We're still here.

As an Armenian Christian I do not have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I tend to agree with ajk though. I admire most those who stuck it out.

The Ruthenian national motto.

But there were something like 300,000 of you, and now there are barely 40,000. If the loss of more than 125,000 in the 1890s, and another 50-75,000 in the 1930s, along with the concomitant bitterness and confusion of identity didn't get that rock rolling downhill, what did?

And what did Fr. Alexis accomplish for his people, his church? Russification and assimilation and the effective loss of their unique identity?

And what exactly did those who chose not to follow St Alexis accomplish? Latinization and assimilation and the loss of their Traditions.

Alexandr

I admire those who did what they believed they had to do (whether by staying or leaving).

What's the difference in the history of the OCA and ACROD? From what I remember, there is an overlap -- why the separate hierarchy? Aren't these both Ruthenian/Little Rusyns?

Alexander:

Dead on !

Seraphim

I would have to agree with my brother....

Neil

Michael,

What follows is a simplistic explanation and I may well be corrected by my ACROD brethren, particularly Father David or DMD, but it's how I see it ...

The OCA derived from the Russian Metropolia. Saint Alexis turned to the latter because it was the sole Slavic Orthodox jurisdiction with a presence in the US at the time. Thus, although the faithful who entered into it were principally Rusyn, the Church itself was Russian and the majority of its new congregants were, over time, Russified - losing much of their own historical praxis.

By the time that ACROD came into existence, those who would be its faithful were comfortable in their own culture and eager to retain it - pursuing the right to practice their faith as they had historically. But, they also believed that they could take the necessary steps to do so without needing to be part of a 'foreign' hierarchical structure. That, I'm certain, was easier to do (and probably seemed more natural) with several decades behind them as 'Americans' (unlike their counterparts of 4 decades earlier, many of whom were still, essentially, freshly emigrated). When ACROD did come into reception by the EP (a year or two after the breakaway began), it was a decidedly less controlling environment into which they entered.

Many years,

Neil

Aren't these both Ruthenian/Little Rusyns?

Ah, but has the sui iuris Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh maintained the faith that what was handed down to them?

There is a whole Forum section pertaining to the new Ruined Divine Liturgy that says it has not.

Tell me, would St Alexis or any of his parishioners feel more at home in, say, the Cathedral in Munhall, or The ROCOR Cathedral in Mayfield?

Your for-bearers would not even recognize your Calendar, much less your present services.

The New and Improved Byzantine Catholic Church has very little left in common with what the Carpatho-Russian coal miners and steel workers brought over here. Latin Rite Lite with smells and bells.

... Where will they hear, for example, Preterp'vyj?

... And I rejoice in the fact that there now exists a Carpatho-Russian Diocese[*,ajk] that has maintained Prostopenije and other distinguishing hallmarks peculiar to the Carpatho-Russians, and is shedding the remaining vestiges of the heavy foot of the Latins and is increasing in Orthopraxis every day.

St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre. I just learned of him. A former Eastern Catholic cleric who got push back from a certain Bishop John Ireland. He then became an Orthodox priest and set about to convert other Eastern Catholics.

What to make of him as a Eastern Catholic. Not to get up anyone's nose or just to foment controversy, but does he "count" as saint for Eastern Catholics?

Let's stay on target with the veneration of this saint...

Sounds like the verdict is in then on what appeared to be a question. Is this forum policy: "...the veneration of this saint..."? Disagree and "...this thread will be closed."?

Michael,

What follows is a simplistic explanation and I may well be corrected by my ACROD brethren, particularly Father David or DMD, but it's how I see it ...

The OCA derived from the Russian Metropolia. Saint Alexis turned to the latter because it was the sole Slavic Orthodox jurisdiction with a presence in the US at the time. Thus, although the faithful who entered into it were principally Rusyn, the Church itself was Russian and the majority of its new congregants were, over time, Russified - losing much of their own historical praxis.

