www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Bishop for Czech Exarchate

http://www.katolikrevue.cz/traditio_orientalis/kolem_noveho_biskupa_unie.htm

Dear DJS,

There is absolutely NO implication on my part that the bishop has any ties to the organized Hungarian oligarchs (crime families) anywhere. If this is the impression I gave, then please accept my appologies. I'm convinced that he is a good Christian who is doing the best he can, as the vast majority of bishops do.

The issue I'm trying to stress, is that there is a very real Hungarian 'Oligarch" movement to take as much control as possible of the Zakarpattia region (Carpatho-Rus) of Ukraine. If you need proof of this, then you would also need proof of the ongoing campaign of the Russian Federation to truncate Ukraine's territory, and re-absorb the 'remnants' in 'fraternal brotherly love'. In fact, the key penetration points (there are others) include: the Donbas, Crimea, Moldova frontier, Zakarpattia oblast. Many political scientists would agree that if it had not been for war in Chechnya, the Russians would have started their 'surgery' of Ukraine a decade ago.

The Hungarians and Russian (Ukrainian included) mobs are very well integrated. May I suggest that you first read the New York Times bestseller paperback "RED MAFIA" by ? Friedman. Once you have read this book it is easier to understand how they control ALL aspects of life in Eastern Europe. The Mukachevo Municipal election overturn by Kyiv (with no justification) will begin to make more sense (ie: out with the poor ethnic Carpatho-Rusyn and in with the ethnic wealthy Hungarian).

The bishop of Prague' consecration although NOT TIED TO ANY OLIGARCH's is viewed by many as part of the ongoing campaign to take power away from the Rusyn and Ukrainians and put it in the hands of former rulers - ie: Hungarians (Slovak with Hungarian orientation).

The consecration of bishop Danylak (Toronto) was viewed by many as illegal and there was a demonstation outside of the Cathedral - quietly. He was viewed as a Latinizer and anti-Patriarchist. This was a one day event, but there were ongoing acts of protest by parishoners and priests to the illegal appointment of this bishop to replace our former bishop Boretsky. We turned the tide.

The ongoing problems that bishop Horniak (United Kingdom) created were the reverse. He would not permit parishoners from entering their churches because they wanted to sing a 'prayer for our Patriarch' at the end of the divine liturgy. He was viewed as being very very anti-patriarchal. There was eventually a UK eparchial meltdown. We turned the tide.

Activism to UGCC members is not a new phenomena. You may think that the above two examples and the act in Prague are feloneous under USA law. Some of us see them as URGENT activism for the preservation of the Greek Catholic Church.

Hritzko

Dear Father Al,

Thanks for your insight. Linguistics is very complicated indeed.

You may also argue that Carpatho-Ukrainian / Rusyn (variant of the western dialect of the Ukrainian language) has also been influenced by Hungarian which is a non-Slav language.

Over the many centuries there have been several attempts (often with brute force) by the Hungarian masters to assimmilate the Carpatho-Rusyn's language, culture, and particular religion. For example, on several occassions the Hungarian masters / occupiers forced the Carpatho-Rusyns to abandon the Cyrillic alphabet in favour of the Latin one. These forced alphabet changes were also accompanied with the Magyarization of the Carpatho-Rusyn's language, culture, religion, and identity.

Replacing the Carpatho-Rusyn's Cyrillic alphabet was the equivalent of telling the Carpath-Rusyns that the Saints to the Slavs; Cyril and Methodius were irrelevant. Of course the more the Hungarians attempted to Latinize / Magyarize (ie: make Hungarian) the Greek Catholic Carpatho-Rusyns, the more of them converted over the the Russian Orthodox Church (now Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP).

Today, the MAJORITY of the Carpatho-Rusyns (in the the Carpathian moutains) belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP (former Russian Orthodox Church) for this very reason - fear of Hungarian' attempts to Magyarize /Latinize their church.

