www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ruthenian?

I'm curious - would anyone care to offer one or more definition(s) of the term "Ruthenian"?

Fr. Serge

In terms of ethnicity I tell people that the Ruthenians are a group of Slavic people wose originak homeland lies in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains, mostly where Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania intersect.

Ruthenia is a magical land like Brigadoon that exists south of Poland, west of Ukraine, east of Slovakia and north of Hungary. It last appeared in 1919 and vanished shortly thereafter. Rumors of its reappearance appear to have been exaggerated.

Ethnically more or less what sielos said; politically what Stuart said.

I understand the word's meaning has changed over the centuries. Like Anglican originally was a Latin way of saying simply English (in the Middle Ages before there was an Anglican Church as we know it*), Ruthenian meant Russian. It once was used to refer to Byelorussians as well as who we now call Ruthenians/Rusyns/Carpatho-Russians/Slavish/po-našemu etc.

*Like the Byzantines didn't call themselves Byzantines but Romans (Rhomaioi) and were named that by the 19th-century British, I understand Anglicanism wasn't named that until the same period by the same people, when the British Empire spread that church beyond the motherland and necessitated a name.

Interesting so far - I'm startled by the assertion that Ruthenians are a group of ethnic Slovaks. That would make the group much smaller than it is normally assumed to be, and I know of no evidence to support it.

The equation of Ruthenia with Brigadoon is quite attractive!

The meaning of the word Ruthenian has certainly changed over time; that is in the nature of such terms. But the specific word in question warrants a thorough study, though it may not deserve one and is unlikely to receve it.

It is easy to demonstrate that well within my own lifetime the Holy See used the term in a much broader way than Pittsburgh does, and in a much broader way than the Carpatho-Rusyn enthusiasts would prefer. It clearly included the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics and some other groups who did not and do not care to have it applied to them. Its sudden limitation/reduction in the nineteen-sixties does not necessarily affect its applicability in an ethnic reference.

Indicative to the problem is Professor Magocsi's choice of title for his book on this community in the USA: Our People.

By the way, the Greeks of Constantinople still call themselves Romans, to this very day. The Greeks of the revived independent Greek state also called themselves Romans until those pushing "Hellenic" managed to get the support of the government and the educational establishment - the reason for this was to claim a direct continuity with the pre-Christian Hellenes. Visit the museums and cultural institutions in Athens and get set to be annoyed at the blatant downplaying of the Constantinopolitan connection.

Meanwhile, please keep the discussion on the term "Ruthenian" going. My thanks to those who have so far contributed.

Fr. Serge

Who here claimed they're Slovaks? sielos said Slavic.

Yes, before 1924 Rome counted the Ukrainians in America as Ruthenians, before setting up a separate church there for them.

Wasn't the 1950s-1960s - in Nicholas Elko's brief, tense time as the de-ethnicising Ruthenian supremo in the States - when his church stopped calling itself Ruthenian Greek Catholic and started calling itself Byzantine Catholic? Come to think of it, I think I learnt here that the change dates from the start of their seminary in the 1950s.

I'm taking the part about the Greeks to a new thread to stay on topic.

Actually, the first use of the word "Byzantine" to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire can be found in an Italian work of the mid-16th century. The use of Byzantine as an adjective (and not a positive one) dates to the Enlightenment. Most of the bad things people think about the Rhomaioi can be traced to Edward Gibbon, a brilliant writer with an axe to grind.

In the lands of former Czechoslovakia, Ruthenian is taken to mean the Slavic people who live in Podkarpatska Ukraine which, if you ever get to see a pre-WWII map of Europe, was the tail end of Czechslovakia (before Stalin decided he needed a border with Hungary and added this region to the USSR). The term Ruthenian is also used to describe the Eastern Christians of far Eastern Slovakia both Orthodox and Greek Catholic (who, as it were, somewhat spill over the border of modern day Ukraine) who are related to the slavs in Karpathian Ukraine but who often times nowadays refer to themselves as Slovaks. Most of my friends in Eastern Slovakia who are Eastern Christian and have Ruthenian grandparents today speak only Slovak and refer to themselves as Slovaks. It's a shame to me but according to some reports, Ruthenian language in Slovakia is looked upon as a dying language something the old folks speak while the younger generation opt for the more "Western" Slovak.

An autonomous church sui iuris, using the old Hungarian term for a certain group of peoples out near the Carpethian border with the Ukraine, who came into Union with rome as an eparchy, and have grown to 5 by diaspora.

Overlaps highly with Carpetho-Rusyn.

