The Byzantine Catholics




by
Basil Shereghy











Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Byzantine Catholics in the United States
What is Rite?
Eastern Rites Outlined
Greek - Eastern - Byzantine
Diversity in the Church has Deep Historical Roots
The Church Guarantees Equality of Rites
Why should we know the Eastern Rite?
Eastern Rite Christians' Religious Life
Easstern Religious Life has Unique Mysticism
Eastern Liturgy Reflects Culture, Piety of Faithful
Let us Learn from History
The Scandal of Division
A Short History of Carpatho-Ruthenians

INTRODUCTION

The Decree of Vatican Council 11 on the Eastern Catholic Churches states that 'the Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions of the Eastern Churches, their liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions, and Christian way of life.' (Ch. 1).

For Catholics and non-Catholics alike to acquire this high esteem for the Eastern Churches, demands awareness of the traditions, the history and the spirit of these Churches. Without such knowledge they cannot respect, let alone, love them. The late Patriarch Maximos IV Saygh loved to quote an old Arab proverb: 'Man only dislikes what he does not know.'

This booklet does not claim to be a work of deep scholarship. It was written with the intention of giving to those interested, in a most condensed style, some of the most essential information concerning the rites of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The booklet is meant for readers who, in a shortest possible time, would like to learn some necessary facts about the Eastern Churches.

I wish to express my gratitude to the Most Reverend Archbishop Metropolitan Stephen J. Kocisko, D.D. who, through the offices of the Byzantine Seminary Press, made this publication possible.

--Basil Shereghy

BYZANTINE CATHOLICS IN THE UNITED STATES

According to a conservative account, there are approximately one million Byzantine Catholics in the United States. Nearly one half of them are of Ruthenian origin, while the other half are of Ukrainian, Hungarian, Croatian, and Rumanian descent, together with Catholics of the Melchite rite. While this number may not correspond exactly with the official statistics of the Catholic Directory, it attempts to include those Byzantine Catholics who live in areas where there are no Byzantine Catholic churches, worship in Roman rite or Orthodox churches and consequently are not listed as Byzantine Catholics.

The Byzantine Catholics in the United States belong to the following ecclesiastical jurisdictions:

1. The Carpatho-Ruthenians, Hungarians and Croatians belong to the Metropolitan Province of Pittsburgh. The great majority of these faithful, or their forefathers, immigrated to the United States from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and in their native lands were members of the Mukachevo (now in USSR), Prjashev (now in Czechoslovakia), Krizhevtsi (now in Yugoslavia) and Hajdudorog (now in Hungary) Eparchies. Even though they are of different national backgrounds, they were all given one common ecclesiastical name: Ruthenian Rite Catholics or Byzantine Catholics.

The first Eparchy of the Pittsburgh Eparchy was Bishop Basil Takach (1924-1948). In 1963, the Pittsburgh Eparchy was divided into the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and the Eparchy of Passaic, New Jersey.

On April 2, 1969 the Holy See created the Byzantine Metropolitan Province of Munhall (now of Pittsburgh). At the same time, the third Episcopal See was created in Parma, Ohio.

2. The Ukrainian Rite Catholics, who came to America from the northern regions of the Carpathian Mountains, predominantly from Galicia, belong to the Metropolitan Province of Philadelphia. The first Bishop appointed for the Ukrainians, and also the Carpatho-Ruthenians, was Soter Stephen Ortynskyj, O.S.B.M., who arrived to the United States on August 27, 1907. His legal situations, defined in the Decree Ea Semper of June 14, 1907, were difficult, in view of the fact that it favored the Latin Rite, with the obvious tendency to liquidate the Byzantine Rite Catholics in America. Until 1913, Bishop Ortynskyj served as Apostolic Visitator. He received full Episcopal jurisdiction only on May 28, 1913. Bishop Ortynskyj died on March 24, 1916.

Following his death, there was an inter-regnum in the ecclesiastical administration of the Byzantine Catholics in America (1916-1924). On April 11, 1916, the Apostolic Delegate appointed Father Peter Poniatyshyn administrator for the Ukrainians, and Father Gabriel Martyak for the Carpatho-Ruthenians.

On May 20, 1924, Bishop Constantine Bohachevskyj (1924-1961) was appointed Bishop for the Ukrainians, with residence in Philadelphia. On July 20, 1956 from the Philadelphia Eparchy, the new Eparchy of Stanford, Connecticut was separated, and on July 14, 1961 from the western part of the Philadelphia Archeparchy, the Eparchy of St. Nicholas of Chicago was created.

3. The Rumanian Byzantine Catholics in the United States do not have a bishop of their own. They are under the jurisdiction of the local Latin rite ordinaries.

4. For the Melkite rite faithful, the Holy See created the Diocese of Newton, Massachusetts, in 1966.

The Metropolitan Archdiocese of Pittsburgh is under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Archbishop Stephen J. Kocisko. Bishop Michael J. Dudick is the Ordinary of the Passaic Diocese, his auxiliary being Bishop Thomas V. Dolinay. Bishop Emil J. Mihalik is the Ordinary of the Diocese of Parma, Ohio. Bishop John M. Bilock is the auxiliary Bishop to Archbishop Metropolitan Kocisko.

The Ukrainian Rite Metropolitan Province of Philadelphia is governed by Metropolitan Archbishop Stephen Sulyk. The Diocese of Stanford is headed by Bishop Basil H. Losten, while the Episcopal See of the St. Nicholas Diocese in Chicago, following the Death of Bishop Jaroslav Gabro, is Bishop Innocent Lotocky.

The Melkite Diocese of Newton, Massachusetts is headed by Archbishop Joseph Tawil.

WHAT IS RITE?

Rite is the expression of faith, a form of divine worship. It is the arrangement of those religious acts by which man wishes to express his innermost sentiments and attitudes toward God.

Faith itself is a supernatural virtue, an inner disposition, a free submission to eternal truths. Human nature is such that man desires to display his attitude toward God visibly, externally, socially. Such outward manifestation of faith we call rite, or liturgy, or ceremony.

The Mass (in Eastern terminology, the Divine Liturgy), prayers, administration of sacraments, observance of holydays, ecclesiastical discipline and religious practices we call rite.

Rite may thus be considered as the external manifestation of our faith. Faith and rite are not two different things; one is the expression of the other.

But the word "rite" does not connote just Liturgy, external modes of worship and a particular religious discipline. Rite could also be defined as Christian faith developed throughout the centuries according to the culture and spirit of a particular people. Rite is a complete Catholic tradition as practiced and lived by a group of faithful within the Church.

Rite includes practically all elements and traditions of Christian culture, starting with the theological interpretations of certain truths and ending with various concepts of spiritual practices.

Rite denotes all those elements to which Christian faith gives rise in a particular region. It includes the genius, the temperament, and the emotional make-up of a particular nation.

Why are there different rites?

This question could be re-phrased in the following way: If the Catholic faith is one, why do we need different ways of expressing this one faith? How can we speak of a distinctive spirit, theological interpretations and disciplines in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"? Is such a division not harmful to the unity of the Church?

Our Lord did not define any specific rite. He gave only the essential elements of Divine Liturgy, Sacraments, prayer life, spiritual principles, but did not specify their celebration or the mode of practicing them. We must not wonder then that ceremonies and rites lack uniformity.

Different peoples have different characteristics, varying national customs, their own peculiar traditions, and their own singular ways of living which undoubtedly exert influence on divine worship.

In the early Church there were as many rites as there were regions or even cities. The rite of public worship took a form in every region which was more or less proper to the cultural development, sentiments and mentality of the faith in those places.

Because there is considerable difference between certain groups of men, between their ways of living and thinking, it is only natural that there should also be a difference in the rite or manner that would best suit them in glorifying God. As the same sentiment, feeling, conviction, experience and inspiration can be expressed in different manners, so the same faith and religious belief can be expressed in different ways.

From the early days of Christianity and throughout Christian history, there was always a recurring problem, namely, particularism versus universalism, diversity versus uniformity, regimented conformity versus free expression. It is not easy to comprehend that only through the multitude of particularisms, and the resulting diversity, can the Church realize her universality in the fullest sense.

Through the influence of St. Paul, the Church solved the paradox of unity and diversity by realizing that her unity and universality are not destroyed but rather enriched by diversity.

The Popes have repeatedly underscored the value of diversity in the Church. Pope Leo XIII, for example, expressed this view in the following statement: "Perhaps nothing, in fact, better proves the note of Catholicity in the Church of God than the singular homage paid by ceremonies (rites) which vary in form, which are celebrated in languages venerable by their antiquity, and which are still further hallowed by the use that has been made of them by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church" (Orientalium Dignitas, Nov. 30, 1894).

