www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ukrainian & Ruthenian Churches

I always thought that "Ruthenian" was a latinized form of 'Russian'.

But not "Russian" in the sense of the Great Russians or Moscovite Russians, but in the sense of "all the Russias" in the old title? This would have included the "Trans-carpathian" Russians, etc. etc.

But of course, I am only offering a linguistic opinion, as I have no experience of the different ethnic questions involved in this (and other) threads.

That's essentially correct.

It refers to Eastern (and Eastern-Rite) Slavs who are in union with Rome. That's the reason many Orthodox have historically disassociated themselves from one modern usage of the word, that is, as a specific ethnicity.

In the recent past -- 19th and early 20th Centuries -- it was used in English writings to refer to the people who now call themselves Ukrainians, which further confuses things.

--Tim Cuprisin

No such thing as a simple question or a simple answer!

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Alex, now I know why you are a
sociologist.

The relationships among the Rusyn & Ukrainian peoples gives new meaning to the phrase "kaleidoscope of cultures"

God bless you my friends,

Paul

Did I make a mistake about the Ukrainian Patriarch? Was/is there such an office (Orthodox or Catholic)?

Paul

Dear Paul,

The Ukies never before had a Patriarch, but the Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus' had a much larger territory than the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time and he also performed a number of liturgical functions reserved normally to Patriarchs alone.

When Rome studied this issue with respect to the UGCC, it declared not only that the head of the UGCC was a "Major Archbishop" (and therefore with powers equal to that of a Patriarch) but ALSO that all other heads of the UGCC in history were, in fact, Major Archbishops including Met. Andrew Sheptytsky.

The Met of Kyiv, Orthodox or Catholic was a de facto "Patriarch" in all but the name.

This is also what allowed for a relatively quick recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate - based as it is on the patriarchal traditions of Kyiv whose Metropolitans eventually settled in Moscow to escape enemy incursions that reduced much of Kyiv to rubble where the Holy Cathedral of St Sophia became, at one point, a shelter for farm animals . . .

Alex

Bless, Father Elias!

Vatican documents refer to St Volodymyr the Great as "Rex Ruthenorum" while referrring to the later heads of Muscovy as "Dukes" dependent on the King at Kyiv.

"Rus'" was essentially the name given to Volodymyr's empire that was later divided amongst his sons - the beginning of the end for it.

The name is taken from the river that flows near Kyiv and was essentially a government, state name that was formally accepted by the northern parts of this empire/kingdom by the princes there.

But it was only in the reign of Peter the Great that "Rus'" became the name of what was until then acknowledged by the world as "Muscovy."

The word "Ukrayina" meaning "field or land that has been cut out (from the domination of enemy invaders)" became the name that the people of the steppes gave themselves. It was more relevant to them than the administrative "Rus'" used by Church and State only.

The Ipatiiv Chronicle makes mention of "Ukrayina" in the twelfth century (1169) and on five other occasions later on. One may also find records of it in literary works prior to this.

Alex

The Ruthenians (Carpatho-Rusins) were never subject to Kiev (or what is now called the Ukrainian Church). It is long believed that they received the Gospel directly from SS Cyril & Methodius in 866 via Romania. [St. Vladimir was a late-comer to Christianity! }

Carpatho-Rusins did look to Kiev for liturgical books once Kiev became larger and more established but it appears they looked primarily toward Romania for liturgical customs and to get their bishops ordained (as Father Deacon Lance has noted). Carpatho-Rusyn iconography is closer to Romanian iconography then it is to Ukrainian iconography.

The Carpatho-Rusin and Ukrainian cultures are different (very similar to how the Ukrainian and Russian cultures are different). In recent generations most Carpatho-Rusins have been geographically part of Ukraine. Because of this many have lost their Carpatho-Rusin culture in favor of the larger Ukrainian culture. My cousins who are Carpathian and now live in Edmonton, Alberta and attend a Ukrainian Catholic Church tell me that the Ukrainian culture is very similar but �not theirs�. I have always compared it to taking someone from the American �Deep South� and putting them in the north of Scotland.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Yes, the Carpatho-Rusyns are, like so many of us, of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition and they are closer to Roumania.

But the Church of KYIV ( ) (I'm sorry I couldn't make it last night to decorate your place - no need to be huffy about it in this way ), let me say, the Church of Kyiv had many influences over the Church of Roumania.

St Peter Mohyla, of Roumanian/Moldavian descent (ethnically as non-Ukrainian as one can get) saw in Kyiv his ecclesial Mother and dedicated his life (and finances) to her as Archimandrite of the Kyivan Caves Lavra and as her Metropolitan.

There are a number of Roumanian Saints among the Kyivan Caves Fathers, including the recent St Pachomios the Roman.

St Paissy Velichkovsky took up the link between Kyiv and Roumania and fell in love with all things Roumanian.

