www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is there still a Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholic Church, or has it become the BCCA?

The Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholic Church passed a decree on June 29, 1999, effective October 1, 1999, establishing The Norms of Particular Law of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. See , https://www.byzcath.org/news/1999/AEP19990928-1.html

On October 3, 1999, Metropolitan Archbishop Judson Procyk gave a Homily on the Norms of Particular Law. See , http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991004byzantine2.asp. He is reported to have:

"called on the faithful to enter 'the new Christian millennium as an American Byzantine Catholic Church ' He urged them to view their church not as an ethnic enclave, but as a community of Christians with a great treasure to offer everyone who needs Jesus.

" We reject the notion of a Byzantine-Ruthenian diaspora in the United States. We are a multiethnic church ," Procyk said.

"'Christ, his gospel and his church cannot be confined or restricted by ethnicity.'

"The purpose of tradition is not to preserve any particular culture, but to express the Christian message in ways that people in a given culture can understand, he said.

"While European traditions are beautiful and should be treasured, 'we must express the faith in a new way, in the culture in which we live and the language which we speak,' Procyk said." (emphasis added by me).Id.

Thus, it appears that the name of the former Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholic Church has been changed to the Byzantine Catholic Church in America (BCCA). For example, look at the title page of www.byzcath.org.

So what, you may ask. Well, if the Metropolia has become the BCCA and is no longer the Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholic Church, then the traditions of the Ruthenians are inappliable to the BCCA.

This may explain why some parishes in the BCCA celebrate Easter instead of Pascha, pray the Rosary instead of Matins, and pray Novenas to Western Saints, especially St. Therese of Lisieux. The two best dishes at our St. Nicholas dinner were Mexican dishes. Was Mexican food served at any of the other Byzantine Catholic Churches?

Just something on which to ponder.

JP

"Ruthenian" is a word with a complicated history and is by no means a necessarily ethnic term. It identifies a specific variant of the Byzantine liturgical tradition. That tradition is represented in the USA by the Metropolitanate of Philadelphia and the Metropolitanate of Pittsburgh.

Meanwhile, there are several parallel jurisdictions of various sorts of Byzantine Catholics in the USA. For one of them to claim to be THE Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA would be both inaccurate and offensive.

Incognitus

You may be right, I don't know. However, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh has apparently designated itself as the Byzantine Catholic Church in America on the grounds that it is the only sui juris Byzantine Church in America.

Whether they are right or wrong is a matter of canon law which is way beyond my expertise. Before my cardiac problems, I was a simple trial lawyer who tried a variety of lawsuits primarily in Missouri and Kansas. I never confronted an issue like this.

I wonder what the experts in canon law have to say on this issue.

JP

You are of course quiet right Incognitus. I ntice the proper term that is used is the " Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA ". Also they did not rename themselves, as the text explains the document was back and forth between the USA and Rome until the document was right.

The document also restates that in regard to tradition.

"The Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh is desirous of remaining faithful to the principles of the Union of Uzhorod and feels a particular link with the Churches derived from that event. This Church also wishes to remain faithful to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the canons of the Codex Canonurn Ecclesiarum Orientalium, and other texts of the Holy See concerning this Church."

So Churches that John has identified mixing various Latin devotions and practices are not in step with the way the church is progressing. No doubt they will get it right eventually.

ICXC
NIKA

I don't understand the analogy. How is Mexican food in the same category as Roman Church devotions? I've tried both, there's no comparison. Latinisms reflect a bygone era; Latino foods reflect the Byzantine Church's evangelical progress beyond the "ethnic enclave."

Among the Byzantine Catholic parishes of the Southwest, one may find chile verde, tacos, and tamales on the menu in addition to halupki and pirohi.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear in Christ John Patrick,
When the 'Ruthenians' began to arrive from eastern Europe (almost entirely from the Austro-Hungaian empire) they reflected many ethnic backgrounds.

The most numerous of these were the Galicians, who would properly be regarded as Ukrainian by all standards.

Rome established a separate jurisdiction for the Ukrainians (at Philadelphia) and all the remainder retained the appellation of Ruthenian with a bishop at Pittsburgh. There is no mystery to any of this.

It is my understanding that there was a general agreement between the Ukrainians, Romanians and Ruthenians to use the term 'Byzantine' Catholic rather than 'Greek' Catholic in describing themselves. Largely because these churches can be considered liturgically 'Greek' but not ethnically so. The Ruthenians have been most consistant in this, probably because it is a great convenience, the intent was not to monopolize the term, all Greek Catholics may use it.

If the BCC, or Ruthenian church were to discard the term 'Greek' Catholic without a suitable replacement the individual parishes could over-emphasize their own ethnic identity "Croatian", "Slovak", "Hungarian", "Rusyn" or even "Greco-Albanian". This could be detrimental to the cohesiveness of the organization and even discourage inquiries from the community at large.

There is nothing inherently Americanizing or Latinizing in any of this, but the idea isn't new. Adoption of new norms for a church like this must be approached very cautiously so as not to discard valuable elements of the spirituality and theology by tampering with the practice.

