www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Patriarch for the Ruthenians

Why has there never been a patriarch for the Carpatho-Rusyns?

The Carpatho-Rusyns answered to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Historically, however, just because one had an autocephalous Church did not mean the head of that church was a patriarch. Witness the Church of Cyprus which owes its autocephaly to an Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, yet has always been headed an archbishop. It was only later that Slavs felt that to be truly autocephalous one's Church had to have its chief hierarch titled patriarch. In the middle ages we have the Bulgarians, Serbs and Russians all attempting to gain the status, which they did, but the Bulgarians and Serbs later lost it only to regain it as the Ottoman Empire crumbled the Romanians also gained this status at that this time.

I would also submit that the Carpatho-Rusyns for the greatest part of its history only compromised a single eparchy, it was only with the Unia and immigration that eparchies multiplied.

It's possible only in America - a land of opportunities where everybody can be a patriarch and found his/her own church.

The closest to Zakarpatia patriarch resides in Kyiv - His Beatitude Lubomyr. Maybe, it is wise to join them - after all, it is not Austro-Hungarian Empire anymore to prevent them from unity.

Thanks for the responses. perhaps a return to a normal patriarchial structure would benefit the Church?

Why would Rome not roll the BCC under His Beatitude Lubomyr?

Excellent points, Ihar. The patriarchal church most certainly represents the apex of development of an Eastern Church, with a full worldwide Synod, etc.

Why has there not been a patriarch? With the Rusyn population spread amongst Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians particular ethnic tensions have stymied any such unity. The history in the US is a case in point - the ethnic tensions especially after the death of Kyr Soter and the end of World War I divided the "Ruthenian" Church into its Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Ruthenian Metropolias as well as three or four Orthodox jurisdictions.

The greater good for both churches is served by Catholic unity and witness under a single Patriarch, all nationalism aside. Let those who want a particular "Transcarpathian Usage" have theirs, those who want "Galician Usage" have theirs, and those who want "Kyivan Usage" have theirs. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has many particular usages and churches under her omophorion, as the Ukrainian Orthodox and other diverse churches in communion with her show.

I was taught that since Carpatho-Rusyns do not have a patriarch that the pope of Rome was the patriarch for the Ruthenian church? Is that not correct?

I am not aware that "Transcarpathian usage" is any different from the "Galician" one (except for the way of singing - the real point of division between them).However, I might be mistaken - I am foreign to both of them.

No

Father Bless!

What usage to you use, if I may ask?

Dr. Eric

It has been my understanding (according to Fr. Ivan Mina's book "The Ruthenian Catholic Church") that the Rusyn/Ruthenian Church in Europe, while participating in Ukrainian synods from time to time, are very adamant in remaining independent from the UGCC. When the Pope beatified Mykola Charnetsky - the Rusyns made sure the media knew that Bl. Mykola Charnetsky is a saint of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, not the UGCC.

As for a patriarchal structure of the Church - Pope Benedict actually wrote an essay where he supported that. A good start would be for Rome to recognize of the Patriarch of Kyiv!

No, I think you mean Blessed Theodore Romzha...

U-C

Actually, the Carpatho-Russians, being in, for the most part, the Austrian Hungarian Empire, were under the Serbian Patriarchate.

Alexandr

Not always. In the the early 20th century, villages such as Iza, Maramorosh Co, (Hungary) turned Orthodox and asked the Serbian Patriarch for a Orthodox priest.

..."In 1902, the group asked Serbian patriarch to send them an Orthodox priest to serve as their pastor. The Patriarch appointed Rev. Harasim Petrovich to Iza, which evoked a strong protest from the bishop (Uniate) of Mukachevo, Julius Fircak. The Hungarian ministry of religion ordered that Petrovic be recalled from Iza, and it launched a harsh assault on (Rusyn)"Orthodox believers." Thus, Iza produced the first champions of Orthodoxy to be persecuted for their "Rusyn faith"... )p. 105 "The History of The Church in Carpathian Rus'" by Rev. A. Pekar.

