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

I would really like to respond, its just that I need to get a paper finsished on the "Anthropology of Man and Ancestral Sin in the Liturgical Tradition of the Eastern Church" . . . .

No . . . really, I must get off this website. Really, I am not kidding. Really . . . . ummm

Ok, I can see this, but around here I see Ruthenian thrown around as more than just a liturgical/canonical term.

I guess if it is limited to this, a liturgical/canonical term, then I could live with that.

This is why I think we should be listed as the Byzantine Catholic Church. Because even if we are listed as Ruthenian, it doesn't say much now does it. I understand that it could be for the recession we use, but is that true, especially with the new liturgy they wish to put out. Can that be called the Ruthenian recession?

I guess I will have to join you in this, as this would go with my comments on allowing others to identify us. If the UGCC wishes to identify themselves as a patriarchal chruch, then I will go along with it.

I agree with you here, one Patriarchate in Europe, Kyiv is as good a place as any.

And one Patriarchate here in America, I can see your point for Pittsburgh, but I think I could be more flexable on that one.

But one question, why a Patriarchate for Byzantine Slavs in Europe, but one for all Byzantines here in America? Would this be fair to non-slavs here, such as the Melkites?

Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Lance and David,

How utterly fascinating this gets all the time!!

With the Kyivan Patriarchate, there is no doubt that all Ukies throughout the diaspora will want to be in union with it directly and would accept no other anywhere else.

Lance, would not a Patriarchate in Pittsburgh be an impossibility from both the Catholic and Orthodox points of view?

Would not such a Patriarchate need to be based on a connection with an Apostle in some way, real or otherwise?

Unless, of course, someone could come up with a story that St Brendan the Navigator had his first stop in Pittsburgh before proceeding upwards toward Baffin Island and brought some relics of the Apostles with him .

Also, does not "Rus'" refer solely to Eastern Slavs, with or without the Muscovites - who later assumed the title "Russian" under Peter the Great? How could Croatians and Macedonians be included then?

As for the multi-ethnic business, the Pariarchal Ukrainian Catholic Church does still have Hungarian, Romanian and some other "foreign language" speaking parishes .

Thank you for recognizing our Patriarchate! We'll see what Rome REALLY thinks of your sui generis status once we get the whole story behind the recent Mukachevo thing .

It's great to have such strong supporters in the (Ruthenian) wings!

I don't know what we'd do without you

Have a nice day.

Alex

David,

I did not mean only Slavs in the Patriarchtae in Kyiv, but all Byzantines in Europe regardless of ethnicity, although maybe the Romanians should have their own Patriachate.

As far as a united jurisdiction in America, I think eventually it will be simply necessary for survival. Hopefully, all the eparchies involved will be able to agree on an equitable plan for uniting and sharing resources while maintaining everyone's traditions and recension. Much like the OCA's current setup of having one Metroploia but allowing for seperate jurisdictions for Romanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians.

In Christ,
Lance

Alex,
What connection with an Apostle do Moscow and Kyiv have?

I am just full of question today, aren't I?

David

Dear David,

And some believe I'm full of it too!

St Andrew is connected with Kyiv, the story of his visiting the hills on what would one day become the city of Kyiv with his Scythian associates, Sts. Inna, Pinna and Rimma.

While there, he put up a Cross and blessed those hills and told his associate missionaries that God's Grace would one day flow over them abundantly, essentially foretelling the future of Kyiv as a centre of Orthodox Christianity.

Icons of this event have often portrayed Andrew's Cross as a Cross with a slanted foot-rest, suggesting the "X" shaped St Andrew's Cross and the lineage of Kyivan Christianity from St Andrew.

Whether or not this actually happened is less of a concern than the fact that the Kyivan Church maintained that it did and that this fact was God's way of blessing it to be a beacon of the East, producing many saints, missionaries and extending Christianity throughout the area and well beyond.

Moscow also took this Apostolic foundation of Kyiv by St Andrew seriously and adopted it for its own.