I think there was a series of unions with Rome but wasn't the best-known Ruthenian one, Užhorod in 1646, a group of priests doing it on their own (for protection from their then-Calvinist Hungarian rulers) not one or more whole dioceses like the union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596? (The Ukrainian Catholic Church was at first much bigger than now, including the metropolitan of Kiev and including Byelorussia; Russian expansion including, yes, persecution, reduced it to Galicia, its homeland today.)

"Ruteni" (Eng. "Ruthenian") is merely a Church Latin term for all Eastern Slavs. The best known union with the Ruteni was the Treaty of Brest. The Union of Uzherod is so badly documented that the original act of union itself does not seem to exist.

True of Ruteni and Užhorod and good catch on the best-known union; using the older meaning of Ruteni Brest is No. 1.

The Treaty of Brest was in 1918 and part of the end of World War I; the Union of Brest started the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

There probably was a "Union of Uzhhorod", but no one has been able to find the document or documents. That makes it difficult to know who promised what to whom.

Fr. Serge

The agreement ending the Russo-German portion of World War I is technically "The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk". The "Union of Brest" really is a "Treaty"--it is written as a formal diplomatic (vs. theological) document, and is an agreement between the "Ruteni" bishops and the Kingdom of Poland as much as it is with the Holy See (which really knew very little about it beforehand).

On the Union of Uzherod, it is assumed the terms and conditions were similar to those of Brest, but probably with the restrictions and definitions contained in the 1598 Bull Magnus Dominus, by which the signatories of the Union of Brest were hung out to dry. But, as Father Serge, notes, nobody really knows. Convenient for both sides, that is.

The Union of Uzhorod by Michael Lacko SJ, Professor at the Pontifical Institute for Oriental Studies.

He documents it quite well, the scanty records being kept in the archives of the Diocese of Eger.

Does he actually have, or know the location of, a complete copy of the original Agreement of Union?

The archives of the Diocese of Eger. I post it when I have time to type it up.

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

– Confucius, Analects, XIII, 3,

Father,

But your words were incorrect, Fr. Lacko did find the document.

Not "started", but formalizing modern relations between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Rome. The Kyivan Metropolia (as well as that of Halych) are much older than 1596.

"Split" would be a good word. Before there was one Kyivan Metropolitan Church, afterwards there were two. In the same way, prior to 1724, all members of the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch were "Melkites" (or "Melchites", in the charming 19th century orthography), and afterwards there were two. We must constantly be aware that the birth of most of the so-called "uniate" Churches involved the act of schism.

Ruthenia does indeed exist - it is about 8 miles north of Birdtail, Manitoba and about 15 or so miles from Rossburn, Manitoba. The parish is served from Rossburn, MB and is a Manitoba Heritage Site.

Ruthenia was also a ship of the Canadian Pacific Line.

"Split" actually is not a good word. As Archpriest Andriy Chirovsky has pointed out, there were several divisions in the Kyivan Church well before the Union of Brest (the abdication of Maxim from Kyiv to create another Metropolitanate, the eventual establishment of the Metropolitanate of Halych, etc.) and "split" doesn't really do justice to a very complex history. I will defer to Fr. Borys Gudziak's interpretation of which I have paraphrased (i.e. "formalizing relations with Rome").

Assuming for the sake of discussion that Fr. Michael actually did have some official document to work from, there is somewhat of a difficulty in that no official bull from Rome was issued to proclaim the Union, as was the case for the Union of Brest with both Benedictus sit Pastor ille bonus and Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis.

If the document from Fr. Michael is assumed to be legitimate, the guarantees to the signatories only extend to three conditions - namely:



The additional spiritual, liturgical, and ecclesiastical conditions of the Union of Brest are not implicitly or explicitly requested in the Union of Uzhorod (again assuming Fr. Michael's text to be authoratative).

Specific conditions given in the Union of Brest included the issue of the Filioque and the general acceptance to retain "with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors", the integrity of the Divine Services - "That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the ancient custom of the Eastern Church..."; "That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable..." and even "That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists".

The ambiguity of the "Union of Uzhorod" would (by the exact letter of the very ambiguous document) not seem to proclude mandatory celibacy of clergy, liturgical changes (as long as the "greek rite" is maintained) and other difficulties. The actual text of the "Union of Uzhorod" would seem to fail to procure or even reference the acceptance of the much more explicit and detailed conditions given in the precedental Union of Brest.

One can claim centuries later that this or that was understood at the time, but the signatories are long gone and the document in general is extremely weak and ambiguous.

