www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukrainian and Byzantine

Hi All,

Can someone please explain to me the main differences between the Ukrainian Catholic parishes and the Byzantine Catholic parishes? I know of the ethnic differences -- Capatho-Ruthenians and Ukrainians. But are there also liturgical differences? Is one more westernized?

Chris

One difference is musical - the Ukrainians have one set of chant melodies, called Samoilka, and the Ruthenians have another, called Prostopinije. There are some liturgical differences as well - like which Antiphons are taken - but a Ukrainian worshipping with Ruthenians, or a Ruthenian worshipping with Ukrainians would readily recognize the service & be able to follow along - unless of course there was a big ol' language barrier.

Ukrainian parishes - especially those in Canada, where there continue to be large communities of recent immigrants - are more likely to have Ukrainian language services, while ruthenian parishes in North America are more likely to be largely English with some Church Slavonic - and some parishes may also use Spanish when it is appropriate to the population served.

I think Ukrainian Catholic parishes also lean more toward Ukrainian nationalism. There is no "Ruthenia...." Not saying either is good or bad.

As to which is more "westernized" that REALLY depends on locality - and for the most part, both jurisdictions are striving to restore authentic Tradition. Of course, if you dig, you can always manage to find a Horrible Example somewhere..

Hope this is responsive!

Sharon

In general terms, the name "Byzantine Catholics" include all Christians of the Byzantine Rite who broke with the Orthodox Church and are in communion with the See of the Pope in Rome: Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Romanians, Melkites (Arabs), etc.

It is my understanding that now "Byzantine Catholic" parishes in the United States refer to those of the Ruthenians. Ruthenians and Ukrainians are very similar. Ruthenians were mainly located in Eastern Slovakia, Belarus and Czechia and were under the influence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while those in Ukraine were under the influence of Rusia. Ruthenian inmigrants got rapidly absorbed into the American culture and language, while the Ukrainians are a little bit more nationalistic.

Welcome, Chris!!

One of the stranger aspects of this is that in Latin the name Ruthenian was applied to all the Eastern Slavs of the Byzantine Rite who entered communion with Rome, from 1596 onward until 75 years ago. In 1924, separate Eparchies were established in the US, in Philadelphia for the Ukrainians and in Pittsburgh for the Ruthenians.

The national concept of "Ukrainian" was spread by the writings of Taras Shevchenko during the early to mid-nineteenth century. Not that Ukrainian nationalism did not exist earlier, but the movement to gain independence from the Russian Empire crystalized around that time.

The further west in the Carpathians, the less people thought of themselves as "Ukrainians". There was a part of Eastern Czechoslovakia between the two World Wars, which was known as "Ruthenia". It was absorbed into the Soviet Union in the 1940s and is now part of Ukraine.

Now that I've gotten things all confused, I'm going to stop typing.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Snoopy:

Just a minor clarification. The regions of Galicia and Bukovyna were never ruled from Moscow until after World War II. Prior to that they were under Polish occupation and prior to that they were under the Hapsburgs.

Galicia, as you probably know, has been the hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism since at least the early part of the 20th Century.

Therefore, I respecfully submit that you over-generalize the Ukrainian-Ruthenian split along Russian vs. Austrian influence lines.

Yours,

kl

KL,

When my great-grand parents and my grandfathers sibling came here in the early 1900's - they came from Galicia. On their passenger record they list themselves as Austrian-Polish from Gluchoro( Ellis Island spelling) not mine . When my great uncle grew up in about 1917? he joined Haller's Army to fight the Russians for Galicia. My family always said we were Polish but when I discuss where my family came from or say my maiden name ( it begins with Gd)to someone of Ukrainian decent they say no you are a Ukie! I guess I suffer from identity crisis on my dad's side.

I think there would be a lot of stories like yours if people took the opportunity to examine their family histories.

Looking at it another way, Galician Poland was settled largely by the White Croats, the same as Galician Ukraine. If any Celts stayed behind you could throw them into the mix all the way across the area. Genetically southern Poles and Galician Ukrainians should be identical.
:p
Michael

Greetings all,
I think everyone have made good points about the more modern differences of the two groups. I'd like to have a little input here but I'm just putting this together myself so I'm not sure about all the facts. But the history could go a long way to explaining the why of the differences.