By the time that ACROD came into existence, those who would be its faithful were comfortable in their own culture and eager to retain it - pursuing the right to practice their faith as they had historically. But, they also believed that they could take the necessary steps to do so without needing to be part of a 'foreign' hierarchical structure. That, I'm certain, was easier to do (and probably seemed more natural) with several decades behind them as 'Americans' (unlike their counterparts of 4 decades earlier, many of whom were still, essentially, freshly emigrated). When ACROD did come into reception by the EP (a year or two after the breakaway began), it was a decidedly less controlling environment into which they entered.

Many years,

Neil

That there is a sui iuris Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh proves you wrong. It has emerged -- is emerging -- from the period of Latinizations and has retained as a church its unique heritage and traditions. Does the OCA use a Ruthenian recension for the liturgy? In how many of its parishes does one hear Carpathian chant? The sui iuris Church of Pittsburgh is the (in via) triumph of distinctiveness over assimilation (attrition is a separate issue as is self-destruction).

I know of two maybe three oca parishes locally, well within an hour of me, that use prostopinije and darn good prostopinije at that, i believe archbishop job's prostopinije. Far better than what came out of pittsburgh in recent years.

Where will they hear, for example, Preterp'vyj? It sure won't be Munhall.

I think some of the latinizations that Alexandr speaks of that the coal mining rusnak immigrants would have seen in the greek catholic parishes were
no icon screens
rosaries
first communion at age 6 or so
confirmation (not sure on this)
stations of the cross
benediction of the blessed sacrament
those little holy water dishes at the entrance to the church like roman catholic's use
more latin type vestments
latin catechism
indulgences
novenas
statues in the church
julian calender
forty hours devotion
may crownings
low masses (where antiphons were skipped and readings started the liturgy)
spoken liturgies
priests wearing biretta hats
roman catholic titles for priests
confessionals
mandatory celibacy for clergy
no deacons
no readers
no subdeacons
slavonic
and then the Greek Catholic/Byzantine Catholic liturgy looks different today than it did even 5 years ago.

An interesting list, and surely no honest and knowledgeable Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic would doubt that it is historically accurate to a large degree, but certainly NOT representative of the status quo now that much has been restored. We are so very fortunate to have had a long-standing Eastern European Pontiff who "got it". Pope Benedict XVI seems equally supportive. Our hierarchs have taken full advantage of this climate and have worked to restore our traditions (admittedly, not without some controversy at times (e.g. the RDL), but nonetheless).

By observation, point by point, I offer the following based on my own witness of the Ruthenian Church in my lifetime (for reference sake, I’m in my mid 40s) ...

I have not been to a single Ruthenian church or service in the entire Metropolia without an icon screen, including most recently the very young mission parish in Knoxville, TN attended by brother. Before they had a humble temple of their own, the faithful there had gathered hours in advance of Divine Liturgy to erect a rather lovely "mobile" icon screen and other appropriate accoutrements. Also, we grew up in what started as a mission parish (circa 1969), and our church building was formerly a Roman Rite church of Spanish Mission architectural style. Although we were a poor parish at the onset, it did not take long for us to properly adorn our temple in true Byzantine style. We had at first an inherited icon screen installed in the early 70s, and labored steadily with all the rest. Every icon in that inherited icon screen was eventually replaced or restored.

Yes, rosaries continue to this day, but alongside Akathists to the Theotokos, which are very well attended in my current parish. What's wrong with praying to the Mother of God in any form or manner? I do believe she never ignores a “tearful plea” from her “faithful children”, irrespective of how that plea may be rendered. BTW – I often join the faithful at the end of the Rosary and lead in chanting “Dostojno Jest”, just to end with a Byzantine touch.

Now “First Solemn Penance”, which surely should be rendered when our children become of sufficient age to appreciate and appropriately prepare for this Sacrament.

My three children were all full invested in the church via the restored Rite and Mystery of Christian Initiation, in which they received all three so defined initiating Holy Sacraments at the same time.

