www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News UOC-MP parish returns church to UGCC

Proving that, at the grass-roots, Orthodox and Catholics can work together:

There is a report in RISU that the UOC-MP parish in the Transcarpathian village of Osii is in the process of building a new church and has returned its current building to the UGCC parish, from which it had been taken in 1949. In observance of the transfer on 8 February, Kyr Milan (Sasik), Apostolic Administrator of the Mukachevo Eparchy, celebrated a Divine Liturgy for members of the two parish communities.

UGCC parishoners were urged by the Bishop to assist UOC parishoners in completing construction on their church building. He also reported that similar transfers were scheduled to occur in four other Transcarpathian villages: Velyki Lazy, Benedykivtsi, Zarichchia and Sasiv.

The article also notes that Catholic and Orthodox communities in 36 villages share use of the same church, but that there are 13 villages in which "interdenominational conflicts are officially registered".

Orthodox (UOC-MP) Community in Transcarpathia Gives Greek Catholics Old Church [risu.org.ua]

May God grant His blessings to the good people of the Orthodox and Catholic communities in Osii.

Many years,

Neil

This is proof that miracles do happen.
Lauro

Isn't the Mukachevo Eparchy independent from the UGCC, canonically speaking?

Ung-Certez

The Bishops Mukakachevo-Uzhorod are voting members of the UGCC Synod. They are included in the list of UGCC hierarchs, check out
http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ugcc_structure/bishops

But they are still immedaitely under Rome and not under Patriarch Lubomyr's jurisdiction.

Yes, Fr. Deacon, everyone knows what is on paper. Another small sui iuris church directly dependent on Rome.

The reality is, the bishops vote in the UGCC Synod, their priests and laity are full participants in UGCC Synodal gatherings, and their bishops, clergy, and laity comply with the decrees from the Synod and His Beatitude Lubomyr. The Bishops of the eparchy were prominent and right up on the podium during the Holy Father's Liturgy in L'viv, shoulder to shoulder with the rest of their brother UGCC bishops from Ukraine and the diaspora.

I am not sure the hierarchy of Mukachevo really consider themselves somehow directly under Rome anymore except with regard to having to go through the ridiculous process of episcopal "confirmation", and thus divorce themselves from the Synod. It is clear there is now a close mutual relationship.

Were it not a close canonical situation, I don't think Mukachevo, L'viv or Rome would appreciate their being included publically as part of the integral structure of the UGCC.

The statement that in X number of parishes in Transcarpathia there are officially registered interdenomination conflicts intrigues me. How and why does one officially register such a thing? What are the consequences of such official registration? Does one obtain an income tax deduction, or something?

Incognitus

I'd venture to guess an "interdenominational conflict" is a lawsuit between the two Churches over who the parish property belongs to.

Deacon Lance,

As Diak notes, that makes them no less a constituent canonical entity of the UGCC. The situation is analagous to that of the Melkites in the diaspora (and all other Churches sui iuris which have had canonical jurisdictions erected in the diaspora). Certainly, neither Sayidna John nor Sayidnya Ibrahim consider themselves or their Eparchies any less a part of the Melkite Patriarchate or any less subject to His Beatitude Gregory III because they are "exempt Sees", technically subject to the Congregation other than in matters liturgical.

Although there have been instances in which hierarchs of such jurisdictions have flaunted their exempt status when they were in disagreement with the presiding hierarch of their Church, for the most part, it would be difficult to know that such Sees aren't fully subject to the hierarch's jurisdiction, the Congregation notwithstanding.

And, frankly, except in the instances of those Churches sui iuris (such as the Italo-Greek-Albanians and the Ruthenians, with their Metropolia in the diaspora and lesser, but exempt, jurisdiction in the old-world ) for which no one hierarch has been designated as singularly presiding, to my knowledge no one has ever put forth the argument that exempt jurisdictions were not part and parcel of the Church sui iuris by which they are defined. (I am aware that, technically, each exempt diocese, including those of the Latins, is a Church sui iuris, but that is a fiction de jure.)

Many years,

Neil

Diak,

no doubt you are correct about the "close mutual relationship", but the UGCC still recognizes the autonomy of Mukachevo:

"The autonomous status of the Greek Catholic Church's Mukachiv Eparchy has been preserved. It is formally a sui juris church not subordinated to the Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Mukachiv eparchy, with its center in Uzhorod, is lead by Bishop Ivan Semedy and his auxiliary Bishop Ivan Margitych."

UGCC Structure [ugcc.org.ua]

Actually, Neil, the Mukachevo situation is not analagous to that of the Melkite eparchies in the so-called "diaspora". Mukachevo is not in the "diaspora". The Ukrainian eparchies in the Americas and Oceania are analogous to the Melkite eparchies of the "diaspora".

Dear Deacon Montalvo,

I thought that bishop Margitych and Semedi retired ?

Prof. Paul Magosci of the University of Toronto has indicated in many of his published works that there were Carpatho-Ruthenians of different 'orientations'. There were those who saw themselves as Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, pure Carpatho-Rusyn, etc.....

It should be noted that for centuries in the Austro-Hungarian Empire you had to Magyarize yourself (become Hungarian) to rise to power or have wealth.

