www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology History Behind Ruthenians and Rome

From what I understand, Byzantine Catholics were all once Orthodox who came back into Communion with Rome some time after the Schism of 1054. I would like to know the history of Ruthenians. Were they once under Russian Orthodox jurisdiction, and if so, what were the specific reasons which prompted Ruthenian reunification with Rome? Were there certain advantages to be gained? Was it perhaps because of political or economic considerations, or simply a quest for Church unity? Was it that some Carpatho-Russians had always believed in the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope since the Schism, but were supressed by the Orthodox? Lasty, was the invitatation from Rome to come back a (come-as-you-are) deal, where Ruthenians were supposed to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, or was more than that expected of them from the very beginning?

Mirfsem,

I could answer some of your questions but I fear that I'm so new that I would offer more misunderstanding than understanding.

I hope that some on this board who are more knowledgeable will give it a go.

I have one additional question: "Would OCA exist had not Rome insisted that clergy be celibate?" Someone said that most of the Orthodox Churches in America today stem from the ban on married clergy imposed on the Ruthenians by Rome. Is that true?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Mirfsem,

Well, first of all, not all Byzantine Catholics once left communion with Rome. The Byzantines of southern Italy did not and the Melkites claim dual communion.

The Ruthenians were never under Russian Orthodox jurisdiction. We were evangelized by missionaries of the Cyril-Methodian tradition (though not by the brothers themselves) sometime after 900. The jurisdictional situation was quite unsettled.
Our eparchy corresponded with the Metropolitans of Moravia and then Esztergom, both of which were first Byzantine and then became Latin. Later we corresponded with the Greek Archbishop of Lithuania (1300 and again in the late 1400's)) and at times Halych.

Clearly, our leaders had a longing for greater fraternity with the wider church, a longing that was mostly unrealized due to our isolation. The laity were totally unaware of the existance of any prelate beyond their own eparch, so it would hard to say that they "beleived" or "disbelieved" in either Pope or Patriarch.

The phrase "Orthodox in Communionwith Rome" is a modern invention, so it is hard to comment if that was appropriate at the time.

On Dan's comment, the married clergy issue was a greater factor in the 1920's movement which formed the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese. The movement to what is now the OCA was more due to other factors.

K.

Mirfsem,

This is a much more detailed and complicated history than can be addressed in a single post. Please consider my post to be nothing more than a very quick response, containing only the essentials.

>>Were [Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics] once under Russian Orthodox jurisdiction, and if so, what were the specific reasons which prompted Ruthenian reunification with Rome?<<

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics were never under Russian Orthodox jurisdiction. Until the time of re-establishing full communion with Rome in 1646, Ruthenian bishops were appointed directly from Constantinople. The specific reasons for the re-establishment of communion with Rome were many. Two of the main reasons included 1) a desire to be considered first class Christians [Roman Catholics in the political empire they found themselves in were considered first class, with state salaries, titles. As Orthodox they were considered definitely second class and looked down upon] and 2) a viewpoint that the split between Constantinople and Rome did not necessarily affect them. Don't forget that even though the official date of the schism was 1054 different levels of communion existed and concelebration between Orthodox and Roman Catholics was fairly common. Add into all of this the understanding that after the fall of Constantinople fell in the mid 1400's, communication between the Ruthenians and Constantinople was extremely difficult and the patriarch was busy just surviving. While some Ruthenians clearly saw religious reasons for re-establishing formal communion with Rome others definitely saw it as simply a very practical thing to do.


>>Were there certain advantages to be gained? Was it perhaps because of political or economic considerations, or simply a quest for Church unity?<<

Both. The Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 for the Ukrainians was a model for the 1646 Union of Uzhorod. The Ruthenians saw a union as bring about Church unity as well as political and economic benefits.


>>Was it that some Carpatho-Russians had always believed in the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope since the Schism, but were supressed by the Orthodox?<<

The idea of the universal jurisdiction of the pope was not even remotely a factor. Don't forget that these unions were over 200 years before Vatican I and its proclamations of papal power. The Roman Catholic backlash against the Reformation (especially some of the RC black and white attitudes developed at Trent) were much closer at hand.


>>Lasty, was the invitatation from Rome to come back a (come-as-you-are) deal, where Ruthenians were supposed to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, or was more than that expected of them from the very beginning?<<

Prior to Trent it would have been possible to simply re-establish communion and leave the governmental structures alone. This method would even have worked for a restoration of communion between Constantinople and Rome if the other theological issues were resolved (governmental structure and papal claims to universal jurisdiction were not yet really a factor in the East - West list of issues). It is my opinion that what made things nasty on Rome's part is the Protestant Reformation. The RC response to it made Rome hyper-sensitive to anything that was non-Roman Catholic. At this point in history the prevailing though among the Roman Catholic clergy was quickly becoming one where we would need to abandon not just Orthodoxy but the Byzantine rituals as well. Many in the Roman Church saw themselves as giving us special permission to keep our Orthodox/Byzantine rite until we were educated. Once educated we would naturally abandon the ritual of Byzantium for that of Rome. But all of this was happening pretty much simultaneously and the hard line Roman attitude really didn't solidify until after the unions. Rome, of course, repudiated this idea at Vatican II.


