www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ruthenia

I'll bet this question has been asked before. Where is Ruthenia?

It seems that it was/is in Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, and Romania.

Was Ruthenia a part of the Hapsburg Empire at one point?

Are the Ruthenians a displaced, politically powerless people like the Kurds in Iraq who have been incorporated into a new country to which they have no association or ethnic ties?

Finally, since the area is so close to Ukraine why are there 2 Churches one for the Ukrainians and one for the Ruthenians? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

What's the difference between Transcarpathian-Rus and Ruthenian?

Who is the Patriarch for the Ruthenians?

Cardinal Husar is the Patriarch for the Ukrainian Catholics, right?

RUTHENIA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ruthenia is a name applied to parts of Eastern Europe which were populated by Eastern Slavic peoples, as well as to various states that existed in this territory in the past. Essentially, the word is a Latin rendering of the ancient place name Rus.
Today the historical territory of Rus, in the broadest sense, forms part(s) of the territories of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, a small part of north-eastern Slovakia and a narrow strip of eastern Poland.
Due to the continuous political instability of this territory, the term Ruthenia may mean significantly different things, depending on who applies this term, when, why and to which period.

The term "Ruthenia" may refer to one or more of the following entities, appearing roughly in chronological order:

Kievan Rus
If the name Ruthenia has any connection to the name Rus, it is in the west generally held to derive from the Varangians whom the early Slavic and Finnic tribes called Rus' and this name is derived from the Old Norse root ro�s- or roths- referring to the domain of rowing and still existing in the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden, Ruotsi and Rootsi. Later the name came to denote not only the Scandinavian aristocracy in Eastern Europe but also the ethnically mixed population of their domains.

Some modern scholars use the spelling Ruthenia when discussing the Middle Ages in English texts. However, the ancient state of Rus did not have a proper name apart from the phrase zemlya ruskaya, and therefore there were different spellings in different languages.

The term Ruteni first appears in the form rex Rutenorum in the 12th-century Augsburg annals. It was most likely a reflex of the ancient tradition, when the barbaric people were called by the names found in Classical Latin authors, i.e. Danes were called Daci and Germans were called Theutoni. Likewise, the Rus passed by the name of Ruteni, the form being influenced by one of the Gallic tribes mentioned by Julius Caesar.

There is a 12th-century Latin geography from France which says that "Russia is also called Ruthenia, as you may see from the following phrase of Lucan�" The original Latin text: Polonia in uno sui capite contingit Russiam, quae et Ruthenia, de qua Lucanus: Solvuntur flavi longa statione Rutheni. Earlier the Rus had been referred to as Rugi (one of the foremost Gothic tribes) and Rutuli (an Italic tribe mentioned by Virgil in the Aeneid).

By the end of the 12th century, the word Ruthenia was used, among the alternative spelling Ruscia and Russia, in Latin papal documents to denote the lands formerly dominated by Kiev. By the 13th century, the term became the dominant name for Rus' in Latin documents, particularly those written in Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland.

Late Middle Ages
By the 14th century, the state of Rus had disintegrated into loosely united principalities. Vladimir-Suzdal and the Novgorod Republic in the north fell under Mongol influence. Later, one of the daughter-principalities of Vladimir-Suzdal, the Moscow principality took control of most of the northern principalities of Rus, and continued the use of the word, "Rus'," to cover the expanded state. Being an Orthodox Christian country, it had few contacts with the Pope and therefore did rarely use the term Ruthenia. Natives used other forms of the name Rus derivatives of word Rus for their country, and some of these forms also passed into Latin and English.

The territories of Halych-Volynia in the south fell under Catholic Lithuanian and Polish influence, and therefore were usually denoted by the Latin Ruthenia, because the Pope preferred this spelling. He used it, for example, when he proclaimed one of the local princes "King of Ruthenia". However, other spellings were used in Latin, English and other languages during this period as well.

These southern territories have corresponding names in Polish:

Ruś Biała � White Ruthenia, White Russia or Belarus
Ruś Czarna � Black Ruthenia, part of modern Belarus
Ruś Czerwona � Red Ruthenia, small strip in Poland (Przemysl), rest part of Ukraine (Galicia). Poland called the area the Ruthenian Voivodship.

Modern age

Belarusians
The Belarusians often called themselves "Litvins" because they lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the name "Ruthenians" was not always applied to them.

