www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall "Phyletism" in American Byzantine rite Catholic Churches?

Phyletism or the principle of nationalities applied in the ecclesiastical domain was condemned as a modern ecclesial heresy at a pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople in 1872. Nevertheless, although there is an Orthodox Church in America (OCA), there are still separate ethnic Orthodox jurisdictions in and outside of the OCA.

In American Eastern Catholicism, there are also separate ethnic Byzantine rite churches. Why? Is there any possibility of an "American" Byzantine Catholic Church with an English language Divine Liturgy?

People come from different backgrounds and they set up their churches only because thats the Byzantine Rite they know and can express easily. Some can say its melancholia, but I think it expresses the variety and diversity that can be embodied within one rite. It shows that the Byzantine Rite is flexible.

It's not just a matter of North America is it?


Source [cnewa.us]

Rome never encouraged the different Eastern Catholic "rites" to work together in the "diaspora", but instead promoted a kind of stove-pipe communion that ran from the parish to the eparchial bishop to the Metropolitan or Patriarch, to the Pope. The notion of having the local Ruthenian parish work together with the local Melkite parish just ain't gonna happen. I know--I tried for years to get the two local youth groups to do things together, but the notion that these are four "our people" is just too hard to overcome.

why is the same reason i suppose why there are separate non-territorial "national" churches in American Roman Catholic dioceses, people same ethnic group and same customs whom are immigrants like to worship with each other, and having different eparchies for the different Churches saves a lot of drama which could result from the forced fusing different cultures, this is why the original Greek Catholic jurisdiction founded in USA split into Ukrainian and Ruthenian if im correct

not unique to Eastern Catholicism, in Winnipeg they had to set up a separate diocese from the Archdiocese of Saint-Boniface (Archdiocese of Winnipeg, not part of a province and directly subject to the Holy See) for non-Quebecois Latin Catholics because Irish/Anglophones couldnt get along

Dosen't the "Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh" fulfill this? Dose in my opinion anyway

This really isn't an example as the Eparchy of Mukachevo has a clear territory (Zakarpatska Oblast) and care of all Greek Catholics within its boundaries and the UGCC has the rest of Ukraine.

Methinks it's a pretty good example since the situation you outline is because the bishop as mentioned wants to maintain a distinctly ethnic Rusyn church despite the fact that

- He shares the same ritual with the UGCC.
- Shares the same national boundaries with them.
- Keeps his diocese subject to the Curia instead of folding it in to an authentically Eastern synod.

All logic would point to there being no reason for a separate particular church, if not for ethnicity.

But territorial integrity is still being maintained, unlike in the US and elsewhere you have Rusyns, Ukrainian, Melkites and Romanians all with overlapping jurisdiction in the same territory. Also, historically the Eparchy of Mukachevo was not part of the Metropolia of Kyiv or Lviv.

-different ritual use
-came into union with the Catholic Church under different treaty than union of brest (hence main reason why not part of UGCC) also was never part of the soviet union/russian empire prior to 1945
-answering to Rome or "folding" to UGCC Synod, whats the difference?

Majority seem to enjoy their self governance (own seminary, clerical community etc) otherwise they would be part of the UGCC. Why forfeit it by submitting to an Eastern Church with a different history and ritual use?

Historically, Mukachevo had closer relations with with the Church in Transylvania than it had with Lviv.

For the most part, the earliest American members of the UGCC were from the Mukachevo GCC, members of the the broad "Ruthenian" umbrella.

This is not to say that union is undesirable, but it doesn't fall in the "phyletism" definition as put forth in the initial post IMHO.

Never mind.

You are exactly right, and in fact Metropolitan +Volodymyr of blessed memory had a proposal when the UGCC came out of the underground to raise Uzhorod/Mukachevo to Metropolitan status within the UGCC. While some of the Transcarpathian clergy were in favor of this (and still are) Rome and some were not. The UOC-MP certainly does not think of its hierarchy in Transcarpathia as distinct from the Metropolia in Kyiv.

Now Mukachevo sports the most uniate of ecclesiastical structures, namely the single "eparchial church sui iuris" completely dependent on Rome hand and foot for every major ecclesiastical decision, and led by a Bishop who is not even ethnically of his people appointed by Rome (His Grace +Milan Sasik was a Slovak Vincentian/Lazarist before being named Bishop). Instead of being raised to Metropolitan status within a worldwide patriarchal Church, it remains isolated ecclesiastically and completely dependent on Rome, not a Church of its own liturgical, spiritual, and theological patrimony, for major ecclesiastical decisions and will likely never be raised to a metropolia.