There is also a chemical element called Ruthenium. I have no idea what it is or what it might be used for.

No, the Union of Brest did not "start the Ukrainian Catholic Church" (that term was unknown to the Fathers of Brest and nowhere appears in the documents of the Union) or any other Church. To restore full eucharistic relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Kyiv-Halych and all Rus' does not start some new religious judicatory. Again, nothing in the documents of the Union indicates that starting some new church is not in question.

Fr. Serge

The document of the Union of Uzhorod as translated by Fr. Michael Lacko from the document in the archives of the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna and compared with the same document in the archives of the diocese of Eger.

By the grace of Christ, elected most holy Father and universal Patriarch.
We priest of the holy Greek rite, inhabitants of the noble and apostolic kingdom of Hungary, situated through the Districts specified with our signature, realizing that the sacrament of the king is to be hidden, but that the works of God are to be revealed and to be shown to all peoples more clearly than the sun, seeing that they are such that through them the ineffable goodness and clemency of our most merciful God towards rational creatures is wont to be made manifest. According to this principle and angelic rule we declare to Your Holiness, we preach and we lift up to the heavens with titles of most devout praise before the whole world. What is that[that we declare]? The grace of our God and Saviour freely poured out among us, by which working in us and foretelling most lovingly the salvation of our souls, we, having abandoned and driven from our hearts the Greek schism, are restored and affianced again to the Immaculate Virgin Spouse of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is the holy Roman Church, hitherto abominated by us and held in hatred without any cause. This same return of ours, indeed, was accomplished in the year of salvation one thousand six hundred and forty-six, on the twenty-fourth day of April, while Ferdinand III the most sacred Emperor of the Romans was ruling, in the Latin castle-church of Uzhorod situated on the estate of the most illustrious Count George of Humenne, in the fashion:
The bishop of Munkach, Basil Tarasovic, who has already departed this life, when, following the party that was both schismatical as well as heretical, he had broken the bond of holy Union, publicly abandoned the Catholic Church. The Venerable father in Christ, George Jakusic, bishop of Eger, now resting in Christ, considering this, having with him the Reverend Basilian Fathers summoned for this purpose , Father Peter Parthenius who today is our bishop, and Father Gabriel Kosovicky, most courteously invited us by letter to uzhorod, and after a seasonable discourse from the aforesaid Fathers about holy Union, he accomplished, with the Holy Spirit disposing us for it, what he purposed, and appointed the day dedicated to St. George the Martyr for making the profession of faith.
On that day we sixty-three priests came together and followed the aforementioned most Reverend bishop of Eger to the church named above. So after the enactment of the mystery of the bloodless sacrifice performed in our Ruthenian tongue, and after the sacramental expiation of their sins by some of the priests, we pronounced the profession of faith in an audible voice according to the prescribed formula, namely:
We believe all and everything that our Holy Mother the Roman Church bids us believe. We acknowledge that the most holy Father Innocent X is the universal Pastor of the Church of Christ and our Pastor, and we with our successors desire and wish to depend on him in everything; with however, the addition of these conditions:

First: That it be permitted to us to retain the rite of the Greek Church;
Second: To have a bishop elected by ourselves and confirmed by the [Roman] Apostolic See;
Third: To have the free enjoyment of ecclesiastical immunities.

To these the most Reverend bishop accede without difficulty. The whole of this, too, the most Illustrious Benedict Kisdi, Bishop of Eger, with his Vicar General, and the Reverend Father Thomas Jaszbereny, religious of the Society of Jesus, being present, ratified in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight. This business of ours received very great support from the paternal solicitude both of the most Illustrious and Mot Reverend Primate of Hungary George Lippay, archbishop of Esztergom, twice invoked by us through a mission undertaken by aforesaid Reverend Basilian Fathers, and of the Most Reverend bishop of Vacz Matthias Tarnoczy also, to both of whom we are for ever obliged.
Bringing these events before the notice of Your holiness we unanimously and humbly beg Your paternal benediction, the advance of our cause and the confirmation of the Most reverend Peter Parthenius elected by us as bishop.
In Uzhorod, the year one thousand six hundred and fifty-two, the fifteenth day of January.
The Most humble servants of Your Holiness, priest of the Greek rite,
Alexius Ladomersky, archdeacon of Makovica
Stephen Andrejov, archdeacon of Spis
Gregory Hostovicky, archdeacon of Humenne
Stephen, archdeacon of Seredne
Daniel Ivanovic, archdeacon of Uz
Alexius Filipovic, archdeacon of Stropkov

There is also a chemical element called Ruthenium. I have no idea what it is or what it might be used for.