We can add that the Catholic whose idea of Catholicism is limited to his own particular tradition, rite or customs has a distorted notion of the true nature of the Church.

EASTERN RITES OUTLINED

One of the most common misunderstandings about the Catholic Church is that it is uniform in all respects. This is not true. The Church has unity of faith in things divinely revealed, but it does not have uniformity in worship, in matters of spiritual life and ecclesiastical discipline.

While the highly unified West developed and retained, generally speaking, only one rite, the Roman Rite, the East preserved the rites of several local Churches, maintaining a diversity of rites to the present day. A brief synopsis of each may be useful here.

During the first few centuries, after Christ's Ascension, there arose two liturgical centers in the East: Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt. Both these cities were Episcopal sees of apostolic origin.

St. Peter himself established the Church in Antioch before his departure to Rome, and Alexandria traced its origins to the Prince of the Apostles through his disciple St. Mark.

The liturgical forms of worship of these two cities became norms for neighboring communities. Although the Antiochene and Alexandrian sees retained liturgical prestige for some time, Jerusalem began to rise in prominence.

The Holy City, where Christ suffered, died and rose from the dead, became the center of monasticism and pilgrimage and, naturally, its liturgical customs spread throughout the world. While it is true that the Rite of Jerusalem never reached the prominence of that of Antioch or Alexandria, still traces of its elements can be found in the customs of practically every rite.

The forms of worship, tradition and liturgical customs of these three cities serve as the basic sources from which almost all eastern Rites have evolved.

While Roman tradition recognizes the prominence only of Churches of apostolic foundation, the East attached much weight to the political status of cities. This is why, in the fourth century, when Constantine moved his capital to the East, Byzantium overshadowed all cities, except Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Canon 28) gave the highest place after Rome to Byzantium, the New Rome. Byzantium amalgamated the rites of Asia Minor, especially of Antioch, and evolved, as the centuries passed, into the most widespread of all the Eastern Rites.

Further Development

The original Rite of Antioch, called "of the Apostolic Constitutions", is believed to be the oldest and most apostolic. Its most widely used Eucharistic Liturgy is that of St. James as modified through the centuries. Today it is used mostly in Syria and hence it is popularly known as the Syrian Rite. The Catholics of this rite number about 80,000. In the United States, there are about 10,000 Syrian Catholics.

Another subdivision of the Antiochene or Syrian Rite is the Malankarese Rite. There are approximately 125,000 Malankarese Catholics, almost all of whom live in the province of Malankara of Malabar on the southwest coast of India. In Lebanon the original Syrian Rite is known as the Maronite Rite. There are about 850,000 Maronites today, of whom 125,000 live in the U.S.A.

The East Syrian Rite is subdivided into the Syro-Chaldean and the Syro-Malabar Rites. Catholics of the Chaldean Rite number about 190,000. The Syro-Malabar, or simply Malabarese Rite, is that used by Christians in India. The members of this Rite have always called themselves "Christians of St. Thomas". They claim to have been evangelized by St. Thomas, but there is nothing to either prove or disprove this tradition. Catholic Malabarese number about 1,400,000.

The Rite of Alexandria was adopted by all of Egypt, Ethiopia, and the adjoining countries. Its official language was Greek. Soon, however, the Egyptians began to introduce their own vernacular tongue and many typically national elements. This reformed Alexandrian Rite is now known as the Coptic Rite. Today there are about 60,000 Catholic Copts.

Through the efforts of Egyptian missionaries, the Coptic Rite gained ground chiefly in Ethiopia. Here the liturgical language is Geez (also called Classical Ethiopian) and because of this the rite itself is called Ethiopian. There are at present about 60,000 Ethiopian Catholics.

Among the Eastern Churches, that of the Armenians has a place of its own. Their rite is strongly influenced by Antioch and Caesarea and Caesarea in Cappadocia. The language is classical Armenian. The Armenian liturgy is more reserved in expression. Its solemn spirit, though a bit mournful, is marked by one of the most beautiful chants of all the Eastern liturgies. There are about 150,000 Armenian Catholics, 8,000 of them living in the U.S.A.

Byzantine Rite

The Byzantine Rite is not one of the original parent rites. It is derived from the Rite of Antioch, with some elements and customs from Jerusalem. Because, however, it was the Rite of Byzantium, the "New Rome", it became the most widespread of all the Eastern Rites. This is why very often in current usage the Byzantine Rite is synonymous with the term "Eastern Rite".

The Byzantine Rite spread throughout most of the Christian East, and into the Slavic lands, and is found all over the world today. It is the rite of approximately ten million Catholics; approximately one million of them live in the U.S.A. and Canada.

The Byzantine Rite has not been confined to any particular language. Although the main languages used in the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy are Old-Slavonic, Ukrainian, Greek, Rumanian and Hungarian, practically every language of every country in which the Byzantine Liturgy is celebrated is being used.

The Byzantine Rite is also used by the Melkites. The name "Melkites" (Syriac "malka" meaning emperor) refers to those Christians in Syria and Egypt who followed the emperor in accepting the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in opposition to the Monophysites.

Gradually they came under the influence of Byzantium and adopted the Byzantine Rite, although ethnically they are Syro-Arabs. There are about 400,000 Catholic Melkites, 50,000 in the U.S.A.

Some Reflections

The above enumerated rites were developed during the course of long centuries and naturally were changed, abbreviated and modified. The outline of the original liturgy remained, but new prayers, petitions, and parts were fitted in.

The rite (or liturgy) is not the result of study or prayerful meditation by one man, but belongs to the Church. It is the property of the Church under whose guiding care and watchful eye the rite was developed.

As we read the enumeration of the Eastern Rites, a question may come to our minds: Are these Eastern Rites a vital force in the Church today? Are they necessary at all? For Eastern Catholics they are important. They are the expressions, the "styles" of Christianity, each manifesting a peculiar Christian "spirit" which gives its own special significance to Catholicism.

Rite means national character, history, tradition, culture, way of salvation. The many and diverse Rites adorn the Church with a "royal garment of many colors".

GREEK - EASTERN - BYZANTINE?

It is not uncommon to hear people ask that ever-puzzling question: Is the Rite of the Catholic Church, which is not Roman, to be termed Greek, Eastern or Byzantine? Those who ask this question are Catholics, Protestants and non-Christians. In fact, Eastern rite Catholics themselves lack clear notions on this matter. Every time this subject comes up, one can sense hesitation and indecision, betraying a latent crisis of identity.

To render a well-defined answer to this question is not as easy as one would expect. The answer involves problems of history, tradition, nationality and emotion, (among others) which complicate the matter considerably. Because most people "make up" their minds in advance on this subject, it is rather unpopular and unrewarding to offer additional comments.

"Greek Catholics"

Since 1773 the non-Roman Rite Catholics of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was officially known as Greek Catholics. This designation was seemingly a pragmatic solution to distinguish those involved from the Latin Catholics. This denotation, evidently, intended to indicate that the Church which Christianized the non Latin Catholics was Greek in language and culture. It was generally accepted that, in the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Roman Rite members, there are also members of the Greek Rite.

Neither the Slavs, nor the Hungarians, nor the Rumanians - who are by no means Greeks - had any objection to this new designation of their rite. They simply did not make an issue of it. After all, in the Roman Rite Church all members, regardless of nationality, were called Latins or Romans.

"Eastern Catholics"

When after the 1880's "Greek Catholic" immigrants began to arrive in the United States, they retained the appellation "Greek Catholic" for their religious identity. Their newly established parishes were called Greek Catholic parishes and their largest Fraternal Organization was named the Greek Catholic Union. Soon, however, certain problems arose regarding the nationality of the Greek Catholics. The average American considered Greek Catholics to be Greek nationals. Often lengthy explanations were necessary to clarify the religious and national identity of these people.

In order to eliminate further misunderstanding, the adjective "Greek" was replaced by "Eastern". This new designation initially had some appeal, but soon proved itself inadequate, too vague and too indefinite.

If we closely scrutinize the word "Eastern", we arrive at the conclusion that the term "Eastern Rite" is too broad for the identification of a specific rite. The word itself is a historical and geographical term. It is a collective term which designates the populations, languages and cultures proper to the Eastern countries, both in the Far East and the Near East. Some of these countries had little in common with the religious and cultural development of East European Christians. Egypt, for example, was Coptic to its very soul. Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia used the Syrian language, later replaced by Arabic. All these nations, with their particular cultures and modes of life, were united only loosely by the term "Eastern", which cannot be applied to them in our particular concept.

