www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Prayer Intercession of Bishop Basil Hopko, STD

Dear Lemko Rusyn:

I believe that we are in agreement regarding this topic. A deeper look into what I meant by "Moscow-brand Christianity" will shed light on it. Certainly our bishop-confessors were very loyal to the Holy See and their Catholic faith. The vast majority of them could not and would not compromise on this issue, despite the grave personal consequences and no matter what might have been "promised" them by both the NKVD and the Russian Orthodox leaders.

By "Moscow-brand Christianity" I meant the Orthodoxy of that day in the Soviet states and everything that it entailed, including loyalty to the Patriarch of Moscow vs. the Pope; a renunciation of the "unia" and its centuries old relationship with Rome; the "puppet-like" cooperation between the Russian Church and the Soviet states (including Russia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia etc.); AND the chief outcome of all these things: the dominance of Russian liturgy, spirituality and culture. These elements were all part and parcel of accepting Orthodoxy in that day and our bishops and most well-informed people of the time were well aware of it. In rejecting the opportunity to join Russian Orthodoxy, our Greek Catholic leaders also rejected everything that the ROC stood for. Clearly and correctly, our bishops saw association with the Moscow church as both spiritually and morally harmful. This was the "Moscow-brand of Christianity" that was rejected by our hierarchs.

Alex points out well, that, "To become "Orthodox" then was to become "pro-Russian" or "pro-Moscow" and that implied a betrayal of one's Particular Church and nationality."

Again, to have accepted Orthodoxy would have meant not only breaking important communion with Rome, but also to have bought into the entire modus operandi of the Russian Church of that time, which was characterized by a political cooperation with and support of the efforts of the Soviet atheistic state(s) as well as the promotion of Muscovite culture and tradition over our own. It is difficult to separate all of these contributing factors, nor do I believe that they should necessarily have to be. They worked together to complete the picture of what was the Russian Orthodox Church during communism and I do not hesitate to say, is still much the case even today. Just look at recent attempts to stymie Roman Catholicism in Russia and you will have a hauntingly similar picture to what were the beginnings of the pogrom against our church which began in the 1940s.

If one doubts the validity of the effects resulting from "Moscow-brand Christianity," then they only have to compare the fate of the Greek Catholic Church with that of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Soviet Ukraine, several decades earlier. The "rebirth" of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1921 was considered a real threat to the Soviet government and their coworkers in the Moscow Patriarchate. As soon as they were able, the Soviets immediately suppressed the UAOC and sentenced its hierarchy to hard labor and even execution, if they would not renounce a free and self-governing Kyivan Church and submit to Moscow. After a brief period of renewed freedom for the Ukrainian Church in these parts during World War II, when the Soviets lost control of the region, persecution was immediately reinstituted after the area once again became part of the Soviet Union. Hence, the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs and clergy in central and eastern Ukraine had the same choices as did the Greek Catholic ones in Western Ukraine, Subcarpathian Rus' and elsewhere - Join Moscow, submit to its patriarch and deny the legitimacy of a historical and self-determining church or face the consequences.

Dear griego catolico: From the information available to us, your impression is correct. It has always been my belief as well. Authors such as Fr. A. Pekar, OSBM, are quite blunt about these issues. Without a doubt, the government in Czechoslovakia, even during the brief "Prague Spring" had a clear platform that promoted a unified Slovak identity in the territory of eastern Czechoslovakia (present-day Slovakia) and they expected the church to cooperate, in return for certain legal "rights" and privileges. The presence of "Ruthenians" such as Bishop Hopko and his faithful was seen to undermine governmental goals. So, in exchange for the freedom to exist, ecclesiastical leaders were expected to promote the government's ideology, much as was done by the ROC-MP within the Russian and Ukrainian Soviet "republics."

It is no secret that Bishop Hirka was loyal to his Slovak political superiors and was clearly their "man of choice" for the leadership of the Prjashev Eparchy. Because Bishop Hopko did not characterize the kind of person who was willing to sacrifice his people's identity, history and culture, the government vehemently opposed his succession to the See of Prjashev, even though his appointment was initially backed by the Rome. It was extremely painful to Bishop Vasyl that he was never given the recognition that was rightfully his, but instead, remained forever an "auxiliary bishop" while a cleric with the rank of presbyter was given the "ordinary" jurisdiction. A highly irregular situation to be sure - when a priest is appointed the administrator while a consecrated bishop, especially one who had suffered already for his church and faith, sits on the sidelines, but such was the scenario of the time.

The effects of the Slovakization policies under Administrator Hirka are evident today and they are ongoing. With greater use of the Slovak vernacular for liturgical services and the virtual extinction of a Rusyn identity among a great majority of the faithful, are the fruits of the period of cooperation between the Greek Catholic Church and the communist Czechoslovak state. To be sure, it is difficult to be unbiased in our estimations of this period and I'm sure that to some extent, now-Bishop Hirka saw his efforts as a "survival technique" to guarantee the continuance of the church. But, at what cost were these compromises made? It would seem to me that the cost was great, both from the personal suffering endured by Bishop Hopko and the virtual elimination of the Ruthenian ethos from the consciousness of our people there.

It is always easier to judge history with hindsight than if one was actually living through such a period, but it should be made very clear that Bishop Basil Hopko was strong and unwavering in many ways, including his loyalty to the Holy See and to the heritage of his people. If cultural considerations did not come into play and Bishop Hopko's decision not to join Orthodoxy were not based at all on the suppression of the Rusyn identity in favor of Slovakization, then he would certainly have succeeded Bishop Gojdich as the Eparch of Prjashev. But he did not and that fact reveals the complexity of the situation, which included both religious and cultural concerns.

Fr. Joe

Going beyond blunt is a little book:

"The tragedy of the Greek Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia" published in 1971 "Carpathian Alliance, Inc." NY

There is no author listed. Does anyone know anything about this book, or this alliance?

djs

Dear Lemko,

Yes, I am a Greek Catholic too!

As I said, and I affirmed what you said, the martyr-bishops had a clear theological vision of Catholicism for which they laid down their lives and suffered for, as did Blessed Bishop Hopko.

My point is, and as a Lemko Rusyn who is steeped in the traditions of your people would know, religion is always tied in with culture etc.

As others have posted here, the very notion of joining with Russian Orthodoxy for someone like Bl. Hopko would have been repugnant on religious and other grounds AT THE SAME TIME, with religion, of course, having primacy of honour.

We in North America tend to see "cultural" as a kind of side-bar to life,owing to the tremendous impact of North American cosmopolitanism.

It was not so for our people "over there."

Alex