I have not seen stations in our churches in over 30 years. These were promptly removed from the mission parish I attended in my youth before we began having services in the church building purchased from the nearby Latin Rite parish.

I have never seen, witnessed nor heard of the benediction being done in our churches in my entire lifetime.

I haven't seen the bowls in a long time either, but what's wrong with a little Holy Water now and then? Besides, our frequent Roman Catholic guest are disoriented enough ...

I have never seen a priest, deacon or bishop vested in anything other than vestments appropriate to our tradition, INCLUDING the many bi-ritual priests that I have met over the years that truly enjoy celebrating the Divine Liturgy in our Rite. As a matter of interest, it was a bi-ritual priest serving my former home parish who was the first in the Eparchy of Passaic after the restoration of the full rite of initiation to perform baptism by full immersion (on my niece and Goddaughter, much to the surprise of my sister-in-law).

Yes, it is true that I was schooled using the Baltimore Catechism as part of my preparation for what was then our equivalent of First Holy Communion. That said, I think I’m a better Catholic for having had that exposure. While we have used a program of Eastern Christian Formation (a joint effort of the Eastern Rite churches in America) for many years now, and I have been a Catechist for some time, I do feel that our children sometimes lack a full appreciation of some of the basics of Catholic Catechism (definition of sin, types of sin, etc.) that get drilled into our Latin Rite cousins on at least two occasions in their youth.

As for indulgences and novenas, again I’ve never been exposed to this in our church in my entire lifetime. Nor have I ever seen a statue of any kind. I have seen an increasing number of icons, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, in particular, alongside the statutes in many Roman Rite churches.

Yes, we use the Julian calendar. No, we do NOT celebrate the same cycle of feasts as in the Latin Rite.

Forty hour devotions? The only things occurring in increments of 40 in my church are forty day periods of fast and repentance, including the current Filipovka (St. Phillip’s Fast).

May crownings? Maybe a few May weddings!

Low Mass? No, our Divine Liturgy is rather "dense", and we still labor to keep it to a one hour period.

Spoken Liturgies? I have only heard of this occurring when no cantor is present, and certainly not on the Sabbath. Our priest has been having privately intentioned Liturgies during the week for awhile now, during working hours, and reports that those few in attendance have surprising participated fully by chanting to the best of their ability when no cantor is present.

Priests wearing biretta hats? Haven’t seen that, but I know Bishop John of Parma normally turns a head or two with his frequent use of “traditional headgear”!

Roman catholic titles for priests? Haven’t heard of anyone becoming a Msgr. in awhile. Archpriest? – yes. Mitred Archpriest? – yes. The restoration of these titles and usage were incorporated into the revised Particular Law for the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church in the USA, promulgated on June 29, 1999.

Haven’t been in a confessional in a very long time. In my current parish (also using a former Roman Rite church building), we store music and church supplies in the areas which once were designated as confessionals. Even though I’m a cantor and frequently visit those “closets”, I don’t think that counts!

Mandatory celibacy for clergy? Isn’t that what got us started with Latinizations in the first place? Assimilate or be terminated – sounds like a science fiction movie plot! Interestingly enough, I was raised in a parish served by a married (with children) priest. While living and working in the metro Detroit area some years back, my youngest son was initiated by a retired priest who was himself the son of a priest. That same parish was later served by a married (without children) priest. While there, Bishop John of Parma ordained a married (with grown children) deacon to the priesthood. I attended the ordination ceremony. Needless to say, his vow of chaste living was rather humorous to all, including his wife and children in attendance. Despite the very real historic controversy relating to this subject, it always amuses me personally, because I have lived with a married priesthood for a significant part of my religious life, entirely as a Byzantine Catholic.

No deacons? Readers? Subdeacons? We now have a permanent diaconate. I know of at least one ordained reader in service (who admittedly is likely to continue to study for the deaconate, and may in fact be doing so now). We also have well established diaconate formation programs.