Some writers used the adjective "Oriental", borrowing it from official Vatican (Latin) documents, but without any success. The term "Oriental" refers rather to the Far East.

Byzantine Rite

Around 1945, a new appellation was introduced to identify the "Greek" or "Eastern" rite. Some of their leading churchmen and writers began to call it the Byzantine rite. When in 1949, Bishop Daniel lvancho named the newly established Seminary of SS. Cyril and Methodius, "The Byzantine Catholic Seminary" this new designation became accepted and approved.

In order to specify more accurately the term "Byzantine", a new adjective was added "Slavonic". This new modification helped to clarify, to some extent, the religious identity, but created a new problem as well. Not all the members of the Pittsburgh Diocese were Slavs; i.e., Ruthenians, and Croatians. There were also a good number of Hungarians - who are not Slavs - so in order not to create a national problem, the adjective "Slavonic" fell into oblivion. At that time the English Liturgy was being introduced and it gave another reason why the qualification "Slavonic" became impractical.

Perhaps "Byzantine" is not the best possible and the most expressive name for the religious and ritual identification of the members of the Pittsburgh Metropolia but, at least, it is as correct as Greek or Eastern, if not better. It achieved one important objective: today no one else is identified by that name, but the members of the Metropolitan Province of Pittsburgh. In addition, this term does not offend the national feelings of any member of the Metropolia. What Is Byzantine?

What is Byzantine?

Ever since the last Christian Emperor, Constantine XI. Paleologos, died heroically defending the city in which Christ was officially the "Basileos", some historians, especially the French Encyclopedists, tried to create an aura of "disgust and horror" around what is known as Byzantine. Under their influence, many shied away from its use. In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, Byzantium was vindicated and rehabilitated. The meticulous works of hundreds of scholars, philologists, historians and archeologists restored the luster and brilliance of the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantium was "the kingdom of Christ on earth". Its cultural achievements in many aspects compare favorably with any that history has to offer. The Eastern Slavs in particular owe virtually all their past to Byzantium. It "molded the undisciplined tribes of Serbs, Bulgars, Russians, Croats and made nations out of them; it gave to them its religion and institutions, taught their princes how to govern, transmitted to them the very principles of civilization writing and literature" (Dvornik: Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX siecle, p.11).

In this great empire many people: Greek, Romans, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs and Easterners lived side by side, grew to know one another, formed one nation under God, accepting the rule of Christ and thus creating a new culture, a Byzantine and Christian culture. It was something like America today: a melting-pot of many cultures, nationalities, traditions and languages. The great difference: it was Christian, to its very heart.

The Byzantine missionaries carried Christianity to many corners of the world. To all with whom they came into contact the Byzantines brought religion, law and culture. The Byzantines established their churches and schools. Their artists decorated churches and palaces, their scholars translated the most brilliant works of Byzantine literature. Even the center and pride of the spiritual life, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is of Byzantine development. All this enormous spiritual and cultural wealth was brought to the Slavic peoples by SS. Cyril and Methodius.

Were these two holy brothers, the evangelizers of the Slavs, true Greeks, or were they immigrants, or descendants of immigrants? We do not know. But they were Byzantines who transplanted to the lands of the Slavs what was the greatest and noblest in Byzantium.

DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH HAS DEEP HISTORICAL ROOTS

When we mention the possibility of diversity in the Church, in the mind of an average Catholic a question arises: In what sense can there be a separate or distinctive mode of worship, spirit and discipline in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"? Is not the Church one?

The answer to this question was always important, but it is more important today, after the Second Vatican Council, in an era of ecumenism and Catholic openness.

Historical Background

Christianity made its appearance in history at the time when the culture and prosperity of the Roman Empire were at their peak. Emperor Diocletian (284-305) set an ambitious goal for his reign. He wanted to reorganize the whole Empire politically and administratively.

In order to accomplish this reform, he divided the Empire into the "Imperium Occidentale" and the "Imperium Orientale". One portion of this great Empire, the Occidental or western, embraced countries west of Italy, namely, the western shores of the Mediterranean, Italy, Gaul, Spain and the northern shores of Africa.

To these must be added the northern "Barbaricum" or the Germanic territories, along with Pannonia, Dacia, lllyria and Moesia. Though geographically these latter provinces were not situated in the West, they were well Romanized and Rome considered them part of the Western Empire.

The lower oriental or eastern portion of the Empire included the countries on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, namely, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, as well as the shores of the Black Sea and the southern part of the Balkans.

Emperor Constantine, victorious over his fellow rulers of the tetrachy, retained Diocletian's division. When Christianity was granted recognition in 313, the political division of the Empire was accepted for Church administration. The Churches of the eastern part of the Empire were called the Eastern Churches, while those in the western part were known as the Western Churches.

The real impact of this division, as far as the Church was concerned, became more discernible when Constantine selected as his capital city the hitherto unknown Byzantium, which from 330 began to grow in influence, culture and wealth. Soon the "New Rome", as Byzantium was known, became a serious rival to the old Rome. Byzantium was rapidly becoming, as Rome had been, the showplace of the world.

The Bishop of Byzantium, until then the suffragan of the Archbishop of Heraclea, began to demand broader jurisdiction, more influence, more important status. As the political power of the city grew stronger, so did the influence of its Bishop. Finally, he became "Oikumenikos" of the entire East.

Natural Differences

Though Christianity was fundamentally one in teaching and principles, it was nevertheless unable to ward off the external influences of its cultural and national surroundings. Gradually the Church acquired different modes of expression in the East and in the West. It is therefore not surprising that Christianity manifested the double aspect of this dual Empire. Two separate cultures and styles of life influenced the newly established Christianity.

In the following Centuries this division made itself clearly evident to an ever increasing extent, particularly after the cultural and political life of the Eastern and Western Empires began to flow in totally different channels. In the same manner and by the same right, as we speak of Eastern and Western cultures, history and traditions, we may speak of Eastern and Western Christianity, or simply, of Eastern and Western Churches. The Church fathers greatly contributed toward the creation of two separate theological, spiritual and liturgical currents in the Church.

With their different educations, cultural backgrounds and different national customs, they began to think and to practice the Christian faith with somewhat different emphasis. The forms taken by public worship, ecclesiastical discipline and theological formulations of Revelation testify to the divergent spiritual, psychological and historical influence of the East and the West.

While continuing in agreement on the fundamentals of Christianity, East and West took on shades of differences in their perspectives on the Christian mysteries and their way of expressing them. This was the result of two mentalities which, at times, were complementary but actually foreign to one another.

There were not two separate Christianitys. There was one faith, one teaching, one Church, but with different interpretations in externals.

The Eastern and Western Churches at this time mutually complemented one another, each enriching the other. East and West, their traditions, their mysticism on the one hand, and their practicality on the other, blossomed into the most beautiful flower and exemplary oneness.

Differences Grow

At the very beginning of Christianity, these differences between the Churches of the East and the West were barely perceptible. But as time went on, the characteristics of these two separate cultures and their approaches to certain Christian concepts became noticeable.

During the migration of nations, when the Western Church converted the Germanic peoples and the Eastern Church baptized the Slavic nations, the characteristics and national traits of these newly converted Christians added new color to the external image of the Church. From this time on, in the Western Church, there was a new Germanic element breaking through more and more, while, in the Eastern Church, the same was true of the Slavic element.

There was another great historical factor. In the East the Hellenic culture had a great unifying influence on the national cultures of the newly baptized nations, but it did not change their traditional customs and life style. Christianity had to respect divergent national characteristics in its missionary activities, in the interpretation of revealed truths and in the formation of external worship.

The situation in the West was entirely different. Peoples who migrated to the western and southern parts of Europe did not possess such deeply rooted cultural heritage as the peoples of the East.

After the fall of Rome (476), the newly settled Goths, Franks, and Normans received their culture along with Christianity. Their first true culture was the Christian culture. Rome was the birthgiver of their mentality, culture and religion.

These newly baptized peoples of the West represented a "Clean slate" on which Rome was able to write the words of Christian Revelation according to its own mentality, rite and language.

Realizing its historical development, it is easy to understand why Christ's Church, highly unified and internally one, accepted a dual image which has survived until the present.

THE CHURCH GUARANTEES EQUALITY OF RITES

One often wonders why the knowledge of many Roman Rite Catholics concerning their fellow Church members of other rites is so limited. What is the reason for this ignorance? Most certainly, it cannot be incapable, because the elements of such ignorance (difficulty of the object, scarcity of evidence or opportunity for the subject) do not exist. Here in America, Catholics of various Rites have lived side by side for more than a century and yet, Catholics of Eastern Rites must often answer the questions: Are you Catholic? Do you recognize the Pope? How can you be Catholic, if your ordinary is not "our" (meaning Roman Rite) bishop? How is it possible that some of your priests are married?