He had many Roumanian disciples, some of which are now glorified Saints, he renewed the Roumanian Church with his patristic and hesychast teachings (among other Churches) and divided his choir into Slavonic and Roumanian.

Roumanian Orthodox today see in Kyiv their "Mother" after Constantinople. I am now working with some RO's on a biography of St Jonah of Odessa - the Roumanians have a great spiritual appetite for Kyivan/Ukrainian Saints.

So the emphasis on Roumania versus Kyiv is certainly something that differentiates the Carpatho-Ruthenian Church from the Ukies.

But ultimately the influence of Kyiv is there either way.

The idea that one has to "prove' one is not ethnically Ukrainian "because" their Church takes its origin from a place other than Kyiv is a straw argument.

The Russians took their Christianity from Kyiv and they have no problem asserting their identity ( ).

Something similar to this occurs, in my experience as an administrator on another board, when I receive complaints from Belarusyan Orthodox about not differentiating between them and the Ukrainian Churches enough.

That may very well be, but the two Churches were both united in Kyiv and are both children of their common Mother - the Church of St Andrew and St Clement of Kyiv.

Whatever the ethnicity of the Saints - they were all, at one time, held in common and venerated as such.

And certainly an ethnic Russian like St Seraphim of Sarov and many others saw in Kyiv their spiritual Mother - we know that St Seraphim was tonsured a monk at the Caves Lavra and he had excellent relations with Ukrainian and other monks of the Lavra.

St Alexius the Carpatho-Rusyn also looked to Kyiv as his spiritual mother to help him restore Orthodoxy in his land.

As for culture, the fact is that there is no one homogeneous Ukrainian culture. There are regional cultures and there are ethnic groups in Ukraine (96 according to a Canadian government tally) that have existed there for hundreds of years.

In fact, the Carpatho-Rusyn culture is closer to any number of Western Ukrainian subcultures, linguistically and in material cultural terms. And I have yet to meet a Carpatho-Rusyn recently immigrated from Ukraine who would have difficulty calling himself or herself "Ukrainian."

I find the Greater Ukrainian subculture to be "not mine" and also the culture of Volyn. But the difference between Ukrainian and Russian culture are much greater - but perhaps not by way of the material culture. The Russians have much in their spiritual culture taken directly from the Kyivan Church and linguistically their language has the imprint of the Ukrainian scholars who developed literary Russian.

Alex

Alex,

The small UGCC church of St-John in Montreal (Emard) was leased for a nominal sum to the Romanian Greek Catholics about 10 years ago.

I have never met a more gratefull group of Catholics in my life. They still thank our now deceased Bishop Isidore (Boretsky) for giving them a Greek Catholic shrine they can call their own.

Dear Administrator,

I understand your cousins feelings about being of a Carpathian Greek Catholic tradition and not feeling totally at home in the UGCC church in Edmonton.

My father who has belonged to the UGCC in Montreal since his arrival from Western Ukraine after the war still thinks of himself as member of his boyhood parish in a small village of Halych.

I have been living in Boston for several years, and my brother in Toronto, but we still do not feel totally at home in our UGCC parish churches. I too long for the 'old country' (which is only 300 miles away) but I try to manage.

PS: I look forward to attending someday a Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church for services. I'm sure I would feel at home.

Alex,

I agree with much of what you write. All of the Slavic cultures � Carpatho-Rusin, Ukrainian, Romanian, Russian and etc. are very similar indeed. I do think it odd that you would go to great lengths to distinguish Ukrainian culture from Russian but insist that everyone is much closer to Ukrainian! It seems your hatred for all things Russian is showing!

The Church of Kiev � once it grew to full stature - did become a major influence to all the Slavs. I think, however, your loyalty to Ukraine and all things Ukrainian might be causing you to raise Kiev to a status much higher than most non-Ukrainian historians would put it at.

I do agree that most Carpatho-Rusins who are now geographically part of Ukraine would identify themselves as Ukrainians. Their distinctive culture has been pretty much replaced by the larger Ukrainian culture. This is to be expected. Those who emigrate from Ukraine retain their culture but their children don�t inherit it. When a generation is born and raised outside of Ukraine they are more part of the new country�s culture than the are of the old country�s culture. After two or three generations they become Ukrainian only in their choice of food (if they retain even that).

Admin

It would be great if our friend Lemko Rusyn would find it possible to arrange to share some of his vast expertise on this subject with the forum participants. Suffrages are offered.

Dear Sir,

Actually, I bear no ill-will to anything Russian - I would just like them to leave Ukraine alone!

There are many Russians who share that view too!

As for KYIV, it is not that Russian historians do not attach as great importance to it and its Church - only that they consider Kyiv to be "Kiev" and the foundation of the Russian Church.

Kyiv is truly the mother of all the Churches of Rus' - as St Peter Mohyla, no Ukrainian, said himself.

To this day, it is the Metropolitan of Kyiv who crowns the Patriarch of Moscow as the first Primate of the Russian Church.