No, the Union of Brest did not "start the Ukrainian Catholic Church" (that term was unknown to the Fathers of Brest and nowhere appears in the documents of the Union) or any other Church. To restore full eucharistic relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Kyiv-Halych and all Rus' does not start some new religious judicatory. Again, nothing in the documents of the Union indicates that starting some new church is not in question.

Fr. Serge

I knew somebody would jump on 'started the Ukrainian Catholic Church'. Of course I knew the dioceses involved weren't started in 1596 and remember the name Ukrainian Catholic Church seems a 20th-century invention but I thought a long explanation would have been too awkward and ISTM a new religious judicatory made of old dioceses is what was founded at Brest-Litovsk.

Well, I seem to have won the race to jump on the name "Ukrainian Catholic Church" (in Ukraine that term refers to Roman Catholics in Ukraine). Thank you!

And again, the Union of Brest did not itself start a new judicatory. What did that was the legal recognition several decades later of a separate Orthodox Church of Kyiv-Halych, and many of the institutions of this new judicatory came in place only in the twentieth century.

One might compare this to the recent re-establishment of Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. This was certainly a momentous event, and involved signing an Act documenting various aspects of the relationship between the two, but it did not establish a new judicatory.

Or the Union of Florence - which contained no provision for any new judicatory.

In an effort to return to topic, I might point out that there is not and never has been any judicatory calling itself the "Ruthenian Orthodox Church"!

Fr. Serge

More or less the same part of Canada where one finds Ruthenia also includes a place called "Keleher", with its very own Greek-Catholic Church! Canada is a magical land indeed - I'm waiting for someone to found "Brigadoon".

Fr. Serge

I believe the first "jump" occurred about an hour before yours (see Post #341159)...

And yes, there is much of Canada that is magical - I myself have stood in other places such as Tolstoi and have seen the giant mosquito of Komarno (Ukrainian pun intended...)

Diak's Ukrainian pun is excellent - full marks!

Meanwhile I just found this quote:


The quote is from Edward Lucas. Alas, though: he may be heartbroken to learn that Msgr Augustine Voloshyn, the founder and head of the one-day government, was a self-identified Ukrainian who called his ephemeral state "Carpatho-Ukraine".

Lucas continues by pointing out that the list of Ruthenians well known to the general public begins and ends with Andy Warhol. But he doesn't enter into the discussion, because his family came from the Preshov region

Transcarpathia produced - and presumably still produces - excellent furniture, which was much sought-after in Soviet days.

Fr. Serge

Father, bless,

For kicks I figured I'd chime in . . . Ruthenium is used, amongst other things, in semiconductors. Aside from the fact that it is apparently a waste product from platinum mining in the Urals, I have no guesses how it got it's name. A brief glance at my usual sources for such things didn't shed any concrete light on the subject.

Justin

I was born and raised in the Byzantine Catholic Church (8 years as an altar boy!) Growing up, the Union of Uzhgorod was never really discussed, it was as if Greek/Byzantine Catholic Church had always existed. Documents existing or not, what I find interesting is how the actual Union only took place after two failed attempts, and even then took almost 100 years to complete.

On this webpage http://www.simkovich.org/religion.htm these referenced details are provided:

In 1614, 50 priests convened at the Krasni Brid Monastery with this intent, but a crowd of Orthodox protested and dispersed the group. A second attempt in the 1630s under Bishop Vasili Tarosovich also failed. Finally in April 1646, Bishop Parfenii Petrovich was able to convene a meeting of 63 (out of a few hundred) priests who pledged their allegiance to the Pope of Rome. Their signed document became known as the 'Union of Uzhgorod', resulting in the formation of the Greek Catholic Church. This new Church was given greater material assistance from the Austro-Hungarian Empire while being allowed to maintain their Eastern Rite traditions, including married priests. From that time, the Rusyns had two bishops, one Greek Catholic and one Orthodox, until 1721 when the last remaining Orthodox priests in the western counties accepted the Union. Priests in the eastern counties of Bereg and Maramaros remained Orthodox until 1745.

Actually it seems that Eastern Orthodoxy never quite died out in Transcarpathia. If the reports I have are true, a few small quasi-parishes survived in the higher reaches of the mountains, and managed to bring a priest from Bessarabia every now and then.

Izha was one of these communities - and the nuns who are currently occupying St. Nicholas Monastery near Mukachiv came from Izha.

Fr. Serge