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