As a result of many incursions by the Tatars and Mongols before them, St Peter Akerovych (who attended the Council of Lyons and some say signed the instrument of unity with Rome, at least personally) Metropolitan of Kyiv, moved his See northwards to Vladimir on the Klyazma and then the See was moved to the protective swamps of a small town named . . . Moscow.

But the Metropolitans always bore the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus'" and the change to "of Moscow" was a forced one that came later as a result of Tsarist ambitions. The Old Believer Calendar to this day, dating from the 16th century I might add, still lists the "Moscow" Metropolitans Sts. Peter, Alexis and some others as Metropolitans of "Kyiv."

St Philip, Met. of Moscow, who was smothered on orders of the Tsar for criticising him, was also from Kyivan Rus' being of the same noble family as St Alexis, his predecessor. St Jonah of Moscow was also from Kyivan Rus' that some people call "Ukraine."

The Patriarch of Moscow to this day is crowned Patriarch by none other than the Metropolitan of Kyiv, which is still considered the oldest and Primatial See of Russia - again following through with the St Andrew legend - and legends and myths can be true.

Another Apostolic Founder of the Church of Kyivan Rus' was Pope St Clement I who played such a pivotal role in the life of the early Church.

As you know, he was drowned with an anchor around his neck in Kazachya Bay in the Black Sea after ministering to the Christian community, many of them important Christian exiles from the Roman empire, in Crimea.

St Vladimir the Great brought his relics and his veneration to Kyiv after being baptised at Korsun or Khersonese.

He consecrated his Royal Chapel to Pope St Clement and willed to be buried there. He also dedicated Kyivan Rus' to St Clement and his son, St Yaroslav the Wise, included an icon of St Clement in his Cathedral of St Sophia of Kyiv.

St Clement was almost certainly the writer who produced St Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, and he was a student of both Sts. Peter and Paul.

He developed the Clementine liturgy, once used all over the Church, East and West (we should revive it!), wrote the First Epistle of Clement that was once considered part of the New Testament Canon of Scripture (Second Clement was apparently not his authorship, but was written in his name) and he wrote the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church STILL includes in its New Testament Canon of Scripture.

Veneration for both St Andrew and St Clement inspired the early Church of Kyiv, its Venerable Fathers of the Caves, its saintly hierarchs and teachers as well as its missionaries.

Alex

So Alex,
Are you say that because of the technical and scientific limitations of about 2000 years ago......

That because they did not know of the existence of North America, that we should hold back on creating a patriarchal church here? Wasn't there some idea that the Earth was flat at that time too?

David

Dear David,

Personally, I've no problem with the idea of creating a Patriarchate for African-American Catholics and Hispanic Catholics - as they petitioned Rome for some years back, or for any other group.

All I'm saying, and the thing doesn't originate with me, is that this has been the tradition to date with respect to Patriarchates.

If I'm not mistaken, there is not one single Eastern Patriarchate that is not based on an Apostolic legend - and I'm using this in the sense that legends can be true and not necessarily false - that an Apostle visited the Patriarchal city and established the Church etc.

I don't know what Rome's position would be if the Ruthenians wanted a Patriarchate (perhaps "We're your Patriarch!") but I don't think Rome would allow it, based on the above and other reasons.

If the Ukrainian experience is anything to go by, a Ruthenian Catholic Patriarchate would probably be denied on the grounds that it would "offend the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox."

Alex

Shlomo Alex,
If we look to the Oriental Orthodox Churches we see that the establishment of Patriarchal Churches are not nessessated on the Apostolic Legend. The Ethiopian Church comes to mind. It was not given Patriarchal dignity until the last century.

Further, in the last Synod of the Bishops of Asia they talked of having the Roman Patriarchate broken up into at least 20 new jurisdictions.

I am all for Tradition, but we should not get so hung up on it (I am addressing this to others and not you Alex), that we become stagnate. Or we have to become Mormons, and not only have Jesus visiting the Americas, but the Apostles too

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

It's always interesting that we can always find so many reasons and justifications for dividing ourselves and staying divided.