A notable exception occurred shortly after World War II, in relation to Belarusians from the Kresy region of pre-WWII Poland who found themselves in displaced persons camps in the Western occupation zones of the post-war Germany. At that time the notion of a Belarusian nation met with little recognition in the West. Therefore, to avoid confusion with the term "Russian" and hence "repatriation" to the Soviet Union (which finalized the annexion of Kresy after the war), the terms White Ruthenian, Whiteruthenian, and Krivian were used. The last of these terms derives from the name of an old Eastern Slavic tribe called the Krivichs, which used to inhabit the territory of Belarus.

Ukrainians
The name "Ruthenia" survived a bit longer as a name for Ukraine. When the Austrian Empire made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials realized that the local East Slavic people were distinct from both Poles and Russians. Their own name for themselves, Rusyny, sounded like the German word for Russians, Russen. So the Austrians adopted the designation Ruthenen (Ruthenians), and continued to use it officially until the empire fell apart in 1918.

From 1840 on, nationalists encouraged people to give up the name "Little Rus" for Ukrayina.

In the 1880s and 1900s, due to the spread of the name "Ukraine" as a substitute for "Ruthenia" among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Russian Empire, the name, "Ruthenian" was often restricted to mean western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.

In the early 20th century, the name "Ukraine" was widely accepted in Galicia/Halychyna and the name "Ruthenia" became narrowed to the area south of the Carpathian mountains in the Kingdom of Hungary. Carpathian Ruthenia incorporated the cities of Mukachiv/Mukachevo/Munk�cs, Uzhhorod/Ungv�r and Presov/Pryashiv/Eperjes. This area had been part of the Hungarian kingdom since the late 11th century, and had been known as "Magna Rus'", but was also called "Karpato-Rus'" or "Zakarpattya" (see Carpathian Ruthenia).

After being incorporated into Czechoslovakia between World War I and World War II, the area tried to declare its independence as "Carpatho-Ukraine" at the dawn of World War II. The English term Rusyn arose around this time for the nationality and language of three groups of montagnards in the Carpathians. The name "Ruthenia" became largely identical with Carpathian Ruthenia, i.e. mostly the westernmost region of present-day Ukraine.

A Ruthenian minority also remained in northeastern Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia) after World War II. The people of the region rapidly became Slovakicised, because their language is closely related to the Slovak language and because most of them refused to identify themselves as Ukrainians, as the Communist government, after 1953, wished them to do.

Pavloosh,
D'akuyu

Who's the head of the Ruthenians? It would seem that Cardinal Husar is the closest major bishop. Or since the new national lines have moved most of Ruthenia outside of modern Ukraine is there another bishop in charge of them?

Dr Eric,

The Ruthenians have a great fear of Ukrainians. Why? I couldn't tell you.

Personally, I wouldn't mind the UGC and Ruthenain (Byzantine Catholic) Churches in Noth America join into a single Metropolia of the "Kyivan" Church. But this would put folk "under" a Ukrainian patriarch, whereas it appears some of them prefer to be "under" a Roman Curial office.

I know some Ruthenians are looking to have their Church raised to a Major-Archbishopric (a Roman invention - the East knows no such thing) or even a Patriarchate! This Church (at least in North America, which is where the main discussion occurs) is not even 100 years old (just over if you count it's joint history with the UGCC in the early days).

I'm still trying to understand...

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

I was informed that the reason a separate Ruthenian juristiction was set up was due to the split between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. Each had a share of the people in their eastern parts who were slavic and byzantine. Each regarded their own main language as the language of doing business in their own territory. So In Hungary, Hungarian was the main language of education and this involved seminary education. So pro Hungarian were these people that when the Czechs arrived to claim their Eastern territory the bishop took himself in to what was left of Hungary after WWI. The cleryg were in effect Hungarian speakers. Meanwhile over in Austria the main language was German. Polish dominated at provincial levels and so a different culture was developing on both sides of the border. This would translate in the new lands of America as conflict. Solution = separate juristions based on the boundaries in Europe. Result peace! an expample of this is found in the book on the first bishop of the group that went back to orthodoxy in the 30s in America. When the bishop arived from Europe to sort things out, he spoke the the clergy in Hungarian and the laity in Slav.