Hritzko

Dear Hritzko,I tend to agree with much you have written.I think that the further east one goes into Rusyn territory,i.e.,what used to be the easternmost tip of Czechoslovakia, one finds a language closer to Ukrainian.My wife's Lemko tongue is closer to Polish or Slovak.The reason is simple.If the Lemkos lived side by side with people who spoke another Slavic tongue,it's no wonder that their own language would reflect this.Further east, around Uzhorod or Mukachevo, where they lived side by side with Magyars, speaking a non-slavic tongue, more Ukrainian elements would have remained.I am fascinated by the history of East-Central Europe.I feel one of the modern problems is, as you have stated, the rise of mobs,be they Russian,Ukrainian, Hungarian, or whatever.If many East Germans Nazis switched over and became Communists after WWII,many Communists have become Mafiosi,they've gone from supposed Socialism to "the ultimate in free enterprise" as a Latvian high school teacher of mine once desribed the Mafia.May God help us all!

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Your statement is not congruent with history as I know it. Please feel free to contradict me at any point.

The first attempt at creating a Carpatho-Rusyn Republic at the end of WW1 failed and the region became an autonomus region of the new formed Czechoslovak Republic. There was no recognition of the Rusyns within the name of the new Republic.

The Carpatho-Rusyns / Ukrainians (the double label is not mine) who constituted about 6% of the total population were promised autonomy in relation to their civic and religious life within the new Republic. It is therefore fair to state that there were people in the Presov, Mukachevo, and Prague areas who identified them Ukrainian, Rusyn, and for argument sakes Rusyn-Ukrainian at least 80 years ago (actually longer).

During the interwar period, forced / coerced Slovakization / Latinization of the Greek Catholic Rusyn / Ukrainian people became severe and was comparable to the fate of the Halych-Rusyns (Western Ukrainians) under the Poles.

At the height of this assimmilation, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Bishops were in constant communication with Metropolitan Sheptytsky and were seeking his support for the defence of the Greek Catholic Church from the forced Slovakization / Latinization of their church. This is incongruent with your statement that there was some sort of "forced annexation of the Carpatho-Rusyn jurisdiction" by the Ukrainians. h

By the late 1930's the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic bishops of Mukachevo and Presov declared themselves Carpatho-Ukrainians and supported the establishment of a new independant Carpatho-Ukrainian Republic, free of facist Slovakia, allied with the NAZIS.

Monsignor Avgustin Voloshyn of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church was elected by the Carpatho-Rusyns / Ukrainians to government. In 1939 on the eve of WW2, President Voloshyn declared a Carpatho-Ukrainian Republic. It lasted 24 hours before the facist Hungarians allied with the NAZIs invaded and recaptured their 'colonials'. For 24 hours the Carpatho-Rusyns / Ukrainians were free ! (if anyone is interested in getting information about the postage stamps from this event, please contact me by pm).

Your statement about "Ukrainians being as distinct from Russians, as Carpatho-Rusyns are from Ukrainians" is incongruent with what I have stated above.

Ukrainians view Carpatho-Rusyns as brothers, one of the tribes, equals, but as distinct as Bukovynians are from Galicians, or Podollians from Hutsuls. What unites all the Rusyns is a desire for equality, freedom, and our common language; Ukrainian or as it was once called -Rusyn. This language is very different from Russian, Slovak, and most certainly Hungarian.

The Russians have always sought to subjugate Ukrainians, and infact liked to refer to them as Little Russian. Most Ukrainians were serfs in their empire for centuries. Greater or Western Ukrainians have never sought to subjugate Carpatho-Rusyns. Russians have attempted genocide against Ukrainians. There is no such ill history between the rest of Ukraine and Carpatho-Ukraine / Rus.

How can you make such an analogy ?

IMHO, the biggest mistake your bishop Daniel made was not to join the larger Ukainian Church in the early 1950's. They could have done this as a distinct 'Carpatho-Rusyn / Ukrainian' entity at that time, and had a much better chance of preserving the unique ethnic character of the church, both in the United-States and Czechoslovakia.