Many of the pre-Union Rusyn monasteries had the rank and privilege of Staurogeion status given to them by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Ungcsertezs

Ruthenian Recension by the virtue of being a priest of the Parma Eparchy. Brought up in the Belarusian version of it (which is closer to the Synodal usage, but not quite the same).

This is a highly problematic idea. Blessed Nicholas is an ethnic Ukrainian, born of Ukrainian parents in Semakivtsi, not far from Ivano-Frankivsk. He was ordained priest by the Bishop of Ivano-Frankivsk to serve in that diocese, where he taught in the seminary until he joined the Ukrainian Redemptorists (founded on the basis of an agreement between Metropolitan Andrew of Kyiv-Halych and Father Patrick Murray, then General of the Redemptorists). While respecting everyone else's national/ethnic identity, he certainly never denied his own. He was consecrated Apostolic Visitor of the Greek-Catholics in Volyn, Pidlassia and Polessia, most of whom were themselves ethnic Ukrainians; the only reason for the juridical fiction of a distinction between this Apostolic Visitature and the rest of the Church of Kyiv-Halych was Polish antipathy for both the Greek-Catholic Church in general and Ukrainians in particular.

Metropolitan Andrew appointed Blessed Nicholas Exarch of approximately the same territories; this appointment was ratified by Pope Pius XII. The Nazis would not allow Bishop Nicholas to visit his parishes, so he spent most of his time during the years of World War II in L'viv, staying in the Redemptorist House. The Soviets arrested him together with all the other Ukrainian Greek-Catholic hierarchs in the USSR at the time, in April 1945.

When he was released 11 years later, already terminally ill, he lived in a small room in L'viv, ordained priests for the Archeparchy of L'viv, and was buried (on his death in 1959) by the Greek-Catholic clergy and faithful of L'viv, who made a huge procession to mark the occasion (to keep to a semblance of Soviet legality, if I may be forgiven such an oxymoron, the Polish Canon from their cathedral in L'viv was the nominal head of the funeral service). He was ultimately buried in the Lychakivske Cemetery in L'viv, where his grave became a popular place of pilgrimage and where there were many miraculous healings.

If Blessed Nicholas had any connection at all with the Eparchy of Mukachevo-Uzhhorod or the Eparchy of Preshov, I have yet to hear of it, and I pay close attention to anything that concerns Blessed Nicholas. If he made the slightest effort to reside in Uzhhorod rather than L'viv after his release in 1956, I have yet to hear of that.

Finally, he was presented for beatification by the Patriarch and Synod of the Church of Kyiv-Halych - in fact, he was the first of the saints whom John Paul II beatified during his historic visit to Ukraine six years ago.

So in what conceivable sense can Blessed Nicholas be termed a "Ruthenian Saint" and therefore not a Ukrainian Saint?

My strong suspicion is that anyone promoting such an idea has confused Blessed Nicholas with Blessed Theodore.

Fr. Serge

That's the idea, more of a difference of music and Slavonic as they are both of the "Ruthenian Rescension" - simply to allow any particular development of music and very minor rubrical differences to any within the Patriarchal structure.

Why couldn't the Carpatho-Rusyn Byzantine Catholics be part of the UGCC?

Because they are not all Ukrainians, or at least don't identify themselves as such. Isn't that part of the reason they are not together now? Of course, we are talking about Slavs, who probably won't get along in Heaven either.

Personally, I think we in the Ruthenian Church should be part of the Metropolitan Church of Kiev. There should be one Kievan Church. Rome originally looked upon the Union of Uzhorod as an extension of Brest.

As has been pointed out earlier, our Church was kept divided from the Galician Church by design of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. We certainly should no longer be structured by such a restriction.

I think all Ruthenians and Ukrainians (whether or not you consider them a separate group) should be under Lubymyr Husar as Patriarch. This would be a strength for the Byzantine Catholic Church.

There is already to much division in Catholicism; we need more unity.

Finally, for me, Theodore Romzha, Paul Godjich, Basil Hopko, Alexandr Chira, Mykolay Charnetsky and his companions are all "Ruthenian" martyrs in the ancient sense of the word, as sons of Rus, sons of the Catholic Church, sons of the Byzantine Church.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

And the return to Kyiv, the historical locus of the Union, of the hierarchy is a most significant event in the entire Church of Rus'.

