Eastern Catholicism and Culture

[Aramis]

Actually, historians talk extensively about the Kyivan Rus.

 

[Emmanuel85]

Right, those Holy Saints wanted to build a Church for the peoples of Kyivan-Rus, and we should continue to respect that wish by maintaining the liturgical heritage that they gave us.
…
No one should be forced to adopt an ethnicity, but, if attending that Church, the cultural-liturgical tradition of that Church should be embraced.

Absolutely, I agree. I’m just trying to project forward and imagine what would happen when the Church of Kyivan-Rus expands into other parts of the world (as it has been doing) through missionary activity. It would seem that the same sort of thing must happen, as what happened when Ss Cyril and Methodius went forth.

I think a distinction needs to be made though. The Empire of Rome, was named after the city from which it sprang, whereas the nation of Rus, was never known as Kyiv, as far as I know. In any case, it just happens that the Roman empire was named after Rome, but I think the focus should be on the broader sense of Rome, in terms of culture and peoples, not simply the city.
Also, this is the Church of Ukraine, not simply of Kyiv. I think “Ukrainian” is more accurate.

It is true what you say about Rome, but then again ‘Rome’ no longer exists. Interestingly, I know some Roman Catholics who will refer to themselves as ‘Latins’, but not ‘Romans’. The equivalent term for us would be ‘Greek’ or ‘Byzantine’. That is why I mentioned my preference for such terms; I prefer a wider association rather than a narrower one. But it’s a good point you make about the term ‘Ukrainian’. Indeed Churches are organized on a national level, ours being from Ukraine.

I personally dislike the term “Greek Catholic”, the Church is of the Byzantine rite, not the Greek rite, and I think that this distinction needs to be made.

In fact, popular as well as Church parlance holds that we are indeed the ‘Greek Catholic Church’. Rome, for example, has never officially referred to us as the Ukrainian Church, and this is evident in her official documents regarding our Church.
Furthermore, ‘Byzantine’ does mean Greek’, as the Greeks would most happily demonstrate. But I do see what you mean. You are trying to distinguish Greek from Slavic, am I correct?

In terms of etymology? Or are you thinking more in terms of - what it means to be Ukrainian or even what defines Ukraine?

The latter. I mean, up until the mid-late twentieth century, Ukraine did not really exist as a nation but only as an idea. Indeed, the Latin term used for Ukraine was ‘Ruthenia’, and its inhabitants were often called ‘Ruthenians’. I’ve seen immigration documents that refer to our ancestors as ‘Galicians’. So the term ‘Ukraine’ is more-or-less a modern notion.
To help clarify my thinking, I’ll refer to the so-called ‘Byzantine Catholic Church’ in America, which in some ways is an artificial construct. They are, in reality, the offspring of Carpatho-Rusyn Christianity. When Kyr Soter Ortynsky came to the U.S., there was one Greek Catholic hierarchy. The Greek Catholics were soon divided into two because of ethnic quarrels.
Therefore, where is that Church centered? They have no nation state, no capital, and yet they exist. If I were to say that they should have a traditional home in eastern Europe, I would say that they should be identified with a seat in one city and be referred to as the ‘Church of (that city)’. They should have, in my humble opinion, not monopolized the term ‘Byzantine Catholic’. However, if their status in the U.S. is a legitimate one, then Byzantine Catholicism (of any heritage) in America need not bear the name of the original country.

The greatest thing about Ukrainians is their identity. For over 1000 years of occupation, they maintained their language and identity, despite centuries of Polinization and Russification. The story of Ukraine is simply amazing.

No doubt!

I really don’t understand why it is that you fear this Church’s close association with its own people? Anyone may join this Church, regardless of ethnicity and be considered a full member, but it still remains the Ukrainian Church. By joining, I would think the convert is accepting its function as a conduit of the Ukrainian tradition. The Ukrainian tradition isn’t just for Ukrainians, but it just happens to be designed for them, being shaped by its culture and can thus be rightfully called the Ukrainian Church.

I only lament the negative aspects that I, as well as friends and acquaintances, have quite vividly encountered. I would like to think of ways to avoid that, and I honestly believe that following the example of both the Roman Catholic Church and various Orthodox jurisdictions will help the situation. However, that being said, I am not for abandoning any cultural link. I agree with what you say regarding this. But I do not think that the Church should be the sole conduit of a culture, the latter depending on the former for its survival. I am thinking merely in terms of official titles, Church signs, use of the local language, welcoming people as opposed to excluding them in the narthex, etc. Maybe I am a little radical, but whatever works to bring people to Christ. And I really believe in my Church, that it can be an instrument of salvation and sanctification for people in the modern world.
Thank you for your positive remarks, though. I, for one, greatly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Freshman88]

Actually, historians talk extensively about the Kyivan Rus.

It was my understanding that the name was Rus - “PYC” and scholars only use Kyivan-Rus to distinguish it. I may be incorrect though.

