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

Francisco,

I was refering strictly to Macedonian Greek Catholics who were in the Eparchy of Krizevci until recently. I assume they used the Ruthenian Recension like everyone else in that Eparchy. Perhaps, they use a different recension now that they have their own Exarchy?

As far as Patriarchates, I think they need to be realistic (as in who has the ability and resources to lead) and geographic (as opposed to recensional or ethnic or national). Everyone using the Byzantine Rite regardless of ethnicity or recension or nation should answer to one regional patriarch. This is how the Ecumencial Councils intended it when they sanctioned the patriarchal system. It was strictly geographical and not even Rite mattered. While I think different Churches need their own jurisdictions, I do not believe in the modern day we need to subdivide them by ethnicity.

However, these are just my opionions and don't matter in the least.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Lance,

Yes, that is how the Ecumenical Councils intended patriarchates to be!

But the Councils lived in different times when everyone was, more or less, of the same Greco-Latin cultural background as Romanyi.

But even with the national-based patriarchates, these tend to look to one of the original five as their "Mother Church."

As does the Kyivan Patriarchate look to Constantinople.

(Since you agree to call it the Kyivan Patriarchate, I fell emboldened to do so too! ).

Alex

Dear Alex,

I thought the Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai was autonomous, and not autocephalous. Did I have my facts wrong or did their status change?

Lance, the Krizhevci and Macedonian exarchates do use the Ruthenian Recension. There were representatives from Krizhevci and Macedonia at the sobors of Metropolitan Sheptytsky.

Kyr Dionisii Nyaradi was a stauch supporter of Metropolitan Andrey and his efforts at promulgating the Ordo Celebrationis for the Ruthenian recension.

There are three married priests, two from Macedonia and one from Krizhevci (Bosnia) working in the Ukrainian Eparchy of Stamford.

Kyr Slavomir Miklosh and Metropolitan Stefan Soroka also met recently and have discussed some additional clergy exchange. There is a possibility that more seminarians from Krizhevci will eventually be coming to St. Josaphat's in D.C.

Dear Diak,

You tell me that at the Catholic Exarchte of Skopje they use the Ruthenian recension and unfortunately I have no proof to tell you that you are wrong but I would say that the Byzantine Catholics both of Bulgaria and the FYR of Macedonia (both the the Exarchate of Skopje and that of Bulgaria are the result of the unionist movement in Eastern Thracia (Edirne) and in Greek Macedonia (Kilkis)) liturgically speaking do belong to the Southern Slavonic family rather than to the Ruthenian one. If they used the Ruthenian recension because of their relationship with the Byzantine Catholic Church Croatia, something I do not know, I believe that this situation will change during the next years. Do you know if one the priests f the Exarcate of Skopjie was ordained to prieshood at Holy Trinity Greek Catholic cathedral in Athens? Could you provide us with more information about the Macedonian Exarchate, please.
Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Francisco,

Technically they should be using the Russian or Vulgate Recension as the Eastern Congregation calls it. However, almost from their union, the Macedonians have been under the care of the Byzantine Eparchy of Krizevci, so as I guessed they have been using the Ruthenian Recension. It only makes sense they used the recension of their hierarch. Whether they return to the Vulgate Recension will probably be left up to the Exarch.

In Christ,
Lance

Byzantine Rite people of the Krizevci Eparchy came from different backgrounds: at the beggining most of them were Serbs who joined the Russyn population (which became majoritary among Croatian byzantines). Most of them had been victim of the attempts of croatizations and latinizations (the last one, of sad memory, under the ultra-catholic dictatorship of Ante Pavelic who together with Bishop Stepinac applied forced conversions and re-baptism of Serbs, and the latinization of Greek Catholics)

If I'm not mistaken the Macedonian byzantine catholics' history is totally a different. They are not part of the Ruthenian traditiion. As you said they come from the South Slav tradition (which is an amalgam of Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek tradition). Their members are Slavs with hellenized chant and tradition (as a result of the political disputes). The attempts of union with Rome were supported by nationalist Slavs who were tired of the hellenization of their Church and the rule of Greek Bishops. Latinization had little effect there.

Macedonian identity as a nation did not clearly appeared until WWII and its incorporation to the Yugoslavian State. When it became part of Serbia Macedonians had to fight again, to preserve their tradition from the Serbian "russified" usages. Comrade Tito supported the creation of an independent Church in Macedonia (no matter if it was Catholic or Orthodox) and the Macedonian Church separated itself from the Serbian Patriarchate, but most Orthodox Churches refuse to recognize its status. Some Bishops have been reported to be in favor of communion with the Papacy in Rome, but the Vatican is still opposed to that because of the serious divisions and distress it would cause among the Orthodox Patriarchates.