Occasionally Roman Rite Catholics, priests and lay persons alike, attend a Byzantine Rite Liturgy. They admire its beauty, richness and dignified mode of celebration but, once out of Church, make not the least effort to become acquainted with the "beauty" they have just experienced.

It would be totally unrealistic to expect that every Catholic know thoroughly every rite of the Church. After all, there are many of them. But charity, practicality or, if nothing else, intellectual curiosity should demand at least some knowledge of the rite of one's next-door fellow-Catholic. Knowledge is the beginning of love. How can one love (or respect) his fellow Catholic if he does not know the basic facts of his religious practices, ritual background or ecclesiastical life style?

Obligations Imposed by Vatican Council 11

In the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches, Vatican Council 11 expressly emphasized the fundamental equality of individual Churches, those of both West and the East, in terms of dignity, rights and obligations. The Council defined that none of the "individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite, that is, in liturgy, is superior to the others as regards to rite . . ." (Ch. 3).

In order that this decision of the Council would not remain a "dead letter", unknown and consequently ineffective, the Decree obliged hierarchs of various individual Churches, with coincident jurisdiction over the same territory, "to take common counsel in periodic meetings, strive to promote the unity of action and, with united forces, sustain common undertakings, so as to advance the good of religion . . ." (Ch. 4).

At the same time, the Council strongly promoted the knowledge of the Eastern rites, especially among the clergy. "All clerics and those in preparation to sacred orders shall be instructed in the rites" . . . (Ch. 4). This, however, is nothing new. The Holy See has traditionally shown interest in the instruction of all future Catholic priests in the knowledge of the Eastern Churches. The Sacred Congregation for Universities and Seminaries, for example, prescribed (Aug. 28, 1929) that in theological studies special attention should be given to questions relating to the Eastern Churches and peoples (AAS, 1929, p. 146 ss). The same was repeated in the encyclical of Pius XI, Sept. 8, 1928 (AAS, 1928, p. 277). The Sacred Congregation for Seminaries ordered on Jan. 27, 1935, in a letter directed to all Latin Rite bishops, that every year a special Eastern Christianity Day be held in every Seminary. If these directions would be carried out, many unnecessary misconceptions could be averted, more cooperation between the clergy of various rites could be enjoyed and ecclesiastical laws could be better observed. History proves that the directions of the Holy Fathers were necessary and well intended.

Who is to Blame?

As we peruse the history of the Byzantine Catholics, both in Europe and in America, we regretfully note the repeated misunderstandings, canonical violations, personal abuses and general ill will which the Byzantine Catholics had to endure from their fellow Church members. It is difficult to justify the injuries to those American Byzantine Catholic priests whose wives were not given Communion in Catholic hospitals or whose children were not accepted into Catholic schools.

Still, if we read the many declarations of the Roman Pontiffs regarding the Byzantine Catholics, we must admit that they reflect genuine solicitude, concern and charity. The problem is - as it has always been - that official Roman policies toward the Byzantine Catholics have not been carried out. Many times, the Roman Decrees were interpreted unilaterally, with obvious intentions to favor Roman Rite interests.

The Popes and the Eastern Rites

In order to illustrate the high esteem the Roman Pontiffs advocate for the Eastern rites, some quotations from their declarations would be beneficial.

Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter "Orientalium Dignitas", published Nov. 30, 1894, wrote: "The maintenance in being of the Eastern rites is of more importance than might be imagined. The august antiquity which lends dignity to these various rites is an adornment of the whole Church and a witness to the Divine Unity of the Catholic faith. Perhaps nothing, in fact, better proves the note of Catholicity in the Church of God than the singular homage paid by these ceremonies which vary in form, which are celebrated in languages venerable by their antiquity, and which are still further hallowed by the use that has been made of them by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church." Interestingly, this statement was made at the same time the Byzantine Catholic priests were declared "a menace to the chastity of the unmarried clergy and a source of scandal to the laity" (AAB 91 V 1/1, Meeting of the Archbishops, Chicago, Sept. 12/13, 1893). Pope Leo XIII had a different opinion. He considered the existence of the various rites which these priests represented "an adornment of the whole Church" and "a witness to the Divine Unity of the Catholic Faith."

Pope Pius XII emphasized the equality of the Eastern rites in the following way: "Each and every nation of Eastern rite must have its own rightful freedom in all that is bound up with its history and its own genius and character, saving always the truth and integrity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ ... They will never be forced to abandon their own legitimate rites or to exchange their own venerable and traditional customs. All these are to be held in equal esteem and equal honor, for they adorn the common Mother Church with a royal garment of many colors" (Orientalis Ecclesiae, April 9, 1944). How consoling it is to feel the powerful protection and moral support of the Head of the Catholic Church, who maintains that the Eastern rites "adorn the common mother Church with a royal garment". On the other hand, how incorrect, how small, how uninformed are those who think otherwise.

Pope Pius XI assured with all his authority the preservation of the Byzantine rite: "The people of all rites should enjoy equal rights regardless of their race, language, or rites. The Roman Church has always scrupulously respected and maintained the various rites, and has at all times insisted on their preservation" (Rerum Orientalium, Sept. 8, 1928). We do not doubt that the Roman Church has always respected the Byzantine rite. However, we cannot say the same about those who attracted, advised and assisted Byzantine Catholics to change their rite, the same rite which the Church "scrupulously respects and maintains".

WHY SHOULD WE KNOW THE EASTERN RITES?

During the greater part of the first half of this century, many of America's educators advocated the "assimilation viewpoint", the "melting-pot" theory, the need for a homogeneous society in order to pr( serve national and cultural unity.

In the last twenty years, however, it has become evident that the American "melting-pot" theory is incorrect, injurious and unworkable. American pluralism has worked marvelously well without its becoming homogenized. The statement of the distinguished historian of American education, Elwood P. Cubberley, that it is the task of American educators "to assimilate and to amalgamate these people (ethnics) as part of our American race" sounds Utopian, if not simply ridiculous. Today millions of dollars are spent, on various educational levels, to awaken young Americans to their ethnic backgrounds and those of other fellow Americans.

The awareness and the acceptance of pluralism in one's community is indeed an American experience. In no other country do people of different ethnic backgrounds live so closely, side by side, than in America. By learning the historical and cultural background of our neighbors, by trying to understand them, we become intellectually richer, our outlook becomes multi-dimensional and our cultural horizon widens.

Pluralism exits in the highly unified Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church there is unity, but not necessarily uniformity. There is unity of doctrine, but not necessarily unity in worship, in ecclesiastical discipline and spiritual practices. Different modes of worship, different approaches to the same doctrine, different practices of spirituality, all reflecting the history and national characters of various peoples, render the Church more meaningful and assure greater freedom to individual Church members.

In the early centuries the variety of Rites was spontaneously accepted. As centuries went on, for various reasons, or combinations of them (East-West division of 1054, lack of communication, ecclesiastical politics), it became almost a practice to identify Rite with religion. The consequences were tragic.

In the West the one-sided development of Catholicism resulted in Latinization, while in the East the Churches evolved into enclaves of national particularism in which rites, faith, culture, tradition, politics and nationalism became a confused unity.

Hans Kung describes well this progressive narrowing of the Church's visible catholicity: "While the Church, like St. Paul, became Greek to the Greeks and barbarian to the barbarians, it has not been Arab to the Arabs, Negro to the Negroes, Indian to the Indians, or Chinese to the Chinese". But what is more tragic, what Kung fails to add, is that it also ceased, to a degree, to be Eastern to the Eastern Rite Catholics.

The Latin way of doing things became actually the Catholic way. Although the Eastern Catholics have preserved their ritual, they preserve very little of their original religious interpretation, spirituality and discipline. The continuation of such a trend harms the Church and harms much-desired Ecumenism. And this is another important reason why all Catholics should be acquainted with the various Rites of the Catholic Church.

When Pope Benedict XV, in 1917, established the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, he stated these often quoted words in his Motu Proprio: "in the Church of Jesus Christ, which is neither Latin, or Greek, nor Slav but Catholic, there can be no discrimination leveled between her children; and they, whether they be Latin, Greek, Slav, or of any other nation, each of them possesses equal status before this Apostolic See".

