www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Hamilton, Ontario churches - need information

Any Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholic Church in the Hamilton, Ontario, area celebrating Presanctified liturgies next week? I will be on a business trip for one to three weeks up in the Hamilton area and need to find a church to attend during weekdays. Thanks.

Cantor Joe Thur

Dear Cantor Joe,

Holy Spirit Ukrainian Catholic Church is on 15 Saint Olga Street in Hamilton and is tended by the Rt. Rev. Roman Hankewych (905) 545-2914.

Rev. Roman Michalko is pastor of St Joseph's UGCC and his number is (905) 842-6952.

Rev. Fr. Joseph Mucha is with the Slovak Byzantine-Ruthenian Church of the Assumption in Hamilton and his number is (905) 544-9166.

Alex

Alex,

How about Mississauga, Ontario?

Dear Cantor Joe,

Yes, St Mary's Dormition on Cawthra in Mississauga is a great Church and they would have the Presanctified "for sure."

(905) 270-2571.

Alex

Thank you, Alex.

Dear Cantor Joe,

You are more than welcome!

And when you are up here, please do give me a call at your convenience and we can get together so that I could buy you lunch!

The work number for Layman Alex is (416) 325-6271.

Alex

I'm not too sure what my schedule will be like. My company is headquartered in Hamilton, Ontario (yes, I work for a CanADian company!) and we are getting a team of engineers together for one to three weeks from Pittsburgh and Germany (where our company owners are HQ). Once I get up there I will be able to determine the situation. Otherwise, I would enjoy a "Lenten" lunch with you depending how far you are from where I will be.

I will check out the St. Mary's Church in Mississauga for their Presanctified Liturgy schedule. Hope to make it.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joe,

You're on!

If it's a Lenten lunch you would like, I can afford two or three . . .

Alex

St. Mary Church in Mississauga is indeed a very fine church. While the outside is perhaps a bit deceiving, in its modern interpretation of our traditional architecture, during my visit there, I was impressed by many things, including the beauty of the church interior, the faithfulness to our tradition that seemed apparent and above all, the number of faithful attending the liturgies, especially the amount of young people. The Sunday Divine Liturgy I participated in had well over 500 people. I feel that this church is a good example of the "Ruthenian Recension" working at its best. I hope you have the chance to attend there, Joe.

God bless you all,

Fr. Joe

Bless me a great sinner, Father Joseph!

Yes, but I'm afraid for us Ukies at St Mary's and elsewhere "Ruthenian" is Latin for "Ukrainian . . ."

But we just love Ruthenians all around!

What's not to love?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Alex,

Then if I am able to attend, I will surely use my "Ukrainian" card - seeing how my father's family were parishioners at St. Mary's UGCC in Spangler, PA, for several generations. In honor of the late Fr. Myron Holowinski, of course, who built a beautiful traditional wooden three domed Ukrainian church.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

"Ukrainian card . . ."

I love you more each and every day!

Alex

My aunt Helen (teta Olena) was baptized in the Spangler church when our church (on the opposite hill facing it, in Barnesboro), St. John's Rusin G.C.C., was under Bishop Ortynsky's "interdict" in 1913. (I come from a long line of troublemakers! Actually not... we still went along with the "bootlicker" (that's what they called him in the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik in 1913) priest Fr. Victor Kovaliczky... but back to St. John's when it reopened. We had our russkost' to think about, you know... we would have none of that Ortynsky-brand Ruthenianism/Ukrainianism!)

Does that mean I have a Ukrainian card too?

God bless you, Alex.

Actually, I used the above mentioned term to show that I agree with you and those of like mind and to underscore the unitive nature of our liturgical usage.

By my use of "Ruthenian Recension" I simply indicate my agreement with your statement. If our common culture is not convincing enough to many, that we are both part and parcel of the same heritage, then the final and (to me) rather undeniable indication, lies in the mutual use of the same liturgical recension, which is particular to the two groups.

I've aired my opinion on this many times, taking the chance of rebuttal from those who see our two groups as unavoidably separate. Certainly, regional differences exist, as they do between many of the areas of modern-day Ukraine (historical Kyivan-Rus'). However, I've asked those who are not in the same camp, to please point out where the "tremendous" divergences lie, that would separate us into two completely separate cultural entities. I've not seen any of these mentioned and certainly not with supporting evidence. So, what gives? Are the separating factors in the linguistic mode? This would not seem to be, given that many dialects exist in the Ukrainian language as we have it today. Is Ruthenian closer to Slovak? I would say not, since the modern Slovak language is strongly different from Rusyn and Ukrainian. (Personally, I cannot understand much of what is printed on Slovak websites or is conversed between people who speak the language.) Does the difference come in the way we make our pysanky? We know there are many versions of the traditional "Ukrainian" art. Is it in our embroidery? Various patterns of cross-stitching and colors used in it, are exemplative of the different "oblasts." Perhaps the most distinguishing factor lies in the liturgical chant, but even here, there is the underlying current of the common Byzantine and Znamenny roots and the maintenance of congregational-style singing, based on a combination of traditional chant and regional folk music.

Nevertheless, for those of us who wish to see an emphasis on the common heritage shared by those on both sides of the Carpathian mountains, our liturgical recension is perhaps the best indicative factor that we are two slightly different expressions of the greater cultural inheritance of Kyivan-Rus'. While even here, there are small differences between Halychyna and Transcarpathia, it cannot be ignored that even within each larger subgroup, parochial and regional variants exist (and here I include both ritual and chant). Perhaps it is the way we place the plashchantisa in the grave during Passion Week or the number of candles used in the paschal procession (one or three) that make it necessary to view our two peoples as separate? (I'm trying to a bit humorous.) It is certainly not in our styles of vestments, iconostasis, church buildings themselves or movements and actions during the liturgy, or no more than exist between the particular locales. And the hymns, while rendered in a slightly different dialect, are commonly used. Are these divisive or merely expressive of regional taste?

