The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
That latin friend, Deacon Eric, Pastor Freed, Sebastian, Deepu
5,836 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (William), 86 guests, and 26 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,154
Posts414,836
Members5,836
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
Bob:

Mukachevo has many daughter churches - Greek Catholic Churches of Slovakia, Hungary, portions of Romania and Yugoslavia, the BCC and the ACRGCO church in the US - that, as offspring, are certainly inheritors of the legacy of the Carpathian Slav people.

Do you think that juridictions that are not really daughters are similarly inheritors? Would the fact that many BC's have transferred to some Roman Catholic diocese make that particular church a inheritor, properly speaking, of this legacy?

djs

djs, I recall that in '96 in Rome on the event of the 350th anniversary of the Union of Uzhhorod there were representatives from all those Catholic jurisdictions you mention except Romania and in addition the Canadian Slovak jurisdiction was represented. All of these are inheritors of the legacy of Mukachevo of course, as is the ACROD.

You ask me what I think about other jursisdictions, there is no doubt that some OCA parishes have mantained a "Carpathian" identity, these are rather few and far between. I think that today there are many Carpathian people in other jurisdictions that are not part of the heritage of Mukachevo (the jursidictions that is), so while individuals may have a Carpathian Slav identity they are not living it out in their worship community. Perhaps they keep the customs at home, I do not know the answers to all that.

Regarding the RCs, I think anyone may have any identity that has some justification. I am of the opinion that the Carpathian Slavs in the majority were Easterners; Orthodox who later became Greek Catholics who later were forced back into Orthodoxy the majority of whom opted to return to the Greek Catholic Church.

There is not doubt that there was some RC presence especially among the Hungarian and German (and probably Polish) minorities. These people of course made up part of the fabric of Carpathian society, but I think the RCs have to be considered separately.

As for former BCs or Orthodox who become RC, that is hard for me to understand. Our heritage is so beautiful so complete, how can it be let go of so easily? Perhaps in a move where there is no BC or Orthodox parish, in a marriage, or in the former times of strife. On a personal level I cannot understand it. Perhaps someone who has will comment.

Bob

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Dear Bob,

Yes, that question has plagued me as well.

The Ukrainian Roman Catholics I've met have told me that their grandparents became RC after 1946 since there was no Greek CAtholic Church around and they wouldn't join the "Soviet Orthodox Church" as they described it.

They "got used" to the RC Church and it is now their spiritual home.

I obtained some of their Latin liturgical publications in Ukrainian - it was strange to read the NO Mass in Ukie, let me tell you.

Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels, as they say.

I'd give it some time and we'll see how long our East Slavic Latins last away from their true spiritual home!

Alex

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Quote
Originally posted by Bob King:
[QB]

On the second point, I have not at any time or place and in any way ever equated either the Union of Uzhhorod (1646-) or the Union of Brest (1596) with the injustices perpetrated by the God-less communists in any part of the former "Eastern Bloc." If the esteemed Administrator is implying this he should re-read my post I was merely asking for clarification of Fr. Joe's comments.

For
QB]

I also understand the horror that the Greek Catholics suffered under the Stalinists during the 40's but in fairness to history, one cannot claim that there was no pressure in the 17th Century that the POlish-Lithuanian authorities exerted for Orthodox to come into Union with Rome. It did not have the 20th Century methods that the Communists used but there still was pressure. Also, the great majority of the people rejected the Union at the time.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Dear Brian,

Do you know what I'm upset about? That I'll probably never see you and Bob and others in the flesh - the fascinating and loveable people you are! smile

I think that it may be a difficult task to compare the 16th century to the 20th along these lines, I am afraid. Not impossible, mind you, just very difficult.

It is true what you say about the people's opposition in the 16th and 17th centuries.

But in my unsophisticated view (remember, I never went to seminary), the opposition as far as we know was more about protecting traditions than anything else.

Thus, the early Byzantine Catholics were opposed to the "Filioque" not so much on theological grounds, but on grounds that it was not keeping with the liturgical tradition they always knew - period.

This is why, when RC gendarmes came out to the villages during Sunday liturgy to see how the people recited the Creed, our ancestors merely added not "Filioque" or "I Syna" but "Istynno" or "truly." I'm wondering what the modern source for the use of this word is with respect to the Old Believers' version of the Creed?

When asked why they commemorated the Pope in the Liturgy, it was noted that our ancestors replied, in all simplicity, "It must be because he's joined our Orthodox Church!"

There was much more at stake for our ancestors in terms of Latinization and denationalization than there was in terms of the Union. The Union could be tolerated if the traditions were respected. We can argue whether they were or not, but it would probably be a very light argument . . .

In addition, in those days, no one really cared to ask anyone about their religious affiliation - one followed the leaders.