Dan wrote:

>>"Would OCA exist had not Rome insisted that clergy be celibate?" Someone said that most of the Orthodox Churches in America today stem from the ban on married clergy imposed on the Ruthenians by Rome. Is that true?<<

Good question. While there no doubt have been individuals who rejected Greek Catholicism for Orthodoxy there certainly would not have been the mass transfer of Greek Catholics from Catholic to Orthodox jurisdictions. The establishment of the Johnstown Orthodox diocese was solely due to Rome's ban on married priests. The transfer of priests and people into the Orthodox jurisdiction in the 1890's was due in part to the Roman bishops being scandalized by the presence of married Greek Catholic priests but there were other factors as well. My guess is that if our Greek Catholic priests were treated with simple Christian respect and as fellow Catholics during the period from 1880-1930 (the window of the biggest emigration from Europe) there would not have been a split and the Byzantine Catholic Church in America would today number about 3 million.

But again, this is a very brief summary and omits a lot of information. Others will no doubt build upon it in their posts.

Let me just develop a couple of Moose's points.

It might be too much to say the Johnstown schism was solely over the issue of married priests. All of the Johnstown clerical leaders were of the Presov seminary who thought they were being disriminated against in eparchal appointments.

Trusteeship was another major factor. Celibate clergy may have ranked third with a side issue animating both celibacy and trusteeship -- being that our people had yet to standardize our language, a priest from the particular village or subregion was strongly desired, as the differences betwen villages were taken quite seriously. Ruthenians have always had a preference for celibate priests; the issue became important when no celibate priest from the particular region was available for immigration and a celibate priest from a different region was sent.

Lastly, 3 million fairly reflects the number of immigrants and their decedents from Transcarpathia (thought since most immigrants returned, we are not very certain as to this number). However, many more of our people were lost to Marxism than to Orthodoxy. In western Pennsylvania, pan-Catholic efforts to address social concerns and support for the CIO by such leaders as Msgr. Charles Owen Rice, Phil Murray, the Slovak clergy and others likely saved many of faith from the allure of Communism. This differs dramatically from, say, the Serbians, of whom 2/3rds became Marxist and only 1/3 remained Orthodox.

The Carpatho-Russian diocese suffered its own schism in the 1940's over the diocese's failure to address social concerns, losing many from the faith.

">>"Would OCA exist had not Rome insisted that clergy be celibate?" Someone said that most of the Orthodox Churches in America today stem from the ban on married clergy imposed on the Ruthenians by Rome. Is that true?<<"

The points made by Moose and Kurt in response to this are accurate and need no amendation.

My only additional comment would be that if relations between Greek Catholics and Latin Catholics in the USA had been better in the latter part of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, what is today the OCA would be much smaller. However, it would still exist -- the Russian Missionary Diocese existed before the Greek Catholics began to join it and swell its numbers. Demographically, however, it would be a lot smaller and it would be a lot more "Russian" ethnically than it is today.

Brendan

Kurt is correct in pointing out that there were other issues involved in causing the Johnstown schism. The celibacy issue, however, was the issue common to all those who broke communion. Fr. Lawrence Barringer, a notable scholar in that diocese today, has addressed these issues in his writings. My read of his work and discussions with him some years ago, as well as my regular ongoing contact with several priests in that jurisdiction and with older members of my extended family in both the Johnstown and Byzantine Churches, reaffirm that the celibacy issue was indeed the 'flashpoint' issue. This makes sense since not everyone who broke was from the Presov seminary nor were all affected the same way by the trustee issue. All were hot topics of disagreement as Kurt correctly pointed out but both did not affect everyone in the same way as the celibate clergy issue. The discrimination against those from the Presov seminary and the trustee issue were more internal than external but the married clergy issue was more visible imposed by the Roman Catholics and, therefore, a greater rallying point.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of those who broke did not intend to reject Greek Catholicism for Orthodoxy. Most of the people wanted to be independent (and some of the parishes still have the word independent in their legal title, i.e., St. John the Baptist Independent Greek Catholic Church). What the people really wanted was to preserve the status quo (I knew many people in the Carpatho-Russian parish in my hometown who identified themselves as "Independent Greek Catholic" and who would have never used the term "Orthodox" to describe themselves). When it came time to seek a bishop the rallying cry was "neither Rome nor Moscow" and they settled on restoring relations with Constantinople that had been severed in 1646 with the Union of Uzhorod.