From these words it is evident that the Church stands above rites, nationalities, traditions and political influences. The Church is neither Latin nor Byzantine. In the Church, regardless of the number of the faithful, the members of the Byzantine Rite enjoy just as many privileges and rights as the members of the Roman Rite. The Church of Christ is one, but composed of different particular rites, with their own peculiar liturgies, theologies and spiritual traditions. Because of this, there are no secondary Rites in the Church. The Rites are all equal.

Pope Pius XII removed all doubts and ambiguities in this respect. In his Encyclical on the 15th centenary of the death of St. Cyril of Alexandria he states: "It is important to hold in due esteem all that constitutes for the Eastern peoples their own special patrimony, as it was handed down to them by their forefathers ... Eastern and Latin Rites are both to be regarded with equal esteem and veneration".

EASTERN RITE CHRISTIANS' RELIGIOUS LIFE

Today we have a well-defined definition of theology. Today we say that theology is the "science" of divine things. In the early Church, however, theology was a "hymn" in which God was glorified rather than a treatise in which He was explained by the human mind.

This understanding of theology remained a "hymn" rather than a philosophical system.

As late as the eleventh century, even in the Roman Rite monasteries, theology was conceived more as meditation upon mysteries, and less as a science of things divine. It was only in the twelfth century that Abelard began to rationalize theology, to introduce rational criticism in trying to "solve" divine mysteries.

Abelard's rational tendency found eager followers, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, who converted theology into a rational synthesis and gave birth to formal scholasticism.

Early Christianity did not like to analyze revealed truths by means of scholastic methods, nor did it make use of philosophy for the explanation and exposition of particular mysteries. The Christian East maintains that scholasticism risks degeneration into mere rationalism which would distort the truths of the faith rather than explain them.

The Eastern Christian humbly inclines himself before the mystery. Refusing the effort to penetrate it, he safeguards himself from serious errors. His theology is a singing of "hymns" before God, hidden in mysteries, rather than an attempt to solve the mysteries, which attempt inevitably brings its own punishment.

Theology of the East

In the pursuit of the explanation and interpretation of truths, both East and West employed different methods and formulations, complaint with their cultural and historical heritages. Theology was no exception to this rule.

In theology the "difference" between East and West did not, at the outset, refer to content. The revealed truths and the mysteries of the faith are identical. Identical are Sacred Scripture, the Sacraments, the Seven Ecumenical Councils. What was "different" in Eastern theology was the particular interpretation, the specific emphasis on certain theological concepts, formulation of statements, and language.

Eastern theology did not produce theological schools and systems. It did not compose "Summas". Questions on revealed truths were discussed by theologians, writers and orators. Catechisms and theological synopses in the East are of later origin. When finally they were compiled, they did not follow strict logical sequence or appear in the form of all-encompassing theological synopses. They were rather explanations, kerygmatic reflections and viewpoints on certain theological questions which, at that particular time, needed elucidation.

The Church Fathers were those early theologians who were the first to define and explain the Christian faith. They were distinguished from other theologians by the fact that they lived in the early Church, always rigidly teaching the true doctrine, practicing holiness of life, and were recognized by the Church as the authoritative interpreters of Christ's teaching.

The Church Fathers, as the developers, interpreters and defenders of Christian doctrine, were the children of their own age They lived, wrote and taught in a specific geographic region and were influenced by a particular culture.

The Western Fathers were preoccupied with themes of justification. Their speculative interest centered around ethical problems sin, free will, grace, satisfaction and justification. The Eastern Fathers, on the other hand, preferred commentary on the great mysteries, such as the Trinity, the unity of Christ's person, His two natures, the influence of the Holy Spirit on the soul, the encounter of God and man, especially "metanoia" (repentance).

The Eastern Fathers never employed the method of definition in the Western sense. They utilized philosophy only in exceptional cases, i.e., when philosophy attacked the revealed truths either from within Christianity (error, heresy) or outside Christianity (pagan philosophy). Being well versed in philosophy, the Eastern Fathers occasionally used the rules of ratiocination and logical deductions but they always stressed faith, which they considered the highest philosophy.

The Eastern idea of theological reform was indeed "reformare"; i.e., re-establishment, return to tradition and not a search for new ideas which disrupt tradition.

Faithful to Tradition

Great respect for tradition is one of the characteristics of Eastern theology. While the West neglected for centuries to give due estimation to Patristics, and was satisfied with philosophical systems, the East remained faithful to tradition.

The Second Vatican Council granted recognition to this fidelity: "For the Eastern Churches, distinguished as they are by their venerable antiquity, they are bright with that tradition which was handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers, and which forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church" (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches, Ch. 1).

One can briefly characterize the development of Eastern and Western theology, in terms of content, in the following manner: The East directed its attention toward questions pertaining to God, such as Deity itself, the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. The West concerned itself with man, his redemption, grace, free will and justice.

The reasons for this are evident. The early Church grew and developed in the East. The most important questions of faith, which primarily interested Christians - God, the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ and the Theotokos - were first discussed, developed and explained in the East. To many of these questions, Western theology had little to add.

Both Eastern and Western approaches to Christian theology, are legitimate and necessary. They enrich one another and explain the revealed truths more brilliantly.

EASTERN RELIGIOUS LIFE HAS UNIQUE MYSTICISM

While analyzing Eastern religious life, we note a close, warm trusting relationship between the believer and his God. This union with the divine is desired so strongly and so intimately that man actually forgets himself, wishing only to share in divine love. The Greek Fathers called this union with God 'deification,' i.e., the elevation of man to God in close union with Him.

This deification, of course, should not be taken for pantheistic identification, but rather, for union with God through faith and love. The Apostle Peter speaks of grace which guarantees us 'something very great and wonderful to come.' 'Through grace, we will be able to share the divine nature' (Of. 2 Pet. 1:4).

It is interesting that the Eastern concept of Redemption is closely connected with deification. While Western theology accentuates the principle of satisfaction or atonement, whereby Christ had to pay our debts with His own life, Eastern theology interprets the doctrine of redemption in a mystical way. Through His Incarnation Christ came to earth and became man. Instead of paying for man's transgressions, he raised man to the divine and, by doing so, made him free.

Eastern Mysticism

Another characteristic feature of Eastern religious life is a unique mysticism, an interior experience which leads to the attainment of the spiritual divine world.

Generally, mysticism refers to an experience of interior meeting and union of man with the infinite divinity, which in Christian mysticism is the personal God. The mysticism of Eastern Christianity, however, consists in the union between man and God through faith and love.

This mysticism tends toward a lasting - though a constantly growing - state of inner sanctification. Christians, in proportion to their spiritual development, share in the life of Our Lord, of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Saints.

The Eastern services, the whole liturgical life of the East, is based on this mystical realism. This concept of mysticism has nothing of the "ecstasy" by which later mysticism, in both East and West, is dominated.

The mysticism of the Eastern Christian is based on the underlying urge of the human soul to escape its profane confines and dwell in another world befitting its non material nature. It is the mysticism of St. Paul, which advocates union with God through faith and love.

Pauline mysticism consists in the spiritual transformation of man in a lasting state of sanctification. This constant thrust upward influences not only the liturgical life of the Eastern Christian, but his daily life in general. He carries the reality of God and all that is supernatural into daily life, with all its trials and limitations, and into his liturgical life of service to God. He makes no distinction between the act of faith and everyday living. His basic Christian attitude is the same when he prays, works, eats or relaxes. This is why everyday life in the East is so richly entwined with the religious element.

Community Spirit

The relationship between individuals, as well as the relationship of individuals to their community, exercises a significant influence upon the religious formation of Eastern religious life. In the West, the Christian acts, feels, and thinks as an individual. He goes to his church fully conscious of his individuality and his conformance with uniformity, even in liturgical actions, requires an act of self-discipline. This subjection to the rule of discipline lays a great strain upon his will.

The Eastern Christian, although retaining full awareness of his individuality, thinks of himself as a member of one big family comprised of all Christians, both living and dead. In this family he can act freely without restraint. God, the loving Father, permits His children to "feel at home," even in the church. The faithful come there as children to a feast where the Saints, as wiser and more experienced elders, have a place of honor.

This attitude is expressed by the many icons found in the Eastern churches. The Eastern Christian is very much aware of the presence of the Saints in his church. His first act, after entering the church and deeply bowing before Our Lord, toward the East, is to honor the Saints, who are the members of his big spiritual family. He bows before their icons or, perhaps, lights a candle as a symbol of his love.

The occurrence of death only partially interrupts the fellowship of the Christian family. Death cannot deprive the family of its fundamental unity. Whenever the church of God is gathered together in an act of worship, it is the Saints and all the faithful departed who form the main body of the congregation. They are the true worshippers of God. Christians come to church to share their company. This attitude makes church attendance a pleasant duty, even a privilege.

