www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Slovak or Ruthenian?

I had an interesting discussion with my aunt the other day. I asked her about this insistence of the BCC about their Prostopinije music (this is not an RDL topic) and its Mukachevo tradition. I learned by reading the cantor institute's website thta there are two traditions - Mukachevo and Presov. Recently, the Pope raised the Slovak churches of the BCC tradition to a Metropolitinate, which I gather is a major distinction.

She told me that they have a difficult time with the Prostopinije because it was never the way they sang. They consider themselves Slovak and they sing as Slovak BC's. In a recent publication posted on this board, an American (U.S. bishop) has sent out an invitation to establish a BC monastery according to the Eastern traditions; insisting on the primacy of the Prostopinije and the Mukachevo tradition.

Does not this enforcement of one tradition on all the other churches ignore the diversity within the Ruthenian churches? The Pope has recognized the Slovaks, but not the BCC in the United States. My aunt is saddened that everyone has forgotten her people and believe that the only Byzantine Catholics were only from east of Uzhorod(???).

I discussed this with her because of a doctoral dissertation I discovered on the internet ("Local Church and Church Universal: Towards a Convergence Between East and West" by Joseph G. Aryankalayil). There seems to be a tradition of a dominant church group gobbling up smaller ones by enforcing the idea that the dominant group is the universal tradition and, therefore, the smaller groups have to relinquish their long held traditions. After decades of my aunt's church being founded, they have totally stopped singing according to their Slovak-Presov ways and have all become Uzhorod-Mukachevites. Does this makes sense? She said that in her area of the state most do not sing according to the official Prostopinije of Mukachevo.

But this is not just about the way they sing. She has noticed a total halt to all promotions of cultural customs. Cultural events and activities have been delegated to the private sphere in the name of a more homogenous Byzantine Catholic Church; *homogenous* meaning whatever the dominant-in control group, the Mukachovites, insist or mandate. My aunt's family never considered themselves other than descendents of Slovaks. She understands the Rusyn element, but her families and churches were shaped with a lean to the Slovak.

But we are here in America I told her and what is this debate over Eastern European cultural tradtions other than an argument brought over from unsettled disputes? Well, she acknowledged my question as being valid, but could not get over how in America her church has decided now that everyone is now Mukachovites, not Presovites. Sounds group political, huh?

So, no one uses he Mukachovite RDL hymnals because the new music killed their spirit and memories. They are not allowed to express their cultural traditions; and if they do, they cannot include church politics. This struck her as odd since separating religion from culture in the Byzantine Churches is like separating religion form Muslim extremists. The two, religion and culture, go together. The false separation between teh two is like those who insist on separating Church and State. The control group wants the enjoyment of one without the headaches of the other.

Can the Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States continue to survive with an antiseptic or generic church tradition colored by Byzantine background and Mukachevite mandates? (Insisting on the latter while claiming the former is contradictory).

Should the BCC give back those Slovak churches in the United States to the Slovak Metropolitante from whence they came?

Should the BCC purge the Mukachovite mandates from those churches that have never identified with it?

Should a Slovak BCC be established to permit those heralding from Slovakia to worship according to their traditions?

Ed Hashinsky

Well here in Canada there is a seperate Slovak Greek Catholic eparchy. Sorry I don't know a lot about it because I an Orthodox.
But this group is very small in number.
Is this what you want to do in the USA? Is it really a viable option?

Halia,

My aunt says that there really is no movement to separate. She is just upset that for years the way they have been singing has been taken away from them. At one time, her church had Rusyn, Slovak, Hungarian, and Croatian parishes. Now, it has become homogenized into one Mukachevite church. They are now obligated to be different. As stated on the RDL forum, their singing has come to a halt. No one knows or feels comfortable singing anymore. They feel that the Mukachevites have taken control and have finally suceeded in ridding their church of the Slovak element.

Ed

There were six Ruthenian parishes that were once under the Ukrainian Toronto Eparchy. Then two Rusyn/Ruthenian Greek Catholics (Stephen Roman and Rev. Michael Rusnak) began to identify themselves as Slovak Greek Catholics and not Ruthenian/Ukrainian Greek Catholics. Mr. Roman was wealthy and persuaded Rome to create the Slovak Greek Catholic Eparchy, and Mr. Roman gave the land and money to build their Cathedral (which the ownership is in dispute with his heirs and the Eparchy). That is why there is a Slovak Eparchy in Toronto, in a nutshell.

Ung

Ed,

What is the name of your Aunt's family village in Europe?