To look at the statement about the division of American and European jurisdictions into separate patriarchates, once again I'll bring up the Melkites. I think there would be relatively few Melkites who would advocate an American church separate from the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch.

I think there are many Melkites, both clergy and laity, who are aware of the unifying (not uniatizing) presence of the Patriarchate and the ecclesiastical strength that accompanies that unity.

The actions of the Melkite patriarchs to stand up for Eastern tradition and ecclesiology are well documented. It seems to be within the spirit of the Popes in documents such as Orientale Lumen, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, etc. to restablish Eastern Catholic tradition completely, which includes restablishment of patriarchal churches.

To be a small "sui iuris" church on the dole from Rome for administration is uniatism. The patriarchal form of governance will be a much more authentic example to the Orthodox that we can govern ourselves in a truly Eastern manner rather than small "sui iuris" churches reliant on Roman dicasteries and congregations for upper level management with major divorces from Eastern traditional ecclesiastical practice including no married clergy. That's unitatism.

Organization under a single Patriarch for all Catholics of the Slavic ritual tradition would be unification. There are significant differences between unification and uniatism.

We have an opportunity with a person of the charisma and caliber of Patriarch Husar, who understands the situation in North America having lived here for many years, who is of the revitalized Studite monastic heritage, to organize and lead a unified Kyivan patriarchate worldwide.

After threads like this one, I feel like bursting out with a verse or two of the "Impossible Dream" from "Man of La Mancha".

Alex and all,

Here's a little article that gives an overview of the socio-political outlook of Trans-Carpathia.
http://www.one-europe.ac.uk/events/2000/conference/battpaper.PDF

djs

I re-did the link and it appears to work, now.

Dear Lance,
You say "Liturgically it could refer to anyone using the Ruthenian Recension, including Ukrainians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Slovaks, Hungarians, Croats, and Macedonians". The liturgical tradition of the ancient Church of the Ecclesiastical Province of New or Great Macedonia with its ancestral metropolitan see in Akhrida or Ohrida (different form the ancient Ecclesiastical Province of the Old Macedonia with its metropolitan see in Thessaloniki, Greece) has nothing to do with the Ruthenian Recension (by the way what does “Ruthenian Recension” mean?) but with the liturgical tradition of the Apostles of the Slavs Cyrilos and Methodios and their disciples Saint Climent of Ohrid and Saint Naum. The Archdiocese of Ohrid became the first (second if we consider Prespa the first see of the Bulgarian Patriarchate) patriarchal see of the Bulgarian Church (afterwards the patriarchal see of the Bulgarian see moved to the Bulgarian capital Tyrnovo). In the times of the Empire of tzar Samuel I if I am not wrong (John the Good, Simeon?) there were three Patriarchates in the same geographical area with jurisdiction over the Southern Slavs: Ohrid (the metropolitan used to be Greek and had jurisdiction over Greeks, Slavs and Albanians), Tyrnovo (Bulgarian Patriarchate), and Pec (Servian Patriarchate). The Chuch of Rumania was for a long time under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church. In the Ancient Ecclesiastical Province of New Macedonia there are now an Orthodox (the “uncannonical” Macedonian Church which was part of the Church of Ohrid, then became a diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when the Church of Ohrid stop being and autonomous Church, and later was “integrated” in the Servian Kingdom and Patriarchate) and a Byzantine Catholic Church (Diocese of Spopje?). I do not know about the Catholic ones (they were for a long time part of the Byzantine Diocese of Croatia) but the liturgical tradition of the so called “Macedonian Church” (metropolitan see in Skopje) and the Bulgarian Church as far as I know has nothing to do with the liturgical tradition of the Ruthenians. If I am not wrong that was in Greater Macedonia and Bulgaria that the Greek liturgical books were first translated into the Slavonic and that was also from the Greater Macedonia (Saint Climent) that they were reformed (St. Euthimios of Tyrnovo). I am not and specialist in the Slavic liturgical tradition ( I know there are such specialist in this forum) but I would say that the Southern, the Ruthenian and the Russian Synodical are three different liturgical traditions. I have red that the Ruthenian tradition has got a strong Constantinopolitan color with Latin influences whereas the Russian tradition had to do with the ancient Byzantine tradition and the Studite Typikon ( if I wrong please tell me).