Eric,

The Ruthenian church is just a USA phenomenon. I can't cite the actual year, so let's go with 1920. When the Ukrainians finally got their own hierachy two dioceses (eparchies) were set up.
On in Pittsburgh for the Rusyns and one in Philly for the Ukrainians.
Today we know that Pittsburgh is headed by Archbishop Basil and his bosses are those in the Vatican.
Philly is headed by Archbishop Stefan. His boss is Cardinal Husar, and the Vatican. This of course is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Why not drop "ruthenian" it's simply a latin term from Austria-Hungary anyway. More accurate would be "Carpatho-russian" or "Carpatho-rusyn" Makes as little sense as the term "latin"

Three thoughts on this statement:
1) What do our Eastern European, or for that matter Australian and Canadian counterparts call themselves?
Do they consider themselves "Greek Catholics" rather than "Ruthenian" or "Byzantine"? I suppose since there is no actual Ruthenia, Eastern Europeans calling themselves Ruthenians would make no sense.
2) Wouldn't it make more sense to globally use the same terminology so to better identify ourselves and connect? Sheesh! No wonder we have an identity issue.
3) Did I read in another post that "Ruthenian" was actually a slang, almost derogatory term given us by the Vatican? If so, maybe it needs to go.
Sam

You have the Greek Catholics in Slovak, such as the Presov Eparchy. Remember the distinction arose out of cultural/ethnic issues. Rusyns didn't want to be called Ukrainians and vice versa. I live in an area that you can still see the scars of these battles.. usually in the form of having a Ruthenian parish a block or two from the Ukrainian. Or having an Orthodox church right near the Greek Catholic church.

The Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church.. the one the majority of the posters here belong to is a american church.
Sure like I said there are a few eparchies in Slovakia and Poland, someone correct me I am wrong. But these are known as Greek Catholics.
If you are talking about those of a Ukrainian type lineage in other countries they would belong to the UGCC, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

Well it would be peculiar if they used an English word to refer to themselves, but calling htemselves Rusyns would certainly make sense in the same way as Roma caling themsleves Roma, Kurds calling themselves Kurds, ... - even though these people have no nation state. If you are just getting it that the lack of a nation state is a certin contributor to "identity crisis" especially in the diaspora, congratulations.

What on earth do you mean by that? The Ruthenian church in the US has a clear connection in history and liturgical practice, including its distinctive prostopinije - not to mention family relations - with the church of Uzhhorod and its daughters south of the Carpathians in Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbis & Montenegro, and arguably Romania. Migration, the movement of national boundaries, and assimilation may have subdivided these people and their church among different nation states, but the intimate interconnection of them is immediately obvious to anyone who visits in these churches.

Pyrohy, you posted while I was writing. Yes the use of the word Ruthenian is an American phenomenon; and yes unlike the Ukrainians the daughters of Uzhhorod have no central administrative unity.

The UGCC exists outside of the USA as the UGCC. Outside of the USA the Rusyn greek catholics don't exist as Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics.. they exist as those dioceses in Slovakia, Poland (I'm not sure, there are a few of the, Presov being the one I know of). That is my point. It isn't as if the Ruthenian Archbishop has an Archbishop or Patriarch to also answer to that lives outside of the USA. The Ruthanina Byzantine Archbishop answers to Rome. See my point?
Well yeah, of course they have all of that and the people that got the seperate eparchy obviously did it for a reason. I know what you are saying. I'm still saying that this sui juris in particular is found in the USA. I don't know if they connect the Greek Catholic eparchies that exist in the old old country with the Ruthenians in the USA. If they don't, then the fact is, the sui juris Ruthenian Byzantine church exists only in America and the sister eparchies in the old country have their own sui juris status.
Have a blessed Saturday.
Pyrohy, who knows the culture of the Carpathians, is a 3rd generation Rusyn-American, and lives in and near the areas of the country that had some of the highest Rusyn immigration. Granted I don't know all the music and whatnot that some know here.

Well, speaking as an ethnic Anglo-Celt who finds himself worshipping with folks whose ancestors came from the Carpathian mountains, some of whom call themselves "Slovaks", some "Rusins" and some "Ruthenians", and whose old church cornerstone read "St Nicholas Russian Greek Catholic Church", all I can say is I'm confused. :p [though thanks to the Deacon for that link, which clarified [?] the confusion somewhat...]
-Daniel

Why don't we just call ourselves the Uniate Ruthenian Church?

I think you will find that the Metropolitans of Winnepeg and Philadelphia dont come under the Metroplitan of Kiev-Halichina. Infact all biship outside the borders of Ukraine come under either the Pope, or the Pope via another Archbiship who functions as their Metroplitan (eg Melbourne). Only the Pope is the Ecumenical Hierarch, all Patriarchates have very clear boundaries. On one side of the line is the Patriarchate and on the other the land is outside it and therefore under the Pope.

Ruthenian has served as a label of convenince and has had different definition in Church terms as political situation have changed. Outside the USA and Carpartho-Ukraine there are no Ruthenians. They are all Ukranians (i think Canada may be the exception). The Exarchate for the Ukrainians used to be for Ruthenians but the former bishop told Rome there were none here to when the Eparchy came into being Ruthenians was dropped from the name.