Two Byzantine bishops consecrations

[Nestor_kea]

I would like to post links to two consecrations of bishops. You can compare which one you enjoy more.

One is of vladyka Milan Lach SJ, the new auxiliary bishop for metropolitan Archieparchy of Prešov, Slovakia: rtvs.sk/tv.programmes.detail/archive/4855?date=01.06.2013. Homily is given by vladyka Cyril Vasiľ SJ, the Secretary of Congregation for the Eastern churches who is from Slovakia (haven’t a clue if he is Slovak, Ruthenian or something else). His speaches are of best what I have ever heart so it is pitty that probably nearly no one here will understand. Liturgy (text as well as songs) is partly Slovak and partly Church Slavonic.

The second is from Eparchy of Passaic (USA, Ruthenian Metropolia): ustream.tv/channel/eparchy-of-passaic. It is a consecration of its new eparch Kurt Burnette. (What is appropriate English equivalent for “vladyka”?) I realize that it is important to be understood by the majority of people where you live, but I would appriciate that if something what is called Ruthenian is really Ruthenian: it is at first Ruthenian (here also partly Slovak because of the history) and “to be understood” at second position.

I don’t know if they are to be seen here but surely I have somewhere noticed some funny coloured semi-historic-semi-militar dressed clowns as assistence. Who are they and what are they doing there?

 

[Aramis]

The second is from Eparchy of Passaic (USA, Ruthenian Metropolia): ustream.tv/channel/eparchy-of-passaic. It is a consecration of its new eparch Kurt Burnette. (What is appropriate English equivalent for “vladyka”?)

father bishop or master, based upon liturgical text translations. Master for direct second person mode, father bishop the rest of the time.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I would like to post links to two consecrations of bishops. You can compare which one you enjoy more.

One is of vladyka Milan Lach SJ, the new auxiliary bishop for metropolitan Archieparchy of Prešov, Slovakia: rtvs.sk/tv.programmes.detail/archive/4855?date=01.06.2013. Homily is given by vladyka Cyril Vasiľ SJ, the Secretary of Congregation for the Eastern churches who is from Slovakia (haven’t a clue if he is Slovak, Ruthenian or something else). His speaches are of best what I have ever heart so it is pitty that probably nearly no one here will understand. Liturgy (text as well as songs) is partly Slovak and partly Church Slavonic.

The second is from Eparchy of Passaic (USA, Ruthenian Metropolia): ustream.tv/channel/eparchy-of-passaic. It is a consecration of its new eparch Kurt Burnette. (What is appropriate English equivalent for “vladyka”?) I realize that it is important to be understood by the majority of people where you live, but I would appriciate that if something what is called Ruthenian is really Ruthenian: it is at first Ruthenian (here also partly Slovak because of the history) and “to be understood” at second position.

I don’t know if they are to be seen here but surely I have somewhere noticed some funny coloured semi-historic-semi-militar dressed clowns as assistence. Who are they and what are they doing there?

This exact reason is why the Ruthenian Catholic Church USA prefers to refer to itself as the Byzantine Catholic Church. The particular church has tried to rebrand itself (hence going away from Greek Catholic) to make it clear that this is not a church for Slovak, Hungarian, and Ruthenian ex-patriots and their descendants only.

In my Eparchy we even have an Italo-Greek parish. My pastor is Irish, Mexican, and Belorussian ethnically. Two of our parishes are run by canonical Italo-Greeks - another parish is run by an ethnic Italo-Greek. We’re not only a Ruthenian church. My last pastor was Scottish - he’s now a bishop in the Byzantine Church.

I love when we sing in Slavonic in the Divine Liturgy. I love listening to and watching the Slovak and Ruthenian liturgies - but, we’re an American church. I’m not Ruthenian. Most of our parishioners aren’t Ruthenian.

Does this make sense? It’s not as if those in the Byzantine Catholic Church wish to disavow the Church’s Ruthenian roots. It’s simply that we’re not really a Ruthenian church anymore.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Yes, it makes sense, I just don’t like it. To be understood properly I have absolutely nothing against Scotts, Mexicans or whoever but when you move from one country to another, in big cities there are personal parishes based on ethnicity, nacionality, gentilia… Some churches have whole eparchies abroad. If “moving” to another church my ethnicity or language are also in a position of foreigners. If I were American with attitude to Byzantine Rite within Catholic Church I would look for personal American parish or parish which provides English liturgies or something else but I would also expect that Ruthenian eparch or better metropolitan is enthroned in Slavic manner, maybe with some parts in languages of his church’s “minorities” to show respect to them.

I think that the problem is in fact something else: lack of Ruthenians or Slovaks. I come from environment where it is quite usual that national minorities do not give up their national identity despite of having no state for centuries or even millennium, often with no schools of their language, often discriminated, sometimes persecuted just because of their nationality. Some decide to “switch” to more comfortable identity but people like those are called traitors. So it seems that here we have people who (more exactly a big part of them) traited their nation / peoples in few generations. And then, yes, there is no Ruthenian Church, just a bothering name, because there are nearly no Ruthenians.

So, just enjoy the liturgies…

 

[Peter_J]

This exact reason is why the Ruthenian Catholic Church USA prefers to refer to itself as the Byzantine Catholic Church. The particular church has tried to rebrand itself (hence going away from Greek Catholic) to make it clear that this is not a church for Slovak, Hungarian, and Ruthenian ex-patriots and their descendants only.

In my Eparchy we even have an Italo-Greek parish. My pastor is Irish, Mexican, and Belorussian ethnically. Two of our parishes are run by canonical Italo-Greeks - another parish is run by an ethnic Italo-Greek. We’re not only a Ruthenian church. My last pastor was Scottish - he’s now a bishop in the Byzantine Church.

I love when we sing in Slavonic in the Divine Liturgy. I love listening to and watching the Slovak and Ruthenian liturgies - but, we’re an American church. I’m not Ruthenian. Most of our parishioners aren’t Ruthenian.

Does this make sense? It’s not as if those in the Byzantine Catholic Church wish to disavow the Church’s Ruthenian roots. It’s simply that we’re not really a Ruthenian church anymore.

Personally, I was always uncomfortable calling them “Byzantine Catholics”, and would instead say “Ruthenian Catholics”. I guess my thinking was that, if you’re going to use the term “Byzantine Catholic”, then it should apply to all Greek Catholics, not just one Church. But then in recent years I’ve started to reconsider … for one thing, most other Greeks Catholics (at least in this country) like Melkites and UGCC don’t really want to be called “Byzantine Catholic” anyhow, so why not let those who want it, have it. Am I right?