www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Byzantine Macedonian Parishes - US?

Neil, there is a Macedonian Greek Catholic exarchate in Skpoje. Bishop Joachim Herbut was appointed as the exarch in 2001. If there is a bishop, there is a Church. That is the typical Byzantine perspective, all arguments of sui iuris or this or that dependency of eparchies aside.

Therefore it indeed would be possible to officially erect a parish, although since it would be outside of the territory of the Exarchate the Oriental Congregation would likely get involved. As I mentioned none has been erected to date. But to say it isn't possible is not correct.

If a parish was erected in this country, it would likely have to operate similar to a Russian Catholic parish or mission if its parishoners were not part of another parish, such as a UGCC parish. Russian Catholic parishes have been established, some recently, so a similar situation for the Macedonians would be entirely possible, as it would for Greeks and Bulgarian Catholics if the faithful were present.

On a tangent, an interesting article about Bishop Jovan of the MOC: http://www.religioscope.com/articles/2002/007_macedonia.htm

Diak,

I heartily agree; my point was that there is not a Church sui iuris in the legalistic sense.
Frankly, I would list the Macedonians as such, but I decided a long time ago to minimize the instances in which I could/would be corrected for blurring the line between the de facto and the de jure. (This time it back-fired )

"Officially", no - not as a parish of the "Byzantine Macedonian Catholic Church; because there is "officially" no such Church sui iuris. Actually, even if there were officially such, the Oriental Congregation wouldn't get involved at the parish level. The parish would simply be subject to the local Latin Ordinary, as is the case for the faithful, clergy, and (most) any EC institution erected in a place where a particular Church has no hierarch. Its faithful, etc. are, in those places, “entrusted to hierarchs (not of the Rite) who preside over (them) as per the norms of common and particular laws”.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diak:If a parish was erected in this country, it would likely have to operate similar to a Russian Catholic parish or mission if its parishoners were not part of another parish, such as a UGCC parish.(emphasis added)[QUOTE]

The latter are exactly the parishes I'm looking to identify.

Many years,

Neil

Neil, again I would recommend getting some feedback from someone like Fr. Kiril since he not only likely knows of the status of the Macedonian diaspora and is in contact but would likely also know of the situation of Macedonians active in at least UGCC parishes as he himself serves in such parishes.

Again, I think since an Exarchate is present in the homeland in this case a parish could concievably be erected, "attached" to that exarchate, but as I mentioned similar to a Russian Catholic parish (subject to the Latin diocese) since there is no territorial exarchate outside of Macedonia.

I don't see how the Oriental Congregation would not get involved erecting any permanent community outside of the exarchial boundaries. Interesting question, though, and I'm no canonist .

I suppose another Greek Catholic hierarch could also get involved similar to the situation with the Russian Catholic parish in L.A. and the Melkites, a sort of "deferral" of the Latin bishop to a Greek Catholic one.

One could make the case that since faithful originating from Eparchy of Krizeci are subject to the Pittsburgh Metropolia, the faithful from its daughter exarchates in Macedonia and Serbia would be as well, just as those originating form Mukachevo, Presov, Kosice and Prague are.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I don't know where this has been codified, if indeed it has. These are two separate churches sui iuris. At least one priest from Krizhevci is currently working in the Stamford eparchy, not the Pittsburgh Metropolia, by his own choice (he is married, don't know if that was part of his decision).

There are also Greek Catholics from the former Yugoslavia in UGCC parishes throughout the country. If such a dictum exists as Lance has mentioned it is not universally followed in the US, neither by clergy nor laity. Also when Kyr Slavomir came to visit Metropolitan Stefan Soroka last year he didn't indicate anything of the sort, either.

Lance,

The Eparchy of Krizeci is the hierarchical See of the Byzantine Croatian Catholic Church sui iuris. Thus, I am having problems understanding where you are coming from when you suggest that its faithful are subject to the Pittsburgh Metropolia. As Diak and I speculated above, I think that the Macedonian jurisdiction will eventually be designated a Church sui iuris; I believe the same will eventually be true for the Serbian/Montenegren Exarchate.

