The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Annlouise, Taylor, Randy Danielson, TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy
5,770 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 48 guests, and 33 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,056
Posts414,079
Members5,770
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#1257 04/16/02 10:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Does anybody have the entire, original document of the Union of Uhzhorod?

I have been unsuccesful in locating it on the internet.

Also, after posting this, I thought maybe the Byzantine Forum could establish another Topic category, entitled: HISTORY. This category could be for posts and discussions about topics of a historical nature,i.e. Union of Uhzhorod, Brest, and other significant periods of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox history. As a Ukrainian Catholic, I am very aware that many of our people know very little about the Union of Brest, or the role of the Jesuits in the reform of the Basilian order, etc. If we don't know where we came from, how can we figure out where we are, and will be going?

Any takers?

Christ is Risen!
ALity

#1258 04/16/02 11:30 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 113
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 113
Christos Voskryesye!

Dear Ality,

I believe that the terms of the Union of Uzhorod are identical to the provisions of the Union of Brest. The Church authorities considered it an extension of the Union of Brest. They did not draw up a second document identical to the 1596 agreement. Several of the monks from St. Nicholas Monastery and the monastery at Krasny Brod had spent time in the Kyiv Metropolia. They wanted to observe the results of the union for themselves. It was these monks who made the priests, monks and people of the Mukachevo Eparchy familiar with terms of the Union of Brest.

Presviataya Bogoroditza Fatimskaya, spasi nas.
RusOrthCath martyrs and confessors, pray for us.


Holy Russian Orthodox-Catholic martyrs and confessors, pray to God for us.
#1259 04/17/02 01:00 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Christ is Risen!

Thank you -

I wanted to know if there is any document at all. I am aware that the union of Uzhorod was an extension of the Union of Brest, however I want to know if there is A document because I am interested in reading it.

The reason is to explore the nature and/or genesis of the relationship of the two Ruthenian Churches known today as the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Byzantine Catholic Church. I want to see if such a document can help start a movement to unite, or reunite the two churhces in question.

Any help would be appreciated -


In Christ,
Ality

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

#1260 04/18/02 05:50 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Ality,

A noble cause, to be sure!

As you know, Patriarch Josef was interested in this as well since he included the bracketed term (Greco-Ruthenian) in the official title of the Particular Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Of course, "Ruthenian" is simply the Latin phraseology for "Rus'" and this term was used by the Popes historically to address the Ukrainian people as well.

One problem in terms of reunification, as you say, is the cultural factor.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church in North America especially is largely heavily ethnocentric on the Ukrainian cultural (and national) identity.

This was actually less of a problem when we all used Church Slavonic in the liturgy.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Kyiv, although not recognized, is doing a much better job at establishing a "Catholic" identity and mission.

You will find Churches of this group in Kazakhstan, Siberia and three Greek Archbishops have joined with the Kyivan Patriarch, along with the "True Orthodox Church" based in Siberia and one other Russian Orthodox breakaway church I believe.

And besides, if the Ruthenians joined with the Ukrainian Catholic Church I'd hate to think of the logistical problems the Administrator would face in having to create a Ukrainian-language Forum smile .

Alex

#1261 04/18/02 11:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Until the death of Bishop Soter Ortynsky in 1916, both the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic jurisdictions in the United States were actually united under a single bishop. At that time Rome appointed Petro Poniatyshyn as Apostolic Admininstrator for the Ukrainian Galicians and Vasyl Martyak for the Rusyns and Magyars.

Later in 1924 Konstantin Bohachevsky was appointed Eparch of Philadelphia for the Ukrainian Galicians (which became known as the Ukrainian Catholic Church) and Vasyl Takach for the Magyars and Rusyns which became known as the Ruthenian or Byzantine Catholic Church in America.

With the clergy shortage and other issues it probably would not be a bad idea to reconsider the issue of reunification since many of the ethnic tensions which created the separation of the two jurisdictions in the U.S. have subsided over the generations. Everyone after the second generation is most likely using English as their first language. We should remember that in the U.S. both jurusdictions started out together.

Also with the Pittsburgh Metropolia essentially a semi-autonomous metropolia sui juris a reunification with the Ukrainian hierarchy would also mean a reconnection with a church of Patriarchal status, (which is also planning to return to Kyiv - dyakuemo Bozhe) which offers much more autonomy, resources, and assurance in preservation of its heritage and traditions surrounded by a Roman Catholic majority.

In Canada the "Slovak" Eparchy, while serving its own parishes, is part of the Ukrainian Catholic Church sui juris and this arrangement seems to work fine. It seems that it would be much cheaper to keep one seminary open and fluorishing than two that are less than half full. Just some humble ramblings.
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

#1262 04/19/02 03:20 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 287
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 287
Quote
Originally posted by Diak:
At that time Rome appointed Petro Poniatyshyn as Apostolic Admininstrator for the Ukrainian Galicians and Vasyl Martyak for the Rusyns and Magyars.


Gabriel Martyak. He also was given jurisdiction over Greek Catholics from Croatia (Croats and others).

Quote
In Canada the "Slovak" Eparchy, while serving its own parishes, is part of the Ukrainian Catholic Church sui juris and this arrangement seems to work fine.


Annuario Pontificio published by the Vatican lists the Eparchy of Sts. Cyril & Methodius for Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite (in Toronto) as part of the Slovak Catholic Church sui iuris which includes the Eparchy of Presov and the Exarchate of Kosice.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

#1263 04/19/02 03:38 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
The whole point is that we can choose to be seperate churches, with a membership of 200,000 for Slovaks, Ukrainians(Rusyns), Ruthenians(Rusyns), Belrusyns, Russians; each have metropolias with three or four bishops and be run by Rome, or we could all unite under a Patriarch in Kyiv which would be Byzantine and like all be connected to a large synod with the power to do real action in the world.

We are weakened by exploiting differences that are real, but differences which are not crucial to what it means to be a Byzantine Slav Christian.

Imagine our bishops being picked by a Byzantine Synod and Patriarch who has the interest and health of our churches in mind.

I do not think that the Roman Catholic Church wants to destroy us, but I don't think they really care whether we survive.

Has it been two years since there has been a Ruthenian(Rusyn) Metropolitan in Pittsburgh?

Over one and a half years since we had a Bishop in Chicago. . . .

In Christ,
ALITY

#1264 04/19/02 04:00 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Ality: {Over one and a half years since we had a Bishop in Chicago. . . .}

There are 2 finalists in the selection process.
-ukrainiancatholic

#1265 04/19/02 04:01 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 287
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 287
Quote
Originally posted by Ality:
The whole point is that we can choose to be seperate churches, with a membership of 200,000 for Slovaks, Ukrainians(Rusyns), Ruthenians(Rusyns), Belrusyns, Russians; each have metropolias with three or four bishops and be run by Rome, or we could all unite under a Patriarch in Kyiv which would be Byzantine and like all be connected to a large synod with the power to do real action in the world.


One problem is that Bishops Hirka, Schott, Pazak, Skurla, and Keresztes (are Magyars welcome in this Patriarchate too?) would have to learn Ukrainian to participate. (For reason of sheer numbers alone.) Unless the combined resources would allow for simultaneous translation of everything into Slovak, English, and Hungarian.

Quote
Has it been two years since there has been a Ruthenian(Rusyn) Metropolitan in Pittsburgh?


Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way, but the see of Pittsburgh has been vacant for just one year.

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

#1266 04/19/02 06:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
FAW Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 268
Quote
One problem is that Bishops Hirka, Schott, Pazak, Skurla, and Keresztes (are Magyars welcome in this Patriarchate too?) would have to learn Ukrainian to participate. (For reason of sheer numbers alone.) Unless the combined resources would allow for simultaneous translation of everything into Slovak, English, and Hungarian.




Well, how do they do it at the Vatican?
Perhaps headphones with translators, like in the UN?

Or, we could make Old Slovanic the language of the synod and Modern Church documents.
This might be a real good way to unite all the Byzantine/Slovanic churches of Europe and the Diaspora together.

In fact, I kind of like this idea alot! wink

Rich, everyone is welcome in this Patriarchate. At least when I speak, please disassociate the Church of Kyiv/Kyivan Church with a nationalistic "Ukrainian" Church. I do not mean a Ukrainian Church. I mean a pan-Byzantine Slavic Church that is worldwide with her head in the FOURTH ROME! Why stop at just three, ehh?

I know, I must be crazy! biggrin

Christ is Risen!
ALity

#1267 04/19/02 08:57 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
That's the problem, if all of the heirs of the South-West Rus' recension of the Constantinopolitan Church would have kept Church Slavonic as it's universal liturgical language, there wouldn't be so many artifical divisions and a possible South-West Rus' recension Patriarchate would be possible. But "too much politics" has entered these seperated churches and that is why there are problems in thinking they now can all be united!

X.B.!, B.B.!

Ung-Certez frown

#1268 04/19/02 01:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Friends,

Certainly, the discarding of the Old Slavonic in the Ukrainian Catholic Church caused problems as has been noted.

But the Kyivan Patriarchate today is operating as a multilingual Patriarchate world-wide.

Ukrainian and Church Slavonic are used, but so is Greek, English and other languages in the celebration of the liturgy.

It would really be unavoidable not to have the ethnic and national component in the Kyivan Patriarchate, just as it is unavoidable in the Russian and other Churches.

(In Russia, true to colonial style, "universalism" is the ideal with Russian language and culture at the universal centre.)

But historically other Churches have been part of the Kyivan Church, maintained their own language, culture and traditions and even national episcopate.

This is a most important consideration and I wish theology students and religious people would take anthropology, sociology, psychology and political science more seriously, if they have taken these at all.

I've always wanted to teach social science at a seminary you know and that's why I raise this smile .

Alex

#1269 04/20/02 02:05 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
D
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,680
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Friends,

Certainly, the discarding of the Old Slavonic in the Ukrainian Catholic Church caused problems as has been noted.

But the Kyivan Patriarchate today is operating as a multilingual Patriarchate world-wide.

Ukrainian and Church Slavonic are used, but so is Greek, English and other languages in the celebration of the liturgy.

Alex



And let's not forget Spanish which is used in the Iglesia Ucrania de la patria Argentina
biggrin .

#1270 04/20/02 02:47 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 69
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 69
Don't you folks up at St. Stephen's know that the seminary will be starting a pastoral Spanish program in a couple of years?

Perhaps at Bishop William's ordination and enthronement, we could sing "So Great the Glory" en espanol. ;&gt wink

Yours in the Theotokos,

Darrenn

#1271 04/20/02 03:01 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 368
Why would the Ukrainians want to join with the Ruthenians anyway? Both cultures have developed into seperate entities and therefore need seperate Church administrations to deal with them.

If they were united then it would only do more harm then good because, IMHO, something very generic and in poor taste would result. A sort of Frankenstien Eastern rite Church which, like that noted character, would self destructe eventualy in a quest for its won identity.

Why would the various rites need to become administrativly one anyway? The only reason that they exist in the west is so that they may administer to their own flocks, not to set up a rival Catholic Church to steal souls away from the Latin rite. This is, after all, Latin territiory by right of evangelization. WE have no right to act as anything more then shepherds to our own flocks.

Imagine the chaos and the uproar that would occur if a Roman rite Church in a particular Eastern rite territiory would try to muscle in on the uniate fold? Would that be fair to us? No, and we wouldnt like it either. So why treat the Latin rite in such an un dignified manner?

Believe me, Rome has done more for the Eastrn Rites then they can ever thank her for. She does care about our survival and flourishing. WE are an important componant in bringing home the Orthodox comunion to the Holy See. Rome has never abandoned us and we should never think of leaving her.

Robert K.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5