Brendan's comments about the Russian Orthodox Missionary Diocese are entirely accurate.

This discussion leads to another discussion. In this last 20 years the Byzantine Catholic Church has made great progress in removing latinizations and re-embracing a more authentic Byzantine theology and praxis. Most of the lay Byzantine Catholics more-or-less embrace this restoration. There are, however, significant numbers who feel that such a restoration is a rejection of everything our spiritual ancestors did to both establish and keep communion with Rome (particularly those in the greater Pittsburgh area that is only now really making an effort in Byzantine restoration). While education is the key to helping this group understand the need for Byzantine restoration how would each of the participants here answer the questions put forward that in restoring our Byzantine theology and practice we are denying those who accepted latinization as a price for unity with Rome? This is akin to some of the discussions on this forum that those who stood against the forced Orthodoxy of Greek Catholics in Europe by the communists were wrong to do so because we now say that the Orthodox Church is a "Sister Church". Perhaps this is a topic worthy of a new thread?

CnaBa Iucycy Xpucmy!

Excellent commentary!

AFAIK the medieval Ruthenians were part of the Kievan Church (Haly&#269; or Galicia as Kurt wrote) of what is now Ukraine and so basically were among the forerunners of today�s Russian Orthodox Church, but predate it: there was no Moscow Patriarchate back then. Also, because the Rusyns/Ruthenians may have been in closer contact with Constantinople than the Russians to the north and east (the Russians were under C�s jurisdiction, too), traditional Ruthenian usage is in ways closer to Greek than Russian practice today (Vespers Saturday nights and holyday eves, not the long Russian vigil, for example).

Kurt, when the 1940s schism happened in the Carpatho-Russian Diocese, where did the breakaways go? Back to the Ruthenian Catholics? (Was that even possible at that point, considering the anger and excommunications?)

I basically agree with Brendan but wonder: since the Russian metropolia would have been much, much smaller without the 1890s-ca. 1910 Ruthenian conversions, might the only Russian Orthodox presence in the US have been an exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate and, assuming the Russian Revolution still happened, ROCOR? (The latter being brought here post-World War II by refugees.) The Russian exarchate probably would be about the same small size as what the MP now has here, but it would still be based in San Francisco and not New York (the metropolitan moved East because after the Toth conversions, that�s where most of his flock was!). The churches that are now OCA would all be Ruthenian Catholic (or some would be Ukrainian Catholic, assuming the Vatican still created separate bishoprics in America for each group in 1924).

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Rusnak wrote:

"I basically agree with Brendan but wonder: since the Russian metropolia would have been much, much smaller without the 1890s-ca. 1910 Ruthenian conversions, might the only Russian Orthodox presence in the US have been an exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate and, assuming the Russian Revolution still happened, ROCOR? (The latter being brought here post-World War II by refugees.) The Russian exarchate probably would be about the same small size as what the MP now has here, but it would still be based in San Francisco and not New York (the metropolitan moved East because after the Toth conversions, that�s where most of his flock was!). The churches that are now OCA would all be Ruthenian Catholic (or some would be Ukrainian Catholic, assuming the Vatican still created separate bishoprics in America for each group in 1924)."

Interesting ideas.

First, even assuming that there was no split as occurred at the Cleveland Sobor, I don't think autocephaly would have happened had the Russian Missionary Diocese remained mostly Russian and mostly small. Assuming there had been no dramatic increase due to the inclusion of Greek Catholics, it seems that the two likeliest speculative possibilities would be (1) ROCOR and a smallish Russian Archdiocese here (perhaps based in SF, perhaps not) or (2) all in what is now ROCOR, if everyone had agreed to separate from Moscow at the Cleveland Council.

It's hard to say what really would have happened. There was a lot of flux in the Russian emigre community in the years from 1920-1950, both in North America and in Western Europe. One can't underestimate, for example, the impact that the Paris Jurisdiction had on the subsequent development of the American Metropolia/OCA -- and if the entire American Russian Orthodox community had been ROCOR, the kind of interplay that took place during the times of Schmemann and Meyendorff may never have happened, and if that were the case the American Orthodox scene would likely be remarkably different.

Brendan

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with those of us who are not Byzantine Christian. The history, insights, and questions being shared are really interesting and thought provoking.

Given the information here and the historical insights shared by Kurt and others elsewhere on the list, I second Moose's suggestion that a thread of postings discussing Byzantinization and Latinization of the Churches and the usefulness or harm of arising from these processes would be beneficial.

I suspect that there is a different perspective about this topic from the Oriental Catholic Churches and their sister Orthodox Churches which historically had their traditions or liturgy Byzantinized or Latinized if I read right. I read on some page of one of those churches (Assyrian Church of the East, I think) that their some of their ancestors sought the protection of their Moslem rulers to protect their identity as non-Byzantine Christians. The Thomas Christians and Coptic Christians might have something to add to that thread, too.