Francisco, Lance is correct. The Eparchy of Krizhevci and the exarchate of Skopje-Prizren are all in canonical relationship with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Some of the faithful in both eparchies are of distant Ruthenian descent, more so in Krizhevci than Macedonia. I don't disagree that the both are Southern Slavs ethnically and distinct in that way from the northern people of Kyivan Rus' including Carpatho-Ruthenians/ Galicians, etc.

During the time of Kyr Dionisii Nyaradi of blessed memory in the last century, he had canonical jurisdiction over all of the areas of what is now the former Yugoslavia. He was opposed to the rampant latinizations and was a close friend and supporter of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky.

The close relationship remains to this day between these eparchies and Patriarch Lubomyr Husar. Clergy from these eparchies are often educated and sponsored by the UGCC. The hierarchs from these eparchies are invited to and generally participate in the UGCC sobors.

The political separation of Macedonia from the rest of the former Yugoslavia also created the necessity for a separate Greek Catholic exarchate for the Macedonians, hence the erection of one for Skopje-Prizren.

Metropolitan Sheptysky historically assisted Kyr Dionisii of Krizhevci by educating his priests, establishing monasteries (at one point even Russian Catholic Blessed Leonid Federov of the Studites was in the Krizhevci eparchy to form monks at the bequest of Blessed Andrey) and involving them in his sobors (local councils).

The Macedonians are Slavic, not Greek (sheesh, don't even mention that to them unless you want a BIG fight...), albeit Southern Slavs. Therefore it makes sense that they would use a Slavic recension of the Divine Liturgy instead of a Greek version. Sts. Cyril (of "Cyrillic Alphabet" fame) and Methodius came from that part of the world.

Since the Macedonian Greek Catholics were originally within and assisted by the Eparchy of Krizhevci, who was in turn working mutually with the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the liturgical usage is generally similar.

A priest from Macedonia, who is currently serving in the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford, however does tell me that the music is different in Macedonia (as one would imagine) compared to Ukrainian Catholic chant and that the Liturgy itself is similar and is still mostly in Church Slavonic.

Kyr Dionisii of Krizhevci of blessed memory assisted and consulted with Metropolitan Andrey on the revision of the Ruthenian Ordo Celebrationis, and strongly supported it, so when Metropolitan Sheptytsky promulgated it in 1944 before his death it makes sense that this recension would have been used in Krizhevci and areas within the canonical jurisdiction of Krizhevci, including Macedonia.

It is interesting that the clergy from the eparchies of Krizhevci and Skopje-Prizren are included in my last (2001) worldwide Ukrainian Catholic clergy directory. The Bulgarian Catholic exarchate is not included in that directory.

As I mentioned previously, married priests from Krizhevci and Macedonia are serving in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the US. There remains a close relationship between these eparchies and the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The UGCC continues to assist in the education of the clergy abroad, and also is accepting some of their married priests for service in the USA and elsewhere.

To my knowledge Kyr Anargyros of the Greek Catholic Church in Greece has no jurisdiction over or direct canonical relationship to Skopje-Prizren and definitely none to Krizehvci, other than being in communion as fellow Catholic bishops.

I suppose it is possible that Kyr Anargyros has assisted the Macedonians, but given the general ethnic and political climate between the Greeks and Macedonians it makes sense the Macedonians would gravitate towards things Slavic, including ecclesiastical matters, rather than Greek.

Dear Diak,

What do the words "The Eparchy of Krizhevci and the exarchate of Skopje-Prizren are all in canonical relationship with the Ukrainian Catholic Church" (are not all Catholics in canonical relationship with each other, as far as I know they were never under the jurisdiction of the Ukranian Church, a mother church under the jurisdiction of her daughter?) and "the eparchies of Krizhevci and Skopje-Prizren are included in my last (2001) worldwide Ukrainian Catholic clergy directory" (the worldwide Russian Catholic directory does include a lor of non-Russian parishes). My question is do you consider Catholic Macedonians Ukranians? I do not want to create misunderstandings among you Slavs but I consider that to consider Slav Macedonians part of the Ukranian Catholic Church is a great mistake. The Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek exarchate has got very close relationships as the result of their common history. By the way the Catholic Macedonians although part of the diocese of Krizehvci were for a long time under the direct jurisdiction of the bishopric of Skopje-Prizren (who had jurisdiction over all the Catholic of the former Yusgoslavian Republic of Macedonian, most of them Byzantine Catholics).
Yours in Christ
Francisco

Dear Lance,

The history pf the union of the Slav Macedonians with the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the story of the eparchy Krizevci but with the union of the Southern Slavs (they gave themselves the name of Bulgarians during this period) with the Catholic Chuch in Macedonian (mainly in Greek Macedonia) during the 19th century).
Yours in Christ
Francisco

More information abouth Catholics in the FYR of Macedonian at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-macedonia-catholics.doc

Francisco,

Thank you for the article. However, I was refering strictly to the Macedonian's use of the Ruthenian Recension due to their incorporation into the Eparchy of Krizevci when Yugoslavia was formed, which is confirmed by Subdeacon Randolph (Diak). That they should have been using the Vulgate Recension or may return to it is a different question.