 

[Freshman88]

Absolutely, I agree. I’m just trying to project forward and imagine what would happen when the Church of Kyivan-Rus expands into other parts of the world (as it has been doing) through missionary activity. It would seem that the same sort of thing must happen, as what happened when Ss Cyril and Methodius went forth.

This is a very interesting topic. I’m not too sure what the answer is, and I’m not convinced that Church herself knows the answer.

It is true what you say about Rome, but then again ‘Rome’ no longer exists. Interestingly, I know some Roman Catholics who will refer to themselves as ‘Latins’, but not ‘Romans’. The equivalent term for us would be ‘Greek’ or ‘Byzantine’. That is why I mentioned my preference for such terms; I prefer a wider association rather than a narrower one. But it’s a good point you make about the term ‘Ukrainian’. Indeed Churches are organized on a national level, ours being from Ukraine.

Rome may no longer exist, but the Roman liturgical tradition still does, and it services the peoples of the former Roman empire (western Europe) and the outlying regions and colonies that eventually came under its influence. In other words, the Romans of 2000 years ago may not exist today, but their descendants do and they’ve invited many more people to this tradition. This is how I see it anyway.

In fact, popular as well as Church parlance holds that we are indeed the ‘Greek Catholic Church’. Rome, for example, has never officially referred to us as the Ukrainian Church, and this is evident in her official documents regarding our Church.
Furthermore, ‘Byzantine’ does mean Greek’, as the Greeks would most happily demonstrate. But I do see what you mean. You are trying to distinguish Greek from Slavic, am I correct?

Byzantine does not mean Greek, that was the point I was trying to make. Byzantine is more accurate then Greek, IMHO, because it was the liturgical tradition of not only Greece, but of the Byzantine empire and it’s allies. It also has its origins in the Eastern Empire (or Byzantine), rather than just simply Greece. The fact too that the Greek tradition has embraced so many different cultures would lead me to believe that Byzantine is more appropriate.

The latter. I mean, up until the mid-late twentieth century, Ukraine did not really exist as a nation but only as an idea. Indeed, the Latin term used for Ukraine was ‘Ruthenia’, and its inhabitants were often called ‘Ruthenians’. I’ve seen immigration documents that refer to our ancestors as ‘Galicians’. So the term ‘Ukraine’ is more-or-less a modern notion.

Those maps weren’t being made by Ukrainians, but by foreigners who would refer to the Latin name. Ruthenia ofcourse has its origins in the word “Rus”.

Also the use of the term “Galicians” would have been used because it was the offical name of that area during the time of Austria-Hungary. It’s reflection of the foreign administration, and not the people themselves.

I’m not sure what they would have called themselves, I do doubt that they would have called themselves Ukrainians. I would guess that they’d call themselves Rusyn or perhaps by their tribal identity, but I really don’t know.

Now one thing is for sure, Ukrainians amongst themselves are quite diverse. I myself come from Boijko and Lemko Ukrainians. Yet despite these cultural and dialectical differences, there still is an underlying common culture and language - this is what Ukraine is. Most modern nations are a result of bringing together a diverse group of people who belong to a common meta-ethnicity. Think of the unification of Germany for instance, or Italy.

I only lament the negative aspects that I, as well as friends and acquaintances, have quite vividly encountered.

Refer to the post above, where I talk about where I think these notions originate from. I don’t think it comes from the setup, or even the name of the Church, but the nature of the people.

 

[Freshman88]

It was my understanding that the name was Rus - “PYC” and scholars only use Kyivan-Rus to identify the time period when Rus was ruled from Kyiv . I may be incorrect though.

 

[Freshman88]

It was my understanding that the name was Rus - “PYC” and scholars only use Kyivan-Rus to distinguish it. I may be incorrect though.

Edit:
It is my understanding that the name was Rus - “PYCb” and scholars only use Kyivan-Rus to identify Rus during the time period when Rus was ruled from Kyiv . I think then that the term is anachronistic. I may be incorrect though.

 

[Freshman88]

just a side note; Галичина (Halychyna) is the original Slavic name of Galicia - Galicia would be an inaccuarte name because it is again a latinization, and is named not reflective of what the people themselves call themselves- unless perhaps you were from the specific territory of Halychyna-Volhynia.

 

[Formosus]

I have read that up until the 1700s, the term Rus reffered to what is now Ukraine and Belaruss and not what is now known as Russia. Russia was known as Muscovy at that point, so I do beleive Freshman is correct in saying that Kyivan Rus is only used to designate the period of when Kyiv was the ruling kingdom.

 

[Aramis]

I have read that up until the 1700s, the term Rus reffered to what is now Ukraine and Belaruss and not what is now known as Russia. Russia was known as Muscovy at that point, so I do beleive Freshman is correct in saying that Kyivan Rus is only used to designate the period of when Kyiv was the ruling kingdom.