I wonder if they still feel pressure to byzantinize or Latinize themselves and what they think about it. If I come across this site again, I'll post the reference.

Thanks for reading.

Please do not let errors in my written expression impede the thought.

Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God.

Rusnak,

As to the schism in the Johnstown Diocese, you are taxing my memory (of history that is; I am not old enough for personal involvement), but Fr. Lawrence Barringer (referened above) does touch on it in his history of the diocese, though glosses over certain aspects. The priest who lead the schism, Fr. Varzahy, was the editor of the Diocesean newspaper, which unknowen until the schism, was incorporated in his own name, not the diocese. He took several priests and 28% of the parishes with him including the Cathedral parish. The Russian Metropolia had at the time a Rusyn bishop (Adam?) of a diocese created to receieve Catholic parishes but could not create new parishes nor disallow parishes from switching to the Russian dioceses. By this time (1946) it had only one parish remaining (in Detroit). This bishop ordained priests for the schismatic church but no bishops.

The dispute was over the social question and sadly, Orthodoxy's problems was the lack of a social teaching as Catholicism had. The result was polarization. The Bishop's faction were McCarthyistic and pro-company and the schismatics were fellow-travellers. There was no middle ground. The Youth Organization was the bishop's warriors. Young and patriotic, they wanted to be seen as true-blooded Americans. The older people refused to accept the Bishop's teaching that U.S. Steel and Westinghouse were God's annointed and that the CIO was the devil. Unfortunately, they avoided any contact with leaders of the strong Catholic faction within the CIO and were often duped into supporting the Communist faction.

The schimatic clergy were hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee - HUAC. ("So, Father, you call yourself a Carpatho-RUSSIAN. Did the Carpathos split from the Bolshevik-Russians or the Trotskyite-Russians?").

After that they just faded away. One parish still exists as part of OCA. Their Church was publicly listed as a Communist front organization by the HUAC, not exactly a way to win converts in the 1950s. I would guess most of the members were lost to irreligion and the Diocese got the reputation in some towns as the Church of "Neither Rome nor Moscow but U.S. Steel"

Oddly, both in this case and others, these Slav's children raised without religion ended up in Protestant, often right wing fundementalist churches. I've always said, find a Baptist with a Slav name and his grandpa was a Party member.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 01-03-2001).]

Brendan, I agree with your assessment/speculation. Kurt, thanks to you I now remember the history of that split. I learnt about it from Fr Lawrence�s book too.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear All,

I erred in my reference to the Assyrian Church of the East in an earlier posting. I found the reference to Oriental Christians turning Moslems at the following web page of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch:
http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/cgi-bin/library/libdisplay.cgi?1-008.txt

Please forgive my error. I hope I copied the site address properly although the 1 could be l.

Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God.

Dear All,

Editing in caps

I erred in my reference to the Assyrian Church of the East in an earlier posting. I found the reference to Oriental Christians turning Moslems FOR PROTECTION FROM BYZANTINE CHRISTIANS at the following web page of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch:
http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/cgi-bin/library/libdisplay.cgi?1-008.txt

Please forgive my errors. I hope I copied the site address properly although the 1 could be l. I also hope that this editing expresses my thought more accurately.

Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God.

The Ukrainian Encyclopedia fron the Univeristy of Toronto states that Christianity in Transcarpathia came in the Cyril and Methodian form from Constantiniople and in the Byzantine form from Bulgaria.

While Fr. Dvornik would dispute exactly what the Cyril and Methodian form was (he would say that it had to be Byzantine), the Bulgarian influence is probably very sensible and impeccable. The conversion of Greater Moravia occurred a century before St. Volodimir (and the subsequent immigrations into the mountains of the Kingdom of Hungary). Who were these immigrants? Some were Vallachs, which were converted under the Bulgarian Empire. The liturgical language of the Vallachs at the time was not Romanian, but Church Slavonic (they were an integral part of the Bulgarian Kingdom). Before the conversion of St. Volodimir, the only way to preserve a Byzantine clergy and culture in the eastern tip of the Old Great Moravian Empire was by Bulgaria (after Slovakia was overrun by the Magyars and Latinized). See also the Catholic Encyclopedia where mention is made of Slovakia becoming Latin except in remote mountain and valley areas in the East. From that period through the conversion of St. Volodimir, the only way the Rusyns (or whatever the inhabitants at the time considered themselves) could have preserved the Byzantine Rite and Ethos was by being adjacent to Bulgaria (which also included Romania). Even today we have Huculs in Marmaros that are very similar in culture whether or not their first language is Romanian or Rusyn (Ukrainian dialect).

Christ Is Born!
Let Us Glorify Him!

Three Cents