The Ukrainians were able to preserve their church and culture in many countries in which they were scattered (ie: Poland). In Slovakia, the Roman Catholics usurped power from the Rusyn Greek Catholic bishops in 1968 and the church was severely Slovakized / Latinized. We have seen the dim statistics in the Czech Exarchate, and the rest of Slovakia. In Ukraine the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church in spite of a 'severe whipping' under the Soviets emerged as the largest eparchy and functions today autonomously.

Why are the Ukrainians the bad guys, and not the Slovaks ?

The 'problems' in Mukachevo were mostly caused by russophilic Rusyns from the Presov region who moved into Ukraine. They do want to create a Russian Carpathian Nation and join in fraternal brotherly love with the larger bear. They are well funded by Moscow, and even have some allies here in Anglo America. Heaven help us should they ever become a serious threat.

On a final note, I have some preliminary information about the 'Ukrainians blocking the Prague consecration story'. It would appear that the Ukrainians you mention were from the Mukachevo AND PRESOV eparchy. In other words, it seems most (if not all) are Carpatho-Rusyns (in Ukrainian clothing). I will give you more info when I get it. In any event, please note that Alex and I were not there.

I look forward to your reply in regards to my questions and historical facts since your ancestors emigrated to America.

Hritzko

Hritzko,

"This is incongruent with your statement that there was some sort of "forced annexation of the Carpatho-Rusyn jurisdiction" by the Ukrainians."

I did not say there was, I said they wanted to. The wanted the Pittsburgh Eparchy subjected to the Philadelphia Metropolitan which Bishop Daniel fought against and they wanted and continue to want Mukachevo subjected to Lviv, which Bishop Ivan fought against.

"Your statement about "Ukrainians being as distinct from Russians, as Carpatho-Rusyns are from Ukrainians" is incongruent with what I have stated above."

In my personal experience Ukrainians feel Carpatho-Rusyns are one of the Ukrainian tribes as you state. On the otherhand I have yet to meet a Carpatho-Rusyn that felt this way. They feel as distinct from Ukrainians as Ukrainians feel distinct from Russians.

"How can you make such an analogy?"

My analogy was not between treatment but perceptions of the relationships between Russians-Ukrainians-Carpatho Rusyns

"Why are the Ukrainians the bad guys, and not the Slovaks?"

Because I am Slovak, of course! :p But seriously Ukrainization, Magyarization, Slovakization are all wrong. Everbody should be able to uphold and nuture their ethnic identity without pressure to assimilate to the majority. Personally, I don't think in a given country there should be more than one Byzantine jurisdiction. Every nationality present should have some sort of representation but we should be united. On the otherhand, I also believe each countries Church should be autonomous.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear DJS,

My Czech is not perfect, but it would appear that this is much more in keeping with your statement concerning the (a) nationality (Slovak - Hungarian) orientation of the new bishop, and (b)the manner in which he was appointed. It most definitely DID NOT STATE that "the Ukrainians disrupted the ceremony because the bishop was a Carpatho-Rusyn" as Fr Deacon Lance had originally mentioned.

Again, given the very poor treatment over the centuries of the Greek Catholic Ruthenians / Ukrainians by the Hungarians, and the less than stellar treatment of the Ruthenians by the Latin rite Slovaks, I'm not sure why anyone would NOT protest this consecration.

In fact, I hope that the majority of the Carpatho-Rusyns now in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP took note of this event and will not see the Greater UGCC as being part of the past problem.

Hritzko

Dear Neil,

In regards to your post just before this one, thanks for your blogging

Thank you for these files, but my Slovak is not as good as my Czech. Perhaps you could post a translated copy.

Thanks for your help.

Hritzko

The questions, Hritzko, are:
was this characterization proper or not for one of our people, and son of one of our priests.
and what exactly about the manner of appointment was lacking. I couldn't find the article and passage, but somewhere I got the idea that thy wanted the UGCC synod, which has not connection to thematter at hand, involved.