Slavonic? I now serve as cantor with a priest who was raised Roman Catholic. He is not an “ethnic” Ruthenian. He chants some of the best OCS I’ve ever heard. We do so in our parish on select occasions and for pre-selected portions of the Sunday Divine Liturgy (with notice to the parishioners) at the request of our parish family interested in maintaining exposure to the tradition, within guidelines that ensure all can pray and chant this most significant prayers within the Liturgy (so we rarely chant the Lord's Prayer or Creed in OCS, for example). Who have been the most vocal proponents of this? Our ByzanTEEN group!

We’ve come a long way [back]!

An interesting list, and surely no honest and knowledgeable Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic would doubt that it is historically accurate to a large degree, but certainly NOT representative of the status quo now that much has been restored. We are so very fortunate...

Latin Rite Lite with smells and bells.

Yes, we use the Julian calendar. No, we do NOT celebrate the same cycle of feasts as in the Latin Rite.

...Let's stay on target with the veneration of this saint and stop the controversary about calendars and who best preserved the Ruthenian rescension and in what context.

If we can't do this, this thread will be closed.

... Your for-bearers would not even recognize your Calendar,...

...What to make of him as a Eastern Catholic.

We’ve come a long way [back]!

Yes, we have, and, I stress again, without resorting to schism.

St Alexis did not resort to schism. He returned those that were in schism to the bosom of the Church.

If you want to start a polemical thread about schism,...

My late father firmly believed that without the schisms and rebellion against the latinizing actions of Rome in the first half of the twentieth century, there would be no Ruthentian/Rusyn church in America today - either Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic...

Anybody who sees moving from Catholic to Orthodox, or from Orthodox to Catholic, as "schism" misses the point and is part of the problem.

To paraphrase Patty Crowley,

I don't think God concerns Himself with our definitions of "one or the other" though you are certainly free to do so.

That we may deny each other communion (under many but not all circumstances) for a whole history of reasons does not determine the mind of God in this matter, nor does it mine.

I do not miss your point and if I understand correctly I am a significant part of what you characterize as "the problem." ...

... He [Fr. Alexis] returned those that were in schism to the bosom of the Church.

Not my definition but the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches definitions for which, I would think, God would be concerned.

Sure, we do not "determine the mind of God" but the Church/Churches are expected to be in accord with the "mind of God" are they not? Are they? So what then is your "mind" that is not determined as stated?

...I didn't claim it was yours alone. I said that I don't think God's Truth (and His Church) are determined by the definitions of men on Earth.

I can't imagine God holding the Catholic or Orthodox Church in higher regard than the other, and to debate such things is not what He intends of us, I believe.

They certainly are expected to be, which is why one church calling the other schismatic is scandalous and counterproductive to the charge He has given us on Earth.

Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church 'subsists in the Catholic Church' (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

In an historical context, referencing the schism makes sense of course.

But I truly believe that it is not what is expected of us today in referencing our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Catholic Church that you and I both belong to recognizes the apostolic integrity of the Orthodox Church and the validity of its sacraments.

In my "mind" it is good to keep that in mind.

And yes, it should go without saying that the same applies to them.

I think they are both entirely right.

I think they are both entirely right.

Okay, go ahead and call people schismatic

and point to the Ravenna Statement when anyone objects.

I'm sure you'll make lots of Orthodox friends.

Your replies didn't address my points, which is the tone of the use of the word. My original objection wasn't even to your post, but if it's this important to you to call others schismatics, I can't stop you.

I understand Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be the One True Church. I think they're both half right.

I think we're saying the same thing, I say half right when they claim it to be theirs exclusively.

I understand and respect your point of view, albeit I disagree with you.
...

Thanks for the "go ahead" but I don't find it necessary nor have I done so that I recall. But let's not be afraid of the word for what it means. I'm a Uniate and Fr. Alexis is to me a schismatic, though it is best to avoid the terms as the intention in using them is so often misread.