I have to agree with Diak. Theoretically, there are two separate Ruthenian Churches sui iuris inasmuch as neither hierarch, the Eparch of Mukachevo nor the Metropolitan Arch-Eparch of Pittsburgh, has been singularly designated as the primary or presiding hierarch of the Byzantine Ruthenians (the precedential rank of the Pittsburgh Metropolia notwithstanding) and there is no formal canonical relationship between the two jurisdictions. (The identical situation exists with respect to the Italo-Albanian and Russian Catholic Churches sui iuris.)

As to the Eparchy of Presov, it is immediately subject to the Oriental Congregation, as it constitutes the hierarchical see of the Byzantine Slovak Catholic Church sui iuris. (Before it even starts, I realize that, historically, Presov originated as a Ruthenian jurisdiction, but it ceased to be so designated many years ago.) The Apostolic Exarchate of Kosice is a jurisdiction of the Slovak Church, as well.

The Apostolic Exarchate of Prague, on the other hand, when separated from Presov, was categorized as Ruthenian and is, presumably, suffragn to Mukachevo. However, in the long run, I suspect that there will be a Byzantine Czech Catholic Church sui iuris, using the same basis for argument that Diak made earlier with respect to a Macedonian Church.

Having said all of that and still scratching my head over what you said, I just went back and re-read your post. Now, I suspect that Diak and I misinterpreted what you meant - but, just in case, I'm not going to delete what I just typed. On re-reading, I think you mean that the faithful of those jurisdictions who immigrate to the US are subject to the Pittsburgh Metropolia. If so, that nullifies all the above blither. And, I apologize for subjecting you to it.

It does, however, raise a question. The faithful of Mukachevo and its suffragn jurisdictions who immigrate to the US do become faithful of the Metropolia, because they are of the Ruthenian Church. It is not clear that the same is true of the others, except for those of Presov (and Kosice) - as I believe that the Metropolia was established specifically for the Ruthenians, Hungarians, and Slovaks. If my recollection is correct, that would allow anyone from any of the other jurisdictions to affiliate themselves to whatever Byzantine jurisdiction they choose. (The Croats of St. Nicholas in Chicago came under the omophorion of the Ruthenians by their own request; the other Croat parish, now suppressed, never did - remaining under Latin jurisdiction during its entire existence.)

(Technically, immigrant faithful without hierarchy of their own Church default to the care of the local Latin Ordinary, but those august individuals are unlikely to demand adherence to the rule from every immigrant Byzantine Slav - altho in John Ireland's day, they might have.)

As to the Macedonians, I made the assumption that they were likely to be found within the Ukrainian jurisdictions because it had been mentioned that there were Macedonian clergy serving within the Ukrainian eparchies.

Sigh ... ok, now that we have bored to death (or totally confused ) all those still hanging onto this thread, ...

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

You state: "On re-reading, I think you mean that the faithful of those jurisdictions who immigrate to the US are subject to the Pittsburgh Metropolia."

You are correct sir!

My statement comes form the fact that many of our publications state that the Byzantine Croats fall under our jurisdiction and I assume them to be factual, it always made sense to me since the greater part of the Krizeci Eparchy were ethnic Rusyns. SS. Peter and Paul in Chicago was part of the Pittsburgh then Parma Eparchy, as St. Nicholas in Cleveland continues to be.

Their histories are here:

http://www.midwest-croatians.org/archives/stspeterpaul.html

http://www.midwest-croatians.org/archives/stnicholas.html

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance

Lance,

My apologies again for misinterpreting your original post and, yet again, for mis-stating the status (and reversing the identities/locations) of the two Croat parishes. I'm familiar with the website histories of the two and should have referred to those before citing the "facts".