Greg,

Had I a translated copy, I'd have posted it. I happened to have the links to which djs referred, so I posted them to save you and anyone else who wanted them the necessity of searching for them.

Many years,

Neil

(the number editing is mine)

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

You have highlighted some important historical issues.

From what I can gather, during the 1950's the Ruthenian American church grew size (adherants), churches, affiliated institutions (ie: parish schools), built a seminary, and had many other worthy achievements. This was comparable in many ways to the UGCC.

Why then did the UGCC attempt to reconciliation with the Subcarpathian Ruthenian Church in America in the early 1950's ?

Answer: The world had changed dramatically, and it was either 'united we stand, or devided we fall (assimmilate)'.

Clearly by the late 1930's even the most Slovak oriented elements of the Subcarpathian Ruthenian Church had come to understand that their particular rite and culture would dissapear unless they united with the larger Ruthenian group (Ukrainians). The act of proclamation of independance by the Monsignor and President Avgustin Voloshyn of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church was a desparate attempt to preserve the unique character of the Sub-Carpathian Ruthenians. President / Monsignor Voloshyn was fully supported by the Greek Catholic bishops of Presov and Mukachevo and there was absolutely NO coercion on the part of the larger Ruthenian (Ukrainian) group to do so.

After the post WW2 forced annexation of the Mukachevo Eparchy by Soviet Ukraine, bishop Ivan Semedi of Mukachevo always sought to retain the unique and independant character of the Carpathian Ruthenians, BUT he integrated like never before to the larger Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. They have now emerged and cooperate fully, including participation in Ukrainian synods, support for the Patriarchate, study in UGCC seminaries, etc... There is no doubt that this is the most populous and important eparchy for the Carpatho-Ruthenians.

Contrary to what you state, the paths taken by the Ruthenian bishops in the immediate WW2 Soviet Ukrainian eparchy of Mukachevo, and the Ruthenian USA eparchy were exactly THE OPPOSITE and similar to the 1930's.

Perhaps if bishop Daniel had not fought against the larger Ukrainian group, and instead had sought to find a unique 'cooperative niche' within it to better preserve the Carpatho-Ruthenian identity here in the USA, hew would have developed the adequate resources to help the Ruthenians in Czechoslovakia (ie: the statistics would not be as grim as they are today). I'm confident that he could have helped the Carpatho-Ruthenian church which had emerged in 1968 after 'the Spring Thaw' if he had the 'right stuff'. (PS: I do not mean to be arrogant by making this statement, but I speak from the heart and from personal experience).

Hritzko

Dear DJS,

I think that my last few posts have outlined much of what has occured in Europe since your ancestors left Eastern Europe several generations ago. A quick review of the Eparchy would indicate the following:

(1) Just prior to WW2 the Czech Exarchate was linked to the Mukachevo Eparchy.

(2) Just prior to WW2, the bishop of Mukachevo (then Slovakia and now Ukraine) declared himself to be part of a Carpatho-Ukrainian state, and himself a Carpatho-Ukrainian.

(3) Just prior to WW2, the bishop of Presov (then Slovakia, and now Slovakia) declared himself to be a Carpatho-Ukrainian and also supported the Carpatho-Ukrainian state.

(4) Many of the aherants of the Czech Exarchate were Carpatho-Rusyns / Ukrainians who migrated from Eastern Czechoslovakia.

(6) Only in recent times (last 10 - 50 years) has the Czech Exarchate been separate from the Presov and Mukachevo Eparchies due to geopolitical reasons.

(6) There are others who migrated there over the past generations from Western and Greater Ukraine, and who identified themselves as either Ruthenians and / or Ukrainians without distinguishing between the two.

For example, the Holy Father John Paul's uncles and aunts were Galician Rusyns. His Galician Rusyn mother migrated to Cracow. There were others who migrated to Prague. These 'rusyns' are Galicians who would today be called Western Ukrainians.