It is my understanding that the Rusyns south of the Carpathian mountain chain generally were evangelized through the missionary efforts beginning with Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia about 860, a short-lived kingdom and rival to the German-Frankish and Bulgarian Empires. There may have been Christians there earlier but their presence would not have been significant.

Eventually, the political power of the Moravians failed. The ecclesiastical structure was maintained in the east under the Patriarch of Constantinople, possibly with Greek appointments. This region south of the Carpathians includes the homeland of the Rusyns, Slovaks and Romaioi and thus the evangelizing process can be said to begin in about the mid-ninth century. The Poles to the North credit Cyril and Methodius with their evangelization, probably this happened in a small way from Bohemia and Slovakia. In 966, the Poles accepted Latin Christianity.

The date generally given for the conversion of the Rus is 988, but there was a Christian on the throne of Kyiv in 960 I believe, about 100 years after Cyril and Methodius worked in Moravia. In the 980's and beyond Saint Volodymyr of Kyiv welcomed missionaries from Constantinople that must have included some Slavonic-working priests from the Balkan region. The work of evangelization may have begun earlier but got off on a big start from Kyiv at that time.

The Carpatho-Rusyns, Greek Catholic Slovaks and Greek Catholic Hungarians do not seem to have ever been included in the Kyivan-Rus states (or if so, only briefly) and were largely isolated from the development of the Russian nation-state and the Ukrainian ethnic identity and some of the liturgical developments there. They fell instead under the domination of the Bulgars and Magyar/Hungarians, then the Turks, and then the newer Hungarian state tied to Austria as the Turks were driven out of the region. Their ecclesiastical history is probably closer to the Romanians from the earliest days but I wouldn't know if that means that they have close liturgical similarities to the Romanians.

Michael

The reasons to keep the American Greek Catholic Church divided seem to get smaller each time one of us looks at our family story.

Actually I would say that the reasons to keep the American Greek Catholic Church devided seems to get smaller each time someone else looks at our family story.

Seems like I have heard said here before, "Your all Ukie anyways."

Yes, David, others' eyes can sometimes see more clearly than our own.

I have never heard of a Saint called "Apostle of Church Division."

I'm not sure we're all Ukies. I prefer my Liturgy in English. Maybe we're Americans?

Dear All:

It strikes me that the attidude that those who think the Ukie Diaspora in North America should sever its ties to the Kyivo-Galaican Patriarchalso also think that the only way to achieve unity in the universal church is to have the Orthodox succumb to Rome's all-powerful grip.

In other words, unity for some STILL means "you join us." Shame.

Yours,

kl

Just to clarify something...

Weren't you one of the posters that advocated the idea of the Byzantine Catholic Church joining with the Ukrianian Church and their Patriarch?

If not, then I apologize, but you sure did not speak out against that idea.

More shame.

David

Greetings to all,
Basically, it's not so much about Rome after all. It's about pride, we all have it and we all need to deal with it.

There is a very good, compelling reason why the Orthodox churches in North America cannot find unity, it's about ethnic pride. It seems that we have it too!

North America doesn't really need a Patriarch for Byzantines, there are good candidates in the old world that could serve that function as pastor for us, such as Antioch or Constantinople. If erecting a patriarchate in North America would be part of the formula to bring us together I would support it, but not if that meant colonies of North Americans around the world would insist on their own churches!

The Patriarchs in Bucharest, Sophia, Beograd and Moscow are second tier compared to the original five. They are Primates in their own lands and God Bless them with many years and success in leading their flocks into the light of God. But they have no business clinging to their flocks in North America.

While the ethnic parishes in the city are thriving the third and fourth generations are moving out to places where there is no available parish for them and the grandchildren and great-grandchilden are losing the association with the old country, that's reality. Romanians are marrying Ukrainians and whose church do they belong to? Ethnocentrism is a formula that just won't work in the long run, and multiple, parallel jurisdictions in the land is crime before Christ.

Michael

Actually, General Haller's Army (called also
"Blue Army" because of uniforms' colour) was
formed in France and fighted against Germans
till the end of WW1.
In 1919 named Army went to Poland and fighted
against Western Ukrainians.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter