www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News New Bishop for Czech Exarchate

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Contrary to what you state, your Metropolia is named the AMERICAN Byzantine Catholic Church and is open to all US residents who wish to join the Greek Catholic rite. I have been informed of this on several occassions by your very own members. Has this changed, and are the 'American', German, Polish, Dutch, 'Heinz 57" , and other members less part of your Metropolia (ie: second class members) ?

I'm glad to hear that all of these European eparchies have close relationships. This is a good thing because it will strengthen the Greek Catholic character of the churches. You may be surprized to find out that we are happy to hear that the generational assimmilation of Carpatho-Rusyns has ended.

The European Ukrainian Greek Catholic Clergy as well as those from around the world, do not attend the Pittsburg Metropolia's functions for the very same reasons that your hierarchs do not attend the UGCC events - because there is a conflict in jurisdiction. This of course stems from the historical developments I have mentioned above, and which all took place in Europe this past century.

There are many Carpatho-Rusyns in the Ukrainian Churches around the world, and the only place where they are separate is in the United States.

In Canada, they surrendered their Carpatho-Rusyn identity and replaced it with 'Slovak', but even there, the two churches work harmoniously and collaboratively. For example: UGCC priests regularly serve the divine liturgy in the Slovak Greek Catholic Churches when there are no Ukrainian speaking clergy. Also, the Slovak Greek Catholic hierarch attends all major UGCC events and vice versa. In fact, the current UGCC bishop of 'Toronto & Eastern Canada' was consecrated in the Slovak Greek Catholic Cathedral.

90% of the Carpatho-Rusyns can be found in the Mukachevo eparchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox -MP churches. It appears to me, that it is these Carpatho-Rusyns (who are also citizens of Ukraine) who were demonstrating during the installation of the new bishop in Prague because they did not want more of their members to transfer to the Orthodox Churches. They wanted to show that the generations of forced Magyarization / Latinization was not in their favour. Therefore, you should not be surprized that they would like one of their 'own' to be bishop of the Czech Exarchate. after all, as you have stated yourself, "the Czech Exarchate is a daughter of Mukachevo".

Hritzko

Hritzko,

"Contrary to what you state, your Metropolia is named the AMERICAN Byzantine Catholic Church and is open to all US residents who wish to join the Greek Catholic rite. I have been informed of this on several occassions by your very own members. Has this changed, and are the 'American', German, Polish, Dutch, 'Heinz 57" , and other members less part of your Metropolia (ie: second class members)?
"The European Ukrainian Greek Catholic Clergy as well as those from around the world, do not attend the Pittsburg Metropolia's functions for the very same reasons that your hierarchs do not attend the UGCC events - because there is a conflict in jurisdiction."

Well actually the name is the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh. Say that fast five time! Of course it is open to all regardless of race, which is good thing becasue I am Heniz 57 myself. I was refering to the establishment of Pittsburgh which when founded was given jurisdiction over Byzantines from Carpathia, Slovakia, Hungaria, and Croatia. Philadelphia being given jurisdiction over the Ukrainians. I am just pointing out we have historically been closer with our daughter eparchies than the Ukrainian ones.

What is the conflict of jurisdiction? I am refering to fraternal visits during major events like bishop's ordinations and funerals and eparchial anniverseries. The bishops of the European Eparchies named always attend. And to give credit where due, so do the American Ukrainian Catholic bishops as well as the US Romanian and Melkite bishops and the Canadian Slovak bishop. I also believe our bishops attended the Papal visit to Ukraine in 2001 as well as the ordination you reference. Also, Bishop John Pazak has been coming to the Uniontown Pilgrimage since he became bishop. I just see more fraternal interaction between Rusyns, Slovaks, and Hungarians, than with the Ukrainains.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

You are feeling sleeeeepy .....

10....9....

You are feeling perfectly rested ......

8.....7.....

You are perfectly comfortable .......

You see tridents and dancing cossaks......

6.....5.....

You are dreaming of Galicia and Poltava.......

4......3....

you are Ukrainian after all....

Sleeeeepy, resfullllll, dreaming......


2.....1......

You are Ukrainain, You are Ukrainian....

Now WAKE UP - POOOF !

have a good weekend.



Hritzko

Greg,

Your arrogance and sarcasm are admirable for the way they allow you to misread and/or ignore the point of a post.

Let me try again. Please unwrap the flag from your face and try to read the words:

Each of those points was intended to make you aware that statements you made about the historical lineage of the jurisdictions cited was inaccurate. The links provided offered the historical timelines of changes in the jurisdictions, supporting the points made.

Feel free to discuss the historical and political developments of the past century and the demographics of the area, but understand that when you assert as historical fact such things as what happened to the "Czech Exarchate" in 1950 and 1968 you are walking in jello. As pointed out, there was no such canonical entity as the Czech Exarchate until 1996 - the events in question relate to the Eparchy of Presov.

When you offer your opinions, analysis, etc of geopolitics, demographics, history, etc, try to separate that from basic facts - and understand that the latter don't morph to fit your preconceived ideas.

I'm glad at least that you are consistent - that you likewise can't read what Deacon Lance has clearly presented - so, I guess it isn't just me. The "American Byzantine Catholic Church"?
As Deacon Lance has patiently explained to you, the documents erecting the Byzantine Ruthenian Apostolic Exarchate in Pittsburgh specified that it was established for the pastoral care of Greek Catholics from Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary, in addition to the Carpatho-Rusyns, as opposed to that for Philadelphia, which was erected for the Ukrainians.

There are 2 canonical entities situated in Mukachevo, a Latin Diocese and a Ruthenian Eparchy - your fantasy and ultra-nationalism to the contrary, there is no Eparchy of Mukachevo of the UGCC - the fact that the UGCC lists it as such on its website, notwithstanding. Like it or not, Rome still makes the rules and it has chosen to term that See as Ruthenian.

In bothering to post the links, I violated the rule I imposed on myself, something I will make a serious effort not to do in future -

I think a bit of reality check is in order here, ALL questions of ethnicity aside regarding Mukachevo-Uzhorod. It is a much different situation than the rest of the Greek Catholic eparchies in the former Czechoslovakia.

The eparchs of Mukachevo-Uzhorod are and have been voting members of the UGCC Synod. What church does that make them realistically and practically speaking part of? Why should they not want to be part of a Patriarchal church and thus align themselves with a more traditionally Byzantine form of governance, then belong to an anomalous situation dependent on the Roman Church?

Bishops Semedi and Margitych were avowed supporters of Patriarch Josyp and the restoration of the UGCC. And from the USA, much support was garnered from the UGCC to the Eparchy of Mukachevo-Uzhorod. No one will deny that Bishop Theodore of blessed memory was a supporter of Metropolitan Sheptytsky and fully a member of his hierarchy.

Yes, we know that on paper they are a small "sui iuris" microchurch completely dependent on Rome hand and foot. No one is questioning that. The working reality in Eastern Europe is apparent from their inclusion in the list of UGCC eparchies, their inclusion in the UGCC clergy directory, none of which has drawn any critical ire from either Rome nor Mukachevo nor Presov or anywhere else. Period.

I have known at least six priests that I definitely remember, a few more possible that are fuzzier now, from that Eparchy working in the US and Canada over the last 20 or so years.

Without exception, ALL of them identified themselves as UGCC. I did not probe into deeper ethnic or racial identity. And without exception, ALL of them were or are working with UGCC eparchies in the US. Several are being trained now at UGCC seminaries in Ukraine and Rome. Several seminarians in recent history have studied while being sponsored by American UGCC eparchies.

The Studites, Redemptorists, and Basilians all have houses in that Eparchy which are subject to provincials or protohegumens in L'viv.

Why the tension over being under a Kyivan Patriarchate? There is nothing wrong with ethnic or liturgical diversity amongst members of a Patriarchal church. Look at the variety of ethnicities and liturgical usages amongst the various churches presently under the Ecumenical Patriarchate - Greek, Ukrainian, etc. Likewise under a Kyivan Patriarchate there could be room for whatever ethnic or liturgical diversity as does exist amongst the "Ruthenians".

Dear Neil,

Again, contrary to what you state, your marathon post fails to bring any new information to the discussion which can provide a historical / political perspective to the dynamics surrounding the Greek Catholic Church. I'm sorry you feel that this is arrogance on my part.

The jurisdictions you have mentioned in your numerous (and which can be found on almost any Catholic Web site) posts are nothing more than artificial entities created by various empires / kingdoms over time without the consent or input of the Carpatho-Ruthenian people.

These jurisdictions were meant to keep the Carpatho-Rusyns from uniting into one group through which they could have become a self-determining peoples. I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep repeating these sad tales .

You fail to address (ignore) the fact that the bishops of Presov (Czechoslovakia, then Carpatho-Ukraine, then Communist Czechoslovakia, now Slovakia), and Mukachevo (Slovakia, then Carpatho-Ukraine, then Soviet Union, and now Ukraine) had declared themselves and their church to be be part of the Carpatho-Ukrainian nation. This was the first time the Carpatho-Ruthenians had taken a bold step of self determination for their church.

You also seem to fail to aknowledge the historical fact that the apostolic successors of these bishops were denied their legitimate seats in 1968, or maybe you just keep forgetting or perhaps you feel that there was no harm in breaking the lineage from the original Uzhorod Unia.

You are correct in stating that Prague did not become an Exarchate until 1996. I have never stated that this was not the case. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from. Perhaps when refering Prague I should instead call it "What is now the Czech Exarchate". You can see how this becomes a bit as you say: 'Jello-eee'.

Perhaps you should tell Fr Deacon Lance that he should not refer to Prague as a "the historical daughter of Mukachevo" as he does (see a few posts above). Instead you should inform him that it should be "What is now the Czech Exarchate" - or maybe you just forgot .

In any event, there are some very real issue which I have discussed on this thread and which are not found on the Catholic information web sites.

Clearly my views relating to the churches are different as compared to those of Fr Deacon Lance's, BUT we are having a discussion. Contrary to what you may think, he and I have much more in common and are working toward the same goal; uniting all of the Carpatho-Rusyn apostolic Churches. He is clearly a kind, gentle, and intelligent person from whom I can learn. We have a real dialogue which is never a bad thing.

Hritzko

Dear Hritzko,

You are feeling sleeeeepy .....

10....9....

You are feeling perfectly rested ......

8.....7.....

You are perfectly comfortable .......

You see tridents and dancing cossaks......

6.....5.....

You are dreaming of the Russian cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev and Lvov.......

4......3....

you are Russian after all....

Sleeeeepy, resfullllll, dreaming......


2.....1......

You are Russian, You are Russian....

Now WAKE UP - POOOF !

You are still Russian.

Have a good weekend. :p

Dear Fr. Al,

Your assesment of the influence of neighboring countries on languages is IMHO, very accurate. In many ways Subcarpathian Rus is very much a borderland, perhaps even more so than the other one .

Hritzko

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

If the Carpatho-Rusyns ever wish to be a united people, they must come to terms with not just the largely assimmilated Hungarian and Slovak segments of their people, but with the much larger group which today identifies itself as Ukrainian and Carpatho-'Russian'.

In many ways your feelings although valid, represent the MINORITY of Carpatho-Rusyns, and the most Latinized Orthodox Christians.

This is the point of my argument.

Even in the United States, unless I'm mistaken, it appears to me that the American Byzantine Catholic church is almost completely estranged from it's sister church the ACROD. Now compare this with the current relationship of the UGCC and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church KP which were in many ways also estranged over the generations (just ask any Ukie ).

The choice of a bishop for the Czech Exarchate should reflect a progressive agenda which seeks to unite the Carpatho-Rusyns into one Orthodox church in communion with Rome.

The Prague Exarchate problem is between 'Hungarian / Slovak' and 'Ukrainian' orientated Carpatho-Rusyns.

Do you speak Rusyn (Ukrainian) ?

Hritzko

Hritzko,

No, unfortunately I can not speak Rusyn or any other Slavic language.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Your first conclusion is totally specious. The support of the bishops of Presov and Mukachevo for state of Carpatho-Ukraine, did not incorporate them or their flock into Ukraine legally, canonically, and in any way at whatsoever. Bishops in these sees are not bishops of the UGCC - whaterver the fraternal relations. The Czech Exarchate isn't part of the UGCC either. The UGCC Synod thus has no business whatsoever in naming a bishop to the Czech exarchate. The mob action associated with this canonical over-reaching was chilling. If Ukrainians in the Czech republic insist on a Ukrainian bishop exarchate and bishop, then seek one from Rome and leave us alone. The mob action and unapologetic support of it raise great barriers between UGCC and Mukachevo and its daughters.

You repeat the assertion that the bishop is a Hungarian-Slovak. Thus, rather than adressing my question you simply re-assert the charge. Please give specific accounts of pro-Hungarian activites, or stop making the claim.

I don't know the demographics of the Czech exarchate. How many Greek Catholics there are from Hungary, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and (when the moved), versus how many from Galicia and other parts of the Ukraine. I believe that the missions there were started primarily for people from Slovakia (Bl. Bishop Hopko IIRC being a major figure in this activity). It would really be important to understand these demographics and the history of the exachate before staking out what makes "sense".
The point is that this man is one of us, from a family who has been among us, and has served our people. I am comforatable in his shepherding of our people. My comfort level is somewhat less for outsiders from across the mountains.

You have made yourself clear that you feel such an attitude is not justifiable. Nevertheless, it is an attitude, and, IMO, a prevailing one. Your attacking this view is unlikely to be convincing to anyone; it is just likely to raise suspicion and aggravate the problem.

PS
I surfed around a bit and have found that in th eUS your behavior would mostly be a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Dear DJS,

The Czechoslovak government statistics for the 1930's estimates the combined Ruthenian / Ukrainian population to equal about 6% of the total. The double label is that of the Czechoslovak government which did not distinguish between the two. From my understanding of the article in the Czech press, they still seem to consider them as one people.

During the 1930's, there were strong coercive Slovakizing / Latinizing influences on the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia.

Contrary to the path taken by the USA Greek Catholic Ruthenians, those in Czechoslovakia were converging towards the larger Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to help preserve their unique identity. They were in constant communication and seeking help from the larger Greek Catholic Church "over the mountains".

The declaration of a Carpatho-Ukrainian state by a democratic peoples government in 1939 was fully supported by the bishops of Presov (then Slovakia and now Slovakia) and Mukachevo (then Slovakia and now Ukraine). Clearly there was strong popular and Greek Catholic episcopal support for this event of self determination of the Carpatho-Ruthenian people. The fact that the first president Avgustin Voloshyn of the short lived Carpatho Ukrainian Republic was a monsignor in the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church gives added credibility to the event which clearly supported a orientation towards the larger Ukrainian Church.

The Hungarians invaded the independant Carpatho-Ukrainians (Rusyns) and brutally put down the new republic. It seems that they had returned the Rusyn colony to the fold first chance they got.

In 1950, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic church was surpressed and whent into the catacombs both in both Czechoslovakia and Soviet Ukraine. In Czechoslovakia in 1968 the church came out of the catacombs only to have their LEGITIMATE APOSTOLIC BISHOPS denied their episcopal seats by the MOB actions of the Slovak Roman Catholic Church which selected new bishops for the Greek Catholics in the 'truncated' Republic.

These new noncanonical bishops Slovakized / Latinized the church to the point that only 17,000 in Slovakia today can speak the Rusyn, while another 14,000 speak Ukrainian. Clearly the non cononical MOB actions of the larger Slovak Roman Catholic Church are responsible to day for the near cultural genocide of the Rusyn peoples in Slovakia.

As farther deacon Lance stated, Prague is a daughter of Mukachevo and is tied in many ways to that eparchy and to it's historical evolution, including the declaration of a Carpatho-Ukrainian State. This 'Carpatho-Ukrainian' ethos remained with many of the adherants throughout the darkest days of Communism, Latinization, and Slovakization and is now surfacing in the newly established Czech Exarchate.

Rest assured that the majority of the church adherants in Prague are not from Yugoslavia, Galicia, or oven Hungary. The adherants who live there are from the former eastern lands of interwar Czechoslovak Republic (ie: Presov and Mukachevo eparchies). Just as many of them had abandoned the Russian Orthodox Church the moment they were able to, many are now seeking a re-orientation of the church with the larger Patriarchal (to be) UGCC. The people demonstrating in Prague are Carpatho-Rusyns from the Mukachevo (Ukraine) and Presov (Slovakia) Eparchies. In a nutshell, they are seeking a return to the days of Avgustin Voloshyn, and they are attempting to overturn the generations of MOB rule by the larger Slovak Roman Catholic Church which has nearly completely assimmilated them.

Although I offered my opinion which is 'that perhaps due to the exceptional historical political circumstances of this past century, perhaps the UGCC synod (Mukachevo Eparchy included) should participate in the selection process'. You seem to be offended because I'm not a member of that Czech Exarchate. Seems to me that neither are you. So even if I never rose beyond the rank of alter boy in my UGCC parish, and even if you were the Metropolitan of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church USA, neither one of our opinions would be more valid. They are just that - opinions with no validity on the the Czech Greek Catholic Exarchate because we are both members of sui juris churches which DO NOT INCLUDE THE EXARCHATE.

I believe you when you state that you feel that the bishop is a good candidate. Why should I not. It appears that there are many Greek Catholic adherants in the Czech Exarchate who do not agree with your assesment. Just as the bishop is "one of you" so are the people demonstranting. It seems that there are some people who don't want him. The UGCC has picked bad candidates in the past: the U.K, Toronto, and now Buchach (Ukraine). I could be wrong, but it seems there was an eparch in the US Byzantine Catholic Metropolia who was 'gently pushed out'.

If it is a felony in the US to block the ordination of a new bishop who is the successor to many who have done nothing but Latinize the Greek Catholics, then so be it. There are worse things in life. Again, when you are down to 58 baptisms per 9,000 adherants, radical measures just seems to be the only solution.

Hritzko

A grandaughter really, from the daughter Presov.

This conclusion is stated far more forcefully than "perhaps ... perhaps". If you simply mean it is an idea with some merit - apart from the historical stretch - I don't disagree. If you mean it is a logical conclusion about the way things ought to be, then I don't agree. It is not for the UGCC to advance a claim here, and I would certainly agree that it is not the place of the BC of America appoint bishops for Prague. I suggested no such thing of course.

I don't know who's who in the debate in Prague. But whoever engaged in pre-judgment (still nothing on pro-Hungarian actions?) of their Bishop with such an ill-mannered response probably did not help their cause.

Dear DJS,

The monumental declaration of independance of the Carpatho-Ruthenian people in 1939 with the full support of the minority Christian Church (Ruthenian Greek Catholic), and the 'passive / tacit' approval of the MAJORITY (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church) was more than "a stretch". It was the first time the Carpatho-Ruthenians became a nation free of occupying regimes / kingdoms.

Even the official Slovak Greek Catholic web site mentions the national liberation movement of the Ruthenians during during the 1930's. How could it ignore these events which were so integral to the self determination of the Ruthenians / Ukrainians and their Orthodox / Byzantine Apostolic churches in the Carpathian mountains.

It is time that the USA Byzantine Catholic Metropolia began to debrief it's slavic members on the comparative evolution of their church and the one their ancestors left behind. Gone should be the endless tales of "boogieman Greek Catholic Ukrainians" and in should be some balanced with a fair analysis of history which would clearly show divergent paths of evolution.

