Glory to Jesus Christ! I am curious about the identity of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Is that Church to be considered Ruthenian ("Carpato-Rusyn") in fact? How much from that previous ethnic identity has been preserved till nowadays? Are languages other than English in use at celebrations, sermons & other events? Peter

[This message has been edited by Piotr Siwicki (edited 05-20-99).]

This is a sensitive issue on many fronts. Service language is the most safe to answer. The principal parish Liturgy is in English nowadays. Many parishes have an early Liturgy in the old language.

Almost all of our parishes were founded by persons with a Ruthenian ethnic identity (some Slovak or Hungarian). The peak period of immigration was 1900 - 1930, so their decedents are now 2nd or 3rd generation and may have intermarried and assimilated. Of course, the situation in Europe has changed. Canada, which had a later immigration than the US, has a Slovak Eparchy with most immigrants from what is now Transcarpathian Ukrainian belonging to the Ukrainian Church.
Some US parishes now describe themselves as a generic "Slavic" parish.

The under 40 generation seems to have more people of partial Ruthenian heritage than full. Many parishes have a significant minority of non-Ruthenians. However, these tend to be 1) other eastern Catholics to whom no church of their own is available, or 2) "converts", who are a more recent phenomenon and have a much lower fecundity level than Slavs, therefore non-Slavs raised in the Byzantine Church is still a mostly non-existent community. In fact I've never met one (Anyone on this Board raised by parents who were Byzantine Catholic but not Slavic or Hungarian?).

Dear Friends,
Christ is among us!
As a Byzantine Catholic priest of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I believe that it is very unwise for our Province to use ANY ethnic designation. We should also direct the congregations in Rome and elsewhere to address us as most of us prefer to be addressed; as the Byzantine Catholic Church in America.
A simple look at many of our churches would certainly lead one to the conclusion that the ethnic designation of "Ruthenian" or "Carpatho-Rusyn" does not really apply. My research points that most descendents of "Ruthenians" that are still in communion with Rome have joined the Roman Church. Laziness, sloth, assimilation, whatever you want to call it their sin of departure is still the same. But the truth is that in most of our parishes the majority of the faithful do not see themselves as "Ruthenians" or "Carpatho-Rusyns" and the sooner we recognize that fact and the fact that we are called upon to evangelize America the better off we all will be.
Just in case you are wondering, I am of half Slavic background, but not Rusyn.
May God show us that we are a Church called to bring the full Truth of Byzantine Christianity to America, not an ethnic social club.

Thanks a lot for the replies. I am afraid a misunderstanding arose among us. I had no wish to "accuse" the BCCA in "ethnic treason", "denationalization" nor anything else. I simply would love to know how much from the previous identity has been preserved. For example, are languages OTHER THAN ENGLISH in use in any parish? Is there in Pittsburg Metropolitanate a place where Divine Liturgy is being celebrated in Old Slavonic? Sincerely in Christ, Peter

[This message has been edited by Piotr Siwicki (edited 05-21-99).]

>>>The under 40 generation seems to have more people of partial Ruthenian

heritage than full. Many parishes have a significant minority of

non-Ruthenians. However, these tend to be 1) other eastern Catholics to

whom no church of their own is available, or 2) "converts", who are a

more recent phenomenon and have a much lower fecundity level than Slavs,

therefore non-Slavs raised in the Byzantine Church is still a mostly

non-existent community. In fact I've never met one (Anyone on this Board

raised by parents who were Byzantine Catholic but not Slavic or

Hungarian?). <<<



Once one gets outside of the Old Country (meaning, of course, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey), one finds parishes that are increasingly de-ethnicized. In the South, and in the Southwest, the Byzantine Catholic Church is increasingly attracting people with no prior attachment either to Eastern Christianity or the Slavic people. Many are, of course, Roman Catholics, some of whom have what I call "refugee" status--but other RCs succumb to the beauty of the Liturgy and its underlying theology and spirituality, and "go native". There are even a few people who are converts from Protestantism, and a couple of rare birds like me and my family, who were baptized as Byzantine Catholics without any intermediate stops.