From the Western point of view, the spontaneity and family spirit of the Eastern liturgy may seem to have certain disadvantages. The moral responsibility of individuals is seemingly not stressed enough. Yet, Eastern religious writers have striven to develop a communal consciousness, which has led to a more or less "communal system" of ethics.

This attitude has greatly helped Russia to develop its collectivist regime in every activity of life. As an example, Khomyakov, the great Russian Orthodox religious thinker, advocated the application of the collectivist principle to industry and farming.

Loyalty

The Eastern Christian prefers to exercise the passive virtues such as humility, obedience, loyalty and repentance. In opposition to the Western Christian, who stresses the active virtues and sees external and result-producing activities for the Church as the criterion of true piety, the Eastern Christian is more inclined toward passivism, quietism and endurance. His emphasis is vertical rather than horizontal.

It is interesting that the Byzantine Catholics in America can be, in a great measure, grateful to their loyalty to tradition for surviving and making ecclesiastical (and cultural) progress in their newly adopted country.

After their arrival in America, the Byzantine Catholics did not indiscriminately embrace the customs, traditions and religion of the influential and powerful majority. They respected the lifestyle of other peoples but, remaining loyal to their own religious and cultural traditions, they built their own churches, schools and institutions.

Without the innate loyalty to their time-honored religious background, the Byzantine Catholics would have disappeared in their vast newly-adopted land. They manifested this convincing loyalty to their rite at a time when it was inconvenient, humiliating and costly. And because of this loyalty, they have survived and are making progress.

EASTERN LITURGY REFLECTS CULTURE, PIETY OF FAITHFUL

The Spirit of a Church can best be recognized by its public prayers, ceremonies, discipline, manifestation of piety, in short, by its liturgy. Since the East and West differ in so many ways, one ought not to be surprised that differences are also found in their respective liturgies. These dissimilarities appear not only in language and externals, but also in spirit, content, and liturgical interpretations.

The liturgy in Eastern understanding is the central act of Christian life, the expression of attitude to God, the true service of rendering glory to Him (as the meaning of the Greek work "Liturgy" indicates).

The Eastern liturgy expresses not only the spirit of the early Church and her theological concepts, but also the religious culture and piety of the faithful, their history and traditions, their customs and national characteristics. It is true that the basic meaning of the liturgy - salutary encounter with the glorified Christ by participating in His mysteries - is common to both East and West, but the Eastern Churches have preserved it as a vital force in a way that is peculiarly their own.

As to its form, the liturgy of the East is richer; it carries the elements of early liturgical practices, it retains loyalty to the Fathers, whose vital spirit animates Eastern piety. There is more intimate participation and fervent cooperation on the part of the faithful (which after the Second Vatican Council the Roman rite began to imitate).

Apart from the magnificence and splendor of its ceremonial, the most striking aspect of the Eastern liturgy is the atmosphere of sacredness and mystery which surrounds its every movement.

For the Eastern rite Christian, as St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, notes, even a humble parish church is "heaven on earth, the place where the God of heaven dwells and moves, where man can lay aside all earthly care," as the liturgy enjoins, to "welcome the King of the Universe" (Cherubic Hymn of the Divine Liturgy). It is the heavenly sanctuary "where men and women, according to their capacity and desire, are caught up into the worship of the redeemed cosmos; where dogmas are not barren abstractions but hymns of exulting praise" (P. Hammond).

It was the beauty, rich content and eye-appealing splendor of the Eastern liturgy which attracted Prince Vladimir of Kiev to embrace Eastern Christianity. The old Russian Chronicle of Nestor recounts that, before Prince Vladimir selected a religion for his people, he sent ambassadors to the different religious centers of the world. When the envoys to Constantinople returned, they were so dazzled by the majesty and splendor of the Byzantine liturgy that they recommended that Vladimir embrace Eastern Christianity.

This was their report: "in Rome, we admit, we saw beautiful things, but what we saw in Constantinople passes all human understanding. The celebration of the Liturgy in the church of Holy Wisdom seemed to bring heaven to earth." This historical example indicates how the Eastern liturgy affects an unprejudiced outsider.

The Divine Liturgy

In the Byzantine Rite, as in every other rite, the chief official service, namely, the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, is called the "Divine Liturgy" ("Mass" in the Roman rite).

In the Byzantine rite there are three Divine Liturgies used during the year. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which is the most used; The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, used only ten times during the year; and the Liturgy, or rather the Service, of the Presanctified Gifts, ascribed to Pope Gregory the Great, used on Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent.

The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has three parts: the Prosko- midia, the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the faithful.

The structure of the Divine Liturgy almost demands such a division because these three parts form a logical and very obvious inter-related whole. The division is further substantiated by the historical development of the Liturgy as well as by the contents of the individual parts.

Because the Church no longer restricts the catechumens to attend only the first part of the Liturgy, which is predominantly of a didactic character, this part of the Liturgy could be called the Liturgy of the Word. Similarly, in order to stress the sacrificial nature of the final part of the Liturgy of the Faithful, it could be termed the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The Proskomidia (meaning "to bring forth" or "to offer forth"), is introductory, or preparatory, usually performed at a side altar, situated to the left. During the Proskomidia, the priest prepares the bread and wine, which will be changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Eastern Christian views the Divine Liturgy as the eternally triumphant Christ's Passover from death of life, foreshadowing the final divinization of the People of God in the eternal Kingdom. This view was stressed by the Eastern Fathers.

The spirit of the attending faithful at the Divine Liturgy is not one of loving compassion for the suffering Christ, but of glorifying adoration of the Heavenly King who conquered death. The emphasis is not on the history (Christ died on the cross), but on the presence, on the gloriously triumphant renewal of the Sacrifice of the cross.

The faithful "welcome the King", paying homage to the Victorious Lamb, glorifying and singing praises to the Risen Christ. This joyful and triumphant spirit is interminably repeated in the silent prayers of the priest. The teaching on the Holy Eucharist is the same in the Catholic East and West, but the liturgical emphasis differs.

LET US LEARN FROM HISTORY

It is never enough to simply write about the necessity of Church unity and ponder the ways of achieving it. No Christian can be at ease until "the scandal of a divided Christendom" ceases.

The restoration of unity among Christians was one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. For if there is one Lord and one salvation, there should be one Church.

When we see Christendom divided, we cannot satisfy ourselves with quoting the words of our Lord, "for it must needs be that scandals come", and complacently conclude that nothing can be done about it.

We can do and must do something, as individuals, in the interest of Church unity. If nothing else, we must change our antagonistic attitude (if we nurture one) to an irenic, cordial, ecumenical attitude.

In the present ecumenical atmosphere, it would be an unprofitable effort and a serious attitudinal mistake to deliberate on those historical events and theological interpretations which, allegedly, caused the tragic divisions among Christians.

The entire problem of division should be investigated in a scholarly, rather than emotional, way far beyond the usual superficially repeated "causes". Only then will we be able to perceive how greatly the excuses outnumber the causes.

From the classical Catholic viewpoint, which too many Catholics still sadly maintain, the eleventh-century separation of the Eastern and Western Churches was caused by the East's refusal to accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Thus, the Eastern Church disassociated herself from Papal jurisdiction and formed a separate community.

Such an uninformed and one-sided interpretation considerably hinders ecumenical activities, because it attributes full responsibility to only one of the Churches involved, and attributes it with not much historical precision.

In view of this reasoning, the Second Vatican Council demanded of all Catholics, especially Catholic theologians, that they place all the teachings, activities and manifestations of the Church - including divisions and unification efforts - in proper historical perspective. Only from such an all-embracing viewpoint can one form a veritable judgment about specific events which occurred in certain periods of history.

The Church must be viewed as a pilgrim, moving toward her eternal destiny. The Church is constantly on-the-way and, during her earthly pilgrimage, because of her divine nature, can renew herself and heal the wounds inflicted upon her body by weakness, misunderstanding, pride and ambition.

One such weakness of the pilgrim Church is division. But the Church can correct this situation, as she did others. During her 2,000-year history, the Church was repeatedly forced to undertake internal renewals, necessitated by the errors of her members. And she did it successfully. Why, then, should her effort to re-unite her members end in failure? Especially in view of the fact that the unity of her members is the explicit desire of her Divine Founder.

In order to correct a failure, or heal a wound, a correct diagnosis must be made. In the interest of a "renovatio interna", Catholics must know Church history accurately. They must re-examine and, if necessary, revise their interpretations of history, place critical events and situations in proper perspective and strive toward total honesty in their judgments. Only correct knowledge of the facts can lead to successful solutions to past errors.