Kyivan missionaries spread throughout Europe and Asia especially. The cult of St Basil of Mangazea was brought to Kyiv by Saint Philotheus Leschynsky (a Ukrainian Hierarch that built more than 2,600 churches in Siberia and is called the "Apostle of Siberia") and St Paul Koniuskevych, Metropolitan of Tobolsk (whose relics are enshrined, along with those of St Peter Mohyla, in the Dormition Cathedral of the Kyivan Caves Lavra as he was tonsured a monk there).

Am I proud of the achievements of the Kyivan Church and her Saints?

You bet!

I grew up not knowing anything about its history within a highly Latinized environment that basically looked to Rome as the end of all things.

That all changed after I began studying these issues - and today I get most of my info from Russian sites about the early Saints of Kyiv and her Church.

The Russians value the Kyivan Church very highly as they know they are her children.

The Russian Church counts many ethnic Ukrainians among her Saints. Most recently, St Anthony Smirnitsky of Zadonsk was locally glorified and he was an ethnic Ukrainian.

As we read in the book "St Tikhon of Zadonsk" and elsewhere, in the 18th century one could ONLY become a bishop in the Russian Church IF one was an ethnic Ukrainian. The Ukrainian church mafia controlled the Russian Church and so St Tikhon was, in the world, "Timothy Sokolov" and became, when he entered the seminary, "Timothy Sokolovsky" and later St Tikhon.

It all makes for fascinating reading - when you get a chance after Christmas, you might consider delving into that wonderful world yourself!

The fact of my Ukie background has really no bearing on this matter.

Most Ukies I know care not a wit about their own history and many Ukie Catholics view the Baroque Orthodox period of the Kyivan Church with suspicion, including its Saints.

They weren't canonized by Rome, you see . . .

Even the very Eastern "Visnyk" of Sts Volodymyr and Olha parish in Chicago once carried a highly offensive (and poorly researched) article by Mgr. Evhen Ivankiw where he lists such great Ukrainian and even Kozak Saints as St Dmitri of Rostov, St John Maximovitch and many others as "typical Russian saints."

(I believe he was criticizing St Michael's UGC parish in Welland for including them all in their Litia).

So this "hobby" of mine is something that I don't get too much support for in my own community and church.

I hope what I've said about the Kyivan Church is not seen as an extension of some sort of ethnic pride.

I am proud to happen to belong to a church tradition that is so Catholic in scope, whose missionaries went well beyond the limited borders of their own homeland to bring the Light of Christ to so many (including St John Maximovitch of Shanghai).

Ukrainian saints and scholars not only enriched their own country together with Belarus and Russia, but also many other European countries.

Yes, I am proud of their achievements for Churches and nations other than their own.

In this, they can be compared to the Celtic saints who brought Christianity throughout Europe - and to St Olha in Kyiv.

The importance of Kyiv and her Church is UNDERSCORED by Russian historians, not downplayed by them. Historically, when the Russian Church was in control of canonizations for the Ukrainian Church, Ukie Orthodox candidates had to wait their turn, since it was thought that there were plenty of Saints in "Little Russia" already . . . Like in Italy .

And it is sad that Ukies are the first to be ignorant of this history.

(And Ruthenian Catholics come second? ).

I think you get my point, do you not, Sir?

And I'm not posting here again until you decide to spell "Kyiv" properly - I mean it, Sir!

Alex

Dear djs,

No one is disputing the separate identity and right to independence of the Carpatho-Rusyn people or the Lemko people for that matter.

Historical "facts" always need to be interpreted and interpretations vary - as they most certainly will.

My point is simply Kyiv's influence in Eastern Europe. Not even Russian imperialism disputes that (as it has adopted "Kiev" for its own anyway).

As for the Lemko people - that they are a separate, non-Ukrainian group is something that many Lemkos will and do dispute.

Until the Administrator decides to behave better with respect to Kyiv, I wish you and all a Happy and Blessed Nativity Season!

Alex

Alex,

Again, I agree with much of what you post. But your dislike for all things Russian has shown through in too many of your posts for you to deny. This is understandable in light of how poorly the Russians treated (and still treat) the Ukrainians.

The Carpatho-Rusins did not receive Christianity from Kiev so it cannot be considered their mother Church.

Russians did receive Christianity from Kiev so Kiev is definitely their mother Church

You are right to be proud of the accomplishments of the Kievan Church as well as of your wonderful Ukrainian ethnicity.

And I agree that Carpatho-Rusins are probably more ignorant of their history than are Ukrainians.

As to the spelling of Kiev I respect your decision to follow the current spelling chosen by the Ukrainian nation. I plan to keep spelling it the way I have always spelled it. It is not a slight to either Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. Nor is it a support for Russia or the Russian people. But if you choose to be offended there is not much I can do about it.

I will, however, think of you the next time I make �Chicken Kiev�.

Admin