As to second-generation non-Slavic Byzantine Catholics, I can attest that there are quite a few. The reason you don't see or hear them is that the Byzantine Catholic Church only recently recovered it evangelical vision and began reaching out beyond the etnic community. So these second-generation non-Slavs are, at best, teenagers right now. But give them some time--many are among the most thoroughly "Eastern" and enthusiastic members of our parishes. In a few years, they will begin to enter leadership roles in our communities. In a decade, they will comprise a significant number of our priests

Hello Piotr To answer your question

Yes ther are a couple of Parish's in
Western Pa. that still use Old church Slavonic. Usually a earlier Liturgy is set
for this but even so atleast some of it is in
English. A few of the Johnstown Diocese
parish's have Slavonic Liturgies. But all this is done for tradition for the old timers. Who
knows this language anymore? My Great
Grandparents came from Ruthenia and they were interested in fitting in. My Grandparents had to be "Americanised"
so nothing was really passed on except
we eat Holupkis and Pirohis at holidays.
The churches in America with full Church Slavonic are those that are under the Russian Orthodox church in Exile from
Jordanville N.Y. Who are pro Czarist
aristocratic Russians for the most part.

I hope this answers your question somewhat.

ps no offense to R.O.C.O.R.

This is a very interesting question, and one that has come up here in my experience just recently. I never knew that names could be such sensitive topics!

I understand, but cannot really subscribe to this argument that 'we are not Rusyns', and so should change the name of our Church. Many other Churches could make this observation too. How many Romans actually belong to the Roman Catholic Church? Very few people would call themselves 'Romans' who would say they were members of this Church.
The forbears of these 'Rusyns' would have called themselves Greek Catholics, though they had no 'Greek' identity at all and would not have called themselves Greeks. Clearly they accepted a distinction in the title between ethnic origin, and ecclesial identity.

Now in America, some of their descendents have exchanged the title 'Greek' for 'Byzantine', but are they citizens of the city of Byzantium? Of course not.

I suspect it is an unpopular sentiment I wish to express, but doesn't it seem a little 'politically correct' to change a name or title when it becomes tainted or when it is used pejoritavely, only to have the new name become tainted with meaning in time? (There are too many examples of this in modern American language to need to identify even one.) If that is the case, then a glace at the meanings of 'Byzantine' in a dictionary will make it a curious title to put in the name of a Church, if one were looking for a more benign title.

Christianized Byzantium was named Constantinople, was it not? Wouldn't 'Constantinopolitan' have been a more suitable name than pagan Byzantium?

Of course the Byzantine Church has every right to call itself whatever it wishes. But if they were looking to 'de-nationalize' their title, why did they simply choose another long dead nation or tribe (especially a pagan one) to call their own?

Forgive me if I have offended anyone, and I especially apologize to all Byzantine Catholics. But I simply do not understand why this title is superior and to be prefered to Greek Catholic. I accept it as different, but not better.

If I have missed the point, I am ready to be corrected.

A humble observation...

John

I would like to offer one point of clarification to this discussion.

The descriptor "Ruthenian" as used in Roman documents to describe the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Munhall is NOT the same as the ethnic adjective "Rusyn," although they share a common
etymological root.

Many of the inhabitnts of medieval Kievan Rus' came to call themselves "Children of Rus'" or "Rusyni." The Greek speaking inhabitants of the Byzantine empire heard this as "Ruthenoi," or at least they transliterated it into late Byzantine Greek that way, from which it made its way into Latin as "Rutheni."

The development of ethnic identities is a much later historical phenomenon. Prof. Magosci's magisterial work on _The Shaping of a National Identity_ offers more detail on this than most of us can assimilate!
In the current context, especially telling is the situation he describes there (which I have since encountered in my own experience) of people coming from the same village, or even from the same biological family, who ended up describing themselves with different ethnic adjectives.

From its very origins, the "Ruthenian" diocese(s) were "multi-ethnic" in the sense that Rusyn, Hungarian, Croatian, and Slovak ethnic "nationalities" were included. In practice this was something of a "garbage can" category, along the lines of "any Greek Catholics who don't call themselves Ukrainian become Ruthenian."

There are strengths and weaknesses with any organizational model. While there can be no doubt that many parishes within the Ruthenian Metropolia were strong centers of Rusyn identity, the larger Diocesan experience was always multi-ethnic. One of the major tensions in the first decades of this century was the Magyar/Hungarian minorities influence over the Rusyn majority.

To respond to Piotr's original inquiry, I know that there were parishes whose "Liturgical Language" was Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, or Ukrainian, in addition to the predominant Old Slavonik. I d on't have a good sense of how much any of these languages is used ona regular basis today.

Phil Yevics

Glory Be to Jesus Christ!
This is just a comment but in the BC church that i attend there are people from all ethnic backgrounds ex: Ethiopian, Spanish,Lebanese,Americans and Danes.Our Litugy is in English. Sometimes Ols Slavonic is used but not too many people know it. Most of the oldtimers have moved back to the East or have passed on to the other life.