If the Official Slovak Greek Catholic web site finds it worthy of mention, perhaps, it is time for many of the Pittburg Metropolia adherants to face up to reality and stop with the endless anti-Ukrainian propaganda which is clearly intended to inflame its' members. Is not "truth" a Christian ideal ? Your positioning statement can't be "we are not Ukrainian and everything about Ukrainians is bad" if the majority of your European ancestors freely developed a closer relationship with the Greek Catholic Ukrainians.

Instead of making inflamatory statements such as "Ukrainians block entrance of Carpatho-Rusyn bishop to be consecration", perhaps a more realistic one would be: "Ukrainian oriented Carpatho-Rusyns take desparate steps to block generations of the Latinization of their Greek Catholic faith by demanding a new bishop who better reflects their cultural heritage, religious / rite customs, and is sensitive to their historic development". Granted the sentence would be hard to fit into the headline of a newspaper, but I think that you get the picture.

With the dire situation as it is, and the past history of severe Magyarization I do not think that it is the duty of the adherants to prove that the new Rusysn bishop is not Hungarian-Slovak oriented. It is the duty of the synod to find a bishop who meets the needs of the adherants (ie: that the bishop be Rusyn / Ruthenian / Ukrainian oriented). If there is not a good solid history of events, publications, and other notable deeds relating to the bishop's life, then there is no reason to promote him to the episcopal rank. I'm not sure who recommended him, but it seems that his adherants do not think that he has the 'right stuff'. They want to break with the bleak past.

In a past post you mentioned that you were a "Uhro oriented Rusyn" (Hungarian / Magyar Empire orientation). Clearly you would not see what the problem is because you would only be blinded by anything 'Ukrainian' as being the problem (due to your Uhro- orientation). When in fact, even the official European Slovak Greek Catholic Web sites discusses at length the negative historic problems of Magyarization of the Rusyns. There is no such negativity in relation to the larger Carpatho Rusyn / Ukrainian, or even Galician Ukrainian groups.

THERE IS NO MORE TIME FOR EXPERIMENTS.

In the old days we waited a generation before the Church removed a bad bishop (U.K.), because it was "not proper to protest", after all the "Holy Father appointed him". Then when we got bad apples (Toronto & Buchach - Ukr) and people put up with their antics, for a while. We ended up using 'tons' of time trying to get rid of them because they were counterproductive. Now in Prague, it seems that the Greek Catholic Rusyns just won't let it happen - at all. Life is too short and time too precious. These protests are 'bottom-up' generated and come from peoples who have learned the hard way that changes only come if you help yourself. Believe me when when I tell you that our bishops do not like 'noise'. But sometimes 'noise' is just what they get.

I think that it is time for the USA Byzantine Catholic Metropolia to begin a process of reconcilliation with it's sister Ruthenian Churches (ie: UGCC, ACROD, etc..) or else continue painting itself into an ever smaller corner with a result of not being able to move at all. Please read my last memo to Fr. Deacon Lance. It would be the sign of mature church to begin the process and a.s.a.p.

Hritzko

The question is: which statement is closer to the truth? Since neither you nor I know the answer to this, and others who might aren't posting on the thread, we cannot say.

We can say, however, that our "cultural heritage, religious / rite customs, and ... historic development" doesn't is centered in Mukachevo and Presov, not L'viv and not the UGCC; accordingly the idea that UGCC "should" appoint the bishop is unsupported.

And the idea that the Bishop is guilty until proven innocent is baloney.

I don't recall the statement or its context; probably just meant that it's easier to retain one's particular identity in decidely alien Magyar
environment. I don't see things Ukrainian as problems at all; I just don't see them as "ours" and don't like it when they negate the particularity of our church and culture by assuming us to be them - as much as I am sure that is meant in kindeness and honor.

Reconciliation? When were we not conciliatory?