(7) The Czech Exarchate is Ruthenian (Rusyn) AND Ukrainian. It does not distinguish between recent arrivals, and old immigrants.

(8) The Czech Exarchate has never distinguished between Ruthenians and Ukrainians.

CONCLUSION:

The Czech Exarchate should be appointed by the Ukrainian synod because it was under the jurisdiction of Ukrainian bishops prior to the unlawfull takeover first by the Russian Communists (1950), and then the Slovak Roman Catholics (1968).

The synod who appointed this Hungarian-Slovak bishop should have taken the ethnic sensitivities and historical injustices committed by the Hungarians and Slovaks prior to having made this appointment.

The apostolic succession of the Carpatho Rusyn's 'Uzhorod Unia' was broken BY THE SLOVAK ROMAN CATHOLICS who usurped power and gave it to their own 'favorites' who began a generational process of Slovakizing / Latinizing the Greek Catholic Carpatho-Rusyns / Ukrainians.

The fact that this bishop is a son of a priest should have abasolute no influence on the decision to nominate him as a bishop.

Giving the seat to a Hungarian-Slovak makes as much sense as given the Kyivan Patriarchate to a Russian or the Archbishop Metropolitan of Lviv seat to a Pole.

Hritzko

Greg,

The events you describe in 1950 and 1968 involved the Eparchy of Presov, not the current Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic for Faithful of the Eastern Rites, which was not canonically erected - did not exist as an ecclesiastical entity - until 18 January 1996.

The Exarchate may serve both Ruthanians and Ukrainians and, in fact, being the sole hierarchical entity of the Eastern Churches in the Czech Republic, its jurisdiction could well be understood to encompass all Faithful of the Eastern Churches therein resident, but it is designated a Byzantine Ruthenian jursidiction.

The Eparchy of Presov, similarly, has been designated as a Byzantine Ruthenian jurisdiction since its erection in 1818 by the cede of territory from the Eparchy of Mukachevo, also a Ruthenian jurisdiction.

See

Die Apostolische Nachfolge Jurisdictions of the Czech Republic [apostolische-nachfolge.de]

Catholic-Hierachy.org Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic [catholic-hierarchy.org]

Katolsk - Chronology of Erection of Dioceses - Czech Republic [katolsk.no]

Many years,

Neil

Hritzko,

"Giving the seat to a Hungarian-Slovak makes as much sense as given the Kyivan Patriarchate to a Russian or the Archbishop Metropolitan of Lviv seat to a Pole."

I don't think this is an accurate comparison. Presov, Kosice, Prague, Krizevci, and Hadudorog, are all the daughters of Mukachevo. The Pittsburgh Metropolia is for Carpatho Rusyns, Slovaks, Hungarians and Croatians. Regardless of what language they use in the Liturgy they are all predomianntly Carpatho-Rusyn although there are actual Byzantine Slovaks, Hungarians, and Croats as well. My own Byzantine ancestory is Slovak, Letavic from Bardejov.

All these Eparchies have the closest relationships with each other and exchange clergy when needed. They are also very close to Pittsburgh. The bishops of these eparchies come to all our major functions, while I have yet to see a european Ukrainian Catholic bishop come. It would surprise me more to see a Ukrainian made bishop over a son of Mukachevo, whether Carpatho Rusyn, Slovak, Hungarian, or Croat.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Neil,

Thanks again for your great 'cut & paste' post. You certainly have mastered the art .

Please explain to me how they address the historical / political developments of this past century, and the current demographics of the Czech Exarchate as I have explained in the past several posts.

The Czechs themselves have never distinguished betwen Ruthenians and Ukrainians. Further, the Czechs were VERY supportive of the Carpatho-Ukrainian Nation which included the eparchies of Mukachevo and Presov. In fact, it is the Czechs who issued the first postage stamps for the new Carpatho-Ukrainian nation.

Many years,

Hrizko