I promise not to post again prior to consuming adequate coffee to assure full consciousness and, with it, rational thought.

Asking your forgiveness and that

God grant you many years,

Neil

Correction to my earlier post - the 1924 decree which created the Pittsburgh Exarchate indicated that it was established for Greek Catholics of Ruthenian, Hungarian, and Croatian (not Slovak, as I stated) descent.

As I sit here and look at that, it presents an issue - "descent" is not necessarily the same as "ecclesiality" (is there such a word?). I think I'll stand by my earlier statement that it allows anyone from any of the other Churches sui iuris to affiliate themselves to whichever Byzantine jurisdiction they choose (altho technically adhering them to the local Latin Ordinary).

Many years,

Neil

"Church sui iuris" is a very recent term and has not been adequately defined - or even adequately translated. The canon lawyers may hate me, but the test is not whether reality conforms to the inventions of canonists, but whether the schemes of the canonists correspond to reality.
In the instance envisioned by the present discussion, if a community of Macedonian Greek-Catholics in Oshkosh, Oswego, Peoria, Dubuque or wherever should coalesce and seek to organize a parish, and if such a community has enough of a base to organize itself successfully, why, then, that is what will happen. Which of the existing jurisdictions they will land in (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian or Antiochian - or the local Latin diocese) will probably depend on who gives them their first priest or, if they import their own priest from Macedonia, whom that priest will relate to in the USA. The canonists can then decide whether this new parish can fit into their canonical scheme of things, or whether they need to devise a new pigeonhole.
Do I seem to be hallucinating? But what I have described is precisely how a great many Greek-Catholic parishes in the USA began. And, to take a more cogent example than the hypothetical Macedonian Greek-Catholics in Oswego, parishes are currently appearing in several countries with a characteristic completely unrecognized by the canonists - they serve the Greek-Catholic faithful without regard for ethnic origins. This is not hypothetical; it is happening even as I write.
We might do well to consider the possibility that this whole idea of "Church sui iuris" is simply the latest variety of "divide et impera". Incognitus

Incognitus,

I would suggest to you that your "cogent example" is identical to the situation that, as you correctly note, attended in the early years of Eastern Catholic immigration to this country. The only difference is that it's now planned, where a century ago it just came to be.

Back then, because Liturgy was not in English, some compartmentalization was almost a necessity; Liturgy in the vernacular has removed those barriers.

I am slightly less cynical than you about the concept of Churches sui iuris, maybe because I believe it very desirable that the individual heritage of each of the Churches sui iuris be preserved even as the ethnicity of each is diluted, as it will inevitably be. Am I a dreamer - perhaps - but, for the moment, I shall dream (it's what we Celts do).

Many years,

Neil

Well, I suppose somebody could create an Irish Greek-Catholic Church (but spare us the people who are not Celts, want to be Celts, and have fallen in love with the Celtic Twilight).
A canonist of my acquaintance once came up with the term "ecclesiality". I asked him for a definition and he fled.
Incognitus

I believe Archimandrite Serge Keleher serves Divine Liturgy in Gaelic. It could be the beginnings of an Irish Greek Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Anthony

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Archimandrite Serge Keleher's parish in Dublin, Ireland, not only serves in Irish, but in Ukrainian as well, and is serving as a "home-away-from-home" for other Eastern Catholics as well.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Actualy I'm informed that the Krizevci Church in Crotia is quite Latinized, unlike the Macedonians who are purely Eastern.

In the case of the first one, its faithful have been forcibly latinized and romanized by the Croats who have forced them to dennounce and reject their Eastern identity. It's quite known that an Eastern-Rite Croat is in fact a Serb, but they're no longer allowed to say so, and some of them are ashamed of that.

It's sad that the Serbian Church is the only one without a Catholic branch, cause they would really enrich your tradition.

(It's also very curious that the Serbs perform the Baptism in the way the Latins do, why is this?)