It's not important to me but I'm really not bothered much by the word -- being called a schismatic.

That is why I take such great exception to the baptismal practices of some Orthodox churches in baptizing the baptized. That speaks volumes and is an insult to the person and the Church. And what then of the Orthodox who disavow the practice themselves but are in communion with those who do such a thing? To me they have de facto given an acceptance that preserves Orthodox unity but turns communion on its head. The filioque and IC and purgatory and indulgences even Pastor Aeternus; certainly mandatory celibacy, and deeds to churches and personal insults -- all those pale in significance to the affront and heterodoxy of a theology, a policy, that would baptize a Christian. Yet that is so readily overlooked.

If you are right then Christ was wrong, for then the gates of Hades have prevailed.

And most people do get that "gates of Hades" wrong, all the time. It does not mean that, at any one moment in time, that the Church of Christ (wherever it subsists)...

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments; I do want to comment more on specific points. (I would only have hoped there'd be some point where you could agree.) s'bohom! and a blessed Nativity to you and yours also. Thanks.

Deacon Anthony

But that is the point: Where do you say it "subsists"?

I think, however, that it is difficult for those of us living two generations hence to view either of us as 'schismatics' as we are what we are and,from our own point of view, what we always have been in our lives.

It subsists in all the local Churches wherein the Eucharist of the Lord is celebrated by rightly ordained bishops in succession to the Apostles.

As there is one Eucharist, all those who share that Eucharist constitute one Church.

Everything else is administration.

... Where the bishop is, there is the Ekklesia katholike. All higher structures evolved to address issues pertaining to the administration of relations among the local Churches.

Nothing is essential, not metropolia, not patriarchates,...

... not even the Papacy itself,...

... beyond the bishop celebrating the Eucharist

... in communion with other bishops.

Each local Church, in the celebration of the Eucharist, possesses the fullness of the whole Church of God (think fractals).

However, just because something is not essential does not mean its evolution over the centuries should simply be discounted.

Organic institutions are organic,...

...and like all organisms, they develop and evolve in response to real needs.

Likewise for the countless priestly 'flip-floppers' of that era who switched 'sides' as seemingly often as day turns into night - Greek Catholic one week, Orthodox the next and Greek Catholic again! Including one priest who switched, became an Orthodox priest, then Bishop and returned to die in the Catholic faith.)

Just as the 'universal' teachings of the Church of Rome are difficult for the Orthodox to fathom, the 'diversity' of practice within the Orthodox world is maddeningly frustrating for those of the Church of Rome. Our answer to many questions, such as the one you posed is often an odd sounding 'well, it depends.'

Yet we have an equally difficult time understanding Eastern Catholics who try to persuade us that they remain true to their eastern ecclesiology and doctrine in not accepting certain promulgations of the Western Church which are in conflict with those of the Orthodox while at the same time proclaiming fealty to the Pope.

Whatever ones specific view, the Papacy is undeniable based on Scripture and Tradition.

Horsepuck. There is no way you can use the Vincentian canon to arrive at the modern Papacy. Nor for a dozen other doctrines claimed by the Catholic Church to be "dogmatic". It is a lamentable tendency of the Latin Church to think of itself in universal terms despite its rather parochial outlook on life.

It is misleading to place the Papacy with the others. Whatever ones specific view, the Papacy is undeniable based on Scripture and Tradition. Interpretations differ. The Catholic Church has a well-known theological position.

But in such a way that: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." (In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.)[St. Vincent of Lerins, A.D. 434]. And that faith is the faith within us, what we do, who we are: the Eucharist is the great discriminator in ecclesiology.

Horsepuck. There is no way you can use the Vincentian canon to arrive at the modern Papacy.

...rather than as a result of any 'epiphany' regarding Western ecclesiology. However, we shall not know the answer to that prior to the final judgment.