You say "I did not mean only Slavs in the Patriarchtae in Kyiv, but all Byzantines in Europe regardless of ethnicity, although maybe the Romanians should have their own Patriachate". So that all the Byzantine Catholic Churches that were historically part of the patriarchates of Rome (Byzantine Catholics in Sothern Italy and Grotaferrara), Constantinople (Byzantine Catholics in Greece, Carpatho-Rusym) or the Slavic Patriarchates of Pec (Servian-Croatian Catholics), Tyrnovo (Bulgarian Catholics, Rumanian Catholics) and Ohrid (Diocese of Skopje, Byzantine Albanians) should all they join the Patriarchate of Kiiv? Why? Historically speaking the see of Kiiv was never a Patriarchate but the metropolitan see of the Rus (Eastern Slavs: Russians, Ukranians, Bielorussian) under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I have no problem with the idea of the creation of a Ukranian Patriarchate that would be the historic continuation of the Metropolitan See of Kiev and All Russia. If the metropolitan of Kiiv and all Russia with his see in Moscow became patriarch why should not the Major Archbishop of Lvov (probably he should become first Archbishop of Kiiv if he want to become patriarch) become patriarch? But the idea of a Ukranian Patriarchate with jurisdiction over all the Byzantine catholic Churches in Europe is completely ridiculous.

Yours in Christ,
francisco

Just a smile (and a couple of thoughts)from a Rusyn/Slovak (and half Italian too, and very much Hellenophile) American.

First, don't worry about what Orthodoxy is thinking about these things (other than praying for our "Unity of all men" (Great Ektenia). The Catholic Church is responsible for the salvation of its members, and the same with the Orthodox Church. And of course, the new born freedoms in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans are producing a tremendous revival in Byzantine Christianity that quite frankly, no one (except saints who prayed every day) thought would happen. The Spirit indeed blows where He wills, and our wisdom is far below His foolishness. If this which happened is possible (the fall of Communism like a Kingdom of Sand), isn't the Day when we will again as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians, be "Baptized into one Spirit and drink of one Spirit", from one Cup of the Spirit. Great Byzantine Theology in one sentence, eh?

Secondly (to Lemko Rusyn), my Grandfather was born in Ladimirova and my Grandmother in nearby Hoca. How are things there today? I actually live a short drive from "New" Jordanville, with the Monastery, Seminary, Convent and of course, the St. Job of Pochaiv Press (actually its current version). My Italian Grandparents were both born in Sacco Salerno, right near the Icon Shrine of Our Lady of Constantinople. I truly would like to visit both places.

Three weeks ago, I attend a Carptho-Russian Orthodox Diocese retreat in Lenox Massachusetts. The theme was ... "Finding God's Will in our Lives".

Christ Is Among Us!

Three Cents

Alex,
Here is another question.

and

Now would this be a further separation from what we traditionally believed as Church.

That is, shouldn't there only be one Patriarch per Church traditionally?

With what you state, a patriarch for the African-American Catholics and Hispanic Catholics would mean that they would have two patriarchs in the Latin Church, their "special" one and the Pope.

As for what Lance comments on, the Melkites would have three patriarchs in their Church, one in Kyiv, one in Antioch, and one in Pittsburgh. The Ukrainians would have two, one in Kyiv and one in Pittsburgh. You get my idea....

Isn't this, as I said earlier, a further separation of what it means to be Church? We used to have one bishop per city, now we have multiple... So instead of having one patriarch per church, now the patriarch, instead of being part of church they would now are regional?

