www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Role of Presbyteras

The Odd Duck raises some points that I think are noteworthy.

My main argument is this: To combine, I prefer re-unite, what is now known as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church into one worldwide church.
"Carpatho-Ruthenians" need not fear being "Ukrainianized" an vice versa. Absolute tolerance and respect for unique regional custums. Under one Kyivan Patriarchate. There is strength in our unity and there is no reason to assume that such "Ukrainianization" will take place, because such behavior may be found in our past. We will then be working together with one voice, sharing our resources and strengths.

Perhaps there could even be a worldwide patriarchate of all Byzantine Catholics in Kyiv.
At first glance this may seem obsurd, however, upon deeper reflection, such an idea is not so far fetched or unrealistic. I'll elaborate on this tomorrow, but I thought I would just throw the whole thing out, after the "duck man" kinda, sorta, alluded to the same thing.

Words to ponder:

"To believe what has not occurred in history will not occur at all, is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man" Mahatma Ghandi

In Christ,
ALity

Ality,

Since there is no unified Kievan Church, I have to accept the separate jurisdictions as it now stands. Since I am in the Ruthenian Church, I will remain there. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't or wouldn't be greater cooperation between the two Catholic Churches (Rusyn and Ukrainian).

In all this talk about unification, I often wonder how the chant would sound like? Whose chant? OCA pastors on my paternal side of the family have often remarked how they missed their Rusyn plainchant due to the Russification of their Church. Such a synergy may be certain for the future, but will one church be absorbed into the other? Will we be braced for such a merger?

But the problems remain nonetheless. Ours is a shrinking Church. What I fear most are the decisions made after a crisis has run its course. Such 'emergency-crisis / Johnny-come-lately' decisions are often ill-fated. On a previous post, I linked a page showing statistics on our church's population. Since WWII our church membership has declined 50%. In reading Anastasios' recent post, the Orthodox Church's population has been overstated too. Can we continue in such a downward spiral without greater cooperation? or will we still be arguing over minute matters as we lie on our deathbed as the last Eastern Christian turns off the temple lights in this country?

One little detail: Our sister Orthodox Church, the Carpatho-Russians in Johnstown, are tied to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. If we are to consider our Orthodox counterpart (assuming we will) then a lot more work will have to be done between Kiev and Constantinople. How will they fit in? Will we be making ourselves a much larger problem to unwind? How about the Ukrainian Orthodox?


Joe

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

I have stated previously that issues over peculiar regional traditions, such as chant, rushniki, etc. should be honored and no one church should absorb the other. Each individual parish would determine the chant of their community. So, in the USA, if we reunited tomorrow, your "Ruthenian" parish would keep your Ruthenian plain chant, and my "Ukrainian" parish would preserve Galacian chant.

With that precedent established, how can one church absorb another? Ultimately, our theology, liturgical rubrics, canon law, and "major" traditions (feastdays, etc.) are the same, so there is nothing to absorb or change.

Can you show me how our Chruches are so different aside from chant and architecture? After that how are we significantly different in theology, rubrics, etc.? We both follow the Ruthenian Recension and all of our "differences" are cosmetic and not major divergances in tradition, as I see it.

We cannot continue in the downward spiral that we find ourselves in, not when we have the "true faith". We must unite into one corporate body, like businesses do, and consolidate our efforts into one, organized front with which we will grow in faith and proclaim the Gospel of Christ to all nations.

Do you (would you) support the unity of our two Churches under the conditions I have set forth?

In Christ,
ALity

"Do you (would you) support the unity of our two Churches under the conditions I have set forth?"


Have our bishops? Some may say that the fact that we are all 'united' under the umbrella of the Eastern Congregation that this is already the case with one little difference: each of those particular churches has their own bishop(s).

You still left out the reality of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church under Constantinople. What are your suggestions? They seemed to have preferred the missionary home of their Apostles, Cyril and Methodius.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joe and Deacon-in-spe Lance,

I was just kidding, guys!

I wouldn't dream of robbing the Ruthenian clerical cradle, not unless I absolutely had to and there was no other alternative .

But really, joining the Ukrainian Catholic Church is up to the individual.

Besides, it isn't so easy. We do have standards you know

You have to make a vow to begin Ukrainian language studies for three years if you don't speaka da language yet.

And then this vow is supplanted with another, life-long one, similar to the Great Schema, where you must constantly work on the proper Ukrainian accent, memorize one poem of Shevchenko per year and never criticize Ukrainian cooking in public .

And, frankly, my dears, I don't think you could manage such stringent standards of behaviour .

So don't flatter yourselves!

Consider yourselves lucky to have even been considered!

In all humility,

Alex

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Piotr,

Since Deacon-in-spe Lance seems a bit touchy on the subject of a role for presbyteras, I'll address my comments to you only .

The fact that the Russian Church has a course for Matushkas is excellent and shows how far-reaching their pastoral vision really is.

There's good in everyone, to be sure

Surely, in places like Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Canada, the role of the Presbytera in the parish is a given.

Elsewhere in more democratic jurisdictions the Presbytera is certainly entitled to choose how she will exercise her role.

And there always is one, even if it is supporting her husband in his sacerdotal role.

It could be a minimalist one, or a maximalist one, but there is ALWAYS a role for the wive of a clergyman to be played.

And I know parishes whose meddling in the affairs of their priest's marriage led to tragic consequences.

Lance is the strong character type, would you say?

His Presbytera is in good hands, God helping him!