The story of Nicholas Elko is very appropriate here, I do not have the time or knowledge to go into it in depth at the moment, I suggest that a little research could bring up a lot of dirt on that subject. I doubt that anyone today would want to see a return to Elko-ism.

The great gift of the Eastern churches is the spirituality and theology. It is powerful and sensible. I am convinced that it has the potential of turning this culture around if introduced to the community in a non-intimidating but welcoming way. Most newcomers gravitate towards the traditions and customs readily once they understand what it all means (and everything the Greek east does is pregnant with meaning). There is no need to invent new forms.

+T+
Michael

How sad!

Even sadder is the complete lack of an evangelization plan and effort both in the years before Metropolitan Judson's (vichnaya pamyat) remarks and since.

I mean, if you are going to completely cut ties with your historical roots, then where do you think that newcomers are going to come from. The immigrants from Eastern Europe are going to the UGCC so that leaves them out. If we want to become an 'American' church then wouldn't it make sense to formulate and implement a full court press evangelization plan to 'Americans' and make that our top priority. Oh I forgot, getting the 'new translation' together is more important.

mc

The BCCA should look to the inner cities in America for evangelization.

What does the UGCC stand for?

Slight mis-reading of history. Hesychios (I like that name, by the way), writes that: "When the 'Ruthenians' began to arrive from eastern Europe (almost entirely from the Austro-Hungaian empire) they reflected many ethnic backgrounds. The most numerous of these were the Galicians, who would properly be regarded as Ukrainian by all standards. Rome established a separate jurisdiction for the Ukrainians (at Philadelphia) and all the remainder retained the appellation of Ruthenian with a bishop at Pittsburgh."


As it happens, the "separate jurisdiction" was and is the one at Pittsburgh, not the one at Philadelphia. Philadelphia was the seat of the original Exarchate and the original Bishop, Kyr Soter (Ortynsky) bought the building which was the Cathedral from his time until the nineteen-sixties, when Metropolitan Ambrose built the present Cathedral - which Pope John Paul II visited when he came to the USA.

The Exarchate was divided, on Bishop Soter's repose, because clergy and people from the Hungarian Kingdom could not tolerate any association with those from the northern slopes of the Carpathians. Just why they imported such an agenda into the USA is another discussion.

Incognitus

The Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburg is the only Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church sui iuris in the United States.

The Ukrainians, the Greeks, the Hungarians, the Albanians, etc., etc., etc. are not sui iuris Churches.

Its status as a sui iuris Church is what allows, if not requires, the Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburg to be refered to as the BCCA.

Finally, the BCAA is in the process of completing the formal evangelical plan.

Thank you, O wondrous mysteryman! I accept the correction with great pleasure, because I know just enough to be dangerous with the facts!

I have always been interested in the developments of that era. Even though it is an occasion for regret.

Once again, thank you
Michael

I am sure you mean BASED in the United States.

Nevertheless, the ArchEparch in Pittsburgh is not a Major Metropolitan. The sad fact is the Ruthenian church is shattered in a half dozen pieces: as the eastern European homeland of the Rusyns was carved up with the new political borders after the wars, Rome erected new hierachies in each modern state.

They should be gathered together into one synod crossing national borders, with at least a Major Metropolitan. The present system leaves all of those smaller churches totally dependent upon Rome (Pittsburgh included). Being a Sui Iuris church under these circumstances is nothing to brag about.

+T+
Michael

I'm a Roman Catholic, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

I believe the Ukrainians refer to themselves as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). Their parishes are under the Archeparchy of Philadelphia.

I believe the Melkites refer to themselves as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (MGCC). Their parishes are under the Eparchy of Newton.

I believe the Romanians refer to themselves as the Romanian Catholic Diocese of Canton (RCDC). Their parishes are under the Eparchy of Canton.

I am unaware of any other Eastern Catholics with an Eparchy in this country. Undoubtedly, someone will jump down my throat if I am wrong.

The UGCC, MGCC, and RCDC retain much of the original language of the Divine Liturgy and the Sacred Traditions brought to this country from their respective homelands.

Their members should not feel offended or slighted. Rather, stand up for your heritage. Maintaining one's traditions is not an embarrassment, but an exemplar to others. You should be proud that the Slavic and Greek languages are still used, if only in part, in the Liturgy in your parishes.

It is only the BCCA that has jettisoned the old ways of doing things. English is the language used by parishes in the BCCA. This is a result of the fact that the Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburg is the only Eastern Catholic Metropolitan Church sui iuris in the United States. The late Metropolitan Judson, in conjunction with the bishops of the Eparchies of Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys made the decision to "go American" so to speak.

The UGCC, MGCC and the RCDC may have a better idea of moving forwards than that of Metropolitan Judson. I don't know, I just write about what I see.

Give praise and thanks to the Holy Spirit for allowing diversity among Eastern Catholics and preventing them from being swallowed up whole by the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S.

Slan agat,

JP

Does this remark go under the rubric of being rude to people only to their faces or it an example of being rude behind their backs?