The Term Rus, unqualified, refers to the peoples descended from the Norse tribe called the Rus, not the Kyivan Rus, a particular government and it’s particular people. The Carpethian Rus were not part of the Kyivan polity, but were still Rus (later Rusyn).

I’ve never seen the Kyivan Rus referred to in a history text as just “the Rus”.

 

[Ungcsertez]

The Term Rus, unqualified, refers to the peoples descended from the Norse tribe called the Rus, not the Kyivan Rus, a particular government and it’s particular people. The Carpethian Rus were not part of the Kyivan polity, but were still Rus (later Rusyn).

I’ve never seen the Kyivan Rus referred to in a history text as just “the Rus”.

“The Rus’”, as in “The Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church Tradition”, or the South-West Rus’ Recension of The Constantinopolitan Particular Church Tradition when “Rus’” is used in the ecclesiastical sense of the word. Otherwise, “Rus’” or “The Rus’” can be simply defined as the Eastern Slavic Peoples (i.e. Carpatho-Rusyns, Ukrainians, Belarusyns and Great Russians) as opposed to Western Slavic Peoples (Sorbs,Wends, Poles, Czechs, Moravians, Slovaks) and Southern Slavic Peoples (Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, modern-day Macedonian Bulgarians).

U-C

 

[Freshman88]

The Term Rus, unqualified, refers to the peoples descended from the Norse tribe called the Rus,

Nonsense. There may have been a group of vikings known as Rus, but they had very little to do with Kyivan-Rus. That theory is nothing more than racist and revisonist Normanist history. I reject it entirely as the work of Germanic supremacists. It’s an attempt to claim that the barbaric slavs could not possibly have risen to the height they did in Kyivan-Rus, without the influence of some noble Germanic tribe coming from the North.

not the Kyivan Rus, a particular government and it’s particular people. The Carpethian Rus were not part of the Kyivan polity, but were still Rus (later Rusyn).

I’ve never seen the Kyivan Rus referred to in a history text as just “the Rus”.

My point was that Kyivan-Rus is anachronistic, it’s a term that the people of that time would not have used. They would be known as the Rus, or Rusyns, not Kyivan-Rusyns.

You’re right history books refer to it as Kyivan-Rus, this is the proper time for study and identifying the government, but its not a reflection of what the people called themselves.

 

[Diak]

Yes, in Ukrainian “Rus” and “Rossiya” have very different connotations.

The discussions about the name of our particular Church are quite interesting, and have been ongoing in one form or another since the time of Patriarch +Josyp. What is in a name?

When I was at the seminary in Stamford Bishop Emeritus +Basil gave us a talk on why the “Kyivan Catholic Church” was an appropriate name for our Church and even presented his thesis at one of the Synods several years ago. His arguments seemed quite sensible from a purely historical and liturgical context.

We briefly discussed it also at a recent Eparchial clergy retreat in a very informal but spirited side conversation - most seemed to want to retain “Ukrainian Catholic” or “Ukrainian Greek/Greco-Catholic”. This conversation included native Ukrainian priests as well as clergy far scattered throughout the diaspora from the US and Canada to Argentina, Brazil, and even a Filipino priest.

I can see arguments both ways and am generally ambivolent. In reality UGCC has been in use for such a long time now does it really behove us to change? “Kyivan Catholic” certainly takes us to the historic see of the Union and implies, perhaps, less particular ethnography. Parallels with use of the term “Latin” don’t always hold, as “Latin” can imply a host of things - cultural, linguistic, literary, or liturgical aspects. “Ukrainian” can do some of the same, I suppose.

To me it does not really matter - I will let the Synod sort all of that out. I still stand and hold up my orarion whether I intone “Hospodu pomolimsya” or “Let us pray to the Lord”, and both convey the truth of revelation of our Lord through our beautiful Kyivan liturgical tradition.

 

[Formosus]

The Term Rus, unqualified, refers to the peoples descended from the Norse tribe called the Rus, not the Kyivan Rus, a particular government and it’s particular people. The Carpethian Rus were not part of the Kyivan polity, but were still Rus (later Rusyn).

I’ve never seen the Kyivan Rus referred to in a history text as just “the Rus”.

" Rus’ The medieval name of the state with Kiev as capital was called Rus’. In the seventeenth century Ukrainians used that term, or one derived from it, Rosija, to designate their land. Rus’ and Rosija, thus, mean Ukraine. Sometimes, however, Rus’ and Rosija refers more specifically to that part of western Ukraine that in civil administration in those times was known as the Rus’, or Ruthenian, voevodship, with its center in Lviv. The Russia of today was reffered to by its official name at the time, Muscovy. Occasionally, terms deriving from greek usage were used: Little Russiafor Ukraine, Great Russia for Russia(Muscovy)…"

From “Manjava Skete Ukrainian Moastic Writings of the Seventeenth Century” translated, with introduction, by Sophia Senyk. Page 205 the glossary in the back.