Ung

No, it is not a viable option.

Those pushing for it could all fit on the same bus.

Most of the people in the Ruthenian Metropolia that I know, say they are Slovak. I keep trying to tell myself I'm Rusyn since Jakubany is in Rusyn territory. But that's another story.

Ed,

If you can get a copy of it, get Athanasius Pekar's excellent book, The History of the Church in Carpathian Rus'.

He explains the history of the Ruthenian Church in great deal.

Historically, the Presov Eparchy was divided from the Mukachevo Eparchy; the Mukachevo Eparchy was split in two. Pekar views that split as a Maygyar strategy aimed at weakening the the Ruthenian Church. At that time, both Rusyns and Slovaks were in the Hungarian Empire.

There was a large Rusyn population in what is now Eastern Slovakia, but there are many Slovaks as well as Rusyns in the Presov diocese.


Blessings,


Lance

Ed Hash,

You know, some people just prefer to complain. I've been told that I'm a Byzantine Catholic, but know little about that church; however, when attending the Divine Liturgy and someone helped me get on the right page, the only reference I was given was a statement that "they changed it, now nobody knows." This was from a woman whose grandfathers had both been priests. Clearly the same type of controversy doesn't exist in this church that exists in the church of your aunt.

Historically, dominant cultures subsume smaller cultures. That's the way of the world, whether we like it or not.

Nan, where Greek Catholics chose their own destiny and yes, I have relatives in that church too.

There have been several waves of assimiliation only since the formation of the first Czechoslovak Republic in 1918 among the Rusyns who found themselves living within the boundaries of the Slovak portion of the republic (with the process pushed by the "independent" fascist Slovak state that existed 1939-1945 under Nazi control).

There's very little evidence that a measurable population of ethnic Slovaks pre-1918 were Greek Catholic (perhaps a village here or there that was reconverted from Protestantism in the Counter-Reformation chose the Greek Catholic Church over the Roman Catholic Church). That also accounts for ethnic Hungarian Greek Catholics -- as opposed to Magyarized Rusyns who live in modern-day Hungary.

Slovaks are a Western Slavic ethnicity and their liturgical heritage is Latin. Rusyns are an Eastern Slavic ethnicity and their liturgical heritage is Greek.

For Slovaks to adopt the Greek Catholic faith in the Austrian Empire or direct rule from Roman Catholic Hungary would have been a major step away from the cultural, political and theological mainstream and makes little sense, unless, as I said, there are cases of individual Protestant Slovak villages who adopted Greek Catholicism as a less reprehensible surrender to the power of Rome.

Many Rusyns identified as Slovak during Communist times because the state labeled Rusyns as Ukrainian, an identity that held little connection to the folks of Eastern Slovakia. Assimilation continues in Slovakia today (with the Greek Catholic hierarchy a major force behind it.

The confused ethnic situation in current-day Slovakia is verified by census data where tens of thousands of people who identify their ethnicity as "Slovak" say that Rusyn is their "mother tongue."

Tim,

That's why the creation of a Slovak Metropolia seems all the more political!

Ung

Probably, but I think it's too early to draw any conclusions just yet.

What you say here is undoubtedly true, Tim. One person in our church who is Rusyn says that her cousins in Slovakia identify themselves as Slovak, even though their parents are siblings and they grew up in the same village, and speak the same language.

It is very much the same in my own father's village near Svidnik. My cousins identify as Slovak, while they speak Rusyn at home.

Sadder still, Church Slavonic is now a rarity in the village Greek Catholic church, with Slovak the language of worship.

I understand the drive to be part of mainstream, rather than something different, and it's not for me as a visitor to criticize. But it's very sad to worship in the same church that my father did as a boy back in the 1920s and not hear "Hospodi pomiluj," etc.

Instead, I try to get to Svidnik, where there's a regular Slavonic liturgy.

The Bokshai renditions of our Liturgical music was more likely to be dominant in the Mukacevo eparchy; the Presov eparchy would have been more likely to have variation in their singing because they were more distant from Mukacevo and the parishes further apart geographically. I think the new settings are Mukacevo style simply because they are better documented.
In my opinion parishes are making a mistake if they are only singing the first version of each hymn. Rather than do this, they should determine which version was traditionally used in the parish and sing these, trying other versions when they feel comfortable. This should be accompanied by a printed "guide" which gets inserted in each pew book. We did this in our two parishes the transition was still not easy, but at least it wasn't radical like your aunt experienced. It's still not too late to do this - she should talk to her pastor or cantor about this.

Fr. Deacon Paul