The Greeks were different, of course, and the people came out in droves to jeer their bishops who signed the Union of Florence.

But then again they were more sophisticated theologically.

It must have been because more Greeks attended seminary at one point or another.

Have a great day!

Alex

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Alex,
Christ is in our Midst!

Thank you! Please know I was not trying to be insolent or argumentative about people's suffering and I do not agree with Bob's assessment of the Events of 1946-47 at all frankly smile

I am continually pleased with your contributions on this forum and they inform me much about the traditions of the people of Ukraine and of the other Carpathian peoples.

Peace,
Brian
P.S. Hopefully we can have some Slivovitsa some day!!

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
Quote
Originally posted by Brian:

I also understand the horror that the Greek Catholics suffered under the Stalinists during the 40's but in fairness to history, one cannot claim that there was no pressure in the 17th Century that the POlish-Lithuanian authorities exerted for Orthodox to come into Union with Rome. It did not have the 20th Century methods that the Communists used but there still was pressure. Also, the great majority of the people rejected the Union at the time.

Brian,

I think that it would be fair to say that there was some political involvement in the Union of Brest-Litovsk that took place in 1596 in the then Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania and the Union of Uzhhorod that took place in the then Kingdom of Hungary in 1646.

What was the total extent of this political involvment will probably never be known. It does not however seem (at least there is not sufficient written indication) that it was comparable to the later actions of the God-less regimes that came to power in those same areas in the 20th century.

The Union was, however, at times enforced by the governments, of that there appears to be record. There are Orthodox Martyrs for the Faith who resisted the government enforcement of the Union even somewhat recently (cf. St. Maxim Sandowycz)

The entanglement of some governments with Church administration is lamentable. This, however is not new nor is it a unique problem of East or West.

As recently, I am told, as the implementation of the New Calendar among the Greek Catholics in Hungary (in the '20s?), was enforced by the government at gunpoint!

One thing that I think needs to be added almost as a foot note, if you will indulge me please.

The Union of Brest in 1596 took place, as said above, in what was then the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania. It affected Orthodox who belonged to the then Kievan Metroplia. The later Union of Uzhhorod in 1646 took place in the then Kingdom of Hungary and affected the Orthodox living within that realm (whose jurisdiction beyond immediately Mukachevo seems still unlcear).

Both of these governments were Roman Catholic oriented, and I believe Professor Magocsi has shown that the locals, when they embraced the Union, assumed another social status by being Catholic. I mention this in no way to criticize the decisions of any of those that have gone before us in the faith, only to point it out, it seems to go usually unmentioned.

The mixing of dates of Union is not in and of itself a problem except on this point. Someone in another thread made a statement that looked like he/she was saying that the division of the Slav Greek Catholics in the USA into Ukrainian and Ruthenian represented an innovation. It represented a local change only. The Ukrainian Catholics of today represent those Orthodox of the Kievan Metropolia that came into Union with Rome in 1596 and share that patrimony. The Ruthenians in Europe and Abroad all share the patrimony of the Union of Uzhhorod of 1646. When Rome made the division in the USA it is lamentable that families became divided and some parishes joined the jurisdiction that did not accurately represent their roots for one reason or another. Rome was only putting order here based on the same patterns in Europe. On a final note, in 1996 there were two celebrations in Rome, one celebrating the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest-Litovsk and the other celebrating the 350th anniversary of the Union of Uzhhorod.

Bob

P.S. Dates and place names are from memory, feel free to correct any data that seems inaccurate.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
Quote
Originally posted by Brian:
Please know I was not trying to be insolent or argumentative about people's suffering and I do not agree with Bob's assessment of the Events of 1946-47 at all frankly smile

Brian,

Thanks for the input, please elaborate.

Bob

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Not you Bob (King) smile Bob Tallick aka Orthoman

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
Quote
Originally posted by Brian:
Not you Bob (King) smile Bob Tallick aka Orthoman

Oh OK. I had no idea.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Bob:

Quote
...some OCA parishes have mantained a "Carpathian" identity, these are rather few and far between
Quote
Our heritage is so beautiful so complete, how can it be let go of so easily?

In the early days, one group of our people had a definite Russophile orientation and found the move to Russian Orthodoxy easy and presumably rewarding. For others the situation was, IMO, nothing short of tragic: in their effort to preserve their particular heritage, they made decision that has ultimately led to the loss of it. I don't believe that there was a deliberate effort to quash this heritage within the RO(GC)C, but I find this loss to be heart-breaking, nevertheless.

djs

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Brian:

Quote
one cannot claim that there was no pressure in the 17th Century that the POlish-Lithuanian authorities exerted for Orthodox to come into Union with Rome. It did not have the 20th Century methods that the Communists used but there still was pressure. Also, the great majority of the people rejected the Union at the time.