How would these new patriarchs be picked? How would we insure that the church that holds sway, like the Ukrainians in Kyiv, would give proper due to those other churches in their region and not treat them as ghetto churches with no real say in who is patriarch?

This is one of the sticking points I see with making Pittsburgh a patriarch. The Melkites already have one and the Ukrainians claim one.

Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear David,

Good morning, Big Guy!

To follow through with the point made by Diak, we Eastern Catholics do tend to emphasize the role of the patriarchate in the life of the autocephalous Church that Orthodox would not.

The Orthodox Monastery of Mt. Sinai has fewer than 200 monks, I believe, and yet it is an autocephalous Orthodox Church with its Archimandrite acting with all the powers and privileges of an autonomous head of a local Church - which is what he is.

The local Orthodox Church does not need a patriarchate to confirm its autocephaly within the Body of Christ.

I think Ukrainians began to attach such a significance to the role and position of patriarch for their Church as a result of a number of considerations, most of which having nothing to do with historical or ecclesial precedent - or even with the Apostolic legend.

(Yuhannon makes a great point, but the erection of the other African Patriarchates by Alexandria are truly linked to the Apostolic preaching of St Mark in Africa - so they too are based on the Apostolic foundation).

The "Eastern Party" within the UGCC has always looked to the Patriarchate as an ideal institution that would guarantee their Church's Particular existence, rights, Eastern liturgical heritage etc.

Their vision developed within the context of seeing Rome as treating the UGCC as a "uniate entity" until formal recognition of a Patriarchate could be obtained - at which point the UGCC would become a truly Particular Church out from under Rome's thumb.

Also, since there are many Ukies who will only move in their Church when Rome says it's O.K., a formally recognized Patriarchate would unify both those with a developed Eastern Church consciousness with those who will "go along with it" if Rome approves.

So the perspective here with the UGCC's patriarchate was a "top-down" one whereas in Orthodoxy, autocephaly of the Church moves upward from below.

Now before my friend Diak gets on my case , we know that many of the "Eastern Party of the UGCC" now do indeed see the development of a true Patriarchate for our Church as something that must come from our Synod and our Synod alone - which it has. I don't think most of us are, today, bothered too much with what Rome or its Latin Canon Law would say about what we call ourselves or our Primate or what we do as a fully Particular Church.

Having said all that, I think Diak makes an important point.

Even without the issue of the Apostolic connection to patriarchal place, all of the Eastern Churches in North America are descended from one or other of the ancient Eastern Sees or Patriarchates of Europe, Africa and Asia.

There is simply no need, nor is it an expression of any great Eastern Church consciousness, to want a Patriarchate on these shores.

The Primate of a sui generis Church in the East is truly empowered to exercise ALL the prerogatives of a Patriarch already. The Metropolitan of Kyiv (if I read the Russian "Kiev" here one more time - I'll, I'll . . .) ALWAYS exercised many prerogatives formally reserved to Patriarchs - he also wore the multi-cross vestments of a Patriarch and later reserved to himself the right to canonize saints for the Kyivan Church without reference to Constantinople.

In short, there is no reason why the Metropolitan of the sui generis Ruthenian Church could not already do what a Patriarch can do. He could and should be related somehow to a Patriarchate.

A Patriarchate of Kyiv seems a natural connection without the notion of somehow destroying the Particular powers or cultural character of the Ruthenian Church, in Eastern Europe or here.

I sometimes get the impression that Ruthenians are actually frightened of such a connection as if they would be forced to give up their identity etc.

Kyiv is the Mother of all the Churches of Rus' including the Russian Church. It is the Primate of Kyiv who still crowns each successive Moscow Patriarch.

No one is going to force Ruthenians to speak in Ukrainian, for example, or to eat Ukrainian food against their will .

Again, I see myself belonging to the Patriarchate of Kyiv and all Rus, connected also to the patrimony of the first Patriarch of the East, that of Constantinople, and connected also to the unity of the first Patriarch in the entire Church, the Bishop of Rome.

Alex