In other words, proper presentation of history of both sides is a condition for achievable unity. Any misinterpretation or slanting of historical facts hampers the ecumenical effort.

The tragic division of Christendom can no longer be considered a historical error devised one-sidedly by a group of dissidents in a specific period of history. This division is not the result of an emotional struggle in which the good party won over the bad. The responsibility must be shared by both sides. Consequently, the restoration of unity cannot be the obligation of only one side.

Present historical investigations of the causes of the division between Eastern and Western Christians have established, without doubt, that the separation began some time before Photius and Ceruilarius and that the year 1054 is not the date of the final break.

It is false to assume that the dramatic confrontation between the Roman Cardinal Humbertus and patriarch Cerullarius on July 16, 1054, was an event that finalized the break. The division matured through centuries and it took centuries for it to become a reality. It was the result of many events, many decisions, many complications and unpredictable circumstances.

Church history has an important role to play in the reunion endeavor. In order that various Christian Churches understand one another and appreciate their mutual positions, it is necessary that they be objectively acquainted with one another's history books which would cover all the problems connected with the great Church division. Generally, Church history texts are overloaded with descriptions of heresies and refutations, ecclesiastical institutions and philosophies.

Every Christian community has its own history, its own interpretation of events. And every Christian community presents its past in a way that favors its present position. Such subjective treatment of historical events and ecclesiastical leaders does not serve the cause of unity. Any one-sided treatment of history which, conveniently and often sacrificing truth, accentuates the faults of other Christian Churches contributes nothing toward the promotion of reunion.

It is certainly difficult to have an objective appreciation of one's own situation in comparison with another's. Everyone is a poor judge of his own case. We must know more about each other and our knowledge must be objective.

This knowledge comes from history. It is from history that we will learn not to unjustly blame others, but to admit our own guilt in the events that separated us.

We must admit that it has often been difficult for Catholics to feel that they should acknowledge responsibility for the rifts that now divide Christendom. This false assumption has been rectified, especially since the Second Vatican Council. When both sides engage in mutual confession, when both sides can engage in mutual pardon, there are no limits to what the Holy Spirit can do on such a basis for genuine reconciliation.

THE SCANDAL OF DIVISION

Year after year, in the middle of January, during the Church Unity Octave, we are reminded to pray for the re-union of Christendom. During this time, a few more articles are written on the necessity of Church unity, and then, the whole matter is shelved for another year. It appears that the lack of unity in Christ's Church is an accepted historical fact, which is to be "observed" every year, but about which nothing can be done.

The Second Vatican Council made an outstanding manifestation of the necessity of ecumenicity and suggested valuable ways and means by which Church unity could successfully be accomplished. The Council issued a special Decree on Ecumenism, which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964 and which, in its very first sentence, states that "the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.

Since this Council, the word Ecumenism became the most popular expression in the theology, liturgy and mutual relationship of all Christians. Ecumenism, from the Greek word meaning "worldwide", denotes the sum-total of the efforts made for the reintegration of Christians in unity. It is the movement of thought and action which is concerned with the reunion of Christians.

Everything that heals the wounds of Christian division, helps to restore unity among Christians and removes the "scandal of a divided Christendom" is expressed by the word "ecumenism". Ecumenism, therefore, is a movement for the success of which Jesus Christ prayed in the most solemn moment of his earthly life. "that they all may be one".

What is remarkable in the Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism is that the focus is more on a "pilgrim" Church moving toward Christ than on a movement of "return" to the Roman Catholic Church as was customary in the past. Dr. Oscar Culimann, a Protestant observer at the Council, has rightly remarked of the Decree: "This is more than the opening of a door; new ground has been broken. No Catholic document has ever spoken of non-Catholic Christians in this way".

The Council admits that the divisions among Christians are the result of sin on both sides, "men of both sides were to blame" (Ch. 3). How fitting is the remark of Father Gustave Weigel that "the ecumenical movement is not an arena for the triumph of one Church over another. It is a fraternal confrontation of divided but brother Christians. It is not the purpose of the ecumenical dialogue to make conversions. It is an effort of Christian love to give and receive witness to the Gospel".

If at any time unity among Christians was necessary, it is today, when the powers of evil have unleashed an unprecedented attack on the Church, Christian principles, morality, decency and everything that Christianity stands for. We have reached a period when all Christians must be united if their voice is to be heard in the world and their influence felt. If we are to successfully challenge the onslaught of secularism, religious indifference and atheism, we Christians must be united.

Today, however, the ways and means of reunion are entirely different from those of only twenty years ago. In the past we spoke of Church unity in terms of reunion, of the return of dissidents, of rejoining the true fold. Today we realize that such an interpretation of Christian unity is wrong, unworkable and uncharitable.

It would be entirely unwise for one Christian Church to talk to another "dogmatically", in an unyielding and stern attitude of official intransigence, as if it were in sole possession of truth, while the others were erring dissidents. worthy at best of pity and compassion. Such an attitude today cannot predispose any rapprochement.

The movement toward Church unity cannot be the prerogative of any one Church. This is why the term ecumenism, used after Vatican 11, is so much better to express the movement of all Christians toward unity. Yet this unity we seek is not just any kind of coming-together, the loose unity of a crowd at a sporting event or the unity of students in a classroom. It is an attitude of minds and hearts, a religious unity, a spiritual union in which Christians are united in genuine love of Christ.

The real essence of ecumenism abides in a change of heart and in holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians. The Second Vatican Council calls it "spiritual ecumenism" (Ch. 8).

This new term "spiritual ecumenism", coined by Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881-1953), was borrowed by the Council Fathers to express the essential remedy for Christian disunity. Couturier was guided by the conviction that, at their profoundest level, divisions among the Christian Churches are not heresies on the level of theological understanding, but breaches in the spiritual bond of fraternal communion. Consequently, the soul of the ecumenical movement must be a change of heart, the assumption of a spiritual attitude which bridges the misunderstandings, prejudices, passions and hatreds of centuries.

Ecumenism, then, must be based not so much on academic efforts for theological understanding, as on religious spirit and love. The unity of the Church is a mystery of grace, which is effected by the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily the efforts of human minds, dogmatic and historic interpretations.

"Spiritual ecumenism" requires prayer for Church unity. But prayer, if it hopes to be effective, presupposes vital interest in what is prayed for. Prayer aims not at bringing God's will into conformity with ours but at shaping our desires into harmony with His. Therefore, when we pray for the unity of Churches, we should not necessarily think of changes to be brought about in others, but must ponder the changes to be effected within ourselves. We must show understanding, open-heartedness and charity.

If we are to be God's instruments in realizing Church unity n Jesus Christ, then we must be true followers of Christ in every respect.

If the unity of Christians seems, at present, humanly impossible, we should not be discouraged. What is impossible to man's power is possible to God. God wills unity and this is why unity will be realized - perhaps sooner than we expect.

A SHORT HISTORY OF CARPATHO-RUTHENIANS

The Carpatho-Ruthenians belong to that Slavic group of nations which settled on both slopes of the Carpathian Mountains during the eighth century. The name Carpatho-Ruthenian signifies both the geographical locus of these people (the Carpathian Mountain region) as well as their national tie to medieval Kievan Rus', an association which endured until the mid-eleventh century. From Kievan Rus' they adopted their name: Rusiny.

The Greek historians, who were the first to take interest in the Rusiny, identified them as "Ruthenoi". They modified the dental sound "s" into their "th" and added the proper Greek ending hence, Ruthenoi. The Latin language referred to them by the name Rutheni, later embraced by the English as Ruthenians.

In Europe, as in America, the Carpatho-Ruthenians have been variously identified as Rusins (their original Slavic name), Rusnaks, Uhro-Rusins (indicating that, historically, they were subjects of the Hungarian crown), Carpatho-Russians and Carpatho-Ruthenians. Because today no other Slavic group calls itself Ruthenian, the Carpatho-Ruthenians, for the sake of brevity, simply adopted the name Ruthenian as exclusively theirs.

In the middle of the eleventh century, the Carpatho-Ruthenians became subject to the kings of Hungary, which situation endured until 1919. The only interruption occurred between 1280 and 1321, when the Carpathian region was placed under the sovereignty of the Prince of Galicia and Ladomeria. Despite the fact that, politically, the Carpatho-Ruthenians were incorporated into Hungary, they culturally and religiously retained uninterrupted contact with their Slavic brothers on the northern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains.