Although Bob has commented on this, and you have qualified it, I wanted to comment.

One cannot dispute the "pressure", but the pressure was to accede to the religion of the King, namely RCism NOT for the union. Taft notes: "In the well-informed, balanced and objective view of historian Ambroise Jobert, 'The Union of Brest is not the work of Polish or Roman policies. The Ruthenian bishops, irritated by the reforms of [Constantinopolitan patriarch] Jeremias II, requested it, the Polish court decided, not without hestitation, to risk it, and Rome received the Ruthenians into union without making any precise commitments in their regard.' " http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology/taft-kelly2000.htm.

I think, it was a shrewd idea, actually. We negotiated a "pre-nupt" that enabled us to keep our ways, and had the ability to appeal to the Pope, whenever our neighbors were working, quite naturally, to assimilate us out of existence.

As you point out, not everyone accepted the union. Orthodox churches remained (in stark contrast to the situation with the Soviets), but I am surprised your comment on the "great majority" of people rejecting the union. What is the source of this comment?

djs

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 195
I would like to qualify some previous comments I made. Reflecting on them I think they can be easily misunderstood and they were poorly expressed.

My comments about someone abandoning our tradition refers not the the Carpathian Slav usages and customs but rather to the the greater Constantinopolitan Tradition, the Byzantine Tradition (liturgical rites, discipline, theology, etc). Leaving a Carpathian Slav usage congregation/jurisdiction for another non-Carpathian Slav one is no doubt a grave matter but that is not exactly what I meant to convey.

Also, I do not want it to appear that I do not think there are not valid reasons for people to leave the churches of the Byzantine Tradition. There must be individuals who grew up in the Byantine Tradition who find themselves edified and uplifted by Western forms of worship and spirituality. These people must follow their consciences, as do all in all matters, no doubt. Others must surely have wholly justifiable reasons for choosing to worship in another community or Tradition, I did not mean to imply otherwise.

Bob

[ 08-29-2002: Message edited by: Bob King ]

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 3
G
Member
OP Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 3
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Is there a copy of the icon Our Lady of Mukachevo on-line?

Alex
Alex,
You asked this question a little over three years ago.

I can finally say to you, "Yes". smile

Just go to the "Where is the Icon of Our Lady of Mukachevo?" thread I started.

Chtec found some links with info and an image of the icon.

If you could be so kind, would you please let me know if the articles contain any information regarding the current whereabouts of the icon?

griego

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Dear Griego,

Absolutely!

I wonder if anyone ever did an icon of the image of Our Lady of Prompt Succor of New Orleans and Louisiana?

Hmm . . .

Cheers,

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 333
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 333
If Father Joseph is correct in his statment that the Monastery is ancient and may go back to St. Methodius himself, then it had to be Orthodox prior to the Union of Uzhorod.

In my travels to Eastern Europe I found that Greek Catholics in some cases were requesting the return of properties that had at any time passed through Greek Catholic adminstration. It seems that this request was made even if the facility had been founded prior to the Union and thus clearly previously Orthodox. They were also claiming properties where clearly the majority of its users did not with to leave Orthodoxy to return to the Union (or to go into Union for the first time if born after the mid/late forties)as lon gas the property was a Greek Catholic property prior to World War II.

It seems that some have forgotten that to profess Orthodoxy was a crime in our ancestral area under the Hapsburgs and Magyars prior to World War I and its resultant dissolution of Austria-Hungary. The Roman Catholic Church of Hungary was such a friend to our ancestors that in some counties of what is now Eastern Slovakia, the emigration rate was 200%. For every one that stayed, two left. If the Union of Uzhorod was to bring the poor Rusyns economic advancement, it obviously failed. Our people were among the hardest working and poorest of all Europe!

Of course, much of the return to ancestral Orthodoxy movement started in North America under Alexis Toth due to persecution by the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish and German hierarchy. Of the Greek Catholics that returned to Orthodoxy in my family (and not all did), the Orestes Chornock affair was a significant incident. And when the Rusyn Orthodox of North America now travel to Eastern Slovakia, it's as if some over there are just finding out what happened to the people from their villages when submitted to the Roman Catholic Church here. It was nothing to be proud about and I can say it because I'm half Italian!

I am clearly a believer in freedom of religious choice and in fact have a mixed Orthodox/Catholic family myself (as previously stated and by no means a secret on this forum, which I have gratefully been a member of for years). But in true Christian love and witness there must be an objective set of criteria that must be established and applied with tangible provision for the minority side (either Catholic or Orthodox after the dispute is adjudicated) to receive a reasonable and dignified place to worship the same All Holy Triune God.

God bless those who said that they would in no way advocate any dispersion of the nuns residing at the monastery. Advocating the opposite would be cruel, not Christian.

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5