The Galician (Halychan) Ukrainians were very similar in this type of polarization. Polonization was the key to power and wealth. In fact, Archbishop Major Andrew Shyptysky for the Ukrainian-Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church was born into an aristocratic Ruthenian (Ukrainian) familly which been completely Polonized. He was born Count Andrew Sheptysky. He left this aristocratic life to return to his Ruthenian-Ukrainian roots.

There were many attempts by the Carpatho-Rusyns to join the larger Ukrainian Nation even prior to it's forced annexation at the end of WW2.

For example, in 1939 Father Augustine Voloshyn of the Greek Catholic Church was declared president of the CARPATHO-UKRAINIAN Republic. The goal of the republic was to unite with the other Ukrainian peoples at a appropriate time to form a larger Republic.

The Hungarians who were allied with the NAZIs invated the newly formed republic the next day and had many of it's leaders arrested and liquidated. Hungarians would not permit an independant Rusyn / Ukrainian state to exist. The Hungarians had a 'White-Rhodesian' superiority complex in regards to the Carpatho-Ruthenians / Ukrainians.

With the post WW2 brutal incorporation of Galicia (Halychyna) and Carpatho-Ruthenia (Zakarpattia Oblast) into the Ukrainian SSR there was a rapid end to this type of polarization. The two Greek Catholic Churches found themselves for the first time in a Ukrainian SSR Republic and cooperated in everyway possible for the eventual re-establishment of the Greek Catholic Church.

The population in the Mukachiv Eparchy are today largely of either Ukrainian, Rusyn-Ukrainian, or Rusyn orientation. The mix is even more heterogenous in Eastern Slovakia where some identify themselves as Slovak, Slovak-Rusyn, Ukrainian, Ukrainian-Rusyn, Slovak-Ukrainian, etc... In the United States, the Ruthenian Metropolia is even more heterogenous.

The Rusyns in Slovakia through no fault of their own have mostly taken on a Slovak identity. In the United States there has been significant Americanization and/or Slovakization of Rusyn immigrants (ie: my great-grandparents came from Slovakia, therefore I must be Slovak).

Also the Ruthenian American Church is now a completely Anglicized and this liturgical status has little appeal for the newly arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe.

From a practical point of view, the Eparchy of Mukachiv will continue to operate on a 'sovereignty-association' basis with the larger Ukrainian Church. The eparchy is highly suportive of a Ukrainian-Ruthenian Patriarch. Bishops Sashik has a difficult road ahead in regards to creating a strong Carpatho-Rusyn identity within the UGCC. This will be the status quo for several generations.

IMHO, the Ruthenian Metropolia USA will have a choice of either completely loosing it's Slavic heritage or merging with larger UGCC. In fact, it should probably already begin the process of surrendering the word 'Ruthenian'.

Hritzko, well stated. We have a few priests serving in the USA from that Eparchy, not in the BCC Metropolia, but all of them in the UGCC. One was a former pastor of mine. He and all of the clergy I know of in the USA from that Eparchy identify themselves as UGCC clergy, not "clergy of the Eparchy of Mukachevo sui iuris".

Anyone who has been there or knows someone from there knows that in general they squarely consider themselves to be part of the UGCC. They do not consider themselves to be a fractious part of some "Ruthenian" Church. Their bishops are fully involved in the Synod, and as far as I know since the installation of His Beatitude Lubomyr have voluntarily complied with all Synodal decrees. As I previously mentioned, they were prominent in being part of the Holy Father's visits to the UGCC.

With the exception of the extra steps required for episcopal consecration, their priests are fully participatory in UGCC Synodal activities, such as the youth and catechetical commissions. They clearly have seen the benefits of alliance with the larger UGCC for ecclesiastical unity, while keeping ethnic particularity intact.

Their seminarians are trained at Rudno and the UCU. They have vocations who have been ordained and are serving elsewhere in the UGCC. There are monasteries in Mukachevo Eparchy subject to a protohegumen in L'viv. On paper, yes, presently they are "formally" a church sui iuris (as the UGCC site itself says). This is primarily Rome's doing and not the choice of the current hierarchy of either the Eparchy of Mukachevo nor the UGCC.

Speaking practically of the day -to-day reality, it is obvious that they are an integral part of the UGCC. It is certainly possible that in the future Mukachevo will eventually not have sui iuris status but will be "formally" part of the UGCC by their own action and consent.

As to your first point, I'm not the patriarchal webmaster.

As top your last point, I'm not aware of anyone within the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh that uses the term "Ruthenian" any longer to refer to our Church sui juris. In fact, on more than one occasion it has been pointed out to me that this surrendering of the name occurred during the time of Bishop Nicholas (Elko).

Don't you mean "Americanized". My children have retained their Spanish Christian names without any Anglicization.

The point about immigrants is one to which I can relate in some way. In fact, it's been a problem for the Church in the Americas since the beginning. Immigrants either blended in to the predominant Church or established "national" parishes of ethnicity. Subsequent generations distanced themselves from immigrant status, hopefully without surrendering their cultural identity. As to the situation in the West, Eastern European immigrants are relatively non-existent, although as of late I've seen a number of Bosnians and Serbians in the hotel and service industry of Scottsdale. I make it a point to welcome new visitors, and I've yet to greet someone newly arrived from Eastern Europe.