There is very little compelling information to back up the assertion that Uzhorod/Mukachevo ever thought of itself as distinct from the Kyivan Metropolia until after the 15th century or so, when the ecclesiastical separation played into the hands of the Hungarian and Polish civil authorities to keep a larger Rusyn/Galician Greek Catholic solidarity from forming.

I have no horse in this race but - a serious reminder to all participating - it is Great Lent.

Were it not, I'd still be less than enthused by any Ukrainian-Ruthenian brouhaha over who should, could, would have rightful claim to Mukachevo.

The facts are these:

• Mukachevo is a Church sui iuris of eparchial status.
• It is one of two distinct canonical entities, each of which constitutes a particular Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church within the Byzantine Tradition.
• Its hierarchs elect to attend, as observers, the Synod of its sister Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, a Church sui iuris of Major Arch-episcopal status.
• It has neither requested nor apparently does it seek to be a constitutent canonical body of the UGCC.
• The ethnicity of its presiding hierarch, if of concern to them, is a matter for its clergy and faithful to take up with the Colonial Office

In short, we are NOT revisiting the debate proposition that 'All ____ are Slavs, therefore all Slavs are - or should be - ____"

End of story. We are not about to entertain a thread based on argumentation that the Ruthenians of the Mukachevo jurisdiction ought to be subsumed into the UGCC, are somehow deficient in the acknowledgement or understanding of their own canonical worth by failing to seek to do so, or would be a better brand of Eastern Catholic were they to do so.

Anyone having an issue with this matter is free to message me privately on the matter, as it will not be argued in this thread or elsewhere on the open fora.

Meanwhile, the topic of this thread has hardly been addressed. Almost every post made to it has been directed at pointing out that the situation in the US is no different than it is elsewhere - and then gone on to address elsewhere. If there is nothing more to be said on the initial questions posed - and there may not be (Lord knows we've beat the subject to death enough times previously), the thread will be closed.

Many years,

Neil

A little aside here.

There was as much of this sort of ethnic division going on in many Latin parishes at the turn of the last century. Depending on where one was, the attempt to force all the groups into one parish came about because of the views of such noted figures as Abp John Ireland.

My own home parish was made up of Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Slovak, and French people. They all jockeyed for position and some of the antipathies ran high under the surface. I can remember my relatives wondering why people who were not German or Irish were allowed into "our parish." So this thing about "us vs. them" is not confined to our brethren in the Byzantine world. It's a human response to form groups for so many reasons: protection, a sense of identity and belonging, etc. But when it gets out of hand, we have to remember the words of Sacred Scripture: "In Christ there is neither slave nor free, man nor woman, Greek or Jew--or Rusyn or Ukrainian, nor Irish nor Swede nor . . .

Bob

More than a little irony here. Archbishop Ireland is an interesting historical figure in the history of American Catholicism for a number of reasons. The foremost one is his role in the Americanization movement within Catholicism which you alluded to. In some areas it was more successful than others, in areas with ethnic 'ghettos' such as East Buffalo, NY for example it didn't work until demographic changes forced the issue at the turn of the 21st century.

However, to Rusyns(a/k/a Ruthenians) he is generally not well thought of, from either the Greek Catholic or the Orthodox point of view. There is no need to retell that side of his history on this post.

The irony is that within American Orthodoxy the issue of so-called phyletism has been bandied about for nearly a century and the halting efforts to create a national identity and unified hierarchy mirror in many ways the Americanism ideology promoted by Archbishop Ireland.Given the historical structure of Orthodoxy it is a far more difficult problem to solve than it was for the Roman Rite. It is interesting that this issue is now being talked about by Eastern Catholics, even if only in a nascent form. That only makes sense in that the hierarchical structure of the Eastern Catholics mirrors that of the Orthodox in many ways - national and/or cultural identity being the foremost.

However, as the discussion about the status of Mukachevo points out, phyletism, like many subjective concepts (I choose to categorize it as subjective as when it prevails is never entirely clear), its existence lies in the eye of the beholder.

Theophan's words are a wise warning to us all on this delicate and emotionally weighted topic.