Alex

Alex,

No need for standards. I believe I have dual-citizenship already. My grandparents were parishioners and my parents were married at St. Mary's Ukrainian Catholic Church in Spangler, PA (now called Northern Cambria). You will also see "Thur" on a number of tombstones at the Ukrainian Catholic cemetery. Never had reason to complain about the food. But this is getting off the thread's topic.

Joe

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Cantor Joe,

I don't think this is getting off the thread because if that is the sum total of our differences, then we really are one Church!

The Kyivan Church has regional rites as well, including that of Volyn, Galicia (not the latinized rite, the original one), Kyivan, Poltavan, Bukovinian, Carpatho-Ruthenian etc.

I think the real difference between us has nothing to do with history or liturgy, but more with the length of time our respective groups have been in North America and the impact of its mainstream culture on our people.

But you have every right to your own Church, hierarchy etc.

Is it just me or do some people here think I actually have authority over the Ruthenian and Tridentine Churches?

FYI, I don't!

Alex

"The Kyivan Church has regional rites as well, including that of Volyn, Galicia (not the latinized rite, the original one), Kyivan, Poltavan, Bukovinian, Carpatho-Ruthenian etc."


Alex,

Please correct my historical knowledge. If the Carpatho-Ruthenian Church is a regional rite of the Kyivan Church, then what rite was it for one hundred years before St. Vladimir accepted Christianity in 988? I'm always interested in our Church history and your insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Can you also comment on how we are to consider our sister Orthodox Church, the Carpatho-Russians, as they are already united with the See of Constantinople, the see of their patrimony? Thanks a bunch, again.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joe,

St Volodymyr baptized Kyivan Rus' in 988, to be sure.

But so did his grandmother St Olha the Great before him.

And then there is St Photios of Constantinople sending missionaries to baptize Rus' under the Blessed Princes Mykola Askold and Dir.

Volodymyr's Baptism of Rus' was really the final stage of an acceptance of Orthodox Christianity that really began with the Christian colonies in the Crimea, St. Clement of Rome et al. that later intensified with Cyril and Methodius.

So Christianity wasn't non-existent throughout Kyivan Rus' in 987 and then suddenly appeared because Volodymyr told everyone to come down for a picnic on the river ...

The idea that 1988 had no meaning for Carpatho-Rusyns is therefore quite ridiculous, although I mean that in a nice way. All children of Kyivan Rus' share in the Baptism of Askold and Dir, and of St Olha and of St Volodymyr as these were state acts.

As for Constantinople, Kyivan Christians looked and still look to Constantinople as our Mother Church, the First among Equals in the East.

The fact that the Carpatho-Russians are in union with Constantinople simply affirms this historic fact.

The future canonically-recognized Patriarchate of Kyiv would also be in union with its Mother, Constantinople.

The diptychs of our united Kyivan-Ruthenian Church would commemorate Rome as the first among equals in the universal Church, Constantinople as the first among equals in the East, and Kyiv as the first among equals in the Church of Kyivan-Rus', the Church of St Volodymyr, St Olha and Bl. Askold and Dir.

The regional Churches/Rites would also continue, as they have for the last thousand years, give or take a century or two.

The suggestion that the Carpatho-Rusyn Church does not share in the tradition of Kyivan Christianity is not true, with or without St Volodymyr. The Crimean Church also has its patrimony as well which is the foundation of the Kyivan Church.

By "Kyivan" one doesn't mean "Ukrainian" and there have been and are Siberian tribes that belong to the Kyivan Church, as well as Asian Orthodox Christians.

What I have outlined is, in fact, the vision of the Kyivan Church shared by both Met. Andrew Sheptytsky and Patriarch Josef Slipyj.

While I respect your position (and love your Scriptural studies!), I respectfully defer to them .

Don't you like Chicken Kyiv?

But let's not fight about this ...

Alex

Joe . . . you are dodging the question.

I am asking you,not our Bishops.

Bishops unfortunately do more harm than good in many instances, this case being none different.

The Carpatho-Russians rescinded the union of Uzhorod/Brest/Litovsk and returned to their Mother Church. Good for them!

The Unions of our Ruthenian Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church are not one way.

It's not like the Republic of the United States!

The Carpatho-Russians could also re-return back to the Catholic Church again if they so desired. And maybe they would if they witness the burying of old prejuidices and a united Rusyn Church, with enough people and political manpower that would make it nigh impossible for the Roman Church to oppress her like she (RCC) did in the past. Which by the way, as I am sure you know, is the primary reason the Carpatho Russians left communion with Rome one hundred some odd years ago!

Tuche!

Ality

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

Alex,

Just asking for clarification. I make a wonderful Chicken Kiev.

Joe

Actually, Ss. Cyril and Methodius were under the Jurisdiction of Rome.

Ality

Ality,

So, let me get this straight. The Pope in Rome sent Latin missionaries to the Slavs, namely Cyril and Methodius, who were under the Patriarch of Kiev 100 years before Kiev was evangelized. Later, after the Great Schizoid, they became attached to the Patriarch of Constantinople where they adopted the Byzantine Rite, but later became Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite when they joined the Unia? When did they become Greek, as in Greek Catholic?

Don't you love history? I did poorly in high school. I tended to forget that history is 50% fact / 50% fiction. That was the easy part. The hard part was determining which was which.

Joe

Apparently, the saintly brothers also posed in either Latin or Byzantine vestments, depending on who was photographing them at the time. That is, if the images from Slovakia and icons from Carpathia can be equally believed.

(We know this is true also because the world in eastern Europe turned color long before it did in North America. Compare icons with the first Polaroids, for example.)

Yes, history is a wondrous thing, it's like beauty -- in the eye of the beholder.

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]