In Christ,
Lance

Francisco, I am not saying that the Greek Catholics of the Eparchy of Skopje-Prizren or Krizhevci are Ukrainians. They clearly are not, although some, especially in Krizhevci, are of Carpatho-Ruthenian/Galician descent.

I was just making the point that since there was a very close relationship between Metropolitan Sheptytsky and Kyr Dionisii Nyaradi, who had canonical jurisdiction over all of the former Yugoslavia, there remains a very close relationship between the UGCC and these eparchies to this day. This includes the assistance of the UGCC in educating some of the clergy in these eparchies, since their internal resources are limited.

If these churches didn't want to be included in the UGCC clergy directory, I'm sure that their requests to be removed would have been honored. Perhaps they wanted to be included.

And these two eparchies have reciprocated assistance from the UGCC by providing married clergy for the UGCC, with several of those serving in UGCC parishes in the United States.

I don't disagree that because of geographic proximity that there would be close relations between the Bulgarian, Greek, Former Yugoslavia (Krizhevci) and Macedonian churches as there should be.

But I think the eparchies of Krizhevci and Skopje-Prizren have seen the benefit of association with a larger Greek Catholic identity. They have taken advantage of some of the educational institutions, resources and assistance offered by the UGCC for development of their clergy. And I believe they realize some of the shortcomings of belonging to eparchial churches sui iuris directly dependent on Rome and realize the potential of a larger Greek Catholic patriarchate.

If they were concerned about becoming part of Ukrainian nationalism, why would they be sending clergy to the UGCC to be trained? Making official visitations to Ukrainian Catholic hierarchs? Sending married priests to assist Ukrainian Catholic parishes in the USA and elsewhere?

The close working relationship between Krizhevci, Macedonia and the UGCC is witness to the fact that the Kyivan church does not desire the loss of cultural, linguistic, or ethnic identity of those who wish to be in communion or part of her but is genuinely concerned with the growth and development of all of her Slavic brothers and sisters.

And again, given the strong Slavic identity of the Macedonians, and the strong Hellenistic identity of the Greeks, I don't see Macedonians becoming part of any Greek church, whether Orthodox or Eastern Catholic. The Greek Orthodox Church still does not even acknowledge the existence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as a separate entity.

Dear Diak,

You say "The Greek Orthodox Church still does not even acknowledge the existence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as a separate entity" I ask you does any "canonical" Orthodox Church aknwolegde the canonical existence of the "Macedonian Orthodox Church" as a separate entity? Is any canonical orthodox Church in communion with the "Macedonian Orthodox Church"? Obviously no.

You say again "I don't see Macedonians becoming part of any Greek Church, whether Orthodox or Eastern Catholic". Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia (those who remained in Greece after the interchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria, most of whom consider themselves Greeks), some of whom are descendents of members of the Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchate are now members of the Greek Orthodox Church. The second of the two parishes of the Greek Catholic Exarchate (Yannitsa, Greece) before becoming part of the Greek exarchate was under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarians Catholic Bishops and used the Old Slavonic as liturgical language.

Francisco, the parish you speak of is in Greece, not the independent nation of Macedonia. There is certainly a distinction between the Greeks and Slavic Macedonians. You also mentioned that the Yannitsa parish "used" to have Slavonic. I can't find any documentation to support this, if you have some I would enjoy seeing it. Whatever is the case as to its origin, this parish is now at least two or three generations Hellenized.

My manuscript history of the Greek Catholic Church written in 1972 by Father Anthony Vakondios, of the Greek Catholic Exarchate in Athens, (whom I believe is deceased now) states that the parish of Yannitsa was settled by refugees from Constantinople and Eastern Thrace. He mentions no Slavic identity, either Bulgarian or Macedonian, does not mention use of Slavonic or any other Slavic liturgical usage at all for this parish.

Throughout this history of the Greek Exarchate Father Anthony did not even mention the Bulgarian Exarchate once. The only other Greek Catholic Church mentioned is the Melkite which apparently assisted with some of the Greek faithful in Cairo.

And with regards to the Macedonian Church, I think they have the right to exist as an autonomous church, as do the Bulgarians and Serbs. Let's not forget the erection of the Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarchate was not recognized by the Church of Greece for many years. It is now considered canonical by most Orthodox. But it was also considered uncanonical by most Orthodox churches at a time in the past.

This is a very fascinating tangent, but we should probably return to the topic.