In the final analysis, I think it is obvious that what led to the opinion of separateness were the political circumstances under which each region lived and that were carried to America with the first immigration. As usual, exterior influence from those outside our cultural group is responsible for the years of separation and distrust that pursued. Left to our own resourcefulness (and the leadership of hierarchs who truly had the cultural interests of their people at heart, rather than gaining notoriety with the government), I truly believe that our two subgroups of the heritage of Rus' would have pursued a more united and strengthened path. It's just a pity that so many years of polemics have made the separation almost insurmountable.

In my estimation, the reality of the Rusyn vs. Ukrainian controversy in our own day, lies mainly in the use of descriptions that represent two different eras. Ukrainian is a rather modern term that only became common around the turn of the 20th. century. Rusyn of course, is an older and perhaps more inclusive name for those from the heritage of Kyivan Rus'. While those in Galicia perhaps had greater freedom to pursue the developing Ukrainian mindset, in the Hungarian section of the dual-monarchy, such freedom was not so easy to acquire. Both pro-Magyar and pan-Slavic (Russian) factions existed and the latter was supported by the former when convenient, as the lesser evil when compared to Galician Ukrainianism. It is also important to take note of the Hungarian opposition to any united front between the Metropolia of Lviv and the eparchies of the "Uhro-Rusyns." They fought staunchly to avoid any canonical unity between the two, which would have stymied their fierce attempts at the well-known platform of "magyarization" which saw Rusyns merely as loyal Hungarians with a funny language and exotic ritual tradition. As we know, they worked to lessen even those differences, but without complete success.

If Father A. Pekar, OSBM, noted Ukrainian and Rusyn historian is correct, there would have been at one time or another, the incorporation of the Subcarpathian eparchies into the Galician province, if the efforts of the Holy See had been successful. As we know, until recently, Rome used the term Ruthenian to refer to both subgroups as part of one tradition. While unity of the two may seem unlikely to occur today, it has been mentioned here before, that the conjoining of the eparchies of the Ruthenian recension into a Kyivan-Rusyn Patriarchal church would certainly add greater strength and witness to all involved and allow our churches to continue the path of self-realization as one particular church. The Hungarian government was correct: unity would have meant strength and that maxim is true today as it would have been 100 years ago or more. Unfortunately, the enemies of our church seem to have won out on this one, since the two groups continue to exist as separate and thus, smaller and less influential churches. Just as a sidenote, it is telling that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has been able to maintain all of the subdivisions of the Kyivan-Rusyn Church in one jurisdiction, except for in the United States and now, to some degree, in Canada, with the Slovak jurisdiction. I don't have to argue here, that many of the people in eparchies outside of Galicia or Transcarpathia proper, shared the common Rusyn heritage, before migrating to their respective areas.

If now, after so many years of emphasizing our differences, our common liturgical "Ruthenian" recension can bring some sense of a commonality to our self-understandings, then the liturgy itself will have accomplished one of its most important tasks - the unity of the People of God, in an expression of faith tempered by cultural and historical circumstances, truly speaking the "mind of the church" as expressed in the rituals and traditions of real people.

I hope that I will not be accused too badly of having an "Ortynsky-brand Ruthenianism/Ukrainianism." Ortynsky did not have much of a chance from the start, and I am aware of the opinions of him given in the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik. While I commend the Viestnyk for their staunch defense of our rights during the celibacy struggle, I am also cognizant of the fact that they were a major contributor to the Galician vs. Subcarpathian separatist movement that resulted in the creation of the two distinct jurisdictions. This was certainly not without influence from those of the "Great Russian/Pan Slavic" ideology or from the Court of Budapest, which, following historical precedent, used "their Rusyns" yet again, to promote its own interests. All of this was at a time when the existence of imperial Hungary had almost reached its end and tactics similar to those which "may have" been used during the I Vatican Council were no doubt employed to perpetuate the Magyar ethos long after its political grandeur had faded.

I know this was a long answer to a simple statement, but Alex, you got my ethnic side going and that's a good thing, I believe. It's an area that is of great value to me, as I know it is to you and many others here. As always, let me qualify my statements by saying that I am of the opinion that not just "cradles" (although I abhor the term), but everyone who now finds spiritual solace in our churches, even if they do not descend ethnically from Ukrainian or Rusyn families, does share in the universal heritage of our church, which cannot be separated from its cultural origins, but is a particular type of expression of the Christian faith. We have many dedicated and exemplary members who have come to our church on their own and who have adopted not only the dogmatic part of the faith, but also its culture and history with great love and zeal. In this sense, all who find the Lord within our walls are participants in the richness that is the church. An understanding and appreciation of the heritage of time and place is both desirable and necessary because the church does not exist as a generic institution but rather is tempered by the unique factors that have contributed to where, what and who we are today. To try to separate the two categories of faith and culture is to take away the "incarnational" aspect of Christianity and produce a stagnant community that has lost touch with both the sense of the past and the hopes for the future, also causing confusion as to who we really are in the present. Lamentably, I see this happening in some places, not just in our churches but others as well.

May God strengthen and unite the church of Kyivan-Rus' through the unique and beautiful expression that is the Ruthenian Recension.

Fr. Joe

There's no discernible difference whatsoever between "our" churches and the Hungarian Greek Catholic churches of Hungary, except for the language used. Are they Ukrainians too? (Most Ukrainians would say yes, but they don't exert 1/1000th the amount of effort on Hungarian Greek Catholics they do trying to convince the Rusyns that their chosen self-identity is backwards and a threat to European stability.)