A new page in the history of the Ruthenian people opened in 1919, when Carpatho-Ruthenia was incorporated into the newly formed Czechoslovak Republic. The decision for this important turn of events was made in the United States, more specifically in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

During the Hungarian era, the territory of Carpatho-Ruthenia included seven districts (counties): those of Maramorosh, Ugocha, Uzh (Ung), Bereg, Zemplin, Sharish and Spish. In the Czechoslovak Republic, however, only four of the above listed districts were included in the autonomous province of Carpatho-Ruthenia (officially known as "Podkarpatska Rus"'), while the remaining districts of Zemplin, Sharish and Spish were annexed to Slovakia. These three provinces were known as the Prjashev Region.

In the fall of 1938, Carpatho-Ruthenia underwent new and unexpected political changes. Following the Munich decision of the four European powers, Germany, Italy, England, and France on Sept. 30, the Czechoslovak government was forced to grant full autonomy both to Slovakia and Carpatho-Ruthenia.

One month later, on Nov. 22, 1938, the central government in Prague implemented a new constitutional law according to which Carpatho-Ruthenia became an autonomous state with its own government and parliament. At the same time, the central government issued a special declaration which permitted Carpatho-Ruthenia to also be called Carpatho-Ukraine.

On February 12, 1939, a general election was held. The great majority of the population voted for the complete independence of the Carpatho-Ukraine and elected 32 members to the Diet.

On March 15, 1939, the German army occupied Prague and the rest of Bohemia and Moravia. Slovakia in turn, proclaimed its independence. Czechoslovakia disintegrated. On the very same day, the Hungarian army began the occupation of Carpatho-Ukraine, and within two days reached its northern borders and Carpatho- Ukraine once again became part of Hungary.

The Hungarians held Carpatho-Ukraine until October of 1944, when the Soviet army occupied the entire region. This occupation exists until the present day. Carpatho-Ruthenia is that part of Soviet Ukraine named "Zakarpatskaja Oblast" (Transcarpathian Province).

The Carpatho-Ruthenians in America

The Carpatho-Ruthenians began to migrate to the United States in the early 1870's. It is difficult to establish either the exact date or number of Carpatho-Ruthenians to the United States since, in official records, registration of nationality began only in 1889. Even after this date, many Ruthenians were counted as Russians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Austro-Hungarians or Austrians.

Beginning with the 1880's Ruthenian emigration was on the rise until World War I when almost half the Ruthenian population of Hungary made its way to America. Most of the Ruthenian immigrants did not intend to stay in the United States permanently. In fact, many of them returned back, some of them crossing the ocean several times. But the majority stayed. Today the number of Americans of Carpatho-Ruthenian descent is estimated to exceed the half-million mark.

Concerning their religious affiliation, the Carpatho-Ruthenians in America belong to three major ecclesiastical jurisdictions, representing two major faiths: Byzantine Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

1. The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, comprised of the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, and the suffragan dioceses of Passaic, New Jersey, and Parma, Ohio. All three dioceses count approximately 300,000 faithful.

2. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, formerly known as the Russian Metropolia, includes some 180,000 people of Carpatho-Ruthenian descent.

3. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Diocese of Johnstown, under the protection of the Patriarch of Constantinople, has approximately 55,000 members.

It must be added that many Carpatho-Ruthenians also joined Slovak, Hungarian and other parishes, losing both their religious and national identity. The number of these cannot be appraised.

The Byzantine Catholic Church, during its formative years in America, faced many obstacles. One of the greatest difficulties was the unfriendly attitude of the Roman rite clergy.

Many American bishops identified the Catholic Church with the Roman Rite. They adopted a hostile attitude toward the Ruthenian faithful and clergy. At times, they even refused to grant them permission to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their churches because "the Ruthenian clergy were married."

Among many such local struggles, the confrontation of Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minn. and Father Alexis Toth should be mentioned. Archbishop Ireland refused to give jurisdiction to Fr. Toth because he was not a celibate, although a widower, and "because he refused to kneel before the Archbishop and pledge obedience". The outcome was quite unfortunate. Father Toth turned for jurisdiction to the Russian Orthodox Bishop, joined the Orthodox Church and, by 1909, over 30,000 Ruthenians of the Byzantine Catholic Church followed him to Orthodoxy.

The first Byzantine Catholic Bishop for the United States was named in 1906, in the person of Soter Stephen Ortynsky, a Basilian monk, highly educated and an outstanding orator. He was to be the bishop for Byzantine Catholics from Carpatho-Ruthenia and Galicia.

His appointment, however, was strongly opposed by the American hierarchy, who forced the Holy See to concede full control of Bishop Ortynsky's activities to the local Roman Catholic bishops. The Apostolic Letter, "Ea Semper", dated June 14, 1907, Delegated Bishop Ortynsky to the position of Vicar General, forced celibacy upon the Ruthenian clergy, forbade the Ruthenian clergy to administer the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation and made the Bishop's jurisdiction dependent upon the "discretion" of the local Roman rite bishops.

The saintly Bishop Ortynsky patiently endured all humiliations and injustices. Before his untimely death, however, he received some satisfaction. On May 28, 1913, the Apostolic See established a separate Byzantine Catholic Exarchate for the United States.

After being administered for eight years by an Apostolic Administrator Fr. Gabriel Martyak the Carpatho-Ruthenians of the Byzantine rite received their first Bishop, Basil Takach, former Spiritual Director of the Seminary of Uzhorod.

He was ordained to the episcopacy in Rome on June 15, 1924. A short time later, he left for the United States to become the first Exarch of the Ruthenian Exarchate with its 155 churches and 139 priests. There was every indication that the Byzantine Catholic Church in America would finally flourish in peace and tranquillity. But it was not to be so.

Under constant pressure by the American Roman Rite hierarchy, the Holy See imposed a strict law of celibacy on the Byzantine rite clergy. Bishop Takach vehemently protested. The clergy, who for centuries were married, proper to Byzantine Rite priests, were caught in a dilemma. Should they fight to safeguard their ancient tradition or accept the imposed new rule of celibacy?

In several places the faithful revolted. Numerous court cases followed. The outcome was tragic indeed. Perhaps as many as 100,000 Catholics of Byzantine rite joined the Orthodox Church.

During the long tragic years of religious upheaval, Bishop Takach proved himself a courageous defender of faith, who stood as a spiritual giant while the war of passions, blind emotions, animosity and bitterness was raging around him. If Bishop Takach would have achieved nothing but the survival of his newly established Exarchate, his name would have to be inscribed in the history of the American Byzantine Catholic Church in golden letters.

Bishop Basil Takach died on May 13,1948. He was succeeded by Bishop Daniel Ivancho who built the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburgh's North Side.

In 1955, Bishop Ivancho was succeeded by Bishop Nicholas T. Elko who continued the good work of his predecessor. He established several new parishes, inspired the building of new churches and schools, and, in 1956, founded the Diocesan weekly newspaper, the Byzantine Catholic World. It was during the Episcopacy of Bishop Elko that the Eparchy was elevated to the status of a Diocese.

In July of 1956, Bishop Elko was given an auxiliary, Bishop Stephen J. Kocisko, who was consecrated on October 23, 1956. On July 31, 1963, the Holy See divided the Diocese of Pittsburgh by establishing the Diocese of Passaic in New Jersey which embodied the entire eastern seaboard from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, eastward. Auxiliary Bishop Stephen J. Kocisko was appointed the first Bishop of Passaic and was installed-in September of 1963.

In the summer of 1967, Bishop Elko was called to Rome, appointed the Ordaining Bishop for Byzantine Catholics and elevated to the rank of Titular Archbishop. Monsignor Edward Rosack was appointed by the Holy See to be the Apostolic Administrator.

Bishop Elko was succeeded by Bishop Kocisko as the Ordinary of the Diocese on December 22, 1967.

On February 21, 1969, the Holy See once again divided the Diocese of Pittsburgh by creating the Diocese of Parma in Ohio and established the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Province. The Diocese of Pittsburgh was elevated to the status of an Archdiocese at the same time. Bishop Kocisko was named Metropolitan Archbishop of Munhall, the first Metropolitan Archbishop of our people. Bishop Emil J. Mihalik was named the first Bishop of the new Diocese of Parma and was consecrated and installed on June 12,1969. Archbishop Kocisko was given an auxiliary bishop, Bishop John M. Bi lock, who was consecrated on May 15, 1973. On November 23, 1976, Bishop Thomas Dolinay was consecrated as the auxiliary bishop to Bishop Michael Dudick, Ordinary of the Passaic Diocese.

On March 11, 1977, the Archdiocese of Munhall was named the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, Byzantine Rite, by a decree of the Holy See.