We've been saying this for years. Even in the US the unfortunate post-World War I events which lead to the split in hierarchies after Kyr Soter's death are long, long gone.

As one small example of cooperation, the Russian Catholics have received faculties and "omophorial assistance" from the Melkites and Ukrainian Catholics since their inception. Fr. Nicholas Tolstoy, the first Russian Catholic priest of recent history, received his from the Melkites. Later Kyr Leonid Feodorov, the first Russian Catholic Exarch, received his faculties from Metropolitan Andrey.

Yes, we can work together and be "inclusive" in the proper sense of particular linguistic, musical and occasionally some minor rubrical variations between particular traditions within the Church of Rus'.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has such diverse churches as Greek, Ukrainian, etc. under her Orthodox omophorion. Unity is generally best served in the Byzantine tradition with a Patriarchal hierarchy.

I wonder if a patriarchial hierarchy would spur the BCC to again thrive?

If by BCC, we may hope so (indeed, we must hope so - that's a Christian obligation). I must admit, however, that I've no particular idea about what do do to spur such a revitalization (then again, I don't live in the USA and I have no intention of moving there).

Fr. Serge

As an outsider, judging from the "cradle" Ruthenians on this forum, I would think that they would not welcome being swallowed in a sea of "Ukrainians".
Would this act not lead to a mass exodus to the Carpatho-R Orthodox Church????? What would Magosci say?

Most folks would likely go to the local Roman Catholic parish.

I am not Carpatho-Rusyn, but have been an arm-chair Slavophile since joining my Ruthenian parish. I have Slavic ancestors on my mother's side of the family, their origin not being clear.

I have read a lot of material on the subject. I am not an expert, not a scholar at all, but I have opinions about the matter of Ukrainian and Rusyn identity.

Rusyn ethnic identity is controversial. Some people believe Carpatho-Rusyns form a separate group of East Slavs from Kievan and Galician Ukrainians; some do not. I lean toward the latter group myself, but then, I suppose people should be able to self-identify. The Rusyn language is a dialect of Ukrainian. Depending on what region one is in, it may incorporate some Magyarizations and Slovakizations.

Magosci's view are controversial for some. He is one who advocates for a separate Rusyn identity. He is clearly an expert and great scholar, but his views are not the only views, and many disagree with him on the matter of Rusyn identity. Some argue that the sharp distinction between Rusyns and Ukrainians is a Rusyn-American view point.

The late priest and ethnic scholar A. Pekar seems to identify Ruthenians and Ukrainians much more closesly than Magosci does. His book on the history of the Church in Carpatho-Rus is a great read, as is his essay, Our Slavic Heritage.

I respect those Rusyns who wish to separate themselves from the Ukrainian ethnic group, again, for the principle that people should be able to self-identify. But I also am frankly disappointed when I read or hear some Rusyns disparage Ukrainians and speak of them as their enemies. I have found it odd that some Rusyns have in the past and even now seemed more concerned about Ukrainization than Slovakization or Magyarization.

I tend to romanticize the all Ukrainians and Rusyns as Ruthenians, as sons of Rus. I look a little further back into history. I would even see some close kinship with Belarusans. After all, Brest is in Belarus. All three groups- Ukrainians, Rusyns, and Belarusans have been identified with the Ruthenian people.

The real point is that Patriarch Lubomyr and his Synod may hold whatever they wish as private opinions, but they do not consitute a threat to anyone's ethnic identity. They put up with me, after all!

Fr. Serge

I do think, however, that the Ukrainians would need to adjust some of their nomenclature out of respect for the reunification of the patriarchate. The Kyivian Greek Catholic Church might be something to consider.

God bless,

Gordo

Do you mean "Kyivan"???? I like the return to "Greek Catholic" in English. That is the terminology in Ukrainian and Rusyn not Byzantine. It would be good to have consistancy in both languages. Just a suggestion since I am an outsider and do not get a vote.

Some of us have never stopped using "Greek Catholic". That is the term our Patriarch and Synod use.