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

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.