ukraine.

And yet, by your own admission in your post, you suggest that the Ruthenians do indeed have a strong cultural identity that would feel inhibited by a union with, say, the Patriarchal Ukrainian Catholic Church (by way of example only!).

So are you and others here saying that Ruthenians have/don't have a cultural identity linked with their spiritual identity as Eastern Catholics? They want/don't want to affirm it out there in the public domain of North American society?

And it wasn't only the Soviet Union that imposed Ukrainian identity on people.

My parents did that as well! Strangely enough, my brother and I sometimes referred to them as the "KGB."

Alex

Alex,
Thanks for the reply, I was starting to think that I was invisible here.

So, this is one of my points, do we let others chose the terms that identify us, or do we identify ourselves?

I do not see any problem with it, as the blanket term you are refering to is the Byzantine Rite, where as the other is a Church, the Byzantine Catholic Church.

The confusing part is when one choses to not follow up the word Byzantine with either Rite or Church.

Just as happened not long ago with Mor Epherem.. He got upset when people used Orthodox when they should have been using Byzantine Rite, as the Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox too.

No, again I am speaking becuase it seems that those who say "we" should be part of the UGCC are identifing us as Ukrainians, which again I dislike being told what I am by others.

Also, is it fair to put a group that is ethnicly diverse to the point to having almost no ethnicity (as the Byzantine Catholic Church in America is) with a group that has a strong ethnicity (which the UGCC is) into one large group? The small group will not have much of a say in matters, in essence, what you dislike about being in communion with Rome will happen to the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Not so much, what I see it as is not limiting ourselves to this identity. From my limitied experience I see more ethnic diverstiy within the Byzantine Catholic Church than I do in the Ukrainian or Melkites as these two seem to be fixated on the "Old Country" more so.

It seems, sadly, that my family went the other way and imposed the "American" identity upon our family. So much so that I do not really know anything but that. So even though my family is from eastern europe, I know nothing of it, sometimes I think I have missed out on a lot of things.

David, the un-ethnic one.

Dear David,

Well, I've learned so much and received so many insights by reading your post, Big Guy!

You caught me off guard with your point about letting others define who one is.

Perhaps I've been letting that happen myself.

And your point on not being limited by one's ethnocultural identity etc. is, well, thought-provoking in and of itself.

And I don't think you are invisible here.

I think that others are just too inhibited to respond to us when we post together.

That's because we're like an indestructible team . . .

And humble too . . .

Alex

David,

Ruthenian was a term coined by Rome to refer to all non Muscovite-Rus, including Rusyns, Belarusans, and Ukrainians and is pretty much a liturgical/canonical term. Liturgically it could refer to anyone using the Ruthenian Recension, including Ukrainians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Slovaks, Hungarians, Croats, and Macedonians. Canonically, it refers to the Eparchy of Mukachevo, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and the Exarchate of Prague. I know of no one that identifies themselves as such. They identify as Rusyn, Rus, Carpatho-Rusyn/Russian, and Rusnaks in my experience.

As far as names go, the Metropolia identified itself simply as Greek Catholic until the 50's when Byzantine started being used. However, Rome lists us as Ruthenian in the Annuario Pontificio. This despite the fact the Metropolia includes Hungarian, Slovak, and Croatian Greek Catholics. So strictly speaking, we are the only intentionally multi-ethnic Eastern Catholic Church.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church, in varying degrees, has refered to their Major Archbishop as Patriarch since they voted Patriarch Josif the title in the 60's. You will find Patriarch Lubomyr commerated as such in the Liturgy. The Synod has officially petitioned Rome for recognition as a Patriarchate, even as they lay the cornerstone for the new Patriarchal Cathedral in Kyiv. Since they call him Patriarch, I will too. One must remember that the title Major Archbishop was created by Rome in the 60's for the Ukrainians as a way of essentially making them a patriarchal church without actually conceding the title and infuriating Moscow.

Rather then join all Byzantine Slavs under Kyiv, I personally think all the Byzantines in Europe should go under one Patriarchate in Kyiv, and all Byzantines in America be united in one Patriarchate in Pittsburgh, but that is only my own (slightly biased) opinion.

In Christ,
Lance